The geospatial line of business national geospatial advisory committee june 3 2008
Download
1 / 60

The Geospatial Line of Business National Geospatial Advisory Committee June 3, 2008 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 122 Views
  • Uploaded on

The Geospatial Line of Business National Geospatial Advisory Committee June 3, 2008. Program. An Overview of the Common Solution/Target Architecture Ivan B. DeLoatch Staff Director, Federal Geographic Data Committee Managing Partner, Geo LOB

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' The Geospatial Line of Business National Geospatial Advisory Committee June 3, 2008' - ronan-munoz


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
The geospatial line of business national geospatial advisory committee june 3 2008

The Geospatial Line of Business

National Geospatial Advisory Committee

June 3, 2008


Program
Program

  • An Overview of the Common Solution/Target Architecture

    • Ivan B. DeLoatch

    • Staff Director, Federal Geographic Data Committee

    • Managing Partner, Geo LOB

  • An Overview of the 2006 and 2007 Data Calls for Federal Geospatial Investment Activity

    • Michael T. Thieme

    • On Detail to USGS

  • Lifecycle Management Work Group –

  • A presentation on A-16 Themes for NGAC

    • Wendy Blake-Coleman

    • US EPA


The geospatial line of business national geospatial advisory committee june 3 2008

Geospatial Line of Business

An Overview of the

Common Solution/Target Architecture

Ivan B. DeLoatch

Staff Director, Federal Geographic Data Committee


The problem
The Problem

  • Geospatial information supports multiple mission requirements: national security, homeland security, law enforcement, health care, environment, natural resources, etc.

  • Over 25 Federal departments and agencies independently collect or produce geospatial information, or invest in potentially duplicative geospatial capabilities

  • Despite the prevalence of geospatial information, there continues to be room for improvement in the planning and coordination of geospatial activities and procurement at the Federal level


Geospatial lob vision and goals
Geospatial LoB – Vision and Goals

Vision

The Nation’s interests are served, and the core missions of Federal agencies and their partners are met, through the effective and efficient development, provision, and interoperability of geospatial data and services.

Goals

  • Productive intergovernmental collaboration for geospatial-related activities and investments across all sectors and levels of government.

  • Optimized and standardized common geospatial functions, services, and processes that are responsive to customers

  • Cost efficient acquisition, processing, and access to geospatial data and information


Request for information
Request for Information

  • The LOB Task Force released a Request For Information (RFI) in April 2006. Responses from business, government, non-profits, and vendors were received May 2006

  • Themes from responses to the RFI:

    • Need for a comprehensive national strategy to optimize spatial data activities

    • Improved, multi-mission, service delivery capability

    • Cost savings through acquisition and labor cost avoidance

    • Enhanced performance accountability and compliance mechanisms

  • Task Force used RFI input in development of the Geospatial Common Solutions and Target Architecture document




Common solution framework
Common Solution Framework

Enhanced

Governance

Implement Performance Accountability

and Compliance Mechanisms

defines responsibilities and accountability for

frames and implements

define assets for

improves effectiveness of

Optimize & Standardize

Shared and Reusable Geospatial and Geo-

enabled Business Data and Services

Planning & Investment

Strategy

Coordinated Budget Planning, Acquisition,

and Labor Cost Avoidance

enforces coordinated lifecycle for

asset base for coordinated use


Solution components
Solution Components

Committee (FACA)


Solution components1
Solution Components

Governance Strategy

National Geospatial

Advisory Committee




Key benefits summary
Key Benefits Summary

  • Clarified performance responsibilities and accountability

  • Establishment of a more collaborative and performance oriented culture

  • Multi-mission delivery capabilities

  • More effective investments through increased sharing and reuse

  • Nationally significant data managed as a Federal portfolio

  • Better service to agencies and citizens through increased functionality and more coordinated access to geospatial information

  • Improved data, services and tools


Target architecture approach
Target Architecture Approach

The Target Architecture was derived from analyzing the vision, goals, and objectives, which provided the high-level business requirements

  • The Concept of Operations (ConOps) provides the business process framework

  • The common solutions partition the architecture into technology-driven, data-driven, and people-driven aspects

  • The RFI responses provided stakeholder perspectives on driving requirements and architecture principles


Target performance architecture
Target Performance Architecture

The Performance Architecture establishes a set of measures and indicators to determine how successful the implementation of the common solution will be

  • Based upon the vision, goals and objectives

  • Establishes an initial set of FEA Performance Reference Model (PRM) measures and indicators

  • Provides guidance to the other layers of the Target Architecture

  • Informs the Joint Business Case

  • Provides the means to monitor the success of the planned benefits in relation to their actual achieved performance


Target business architecture
Target Business Architecture

The purpose of Target Business Architecture is to help Enterprise Architects map LoB and agency geospatial investments to business activities (functions, sub-functions and processes).

