1. Combining the strengths of UMIST and The Victoria University of Manchester MaDAM – A Data Management Pilot Simon Collins

2. Agenda Overview of Project Background / objectives Stakeholders / Team Project Plan Engagement of User Community Groups involved Requirements methodology Initial Findings Pilot Technology Next Steps

3. Combining the strengths of UMIST and The Victoria University of Manchester MaDAM Background and Objectives JISC / Manchester University Funded Project (Nov-09) –7 other funded streams to this project at different universities –Provide a pilot data management infrastructure for Biomedical Researchers at the University of Manchester Proposal → Life sciences and Medical school –Work closely with the pilot user groups and ITS to ensure Solution fitted requirements Any infrastructure is fit for purpose –Investigate activities to ensure the sustainability of the research data management service provision –Disseminate project findings within the local, and wider JISC community. NB – No directive from JISC in terms of –Technology choices –How generic / heterogeneous a solution should be

4. Combining the strengths of UMIST and The Victoria University of Manchester Project Team / Partners Simon Hubbard (Representing Computational Biology) Alan Jackson (Representing Medical Sciences /Radiology) Jan Wilkinson (Project Sponsor) Lorraine Beard (Principal Investigator) June Finch (Project Manager) Tom Grahame, Jon Besson –JRUL (The John Rylands University Library) Meik Poschen, Mhorag Goff –MeRC (Manchester eResearch Centre) Mary McDerby, Simon Collins, –IT Services

5. Combining the strengths of UMIST and The Victoria University of Manchester Output of MaDAM Technical Infrastructure –hardware and software for data management Data Management Services –Develop policies around access, governance and curation Plans for sustainability –Cost Benefit Analysis/Financial Models All the above to feed into Manchester SAC –Run by Manchester Informatics –University-wide strategy for data storage, archiving and curation “To develop a costed proposal for the implementation of a campus-wide digital research data management service” NB – No commitment to utilise any service / infrastructure generated by this project

6. Combining the strengths of UMIST and The Victoria University of Manchester Project Lifecycle - Overview Requirements Lit / Tech Review Prototyping Data Management Plans Cost Benefit analysis Technical Build Architecture We are somewhere around here ….

7. Combining the strengths of UMIST and The Victoria University of Manchester Requirements / User Communities Pre-identified need at faculty level Large quantities of imaging data, diverse formats ~ 10 users / 4 different groups 3 MR scanners in UoM / NHS Local access to data from MR scanners Textual psychosocial data linked with MR scans Political and institutional (inc. confidentiality) issues Life Sciences → Electron & Standard Microscopy Medical Sciences → MR Imaging Neuropsychiatry

8. Combining the strengths of UMIST and The Victoria University of Manchester Requirements gathering meetings, observation and interviews User groups scoping MaDAM Prototype Workshop E-survey of wider community Technical and non-technical requirements Iterative user driven development process (co-realisation) Data management support & policy baselining

9. Combining the strengths of UMIST and The Victoria University of Manchester Basic Findings – Common Problems → Requirements Fragmented file / data storage Difficulty remembering data’s significance / meaning Sharing data difficult No trending / dissemination of data High levels of redundant data Limited search capabilities No archiving policies to guarantee long term curation Central storage / organisation Structure / annotate data Controlled access to centralized storage Use annotation to group / trend data Better ways of tagging / short cuts Powerful search engine Define data plans / areas for long term storage

10. Combining the strengths of UMIST and The Victoria University of Manchester Technology What sort of technology do we need? Narrow user group – temptation to deliver focussed solution > 90% requirements are not domain specific Choose a generic data management solution if possible Management & research tendency to deliver un-needed functionality with novel technology Two strand approach Utilised Oracle framework for prototyping (Application Express / database) Rapid development, lightweight, robust – expertise within the team Continued Software evaluation Simple / Familiar / Robust tool / Minimal Interaction Part of UoM software stack / Open source Acceptable / Supportable ITS (TAG)

12. Where we are / What next Second Prototype –Delivered on 3-Tier ITS test servers ~ end of August –Pilot users asked to start testing / uploading data –TAG final recommendation to steering committee on architecture –Feedback sessions / workshop with end users confirm technical requirements What does the technology look like?

13. Shared Network AreaDesktop Project B Files Project A Files Oracle Database File and Project Metadata eScholar /Fedora Publication Related Metadata Publication Data Short TermMedium TermLong Term SWORD Browser/ Tomcat Annotate Search Upload Download

14. LDAP / CAS Authentication Auto Account Creation Project Creation and Location Authentication / Accounts

15. User defined data and templates Standard System Data Project Access Disk Usage Control Project Setup / Access

16. Web Explorer “Folder” Data Context Sensitive Actions Bulk Downloads Data Management

17. Advanced search on system and user defined data Data Masking Data Location

18. Calendar Searching Data Location

19. File Management & Previewing Data Visualisation / File Management

20. Thumbnails Data Visualisation / File Management

21. PDF Previewing Data Visualisation / File Management

22. User Bookmarks / Favourites Data Management

23. Project Info & Reporting Functionality Reporting

24. System Help

25. Initial Conclusions Upside Potential quick wins (technically) Evangelic end users Downside Time with end users is v limited Difficult to find time with higher level management Political (lot of empires out there) Cultural (no mandate to work with project team)