Introductions - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

slide1 l.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Introductions PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation

play fullscreen
1 / 85
Download Presentation
Download Presentation


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Advancing Statewide Spatial Data Infrastructures in Support of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI)Developing Strategic and Business PlansFebruary 22, 2009

  2. Introductions • Bill Burgess, NSGIC • Michael Terner, AppGeo • Steve Anderson, AppGeo • Malcolm Adkins, Baker • Danielle Ayan, GA-CGIS • Also with us as an observer is Rich Grady, AppGeo

  3. Agenda 8:30 : 9:00Gathering, coffee and networking 9:00 : 9:05 NSGIC Welcome & IntroductionsBill Burgess, NSGIC 9:05 : 9:15 Opening Remarks on 50 States Initiative Ivan DeLoatch, FGDC 9:15 : 9:45 The Strategic Plan TemplateMichael Terner, AppGeo 9:45 : 10:00 Mini Case Studies: New York (’07) & Georgia (’08)Michael Terner, AppGeo; Danielle Ayan, GA-CGIS 10:00 : 10:15 *** B R E A K *** 10:15 : 10:45 Strategic Planning Lessons LearnedMichael Terner, AppGeo 10:45 : 11:05 The Class of 2009 – What’s aheadMalcolm Adkins, Baker 11:05 : 11:20 Strategic Plan Questions & Answers 11:20 : 11:30 *** B R E A K *** 11:30 : 12:15 Business Planning SessionSteve Anderson, AppGeo Template Mini-case study Lesson’s learned 12:15 : 12:30 Business Plan Question & Answers 12:30 : 12:35 Summary Observations & Wrap-up

  4. Overview of Strategic Planning Process & Templates

  5. CAP Grant Supported Strategic Planning in a nutshell • FGDC wants to create a National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) • State Spatial Data Infrastructures (SSDI) are critical to success of NSDI • Strategic planning will aid process of building SSDI’s • Thus, states need to self-assess and develop a strategic plan • FGDC will Support Strategic Planning via CAP grants • BUT, FGDC wants strategic plans to be similar in structure • Allowing state-by-state comparison/contrast • In partnership with NSGIC they created templates • And require their use for CAP supported Strategic Planning

  6. What was done to create templates? • Multi-state steering committee guidance • Key guidance: “One size does not fit all” • Document Review • Other Strategic & Business Plans, I-Plans • Including: NC, GA, IN, KY, ME, OR, CT, RI, MD, MA • Review past experiences • By contractors • By committee members • Drafted Templates • WIKI: Collaboration • To edit and refine content • Process comments • Produced Final Docs • Approved by NSGIC/FGDC

  7. One Strategic Plan, potentially many Business Plans Strategic Plan What and Why Vision & Goals The “big picture” and overall context Business Plan How, When, and How Much Aimed at those who approve and fund Details of initiative(s) emerge Presented as a business case Strategic planning process determineswhich business plan comes first The NSGIC TemplatesThe one-two punch of Strategic & Business Plans

  8. Strategic Plan vs. Business Plan To implement a Statewide Spatial Data Infrastructure (SSDI) consistent with appropriate national standards SP Primary Strategic Goal GOAL 1: Establish GIO position, clarify statutory authority GOAL 2: Develop improved statewide elevation data GOAL 3: Pursue goal 3 SP BP Programmatic Goals ROI Risks Business Plan Details BP Implementation Plan Costs Benefits Justification Cost/Benefit Requirements • Business plans should relate to Strategic objectives • Business Plans come from goals • You can have more then one Business Plan

  9. Strategic & Business Plan Template Revisions For 2009 • There will be minor revisions to both the Strategic & Business Plan Templates over the next 2 months • Some of these will be highlighted later this morning during the “lessons learned” discussion • Current templates are suitable for early-stage project planning • You will be notified when the revised templates have been uploaded to the FGDC and NSGIC web-sites

  10. Strategic Planning Context • Take an overall look at GIS in My State • GIS success stories at all levels of government • What are the ingredients for success? • Identify challenges and gaps • What are these and how do we overcome them? • Take a look “outside the box” • How does My State fit into the larger national picture and relevant Federal initiatives • National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) • Strategic Planning Process must be “locally relevant” • It can’t be just about NSDI

  11. Rye Westchester County New York City NSDI Federal Centric Outlook:NSDI and Statewide Spatial Data Infrastructures 50 States Initiative • Data sharing between levels of government • The best data are local • Local rolls up to regional/state • States roll up to National SSDI New York SSDI CA SSDI NC