  • This will enable individual geospatial investments (whether, within an agency, cross-agency, or LoB-wide) to be assessed or aligned with business needs

  • Some 50% of the Business Reference Model (BRM) mappings reported by the Federal government have the potential for business enhancement through geospatial data services


Target service component architecture
Target Service Component Architecture

The purpose of Target Service Component Architecture is to provide an organizing framework that describes how geospatial capabilities fit into an interoperable service architecture.

  • Can help to ‘geo-enable’ business data that have not been typically used in geospatial analysis so they may be more readily used in a geographic context for business purposes

  • Will help Architects to identify how to map unique geospatial functions to the FEA Service Components Reference Model, thus enabling service component-level alignment of geospatial capability within the agency’s enterprise architecture

  • Helps to link geospatial capability to geospatial services needed


Target technology architecture
Target Technology Architecture

The Target Technology Architecture maps the functions of the GeoLOB Concept of Operations to the FEA Technical Reference Model (TRM)

  • Promotes widespread use of government-wide acquisition vehicles, such as SmarBUY, to realize cost savings and to support open consensus-based interoperability standards

  • Supports the capability for data providers to more readily make their assets accessible to the broadest user community

  • The Common Services Work Group is involved with realizing the Target Technology Architecture


Target data architecture
Target Data Architecture

The Target Data Architecture outlines a Conceptual target architecture that will enable the widespread adoption of shared and reusable geospatial and geo-enabled business data and services

  • Will be further elaborated as the operational phases of the Geospatial LoB progress

  • Sets forth principles by which various data sets are stewarded and used by the Nation

  • Proposes guidelines for how geospatial data should be defined, structured, and documented to facilitate efficient discovery, sharing, and reuse

  • The Data Lifecycle Management Work Group is involved with realizing the Target Data Architecture


The geospatial line of business national geospatial advisory committee june 3 2008

Current Approach to Implementation

Seven active Work Groups

Evaluates and expands cross-agency procurement opportunities related to geospatial service and data sharing

Common Services

Assist federal program managers and executives to identify their geo-enabled business needs, capabilities, and opportunities

Geo-Enabled Business

Develops common grants language for geospatial information and services as well as for Federal geospatial contracts

Grants & Contracts

Aligns the Joint Business Case to the Geospatial Line of Business including: agency contributions, tasks, and task modifications

Joint Business Case

Evaluates existing geospatial data lifecycle frameworks and develops standard processes for improved lifecycle management

Lifecycle Management

Provides the mechanism for reporting and accountability within the Geo LoB to foster the completion of objectives

Performance Management

Develops geospatial requirements and recommendations for technology and telecommunications infrastructure

Technical Architecture



The geospatial line of business national geospatial advisory committee june 3 2008

Geospatial Line of Business

An Overview of the

2006 and 2007 Data Calls for Federal

Geospatial Investment Activity

Michael Thieme

On Detail to USGS


Background
Background

  • The GeoLOB conducted three data calls to collect data on geospatial investments and activities across the federal government

    • 2006

      • Broad-focus quantitative data call

      • Intended to help inform writing of the CS/TA

    • 2007

      • Limited focus quantitative data call

      • Geospatial Data and Services Priorities Survey – a qualitative data call on OMB Circular A-16 priorities



2006 approach
2006 Approach

  • Conducted April - June of 2006 and covered the years 2005 to 2007

  • Requested cost data and information about lifecycle-stage (e.g., development stage, or steady state project)

  • Used a broad approach asking for information about:

    • OMB Circular A-16 data theme (e.g., Cadastral, Transportation, Vegetation, Wetlands, etc.)

