Improving the reliability of research management data across the sector

Reducing unnecessary research bureaucracy is a priority for the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) through the Bureaucracy Review Reform and Implementation Network (BRRIN). As part of this programme, Jisc’s digital working group brought together research leaders, systems managers, librarians, data professionals and funders to explore how master data management (MDM) can strengthen the coherence, reliability and interoperability of research management data.

MDM is the co-ordinated process of creating a single, consistent and governed source of core research records such as researchers, projects, grants, outputs, equipment and partnerships enabling institutions to work from consistent, reusable data rather than fragmented and conflicting records.

The discussion highlighted common pressures across institutions and where collective effort could have the greatest impact.

The case for stronger research information foundations

Universities manage large volumes of data about research across HR, finance, CRIS, library and other systems. Fragmentation makes it difficult to maintain a single, trusted picture of activity, creating duplication, reconciliation work and pressure on staff time at moments where accuracy matters most.

Victoria Moody, director of higher education and research, Jisc, opened the discussion by highlighting the need for more sustainable, standardised approaches to research management data, noting how inconsistent definitions and governance gaps continue to shape pressures on planning, assessment and reporting.

Sector-wide efforts such as CoARA are reinforcing expectations for credible, interoperable and well-governed research information. Brigid Feeny, assistant director, research funding, sustainability and reform, DSIT reflected on how the workshop theme aligns with the ambitions of the Universities UK Transformation and Efficiency Taskforce. Strengthening MDM offers a practical route to meet those expectations.

Institutional perspectives

Two institutional perspectives framed the discussion. Justine Abbott, director of research environment, Manchester Metropolitan University, set the scene by reflecting on the evolution of research management systems and the growing complexity created by today’s ecosystem of platforms and connectors. She emphasised that data should support and guide decisions rather than dominate them to the exclusion of all other strategic perspectives.

The University of Leeds provided the workshop’s primary case study. Monica Jones, chief data officer at Leeds and associate director for HDR UK North described how Leeds embedded MDM within a university-wide data strategy and roadmap, grounded in governance, agreed definitions and clear ownership Leeds’ approach combines strategy, governance, an enterprise data platform and a central repository.

Key takeaways included:

• Sequencing organisational change ahead of technology optimisation creates more stable outcomes
• MDM is foundational infrastructure for credible research reporting, planning, and assessment
• Clear accountability with named data owners and stewards and agreed definitions before dashboards or analytics are essential
• Trusted REF and funder submissions, fewer shadow spreadsheets and faster insight for leadership are supported by effective MDM
• MDM is not an IT project but a strategic enabler of credible research management and institutional reputation

Themes from the group

Participants identified a number of shared challenges:

• Limited senior data leadership to co-ordinate strategy, governance, capability and integration
• Variable data literacy and understanding of the value of MDM across roles
• Legacy systems and vendor lock in continue to limit integration
• Recognition that data quality improvements alone do not reduce burden without process and reporting changes
• Interest in a sector-endorsed minimum standard) - and potentially an accreditation-style model – as a way to support greater consistency across institutions

Supporting capability

Felicity Bingham, senior business intelligence consultant, Jisc, introduced the Jisc data maturity framework, which helps institutions assess their capabilities across strategy, governance, systems, and decision-making. It provides a shared language, supports benchmarking and helps identify practical priorities.

A practical direction

A clear set of priorities emerged from the discussions:

• Explore the development of a sector-endorsed minimum standard for research management data building on existing frameworks
• Provide reusable guidance and exemplars, including the Leeds experience
• Support capability building that develops skills and organisational capacity alongside tooling, recognising that data literacy and culture shifts are essential

Together, these priorities point to a clear direction for the sector. Jisc will continue to support this work, alongside ongoing collaboration with funders, policymakers and sector partners.

Further information

• Explore the Jisc data maturity framework
• Contact your relationship manager to discuss how we can support your research information priorities