  12. Westchester County New York Statewide Spatial Data Infrastructure (NYSSDI) SSDI CA SSDI NJ New York City Albany Rye Clinton County State Centric Outlook:Statewide Spatial Data Infrastructure Makes Sense for States!Courtesy of Bill Johnson, NYCSCIC NSDI 50 States Initiative • Data sharing between levels of government • The best data are local • Local rolls up to regional/state • SSDI’s linked to other state SDI’s and National SDI

  13. NSDI Supply Chain Outlook

  14. What is the Purpose of a Strategic Plan? “Plans are nothing; planning is everything” • Identify and articulate a Vision • Identify and articulate Long Term Goals • Determine Programmatic Goals • What needs to happen to achieve the long-term Vision? • Identify Risks • Develop Strategies for Overcoming Risks • Provide a Process and Feedback Loop to Make Adjustments when Necessary • The process itself is valuable • Engage stakeholder community

  15. Key early question: Who is our Target Audience? • What does FGDC expect and what does the Federal government need to understand about our state? • Who owns the plan? • State government? • Geospatial stakeholders at large? • The “coordination council”? • Who do you need to convince? • Decision makers? • Stakeholders? • What would make them support this initiative? • Are there any political barriers? • Election Year/Transition Year • Party in control • Timing can be everything • There is no single “right answer” – it will vary from state to state

  16. Strategic Planning Process Map 2 5 1 3 1 = Iterative 2 = Inclusive 3 = Is Approved 4 = Supported 5 = Flows to the business plan 4

  17. What does the Strategic Plan Template achieve? • Provides a Consistent Framework for Articulating: • Purpose and drivers • Roles of participants • Strengths & Weaknesses • Objectives and long-term Vision • Values (e.g. “free flow of data”) • Without dictating specific content

  18. Let’s take a look inside the Strategic Plan Template… Straightforward high-level outline of 7 sections • Executive Summary • Strategic Planning Methodology • Current Situation • Vision and Goals • Requirements • Implementation Program • Appendices

  19. 1. Executive Summary • Executive Level Presentation • Brief, but Sufficient Detail • 2 – 10 pages • Or, two documents: short, very-short • For example: • MA: 75 page document, 5 page Executive Summary • Plus 10 page “standalone” extended summary • VT: “standalone” 2 page brochure • Strategic Objectives of Plan • Key findings that support objectives • Benefits to be Realized • Resource Needs • Simplified Timeline • Associated Costs

  20. New York GIS Strategic Plan Workshop Participation by venue 2. Strategic Planning Methodology • Process followed to develop the plan • Who “owns”, or approves the plan? • Emphasize process not the situation • Stakeholder identification and input • Open, transparent process • Constraints or limitations • Core methodology • Stakeholder sessions/workshops • Interviews • Surveys • Analysis/synthesis/deliberation • Authoring

  21. 3. Current Situation • Assessment of the status quo • Who are we? • Stakeholder community characterization • Where are we? • GIS and governance history • Relative to NSGIC/FGDC 9-criteria • Framework data set status • Identify relevant issues where GIS matters • What’s on the governor’s agenda? • We’re not doing this for the “sake of GIS”, we’re doing this because GIS helps policy, planning, decision making • How do we interact with the Federal government? Can it be improved? • SWOT • Strengths and Weaknesses • Opportunities and Threats • Generally, one of the meatier sections of the plan • What’s going well? • Where are the gaps/problems?

  22. The Kansas Geographic Information System Partnership initiative will be a collaborative effort among the statewide geospatial community that delivers robust, map-based, geospatialinformation and services to support policy and decision making at all levels of government, to provide access to public information and to enhance the safety, economy, environment and quality of life in Kansas. 4. Vision and Goals • Overarching goal is SSDI • Or is it? • Vision Statement/Definition • Statement of values • Articulating programmatic goals • What is needed to achieve the vision? • Series of projects and initiatives • Defining steps to get there • Realistic short and long-term horizons • The goals are your recommendations

  23. 5. Requirements • Generally, comes after sections 3 and 4 are completed • Section 3: Identifies status, strengths and weaknesses • Section 4: Identifies Vision and recommendations • That’s the “hard part” • Once there’s consensus on what to do, this is a straightforward enumeration of new requirements to make progress • And, an assessment of existing resources available to support • Assessment of existing technical infrastructure • Data Requirements • Technology Requirements • Human Resource Requirements • Standards • Organizational Needs • Executive support • Coordination • Policy • Staffing • Budget • Outreach • Risk assessment