    • Investment Type (Hardware, Software, Data, Services, and ‘Other’)

    • Geospatial Capability (e.g., Feature Server, Geocoder, GIS Server, Mapping Client, etc.)


2006 desired outcomes
2006 Desired Outcomes

  • Gain awareness of the investments individual agencies were making in geospatial-related activities and capabilities

  • Use results to inform the writing of the Geo LOB Common Solution/Target Architecture document

  • Identify areas of opportunity for improvement


2006 level of investment
2006 Level of Investment

DME = Development, Modernization, or Enhancement; SS = Steady State


2006 key findings
2006 Key Findings

  • The Federal government financed directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, $2.33 Billion over a three year period (FY 2005 – FY 2007) in spatial data and geographic information systems activities

  • Level of geospatial investment was relatively consistent year over year for the three year reporting period

  • Forty six percent (46%) of agencies reported a three year average of less than one million ($1M) per year in geospatial activities.


2006 key findings1
2006 Key Findings

  • A high degree of unnecessarily redundant investment types was not readily apparent in comparison with other Lines of Business (e.g., Human Resource or Financial Mgmt. LOBs)

  • OMB Circular A-16 Lead agencies are majority investors in the geodetic control, elevation, transportation, and hydrography nationally significant data themes

  • OMB Circular A-16 Lead agencies are not the majority investor in orthoimagery, cadastral, and governmental units nationally significant data themes


2006 issues
2006 Issues

  • 20% of all reported investments did not specify the investment type as directed

  • 49% of all reported investments did not specify the GIS, or location-based data theme as directed

  • 37% of all reported investments did not specify the service component (or capability) provided by the investment as directed

  • These issues limited our ability to readily identify opportunities for LoB collaboration across like data themes, along with our ability to see LoB-wide enterprise architecture capabilities


Lessons learned from 2006
Lessons Learned from 2006

  • Across government, we should enhance the capability to report geospatial investments and activities in an accurate, consistent, and less burdensome way.

  • Without standard definitions and consistent agency reporting, information obtained from data calls of this sort will remain difficult to capture, be non-conclusive, and have limited utility.

  • The focus of the 2006 data call was likely too broad. Future data calls should narrow the focus and concentrate on priority data sets.

  • Despite data call issues, we saw that the federal government could possibly realize potential cost savings by leveraging SmartBuy or other aggregate purchasing programs.



2007 call for geospatial data
2007 Call for Geospatial Data

  • Conducted April - June of 2007 and covered the years 2007 to 2009 (2009 data are not included here – predecisional)

  • limited the focus of the request to specific datasets within A-16 data themes that contain the highest amount of investment activity or show the highest potential for inter-agency collaboration

  • Collected Quantitative data about services, data, and licensing agreements

  • Collected Qualitative data regarding specific OMB Circular A-16 data sets and priorities for future investments


2007 desired outcomes
2007 Desired Outcomes

  • Through lessons learned from the 2006 data call, the Geospatial LoB developed a reporting approach designed to:

    • Develop a more accurate and targeted A-16 investment baseline.

    • Capture current data related to future Federal enterprise data and services priorities.

    • Capture additional data/service attribute requirements for high priority datasets.

    • Highlight and prioritize current and future common capability requirements.

    • Develop a better understanding of how agencies use A-16 data and services to meet mission requirements


2007 desired outcomes1
2007 Desired Outcomes

  • The desired outcomes to be realized by following this approach include:

    • Consistent, accurate and less burdensome baseline investment reporting.

    • Enhanced ROI analysis capability for future joint business case development activities.

    • Electronic record of geospatial activities for future analysis.

    • Prioritized A-16 data theme business activity patterns.


2007 level of investment
2007 Level of Investment

for Selected Data sets

$1.26 B Total in 2007 and 2008


2007 key findings
2007 Key Findings

  • The level of geospatial investment was relatively consistent for the three year reporting period.

  • Fifty two percent (52%) of agencies reported a three year average of less than one million ($1M) per year in selected geospatial data and services investments

  • As in 2006, a high degree of redundant investment types was not readily apparent in comparison with other LoB initiatives


2007 key findings1
2007 Key Findings

  • A-16 Lead federal agencies are the majority investor in their respective data themes 50% of the time.

  • When the A-16 lead federal agency is not the majority investor, 50% of the time USDA is the majority investor.

