1. A National Research Data Service for the UK? UK Research Data Service Feasibility Study Stephen Pinfield

2. The potential “Because digital data are so easily shared and replicated and so recombinable, they present tremendous reuse opportunities, accelerating investigations already under way and taking advantage of past investments in science.” Clifford Lynch, Executive Director of CNI, ‘Big data: How do your data grow?’ Nature 4 September 2008

3. HEFCE Shared Services programme HEFCE call for bids in spring/summer 2007 RUGIT and CURL (now RLUK) submitted bid Both groups concerned about “data deluge” No UK-wide approach yet visible HEFCE approved the bid and ITT was drawn up for major consultancy autumn 2007 JISC also contributed funding

4. The approach SERCO appointed as consultants February 2008 Project Manager appointed in March Governance from Steering Committee and Project Management Board Over 40 stakeholder bodies identified Iterative process of communication via mailing lists and personal briefings

5. What’s the problem? “Data deluge” Research data – an untapped resource Often unstructured and inaccessible Lack of coherent policies and standards Many formats and disciplines HE Library and IT services under pressure to help (mainly storage) - unsustainable

6. What’s the problem? Whole data lifecycle, not just storage Creation, selection, ingest, storage, metadata, retrieval, review, preservation Access/analyse/synthesise others’ data It is the management of the data that needs a UK-wide approach

7. Aims of the project Develop an understanding of the UK’s current and future research data service needs Identify gaps in current services Test the feasibility of a UK-wide shared service for the management of research data Avoid reinventing the wheel in any proposed solution

8. Methodology – case studies Four case study universities: Bristol, Leeds, Leicester, Oxford (April to June 2008) Questionnaires and focus groups at first three Complementary internal project at Oxford dovetailing with UKRDS Total number of individuals consulted: 700+

9. What did we learn? Over 360% growth in data volume expected over the next 3 years c50% of data estimated to have a useful life of up to 10 years; 26% seen as having indefinite retention value Most research data is currently held locally

10. What did we learn? 21% use a national or international facility Most share data within research teams (12% do not); 18% share via a data centre 43% would like access to others’ data Those with no access to a national facility are particularly keen on a UKRDS

11. Methodology – desk research Ongoing throughout the project Finding out what services already exist in UK Speaking to key service providers Following initiatives in other countries, notably USA, Canada, Australia, Europe Fast developing topic

12. What are we learning? National data centres with considerable skills and resources which could be spread Digital Curation Centre Life Cycle Model Data management plans (Wellcome) JISC’s integrated infrastructure and JANET JISC and RIN studies (eg data handling skills, preservation costs)

13. What are we learning? The thesis posited in the bid to HEFCE is borne out by the case studies and desk research Research data are important and there is a gap to be filled A coherent UK-wide approach involving existing services is feasible

14. Interim report recommendations UKRDS should add coherence to what is already there and: Be governed by a set of policies Deliver a set of processes Support a set of standards Be measured by an agreed set of KPIs Be funded to ensure it can be relied on long term Steering Committee approved a “hybrid” model as opposed to “do nothing” and “create a new central body” options

15. Venture Capitalists Commercial users & generators of data Public sector users & generators of data Other educational institutions Vendors UKRDS Service providers International links Journal and data publishers HEIs & Research Institutes Researchers IT Directors Librarians Archivists other experts Facilitate provision of persistent citation links Engage as appropriate to maximise exploitation of financial support for long-term data management capabilities Funders Work with funders on policy issues and data management planning Ensure provision of accession and access procedures Coordinate capacity planning and help address implications for long-term storage and infrastructure investment Provision of conditional data set access Services covering: data management advice, DCC lifecycle adoption and guidance, training in DMPs, tools / discovery development, and accession planning Engage as appropriate to maximise exploitation of vendor support for long-term data management capabilities Communities and headline processes

16. Communities Processes defined by needs of the Communities Venture Capitalists Commercial users & generators of data Public sector users & generators of data Other educational institutions Communities of interest Early Adopters Later Adopters Vendors. UKRDS Funders Service providers International links Journal and data publishers HEIs & Research Institutes (academic status) Researchers IT Directors Librarians Archivists other experts Others.

17. Are we in step? US model, distributed and NSF-funded: 5 large Datanets (consortia of universities) to build data stewardship capabilities - $100m over five years Australian model, centralised and top-down from government: ANDS (Australian National Data Service) with AUS$ 24m over 3 years

18. Are we in step? ANDS – “funded to start the process of helping researchers deal with this deluge” by: “addressing issues of research data ownership and responsibilities “ “providing access to research data collected and maintained with public funding” “co-ordinating and sharing best practice for curation of experimental, research and published data”

19. Are we in step? Research Data Canada; government agency says there is “urgent need for action to propel Canada into a new and transformational data-intensive paradigm for Canadian research” and: “The research process generates huge amounts of data that are an important part of Canada’s scholarly record and hold enormous potential as an additional discovery and problem-solving tool for researchers”

20. Are we in step? German science organisations alliance wants to equip scientists/scholars “with the infrastructure best suited to meeting their research needs” and states: “In the digital age, this entails digital access to publications [and] primary research data, available to the user without costs or other barriers” This is in the explicit context of “increasing Germany’s competitiveness in world-class research”

21. Current work on UKRDS Estimate likely costs of filling gaps versus costs of developing provision without a UKRDS Develop a value proposition and process models Design service portfolio and outline governance model Write business case and funding proposition Produce final report for HEFCE December 2008

22. The next steps Seek interim HEFCE/JISC funding in 2009 for a ‘Pathfinder’ service in co-operation with case study institutions and some existing providers Hold an international conference 26 February 2009 to promote the proposed service and highlight developments in the UK and abroad

23. Key messages The study is looking for the optimum business case to address the sustainability of what researchers need It is not just about storage It is about the management of the whole data lifecycle It will not reinvent wheels

24. Key messages Many building blocks are already in place A UKRDS would embrace rather than replace existing facilities, providing a framework There are also significant gaps to be filled It is about the leverage of more research value and a higher global research reputation for the UK

25. Conclusion A UKRDS is likely to be feasible Need to work out a practical business case and organisation to make it happen Need support of funders, HEIs and other stakeholders to get it established and stable for the long term