Benefits > Studies

1998 Survey Comments

MetroGIS

Participant Satisfaction Survey

1996-1997

Comments Received

KEY

a - Policy Board
b - Coordinating Committee
c - Data Access Advisory Team (10/96 & 12/96)
d - Data Content Advisory team
e - Policy Advisory Team (6/97)
f - Standards Advisory Team
g - Business Info Needs Forum (9/96)
h - Business Object Modeling Workgroup
i - Jurisdictional Boundaries Workgroup
j - Address Workgroup (12/97)

Question #5

Please identify any other organizations, groups, and/or individuals MetroGIS should contact to invite participation and/or contribution to MetroGIS:

MetroGIS needs more city level involvement perhaps through GIS consultants that work for multiple cities. The consultants could relay information to individual cities and represent broad city data sharing issues. (b,c,d,g,h,i,j)

Other large metropolitan orgs should be made more clearly aware of this effort. There is a larger audience that could benefit from and possibly contribute to MetroGIS. (c,d,f,g,h,i,j)

Keep the group focused on primary issues. (g)

It was not a problem with identifying groups-it was a problem losing participation because the group (Data Content Team) wasted so much time and did not efficiently stay on task.(d)

More departments within cities/counties.(f)

Possibly Software companies such as Trapeze Software Group, Inc. (g,j)

Do not expand until we are farther along. (b,e,g,h)

Has MN Municipal board been included in project regarding jurisdictional boundaries?(i)

None. (b,g,h)

Organizational units within Metropolitan Council who could/should benefit from GIS technology. (f,g,h,i)

Health and Public Safety groups need to be more involved. (f,g,h,i)

None—too many already. (f)

Private sector need to be more involved/better represented. (b,g)

I think too much time is spent trying to get every entity involved. (b,c,f,g,h,i)

Even though MetroGIS is a "Local/regional/metropolitan effort, increased involvement by other state, federal and outstate local governments should be included for information and possible participation. (a,b,f,h)

More business or consultant involvement IE: NSP, Minnegasco, EMA, etc. (j)

Possibly software companies such as Trapeze Software Group Inc. (602-627-8400) (h,j)

GIS Professional at U of M (b,d,e,g,h,i)

Soil and Water Conservation Districts (a)

Question #8

What could the leadership (not staff) do to improve the services he/she/they provide to the group(s) you served on? (Please use examples and identify the individual)

In many cases additional time commitment and greater involvement in the advisory teams is needed. I don’t know how this happens since people have day jobs. Much of the leadership talent is concentrated in the Policy Team and Coordinating Committee. How do we spread these people around more? (b,c,d,g,h,i,j)

Always necessary is support and assistance in setting goals and boundaries. I’m never quite sure what leadership does with products of teams and workgroups—any explanation usually becomes quickly engulfed in organization and process mumbo-jumbo. (c,d,f,g,h,i,j)

Don’t see how services could be improved. (b,e)

Be more efficient and use committees to a greater degree. (b,d)

The group tends to lose focus (Coordinating Committee)—needs to be brought back. Some people are permitted to dominate sometimes with ideas/issues that are not relevant or are just plain goofy. (b,g,h)

More clarity on the objective and the product of each activity. (d,g,h,i)

Tighten up the structure IE: during the 12/97 address workgroup it appeared too much time was spent discussing definitions that had previously been discussed at length. (g,j)

Perhaps having more time to prepare, organize and follow through would result in more accomplished. (d,f,g,h)

Keep bureaucracy to minimum. Policy issues only to the Policy Board. Meet only when necessary. (b,e,g,h)

Stay focused—do not re-invent items. (b,g,h)

I feel the address workgroup needed to have more concrete task definition. (c,g,h,j)

I believe it’s adequate. Nothing more needed. (b,g)

