Transcript GIS Strategic Plan Final Version Presented to Federal Geographic Data Committee

Slide 1
NSDI Cooperative Agreement Program:
GIS Strategic Plan
Final Version
Presented to Federal Geographic Data Committee
March 3, 2008
Slide 2
The DC GIS Strategic Plan
Final Version
Presented by:
Barney Krucoff
Many Slides and Template by:
Slide 3
National Context
 National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI)
 Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) &
National States Geographic Information Council
(NSGIC) “Fifty States Initiative”
 Cooperative Assistance Program (CAP) Grant Support
 GIS Strategic Planning and Business Planning Guidance
 Lessons Learned From Other CAP Grant Recipients
Slide 4
District of Columbia (we have it easy)
 Basic Facts
 Capital of the United
States
 68.7 square miles /
177.4 square
kilometers
 581,000 residents
 1,000,000+ day time
population
This isn’t New
York, NY. If
you (NSDI)
can’t make it,
here you can’t
make anywhere!
 State
 City
 County
3
Slide 5
GIS Strategic & Business Planning Process:
Project Background
Outreach to stakeholders was a key part of the
process, to gather input and support for a
collaborative District-wide effort
 DC Agencies
 Independent DC Agencies
 Federal Agencies
 Academic Institutions
 Private Sector
 Nonprofits
 Citizens
Slide 6
Strategic Planning Process: Overview
Followed the guidance and used the templates published by FGDC&NSGIC: key steps:

Stakeholder workshops -- in December 2007 and one in March 2008 (over 40 people
attended each one)

GISSC meeting presentations and feedback – at project outset in September 2007,
more recently in June 2008, and again today (October 6, 2008)

Departmental and stakeholder interviews, and scheduled teleconferences –
January 208 – July 2008

On-line survey questionnaire – conducted in May 2008 (15 comprehensive
responses to over 50 questions)

Ad hoc meetings and telecommunications – throughout the project performance
period (September 2007 – July 2008)

Strategic Plan Working Group (SPWG) sessions -- one in January 2008 and one in
June 2008

Document review and topical research (e.g. data profiling and analysis of the DC
GIS Data Catalog)—throughout project (September 2007-July 2008)

Iteration on draft documents -- first, second, and final drafts (with interim drafts on
parts of the plan documents)
Slide 7
DC GIS Program Background
Slide 8
DC GIS vs. FGDC Criteria
1. A full-time, paid coordinator position is designated and has the
authority to implement the state’s business and strategic plans.
2. A clearly defined authority exists for statewide coordination of
geospatial information technologies and data production.
3. The statewide coordination office has a formal relationship
with the state’s Chief Information Office (CIO).
4. A champion (politician or executive decision-maker) is aware
and involved in the process of geospatial coordination.
5. Responsibilities for developing the National Spatial Data
Infrastructure (NSDI) and a State Clearinghouse are assigned.
6. The ability exists to work and coordinate with local
governments, academia, and the private sector.
MEETS
MEETS
MEETS
TO BE REAFIRMED BY
MAYOR’S ORDER
MEETS
PARTIALLY MEETS
7. Sustainable funding sources exist to meet project needs.
MEETS
8. GIS Coordinators have the authority to enter into contracts
and become capable of receiving and expending funds.
MEETS
9. The Federal government works through the statewide
coordinating authority.
PARTIALLY MEETS
Slide 9
DC GIS Data Status
NSDI Framework Layer
DC GIS Status
Cadastral (parcels)
Political Boundaries
Published (except for federal
land)
Published
Hydrography
Published (cartographic)
Imagery
Published
Elevation
Published (not current –circa
1995)
Published
Transportation (Air, Roads, Inland
Waterways, Rail, Transit)
Geodetic control
Published (needs improvement)
Slide 10
DC GIS Federated Data Model: Endorsed by the
Planning Process
Federation: “A group of various bodies or
parties that have united to achieve
a common goal”

The Outer Rim




The Center





Front line agencies
Federation Participants
Specific dataset responsibility
GIS Steering Committee
OCTO GIS Staff
Hosting data and services
One Stop Geospatial Stop
The Standards Connect



Adherence is federation membership
responsibility
Support efficient distribution
Enable common shared tasks
Slide 11
What was requested from NPS and why
WHAT
DC has requested
NPS’s most rigorous
property boundary data.
WHY
The red line (DC
property map) and green
line (NPS park
boundary) should be
coincident.
This happens all over
town and is important to
many DC agencies.
Business is slowed
including: permitting,
school renovations,
parks & recreation,
economic development,
and planning.
The NPS has new data
that should be more
accurate than the green
line, but has refused to
provide it to DC.
3
History of Request for Property Boundaries
Slide 12
1. For over a year DC Office of Planning then DC Office of the Chief
Technology Officer attempted to obtain the new NPS property data prepared
with tax payer funds. NPS-NCR would not provide the data unless DC
would:
- not share the data with contractors;
- waive fees for the Recorder of Deeds and the Office of Surveyor
- sign an agreement in perpetuity (not allowed by law).
2. May 10, 2006: OCTO filed FOIA Request No. 2006-00473 with NPS-NCR.
3. May 25: NPS-NCR replied, promising to respond within 20 business days.
4. July 10: After no action by NPS-NCR for over 20 business days, OCTO sent
a follow-up letter to NPS-NCR.
5. July 24: After 51 business days NPS-NCR denied OCTO’s request for a fee
wavier, but offered to provide the requested data for $2,450.
6. August 2: OCTO agreed to pay the $2,450.
7. September 5: After 70 business days, NPS-NCR reversed its position “upon
reflection” and denied the request based on FOIA exemptions 2 and 5.
8. September 28: DC filed FIOA appeal 2006-214 with the US Department of
Interior.
9. Interior is required to process the appeal within 20 business days. The
appeal is still pending.
10. Assistant Secretary of Interior, Thomas Weimer, was briefed on this matter
in October 2006 and February 15, 2007.
11. February 2008, Interior finally ruled on our appeal. We got some of what
we wanted, but not the vector data or the metadata.
3
DC GIS Program Weaknesses
Slide 13
 The Mayor’s Order that established the GISSC is not fully implemented,
and the governance model is not satisfactory to all members, and
turnover amongst those who participate is high
 Data gaps exist for a few key themes, such as utilities, federal
properties, and high-resolution elevation data in the District
 There is a “broken partnership” with components of the National Park
Service (NPS) responsible for property data
 Data sharing in the Metro Washington area is not consistently practiced
by neighboring jurisdictions, which is an impediment to emergency
services having a Common Operating Picture (COP) based on the
same data; while this is not a DC GIS Program issue, it is a regional
deficiency of concern to the FGDC in terms of NSDI development and
homeland security situation awareness
 Members of the GISSC have been mostly passive on strategic matters
 While there is some key support at high-levels, much of DC executive
leadership is lacking in knowledge of GIS and its problem-solving
applications
 User demand and utilization statistics are lacking for DC GIS
applications and Web services
Slide 14
Results of Plan
Slide 15
Strategic Planning Results: Refined Mission
Statement
Old Mission Statement
 The Mission of the DC Geographic Information System (DC GIS) is to
improve the quality and lower the cost of services provided by the DC
Government through the effective application of geospatial technology.
New Mission Statement
 The Mission of DC Geographic Information System (DC GIS)
is to improve the quality and lower the cost of services
provided by the DC Government, through the District’s
collective investment and effective application of geospatial
data and systems. Furthermore, DC GIS will reach beyond the
DC Government by continuing to make DC GIS data freely
and publicly available to the fullest extent possible in
consideration of privacy and security.
Slide 16
Strategic Planning Results: Goals