  24. 6. Implementation Program • Should be high-level • Business Plan(s) provide the details • General timeline showing dependencies • Phased approach • Strategic plan may layout a 5+ year program • General budget showing itemized magnitude of expenditures • Present cost ranges • Marketing the program • Measuring success

  25. Mini-Case StudiesHow Strategic Planning Worked in New York & Georgia

  26. New York State GIS Strategic Plan Case StudyConducted 2007-2008Project sponsor:NY Office of Cyber Security & Critical Infrastructure Coordination

  27. Planning Process Overview • Objectives: transparent and inclusive process • Achieve consensus and broad-based support • Spring 2007:Kickoff & project planning • Summer/Fall 2007: Six Regional Stakeholder Meetings • Winter 2007/2008: Report Authoring • SWOT • Recommendation development • March 2008: Draft distributed for comment • To broad stakeholder community • 60+ sets of comments received • April/May 2008:Feedback incorporated • Input from Coordinating Body and CSCIC Director • May 2008: Plan “approval” • Prioritization of recommendations by Coordinating Body

  28. SWOT and Findings • There are significant regional variations in GIS outlook and practice within New York • Strengths: • Mature coordination program within sustainable funding • Solid foundation on all 7 framework layers • National leadership in recurring, statewide orthoimagery program • Data sharing cooperative • Weaknesses: • Orthoimagery web services performance • Implementation of the Data Sharing Cooperative • Dated holdings • Usability of web-site • Private sector is not included • Branding w/ Cyber Security & Critical Infrastructure Coordination • Data: elevation quality and county/municipal boundaries accuracy • Freedom of information law is applied inconsistently • Opportunities: • Huge demand for statewide parcels – 11 state agencies currently collect this information • Leverage ortho program’s success: new layers (e.g. wetlands), oblique imagery, 3D structures

  29. The Recommendations • Highest Priority • Pursue statewide parcels in association with Office of Real Property • Further focus CSCIC GIS Coordination role • Re-branding from CSCIC; Foster local govts; Deploy web services • High Priority • Pursue improvements in statewide elevation data • Develop long-term program to improve statewide administrative boundaries (i.e., county and municipal boundaries) • Medium Priority • Strengthen and expand statewide orthoimagery program • Strengthen the Data Sharing Cooperative • Active DB stewardship • Improving the web-site • Explore broader membership

  30. Unique Elements of New York’s Process • New York’s Unique Data Sharing Cooperative • It’s not for everyone and there are some issues • New York is heavily invested in the model • Location of the GIS Coordination Program within the Office Cyber Security and Critical Infrastructure Coordination • Coordination as a secondary mission • Branding challenges • Large amount of feedback received on the draft plan • 60 sets of written comments • Spoke well for the open and inclusive process that was run

  31. Placeholder for Georgia’s Slides

  32. Lessons Learned & Common Observations on the 50 States Initiative’s Strategic Planning Process

  33. Common Patterns in Statewide GIS Strategic Plans • 43 CAP grants awarded since 2006 (this includes 8 for 2009) • 18 completed Strategic Plans posted • 13 completed Business Plans posted • All plans posted at: • Tremendous variety among plans • In-house production vs. professional consultant • Use of FGDC/NSGIC provided templates, or not • Depth and breadth (e.g. 12 – 75 pages) • Planning context • Think strategically; Look “outside the box” • Address a problem • Lack of a GIS Office (WY, NH) • Post-Katrina after action (LA) • Improve coordination, generally • State government vs. statewide “GIS community” • Broad perspective vs. single issue focus • SD’s plan is just about cadastral data

  34. Lesson’s LearnedThe Utility and Challenges of the Templates • Template is an effective tool and does not force one size to fit all • Extract the essence of sections • Tune to local conditions and priorities • Provides guidance on form and organization, content will vary greatly • Adjust semantics • Sec. 3.1 “Who Are We”  “Who is the New York Geospatial Stakeholder Community” • But, too much variety among the current crop of plans • Some used templates rigorously • Some loosely followed templates • Some ignored templates entirely • Contractor led projects tended to follow them more closely • Class of 2009 should use the templates • The planning process itself is valuable regardless • Opportunity for state program to “connect” with stakeholders • Stakeholder participation has generally exceeded expectations • Choose your “Steering Committee” carefully: • There’s a lot of work to do and you will need help • Team building opportunity

  35. Addressing Strategic Plan VarietyPotential Minimum Required Elements • Key perspective gained preparing for Federal Stakeholder’s Workshop when we reviewed the 18 completed plans • Some level of commonality required so that: • Plans can be better compared and contrasted • Summary info can be assembled • This is of key value to Federal stakeholders • 50 States Initiative is designed to help them • A resource where people can gain a quick thumbnail of a state’s GIS effort and priorities • Such a resource should be valuable to states too (e.g. to learn from/about your peers and neighbors) • Implemented at the next version of the Strategic Plan Templates • Will be finalized and available by April 24, 2009

  36. Addressing Strategic Plan VarietyPotential Minimum Required Elements • Current thinking on what might be required: • Section 2: Enumeration of Methodology • Who was involved in the planning effort and what did we do? • Section 3: Current Situation must include: • Commentary relative to NSGIC 9-criteria • Enumeration of status of 7 Framework data sets • Basic SWOT • Top 3 strengths • Top 3 weaknesses • Section 4: Vision & Goals must be enumerated: • Top 3 goals/recommendations • What does your plan recommend to be done? • Class of 2009 should use the templates • FGDC will be prepared to validate that the required elements are provided • FGDC wants your input so that the minimum required elements facilitate and improved two-way dialog between states and Feds • Project team will be in touch with you and other past awardees to gain your input over the next 2 months

  37. Lesson’s LearnedOn Contractor Involvement • There’s a full spectrum of possibilities that have delivered effective results • State/GIS Clearinghouse takes lead (TX, GA) • Potential support by temp/academic staff • Is outside “objectivity” desirable? • State takes lead with contractor professional facilitation support (VT, WI) • Many states report “facilitator is critical” • VT: “allows us (state program) to participate like everyone else” • State divides work with contractor (MA, CO, UT) • Co-authoring of documents (MA, UT) • State-led workshops (CO) • Contractor leads the effort (KS, NH, DC, CA, FL, ID) • Some involvement is critical for success • State logistical support, committee involvement and editing

  38. Lesson’s LearnedOn Planning Process Governance • Who’s plan is it anyway? • State GIS Program’s plan? • State Coordinating Body’s plan? • “On behalf” of all GIS Stakeholders? • Who is managing the project? • Who has final editorial control? • Most often, a “Strategic Plan Steering Committee” • Who convenes this committee? • Sometimes a sub-committee of the State Coordinating Body • Who sits on the committee and how big a committe? • In UT, 5 (plus state program staff) • In MA, 27 (plus state program staff)

  39. Availability/Costs for parcel data Lesson’s LearnedOn Stakeholder Input • Many potential forums • On-line surveys (UT, CT, FL, MO, CA, IN) • Individual interviews w/ key stakeholders • Smaller, focus groups around an issue • Larger, public “stakeholder information gathering sessions” (aka “Listening Session”) • How diverse and vocal is your community? • 7 sessions in CA • 6 sessions in PA, ID, GA, NY, CO and MA • 5 session in SC, VT, HI • 3 sessions in CT, FL (600+ participants) • 2 sessions in NH, UT, KS, DC • Final review of the document • What info are you trying to collect? • Characterize the state of GIS (SWOT) • Identify priorities • Assess the potential for consensus • Solicit new ideas directly

  40. Lesson’s LearnedVisioning • Can be more challenging than it sounds • Do you know what is wanted/needed? • Looking for stakeholder ratification • Do you need to do original discovery? • What is the “Vision thing”? • Succinct statement (e.g. Mission Statement)? • Lengthier and more descriptive? Pictorial? • Opportunity to state values (e.g. KS) • Does it sound like NSDI? • Does SWOT help in forming it?

  41. Lesson’s LearnedGoals Development & Prioritization • How do programmatic goals flow from the Vision? • Review the SWOT • Leverage strengths • Address weaknesses • Seize opportunities • Avoid threats • Think in terms of “projects” • What projects do we need to complete to realize the Vision? • How do we prioritize? How do we gain consensus? • Listen carefully; Don’t be afraid to take a first stab at it • Ask the stakeholders/committee for input • Stakeholders respect an open process and appreciate a common sense approach • New York’s committee completed a formal “prioritization voting” process

  42. Lesson’s LearnedCommon Issues the state’s face • Many states have internal coordination challenges • Intra-governmental coordination between agencies can be a challenge • State “coordination office” might not be the biggest or most important GIS shop in the state • Important, large states like FL and CA have no central GIS coordination office (same applies in smaller states like NH or WY) • GIS happens at the State Agency level: DOT, DNR, DEP, DPH • States face a microcosm of some of the federal NSDI coordination challenges • Getting Fed agencies to better coordinate (e.g. US-DOT, DOI and DOD) • FGDC is sincerely interested in state input on challenges of working with the Federal govt. • Getting our partners to coordinate with us • States are to the Feds as Counties are to a State

