Marine Recreational Information Program Data Management Standard (MDMS)

1. Marine Recreational Information Program Data Management Standard (MDMS) NOAA Environment Data Management Conference Data Management Planning Workshop June 20, 2011

2. NOAA Hierarchy • NOAA • NMFS • Office of Science and Technology • Division of Fisheries Statistics • Marine Recreational Information Program • Information Management Team • MRIP Data Management Standard

3. MRIP Organization

4. Information Management Team • Comprised of representatives from NMFS and regional partners • Support the national-level processing and management of MRIP data • Develop standards, processes and systems to establish and maintain comparability and compatibility of recreational fishing statistics at the national level • Facilitate collaboration, and where appropriate, integration between MRIP and other national information management efforts (e.g. FIS, EDM, CMSP)

5. NOAA Enterprise Data Management : Where Does MDMS Fit? Organizational Unit Data Mgt Org/Role Data Mgt Tool/System NOAA Data.gov, CMSP? Other NOAA Tools? NOAA EDMC NMFS EDM NMFS Info Architect & Coor Team Fish Info Mgt Adv Cmte (FIMAC) NMFS Information Portal (InPort) Office of Science & Technology (ST) Info Mgt Coordinator (IMC) Division of Fish Statistics (ST1) Division of Science Information (ST6) MRIP Data Mgt Standard (MDMS) Marine Rec Info Program (MRIP) MRIP Info Mgt Team (IMT)

6. MRIP Data Management Standard (MDMS) • Conceived as an inventory of recreational data programs to assist in developing standards • Became repository for recreational fisheries metadata (75 projects) • Evolving beyond the scope of the original MRIP project to meet needs of data management efforts at the NMFS, NOAA and Federal levels, including ensuring the availability of recreational fisheries metadata in InPort (NMFS standard) and Data.gov • Providing overall process improvement and enhancements to project workflow and reporting at the MRIP level • Will continue to evolve to meet MRIP needs while also ensuring compliance with higher level data management programs and policies

7. Phase 1 Process • May 2007: MRIP established DMSWG to address NRC suggestions for establishing: • national standards • central data warehouse • dissemination tools • Aug 2007: Met face-to-face at the national MRIP meeting to identify priority projects, w/follow up conference calls • Oct 2007: Created project plan, submitted to MRIP leadership, modified to address comments before approval • Nov 2007: Created template for gathering relevant metadata • Dec 2007 - Mar 2008: Developed database, interface & user guide • Apr 2008 - Oct 2008: Entered metadata • Nov 2008: Scope of original project plan completed

8. Phase 2 Process • Jun 2009: MRIP representatives become EDM FIMAC partners • Feb 2010: MRIP established IMT to: • Implement data management plans • Minimize redundancies; project plans, metadata, data management plans • Streamline project work flow and reporting processes • Address data management during project planning (not after completion) • Dec 2010: Submitted project plan to MRIP leadership to enhance MDMS to accommodate project work flow and data management needs (phased approach) • Feb 2011: Proposal module released • Jun 2011: Project plan module released

9. Next Phases • Functionality • Metadata record reorganization • InPort integration • Full project life cycle tracking • Enhanced tracking • Reporting features (e.g. email notifications, monthly reports, etc…) • Scope • How to address integration of data management and project tracking outside of MRIP?

10. Benefits of Approach • Bottom-up approach maximized stakeholder input and buy-in • Program driven approach provided increased chance for program funding • Team structure ensured inter-organizational collaboration and reduced likelihood of redundancy or conflict • Integration with project work flow and reporting process improvements made data management an easier sell to program leadership • Creation of metadata record at project inception: • Makes project discoverable immediately (reducing likelihood of redundancy) • Establishes metadata management as part of the standard business process rather than an added burden • Top-down guidance and support provided context and justification for program level efforts and funding priority

11. Challenges of Approach • Bottom-up approach tends move more slowly • Team structure created some strain on team members participating on multiple program teams • Lack of clear vertical integration policy resulted in some confusion when initiating cross-program collaboration

12. Recommendations • Continue to provide top-down support and encourage bottom-up participation • Formal policy, roles for vertical, inter-office collaboration • Establish NOAA level directive and funding to support office-wide data management, including integration of existing proposal/project/grant tracking and metadata systems • Implement data management within the context of overall process improvement • Address data management during project planning (not after completion) • Involve key personnel to ensure collaboration and reduce risk of redundancy or conflict