In August 2003, the National Network of Biological Collections of Argentina (RNCB) was awarded seed money to support a nation-wide effort to digitise taxonomic and biogeographic information, and register a number of collections as providers of the global network under construction by GBIF. The ultimate goal of this effort was to enhance overall capacity of RNCB-member institutions for capturing and processing no less than 210K records hosted by them, while adopting internationally accepted standards of information exchange.
This outcome was considered as a major step towards the definitive modernisation of knowledge management at national scale. Before the beginning of the project, taxonomic names and associated label information had been stored by museums, herbaria, botanic gardens and other scientific institutions in an ad hoc manner.
The prevailing situation was characterised by the lack of consistency of data storage formats – even within single institutions, with a vast majority of the estimated 12-13 millions specimens and samples existing across the country being kept mostly using collection labels. The use of database software packages was uncommon, and where available, they could rarely, if ever, be accessed remotely. In cases where a database system existed, its registration by means of internationally accepted standards never occurred, and so remained unknown to the scientific community. All these factors introduced serious difficulties for data and processed information to flow smoothly throughout the Network, and beyond.
A rapid enhancement of the capacity of collections – and of the Network as a whole, to make an integral use of taxonomic and biogeographic information was considered as prioritary. With it, institutions would not only be in better situation to make decisions about their plans for improving and completing their collections, but they would also be able to exchange knowledge and expertise more easily between them.
Overall, the country would improve its capacity to respond to the commitments made when it became a member of the GBIF, as well as of other international treaties and agreements that promote a facilitated access and sharing of biodiversity-related information (e.g. the CBD and its Clearing-House Mechanism, and IABIN).

The general objective of the project was to enhance the capacity of RNCB member institutions for managing taxonomic and biogeographic information, while bridging the gap in ICT that existed between them, and establishing a federated network of data providers which is effectively linked to the GBIF global network. Specific goals of the project were:

1. To review the situation of collections as regards to biodiversity information management, and the capacity and ICT technology at their disposition to act as Data Nodes of the Argentine segment of the GBIF Network;
2. To select datasets with differing degrees of informatisation to be used to pilot a harmonised, RNC-driven information management strategy targeted at delivering metadata and data through a GBIF National (Participant) Node;
3. To adopt a biodiversity information management system with flexibility to capture and integrate label data, thus facilitating the provision of information services to the wider users community;
4. To provide training, ICT equipment and seed manpower to populate the information system and make the most efficient use of it; and
5. To expand the approach gradually with the view to covering a growing number of collections and institutions.

Described objectives have all been met, and are evident by the fact that eight RNCB-member institutions currently provide access to more than 227K records digitised, and data sources registered in accordance to GBIF standards (Darwin Core Schema and DiGIR Protocol).
The ICT gap between institutions was bridged with GBIF and counterpart resources: no less than 40 computers were bought since the project begun. Seed manpower for the capture of label data was hired, and essential training on standardised exchange of information was provided. Database software responding to standards accepted at the international level was incorporated.
Overall, the RNCB has significantly improved its situation as regards knowledge management in comparison with the starting point in August 2003. The intention of the Network now is to consolidate what it has been achieved so far with the GBIF support, and to continue increasing the number of records, which can be accessed through the GBIF, or other portals linked to it.
Results are described in the final report to GBIF, which is presented separately. This document presents the major lessons learned as a result of project implementation, and highlights aspects that might be regarded as "best practices".

• Lessons learned: they relate to the whole project cycle, from its planning and inception, to implementation. They are as follows:

