UCLA Research Data Infrastructure

Evidence Base from the Research Data Working Group (2022–2024)

Author

UCLA Library Data Science Center

What the Research Data Working Group Found

What the Research Data Working Group found — and what it means for the One IT Research Working Group (2026)

“We’re thinking about the follow up to this grant, and we’re saying let’s do the next one at Notre Dame.”

— UCLA faculty executive committee chair, RDWG campus sessions (2023)

About This Site

In 2021–2024, UCLA convened the Research Data Working Group (RDWG) to assess research data infrastructure and chart a path forward. The effort was commissioned by five executive sponsors: VCR, University Librarian, AVC & CIO, Vice Provost for IT, and CIO of Health Sciences. Over 18 months, the group conducted campus engagement, peer benchmarking across 13 service categories, and a detailed implementation analysis.

This site presents the RDWG’s key findings, recommendations, and supporting evidence for the One IT Research Working Group (charged by the EVCP and CIO, March 2026).

Key Findings in Brief

  • UCLA falls behind peers in 8 of 13 research data service categories, including the most basic: a cohesive program with a service catalog.
  • 90% of UCLA’s $7M annual enterprise storage spend occurs at the departmental level — fragmented, redundant, and insecure.
  • There is no central ownership of research data services. PIs navigate compliance requirements, storage crises, and funder mandates alone.
  • UCLA’s NSF per-award average ($307K) is 15–30% below UCSB and UCSD. Missing infrastructure for large multi-site proposals is a contributing factor.
  • Funder mandates have outpaced UCLA’s capacity. The NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy (January 2023) and OSTP public access mandate (December 2025) require institutional infrastructure UCLA does not yet have.

RDWG Priority Proposals

The RDWG recommended a layered model — not consolidation, but coordination. Central services raise the floor; local expertise is preserved where research happens.

flowchart TD
    ORDR["<b>ORDR</b><br/>Office of the Research Data Rockstar<br/><small>Coordination · Compliance lead · Service catalog<br/>Governance: VCR</small>"]
    Hub["<b>Bruin Research Data Hub</b><br/><small>Baseline storage for all faculty · On-prem + cloud<br/>Addresses 90% departmental fragmentation</small>"]
    Services["<b>Expanded Research Data Services</b><br/><small>Data consulting · FAIR · DMPs<br/>Built on Library / DSC capacity</small>"]
    Infra["<b>Expanded Research Infrastructure</b><br/><small>Hoffman2 expansion · P3/P4 secure enclave<br/>Cloud for Research program</small>"]

    ORDR --> Services
    ORDR --> Infra
    Hub  --> Services
    Hub  --> Infra

    style ORDR     fill:#003B5C,color:#fff,stroke:#003B5C
    style Hub      fill:#2774AE,color:#fff,stroke:#2774AE
    style Services fill:#8BB8E8,color:#1a1a1a,stroke:#2774AE
    style Infra    fill:#8BB8E8,color:#1a1a1a,stroke:#2774AE

ORDR and the Bruin Data Hub are the foundational layer — coordination and storage that make the rest possible. Services and infrastructure build on both.

UCLA already has a production-ready sensitive data platform. UCLA Library operates UCLA Redivis — a multi-organization sensitive data repository with SSO, Data Use Agreement management, DOI minting, and Python/R APIs. It is already institutionalized and adopted by peer research universities. Any WG recommendation on P3/P4 sensitive data should build on Redivis rather than duplicate it.

What’s Here

Page Contents
One-Pager Concise summary of RDWG findings and recommendations
Gaps Analysis What’s changed since the 2022 roadmap: AI, compliance, RSE, cloud context
Faculty Voices Direct quotes from 33 campus leadership meetings — in their own words
Bibliography Full reference list with annotations
Resources RDWG source documents available for download

Prepared by Tim Dennis, UCLA Library Data Science Center. Contact: tdennis@library.ucla.edu