Defining Levels of Research Taxonomy

The effective management of research knowledge hinges on robust organizational taxonomies. To address this critical need, the ResearchOps Community has meticulously developed a tiered approach, separating its guidance into two distinct levels: Minimum Viable Taxonomy (MVT) Level 1 and MVT Level 2. This comprehensive framework aims to empower organizations to systematically organize, index, and ultimately leverage their research assets for greater impact and efficiency.

MVT Level 1: The Foundational Layer of Research Organization

In October 2022, the Minimum Viable Taxonomy (MVT) working group, an integral part of The ResearchOps Community, unveiled MVT Level 1. This foundational release built upon the pioneering work initiated within the Research Repositories Program Team, as detailed in their prior publication, "Research Repositories: A ResearchOps Community Program of Work." MVT Level 1 serves as the initial stratum for organizing and indexing research documents and artifacts. Its primary function is to support the knowledge management systems (KMS) underpinning research registers and research libraries. By enabling the application of standardized, descriptive metadata across research deliverables and other assets, MVT Level 1 establishes a universal starting point for taxonomy development. This common baseline ensures that regardless of industry, organizational structure, or the specific KMS tools employed, a consistent approach to categorizing research knowledge can be achieved. This initial step is crucial for creating a discoverable and accessible research landscape, preventing the fragmentation of valuable insights.

MVT Level 2: Empowering Custom Taxonomy Development

While MVT Level 1 provides a baseline of descriptive terms, MVT Level 2, the focal point of this discussion, represents a sophisticated process designed for the creation and ongoing management of an organization-specific taxonomy. If Level 1 offers the building blocks, Level 2 provides the comprehensive toolkit and strategic guidance necessary to construct a taxonomy that facilitates advanced functionalities. This includes not only the categorization of reports but also more complex activities such as in-depth data analysis and the seamless discoverability of critical insights.

Recognizing that taxonomies are inherently unique, shaped by sector-specific nuances, organizational goals, and internal processes, the developers of MVT Level 2 opted for a principle- and best-practice-driven approach rather than a prescriptive list of terms. The core objective is to equip organizations with the requisite skills and methodologies to develop their own tailored taxonomies. This empowers them to manage increasingly detailed information, including nuanced user research insights and raw interview transcripts, with precision and efficiency. The implications of this approach are profound: organizations can move beyond simple organization to unlock deeper analytical capabilities and foster more informed decision-making.

Charting the Course: Getting Started with Taxonomy Development

Assessing the Need: A Prerequisite for Effective Taxonomy

Embarking on any taxonomy project necessitates a thorough needs assessment. The fundamental question to address is: "What problem is this taxonomy intended to solve?" This involves a candid evaluation of an organization’s current research program maturity. Taking stock of existing practices, tools, and challenges is paramount. Three key indicators suggest that an organization would significantly benefit from a more detailed and sophisticated taxonomy:

• Information Silos: When research findings are fragmented across teams or departments, hindering cross-functional understanding and collaboration.
• Redundant Research Efforts: The repeated discovery of existing research that was not readily accessible, leading to wasted resources and time.
• Difficulty in Synthesizing Insights: Challenges in aggregating, comparing, and synthesizing findings from disparate research projects to identify overarching trends and strategic opportunities.

Organizational Maturity as a Catalyst

The level of organizational maturity plays a pivotal role in the successful build-out of both a research repository and its accompanying taxonomy. Before committing to the MVT Level 2 framework, organizations must honestly assess their capacity. Do they possess the necessary resources, both human and infrastructural, to not only support but also to actively benefit from a more advanced taxonomy? MVT Level 2 introduces functional requirements that demand a certain level of organizational readiness. These include:

• Dedicated Resources: Allocation of personnel with the expertise and time to manage the taxonomy development and maintenance process.
• Technological Infrastructure: Availability of suitable tools and platforms that can accommodate and leverage a sophisticated taxonomy.
• Organizational Buy-in: A commitment from leadership and stakeholders to prioritize and champion the taxonomy initiative.
• Data Governance Policies: Established frameworks for data management, privacy, and ethical considerations that will inform taxonomy design.

The Strategic Imperative: The Why and How of MVT Level 2

Connecting Data and Research: The Strategic "Why"

A meticulously crafted taxonomy serves as the connective tissue between an organization’s data and its research endeavors. The "why" behind MVT Level 2 is deeply rooted in enhancing the discoverability and actionability of research. A well-designed taxonomy facilitates superior search capabilities, enables granular filtering of information, and, most critically, improves overall access to an organization’s research landscape.

The overarching principle of the Minimum Viable Taxonomy project is to provide a suite of tools, procedural guidelines, and best practices for organizing and describing a wide array of research assets – including reports, templates, findings, and insights. By establishing consistent categorization, MVT Level 2 connects these elements, making research discoverable and actionable across diverse teams and projects. This interconnectedness is instrumental in reducing "research waste," a significant concern in many organizations, by ensuring that valuable information is not only preserved but also readily reusable.

Beyond mere documentation and organization, a sophisticated taxonomy unlocks opportunities for novel discoveries. It can foster meaningful connections and spark conversations that transcend the boundaries of discrete projects and teams. When research is organized in a manner that resonates with a broad audience within an organization, it can cultivate serendipity, paving the way for new patterns to emerge and take shape.

The tools, procedures, and best practices embedded within MVT Level 2 are engineered to bridge the social and cognitive gaps that arise from the passage of time, personnel changes, evolving initiatives, and shifts in leadership. Information connections are not inherently guaranteed; they must be actively constructed. Taxonomies are not static entities but living structures that require ongoing attention to remain relevant and effective.

To maintain this relevance, organizations must continually address common challenges that contribute to information silos. The first significant gap involves synchronizing information from past projects with current endeavors. The second gap is more social and cognitive in nature. The conception, production, and storage of information are fundamentally human activities, demanding a blend of soft skills alongside technical proficiency. MVT Level 2 provides a framework to address both these critical dimensions.

Practical Applications: The "How" of MVT Level 2

The MVT Level 2 framework offers a versatile approach to organizing information through hierarchical structures, yielding numerous practical applications. The accompanying visual representation illustrates the breadth of these applications, highlighting how a well-defined taxonomy can revolutionize various aspects of an organization’s operations.

Key Applications of MVT Level 2:

1. Search Optimization: Leading to more accurate and relevant search results, reducing the time spent hunting for information.
2. User Navigation: Simplifying the process for users to locate the specific research or data they need, enhancing user experience.
3. Content Categorization: Streamlining the retrieval of specific information by providing clear and consistent organizational schemes.
4. Data Analysis: Facilitating easier derivation of insights and identification of patterns from research data.
5. Content Management: Improving the structuring of content for efficient publishing and distribution.
6. Metadata Management: Enhancing the retrieval and preservation of research assets through standardized metadata.
7. Product Development: Fostering better alignment with user needs by making research insights more accessible to product teams.
8. Compliance and Regulation: Supporting adherence to industry standards and regulatory requirements through organized and traceable information.
9. UX Design: Enabling the creation of more user-friendly product structures informed by a deep understanding of user behavior.
10. Personalization: Improving the categorization of user preferences and behaviors, leading to more tailored experiences.

These applications underscore the transformative potential of a well-implemented MVT Level 2 taxonomy, moving beyond a simple organizational tool to become a strategic asset for innovation and efficiency.

Crafting Your Taxonomy: Best Practices for MVT Level 2 Implementation

The following recommendations, largely inspired by the work of Annette Boyer and retaining the spirit of her contributions, are designed to guide organizations in building their MVT Level 2 taxonomy, either as a successor to or in conjunction with MVT Level 1. These are not rigid steps but rather flexible guidelines to be adapted as needed.

Strategic Engagement: Arranging Listening Sessions

A crucial first step involves conducting comprehensive stakeholder interviews, both before and after the taxonomy rollout. This active collection of input and feedback from all relevant users, including key audiences, is essential for ensuring the taxonomy meets diverse needs. Framing interview questions effectively is vital. Considerations should include the existence of a current research repository and any existing taxonomy. An audit to identify terms already in use can prevent redundancy and promote adoption. It is also important to be acutely aware of the audience’s familiarity with research concepts and terminology. The MVT Level 2 guidance outlines four distinct scenarios for these listening sessions, each with tailored questions:

• Scenario 1: Existing Repository, Non-Researcher Stakeholders: Questions focus on their current methods of finding information, their understanding of research outputs, and desired improvements in accessibility.
• Scenario 2: Existing Repository, Researcher Users: Interviews explore their experiences with the current taxonomy, pain points, and suggestions for enhancement, focusing on how the taxonomy impacts their daily work.
• Scenario 3: New Repository, Researcher Users: Discussions center on their ideal information organization, the types of research artifacts they most need to access, and how a taxonomy could support their workflows.
• Scenario 4: New Repository, Non-Researcher Stakeholders: Workshops or interviews aim to understand their information needs related to research, how they currently consume research, and how a structured taxonomy could benefit them.

