–:––
→ to begin
Breakout 4 · Day 2 · two blocks

Workshopping RDM Priorities

New room, new people. Numbers do not change: your table will have numbers scattered across 1 to 26 rather than a tidy run. That is expected.

Part 1 · 11:10 to 12:30  ·  Part 2 · 1:30 to 2:50
Q3 worksheets on the table. Press R twice to reset the timer after lunch.

You found out which priority is yours at the 8:45 briefing this morning; the compile happened last night after you left. Ownership is unit level, never individual, all the way through.

Press T now and read the six tags and three tiers once before anyone sits down. T works from any slide, all session.

Press D now and read the instructions for keeping the discussion moving. D works from any slide. all session.

Press → when the session starts. The clock starts itself.
Part 1 · Opening

Set it up0 → 2

“Yesterday this room generated and prioritized a lot. Overnight the organizers pulled four priorities that came up across more than one table. Your group has one of them.Over the next two blocks you’re going to turn it into something real: who’d own this at an institution, what it would take, and what the first step looks like. This isn’t a polished pitch. It’s a working draft somebody could pick up and use.”
Part 1

Introductions2 → 16

“Let’s go around. Your name, your unit, and what drew you to this particular priority. I’ll start.”
Format
Go-around · aim for ~90 seconds each
You first
30 seconds. Yours sets the length everyone copies. Watch speakers two and three.
The point
The second half of the ask. It sets up Q1 directly.
Two minutes each at seven people is the whole slot. At ninety seconds the round lands early; give the spare minutes straight to Q1.
Part 1 · Q1

The problem16 → 36

“What specific problem is this priority actually solving?”
Format
Open floor
Do not move on
Until the group has one shared, specific answer
Check it
“So the problem is X. Is that everyone’s version?”
A priority that sounded obvious in the synthesis means different things to different people. Six people quietly picturing six problems produces an unusable plan.
If it stalls

Q1 · The problem

  1. “Describe the last time this bit you.”
If you are still apart at the 20-minute mark: pick the narrowest version anyone offered, say “let’s build for this one and see if it generalizes,” and move.
Part 1 · Q2

Who benefits36 → 48

“Who benefits from this? Who are the users?That’s not the same as who does the work.”
Format
Open floor
If they name units
“Who’s better off because this exists?”
Narrower question than Q1. It does not need longer.
Part 1 · Q3 · one of three

Sketch your own place48 → 53

“Five minutes on your own. On the worksheet, for your institution: who would kick this off? Who would have to say yes? Who would actually do the work? And who keeps it running once it exists?Units, not names. If you don’t know, write ‘not sure’ and move on. That’s a real answer.”
Format
Silent, individual, on the worksheet
Say the “not sure is fine” line and mean it. Plenty of people do not know how their own research office handles approvals, and nobody wants to admit it first.
Part 1 · Q3 · two of three

Compare, one step at a time53 → 65

Take the four steps in order: “Who kicks it off? Let’s hear a few.”Then: who approves it · who does the work · who keeps it running.
Format
Structured by step, not by person
Per step
~3 minutes. Two or three answers each, not everyone’s.
Say aloud
“So at some places the library starts this, at others it’s the research office”
You are listening for the range, not collecting every answer. The variation is the thing worth capturing.
If it stalls

Q3 · Compare

  1. “Anyone whose place does this completely differently?”
If one step turns out to be where all the disagreement lives, spend the time there and take the others fast.
Part 1 · Q3 · three of three

The portable version65 → 74

“So if someone took this back to their own institution on Monday, what would we tell them? Who leads, who has to be involved, and in what order.Where it varies, let’s say so rather than pretend there’s one answer.”
This is the bit
That goes in the plan
Push for
A lead unit and a sequence
Say aloud
“So that’s ___ and ___”
“The library leads this where there’s an RDM position, the research office where there isn’t” is a better answer than picking one and hoping.
Part 1 · Close

Set up lunch74 → 76

Read the plan back as it stands, off the notetaker’s screen. Under a minute.Then: “Over lunch, have a think about what already exists that we could build on. Tools, services, roadmaps, anything national or local. That’s where we start at half one.”
Part 2 · after lunch

