The DATUM in Action project piloted two IT infrastructures: (i) use of existing standard office software and a secure shared network drive; (ii) an experimental prototype collaborative infrastructure environment – setting up a team site in a paid-for, cloud-based SharePoint service.
The requirements for the EU Team were:
- Access / data sharing by researchers in different institutions / countries (all within the EU or with safe harbour agreements)
- A filespace
- Access rights to be set up at the folder/sub-folder
- Automatic version control of files
- Automatic application of retention periods
- Email system
- Project wiki, for researchers to collaboratively develop documents/presentations
- A public-facing blog for dissemination
- Public-facing website
We have compared the way the two infrastructures met these requirements. Note: we are still testing the SharePoint prototype.
(1) Access / data sharing by researchers in different institutions / countries (all within the EU or with safe harbour agreements)
Standard office IT facilities
- The shared drive is accessible only to Northumbria University staff. The University is reluctant to give access to external people (understandably from a security viewpoint). Data sharing is by anonymisation of data and use of encrypted files through services such as Dropbox, and the use of encrypted laptops and data sticks.
SharePoint prototype
- Being a cloud service, access to all project researchers is easily arranged by giving them ids & passwords. The number of people able to use the site is governed by the price paid. However there are issues with data protection: the country of origin of the cloud service provider needs to be in the EU or have a safe harbour agreement. And how secure is the service? You would expect the cloud service provider to offer the same level of security as a University, but what access do the provider’s IT staff have to the data? And how are back ups handled if the provider goes bust? It is recommended that when using a cloud service provider a service level agreement should be drawn up. If SharePoint was made available by the University than the same external access issues would occur as with the standard office IT facilities.
(2) A filespace
- Standard office IT facilities & SharePoint prototype: exactly the same
(2a) Access rights to be set up at the folder/sub-folder
Standard office IT facilities
- This can be done, but scope is limited
SharePoint prototype
- Far more scope available
(2b) Automatic version control of files
Standard office IT facilities
- This has to be done manually, by adding version numbers to file names
SharePoint prototype
- Very flexible, detailed automatic versioning, with the ability for the site administrator to customise this
(2c) Automatic application of retention periods
Standard office IT facilities
- This has to be done manually, via the use of sub folders containing files of a given category: the whole sub folder can be deleted when required.
SharePoint prototype
- This is still under test
(3) Email system
Standard office IT facilities
- Outlook
SharePoint prototype
- Same email software, however in the SharePoint prototype this is integrated, so for example when updating files other people can be alerted by email that a file has been altered. This enables workflow processes. An email facility is a higher price option.
(4) Project wiki, for researchers to collaboratively develop documents/presentations
Standard office IT facilities
- A free service by a cloud provider would have to be used
SharePoint prototype
- The wiki is integrated with the team site
(5) A public-facing blog for dissemination
Standard office IT facilities
- A free service by a cloud provider would have to be used
SharePoint prototype
- The blog is integrated with the team site. A public blog facility is a higher price option.
(6) Public-facing website
Standard office IT facilities
- Pages set up on the University’s website
SharePoint prototype
- A website is integrated with the team site. A web facility is a higher price option.
SharePoint offers much more functionality (including automatic versioning for example), and integration of different facilities. However, this comes at a cost. Use of a cloud-based service would require funding, e.g. as an item within a proposal budget. Universities, who have not already done so, could set up SharePoint implementation, either across the institution or for a specific activity such as research. Basic SharePoint comes with the academic site license, however staff resources would be needed to set up and run the implementation. There is also the barrier to entry, i.e. all researchers would need to learn how to use a new system, and how to set up a team site. But this barrier is not high. It could be likened to the adoption of VLEs within universities. Initially there was opposition from some academic staff, now all staff use them as a standard system. The VLE is set up with standard module templates, and help guides and training is available. Similarly in SharePoint, a research project template for team sites could be made available which could then be customised by researchers for specific projects. However, uncontrolled use of team sites could lead to SharePoint sprawl.
Standard office IT facilities may represent fit-for-purpose supporting infrastructure for managing the data of much research that is conducted HEIs. HEIs / researchers should assess whether or not investing in a sophisticated system such as SharePoint is necessary. Are the benefits of adopting it for a research project great enough to outweigh the costs (financial, training, development) if the system is not already implemented?
