 Welcome everyone. This is an informational webinar about the ARDC program called Institutional Underpinnings. I'm Adrian Burton. We also have Nicola Burton, absolutely no relative, just a coincidence, and Keith Russell. We're all from the ARDC and we'll be talking to you about different aspects of the program. We will be having questions and answers a little bit later in the webinar. If you do have any, make sure that you note them in the questions pod of the go-to-webinar thing. Do we have a slide that shows that? If not, you'll see. We don't, but it'll be in that go-to-webinar panel. Good. So if you think of questions whilst the presentation is going on, just get in there and note them down there and we'll read through those and answer those questions afterwards. I think we'll go on to the next slide. Thanks, Nicola. So the ARDC is an increased facility, part of the National Research Infrastructure for Australia. We are funded, therefore, through the Department of Education to provide national level services and facilities. The ARDC itself has a wide range of activities and themes that were a very holistic organisation and we really look at the full life cycle and the full holistic approach to data and digital infrastructure. So everything from policy, people and policy, software and analytical platforms, we invest a lot in coordination and coherence of the whole system. We provide storage and compute services and underpinning infrastructure and we have data and services. It's that last little box there, the circle data and services that we're talking about today. So let's go on to the next slide, Nicola. We have a programme in ARDC which is a co-investment programme. The ARDC has a strategy for building the Australian research data commons and we have this programme where we co-invest with a number of players to build the national data system. The National Data Assets programme is a programme to build up, exactly as it says, national data assets that will support leading-edge research for Australia. There's a number of programmes in this initiative, the National Data Assets. Some of them are targeted in particular stakeholder groups, the other NCRIS facilities, some to do with public sector data, some to do with well-established collections, others with the emerging. We have a health studies programme. This particular programme is institutional underpinnings and it targets the Australian university sector and the capability and capacity of that sector to support the national data system. So on our next slide, why do we have a national data assets programme in the first place? Well, as part of NCRIS, that is what NCRIS is about. It's about establishing those national level significant assets and facilities and services. That's what an NCRIS facility is. It really focuses at what can be done only at the national level to achieve a particular scale or scope and that is well and truly above the capacity of any single jurisdiction or institution or local arrangement. So when we're talking about data as an infrastructure, we're targeting the assets that are focused in, that will support leading-edge research as our first mandate and then secondly to make sure that those are the ones that are addressed at national level. So on our next slide, if we look at the whole system, it's more like a rather than a system, it's an ecosystem that lives together. If we start at the bottom there, you've got a whole set of institutions, research institutions, government agencies, utilities and national facilities. They are creating a whole set of data, a whole lot of data as part of their normal operations, so as the operations of a public sector organisation or as the operations of a research organisation, you create research data. Some of that research data builds up to be big community collections and some of them build up to be these very big tall timbers, national reference collections. Normally the ARDC focus is at the level of those collections that can only exist beyond any single jurisdiction or any single research institution and the rest of our national data assets programme focuses those national collections that need very broad partnerships and need actually a little bit of Commonwealth investment to glue together something which is well beyond the scope of any single institution. So that's partly to say to you what this programme is not about. As part of the portfolio approach to national data assets, all our other programmes focus on these reference and community collections. This programme however, and if you want to click the next slide there Nicola, it focuses down at this operation. So the operations of our universities as they're doing research, they're creating research data and the institutional underpinnings really focuses on that. So why do we do that? That's on our next slide. There is a reason, even though we are a national programme, the operational, the local infrastructure is super important because those big trees actually have their roots back down in the institutions. The national data collections actually depend on the institutional resources and culture and without a healthy institutional capacity it would be very very difficult for us to pursue those programmes of these large reference and community collections. So that's the first thing is that all our other programmes leverage the health and the capacity of our institutions. And then secondly, one of our goals is also to at a systematic level at the level of the national data system and of the national research system. We are aiming to support research efficiency and research integrity. And those things happen with a healthy set of good capable institutions, then the data that underpins the very important publications in Australia, that data is all held by our research institutions and a healthy capacity at our institutions will make a systematic contribution to integrity and efficiency. So that's why we're doing it, but what we're then faced with is okay, then how does our national programme actually invest in