  • DHS, DOC, DOI, and USDA investments, when combined, total over 90% of total reported selected federal geospatial data and services investments, and these agencies are lead federal agencies for 87% of the data themes within the scope of the 2007 geospatial investment reporting request.


Cost data issues
Cost Data Issues

  • Gathering data on geospatial investment relies almost completely on agency self reporting. Additionally, there are few geospatial investment mechanisms in federal financial and acquisition systems that allow for a reliable and accurate automated accounting of geospatial investment.

  • The current designation of a geospatial investment as either Information Technology (IT) or Non-IT can have variable and arbitrary impact on whether the investment is included in a data call exercise such as this one.


Qualitative data call
Qualitative Data Call

  • The Geospatial Data and Services Priorities Survey was designed to obtain a better understanding of agency business activities and how agencies use selected OMB Circular A-16 data to meet their business and/or mission requirements.

  • Data sets selected for review were believed to potentially yield the highest opportunity for better coordination and collaboration toward satisfying agency requirements.

  • Each agency was asked to identify specific data themes as Mission Critical, Very Important, Important, Somewhat Important or Not Important in meeting their business requirements in 2009.

What's Really Important?


Qualitative data call1
Qualitative Data Call

  • Government Units (State, County, Municipal, Tribal and/or Congressional Boundaries) received the most ‘Mission Critical’ responses with eight agencies; Transportation (Street/Road Network) received seven ‘Mission Critical’ responses.

  • Eleven agencies ranked Near Shore Bathymetry as ‘Not Important’ to meeting their business requirements – much to the dismay of Bathymetry enthusiasts.

  • Additional handout on qualitative data results by theme is available.

What's Really Important?


Lessons learned
Lessons Learned

  • DHS, DOC, DOI, and USDA account for the majority of federal civilian investments in geospatial products and services. Agencies who are majority investors in geospatial data and services should coordinate and align NSDI execution strategies and strive to find commonality across data acquisition and collection investment types.

  • Lead federal agency assignments and framework data classifications should be re-evaluated. Several agencies have data theme lead assignments that are disproportionate to their level of funding to support those assignments.


Lessons learned1
Lessons Learned

  • There is a clear need to implement geospatial investment coding mechanisms in federal financial and acquisition systems that allow for a reliable and accurate automated accounting of geospatial investment.

  • It may be more effective to work on influencing lead federal agency NSDI Strategic Plans and promoting a more developed portfolio management capability than to conduct further investment analyses of agency reported investments until further investment coding mechanisms are in place.



Lifecycle management work group

A presentation on A-16 Themes for NGAC

by Wendy Blake-Coleman

US EPA

Lifecycle Management Work Group


Briefing purpose
Briefing Purpose

  • Summarize challenges/opportunities with existing OMB Circular A-16 document and processes

  • Review issues being addressed by the Geospatial LOB Lifecycle Management Work Group

  • Discuss Work Group products and timeline

  • Discuss NGAC feedback on selected Work Group products in Fall 2008


Concerns with current a 16 processes and requirements
Concerns with Current A-16 Processes and Requirements

  • Critical data often are not available for business processes in timeframe necessary, or not available at all

  • Geographic data approach in A-16 should be better aligned with business process approaches (e.g. FEA) which have emerged since 2002

  • Long timeframes to complete national data sets can lead to duplicative efforts, decreased performance, and increased costs

  • Inconsistent A-16 portfolio management and reporting limits the ability to evaluate completion schedules and cost of A-16 themes and datasets

  • Need for improved communication and coordination across multiple programs, initiatives, and stakeholders


Lifecycle management work group activities
Lifecycle Management Work Group Activities

Evaluating “as-is” state of OMB Circular A-16 and impact on theme/dataset portfolio management

Definitions

Management and reporting requirements

Scope

Developing strategy to improveA-16 portfolio management

Providing more precise operational definitions

Defining nationally significant themes/datasets

Creating criteria to add, delete, or consolidate themes/datasets

Incorporating lifecycle management practices into portfolio management

Identifying opportunities for efficient data development


Lifecycle management work group activities1
Lifecycle Management Work GroupActivities

Developing recommendations for supplemental guidance for implementation of A-16 portfolio management and reporting