1. When needs are of the type and extent of those existing at the start of this project, incorporating standardised software for the capture of taxonomic and bio-geographic information should be as much gradual as possible. Therefore, choosing a reduced number of pilot collections with which to test the use of database packages, and scaling up any progress made can be seen as the most adequate strategy. Benefits from changing traditional practices of information management were easier to perceive by the target audience of scientists and curators, and they were more willing to transfer the experience to other practitioners in the same, or other institutions.
2. Any progress made in taking participant institutions off the initial conditions was considered as positive for the whole Network as a whole. Hence, it was decided to encourage them to build a consolidated approach to information management from scratch, while ensuring that basic resources and ICT were available, standards acceptable, and scientists aware of the real benefits from becoming involved.
3. Encouraging participant institutions to select among a restricted menu of ICT solutions, while considering the compromise of adopting standards promoted by GBIF for the registration of data sources was also correct. In effect, institutions made a choice in accordance with their capacities and needs, and planned their involvement in a manner that conduced to the registration of data sources in full compliance with accepted schemes and protocols.
4. The alternative of developing an own customised database software using available packages as a model was preferred by a couple of institutions (the Regional Center of Scientific Research and Technology, CRICyT, and the Faculty of Natural Sciences and Museum of La Plata, MLP). This was the right choice because the institutional commitment to provide financial and human resources could be sustained until the planning, development, and installation of the package was finished.
5. Setting a relatively small number of records to be digitised as a minimum, using standardised database software gave the perception that the overall commitment made with GBIF was affordable. It also established the basis upon which institutions were better able to measure progress in achieving digitisation targets, balancing their respective contribution. For example, the National Patagonic Center (CENPAT) is now providing access to 3,100 records, whereas the contribution of the Darwinion Institute (DI) and the three associated herbaria exceeds 92,000. The value of the participation of CENPAT out-weighted this deficit: it was the first RNCB institution in registering data sources using the DiGIR protocol, and provided detailed guidance to the others on how to do it.
6. Criteria for selecting pilot collections should be reviewed. Aspects such as taxonomic representation – from the biodiversity point of view, or familiarity with standards – from the informatics perspective, might well be included in similar situations. Taxonomic grouping by regions should be promoted where possible.
7. Identifying bio-informatics champions within institutions is essential to the sustain an informatisation effort like the one achieved with support of the GBIF. Champions should have a reasonable expertise on the planning and development of database software if they come from the field of the natural sciences, or else be interested in incorporating the biodiversity component into their informatics background. This type of professionals are scarce in Argentina, and their formation should be actively promoted.
8. The RNCB Directive Committee took the role of coordinating unit in project preparation, and could accommodate well to the conditions and criteria that were established by the GBIF for its seed fund programme. The conformation of a reduced project task force within the Committee, and the appointment of a consultant with expertise in the preparation of project proposals facilitated the elaboration of the project concept which was presented during the initial phase of the selection process.
9. When the proposal was approved by the GBIF, the RNCB Directive Committee then took responsibility for steering overall implementation of the project. The SC established a routine which facilitated the timely identification of any factor complicating the achievement of milestones, and showed flexibility in the definition of reasonable solutions. Success in the registration of the number of records committed in the original project proposal is a clear indication of the flexibility of the Committee.
10. Hearing opinions from RNCB institutions at regular meetings
11. Experience in bio-informatics to tap upon was available in other countries of Latin America. Promoting the sharing of expertise collected by some of the key institutions in these countries was an extremely positive action. The participation of Maria Auxiliadora Mora, from INBio (Costa Rica), and Raul Jimenez, from CONABIO (Mexico), attracted the interest of the people who participated in this initiative. Both were able of transferring their considerable expertise on standardised information management and exchange to taxonomists, curators and informatics gathered in RNCB plenary meetings and workshops. They also participated actively in the identification of opportunities for further cooperation and integration at regional scale. One clear example of this is the joint presentation of the mentoring proposal by the RNCB and INBio, which was approved by the GBIF in November 2004.
12. The economic situation which prevailed in Argentina during the period of implementation of the project was characterised by a convenient exchange rate between US$ dollars and Argentine pesos. Prices of equipment and services (in Argentine pesos) were affordable. The fact that the seed fund was not restrictive in terms of potential allocation introduced flexibility in its distribution among participant organisations.
13. The RNCB institutions provided the financial and human resources which were originally committed. In some cases, the contribution exceeded the proportion of 10:90 detailed in the proposal. This showed their interest to invest on bio-informatics, and to collaborate in the development of an integrated RNCB-wide approach to information management.
14. Expansion to other collections nation wide
15. Incorporation of non RNCB institutions…

• Best practices: they are shown with indicative purposes only, and must not be taken as prescriptive measures which be carried out "obligatorily" by other practitioners, regardless how similar the situation might look to that existing at the start of the project. They are the following:

1. Although freedom to choose from a small number of software packages produced positive results, greater attention should be paid to this issue. Identifying packages providing more complete features with less learning demands is critical, and doing this in the early stages of project planning could later save precious implementation time.
2. Clearer guidance to make informed decisions about available database packages should be given to practitioners. Indication on how to resolve emerging issues should also be provided.
3. Attracting the attention of traditional informatics to biodiversity issues. This may be done by offering new positions within museums, herbaria and other scientific institutions, their invitation to workshops and training sessions on bioinformatics,, and their incorporation into already established working groups. All these options were carried out or at least attempted during the project: the less costly is incorporating skilled informatics to multi-disciplinary working groups.
4. Encourage the establishment of similar bodies at the beginning of project planning.
5. Attracting the attention of traditional informatics to biodiversity issues. This may be done by offering new positions within museums, herbaria and other scientific institutions, their invitation to workshops and training sessions on bioinformatics,, and their incorporation into already established working groups. All these options were carried out or at least attempted during the project: the less costly is incorporating skilled informatics to multi-disciplinary working groups.