institutional capacity when actually what we're meant to be doing is, that's the very definition of what we're meant to be doing, is not investing at the institutional level. So we did a little bit of homework on that, we acknowledge the absolute dependency on healthy institutions for the national system, but then how do you do that investing. So we did a little bit of thought in that and last year we ran a set of discovery programmes in a number of areas and one of them was exactly in this area as to what is the national approach to building the capacity and the capability of our institutions. And Keith was the sort of manager of that programme, so I think he'll talk to us a little bit about that now. Thanks, Adrian. Yes, so indeed we had a co-investment partnership with a research data culture conversation project which ran in 2019-2020. So this project was led by a steering committee, a steering group led by Monash University, University of Melbourne, University of Sydney and UNSW. So the main trigger behind this project was the fact that these universities were having to deal with a growing volume of data that their researchers were producing and they were having to make decisions about retention or disposal of that data as storage was filling up. So this was definitely one of the large triggers for this project and in this project they went around the country and organised a number of public consultations to collect views from a whole range of different Australian universities in what is happening in the research data management landscape and what are things that could be improved to achieve this future. So a few things came out of this, a whole range of different things came out of this. You'll find links there at the bottom to the summary of the challenges that they identified and also a development response that they drafted and provided. So definitely have a read, there's really interesting views collected there. So a few things that certainly for me stood out I think that they envisaged a future in which the cost of making decisions about data and data life cycles would be reduced. So they'd actually have that information to make decisions about data whether to keep it or whether to dispose of it. Also to achieve have a future with a cultural change in it in which researchers can actually articulate what kind of data has, what kind of end-of-life events so university can more easily make those decisions. One of the other things that DEF came out in a range of those different consultation sessions is that achieving those changes, being ready for that future requires increased coordination of research data management across the university. There's no one pillar or part of the university that can solve this on their own, it's much more coordinated effort that is required across the university. So if you look at their recommendations which you can find more detail about in the development response and number of these recommendations we are now carrying forward in the institutional underpinnings program. Not all of them, some of them are in other areas but a number of these we definitely do are picking off here in institutional underpinnings. So one of the things they recommended they said well it would be good to look at what would a next generation research data management framework lifecycle look like. So that's one of the things we definitely will be carried forward. If you have that framework what are actually best practice guidelines to do parts of those elements in those frameworks. One other point they raised and came out of their consultations is that different domains have different data workflows and require different decision points so you'll need to take that into account when designing an institutional wide research data management framework. So those are I think a few points that we're carrying forward in this program. So Nicola you could move on to the next slide please. So as Adrian mentioned we are looking at a national investment, looking at the national scale and looking to achieve a shared national approach to the institutional management sharing retention and disposal of research data. So that's going to require a common agreed framework with input coordinated input from a whole range of different universities. So that's one of the pieces of the puzzle but if we develop if all our universities together develop such a framework it's still got to we still will have to fit in the to the practice of that of the different universities and there is of course quite a bit of variation between universities. So just developing a framework on itself on its own is not enough it's also going to have to fit and going to be going to be validated and tested in practice at a range of different universities to see if it works in practice. So that's why as part of the institutional underpinnings we also see a step in having coordinated validation and implementation of elements of the framework to see if they work in practice and also adjust the framework to ensure that it does meet that variation across universities. So that's a bit of a high-level oversight overview of institutional underpinnings. Nicola is the actual program lead for this program so I'll hand over to her and she'll talk all about the details. Brilliant, thank you. So I'll start with a sort of a broad view. So our aim is to develop as Keith has said a coordinated and collegially informed approach to RDM across Australia's universities. So our participants are Australian universities and we're expecting participation at the institutional level. We'll be co-investing $65,000 per participating university and the project will start at the start of next year with an 18 month duration and there'll be a two-stage application process which I'll go into more detail about in a little bit. So as we've discussed this is going to be one collaborative project in which all participating universities jointly create an institutional level framework for the management sharing retention and disposal of data and our aims for this framework are that it should inform universities design of policy procedures infrastructure and services required for RDM, improve the coordination of RDM both within and between institutions and also help to identify the information that's needed for more efficient decision making around retention and disposal of research data as was discussed in that research data conversation piece. So this joint framework will be developed collaboratively by the participating institutions but we have some thoughts about what we'd like to see in that framework. So one thing would be a joint statement of the principles underpinning effective institutional research data management also an outline of the policies procedures services and infrastructure that are needed for effective research data management the shared a shared profile of the archival principles appropriate to research data management and a model of the common decisions and events that occur as research data interacts with each of these elements including where possible the information that feeds into those decisions and processes so again getting us towards that place where we can reduce the cost of those decisions. And just to be clear the framework is not intended to be a specific technology solution we're looking for something that's technology agnostic it's not going to be defining a single set of standards or metadata standards it's not a prescribed policy although it could be used to inform the design or redesign of policy at an institution and it's not intended to be a solution for just one discipline or one university as we've been saying this is about something that can be applied for all of Australia's universities. So the framework will be developed in three stages in the first stage all participating universities will collaboratively develop a draft framework and then in stage two as Keith suggested there'll be each individual institution will select just an aspect of that framework and implement it locally to test a validation. And then the feedback from those implementations we fed back in to finalize the framework. So when we talk about implementations these are so as I said activities within an institution that test or validate an aspect of the framework and they must have ongoing value beyond the duration of the project. They should also involve improvement or change at the institution so not just business as usual but we're definitely happy for implementations to develop or leverage current changes or improvements that are in place or planned. Obviously they should be specifically related to the joint framework and ideally they should also produce some output that can be of value to other institutions although that could take a range of different forms so for instance we could be talking about code for a specific tool we could be talking about guidelines for the setup of a particular piece of software or recommendations about say a training program. As well as developing an implementation participating universities are expected to attend regular meetings and workshops during the drafting of the framework to consult within your institution because as we've said this process is going to involve input from a wide range of different parts of the university contribute to the drafting of a section of the framework and also provide feedback to the framework as a whole. So in the past our co-investment programs have required a one-to-one matching co-investment from institutions or other partners but we're very aware that in the current pandemic situation it's causing a lot of financial difficulties for our partners and therefore we won't be requiring that one-to-one matching co-investment. However given the close alignment between this program and activities in research data management development that are going on at the institutions we really do expect that there'll be the capacity for in-kind co-investment or other co-investment as well as the leveraging of existing activities. So as I said it's a two-stage application process so in the first stage interested institutions will register your interest so that opens from next week and all institutions that register their interest will participate in a consultative workshop in which will collectively further refine the aims and scope of the framework as well as talking about the practical running of the project. After that workshop participating institutions will be invited to formally apply to participate and that will open in December and close in February. As I said we're expecting just one application per institution and because this program will require coordination and consultation within the university at both stages of the application process we require that you're able to name relevant contacts just within your institution who represent the important parts of the university that will be contributing to the project. So for instance representatives from the research office, IT, air research, records and archives, whichever parts of the university are helping to contribute towards research data management. It's actually going to be quite a brief application. There's no requirement for a formal proposal or budget but we will be asking at the application stage for you to outline potential areas in which you might be interested in implementing the framework. Now obviously because the implementation is an implementation of a framework that you will be developing as part of the program we won't be holding anyone to the suggestions that they make during the application stage but it will help us to get an idea of the spread of areas of interest across participating institutions and whether there's any overlap in institutions who may be able to work in parallel or collaboratively. And I think back to Adrian. Sure so this diagram comes from the national infrastructure roadmap. It has the national research infrastructure in the middle there and interacting with the public sector, the private sector, with research institutions. So it's that this little arrow here that this program