Upload
kimberly-atkinson
View
215
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Compass Points:Compass Points:
Setting a Direction for Minnesota’s GIS FutureSetting a Direction for Minnesota’s GIS Future
A New Strategic Plan for Minnesota
David Arbeit Fred Logman
MN Governor’s Council on Geographic InformationMarch 21, 2007
Overview
• Our Foundation for Strategic Planning
• Strategic Planning Retreat
• For the Council’s Consideration
Compass Points:Compass Points:
Setting a Direction for Minnesota’s GIS FutureSetting a Direction for Minnesota’s GIS Future
• 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
Building on decades of informal collaboration, Minnesota’s GIS Building on decades of informal collaboration, Minnesota’s GIS community now needs to collaborate on a strategy that will bring community now needs to collaborate on a strategy that will bring the benefits of GIS to the entire state.the benefits of GIS to the entire state.
Foundation for Coordinated GISFoundation for Coordinated GIS
A Foundation for Coordinated GISA Foundation for Coordinated GISMinnesota’s Spatial Data InfrastructureMinnesota’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 GISA Foundation for Coordinated GISMinnesota’s Spatial Data InfrastructureMinnesota’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 GISA Foundation for Coordinated GISMinnesota’s Spatial Data InfrastructureMinnesota’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 CouncilNational States Geographic Information CouncilCoordination Criteria Coordination Criteria
www.nsgic.org
A 2005 study revealed that A 2005 study revealed that Minnesota had recently Minnesota had recently regressed and was lacking regressed and was lacking some important criteria for some important criteria for success!success!
National States Geographic Information CouncilNational States Geographic Information Council9 Coordination Criteria9 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 CouncilNational States Geographic Information Council9 Coordination Criteria9 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 CouncilNational States Geographic Information Council9 Coordination Criteria9 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:Compass Points: Setting a Direction for Minnesota’s GIS FutureSetting a Direction for Minnesota’s GIS Future
The Minnesota Information and Telecommunications Systems and Services
Master Plan
February 28, 2007
Purpose of MasterPurpose of Master PlanningPlanning
• 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: The Minnesota Enterprise Blueprint: A Federated ModelA 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 IT Service Types
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.
Shared Service
Services and applications required by more than one enterprise partner, and managed by one entity to improve service and efficiency.
Agency- Specific Services
Applications and services of a highly specialized nature for which there are no opportunities to add value through central management.
OET’s Interest in GIS?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 How mightmight Shared Services Shared Services Work for GIS?Work for GIS?
Infrastructure (and hosting?) at OET
Common applications and tools
Baseline map info, standards and general data
Specialized applications and thematic data
COECOE
AgencyAgency
UtilityUtility
Moving Forward:Moving Forward:We Need a Better Road Map!We Need a Better Road Map!
Now What?
Compass Points:Compass Points:
Setting a Direction for Minnesota’s GIS FutureSetting 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
• 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:Next Step:A Strategic Planning RetreatA 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)
Next Step:Next Step:A Strategic Planning RetreatA Strategic Planning Retreat
Our VisionOur Vision
Minnesota is a national leader for the Coordinated, Minnesota is a national leader for the Coordinated, Affordable, Reliable, and Effective use of GIS technology to Affordable, Reliable, and Effective use of GIS technology to enhance services throughout the state.enhance services throughout the state.
Minnesota’s GIS technology and data organizational and Minnesota’s GIS technology and data organizational and operational infrastructures and resources will support the operational infrastructures and resources will support the development and use of geospatially-enabled business development and use of geospatially-enabled business applications that enhance the efficiency, effectiveness and applications that enhance the efficiency, effectiveness and economic competitiveness of public, private and non-profit economic competitiveness of public, private and non-profit organizations serving the people of Minnesota.organizations serving the people of Minnesota.
Retreat PurposeRetreat Purpose
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.
Identify and develop strategies for achieving the vision of Identify and develop strategies for achieving the vision of coordinated GIS within Minnesota. coordinated GIS within Minnesota.
Retreat OutcomesRetreat Outcomes
Results will help shape a Strategic Plan for
Identify and develop strategies for achieving the vision of Identify and develop strategies for achieving the vision of coordinated GIS within Minnesota.coordinated GIS within Minnesota.
Retreat Process DesignRetreat 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 DesignRetreat Process Design
Compile Solutions(All Participants)
Issue Analysis(Small Groups)
Provides 5 or 6 Sets of Issues
Solution Identifiction(Small Groups)
Provides Complete Set of Solutions
Compile Issues(All Participants)
Organization(Small Groups/All)
Recommendations
Resources(Small Groups/All)
Funding Models
Provides Complete Set of Issues
Organizational Options
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
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
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.
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.
Issue Analysis· Each group discusses initial issues, organized by category.· Group adds related issue/problem statements.· Similar statements are combined, as needed.
Organization· Identify organizational options for state GIS functions. · Identify Roles, Responsibilities & Relationships for each
option.
RecommendationsIdentify 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.
STRATEGIC GIS PLAN PROCESSMarch 15, 2007
Guidance for Strategy
Provides 5 or 6 Sets of Solutions
Introduction/Background(All Participants)
All Participants· Welcomes and Introductions· Purpose and Format of Retreat· History and Context· Vision/Issues/Solutions from Foundations & OET Master Plan· Validation
Produces Common Foundation
Review & Next Steps
Participant Survey before retreat to Participant Survey before retreat to identify current strengths and key issuesidentify current strengths and key issues
SWOTStart with SWOT exerciseStart with SWOT exerciseStrengths, Weaknesses, Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, ThreatsOpportunities, Threats
Consider adjustments Consider adjustments to to stop at this point.to to stop at this point.
Initial Project MilestonesInitial Project Milestones
DATE MILESTONE
November 17 Core group confirmed
December 1 First core group meeting
December 8 Workshop attendees invited
December 15 Second core group meeting
December 22 Send pre-workshop materials to attendees
January 5 Final core group meeting
January 12 Workshop
January 16 Post-workshop survey
January 22 Debriefing with core group
January 26 Final workshop report
Draft ScheduleDraft ScheduleDATE MILESTONE
January 23 Core group confirmed
February 2 First core group meeting
Mid to Late April Workshop attendees invited
February 23 Second core group meeting
Mid June Send pre-workshop materials to attendees
Mid June Final core group meeting
Late June Workshop
Late June Post-workshop survey
Late June Debriefing with core group
Early July Final workshop report
For the Council’s Consideration For the Council’s Consideration
Endorsement is requested for Vision Statement
Feedback is requested for
• Retreat Name
• Retreat Purpose
• Project Plan
Council review and endorsement is important to project success.Council review and endorsement is important to project success.