Throughout these sessions, pay close attention to recurring themes, unspoken needs, and unexpected terminology. These observations will be invaluable in shaping a truly user-centric taxonomy.

Sustained Dialogue: Listen Continuously

Maintaining an ongoing, open channel for feedback and communication is paramount. The taxonomy lead should cultivate a practice of actively noting potential new terms that emerge within the organization. During project meetings, all-hands gatherings, and one-on-one discussions, valuable terminology that can enrich the taxonomy may surface. Staying attuned to evolving organizational language, including updated terminology in software development or business units, ensures the taxonomy remains current and precise. This continuous iteration, akin to agile software development, allows the taxonomy to evolve alongside the organization.

Collaborative Spirit: Collaborate Actively

Fostering active participation is key to a productive taxonomy development process. Establishing a clear process for team members to nominate items for the taxonomy and periodically revisiting these nominations for reconsideration is essential. Digital whiteboard tools can be instrumental in collecting input and ensuring that the full scope of the taxonomy remains visible and accessible to all participants as they engage with it.

User-Centric Design: Empathize with Your Users

Respecting the time, effort, and work of internal users is fundamental. Recognizing that users are often overworked and busy, their mindsets and needs must remain at the forefront of planning. At its core, a taxonomy is an efficiency tool. Over-engineering it can lead to poor adoption. Complex or difficult-to-remember taxonomies are likely to fail. A well-intentioned effort to create an overly detailed taxonomy might exceed the actual needs of the team or project. Prioritizing team and organizational needs will lead to a more sustainable and effective solution. Unnecessary complexity can create administrative burdens. If managing the taxonomy begins to feel like an arduous task, it’s time to reassess and re-establish a manageable scope. The ultimate goal should be to simplify the process of finding research, rather than creating a maximalist system.

Strategic Alignment: Align Objectives and Customize

Ensuring that listening and collaboration efforts are aligned with broader organizational goals is critical. Taxonomies are not one-size-fits-all solutions; they must be customized to the specific needs of an organization and its sector. Patience and trust in the process are vital, not only for taxonomy development but for the entire research repository rollout. Providing researchers with encouragement, reassurance, and clear guidance on how the taxonomy works is important. Gentle reminders and updates, coupled with constructive redirection when errors occur, help foster adoption. Researchers and teams utilizing the taxonomy are part of a community of practice, and creating space for them to learn and make mistakes is a crucial aspect of driving buy-in. Consideration of corporate culture, key audiences, and sector-specific needs (private, education, government, healthcare, etc.) will shape the most relevant taxonomy.

Structured Oversight: Build in Governance

Establishing a framework for governance is essential to oversee the taxonomy process and ensure alignment with objectives. This involves setting clear principles and standard practices for long-term viability. Designating a single editor or taxonomy lead is recommended to prevent conflicting decisions and ensure a cohesive approach. This lead should ideally be supported by a small team of trusted advisors and experts who can convene periodically to discuss ideas, brainstorm solutions, and advocate for the taxonomy across the organization.

Documentation of the approach to building the controlled vocabulary, including synonyms, tips for eliminating ambiguity, and defining relationships between terms, is vital. A concise overview document can equip anyone with the essential details for maintaining and developing the taxonomy in the absence of the lead. Clear definitions for vocabulary terms, reviewed by others for understanding, will reduce ambiguity. As a dynamic entity, the taxonomy will evolve with research, teams, and the organization. A system for ongoing updates is crucial.

Tool Selection: Carefully Select Your Tools

The features of repository tools will significantly shape the taxonomy. Evaluating these tools is paramount, as they will influence how the taxonomy is managed. Features such as automated rules, interoperability, permissions, and control mechanisms are key considerations. If a separate taxonomy management tool is used, its compatibility with the repository tool must be ensured.

Methodical Approach: Be Intentional and Methodical

Approaching the taxonomy process with purpose and a systematic methodology is essential. Dedicating time to listen to internal users and applying institutional knowledge to translate their input into actionable themes will yield the best results. While it may be tempting to act quickly on feedback from influential stakeholders, a holistic view of all input before implementation is more valuable.

Resilience and Confidence: Persevere and Trust Yourself

The path to a completed taxonomy is often undefined and ambiguous, which can lead to uncertainty. Building a community of practice, trusting one’s abilities, and staying committed are crucial to overcoming imposter syndrome. A sustainable taxonomy is not static but evolves and improves over time.