really fits into. It's the arrow between national research infrastructure and research institutions and really designing that in our case, as we've said, we acknowledge our national research data collections infrastructure leverages and depends on a healthy research institutional infrastructure and culture. And so this program is that is us really trying to design that interface between the national infrastructure and the institutional infrastructure in a really sensible way. Of course the so what is that all of this together is of course meant you know not just to create more infrastructure and better better research in that in its own right. The arrow to the right there says that you know we are obviously doing this in order to improve food security, improved health, longevity and carbon emissions etc. So we will be looking you know this is a very fundamental program about the capacity of institutions and how they fit international infrastructure but we will be wanting to tease out you know and what does this you know how can we draw the line towards improved research and how that research then impacts society. We only have one more slide and I think that was a summary of the objectives of the you know this is really just to wrap up what we've already said here that we are looking to why is ARDC making these investments we're investing in a national coordinated and coherent approach to research data management at universities and then with supporting two systemic change improvements to research integrity and quality so that all the if there is an an uplifting the capacity of our institutions then all the data that underpins research conclusions will have integrity because the data is there and well managed and kept when it should be kept and destroyed when it should be destroyed. The second one is a systemic improvement to innovation and excellence by being able to build from these solid institutional processes being able to build distributed collections, national collections, contributions from the institutions into these the reuse of data and therefore the sort of increases in return on investment and innovation that that can bring. So that's what we're trying to do through this humble little program we're trying to change the world but and we're really very excited about this opportunity to have a take our relationship with the universities in Australia to the next level we've always pride ourselves on having a very holistic approach to what's needed for an Australian research data commons and we acknowledge the important place that the universities play and we're really looking forward to learning with the the sector on what the best institutional underpinning for and research data commons actually is. I think we might be ready for questions. And we do have a few I can I can take the first couple because yes this session will be recorded and the it is the recording we've put up and the slides will also be made available. Okay to what extent are you intending to align those principles with the guidance provided in the Australian Code RDM guidelines which most institutions have used to revise their policies in recent times? Yes that's a very good question absolutely meant to be one of the objectives of this program is to when I said those systemic improvements to integrity remember that code comes under the code for the responsible conductive research and this program in one sense is meant to be is our contribution to try and get a really coherent response to that code and to make sure that each university has the opportunity to implement and validate some of the the requirements that are in that code. Now the code is more general however it doesn't. Okay there has been a lot of. Oh sorry yeah we're on a bit of a delay just an addendum to that question we intend to go further than the code the code is a now I'm going to quote that famous pirate from the from the Pirates of the Caribbean it's more like a set of guidelines so and actually it is actually it's called a guideline for data management is that that guideline there and it sets out you know a university should have a infrastructure it should have policies it should have support it should take into consideration the value of the data etc so what we're hoping with this program is to be able to take that down to just a profile of detail you know what what will you take into account when you're making a decision to keep data and how will you make those decisions and what what information do you need to collect in the life cycle so that you can make those decisions of keeping important data for integrity or for innovation or for contributions to national collections so that those that we really have an operationalization if you like of the of the guideline. Okay there has been a lot of investment at the institutional level in research data management over the past five years including via ANS programs how will the proposed program build on what has already been achieved. Keith do you have any thoughts on that as one of the leaders of the ANS you know institutional engagements programming? I think we'll definitely be building on what has already been been put in place at institutions and in that institutional research data management framework I'm not expecting anything that is going to be contrary to those activities that have already been set up and been developed in those in those earlier projects I think rather this is going to be a more holistic bringing together of different elements which have been developed in the past and getting a more integrated approach across them that's my expectation. Can you talk about your expectations of the workshop on the 19th of November so just that post registration workshop? I think we'd like to go into some more details about the on you know we've talked to you about our framework you know how that might be developed you know some of the timelines that would be involved there the kinds of participation that we might be being that might be being involved also seizing out you know what