A place to share news and information of interest to the NSGIC members and others who care about the use and sharing of geospatial data.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
NSGIC Strategic Plan: A Midstream Review
NSGIC is making progress on the goals set out in its 2009 - 2011 Strategic Plan. An updated version of the plan(PDF) has been posted on the NSGIC web site. It includes the findings of a team tasked by the NSGIC Board to review the plan and measure progress, so far, on all 23 goals in the plan.
The group used a 4-point scoring criteria, ranging from 0, for goals which are no longer relevant and that the group felt should be dropped, to 3, for goals that have been met.
Three of the goals were judged to be no longer relevant. Four others were found to have limited progress, so far. Of the remaining 16 goals, good progress was found on nine and seven others have already been met.
"Over two-thirds of the goals are met or are progressing well," writes NSGIC President Will Craig, of Minnesota, in a cover letter. "Adjusting for the three goals the team recommended dropping, the level of good progress amounts to 80 percent."
But, he added, "That still leaves significant work to be done."
The review was officially adopted by the Board at its November 24, 2009 meeting.
The following is stolen shamelessly from an e-mail from USGS Metadata Guru Sharon Shin, who gives credit to National Metadata Champion Lynda Wayne (and family): Metadata in the Movies!
It seems Lynda and her family watched the movie Beyond a Reasonable Doubt the other day and, as Sharon puts it, "there is a scene that made her sit up straight – two very nerdy guys discuss metadata and image pattern recognition."
It's more than that. The scene has a small sample of dialogue that all (conscientious) GIS pros have found themselves reciting at some point, though not in a major motion picture and not (at least for me, so far) in the service of solving crimes.
By the way, if you plan to watch this film sometime, don't watch this clip. It contains a spoiler.
Government is under pressure to show where stimulus dollars are being spent. A new report rates state websites on how well they show the distribution of funds within their borders. Maps play a critical part in this.
Good Jobs First, a non-profit research center based in Washington, DC, has just published Show Us the Stimulus (Again), an update of a similar report last July. It shows great improvements in the states’ ability to document where the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) dollars are being spent. Some $200 billion dollars are flowing through the states.
The report ranks the states on their ability to show where the money is going. Scores range from 5-87 on a 100 point scale. GIS and mapping contribute greatly to the ability of states to score well in this review. Maryland is rated #1. Three of the seven rating criteria are based on geography:
Map the distribution of funding at the county level or equivalent.
Compare that distribution with patterns of economic distress.
URISA (the Urban and Regional Information Systems Association) is looking for nominations for the 2010 class of inductees to its GIS Hall of Fame which "recognizes and honors the best in GIS."
Nominations are open to persons in any profession and are not limited to those with relationships with URISA. The selection criteria are listed on the URISA web site:
At least 25 years of sustained professional involvement in the GIS field.
Original and creative contributions to the field.
Well known and respected by a wide range of peers.
Consistent demonstration of sound professional and personal ethics.
To better keep our users informed about all TNRIS activities, we are very pleased to announce that we will now be blogging about all our activities and sharing some of the behind-the-scenes information that may be beneficial to you. We also highly encourage your comments on any of our posts and we will use them in a very constructive manner.
The TNRIS Blog uses Posterous, a blogging system described by its founders as "the dead simple way to put anything online using email."
South Carolina Publishes a Guide to Developing Data Access Policies
Editor's Note: The following is a guest-post from Dr. Timothy M. De Troye, GISP, South Carolina State GIS Coordinator and member of the NSGIC Board of Directors.
The Geospatial Administrators Association of South Carolina has published a guide to help local governments, as well as all other levels of government and the private sector, develop and implement GIS data access policies.
The guide -- A Process Framework for Developing Local Government Data Access Policies (PDF) -- grew out of discussions at the 2009 South Carolina statewide GIS conference. An informal poll discovered that some GIS organizations did not have a GIS data access policy, while others had a rudimentary policy, but almost no organization had a formalized approach in developing such policies. that led to a project focused on data access, data distribution and permitted uses that resulted in the creation of a guide to help GIS departments to step through the thought process on developing a policy.