The planning process resulted in six long-term (five- year) goals to
achieve continued success and improvements, as listed below:
1. Ensure that state and local needs are met by focusing resources on
geospatial data, systems, and program activities that are in
alignment with District priorities
2. Develop and operate enterprise mapping data, geospatial
applications, and Web services that enhance the utility, reduce the
cost, and expand the interoperability of citywide and agency IT
systems
3. Provide outstanding customer service and training that enable DC
GIS users and stakeholders to leverage the full power of GIS
technology
4. Sustain and improve GIS coordination and partnerships in the
District of Columbia, the region, and the nation
5. Be innovative and adapt to the changing market for geospatial
technology
6. Apply GIS in ways that increase revenue and reduce costs for the
District
Slide 17
Action Plan / Improved Governance
I. OCTO will:
 Seek endorsement of Mayors Order 2002-27 from the current Mayor, Adrian M.
Fenty, after refinements as necessary
 Convene an Expanded Executive Board for the GISSC, chaired by OCTO and made
up of senior representatives of the current permanent members (Office of the Chief
Technology Officer, District Department of Transportation, Office of Planning, and the
Office of the City Administrator) plus:
Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs
Office of Tax and Revenue
District Department of the Environment
Office of Unified Communications
Fire and Emergency Medical Services
Office of Zoning
Homeland Security and Emergency Mgt. Agency
Water and Sewer Authority
Metropolitan Police Department
United States Geological Survey
Office of Deputy Mayor for Planning and Econ. Devel.
Department of Public Works
Department of Health
Schedule an official “GISSC Annual Budget Meeting” for September of each
year to review the past year’s spending, and the DC GIS Business Plan’s spending
plan for the year ahead

Slide 18
Strategic Planning Results: Action Plan (cont’d)
II. The GISSC Executive Board will:
 Conduct a vote amongst the Executive Board to endorse and
adopt this Strategic Plan as a guide to the continuing operations
of DC GIS and GISSC governance reform, including by
reference the official adoption of the DC Government Federated
Geospatial Data Model and associated best practices
 Develop Bylaws for the governance of GISSC
III. The Full GISSC will:
 Meet at least quarterly
 Be open to all; including federal agencies, universities, non-profit
organizations, private sector users, and geospatial vendors
 Serve as a forum for the exchange of information and ideas
 Provide advice to the GISSC Executive Board and to OCTO
 Adopt GIS technical standards
Slide 19
Strategic Plan: Measuring Success
 The long-term programmatic goals articulated in this
Strategic Plan will be reviewed annually by the
GISSC Executive Board (as proposed by this plan)
to determine their enduring relevance to the overall
DC GIS Program
 The short-term action items and spending will be
reviewed at the GISSC Annual Budget Meeting in
September of each year (proposed in this plan)
Slide 20
Feedback / Suggestions for FGDC
Slide 21
Feedback on 50+ States Initiative
 What are the CAP Program strengths and
weaknesses? The combination federal funding (FGDC)
and involvement (USGS) give credibility to the planning
process. Weakness is the small amount of funding
compared with other federal programs.
 Was the assistance you received sufficient or
effective? Yes, the Federal Geographic Data
Committee and the District’s United States Geological
Survey liaison were an important and constructive part
of the planning process.
 Bottom line FGDC bought a stronger partner!
Slide 22
Looking to the Future FGDC & NSGIC Criteria
 Current criteria is at the program management level
 Future criteria should be more specific and go further:
 Data: Does the state/federal partnership have framework+
themes developed, maintained, distributed? This assume
there is an active Federal partner/program in place.
 Systems/Clearinghouse: Is data and metadata available
as OGC Compliant Web Services?
 Coordination: Is geospatial included in the these specific
initiatives: (give a long list of how states and locals should
be working with you)
• DHS • DOT
• EPA
• DOI • DHS/CDC • Census
• NOAA
• DOA
Slide 23
Discussion
Slide 24
Thank you!