Presentation on theme: "DI Summit 2014 An Overview from the Study Team. The Team Janet Halliwell Dennis Rank Greg Jodouin Role Consultations and review of background."— Presentation transcript:
Data Summit 2011 – comprehensive gaps analysis, national data strategy and critical next steps DI Summit 2012 – principles, agreed cooperative approach, formation of the Leadership Council Stakeholders step up to the plate and demonstrate engagement & commitment: ◦ Research Data Canada implements an intensive program ◦ Diverse local and regional initiatives (e.g. OCUL and West) ◦ CARL initiates plan for a Research Data Management Network ◦ Compute Canada completes the pan-Canada consultation Emerging policy - the TC3+ consultation paper DI Summit 2014 - extraordinary response to call for participation
National DI initiatives have been framed by government policies – e.g. there is a significant “top down” approach that in turn engenders a bottom up response and engagement. All recognize the need for multiple stakeholders to be engaged and the concomitant need for co- ordination. From an early focus on physical infrastructure, the international DI discourse has increasingly used the lens of data as a national asset.
Culture of collaboration – e.g. 34 organizations actively engaged in RDC Support for and recognition of the importance of research infrastructure Established service providers in CANARIE and Compute Canada The TC3+ leadership on RDM A recent (and still nascent) coordination mechanism in the LC Provincial interest in the critical role of DI in their jurisdictions
No policy framework Imbalances in attention Inadequacy and asymmetries of planning & financing mechanisms for generic DI Research data management hampered by culture and paucity of “infrastructure” Difficult to support people as infrastructure Paucity of tool development (with some notable exceptions)
A stronger innovation system, value produced from data accessibility and reuse Better tools for research and potential marketable products Implementation of rewards and incentives for good RDM New relationships that strengthen research Benefits from better means of learning from and sharing of regional experiments Extracting more benefit from int’l activities (e.g. RDA)
Complacency No locus of coordination Insufficient leadership No advances on a policy framework Undue resistance to TC3+ leadership on RDM initiatives Lack of commitment to shared responsibility
Governance/coordination ◦ Many and diverse stakeholders ◦ Without increased collaboration and coordination, we risk fragmented approaches, sub-optimal alignment of activities and investments, and serious gaps in the digital infrastructure
Policy and planning framework ◦ We lack a cohesive national policy that provides an integrated planning and funding framework for all the elements of the DI ecosystem ◦ Policy frames strategies and tactics ◦ Service providers at risk, including those who steward research data ◦ One major change on the horizon – the TC3+ policy framework for RDM
Data management ◦ Research data management may be the weakest link in the Canadian DI landscape, despite the massive increases in the amount of data being created daily through the research process. ◦ Two closely aligned bottom up developments of importance - the work of Research Data Canada and the new initiative being spearheaded by CARL
The voice of the community (Greg Jodouin) The path forward (Dennis Rank)
DI Summit 2012 —> someone is needed to represent entire DI ecosystem Several strong champions for DI; yet they represent distinct components (discreet mandates, stakeholders) LCDI was established to be the voice of the DI community as a whole —> A holistic mandate: ◦ broad, diverse and cross-sectoral ◦ organizations as well as individuals ◦ established as well as emerging ◦ direct and indirect interests Work still needs to be done to more broadly encompass the data component and emerging sectors (e.g. humanities, social sciences, the arts)
As a new entity, LCDI’s challenge was to establish its legitimacy and mandate to engage the broader DI community 1 st step - to create a presence to facilitate engagement: ◦ New bilingual website ◦ Logo and organizational identity ◦ Raising awareness levels Engagement Efforts: ◦ Identification of the stakeholders that make up the DI community and continuous efforts to build-up that network ◦ Leveraging existing communications channels and networks of LCDI participants (newsletters, web, social media, events, etc.) ◦ Email blasts to as diverse a set of stakeholders as possible ◦ ‘Have Your Say’ Crowdsourcing campaign (over 1300 participants) ◦ Op/Ed contributions, such as Re$earch Money ◦ Input into other consultative activities (TC3+; S&T Strategy Renewal) ◦ Ongoing communications with Government and other influencers
> Developing messaging that resonates with a broader audience (simplifying the DI story) > Expanding the DI network (identifying new stakeholders to engage) > Creating tools to facilitate engagement (e.g., web-based interactions, newsletters, social media, events, etc.) > Frequently, widely communicating progress/next steps > Ongoing interactions with government, the funders, policy-makers and key influencers > And MOST importantly: Providing continued opportunities for feedback on broad topics, open to entire DI community
A concrete action plan needs to be developed. This plan needs to have explicit leadership, roles, responsibilities, deliverables, and timelines. “The buck stops here” in terms of identifying how DI will be designed and implemented. We are asking you to commit!
The most critical issue is to identify WHO leads DI, and HOW it operates. It will be a collaborative coalition of some form, e.g.: ◦ The LCDI in more or less its current form, perhaps with different and/or additional players ◦ Something new, envisioned here It will provide high level liaison, coordination, planning, monitoring, reporting, oversight, and feedback to the community. ◦ It will NOT be a governing or management body, but one with “moral authority”.
The LCDI/Coalition cannot (and should not) attempt to design all DI aspects Working groups are suggested for items that the community consultations have identified as critical pieces to design/fix in Phase I: ◦ Refine the DI funding system ◦ Address weaknesses in data management ◦ Articulate the value propositions upstream and downstream, and for all Canadian stakeholders
Strong engagement of government and the private sector is required ◦ Governments to lay out high level policy and funding frameworks ◦ The private sector will eventually gain enormous innovation advantages from the research findings Expertise, skills development, and user assistance will be crucial pieces. Software and middleware tool development. Open communications and engagement throughout the communities using DI.
Assuming acceptance of ◦ The problem statement ◦ We have had enough discussion about problems; need to turn to actions to address ◦ The urgency We need the items on the following slides from you
What are the top 5 issues that need to be addressed: ◦ By you as action items ◦ As recommendations to TC3+ and/or government How should key stakeholders act together for ongoing coordination and integration: ◦ Who should be in the LCDI/Coalition (or ???) ◦ How should it operate? ◦ NOTE: this goes beyond the excellent existing cooperation among agencies
How do we develop the Policy Framework: ◦ What is the role of the Policy Framework? ◦ Who is drafting it, who is reviewing it? E.g., IC, in consultation with TC3+ and the LCDI/Coalition What are the key elements of the Roadmap: ◦ Near-term actions and Working Groups ◦ Recommendations to TC3+ and government E.g., appropriate funding mechanisms, developed in consultation with LCDI What do you and/or your organization commit to doing?