Don’t hold things up so much. IE: Standards team finished address guidelines in spring of 1997. They still are not done because the Coordinating Committee took three months to put on agenda and then they wanted some vague idea of a letter on it. The Standards team is helpless. It’s out of our hands. This has frustrated many members who are not likely to volunteer their time again due to the treatment they have received. Leadership has to realize that teams are a finite resource of volunteers. We must capitalize on the effort they are able to give and accept that they cannot do everything one might hope for. We must reward their efforts by the actions of the CC and the leadership. (comment edited) (b,c,f,g,h,i)

As voluntary leaders, advisory teams will struggle in the future to maintain continued momentum, Are there incentives for the team leaders over the long term? (a,b,f,h)

Tighten up the structure—IE. During the 12/19 Address workgroup it appeared too much time was spent discussing definitions that has previously been discussed at length. (h,j)

Focus more on the true objective of the concept and spend less time creating bureaucratic layers to plow through. (b)

Question #12

How can the quantity and quality of support materials be improved? (Please use example to explain your suggestions.)

We do all get voluminous amounts of material. Summaries, matrices, etc. are always helpful. (b,c,d,g,h,j)

They are pretty good now. (f,g,h,i,j)

I’m not sure what you mean by support materials, but the sheer quantity of paper mailings is daunting. Prepare essential materials and put secondary or non-essentials on the web for reference. (c,d,g,h,i,j)

I believe support materials are sufficient. (b,d)

The quality of the support materials has been excellent. I can’t think of anything that needs to be improved. (b,g,h)

The support materials would be improved is they were less wordy—more concise. I’m a big proponent of more outline format and less narrative. (b,e)

I really like the way the material for the Coordinating Committee is assembled. That would helpful for teams also. For the teams—more options and pros and cons would be helpful for trying to make decisions. (b,g,h,i)

Possibly provide information on how information will be collected (and who collects it)and how users will access the info. Specifically, where will the info be made available, through local governments or through Met Council. (g,j)

Time available for me as participant is extremely limited. To get the most from my time support materials need to be top quality for maximum efficiency. (d,f,g,h)

Materials could be more comprehensive and forward looking. Difficult to get hands on big picture. (a)

Less. (b,g,h)

Too much detail to deal with. Need only the most pertinent info and summary level only. (f,g,h,i)

More electronic information. Quit killing the trees. (f)

If anything, too much detail is reported. (b,g)

Staff support and materials are overall very good. Technologically, we are not at a paperless stage yet. Web materials are very good and should continue as a support medium. (a,b,f,h)

Support materials are too lengthy. Staff has them selves bogged down. (b,e,g)

Possibly provide information on how info will be collected (and who collects it) and how users will access the info. Specifically, where will the info be made available---through local government or through Met Council. (h,j)

I’d be happy to have materials on the Web. I have a hard time keeping my materials organized. (b,d,e,g.h.i)

Support materials have been very complete. (a)

Question #13

What could staff do to improve the services he/she/they provide to the groups you served on? (Please use example to explain your suggestions.)

Staff was very supportive. (h)

What happened to the Standards Advisory Team? Is there room for collaboration with the Governor’s Council Info Standards Committee? (c,d,f,g,h,i,j)

I believe the staff has provided good support services. (b,d)

I dropped out of the Data Content team because nothing was accomplished at the meetings I attended. The meetings got off topic easily with one or two persons side railing discussions. (d)

The staff does a good job. ( c)

Sometimes we get mixed message from staff at meetings. They should get clarity on issues before they raise them with the group. Sometimes I get the impression staff already has their mind set on something then they ask our advice. (b,g,h,i)

During workgroups—make it clear to the group that they are not there to discuss philosophical questions – rather they are there to discuss and identify specific needs, etc. Possibly make workgroup objectives clearer. (g,j)

Have decision/action further developed before presenting them. Follow-up quickly. (d,f,g,h)

Get more focused on objectives. (f)

Stop worrying whether or not Met Council is driving activities too much. Your support and opinion is needed. The counties need to lighten up on this issue. It wastes our time. (b,g)

Make memos shorter and more to the point. (b,c,f,g,h,i)

All staff members are performing as required. (a,b,f,h)

Committee reports are somehow a little different than discussed. I’m not sure why or who may be influencing this process. Let’s go paperless. (b,e,g)

During workgroups—make it clear to the group that they are not there to discuss philosophical questions-rather they are here to identify specific needs, etc.. Possibly make workgroup objectives clearer. IE: 12/97 address workgroup spent too much time trying to re-define data elements. (h,j)

Staff has done all one could expect. (b)

Question #14

Are there any issues that you believe MetroGIS should have addressed by now and has not?

