Data Maturity Matrix/meeting notes 20150302

From Federation of Earth Science Information Partners
Jump to: navigation, search

Data Maturity Matrix Telecon: 2015-03-02, 3pm ET

Attendees: Justin Goldstein, Ge Peng, Madison Langseth, Natalie Meyers, Rama Ramapriyan, Scott Hausman, Robert Downs, Soren Scott, Nancy Ritchey, Joe Hourcle, Karen, Vicky Wolf, Anna Milan, Mo Khayat, Heather Brown, Denise Hills, Anne Wilson, Ruth Duerr


Meeting Notes:

  • Purpose: consistent measurement for data stewardship for a dataset.
  • A Baseline maturity matrix and the related template is currently available.
  • Looking for case studies for applying the template/matrix for assessment.
  • Send Peng an email if would like to receive further information about the matrix and template.
  • There are 9 entities and 5 progressive levels to measure the dataset’s stewardship maturity.
  • Not the same as the maturity of the organization.
  • A dataset can have different maturity levels when evaluated from different perspectives.
  • From Peng’s 2015-02-11 ESIP list-serv message:
  • An entity: description of the non-functional requirements shown on the top of the slide in dark blue.
  • Current Status of the Maturity Matrix:
  • Application of the matrix to different datasets at NOAA?
  • Started with 3 different types of datasets (satellite, in-situ, and GIS) and is trying to obtain additional types of datasets.
  • Peng’s currently working on a prototype with data manager to develop a set of questions. These questions are survey-like, so that the results can be evaluated against the matrix without the data managers looking at or needing to learn the data maturity matrix right away.
  • Ruth: Different groups and agencies provided feedback that the maturity could be helpful for different dataset types at last summer’s meeting.
  • Ex: Application of the matrix to ACADIS, long-tail data (includes Earth Science, social science, biological, etc → a diversity of datasets to test the matrix out with).
  • In parallel, the matrix can help evaluate how well the self deposit process for ACADIS is affecting the dataset’s stewardship, especially usability. → Opportunity to determine areas for improvement during submission/deposit process.
  • Ruth has assessed 37 different (long tail) datasets so far.
  • Finding:
  • Some of the entities (columns) are not applicable, especially those related to on-going datasets.
  • Some of the entities (columns) might need to be separated/refined further.
  • Overall, the matrix currently can provide 80% applicable solution based on Ruth’s assessment.
  • Ruth will be able to provide a summary as a written report.
  • The assessment of the datasets did not take very much time (~half day) - the time consuming part was trying to figure out how to apply it and what changes were needed.
  • ESIP Data Stewardship would be a good group to continue to collaborate the next steps for the matrix development and improvement effort.
  • Rama suggested that DataONE might be another organization that could be involved to evaluate the matrix.
  • Analytic potential: data stewardship maturity can feed into a metric for the analytic potential of a data set (i.e., its potential for re-use)
  • Peng’s paper includes a summary of the different evaluation matrix.
  • Contact Peng and Ruth to get involved with the maturity matrix’s further development and evaluation.
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox