Multi-View Assessment Framework for National Spatial Data Infrastructure Evaluation

1. SDI assessment

2. Assessment/Evaluation • A study designed and conducted to assist some audience to assess an object’s merit and worth (Stufflebeam, 2000) • The fundamental purpose of evaluation is to create greater understanding (Taylor-Powell, et al., 1996) • Assessment framework • System of methods and processes to support evaluation/assessment.

3. Questions • Why there is a need to do an assessment? • How the assessment results are further used?

4. Assessment purposes (Chelimsky, 1997) • Accountability – to test if the program works • Knowledge – to better understand the program • Developmental –to improve the program Summative evaluation Formative evaluation

7. Inspire and assessment

9. Monitoring Quantitative Yearly Reporting Qualitative Every 3 yrs

10. Link to monitoring

11. Some principles of assessing SDIs

12. Complex nature of a SDI; • Truly complex problems can only be approached with complex resources (Cilliers, 1998); • Multi-faceted view is needed in understanding concrete SDI initiative (De Man, 2006);

13. Use multiple assessment methods and approaches; • Do not oversimplify; • Incorporate different views/understandings; • Flexibility;

15. Multi-view SDI framework • Multi-view SDI assessment framework based on NSDI as CAS reasoning. • Characteristics • several assessment approaches • flexible (extensible) • multiple methods • reduced bias • full picture of SDI performance • serves multiple purposes of assessment

16. Assessment result SDI assessment • Framework applied in 21 countries • Data collected by means of survey • Survey filled in by SDI coordinators (on behalf of authorized SDI institution) • 4 SDI assessment approaches were used: Clearinghouse, SDI readiness, INSPIRE State of Play, Organizational

22. Assessmentresults • One year later another measurement of the Dutch SDI was performed

23. December 2007

24. October 2008

25. Differences in Clearinghouse suitability SDI approach • National Georegister “almost” ready • Clearinghouse suitability indicators measured georegister • www.nationaalgeoregister.nl

26. December 2007

27. October 2008

28. Differences in SDI readiness approach results

29. December 2007

30. October 2008

31. INSPIRE State of Play approach - changes

34. Conclusions • Dutch SDI in comparison with sample countries rather low (Dec 2007) – lack of clearinghouse • but… • Dutch GII is on the right track of development • Much has changed in one year: Georegister, GIDEON • Specific assessment of Dutch GII would complement general multi-view assessment

35. Conclusions • Multi-view framework is general and therefore allows for comparison with other NSDIs • But it is not “GIDEON goals” specific • Need to measure the realization of GIDEON goals • Which indicators would reflect best GIDEON goals realization ?

36. Assessing the Dutch SDI

38. Embedding GEO in eGovernment Key GEO registers Implementing INSPIRE Supply optimization Cooperation Creating added value Knowledge, innovation and edu. Organization, steering, directing

39. Assessing GIDEON – Dutch GII • Ministrie I&M asked for • GIDEON implementation progress reporting and monitoring (yearly)

40. 1st GIDEON assessment type

41. 2nd GIDEON assessment type

42. 3rd GIDEON assessment type

43. Phase 2 Assessment approach } Indicator 1. The number of visitors of the Dutch national georegister. { Indicator 1. The number of Geo-information events Indicators 2. Availability of datasets and services Indicator 2. The number of unfulfilled vacancies in geo-sector Indicator 3. The use of view and download services Indicator 3. Expenditure of Geo ICT sector in the Netherlands on research and development. Indicator 4. Expenditure of research sector on R&D. } Indicator 1. General governmental policy terms for (re)use of geographical information. Indicator 2. The percentage of datasets from GIDEON annex 1 that are available without any restrictions Indicator 3. Yearly turnover of the geo-information business in the Netherlands } Indicator 1. The level of cooperation within 5 chains of the GIDEON. Indicator 2. The use of geo information within e-government processes

44. Indicator 1.1 Gemiddelde aantal bezoekers NGR per dag Hotspots van het aantal terugkerende gebruikers van het NGR

45. Indicator 1.2 Beschikbaarheid van datasets en services

46. Indicator 2.1: Algemeen overheidsbeleid voor het (her)gebruik van geo-informatie

47. Indicator 2.2: Het % datasets dat beschikbaar is zonder gebruiksbeperkingen

48. Indicator 2.3: Jaarlijkse omzet van de geo-bedrijfssector in Nederland

49. Indicator 4.1: Het aantal geo-events in Nederland per jaar

50. Lessons • The Dutch GII goals unprecisely defined • Therefore difficult to select assessment indicators • Not only progress/goals assessment BUT quality assessment