Resume0 → 5

Read the plan back again, briefly, so the group picks up rather than re-litigating the morning. Then go straight into Q4.
Timer
Press R twice now to reset the clock for Part 2
Your job
Momentum, not thoroughness
This group has had a very long day and a half.
Part 2 · Q4

Existing resources5 → 17

“What already exists that this could build on? Tools, roadmaps, services, anything.”
Format
Open floor
Push for
Specifics over categories
Start with
Whatever people came back from lunch with
This room has a lot of collective knowledge about what exists nationally and locally. That is exactly what this question is for.
Part 2 · Q5

Getting started17 → 33

“What are one or two next steps that would actually get this moving?”
Keep it to
One or two steps. Not a project plan.
The point
A realistic on-ramp. People should leave able to do the first thing.
Part 2 · Q6

Roadblocks and mitigation33 → 57

“In your threes: what’s realistically going to get in the way of this, and for each one, what’s a realistic way round it?Write them in pairs on the sheet: obstacle and answer.”
Format
8 min in triads · then 16 min at the table
Be honest
Not optimistic. A roadblock waved away is no use to anyone.
Push past
“We’d need buy-in” → who asks, who decides, what they need to see
The most valuable question in the session. It has 24 minutes. Use them.
If it stalls

Q6 · Roadblocks

  1. “What would make someone say no to this?”
Part 2 · Q7

What success looks like57 → 71

“Given everything we’ve just mapped, what would success actually look like?Something concrete. Something you could check a year from now.”
Push past
“More collaboration” → something countable
This comes last on purpose, so it is grounded in the resources, steps and roadblocks they just named, not an ideal from before they knew what was realistic.
Part 2 · Wrap

Close it out71 → 77

Read the completed plan back in full, start to finish. Name it as an accomplishment first: this group built a plan in a day and a half, with people they had never worked with.
Then check
Problem · benefits · implements · resources · next steps · roadblocks · mitigation · success
Later
Your two-minute share at 3:10 comes straight off this read-back
Priority name and first step, drink in hand. Nothing formal, no slides. If you would rather not, say so and Sandra or Nick will read it for you.
↓ if it stalls
press R twice: reset the clock for Part 2
T or esc to close

The six tags

A tag names the subject, not the problem. So a gap and an overlap take the same tag: “nobody owns the handoff” and “we both do it and never compare notes” are both ownership and referral. Same question, opposite answer.
Ownership and referralwhose job is it, and where does someone go first
Training and awarenessthey don’t know it exists, or don’t know how
Capacity and staffingnobody has the time or the position
Infrastructure and toolsstorage, platforms, software, documentation and deposit
Policy and complianceTri-Agency, institutional policy, ethics and sensitive data
Regional communityshared resources, contacts, community of practice
Othersay it, the notetaker writes it in
Unsure? Say “other”, or say nothing. A blank is honest; a wrong tag is worse, because nobody downstream can tell.

The three tiers

“Could we start this next month, with the people in this room, and no new money?”
Yescoordination only
No, but a unit head could say yeslight lift
No: budget, a position, or a decision from aboveneeds real backing

Say these out loud

“Let’s tag that as ___”
“That one’s ___” tier
“So that’s ___ and ___” units
Never a name in the capture. Units only. Asked to be quoted by name? “Let me follow up after the session.”
D or esc to close

Someone is taking up too much room

“That’s useful, and I want to hear how that lands for a smaller shop.”
Thank them specifically, then redirect. The cleanest move there is.

Someone hasn’t spoken

“Number 5, you’ve been thinking about something.”
Numbers are less exposing than names. And after any card write, go round in order: nobody has to volunteer, and the quiet people have already written their answer.

Keep a round short

“Just read them out, no explaining yet. The next question is where we dig in.”
A constraint with a promise attached reads as a plan, not a brush-off.

Big-institution voices

Seat them sixth or seventh in any go-around. Give them one planned moment:
“I’ll come to number 6 near the end, for the view from a bigger shop.”

Yellow card is up

“Hold that thought a second.”
The notetaker is losing content. Fifteen seconds now saves the capture.

Gone somewhere difficult

If it drifts from the Code of Conduct, step in. Unsure, or it continues? Catch Nick or Sandra at the next transition; they are walking the rooms. You will not be second-guessed for flagging.