Expand photogrammetric feature. (Metro area). Updates or financial support. (j)

I thought there would be demands for data that would cause some pilot programs to move forward. (f,g,h,i,j,)

How do existing datasets get matched up to data needs? How does the work of info needs workgroups get translated into product? (c,d,f,g,h,i,j)

Need to define clear strategy to get rapid implementation of GIS in counties that are not up to speed. (b,e)

I believe that over time issues will come that MetroGIS will be good to participate in.(b,d)

How much is sharing really being facilitated? Connect with Governor’s Council work. We should work towards gaining efficiencies by working more closely together. (b,g,h,i)

I.R.I.S. system. (f)

Yes, from both persona; experience and in hearing from other government agencies, there is a problem with hiring and retaining good GIS people. The problem is a serious lack of standardization present in the metro area with job definitions, job requirements and salaries to justly support the GIS employee or others using GIS in their employment. The result has created delays in implementing and important cost saving technology, has restricted or reduced service efficiency, and ultimately has created higher costs for all involved. This is an area where MetroGIS could be providing a unique service not possible by other means—coordinate and support the welfare of the Human resource portion of GIS. The target audience is large and ranges from those responsible for the creation and hiring of GIS related personnel to those seeking to discover what is necessary to maintain or advance their own GIS skills. With the help of MetroGIS standing behind it most important resource, its people, those involved in making the administrative decisions to implement and use GIS can hear a unified voice and receive sound information on what is required to support this technology. Specific example of where MetroGIS can help are: Host workshops on human resource perspective, educate employers and employees on what is necessary to attract, hire and retain high quality people for their work with GIS technology. Coordinate a base set of standardized job descriptions by which others can use to modify for their specific conditions. Provide a paper and/or electronic forum for job openings and announcements. (d,f,g,h,i)

More dialogue and effort on long term structure and financial options. (a)

Communication of GIS’s advantages for governmental agencies. Clear discussion in lay person’s language of the benefits. (c,g,h,j)

Funding. Is MetroGIS a clearinghouse, warehouse or a functional Geographic Information System? (f)

Sometimes I believe we try to be precise/perfect. I believe it is better to get data available and define its quality/limitations etc. (b,g)

Most topics have been included. Timelines have stretched out some—not unexpectedly. (a,b,f,h)

Legitimize the organization as a legal entity. (b,e,g)

A central data center where companies can go to obtain without having to go to each individual county and city. (j)

Not really. (h,j)

We should be much farther into data content list. (b,d,e,g,h,i)

No. (d)

Too many issues—simplify—concentrate on long term funding and cooperative efforts. (b,g,h)

Are counties going to be able to use orthophotography (is it the right scale?), can future photo costs be coordinated? (g,h,j)

Question #15

What issues do you feel MetroGIS must address next year?

Data licensing both from data supplier and data user perspective. Completion of Metadata for all shared data. Funding. Staffing and levels of support—both technical and administrative. (b,c,d,g,h,i,j)

Expand support for GIS web browsing GIS datasets. Dynamic link to Web index. (j)

Data access. (f,g,h,i,j)

Future Funding. What is the timeline for additional info needs workgroup activities? How deep down the list of 87 will MetroGIS ultimately go? How will "Data Finder" interface with similar search applications built elsewhere? (c,d,f,g,h,i,j)

Need to follow-up on all programs and projects started. Expand on data base update assistance and guidance with funding and/or support. (b,d)

Implementation of Information Needs #’s 2 and 5. (b,g,h)

Access issues—I don’t fell we have the luxury of slow methodic implementation—the whole electronic medium is more explosive. (b,e)

Putting the program together. ( c)

Long term funding, Independence from Met Council. The connection with the council has clouded some issues. How do we move from proprietary interests into a truly sharing environment—we are a long ways from success. It will take strong commitment, direction and dictates from the Policy Board. (b,g,h,i)

Continue to work to release defined data. (b,g)

In what ways can valuable data held by the private sector get incorporated in to MetroGIS-especially in terms of its potential for demographic analysis. (f,i,j)

Private access to public data systems/licensing agreements. Pilot an inter-county mapping project-show progress. Ongoing funding for collaborative—simple structure. (b,e,g,h)

Let people know what is already available with as much detail as possible. (g,h,j)

Long term funding and structure for MetroGIS. (a)

Long term funding. (b,g,h)

Participation-structure-define how- by what agencies it will work and protocols and get them on board for users. (c,g,h,j)

Definite policies on exactly who has access to the data as part of the different agreements with each county. (f,g,h,i)

Define specific data usage policies for private sector. (f,g,h,i)

Who or what is MetroGIS—a list of names to contact for data, a depository of data or a functioning GIS that can be used directly by users. How to fund this system. (f)

Data access for all stakeholders—hoping for access to assessor files. (d)

Jurisdictional Boundaries. Parcel level data. (b,g)

Having some very clear results IE: XYZ organization got data from ABC and used it for this project. It met their needs and saved them time. (b,c,f,g,h,i)

Data access should become a reality and the web site server monitored to determine its usefulness and long-term maintenance. We need to provide data and show people are using it. (a,b,f,h)

Formal relationships with the private sector. Funding. (b,e,g)

How will business and government work together to use and share data. (j)

Implementation (h,j)

Sharing of parcel data must be started. (b,d,e,g,h,i)

Develop an approach to coordinate or working with other entities IE: Utilities. (a)

Significant Datasets. (d)

Question #18

Do you have any suggestions to improve meetings of the MetroGIS Policy Board, Coordinating Committee, or the Advisory Teams?

At Coordinating Committee meetings we must keep the meetings moving to ensure finishing the agenda. (b)

Have dynamic leadership by people who chair committees. (b,d)

I believe that to the extent we can guide discussions of the Coordinating Committee so that the discussion doesn’t get mired in minutes or become a re-hash of the committee work, the more progress will be made. (b,e)

Predictability in meeting schedules—Teams. (b,g,h,i)

Meet only when necessary. (b,e,g,h)

More discussion in a less structured format. (a)

More clear agendas for each meeting and only meet when need to. (c,g,h,j)

KISS—Keep it Simple Stupid. People are busy so give them the facts and let them make a decision. (f).

Although it costs money, the Earle Brown facility has been very nice and accommodates the larger gatherings IE: Coordinating Committee. (a,b,f,h)

Establish attendance rules—you miss too many times and you’re out. Designated alternates to the Coordinating Committee are not automatically alternates to Advisory Teams. (b,e,g)

Question #19C

Please identify enhancements that you believe would improve the effectiveness and usability of the MetroGIS WEB site:

Better navigation (the back button takes you to the top page not the previous page). The site seams to be frequently inaccessible. (b,c,d,g,h,i,j)

As datasets become available, a metro map showing areas covered w/some metadata. (b,c,d,g,h,j)

Needs some dynamic information. Samples. Links. (f,g,h,i,j)

Keep it update so that members can look up current schedules, minutes, etc. ( c)

Start displaying graphical information—start with a map of the project area. (g,j)

Try to identify audience better. For most of us "strategic initiatives" doesn’t mean much—I had no idea what I’d get when I clicked on that. In general, I’m more interested in what than why. Words like "streets and addresses" get my attention and tell me what I’m getting. (g,h,j)

Graphic examples of the benefits of GIS. (a)

Not sure that it is appropriate to link to Lawrence group other than in regard to specifically the street centerline project! (f,g,h,i)

Get rid of the left side bar. Takes up too much room. Will become more important when maps are displayed. The page strategic Initiatives /Business Object modeling process does not look right in IE3.(f)