  43. Lesson’s LearnedHow states are trying to making GIS relevant • It’s not about GIS technology, it’s about what GIS does • Decision makers are not as excited about technology as we are • Issues of the day: economic development, public safety, environment, alternative energy • Improving the “health and well being” of citizens • Florida’s Vision Statement: “To improve the quality of life in Florida by optimizing the use of geographic information through communication, coordination, and collaboration.” • From Wisconsin’s Executive Summary: Emergency response. Wireless 911. Pandemic planning. Voter registration. Sex offender tracking. Each of these presents serious challenges for our society, and the public expects and deserves these and numerous related issues to be addressed efficiently and effectively. The coordinated use of geographic information and technologies, including geographic information systems (GIS), is the most effective way to meet these challenges.

  44. Lessons LearnedBarriers to NSDI • GIS equity issues at the state level • Several states describe a situation of GIS “haves” and “have nots” (MA, KS, FL) • How do we get nationwide parcels until everyone is a “have”? • 5,000 person counties in KS • 500 person towns in MA • Application of Freedom of Information laws for GIS data (UT, NH, NY, MA, KS) • OMB Circular A-130 Emphasizes Federal/NSDI policy:“free flow of information between the government and the public is essential to a democratic society” • Very inconsistent application of existing statutes • Controversial local issue • You don’t want to anger or alienate your stakeholders • How can we assemble statewide layers, much less nationwide layers when counties and local governments may not willingly share data? • Or, when they charge exorbitant sums to obtain data? • Emerging case law is critical – and reiterates that GIS data are public records • CT Supreme Court decision against Greenwich, CT • Recent CA Court of Appeals decision against Santa Clara County, CA • Rejected homeland security and copyright arguments of the county

  45. The Class of 2009What Lies Ahead

  46. WA OR MI DE VA KY AZ AR Congratulations 2009 Cat 3 CAP Grant Recipients!

  47. 2-Minute Project Snapshot per State • Please take two minutes to introduce your representatives and outline your project (NSGIC Virtual Timer in Effect) • Project Objective(s) • Challenge Area(s) • Timeline • Interactive session is intended to: • Identify Potential Synergies • Find Common Interests • Discover Bodies of Knowledge

  48. Arizona AGIC Strategic and Business Plan Project • Strategic Plan: the strategic plan will identify a vision for improved access to geospatial data, the organization required for future statewide coordination to meet state geospatial data and technology needs and support the NSDI. • Business Plan: the business plan will define how objectives will be achieved along with justification for doing them. The business plan will identify partnership opportunities to establish and maintain an Arizona Geospatial Clearinghouse. • Revising AGIC E.O. 2004-19 or establish AGIC in Legislation • Adopting State Geospatial Policies Eugene Trobia, State Cartographer Kevin Blake, AGIC President 2009 Tom Sturm, USGS Geospatial Liaison for AZ & NV AZ

  49. Arkansas Framework Data Development Sustainable Funding Plan • Develop a strategic business plan for the development and maintenance of statewide framework GIS data in Arkansas.  The project will involve stakeholder input from all corners of the state.  The final deliverable will be a written business plan to assist the Arkansas State Land Information Board and the Arkansas Geographic Information Office in meeting its legislative mandate to develop a coordinated GIS for the State. Learon Dalby, AR Geographic Information Office Bill Sneed, USGS Geospatial Liaison for Arkansas AR

  50. Delaware Delaware Geospatial Data Coordination Strategic Planning • The Delaware Geographic Data Committee (DGDC) will create a strategic plan, and appropriate business plans based on that strategic plan, to coordinate the continued collection of Delaware Spatial Data Framework Layers and the use and sharing of these and other geospatial data in Delaware. The project will also examine integration of Delaware data with national-level geospatial data and data from neighboring states. • A draft strategic plan will be drafted for consideration by the Steering Committee, the full DGDC, and finally the DGDC Executive Council. • Following Executive Council approval of that plan, business plans to manage the maintenance of the state spatial data infrastructure. • The State SDI will enable Delaware’s support for the development of a National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI). Michael Mahaffie, Delaware Office of Management & BudgetKim Cloud, Dept of Technology & Information DE