an implementation might be some of those things. Can uni's partner to bundle their co-investment and how might we staff a role and align activities? That was to bundle with another university do you think is that the question combined together absolutely that's part of why we've got this iterative design the co-design and a number of those workshops the first of which will be in November but there'll be a number of those is to be able to identify where there are common interests in some aspect of research data management might be a research data management planning tool or something that several universities might want to make changes to or improve so yes that that's part of what the we will be actively coordinating some of these implementations. To clarify there's the intention is that there'll be no lead node or that we'll be contracting individually with each participating institution but arrangements between the institutions to collaboratively for instance staff a role I think that that makes perfect sense for us. Will more details on how we align our revised RDM policy guidance material to the national strategy or is part of the joint framework initial discussions? Will there is a very will there have been more details perhaps on how we align our I think that's the intention yes RDM policy guidance materials the national strategy look I think we'd be looking for the framework to distill the essence of current and desired institutional RDM policy so we would be looking at the a national framework is what we can say together and then each institution would obviously implement that in in the ways and with the priorities of the local institution I'm not sure if that was exactly the question but I have to take more yes um if the questioner so um asker would like to clarify if they have anything else they want to know um I have a comment here um the funding is welcome but is it enough to move us forward yes we can always do more with more money if you see the Minister of Education you can put a good word for the AR these you know um and look we're hoping that this might be able to catalyze and it certainly wouldn't be it's not the end of our our investments in this area will it be enough to carry us forward we're hoping it's enough to invest at least in the first stage of coordination and coherence amongst the institutions um and we will keep in mind this is a two-way conversation if the universities can communicate to us you know what some bigger opportunities might be then we can communicate that back to the Department of Education as to saying well here's a new opportunity in the the national investment to invest in the capability of the institutions I have another one uh what engagement with court it is happening with this program the question I don't think we've reached out specifically yet to the different peak bodies Nicola mentioned the different pillars that we were probably expecting to be involved in from the different from universities she mentioned you know IT the research office library the archives and the research each of those have their um sort of coordinating peak bodies and we would definitely um we definitely anticipate that the the peak bodies will be there to to back up the that because this is a joint statement that they would be there to to represent the joint interests of the IT directors and the university librarians so I think it's a really good opportunity actually to um bring that coherencing by including the peak bodies we haven't done that yet but it's a good a good reminder that we should reach out more formally um so there's one here that I'll take um do you have a provisional timeframe for each phase of the program uh yes we do so um the provisional plan is that um there'll be uh six months in that initial um draft framework development phase nine months for the implementations and then three months for the feedback and finalization but that timeline is something that um we'd love to get feedback on in that initial workshop to get a sense of the practicality of that and how well it fits uh and then I have a two-part question here so is this future framework intended to replace RISE or the ANS framework of the past? Thank you uh yes if you look at either the RISE framework or the old ANS capability maturity model both of those don't contain a lot of detail both of those are intended as high level um high level frameworks to think about elements that you need to have in place but actually if you start looking at them in practice there's not a lot of guidelines and and an actual detail underneath those and when we think about this institutional research data management framework we are not only thinking of that very high level what are the big pieces of the puzzle you need to have in place but also actual um guidelines and um more detailed filling in of different elements that you need under that so um this would require this will actually um this actually provide much more detail in in considerations for a university what to have in place so will they replace them uh um well they'll definitely when setting up this uh this institutional research data management framework will definitely use the lessons we've learned from RISE and from using the capability maturity model as part of the structuring um that this will be much more detailed and much more useful i think RISE has uh has a very specific purpose and i think for that purpose it is still useful as in self-assessing quickly self-assessing your maturity but i think this research institutional research data management framework will be much more comprehensive and be much more useful to actually inform when you are building your entirety of research data management services and policies and procedures for your university thanks Keith um how will these frameworks consider the record management legislation in each state yes that's part of the reason why you always need to have a framework in a guideline because in australia we've got this system and always need to acknowledge privacy and um other legislative frameworks in here with the records management of each state will be uh important um i don't think or with the kind of things that you know just give you an example what we really want to know is yeah okay a records management would say that you need to interrogate the value of a record for future use uh i think what we're trying to look at is that that next level of detail that would say well uh what are those what from a research point of view what what constitutes a valuable record in research data terms uh and how do you recognize that and which disciplinary guidelines would allow you to ask those questions so i don't think that at that level we will we will necessarily bump into um specific legislative differences sometimes they at the very top level there's kind of a statement that says you know destroy stuff after five years or something like that so some of those statements would would intersect but that's not exactly the this framework is not targeted at the same level as legislation it's meant to be a almost like a thinking aid for institutions when they're implementing research data management thanks um so some related questions um how many participants are we looking for or able to fund and then will non-funded institutions have access to the progress yes we we have a target and i noticed that the person who asked this question has something to do with the ARDC we will take back to our board the the total sum that that that we intend to invest here why i'm i'm not answering the question directly is that our objective is to get total coverage if possible uh we not expecting total coverage so our current budget sort of says that well you know let's see if we can get a considerable coverage of universities but uh faced with um high demand we will go back to the ARDC board and say look this is a strategic program and we would like to cover as many universities as has as have um applied at the moment where we would you know there's about 37 universities in Australia we would love to get you know up towards that 50% mark as we were hoping for and that's what we're kind of planning for but uh we we our major goal here is actually actually um the the sector being able to move uh in a direction together so if we get high demand we will go back to the ARDC board and do our absolute best to connect to uh include as many universities as possible um and i think that that also covers so how are you ensuring that all types of institutions are covered i think that that um yes uh we also have um will all institutions that register interest be selected for the consultative workshop um yes so long as they are eligible institutions i australian universities then um yes we would really love to have every university in australia register interest and participate in that initial workshop um nicole sorry just just going back to the the earlier question there were there were two parts of that question the first part was about which universities could join in and how many the second part of the question was what about other organizations that might want to want to have insight into what is happening in the discussions um i think that's a very interesting question um and i think the the framework the development of the framework uh it's definitely intended to to result in a public a public facing document something that's not secret or only for partners this is going to be something that's available to all all those that are interested in what this institutional research data management framework looks like um how we will involve others uh that are not actual project partners uh in the um uh in the development of the framework i i don't think we have we've we've this we've decided on that level of detail yet uh but it's definitely someone we'll keep in mind throughout the process uh about how we can best ensure that um there is some visibility in the process and what's happening there and remembering that the spirit of this is to include as you know uh the university sector um so for those universities for some reason can't participate we will be the spirit of this program will be to share if the the findings and the outcomes and to be as openly inclusive to those who are formally participating as those who are not formally participating um thanks so i have two related questions here um the first what about managing the long tail of data not part of national collections are the management of these data in scope and then the um related question does the framework include consideration of the vast amounts of data that are never made available and also for data produced by individual researchers who may not consider their data to be important like big data so um let's start with the long tail not part of major national collections uh yes they are in scope and that's why i said there's a number of objectives here there's objectives in these innovation through building national collections uh but we do have a couple of objectives around systemic banners of data meaning availability um so yes we are and because we will be partnering with the institutions the institutions also have um interest in in efficient projects you know just in having you know good good management of the of their own activities as well so uh yes those things are certainly in scope as far as the ALDC is concerned yes they're in scope because they represent um important contributions to integrity and efficiency of the whole national system there was a second part of that question is that right Nikola uh yes um so talking additionally about so um data that are not made available for sharing and data produced by individual researchers who may not consider their data to be important um which i think fits into that idea of data that don't form part of major collections yes all of those things are there and of course when we're saying management of data it doesn't mean that it all needs to be um public during the project of course it's just used by the project participants some of it at the end of the data of the day may well be um