As mentioned in a previous blog post, I attended a brainstorming meeting aiming at building on the existing achievement of the LCRDM (Landelijk Coördinatiepunt Research Data Management).

The new proposed model for the LCRDM consists of three levels. (I don’t think the draft model has been published yet)

  • A Steering Group with general oversight of LCRDM
  • A set of Expert Groups with knowledge in particular topics (eg Infrastructure, Training, Metadata, Data Stewardship)
  • A series of ad hoc Task and Finish Groups (drawn broadly from across RDM expertise in the Netherlands) who work on specific issues as directed by the Expert Groups

The model was tested out at the meeting with members seeing how some pertinent example issues (Data Stewardship, Data Ownership and Interoperability) would work

Pros uncovered

  • The model is dynamic; new topics can be addressed quickly
  • LCRDM will be open to a wide range of participants
  • The full range of RDM issues can also be tackled.
  • Ad hoc nature of Task and Finish groups makes it easier for those who can only make smaller contributions to be involved

Cons / Issues to be addressed

  • Difficulty in keeping up with the large number of outputs produced
  • Lack of strategic alignment between the many Task and Finish groups
  • Model leads to a focus on smaller problems and not overarching national challenges (this is a key problem in my mind)
  • Relationship to other bodies (NPOS, UKB, EOSC) still to be clarified.
  • Role and responsibilities for sustaining outputs (whether tools, advice or services) ¬†

Two other points raised with Ingeborg Verheul at the end

  • Can we please have a mailing list for RDM participants in Netherlands?
  • If relevant for those taking part, can Task and Finish groups take place in English as well as Dutch

A follow up meeting will be organised later in the Spring