Java enabled search. Forms for ordering information, joining teams, etc. Interactive mapping to get answers about general questions. Enhanced FAQ page. (d,g,h,j)

More graphics/ maps etc. (b,g)

Good basic functionality. Continue to enter meeting minutes in timely fashion. (a,b,f,h)

Locations and time of meetings (j)

Start displaying graphical information—begin with map of project area. (h,j)

Could add a little hype to home page-reduce FAQ look. (b,d,e,g,h,i)

Committee members and tasks. (f)

Dynamic linking GIS sites. (b,d)

Question #20-3

Please identify enhancements that you feel would improve the effectiveness and usability of the newsletter "Coordinates"

Provide some articles scoped outside the Metro—other states, feds, etc. (c,d,f,g,h,i,j)

As we move MetroGIS further along it will be a useful communication tool—new accomplishments, progress made, results of agreements, etc. (b,e)

Info on agencies, orgs that are doing wonderful things that would serve as a model for others—spotlight one or two agencies each issue. Maybe tying in with LIS/GIS publications would gain some efficiencies—have a metro insert or page. (b,g,h,i)

Needs a new name. (b,g)

Provide info on how to use MetroGIS web page—examples of info etc. (g,j)

Doesn’t need to be glossy; 4-page length is fine. Nice to have something with quick updates of what different boards/committees are doing; where you can look to get more details. (g,h,j)

Provide info on how to use MetroGIS WEB page---examples of info, etc. (h,j)

More progress of MetroGIS would make newsletter more exciting but some key breakthroughs have come but Coordinates is too infrequent to keep up –chicken/egg. (b,d,e,g,h,i)

Feature examples of how various agencies, counties, municipalities, etc. are using GIS and the role of MetroGIS concepts. (a)

Question #21

Please list ways you believe additional staff resources would improve the effectiveness of MetroGIS.

Planning and coordination could be more complete. Improved communications. Better follow through on support, ideas for developing MetroGIS. New Participants. More time could be spent on political and funding support. (b,c,d,g,h,i,j)

To do more of the work you are hoping others will do. To do more outreach. To do more communication. To do more identification and analysis/resolution of issues. (b,g,h,i)

Continue to provide staff support for Committees. (b,g)

Speed up process such as making data available on the web site. (g,h,j)

With the web-site and newsletter, I do not believe there is any need for additional resources. (i)

Staff should be able to act and resolve minor details without resorting to the need to call meetings. (f,g,h,i)

I don’t think anymore resources are needed. I think they need to stay focused on getting MetroGIS in place and not tangent projects. Get the meat in place first and then start expanding from what already exists today. (f)

Maintain quality with growing responsibilities and tasks. New projects could be undertaken without loss of productivity on other projects. (d,g,h,j)

Get data out and available from MetroGIS. (b,g)

Current staff performs for participation and admin responsibilities. We can always use more technical time. (a,b,f,h)

Help with research. Help to establish closer relationships with Committee Chairs and ensure agendas and minutes are approved before distribution. (b,e,g)

How do I get on the mailing list for Coordinates? (h)

Perhaps community informational meetings, presentations at meetings of others, related groups would help solidify support. (c,d,f,g,h,i,j)

Question #22

Please identify any areas, other that staff support, where additional resources including funding, could improve the effectiveness of MetroGIS.

Implement telecommunications infrastructure. Metadata development. Development of standard for data sharing. (b,c,d,g,h,i,j,)

Well designed, high priority data—like TLG centerlines. But use results of needs sessions to drive this, resist grabbing any vendor-developed solution simply to expedite. (c,d,f,g,h,i,j)

A more formal grant program may illicit innovative ideas and projects to expand MetroGIS and potentially improve capability of local and county systems. (b,e)

Funding and development of any infrastructure necessary to support MetroGIS. (b,e)

Getting the work done—creation of digital data, compensation for data. (b,g,h,i)

Make it available to everyone—ensure that it is available in all classrooms.

