The Research Infrastructure Self-Evaluation Framework, (RISE), was published at the beginning of 2017 by the Digital Curation Centre (DCC). It is a way of determining how mature your institutional Research Data Services may be
Version 1.1 provides a self-assessment framework with 10 categories covering, amongst others, RDM policies, business plans, advisory services, and training.
Here at Delft, we used RISE to measure our Research Data Services (RDS) and 4TU.Centre for Research Data (4TU). The RISE model is very helpful in providing a fixed framework for categories for research data management services.
Our Evaluation Team
Four team members of the rds/4tu team of 10 people participated in RISE evaluation. The group consisted of one front office person (ie talking to researchers), one back office person, one person being responsible for training, and the team head.
The whole framework was used to determine the maturity levels of the provided services of the research data services (including 4TU) within the plethora of TU Delft Library services. For this first evaluation the standard set of questions were used and no additions were made. At the time of the evaluation the future service provision was not taken into account. In order to improve the evaluation process, a google form was set-up with tick boxes. That helped to quickly go through the questions and later to determine the majority decisions.
After every team member worked themselves through the framework, the evaluation team came together to analyse the results and determine the final maturity level for each question.
List Overview of RDS / 4TU Level Scoring
|RISE section||RDS / 4TU Level Score|
|1 RDM Policy and Strategy|
|1 a) Policy Development||Level 0|
|1b) Awareness Raising and Stakeholder Engagement||Level 3|
|1c) RDM Implementation Roadmap||Level 3|
|2 Business Plans and Sustainability|
|2a) Staff Investment||Level 3|
|2b) Technology Investment||Level 2|
|2c) Cost Modelling||Level 3|
|3 Advisory Services|
|3 a) Guidance Provision||Level 2|
|4 a) Online Training||Level 0|
|4 b) Face to Face Training||Level 1|
|5 Data Management Planning|
|5 a) DMP Provision||Level 2|
|6 Active Data Management|
|6 a) Scaleability and Synchronisation||Level 2|
|6 b) Collaboration Support||Level 1-3|
|6 c) Security Management||Level 1|
|7 Appraisal and Risk Assessment|
|7 a) Data Collection Policy||Level 3|
|7 b) Security, Legal and Ethical Risk Assessment||Level 1|
|7 c) Metadata Collection to Inform Decision-making||Level 3|
|8 a) Preservation Planning and Action||Level 3|
|8 b) Continuity Support||Level 3|
|9 Access and Publishing|
|9 a) Monitoring locally produced Dataset||Level 3|
|9 b) Data Publishing Mandate||Level 2|
|9 c) Level of Data Curation||Level 2|
|10 a) Metadata Cataloguing Scope||Level 2|
We are planning on annually self-evaluating our services.
The original evaluation is in table form, with commentary on our selection and general comment about that section.
The second shortened version is the spotlight of the single sections with remarks: