|
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Person at 1:10 p.m. at the Metropolitan Council Offices in St.
Paul.
Members present: State: Tom Eiber (DNR Forestry); Cities: Chairperson Rick Person (City of St. Paul), Roger
Carlson (City of Minneapolis); Counties: David Claypool, MetroGIS Coordinating Committee Liason (Ramsey County), Tim
Zimmerman (Hennepin County), Jane Harper, (Washington County), John Connelly (St. Paul & Ramsey County Charter
Commissions); Metropolitan: Marcel Jouseau (Metropolitan Council Environmental), Michael Munson (Metropolitan Council);
Private Research: Kent Treichel (Wilder Foundation); Private Consultants: Linda Tomaselli, (OSM); Academic: Will Craig,
MetroGIS Coordinating Committee Liaison (UM CURA)
Members absent: Business Geographics: Joe Ryan (Oppidan Investment Co.); Cities: Maria D'Andrea (City of
Robbinsdale), Judie Erickson (City of St. Louis Park); Utilities: Mike Wood (Waypoint Technologies), Dale Nikkola
(Anoka Electric Cooperative): Dave Schroeder (Police Support LOGIS); Private Consultants: Rebbecca Blue (SEH, Inc.);
Metropolitan: Kathy Johnson (Metropolitan Council); State: Don Yeager (LMIC).
Visitors: Rick Gelbmann, Metropolitan Council GIS
Support Staff: Randall Johnson, David Vessel, Heidi Welsch
1. Acceptance of the Agenda and Meeting Summary
The meeting agenda and the meeting summary from July 11, 1996 were accepted by consensus.
2. Focus Group Forum Participants
The team reviewed the list of confirmed focus group participants. As of August 14th, 100 people had committed
to participate in the forum on September 19, 1996. Staff noted that the teams each have 16-18 persons to be as
representative and balanced as practical. During the interviews with the candidate modeling consultants, staff raised a
concern for exceeding fifteen persons and found that the process does not require the focus groups to be limited to
fifteen people.
Michael Munson (Metropolitan Council) felt that there was not enough regional expertise represented on the
focus groups. In particular, he noted that the Property Records Focus Group does not have any representatives with a
regional focus. Staff agreed to ask Mark Kotz (Metropolitan Council GIS Specialist) to participate in the Property
Records Focus Group on behalf of Metropolitan Council. Several team members pointed out that focus group participants
must be aware that they are representing a larger group and need to think in terms of regional significance, since it
is not possible to include a representative from every expertise and every level of organization. Most team members
agreed this method could be successful. Will Craig suggested two questions that may help participants think broadly
about data:
- What data do you need or use from your neighboring organizations?
- What data do you supply to others within or outside of your organization?
3. Focus Group Forum Consultant Facilitator
The team began with a discussion of the assumptions surrounding the consultant selection process. It was
agreed that identification and detailed description of regionally significant data must be the result of the process.
It is also important for the forum to be a worthwhile use of each participant's time. Staff explained the primary roles
of the consultant will be to facilitate the process; guide the development of a business object/data model; rank and
document the characteristics of the identified regionally significant data types, and provide a written report that
documents the process and its results. In addition, the consultants will be part of two pre-forum meetings.
Randall Johnson reported on the selection process and results. Three responses to the RFP were received:
Advanced Strategies Incorporated [ASI] (Atlanta, Georgia); PlanGraphics, Inc. (Frankfort, Kentucky); and ThomTech
Design Company (St. Paul, Minnesota). It was explained that Jane Harper (Data Content Team), John Connelly (Data
Content Team), Randall Johnson (MetroGIS Staff), Rick Gelbmann (Metropolitan Council GIS), David Arbeit (MetroGIS
Coordinating Committee Chairperson), David Vessel (Data Content Team Support Staff), and Heidi Welsch (Data Content
Team Support Staff) served on the contractor selection committee. The committee reviewed the proposals on August 5th.
After the meeting, telephone interviews were held by Arbeit, Johnson, Gelbmann, and Vessel with each of the candidates
and follow-up conversations were then held with Harper and Connelly to explain the results of the interviews.