More robust definitions

Clearer roles and responsibilities

More consistent reporting process

As appropriate, changes to Appendix E: NSDI Data Themes, Definitions, and Lead Agencies

Recommending to FGDC Coordination Group a set of procedures to:

Track and evaluate progress for completing the NSDI

Make recommendations on:

Priorities for cross government partnerships

Management or composition of themes/data sets under OMB Circular A-16

More efficient data development


Lifecycle management work group structure
Lifecycle Management Work Group Structure

Lifecycle Management Work Group

30 members from 10 Federal Departments and Independent Agencies

Work Group Lead: Wendy Blake-Coleman, EPA

Includes representatives from agencies that are both geospatial data-producers and geospatial data-users

Work Group includes three sub-groups

OMB Circular A-16 Definitions: Dennis Crow, USDA, Lead

Lifecycle: Jeff Booth, DOE, Co-lead

Theme Content: Michael Lee, USGS/DHS, and David LaBranche, DOD, Co-Leads


Process flow for lifecycle management work group 2008 deliverables activities
Process Flow for Lifecycle Management Work Group2008 Deliverables & Activities

52


Omb circular a 16 subgroup products
OMB Circular A-16 Subgroup Products

2008

Common geospatial terms lexicon

Provides subgroups with a common terminology

Needed due to definitional inconsistencies across federal efforts/agencies

Consolidates commonly used terms from key Federal initiatives

Derived from: OMB Circular A-16, OMB Circular A-130, Homeland Security Sector Plans, FEA Geospatial Profile, Geospatial One-Stop

Updated definitions of OMB Circular A-16 terms, roles, and responsibilities


Omb circular a 16 subgroup products1
OMB Circular A-16 Subgroup Products

OMB A-16 Circular portfolio management flow chart

Description of linkages between OMB Circular A-16 themes and key federal program activities e.g.,

FGDC working groups and subcommittees

Geospatial One-Stop channels

Sector Plans mandated by 12/17/03 Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD-7)

Federal Enterprise Architecture Models and Profiles

Recommendations for improved agency annual reporting processes


Example of as is analysis linkage of omb circular a 16 themes to fgdc committees and gos channels
Example of “As Is” Analysis Linkage of OMB Circular A-16 Themes to FGDC Committees and GOS Channels


Lifecycle subgroup products
Lifecycle Subgroup Products

2008

Comprehensive definition of geospatial data lifecycle phases

Identification of candidate data lifecycle best management practices

2009 and out-years

Use data lifecycle model to:

Assess potential for more efficient data development

Evaluate common services for data access and production


Theme content subgroup products
Theme Content Subgroup Products

2008

Recommendation on best practice for aligning Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7 (HSPD-7) geospatial data requirements with OMB Circular A-16 geospatial data themes and theme leadership roles and responsibilities

Recommendation for criteria to assess designation of nationally significant themes/data sets, and determine authoritative data sources and clarify stewardship roles

2008/2009

Develop a documented process to add, delete, or modify OMB circular A-16 themes

2009 and Beyond

Develop recommendations to FGDC Coordination Group for specific theme changes to OMB Circular A-16


Next steps in 2008
Next Steps in 2008

June/July 2008 - Complete first round of draft products

Summer 2008- Geo LOB will convene an A-16 theme lead meeting to review draft recommendations and products

Summer 2008 – Provide products to FGDC Coordination Group for review

Summer 2008- Provide products to FGDC Steering Committee for review

Late Summer 2008 - Provide input on annual agency A-16 Theme Status Report to FGDC Secretariat

Fall 2008- Solicit Feedback from NGAC on selected workgroup products

December 2008 – Complete supplemental OMB Circular A-16 Guidance


Summary of lifecycle management workgroup products in the fall of 2008
Summary of Lifecycle Management Workgroup Products in the Fall of 2008

  • Common Geospatial Terms Lexicon

  • Updated definitions of OMB Circular A-16 terms, roles, and responsibilities

  • Criteria to assess designation of nationally significant themes/data sets

  • Comprehensive definition of geospatial data lifecycle phases

  • Candidate data lifecycle best management practices

  • Documented process to add, delete, or modify OMB circular A-16 themes

  • Best practice for aligning HSPD-7 geospatial data requirements with OMB Circular A-16 geospatial data themes and theme leadership roles and responsibilities