On Common Ground: Towards a Statewide Geospatial Infrastucture

Report
Compass Points:
Setting a Direction for Minnesota’s GIS Future
A New Strategic Plan for Minnesota
David Arbeit
Fred Logman
MN Governor’s Council on Geographic Information
March 21, 2007
Compass Points:
Setting a Direction for Minnesota’s GIS Future
Overview
• Our Foundation for Strategic Planning
• Strategic Planning Retreat
• For the Council’s Consideration
Foundation for Coordinated GIS
Building on decades of informal collaboration, Minnesota’s GIS
community now needs to collaborate on a strategy that will bring
the benefits of GIS to the entire state.
• GCGI Strategic Framework
– A Foundation for Coordinated GIS (2004)
– Conceptual Architecture for Enterprise GIS (2005)
• NSGIC and FGDC
– 50 States Initiative (2006)
• State Master Plan for IT
A Foundation for Coordinated GIS
Minnesota’s Spatial Data Infrastructure
Strengths
• History of effective ad hoc coordination
• LMIC as de facto coordinator and Clearinghouse steward
• Governor’s Council as forum for advice & guidance
• Strong partnerships with federal agencies
• Commitment to standards
• Track record of cooperative solutions to data acquisition
• Growing awareness of GIS to support business needs
A Foundation for Coordinated GIS
Minnesota’s Spatial Data Infrastructure
Recommendations
• Explicit authority and responsibility for overseeing the
MSDI should be assigned to a state cabinet level agency.
• Adequate resources should be provided to sustain
coordination and development and implementation of the
MSDI.
• GIS implementation by state agencies should be
coordinated within the state’s IT architecture framework.
A Foundation for Coordinated GIS
Minnesota’s Spatial Data Infrastructure
Organizational Issues
• GIS implementation by state, local and regional agencies
should be coordinated with similar efforts by state and
federal agencies.
• Emphasis should be placed on identifying emerging
opportunities for effectively using GIS, for joint projects and
for leveraging private and federal resources.
• The continued development of the MN Geographic Data
Clearinghouse should be supported as an e-government
solution for distributing geospatial data.
National States Geographic Information Council
Coordination Criteria
www.nsgic.org
A 2005 study revealed that
Minnesota had recently
regressed and was lacking
some important criteria for
success!
National States Geographic Information Council
9 Coordination Criteria
1.
A full-time, paid coordinator position is designated and has
authority to implement the state’s business and strategic plans
26 of 48 states – Not Minnesota
2.
A clearly defined authority exists for statewide coordination of
geospatial information technologies and data production
20 of 48 states – Not Minnesota
3.
The statewide coordination office has a formal relationship with the
State’s CIO
28 of 48 states – Not Minnesota
National States Geographic Information Council
9 Coordination Criteria
4.
A Champion (political or executive decision maker) is aware
and involved in the process of coordination
16 of 48 states – Not Minnesota
5.
Responsibilities for developing the NSDI and State
Clearinghouse are assigned
29 of 48 states – Includes Minnesota
6.
The ability exists to work and coordinate with local
governments, academia, and the private sector
41 of 48 states – Includes Minnesota
National States Geographic Information Council
9 Coordination Criteria
7.
Sustainable funding sources exist to meet projected needs
12 of 48 states – Not Minnesota
8.
Coordinators have the authority to enter into contracts and
become capable of receiving and expending funds
20 of 48 states – Includes Minnesota
9.
The Federal government works through the statewide
coordinating authority
27 of 48 states – Includes Minnesota
Compass Points:
Setting a Direction for Minnesota’s GIS Future
The Minnesota Information and
Telecommunications Systems and Services
Master Plan
February 28, 2007
Purpose of Master Planning
• To guide policy and investments through:
– Coordination
– Cooperation
– Convergence
• Lay the foundation for effective management of
information – data, technology, resources
• Provide the context for transformation of state
government programs
• Improve performance of IT-supported business
activities
The Minnesota Enterprise Blueprint:
A Federated Model
The federated enterprise model balances three
ways of managing IT business for the state
Agency-specific Services
Shared Services
Utility Services
IT Service Types
AgencySpecific
Services
Applications and services of a highly
specialized nature for which there are no
opportunities to add value through
central management.
Shared
Service
Services and applications required by
more than one enterprise partner, and
managed by one entity to improve service
and efficiency.
Utility
Services
Services and applications common to all
enterprise partners, and managed by one
entity for all agencies and jurisdictions to
improve service and/or reduce costs.
OET’s Interest in GIS?
• Investment in data and applications is significant and
growing
• Opportunities for sharing data and applications are obvious
• Value to citizens and government has been demonstrated in
many areas of interest
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
economic development and analysis
land use
public safety
environmental management
services delivery
tax administration
many more
• Need for standards is apparent
How might Shared Services
Work for GIS?
Specialized applications and thematic data
Agency
Common applications and tools
COE
Baseline map info, standards and general data
Infrastructure (and hosting?) at OET
Utility
Moving Forward:
We Need a Better Road Map!
Now What?
