While I agree that we need to move towards automating many aspects of the data management planning process, I'd also like to suggest that this group focus on addressing some of the cultural challenges as well.
DMPs can (and should!) evolve and this is possible using the current data management plan tools on offer. I also beleive that there could be scope to develop funder views into tools like DMPonline and DMPTool if there was a demand. However, from my experience, there doesn’t seem to be much appetite for monitoring plans at the moment - at least in the UK.
I think this group could be instrumental in fostering a change in culture. For instance, getting some community agreement on whether HEIs should be retaining a copy of the grant application phase DMP for evidence of what was agreed in the grant. If so, should this be retained by the Research Office or the PI? Would it be given an identifer?
We also need to identify some good practice when it comes to PIs managing and updating in-award DMPs. Who else might need to have access to these and how would it be facilitated? Researchers using DMPonline for instance can provide write access to collaborators in their own institutions and externally to help develop the plans and can provide read-only access to others who might need to know the content.
It would also be good to try and reach some level of agreement on whether post award DMPs should be submitted as public documents to instiutional or subject based repositories and how post award DMPs should be linked to the data outputs (e.g., via the Jisc research data registry or Research Data Australia) to improve provenance. We might also need to consider who owns each version of the DMP and how long each version might need to be retained.
All the best,