About sshreeves

Librarian. Repository and scholarly communications services manager. Gardener. Fire eater.

DMPTool adds 100th institution!

From Flickr by Anvica

From Flickr by Anvica

We are pleased to announce that as of September 23rd, with the addition of Baylor University100 institutions have taken the step of customizing the DMPTool to provide local guidance and resources for their researchers. Check out the full list of participating institutions.

While institutions do not have to customize the DMPTool for their researchers to take advantage of the tool, taking that step can provide many benefits to their researchers as well as their data management and stewardship programs. These include:

  • Integration with Shibboleth so that researchers can use their institutional credentials;
  • Ability to add help text and links to institutional resources;
  • Ability to add contact information for the units that support data management; and
  • Ability to add text that can be copied into a data management plan.

With the release of the new and improved DMPTool in early 2014, there will be even more functionality for those institutions who integrate with and customize the tool. These features include:

  • An interface to manage all of the customizations directly;
  • Improved institutional branding;
  • The ability to add institution specific data management requirements;
  • Reviews of DMPs on a case by case basis or as a required step for all researchers; and
  • Multiple roles for administrative users including as editors of requirements and reviewers of DMPs, so that you can have appropriate teams working on the DMPTool.

If you are interested in talking to us more about this process, please contact us. It is a straightforward process that we are happy to walk you through.

DMPTool2 Project – Functional Requirements

In our last post, we mentioned that we would be talking more about the development work on the next generation of the DMPTool: the DMPTool2. We have now made available our current draft of the functional requirements. For those of you who haven’t read a functional requirements document, these are fairly detailed documents that specify the capabilities and, well, functions of a system. But this document should begin to give those of you who are interested a sense of where we’re expanding and adding functionality to the DMPTool.

Over the next few weeks, we’ll be highlighting very specific areas to talk in more detail (and in more colloquial language!) about these developments.

DMPTool2 Project – Advisory Board Meetings

The DMPTool 2 project has two advisory boards: one for researchers and one for administrative users, such as librarians, research offices, and IT professionals. The role of both is to provide feedback and guidance on the development of the DMPTool as well as our outreach and communication efforts. May was a busy month for both sets of board members, as we held two (virtual) meetings with each advisory board, with the second meetings. We thought we’d highlight here some of the things that we talked about at these informative and enlightening meetings.

For both boards, we shared examples of the functionality, roles, and wireframes that are under development for the next phase of the DMPTool. For both groups we highlighted the new functionality that will allow researchers to truly collaborate with others on the development of a DMP. For the Administrative Advisory Board, we focused in large part on the new functionality for institutions: ability to customize resource templates, such as local links and help text, requirement templates if an institution has a need to set up their own DMP requirements,  and new types of institutional roles such as editors. This was the first chance we had had to share these with people outside of the project team, and we were thrilled to hear positive response to these developments, as well as feedback and suggestions. (Also, watch this space as we’ll be highlighting a lot of this functionality over the next few weeks!)

In response to questions from the first meetings with the advisory boards, we had begun to investigate further some of the usage patterns of the tool. While we have always collected use statistics, we haven’t done much in depth exploration or segmentation of these – for example, tracking numbers of repeat users or understanding spikes in usage of the tool. Working with this data and hearing the questions from board members is helping us to better understand the types of data that would be interesting to the institutions that use the tool, but also how we begin to measure the impact of the tool. For example, is the number of repeat users within a year a strong metric of success? How many researchers apply multiple times for funding within a year? The advisory boards are helping us to think critically about these issues.

We are lucky to have such engaged advisory boards and we encourage you to share your thoughts with board members as well as with us directly!