Staff explained the pluses and concerns about each proposal as follows:
- Advanced Strategies Inc. (ASI) ASI has proven success with projects of this type. They have a process
which has been successfully used in this type of consulting. David Vessel commented that ASI has significant experience
and skill dealing with community-wide projects which often involve competing interests. It was noted that staff
believes ASI's proposal meets or exceeds all of the expectations listed in the RFP. One of ASI's specialties is
teaching and passing on technology to their clients. Their process relies upon the client to supply three support
persons for each of the six focus group to facilitate, record, and manage quality control. ASI would train these
persons prior to the Focus Group Forum planned for September 19th.
- PlanGraphics Inc. Although PlanGraphics is known to have very qualified personnel, their process was not
clearly laid out or proven for the requirements of this project. Harper noted that the proposal was not as thorough as
the others. The team agreed that this project must not serve as a testing grounds for an unproven process.
- ThomTech Design Company. ThomTech is a local firm with excellent recommendations from local agencies.
However, their proposal was product oriented rather than the process oriented. Harper stated that the group had given
careful consideration to all three proposals and explained that while it would be desirable to hire a local firm to
develop local expertise and avoid paying for travel, the selection committee agreed that ThomTech's proposal was not
desirable for this large and complex of a project. The need for a proven, successful process was reiterated.
Will Craig moved and John Connelly seconded to affirm staff's recommendation to award the contract for this
project to Advanced Strategies, Inc.(ASI). The motion passed unanimously. Five team members volunteered to attend the
pre-forum meeting with the consultants and staff: Jane Harper, John Connelly, Roger Carlson, Will Craig, and
Chairperson Rick Person.
Several issues for discussion at the pre-forum meetings were raised:
- Priority on identification and prioritization of regionally significant datasets: Although a by-product
of the forum may be education about MetroGIS for newcomers to the process, the number one priority must be identifying
and prioritizing regionally significant datasets. It is also important to note that it is not the consultant's job to
prioritize the data but to facilitate the ranking process.
- Technique for facilitation within the focus groups: Since the expertise differences among groups is
somewhat artificial and overlapping, important data needs may be overlooked by some groups. As discussed previously by
the Data Content Team, the focus groups may need to be prompted, otherwise it is possible that some important data
needs may not be identified at the forum. It was suggested that perhaps a list of important data needs from which focus
groups can add and subtract should be given to each group. It was also noted that although the details of the process
have not been finalized, the consultant will be using the questions formed by the Data Content Team earlier in the
summer to guide the process. It was noted that the questions may need to be rephrased to ensure all respondents answer
them in the same manner. To prepare the participants for the forum, a packet of information including expectations will
be mailed prior to the meeting and the purpose and expectations of the Forum will also be explained prior to breaking
into the respective focus groups.
- Balance of time in the forum: The group expressed concern for the amount of time spent in a large overview
group versus small focus groups. Some team members were concerned that as much time as possible be spent in the small
focus groups. There were some questions as to the length and importance of each segment of the forum. The group agreed
that it will be important to reconvene as a large group after the focus groups to get participants to think in broad
terms concerning the prioritization of datasets.
- Technique for ranking the data: The group agreed that there is a need to keep in perspective data needs
that are significant across the six groups as well as those important within each focus group. It was noted that the
results of forum can not be permitted to alienate any groups (constituencies) which the team believed could occur if
data needs of one group are reported to be less important than that of another group. It was agreed that this matter
needs more discussion with the consultant.
- Technique for simultaneously dealing with different interests: The group agreed that it needs more
information about how the consultant's technique deals with groups that have competing interests and priorities.
- Use of Tape Recorder: Will Craig urged tape recording each of the six focus group sessions for use by the
recorders and analysts to be able to verify participant comments. The team agreed it would be a good idea and asked
staff to raise this concern with the consultant.
The team agreed on the importance of the consultant understanding of the history and broader objectives of
MetroGIS initiative as they prepare for the pre-forum planning meeting. Staff was directed to send the consultant all
Data Content Advisory Team meeting summaries in addition to background material on MetroGIS. Staff was also directed to
mail this meeting summary as soon as possible to the team members who will participating in the discussions with the
consultant.
4. Next Meeting : September 11, 1996 1:00 p.m. - 3:30 p.m. City of St. Louis Park
5. The meeting adjourned at 2:40 p.m.
Prepared by Heidi Welsch, GIS Administrative Intern
|