Cultivating Expertise: Create a Community of Practice

A taxonomy project inherently fosters a community of practice where learning occurs collaboratively. A well-implemented taxonomy is an ongoing process, not a final product. It requires both definition and control. Managing productive conversations requires a balance of firm definitions and confident decision-making with an environment that encourages experimentation and learning. Agreeing on basic terminology early on, such as whether to use "fields," "properties," "elements," or "facets," provides necessary constraints that facilitate understanding and productive discussions.

Measuring Impact: Track Your Progress

Monitoring and assessing the success and impact of taxonomy efforts is vital. Documenting wins, even amidst a fast-paced work environment, provides valuable insights for refining the tool and demonstrating its value. Benefits of tracking achievements and sharing them include:

• Demonstrating ROI: Quantifying the impact of the taxonomy on efficiency and research effectiveness.
• Securing Future Investment: Providing evidence to justify continued resources for taxonomy development and maintenance.
• Inspiring Others: Showcasing successes can encourage broader adoption and engagement.
• Identifying Areas for Improvement: Analyzing progress can highlight areas where the taxonomy or its implementation can be enhanced.

Conclusion: A Roadmap for Research Taxonomy Excellence

The development of a robust MVT Level 2 taxonomy is a strategic undertaking that requires careful planning, user-centricity, and ongoing commitment. The ResearchOps Community’s framework offers a structured yet flexible approach, empowering organizations to build taxonomies that not only organize but also amplify the value of their research.

A summary of the key recommendations for developing your MVT Level 2 taxonomy includes:

• Conduct thorough needs assessments to understand the specific problems your taxonomy will solve.
• Prioritize user input through listening sessions and continuous feedback mechanisms.
• Foster active collaboration among stakeholders to ensure buy-in and relevance.
• Empathize with users, designing a taxonomy that is efficient and easy to use.
• Align taxonomy objectives with broader organizational goals and customize for your specific context.
• Establish strong governance with clear roles, responsibilities, and documentation.
• Carefully select tools that support the intended level of taxonomy complexity.
• Adopt an intentional and methodical approach to development.
• Persevere through ambiguity, trusting the process and building confidence.
• Cultivate a community of practice for ongoing learning and support.
• Track progress and impact to demonstrate value and inform continuous improvement.

Organizations interested in contributing to future aspects of the taxonomy project are encouraged to reach out on the ResearchOps Community #taxonomy Slack channel.

Appendix: The Genesis of MVT Level 2 Guidance

The Development Team

The MVT Level 2 guidance was primarily developed by a collaborative group of ResearchOps professionals and Librarians. While not formal taxonomists, the team comprised individuals with substantial research expertise and experience working with taxonomies and structured information. Weekly meetings facilitated in-depth discussions and the iterative development of the MVT Level 2 framework. Key participants included Rogério Lourenço, Will Edmiston, Mark McElhaw, Annette Boyer, Janene Batten, Karolina Kowalczyk, Susan Montgomery, and India Anderson. Additional contributions were made by George Jensen, Ian Hamilton, Emily DiLeo, Constanza Reca, Fatima Kamali, and Lourenço Rodrigues.

Biases, Constraints, and Scope

The MVT Level 2 guidance was intentionally designed to serve as broadly applicable building blocks for a robust taxonomy supporting research teams in organizing their work through research libraries and repositories. The framework is tool-agnostic, meaning it was not developed for any specific user research software tool available on the market.

Furthermore, the toolkit acknowledges the intersection of taxonomy with Personally Identifiable Information (PII) across different global regions, the ethical considerations surrounding taxonomies, and the impact of multilingualism on taxonomy development. While MVT Level 2 attempts to account for these complexities, these areas represent significant fields of study and development in their own right and are not covered in exhaustive detail within this document.

The Process and Research Journey

The development of MVT Level 2 was a dynamic process driven by weekly discussions that grappled with fundamental questions: What exactly constitutes MVT Level 2? What form would the deliverables take? Would it be a list of terms, a playbook, or something else entirely? Through this collaborative exploration, the team generated term outlines, categories, utilized Miro boards for visualization, developed taxonomy sandboxes for experimentation, and created supporting visuals. Members from previous iterations of the project shared their findings, and community members interested in taxonomy work joined to contribute their organizational taxonomies. A survey conducted across the ResearchOps Community further informed the development by gathering insights into users’ experiences with taxonomies and identifying areas where guidance and support were most needed. This iterative and community-driven approach ensured that the final guidance is practical, relevant, and addresses the real-world challenges faced by organizations.