Compass Points:
Setting a Direction for Minnesota’s GIS Future
• Develop a second generation strategic plan
• Build on previous work and commitments
– Foundations for Coordinated GIS
– Conceptual Architecture for Enterprise GIS
– OET Master Plan
• Focus on State agencies while recognizing the larger
Minnesota geospatial community
• Actively involve key stakeholders
Next Step:
A Strategic Planning Retreat
• Sponsored by Commissioner of Administration and State CIO
• Participants from all key stakeholder interests
• Professionally facilitated
• Planned by Core Group of stakeholders
• Build on previous work
• Constrained by legislative schedule and funding resources
Next Step:
A Strategic Planning Retreat
Core Planning Group
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
David Arbeit (GDA)
Fred Logman (LMIC)
John Lally (OET)
Mike Barnes/Dan Ross (MnDOT)
Larry Palmer (Agriculture)
Rick Gelbman (GCGI)
Randy Johnson (MetroGIS)
Annette Theroux (ProWest)
Our Vision
Minnesota’s
technology
andfordata
Minnesota isGIS
a national
leader
the organizational
Coordinated, and
operational
infrastructures
and resources
will technology
support theto
Affordable, Reliable,
and Effective
use of GIS
development
and use
of geospatially-enabled
business
enhance services
throughout
the state.
applications that enhance the efficiency, effectiveness and
economic competitiveness of public, private and non-profit
organizations serving the people of Minnesota.
Retreat Purpose
Identify and develop strategies for achieving the vision of
coordinated GIS within Minnesota.
Recommendations about:
• relationships among agencies, their partners and their
customers,
• assignment of roles and responsibilities,
• organization of state GIS government functions,
• strategies for securing necessary resources.
Retreat Outcomes
Identify and develop strategies for achieving the vision of
coordinated GIS within Minnesota.
Results will help shape a Strategic Plan for
Retreat Process Design
Participants
• Keep size to about 40
– Large enough for diversity
– Small enough to manage process
– Provides for breakouts into 4 small work groups
• Target specific participants
– Insures diversity of interests
– Allows balance between business and technical people
– Increases certainty of participation
Retreat Process Design
STRATEGIC GIS PLAN PROCESS
March 15, 2007
All Participants
· Welcomes and Introductions
· Purpose and Format of Retreat
· History and Context
· Vision/Issues/Solutions from Foundations & OET Master Plan
· Validation
Introduction/Background
(All Participants)
Participant Survey before retreat to
identify current strengths and key issues
Produces Common Foundation
Issue Analysis
· Each group discusses initial issues, organized by category.
· Group adds related issue/problem statements.
· Similar statements are combined, as needed.
Issue Analysis
(Small Groups)
Provides 5 or 6 Sets of Issues
Issue Mapping
· Each group presents results of Issue Analysis
· Facilitators help “map” issues, identifying common issues/relationships
· Participants discuss issues
· Rank issues for importance/priority
SWOT
Start with SWOT exercise
Strengths, Weaknesses,
Opportunities, Threats
Compile Issues
(All Participants)
Provides Complete Set of Issues
Solution Identification
· Each group presents/discusses possible solutions, starting with
those already identified and adding others.
· Similar solution statements grouped into Functions (ex: establish
standards, coordinate investments, data stewardship, data
distribution, etc.
Solution Identifiction
(Small Groups)
Provides 5 or 6 Sets of Solutions
Solution Mapping
· Each group presents results of Solution Analysis
· Facilitators “map” solutions, identifying common issues & connections
· Participants discuss solutions and identify SWOT
· Identify and/or rank solutions
Compile Solutions
(All Participants)
Provides Complete Set of Solutions
Organization
· Identify organizational options for state GIS functions.
· Identify Roles, Responsibilities & Relationships for each
option.
Organization
(Small Groups/All)
Organizational Options
Resources
· Identify models for acquiring or assembling resources
needed to address solutions, especially for providing an
adequate funding mechanism. (Ex: Appropriation, Charge
Back, etc.)
· Recommend or rank options.
Resources
(Small Groups/All)
Funding Models
Recommendations
Identify any recommendations for which there is a consensus among
participants. Distinguish between things that can happen immediately,
things that can happen with little or no legislative change, and those
that require legislative action.
Recommendations
Guidance for Strategy
Review & Next Steps
Consider adjustments
to to stop at this point.
Initial Project Milestones
Draft Schedule
DATE
MILESTONE
January
2317
November
Core group confirmed
February
December2 1
First core group meeting
Mid
to Late8April
December
Workshop attendees invited
February
December2315
Second core group meeting
Mid
June 22
December
Send pre-workshop materials to attendees
Mid
June5
January
Final core group meeting
Late
June
January
12
Workshop
Late
June
January
16
Post-workshop survey
Late
June
January
22
Debriefing with core group
Early
July26
January
Final workshop report
For the Council’s Consideration
Council review and endorsement is important to project success.
Endorsement is requested for Vision Statement
Feedback is requested for
• Retreat Name
• Retreat Purpose
• Project Plan

similar documents