Better street file (line work closer to centerlines, more up to date) (g,h,j)

Guest speakers from other GIS Regional projects perhaps nationwide for insight/ enthusiasm—we need to up with fresh ideas. (f,g,h,i)

Support staff need to come from every participating organization. (d,g,h,j)

Stakeholders (especially Policy Board) should be informed of the current level of effort by their employees. Their voluntary time is being paid someplace. (a,b,f,h)

Independent funding. (b,e,g)

Make it available to everyone-ensure that it is available in all classrooms. (h,j)

Staff could assist Committee Chairs in making more progress in between meetings. (b,d,e,g,h,i)

Need to develop long term funding contracts with utility companies (b,g,h)

Question #23

Other comments or suggestion:

I felt the workgroup I participated in did some very intense and interesting work. It was one of the most exciting experiences in 20 years of government work. I understand how now you must concentrate on a few issues but I feel very much out of touch with the continuing progress. I hope that the business model will be useful to MetroGIS. (h)

This is a massive undertaking (I bet you knew that!) Pat yourselves on the back—don’t be reluctant to crow a little about your achievements. 7 Data sharing agreements hasn’t happened too many other places. 87 prioritized information needs defined by community consensus. This is historic. Data flowing (okay-trickling) through the pipeline, Access being dealt with in a tangible way. Others need to know what’s happening in MN. (c,d,f,g,h,i,j)

The Policy Board members together with the Coordinating Committee members need to interact in a constructive manner without influence and restraint by Committee Chairs and MetroGIS staff in the matter of making business decisions. (b,d)

Strong Facilitation skills and a desire to stay on task could have had a different result. Most professionals do not have time to waste at meetings that do not accomplish anything. (d)

Let’s keep going on this. It’s been terrific in terms of progress but also in terms of getting various groups communicating. (f,i,j)

Overall the MetroGIS project is handled very well and seems to accomplishing its goal.(i)

I attended the December meetings as a representative of the users. I appreciate your interest in our input and am willing to assist in the future. (j)

Although MetroGIS staff are facilitators there needs to be more thought given to making decisions and taking some actions without meetings. Most folks are tired of too many meetings and want to meet only on burning issues. (f,g,h,i)

A great deal of data already exists. The focus initially should be to get this existing data gathered, documented and shared and then step back and see what more is needed. The current scope is too wide. Use more common sense and less theory. (f)

We need to get data available for people. No cost and for a fee data. It seems at times we lose this focus. (b,g)

There are still technical areas (standards) that need continued support and additional participants. Some of the technical issues will continue into the future and will require support. (a,b,f,h)

Through individual team member’s sphere of influence—begin establishing policies and procedures where organizations identify acceptable info. IE: Specific projects must utilize data from MetroGIS-begin the framework where local organizations establish MetroGIS as the primary source for data. (h,j)

This is a great vision in danger of bogging down. Need to take some chances to keep excitement. (b,d,e,g,h,i)

As the County agreements are developed, implemented and/or renewed, it might be helpful to clarify the relationship between Counties, Soils and Water Conservation Districts and MetroGIS. (a)

I’m not sure that this survey really reflects and assessment of satisfaction with the process and development of the concept of a model interactive platform for exchanging information (MetroGIS). Personally I have no dissatisfaction with all the efforts, expertise, helpfulness and desire of all the parties to seek accomplishment of this concept. What is disturbing is that a tremendous amount of energy is being lost in bureaucratic shuffling for positions that probably don’t exist and never will. If the leadership does not take hold of the original focus and set marked goals, this project may well fail and that would be real saddening. This survey might better have been served by a general meeting of the 100 plus persons mentioned in the milestones. A general free and open forum may allow for more exposure to the shortcomings and provide perspectives on what to hold off on, change, redirect or eliminate, if necessary, in order to achieve the original common goal of exchanging each others information without the barriers that have been common in the past. (b)

Through individual team member’s sphere of influence—begin establishing policies and procedures where organizations identify acceptable info—IE: specific project data must utilize data from MetroGIS—begin the framework where local organizations establish MetroGIS as the primary source for data. (g,j)