going to other uh shareable states and that's exactly what the framework is for is to be able to prepare us to be able to make those decisions uh okay thanks um while the framework may be technologically agnostic do you envisage it would help inform decisions around choosing technology to support rdm oh happy for others to talk about that but look my we will be creating but an important contribution of this this program this collaborative project is to create again conversations between the participants uh to a community of practice if you like and this will be an important forum for that sharing of information so i ideally hope that those kind of things will be a desired side effect of the initiative okay um the question here i'd argue that this program is all about all data not just long tail or short head all of these have admin overhead and admin overhead is an unfunded problem so the question is are you okay with proposals that entirely address the admin problem only so i suppose to an initial comment from me is that we really aren't um requiring specific proposals this is a a collaborative um piece of work but i suppose in terms of uh implementations that might address only administration um i don't know adrian do you have a comment there the outcome we're looking for is you know to do with that uh this administration is not just administration for its own case it's administering the data you know across the across its life cycle so uh i would say that that's a very important part of part of the the framework and you if you look at our wording there we're asking institutions to validate and test elements of the framework um so i can't see why that would be out of scope how do you envisage coordinating the contributions of 37 universities each working on a portion of the framework will this make it difficult to build a cohesive framework yes um but that's the world we live in and that's exactly the contribution that our DC hopes we can make you know we really do see ourselves as you know research data commons but in one sense we are a glue we're the glue that brings together these kind of collaborative uh initiatives and that's the world we work in um building consensus um building uh drawing out the principles that that unite and you know allowing people to look at things differently where they need to uh that that's exactly the specialty of the ARDC so we're definitely up for that um look uh from a pragmatic point of view there is a 37 organizations could be it has three stages we work on the framework together and you know get a consensus there 37 institutions would be working on different aspects validating different aspects of it and would be informing that back again so it's not they're not just heading off in 37 directions independently and then a lot of our work yes will be around coordinating if people are working on several uh several organizations are working on the same aspect then we will be coordinating that kind of activity so that we can get a proper learning from that brilliant um to what extent do you expect to leverage existing good practices versus developing entirely new approaches Keith what do you think certainly in the developing of the framework that institutional research data management framework that's where best practices would be great input to show examples of where uh where elements have already been addressed in a in a thorough way uh I expect that as we're developing that framework we'll come up we'll already be able to identify some examples of bits that have been done really well and uh I think that's great to have that as input so we're not we're not starting from scratch but we can actually pull in elements and bits uh to fit to feed into that institutional research data management framework when it comes down to a um an actual implementation um you could take a you probably wouldn't want to take an existing best practice example as an implementation but rather maybe a change to an existing best practice or to turn something that is a good practice into a best practice so um that's where using best practices I think can be also be really useful I hope that answers the question and I think um that that is all of the questions I have here at the moment unless anyone has anything else they'd like to ask now if we have missed your question I'll be going through these questions and um adding them to our FAQ document along with the answers um so if there's anything that we've missed here it will be answered there no I think I think that that's it good then unless there are no other questions we will what's the next step Nicola or what kind of action would you like people to take after this um I would love for people to um to discuss this program with the relevant parties within their institution um and then uh participate in this the initial registration of interest which will open next week so you can find all the information about that on our website brilliant all right thank you very much everyone and thanks very much to Nicola and Keith oh one one small practical thing on Nicola's the registration of interest I guess does not actually um um oblige you to to put in a proposal in the end so you could register your interest even if you're not sure and then take it from there is that correct and definitely and um for instance if you aren't sure if you'd like to formally apply but you would like to be involved in that initial workshop we're very keen for that as well if you'd like to register your interest be involved in that workshop and have your views heard there but then decide not to go any further that's um we'd encourage that even um yes thanks Keith and uh is there uh how would people if they have any further questions what should they do Nicola there's a contact email um which again um you can find at the bottom of the website but I believe it's uh inquiries at ardc.edu.au um but uh yeah that's all on the on that webpage great all right thank you very much we look forward to working with everyone on this really inspiring initiative bye bye