The guide takes into account key stakeholder personnel, different types of data, and different approaches to managing that data. Contributions to the document came from multiple organizations and levels of government including municipal, county, state, and federal agencies as well as from a utility. While the document is written with the local organization in mind, it is applicable to different levels of government and can be used as a vehicle for policy development within the private sector.
From the Overview:
In many organizations, the GIS manager has been charged with establishing GIS data access policy for the organization without the official authority to do so and without understanding the implications associated with policy implementation. Often, the result is a policy that is not formally adopted or a policy that has been established strictly from a legal perspective.
The document serves as a process framework for developing an effective GIS data access policy. GIS managers can use this framework to help decision makers understand and formulate a GIS data access policy for their entire organization. The process encourages decision makers to review options for data distribution and carefully consider how implementing a policy will impact the organization, staff, private citizens, the business community, and other government
agencies.
The goal is to enlighten and inform decision makers about specific GIS data access policy decisions. The goal is not for all government organizations to have the same policies, but for each organization to formulate policies using an informed and well thought out process.
The document outlines a series of data access policy components that should be considered during policy development. Information about the components, suggested participants, and potential implications are presented for each. Readers are encouraged to utilize these components as a framework for policy development and to expand the content as needed to address the specific concerns of their organization.
To help facilitate understanding and discussion, the document is written from the perspective of a non-GIS practitioner. This is the product of a collaborative effort among members of the Geospatial Administrators Association of South Carolina (GAASC).
Editor's Note: The following is a guest post from Dennis Goreham, retired GIS coordinator for Utah, and a member of the National Geospatial Advisory Committee.
The National Geospatial Advisory Committee (NGAC) has endorsed, as a concept, a paper crafted by the NGAC Governance Subcommittee which seeks to promote the development of a National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) by creating a more precise definition of the NSDI and of a set of metrics needed to measure progress towards the NSDI.
The paper – a Proposal to Measure Progress Toward Realizing the NSDI Vision (PDF) – takes as its central theme the truism that “what cannot be measured, cannot be managed.” It was presented at the December NGAC meeting and resulted in instruction that the Subcommittee begin implementation, including outreach to refine the metrics approach.
The initial categories of metrics selected by the committee address many aspects of the NSDI beyond its original data-centric definition:
Societal metrics intended to determine the extent to which geospatial data, processing and applications have become part of the general information infrastructure and decision support process;
Environmental measures which describe the full extent of geospatial activities and their economic implications;
Data metrics providing evidence of progress toward the initial completion or the ongoing maintenance of framework data layers at a minimum;
Technology metrics for the fitness and quality of the underlying technology infrastructure in use across relevant organizations; and
Governance metrics to measure progress toward the realization of a national governance structure for the NSDI.
Readers should note that the proposed measures are national in scope, and not merely federal. There are many opportunities, even responsibilities, for the states and for NSGIC to participate in measuring, analyzing, and communicating metrics that will help manage the NSDI.
The plan includes a snapshot of the current state of GIS in Virginia, a shared vision for where the GIS community wants to go, strategic goals and next steps to take them there.
On December 18, 2009, Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley signed an Executive Order entitled "One Maryland - One Map; Maryland Integrated Map (MD iMap)" (PDF) that establishes an organizational structure to guide and coordinate inter-agency and intergovernmental efforts to share geospatial data and tools in Maryland.
The order identifies and defines the role of an Executive Committee, including the Secretaries of all the state's cabinet agencies, and formally identifies and defines the role of the State Geographic Information Officer (GIO) as well as that of the Technical Committee.
(NSGIC's own) Kenny Miller, who has been filling the role for all practical purposes for some time, is the designated GIO and will move later this year from his long-term home in Maryland's Department of Natural Resources to the Department of Information Technology.
The executive order is focused on the creation of a "Maryland Integrated Map (MD iMap), which will serve as a statewide basemap and help state agencies to "better implement and coordinate policies across the State."
"The execution of the Executive Order has been a long time in coming and reflects the value of laying the foundation over the years to prepare for this eventuality. It also reflects the rapid increase in interest at the highest levels of State government in providing Marylanders with information of how their government allocates funds and where those funds are spent" reflects Kenny Miller, who becomes the State's first-ever GIO.
"The Maryland State Geographic Information Committee (MSGIC) began in the early 1990's to grow GIS technology and foster collaboration and communication to among the various partners. It wasn't until the O'Malley-Brown Administration began, in early 2007, to demand agencies use GIS to both target program efforts and funds and to measure progress that the interest on formalizing the governance and official capacity of the GIO really took root. This represents a win for all those who have labored to make this day a reality."
The Governor will provide strategic direction to the Executive Committee, which will be chaired by the Secretary of Information Technology. The Director of the Governor's StateStat office will be vice-chair.
The Executive Council, which will be a "subcabinet" and will advise the Governor on all issues pertaining to the MD iMAP, will designate a Technical Committee, headed by the GIO, to oversee the day to day activities needed to create the MD iMAP.
NSGIC offers four awards, all recognizing high levels of effort and success in moving the NSDI forward in ways that serve the greater community, not just the home organization of an award winner. NSGIC awards vary by nature, the number given per year, whether the effort is lifetime or focused on the previous year, the relationship of the award winner to NSGIC, and whether the award is typically given at the mid-year meeting or annual conference. No person can receive the same award twice. All awards consist of a plaque mounted on a walnut base and their names preserved on the NSGIC website.
Nominations are now open for the Distinguished Service Award and the Dedicated Service Award. Please review the attached criteria and consider making a nomination. Please send all nominations to Tony Spicci at the address listed below. Nominations will be verified for eligibility by the Awards Subcommittee. Each nominee will be individually evaluated according to the award criteria. If a nominee is selected, the award will be made at the Midyear Meeting
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Best Regards,
-- Tony Spicci
Anthony A. Spicci Past President Delegate to COGO Conference Committee Chair National States Geographic Information Council 2105 Laurel Bush Road, Suite 200 Bel Air, MD 21015 P (443) 640-1075 F (443) 640-1031 Tony.Spicci@mdc.mo.gov
The following was submitted by Barney Krucoff, the GIS Director for the District of Columbia, Secretary to NSGIC's Board, and a member of the National Geospatial Advisory Committee (NGAC).
The National Geospatial Advisory Committee (NGAC) held its first meeting in April 2008, late in the life of the Bush administration. By the fall of 2008 most of the senior Bush political appointees had left their respective agencies and the government below the cabinet level entered a period in which many key positions were not filled. In such an environment, career employees are well able to keep the government running, but significant operational change is unlikely occur.
The December 2009 NGAC meeting was notable for the energy and direction provided by the Obama administration. Derek Douglas, Executive Office of the President, Xavier de Souza Briggs, Office of Management and Budget, and Andrew Jackson, Department of the Interior, each spoke to the committee. Another administration official, Vivek Kundra, had previously spoken to NGAC(PDF). Each has a very important job to do and must move with extraordinary speed.
Their priorities include:
Developing resilient communities
Developing effective place-based policies
Making the government more transparent
Ensuring that the Department of the Interior operates efficiently and shares its information
Geospatial data and technology is not on the priority list, but underlies each of these goals. The amount of high-level attention that geospatial will get depends on our communities' ability to quickly mobilize and meet the needs of an administration that is hungry for the data and analysis. In this light, the administration’s budget guidance, which calls of FGDC/Geospatial Line of Business to, “by April 1 … to provide recommendations to revise its governance structure, a 2012 business case and budget request for imagery for the nation and a modernization plan, including a target architecture of the geospatial platform” is perhaps the first and last opportunity to capture the imagination of the Obama administration by helping them do better what they are going to do with or without us.
Also notable from the December NGAC meeting: a serious push from USGS on LiDAR that leverages many of the “For The Nation” principles.
NSGIC leadership gathered via Google Wave to discuss data.gov and how it might help with NSGIC's effort to support a National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI). Out of those talks grew an idea:
Data.gov should become a nationally managed "access point" that provides a mechanism for all levels of government to participate or integrate with, thus creating a single location for citizens to access government data.
This idea matches NSGIC's vision for the NSDI; a nationwide collection of geospatial data that originates in local, county and state agencies and is aggregated up to the national level. It is an approach that counts on a national effort to develop and promote data standards and to manage the integration of data from all levels of government.
"Nearly 30 of us tossed around a number of ideas and ultimately chose this as NSGIC's official submission," explained NSGIC President Will Craig (Minnesota). "I will ask the full membership to consider this idea within the context of the Evolving Data.Gov site. I hope to see other ideas submitted by NSGIC members as well."
The NGO mapping organization MapAction earlier this year published a Field Guide to Humanitarian Mapping (PDF) that sets out to provide "a comprehensive manual to selecting and using free and open source GIS and other software for humanitarian operations."
MapAction, based in the UK, describes itself as "the only non-governmental organisation (NGO) with a substantial track record in field mapping for disaster emergencies." It explains its purpose this way:
Before an aid agency can respond to a disaster, their first need is for...information. Where are the affected people? Where are the relief resources? Who is doing what already?
MapAction delivers that vital information in the form of maps, created from information gathered at the disaster scene. By conveying a 'shared operational picture', our maps play a crucial role in delivering humanitarian aid to the right place, quickly.
The Field Guide to Humanitarian Mapping includes basic introductions to GIS mapping and to the use of GPS to collect data. It also offers detailed tutorials on using free and/or open source tools such as Google Earth and MapWindow to create and manage GIS data and maps for humanitarian response efforts.
California GIO (and NSGIC Board Member) Michael Byrne has announced that his state's Emergency Management Agency has awarded the Office of the State Chief Information Officer a $1 million dollar grant to develop an enterprise geocoding service.
Mr. Bryne announced the grant award on California's The Tech Blog, calling it "another milestone in geospatial information for California." He notes that the grant will not only bring all state emergency response comand centers to a common operating picture for the state, but will also help save money for the state:
By setting up a comprehensive enterprise service, we ensure all state agencies which maintain address data will be able to use this service. Having these agencies use this single comprehensive service means for the first time there will be a common understanding of mapping addresses in the state. We will ensure that addresses in every state agency are mapped with the same standards and methods providing a common approach and bridging the cap of our state silos.
The Obama administration is continuing the e-government and line-of-business initiatives of the Bush administration. This includes the Geospatial Line of Business and other initiatives important to the geospatial community.
A recent article in Federal News Radio presents information from internal documents they obtained from the federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB). EXCLUSIVE: OMB guidance sets technology tone for 2010, beyond quotes pleasantly surprised federal officials who are accustomed to seeing good ideas discarded when a new administration takes command.
Here is a critical quote from the article:
By April 1, the Geospatial Line of Business program management office will provide recommendations to revise its governance structure, a 2012 business case and budget request for imagery for the nation and a modernization plan, including a target architecture of the geospatial platform.
Recently, Puerto Rico GIS Coordinator Iván Santiago posted a question to the NSGIC listserv seeking information from others on ESRI's Enterprise License Agreements (ELAs). What follows is his summary of the responses he received.
The original question was:
I’d like to know if somebody has information about states involved in global licensing agreements with ESRI, especially in terms of savings. The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is in the process of evaluating an ESRI global licensing agreement. If someone can share savings/expenditure information, that will be very much appreciated.
Six out of the 18 states that shared their experiences have an active, signed ELA or are in the process of renegotiating one with ESRI. Two states with ELAs can show detailed savings and cost-recovery mechanisms. Their experience with their respective ELAs has been positive.
What factors made for a successful ELA?
Firm control over licensing.
Administrative cost recovery by charging other agencies by the usage of the software.
Dedicated administrative structure for ELA management. This may involve licensing and training registration management, technical support (at least at level [tier] 1). Technical support might involve a number of public employees to help with installation, GIS analysis and cartographic issues, server and database technologies, and programming.
Help developing geospatial technologies in their state agencies by reducing initial costs.
