1 / 13

Nancie Imler CIO, Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Protection

Business Process Analysis of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation as Produced by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science. Nancie Imler CIO, Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Protection Chair, Information Management Subcommittee. IC Direction. April 2005: IC agreed that

sondra
Download Presentation

Nancie Imler CIO, Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Protection

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Business Process Analysis of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation as Produced by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science Nancie Imler CIO, Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Protection Chair, Information Management Subcommittee

  2. IC Direction • April 2005: IC agreed that • Improving the timeliness of updating and communicating environmental indicators is a priority for Chesapeake Bay Program partners • Leading the effort in identifying information and determining how to remove barriers that obstruct more timely data submission/reporting will be assigned to the Information Management Subcommittee.

  3. How IMS should conduct studies? • Business process analysis (BPA) • Assess entire process associated with producing data • Document each process step and associated cost • Determine efficiencies/inefficiencies in process • Recommend changes to make process more efficient and cost effective

  4. First Study: SAV Process • Chosen by IC in 2005 • Assumptions: • No compromise to the historic SAV data base and its use for comparative trend analyses • Data must be delivered to meet the CBP annual deadline of March for indicator reporting

  5. Funding the SAV BPA • Leveraged $40k EPA HQ funding through the EPA membership on IMS • Utilized CBP contract with SAIC to outsource the study

  6. BPA Timeline • Pre-planning meeting with CBP and VIMS – Aug 2005 • Kickoff meeting with CBP, VIMS and SAIC – Mar 2006 • SAIC site visit to VIMS – May 16-17 2006 • Review of current procedures to collect, analyze, and deliver SAV data • Changes in data collection and analysis that would deliver the data to EPA 2 months earlier • Technical changes that could improve SAV data reporting or its accuracy • Draft recommendations for process changes • Literature review • Process summary table • Final report and recommendations – Aug 2006

  7. Too Many Processes!! • Original idea was to flow chart all the tasks and place into a CBP BPA repository • Ended up documenting project tasks, calendar start/end date, duration, cost, human resources (staff, technicians, financial and administrative), and issues in a matrix (Appendix C)

  8. Overarching Findings • VIMS has “sound research design and quality products” • VIMS accomplished goal of delivering products two months earlier to CBP independent of the BPA at their cost.

  9. Short-term Recommendations • VIMS must update its annual SAV surveying cost to CBP to accurately and thoroughly reflect the true cost of the SAV surveying project • CBP must determine whether it is willing to meet those costs or consider alternatives such as modifying the scope of the SAV survey • CBP and VIMS needs to better articulate exact products and needs related to SAV data

  10. Recommendations • An objective 3rd party (like STAC) should conduct a detailed evaluation of current SAV surveying and reporting methods and technologies • Better coordination is needed between CBP partners on SAV science and research • Partner coordination is needed to address restricted air space issues

  11. Methods & Technology Discussion • CBP conduct a 2nd, more detailed, evaluation that addresses use of emerging new technologies in SAV monitoring – target data 2010 • CBPO should encourage and support more frequent meetings between its staff, VIMS and other bay scientists to understand trends and research needs • CBP should consider funding a review of past and ongoing remote sensing projects for SAV conducted by other states or federal agencies to determine strengths and weaknesses in the various approaches, and costs.

  12. Methods & Technology Discussion • VIMS should continue to explore time and cost savings, as well as improvements in reporting data that come from development of web-based reports • VIMS should continue to implement automated labeling and other tools in its web site • 3 technologies should be tested, evaluated and prioritized: • GPS/IMS equipped flights to obtain orthorectified images and reduce manual labor • Use of color film • Digital systems, the emerging standard

  13. IMS Notes • VIMS should be recognized for funding the necessary phase shift required to meet CBP communication schedule • VIMS continually seeking improvement to process as technology becomes available, but hampered by limited resources/funding • Patchwork of funding support to VIMS is tenuous and difficult to administer

More Related