|
Dr. John Bryson and Charles Finn with the Humphrey Institute at the University of Minnesota facilitated this
one day session that began at 8:30 a.m. on December 14, 1995. It was held at the Wilder Forest Conference facility,
located northwest of Stillwater. A list of the participants is attached.
The first item of business involved discussion and modification of a preliminary list of Metro Area GIS
stakeholders. Several modifications were agreed upon. The group was then asked to begin a "concept-mapping" process --
the objective being to identify of goals, strategic issues, tasks, and priorities necessary to create a MetroGIS.
(Note: A detailed summary of the expectations, time commitment, and procedure used to facilitate for each step of the
concept-mapping process will be include in the documentation of the entire strategic planning process.)
The process began with discussion of a "starter pack" of goal and issue statements. These statements had been
prepared by the Metropolitan Council GIS staff to incorporate comments received during previous discussions with
stakeholders and from the GIS Forums held in October into the discussion. The participants accepted each of the
"starter pack" statements and decided how they related to one another. (Each statement was written on a yellow oval and
placed on a large sheet of paper attached to a wall and grouped by common themes.) The consensus of the group was that
these statements could be assigned to three broad planning themes -- governance, system management, and data content.
Numerous other goal and issue statements were then added by the participants under each of the three theme areas.
After lunch, the participants broke into three groups of six persons; each randomly assigned to refine one of
three theme areas of goals and issues created by the larger group. Members of the smaller groups added additional
action items and goal statements that they believed necessary for a successful effort. The smaller groups also drew
arrows to identify "influence" relationships between the various component strategies and action items. The smaller
groups then reconvened as a large group to explain and discuss the detail and connectivity that had been added to the
concept-map structure.
The entire group then reevaluated the high level goals that it believed should guide the development of the
MetroGIS. It was agreed that the ultimate goal should be to create a system that helps each participant organization
cost-effectively achieve its mission -- "promote effective, responsive, and efficient operations". Four other high
order supporting goals were added to link the three major themes of governance, system management, and data content: a)
reduce the cost of governance and provide improved service, b) support better decision making for (MetroGIS)
participants, c) support better relationships among participants, and d) promote new definition of community:
independent to interdependent and competitive to cooperative.
There was some discussion about listing specific objectives, such as "enhancing economic development" or
"being more responsive to regional issues". Several participants expressed concern that including one such objective
would require the naming of numerous other laudable objectives. It was decided that a single goal -- to help
stakeholders achieve their various missions -- would be the best way to remain focused.
The final activity of the December 14, 1995, strategic planning retreat required each participant to "vote"
for the concepts that they believed to be critical to successful implementation of the MetroGIS. Each participant was
given five green dots to illustrate their short-term priorities (completed in one year or less) and five orange dots
for their long term high priority concepts. The priority ranking exercise concluded at 5:15 p.m.
The group agreed to reconvene to decide and prioritize the "next steps" to pursue for the MetroGIS project.
Metropolitan Council staff agreed to prepare a report to summarize the results of this retreat for the "next steps"
discussion. The session adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
Prepared by Randall Johnson, AICP, GIS Liaison
MetroGIS - Identified Stakeholder Interests
December 15, 1995
I. Public Organizations:
a. Federal Agencies
Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly SCS)
US Army Corps of Engineers
US Fish and Wildlife
Service
Geological Survey
FAA
Postal Service
HUD
EPA
Commerce (Census)
FEMA
National Park
Service
National Geodetic Survey
b. State Agencies
MnDOT
DNR
PCA
LMIC
Agriculture
Governor's Council on GIS
Public Service (Energy
Agency)
Public Utilities Commission
BOWSR
Legislature (LCMR)
EQB
Health
MN Geological
Survey
Public Safety
Economic Security
Human Services
Demographers Office
c. Universities/Colleges
U of M (Geography, Remote Sensing Lab, CURA)
St. Thomas
Macalester
Stakeholder Interests
d. Regional
Metropolitan Council (Transit, Environmental Services, and Research/Planning)
Mosquito Control
Airports
Commission
Sports Commission
Parks Commission
e. Counties (surveyor, assessor, public works, planning, MIS, law enforcement/911, public
health/social services, libraries, health care, parks, and environmental)
f. Watershed Districts/Water Management Organizations
g. School Districts (pupil census and transportation)
h. Soil Conservation Districts
i. Cities/Townships (MCD’s) (community development, public works/engineering, assessor,
MIS, police, fire, utilities, and libraries)
Mpls/St.Paul
Suburban
Rural
j. Tribal Councils
II. Non Profit Organizations (United Way, Urban Coalition, Wilder Research, and Neighborhood/Community-based
groups)
III. Private-Sector/Business Geographics Interests (distribution, marketing, routing, and
site planning functions):
a. Utilities (gas, electric, telephone, cable)
b. Media (television and print)
c. Transportation (trucking, rail, buses, taxis)
d. Banks
e. Consultants (Engineering, Surveying, Planning, GIS)
f. Real Estate (multiple listing service)
g. Chamber of Commerce
Concept Mapping for Strategic Planning - Process Outline
1. Confirm Stakeholder List
Objective: Insure all key stakeholders have been identified
Time: 30 min.
Process: - Introductions of those present
Define the word "stakeholder"
Show pre-made lists of stakeholders and ask "who is missing from this list?"
Optional: Identify who the "inner ring" stakeholders are
2. Identify Candidate Goals and Key Actions
Objective: To brainstorm all possible goals and key actions for the project
Time: 2 hours
Process: - Introduce participants to oval mapping process
Optional: jump-start the process with potential goals from respected literature related to the topic
Provide participants with stack of ovals and "blue tack"
Participants write ideas for goals on the ovals (use red markers for goals)
Facilitators post ovals and begin to cluster ideas as soon as it seems possible. Most abstract and general
ideas/goals are posted on the top of the map while more specific and detailed ideas are put further down on the map.