Virtual Campus: Their experience showed this is a good resource.
Success story #1:
Centralized license server with script and logging usage to charge agencies
Cost recovery through imposing fees to agencies using licensing and help desk services
Dedicate structure to manage ELA at the agency
Virtual Campus: advantageous
Success story #2:
Good organizational structure to manage licensing, passing costs to agencies and cost recovery
Advice: involve financial people
Advice: Define your needs/goals before begin negotiations
Cautionary tale #1:
Have ELA, but the state needs to reduce costs
Agency Point of Contact assumes administrative costs
Dedicated personnel to manage licensing, customer service, server architecture, programming
Other agencies were saving money
Difficulties in record keeping
Cautionary tale #2:
Advice: Figure out what has been spent, now and projected over the next few years
Work with your key agencies: “Big 7” or big players, Don’t meet with ESRI until you figure out what you need in an ELA
If ESRI offers a proposal, assume that [al]most everything is negotiable, Be patient
Education Agreement Program: ambiguous in terms of administration
Some reasons that ELAs were not adopted:
Administrative burden, which is also related to the lack of organizational structure
Perceived increased costs after initial period of agreement
The fear of unleashing unlimited licensing
Economic constraints and cost savings not showing during the negotiations
Satisfaction with existing Master Purchase Agreements
Some respondents (lead by Danielle Ayan [GA] and Michael Smith [ME]) discussed the advantages of the ELA, both to ESRI and to state and territorial governments.
Advantages for ESRI:
Ease administrative burden of licensing and maintenance accounts, all on varying time schedules
Reduce number of calls to support center
Encourage GIS adoption by many agencies, which is expected to lead to increased sales in the future
Encourage GIS adoption through unlimited access to needed software
Help increase the use of geospatial technologies in their state, not just looking at it as a simple accounting exercise
Ease the procurement burden in acquiring software
Remove the high cost of starting out with the GIS software
Increase access to online training
Cost savings to the state
In general, an ELA is a good idea if the agency that will be the point of contact with ESRI has the personnel to deal with the administrative and technical support issues.
As Michael Smith put it, there are some other considerations that are not simply measured in dollars and cents. One of the main goals of this kind of agreement is to help disseminate geospatial technologies in government.
Once state employees know these technologies, a new level can be raised in which the state can explore new solutions, like open source and/or hybrid solutions made up of commercial and open-source tools.
Has anybody taken a good glance at the USA Spending IT Dashboard and noticed the difference a word can make? “Investment”
I pulled up the “IT Dashboard” to try to figure out what it was telling me about US government and the new administration has decided to show us how much they are spending and where the money is going. But rather than call it spending as the site domain says, they have listed it as investments.
As a citizen – I don’t want to see any of my investments in red. (note the change in my language to “my investments”)
DOA (Agriculture) has an investment Geographic Information Services (GIS) #84 (Yellow, 4.7). An immediate red flag on the investment is because it is late and not rated by the CIO. Further investigation and several indicators (all 28) were not rated. This has the potential to make the Prime Contractor look bad (our sponsors).
If I don’t like this rating I can contact the Agency CIO by email, phone or snail mail.
Looking at this further, I think this is in part NAIP contracts and I’m sure we have a bunch of angry citizens if the NAIP imagery program is getting poor ratings. According to the site this investment “needs attention.”
What does NSGIC have to say about this GIS “investment”?
Big kudos to the Obama administration to get me thinking about my government and its spending as an investment.
Past-president Learon Dalby is the guest on a Directions Magazine Podcast with Adena Schutzberg. The interview -- a "Hallway Conversation" -- was recorded in late October. Ms. Schutzberg has noted in the past that some of the most important conversations that happen at professional conferences are the ones that take place on the side, or out in the hallway. She's started trying to model that aspect of conferences in her podcasts.
This hallway conversation is a review of issues discussed at the 2009 NSGIC Annual Conference. Among the subjects covered are the growing use of social media, crowd-sourcing of data, broadband mapping, parcels on Google Maps, governance of the NSDI, and the NSGIC Advocacy Agenda.
