Strategy and Motivation of Institutional Research Data Management: Integration of SWOT Analysis and Convergence Matrix
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15408/aism.v9i2.52787Keywords:
Convergence matrix, FAIR principles, institutional repository, research data management, SWOT analysisAbstract
Research data management (RDM) in institutional repositories requires alignment between stakeholder needs, organizational conditions, and technical readiness for the findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR) principles. This study developed and applied an integrated institutional RDM evaluation framework combining needs analysis, SWOT analysis, and the GO FAIR Convergence Matrix. Design science research guided the framework development. Data were collected through a purposive survey of 105 stakeholders, expert interviews, repository observations, and independent FAIR ratings by two expert evaluators. The survey showed that 86.7% of respondents selected the two highest response categories for easy repository data access and use, while 87.6% did so for improving the current data management system. SWOT analysis identified institutional commitment as the principal strength (89.5%), additional RDM training as the leading weakness-related need (65.7%), emerging-technology adoption as the principal opportunity (81.0%), and government policy changes as the leading threat (73.3%). The FAIR assessment revealed a substantial gap between articles and datasets. Articles achieved normalized scores of 100.0% for Findable, 100.0% for Accessible, 62.5% for Interoperable, and 45.8% for Reusable, whereas datasets achieved 3.1% for Findable and 0.0% for the other domains. The study contributes an integrated framework that connects stakeholder priorities, organizational SWOT factors, and indicator-level FAIR evidence to support phased, evidence-based institutional RDM interventions.
Downloads
References
[1] E. E. Baro and A. U. Nwabueze-Echedom, “An evaluation of institutional repository development in African universities,” IFLA J., vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 18–38, 2023, doi: 10.1177/03400352221089672.
[2] M. K. Singh and G. T. K. Kumar, “Research data curation in academic institutions: Challenges and expectations,” DESIDOC J. Libr. Inf. Technol., vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 39–44, 2023, doi: 10.14429/djlit.43.01.18624.
[3] F. A. Gómez and I. Bernal, “FAIR EVA: Bringing institutional multidisciplinary repositories into the FAIR picture,” Sci. Data, vol. 10, Art. no. 764, 2023, doi: 10.1038/s41597-023-02652-8.
[4] R. David et al., “FAIRness literacy: The Achilles’ heel of applying FAIR principles,” Data Sci. J., vol. 19, Art. no. 32, 2020, doi: 10.5334/dsj-2020-032.
[5] N. F. Mosha and P. Ngulube, “The utilisation of open research data repositories for storing and sharing research data in higher learning institutions in Tanzania,” Libr. Manag., vol. 44, nos. 8–9, pp. 566–580, 2023, doi: 10.1108/LM-05-2023-0042.
[6] R. Vrana, “Research data management in the Croatian academic community: A research study,” Publications, vol. 12, no. 2, Art. no. 16, 2024, doi: 10.3390/publications12020016.
[7] E. Marlina, A. N. Hidayanto, and B. Purwandari, “Towards a model of research data management readiness in Indonesian context: An investigation of factors and indicators through the fuzzy Delphi method,” Libr. Inf. Sci. Res., vol. 44, no. 1, Art. no. 101141, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.lisr.2022.101141.
[8] E. K. Donner, “Research data management systems and the organization of universities and research institutes: A systematic literature review,” J. Librariansh. Inf. Sci., vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 261–281, 2023, doi: 10.1177/09610006211070282.
[9] Y. Minamiyama, U. Ikeuchi, K. Tanabe, K. Yuki, K. Hayashi, and T. Aoki, “Maturity model for organizational research data management services,” Data Sci. J., vol. 24, Art. no. 18, pp. 1–18, 2025, doi: 10.5334/dsj-2025-018.
[10] A. R. Hevner, S. T. March, J. Park, and S. Ram, “Design science in information systems research,” MIS Q., vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 75–105, 2004, doi: 10.2307/25148625.
[11] K. Peffers, T. Tuunanen, M. A. Rothenberger, and S. Chatterjee, “A design science research methodology for information systems research,” J. Manag. Inf. Syst., vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 45–77, 2007, doi: 10.2753/MIS0742-1222240302.
[12] Z. He and W. Fang, “Research data management in institutional repositories: An architectural approach using data lakehouses,” Digit. Libr. Perspect., vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 145–178, 2025, doi: 10.1108/DLP-02-2024-0022.
[13] N. N. K. Krisnawijaya, B. Tekinerdogan, C. Catal, R. van der Tol, and Y. Herdiyeni, “Implementing FAIR principles in data management systems: A multi-case study in precision farming,” Comput. Electron. Agric., vol. 230, Art. no. 109855, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.compag.2024.109855.
[14] A. Jacobsen et al., “FAIR principles: Interpretations and implementation considerations,” Data Intell., vol. 2, nos. 1–2, pp. 10–29, 2020, doi: 10.1162/dint_r_00024.
[15] K. W. Lam, A. Hassan, T. Sulaiman, and N. Kamarudin, “Evaluating the face and content validity of an instructional technology competency instrument for university lecturers in Malaysia,” Int. J. Acad. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci., vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 367–385, 2018, doi: 10.6007/IJARBSS/v8-i5/4108.
[16] D. F. Polit and C. T. Beck, “The content validity index: Are you sure you know what’s being reported? Critique and recommendations,” Res. Nurs. Health, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 489–497, 2006, doi: 10.1002/nur.20147.
[17] D. F. Polit, C. T. Beck, and S. V. Owen, “Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations,” Res. Nurs. Health, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 459–467, 2007, doi: 10.1002/nur.20199.
[18] M. Tavakol and R. Dennick, “Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha,” Int. J. Med. Educ., vol. 2, pp. 53–55, 2011, doi: 10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd.
[19] K. A. Bollen and R. Lennox, “Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective,” Psychol. Bull., vol. 110, no. 2, pp. 305–314, 1991, doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.110.2.305.
[20] D. Strecker, H. Pampel, R. Schabinger, and N. L. Weisweiler, “Disappearing repositories: Taking an infrastructure perspective on the long-term availability of research data,” Quant. Sci. Stud., vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 839–856, 2023, doi: 10.1162/qss_a_00277.
[21] T. Cernava et al., “Metadata harmonization—Standards are the key for a better usage of omics data for integrative microbiome analysis,” Environ. Microbiome, vol. 17, no. 1, Art. no. 33, 2022, doi: 10.1186/s40793-022-00425-1.
[22] L. Rainey, J. E. Lutomski, and M. J. Broeders, “FAIR data sharing: An international perspective on why medical researchers are lagging behind,” Big Data Soc., vol. 10, no. 1, 2023, doi: 10.1177/20539517231171052.
[23] C. Schmidt, J. Hanne, J. Moore, C. Meesters, E. Ferrando-May, and S. Weidtkamp-Peters, “Research data management for bioimaging: The 2021 NFDI4BIOIMAGE community survey,” F1000Research, vol. 11, Art. no. 638, 2022, doi: 10.12688/f1000research.121714.2.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Fitroh Fitroh Fitroh, Irman Hermadi, Kudang Boro Seminar, Rina Trisminingsih
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