Tell the group that later in the day they will refine the hierarchy and draw inter-connections.
Have participants switch to black markers as the ideas become more detailed
Facilitators may need to push participants thinking to the upper part of the map. Ask, "Can we go one level
higher?"
Get 300-400 ideas out there if need be.
Once ideas are all out provide an overview of the process for this strategy workshop. Make the following
points:
* Typically public policy strategy is to simplify which often results in over-simplification. This mapping
process lets the issue be as complex as it is. "Things should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." Albert
Einstein
* It is not possible to change someone else’s view. Help another to elaborate enough on their own view so
they change their own mind and so some kind of shared understanding is possible. Common ground is found in the areas
where our interest intersect
3. Create Main Clusters and Small Groups
Objective: Find the 3-5 natural clusters within the goals/ideas and create small groups for each cluster.
Time: 1 hr., 45 min.
Process: - Optional: Add ideas (ovals) that were created during previous sessions
Ask: "Are there clusters that have emerged from these ideas?" Do some of the ovals need to be moved?"
Once the facilitator has determined an area where a line should be drawn to separate into cluster, read out
loud the ovals along the border to achieve consensus about which cluster those ovals belong to.
Draw the border lines in pencil in case you need to move them.
Separate the group into small groups assigned to each cluster in whichever way seems most appropriate
Give instructions for small group work: 1) pull ovals apart on your map surface 2) sub-cluster the ovals 3)
eliminate the duplicates, but
keep two similar items if there is a slight difference 4) draw inter- connections with arrows (use pencils).
First find the most vague and draw an arrow out to the oval that is a possible outcome of that action. Look for arrows
to go only one way. If it looks like it should go two ways, something is probably missing. Create loops only if they
are necessary 5) Feel free to add ovals that seem to be missing as you cluster
4. Small Groups Complete Their Work
Objective: Create a map for each cluster
Time: 1 hour or more
Process: - Cut the backdrop paper apart around the clusters and spread the cluster maps around the room so
small groups have enough room to work
Ask the small group members to gather around their map and begin their work. Participants will need to be
standing and actively moving ovals on their maps.
Facilitator monitors each group to confirm understanding of the process and to be sure small groups are on the
right track
5. Plenary
Objective: Small groups present their maps to the large group and cluster map interconnections are made
Time: 45 min
Process: - One member from each group presents the map to the large group
After the presentations the facilitator helps the group identify where the maps interconnect.
6. Identify Key Strategic Issues
Objective: Review maps to identify the strategic issues and connect them to the goals
Time: 45 min
Process: - Either have the small groups or the large group examine the maps to help locate the strategic
issues. Strategic issues are those that are fundamental challenges, involve long-term commitments and would be
irrevocable commitments.
Label the ovals that represent strategic issues with a blue sticky dot. - Make a duplicate oval of this item
Take these ovals to the goals that were identified in the first morning session and map their interconnections
on a clean backdrop
7. Identify the key short and long-term priorities
Objective: Participants identify short and long-term priorities
Time: 20 min
Process: - Give each participant 5 green dots (short-term) and 5 orange dots (long- term)
Have the participants look at all the cluster maps and "vote" for the 5 highest priority short-term actions
with the green dots and the 5 highest priority long-term actions with the orange dots
As a large group, look at the results of the voting. Ask if there are any surprises or observations the
participants want to share.
8. Action Planning and Closing
Objective: To determine next-step actions and close the session
Time: 30-45 min
Process: - Ask the group what they want to have happen next. In what form would they like to see the map
results? What actions should the planning session sponsors take? What actions should the participants take?
Lead the group in a reflection of the day by asking some key questions.
Attendees
Facilitators - John Bryson and Charles Finn, Humphrey Institute-University of Minnesota
Federal - Michael Domaratz (US Geological Survey and the Federal Geographic Data Committee's, National Spatial
Data Infrastructure [NSDI] project. The NSDI project is in process of developing guidelines and strategies to promote
multi-participant GIS throughout the nation)
State - David Arbeit, Minnesota Land Management Information Center (LMIC)
Metropolitan - Richard Johnson and Rick Gelbmann, Metropolitan Council (MetroGIS Sponsor)
Counties
- Dakota - Gary Stevenson (surveyor, urban/rural, leader in partnered GIS)
- Ramsey - David Claypool (surveyor, urban, leader GPS/GIS, leader partnered GIS)
- Carver - Dave Drealan (planner, mostly rural, beginning GIS)
- Anoka - Margo LaBau (manager - oversees GIS and surveying functions)
- Hennepin - Pat O'Connor (auditor - oversees taxation and surveying and involved in the redesign of the
County GIS
Cities
- Brad Henry, City of Minneapolis (core city & city engineering)
- Dennis Welsch, City of Roseville (suburban city & city planning)
Watersheds - Cliff Aichinger, Ramsey-Metro-Washington Watershed District
Academic
- Clark Evans, Minnetonka School District (Implemented GIS for school census/transportation/etc.)
- Jim Sydow, Director of Technology - TIES (Developing new Oracle data base to link school domicile records
with county parcel data)
- Will Craig, Center for Urban and Regional Affairs - University of Minnesota
Utilities - Alan Srock, NSP (MetroGIS Sponsor)
Multi-jurisdiction economic development - Scott Beckman, Dakota County Economic Development Partnership
(leading edge work to link city planning and county parcel data)
GIS consultant - John Carpenter, Insight Mapping & Demographic (multi- participant GIS, economic
development, school district, city, county issues)
Business Geographics - Tim Nuteson, Dayton Hudson Corporation
|
