|
Chair Rick Person called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. at the Hennepin County Government Center.
Members present: State: Don Yeager (LMIC); Cities: Chair Rick Person (City of St. Paul), Roger Carlson (City
of Minneapolis); Private Research: Kent Treichel (Wilder Foundation); Counties: Tim Zimmerman (Hennepin County), David
Claypool (Ramsey County), Jane Harper, (Washington County); Metropolitan: Kathy Johnson (Metropolitan Council), Marcel
Jouseau (Metropolitan Council Environmental); Academic: Will Craig (UM CURA); State: Tom Eiber (DNR Forestry)
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); Public Safety:
Mark Tente (Lake Johanna Fire Dept), Dave Schroeder (Police Support LOGIS); Private Consultants: Rebbecca Blue (SEH,
Inc.);. Metropolitan: Michael Munson (Metropolitan Council) Marcia Broman, (Metropolitan 911 Board) Nancy Pollock,
(Metropolitan 911 Board); Utilities: Dale Nikkola (Anoka Electric Cooperative). Counties: John Connelly (St. Paul &
Ramsey County Charter Commissions); School Districts: Robert D. Nelson (Richfield Public Schools)
Visitors: Randall Johnson, Metropolitan Council MetroGIS Liaison
Support Staff: David Vessel
1. Acceptance of the agenda and meeting summary.
The agenda for this meeting and the summary for the September 11, 1996, meeting were accepted by consensus.
2. MetroGIS Information Needs Forum Follow-up
The Team discussed their perceptions of the MetroGIS Information Needs Forum held on September 19, 1996. Jane
Harper noted that the focus groups did not indicate the relative importance of information needs they identified. She
noted this as a concern because the relative importance of these needs would likely be indistinguishable to the
consultants (ASI) and that a good deal of time might be spent working with low to middle priority needs. Will Craig
supported Jane's concern noting that the participants were encouraged to identify all needs that came to mind,
regardless of practicality, and that many unrealistic information needs are probably included in the list of 730+
identified needs; indistinguishable from the critical needs. The Team agreed that it wants ASI to explain at the
October 29th meeting how the process will address this situation. ASI should also explain how the process will allow
identification of the "million dollar gem" of an idea and not lose it among the 730+ identified needs.
The Team discussed the ratings for each of the components of the Forum. The members noted that they would have
preferred more background about the why ASI was selected to assist and less on the process. The Team also expressed
concern that, although the focus group break out sessions were rated between good and excellent, that the credibility
of the overall project may have been somewhat tainted by the lack of a polished presentation and the absence of
adequate graphics during the introductory and concluding sessions. Randall Johnson noted that Richard Brandon had
visual aids but that the large room setting with a low ceiling prohibited their effective use and that these conditions
were out of ASI's control.. The Team agreed that these experiences need to result in improvements for the October 30-31
Business Object Modeling Session and that they need to be discussed at the October 29th meeting preparation meeting.
3. Business Object Modeling Session (October 30-31)
The Data Content Team was emphatic that this two day session must be structured in such as way to make
efficient use participant's time. It was agreed that the credibility of the results will be affected by the perceptions
of those that participate and that they must view the experience a good use of their time. They emphasized the
importance of getting the work done in the minimum time necessary. Several suggestions were made to guard the time of
participants. Marcel Jouseau suggested that a glossary of terminology be sent out to participants to aid in the
modeling process. Rick Person suggested that the both the turn-a-round document and the straw model be delivered prior
to the session so people can start the work immediately.
Harper suggested further that an agenda for the two days is needed to demonstrate that participant time is not
wasted and that ASI has carefully planned the sessions. It was agreed that each participant should receive a copy of
the entire September 19th Turn-Around Document before the October 30-31 session along with a clear statement of the
session's purpose and expectations. Randall Johnson stated he would send a letter to ASI explaining these concerns and
asking ASI to be prepared to address them at the October 29th meeting. He also stated that he would send a copy of the
ASI letter to each of the Team members.
4. Business Object Modeling Follow-up Session (Tentatively November 21st)
The team voiced a strong concern that they have input throughout the process and that they be able to confirm
the validity of the results of object modeling process. Several members stated that future work with the model will be
compromised if it does not reflect reality. Jane Harper asked when will the datasets be identified that address each of
the core information needs. Randall Johnson explained that this task will occur following the ASI project and that this
task could be the responsibility of the Data Content Team if it so desired.
Virtually all of the Team members expressed interest in attending the November 21 follow-up session. However,
Will Craig, Tom Eiber, and Rick Person noted that would not be able to attend. Will Craig noted that he will be
attending the national GIS/LIS conference that week. The Team discussed alternative dates in November but could not
agree on any alternatives. Randall Johnson stated that he would speak with ASI to investigate other options.
5. Work Plan
Randall Johnson asked the Team to raise any concerns that may exist with the four strategic issues that have
been assigned to it. The members agreed that:
- The Coordinating Committee needs to explain the meaning of "define outputs/products from system" before a
work program can be defined.
- The lead responsibility for the "Define structure of a logically integrated system" should be with the
Access Team, not the Data Content Team.
- The lead responsibility to identify the source of the best data to address each of the information needs
identified with the ASI study should be with the Data Content Team and not the Access Team.
6. Next Meeting
The next meeting of the Data Content Team will be December 4, 1996, at 1:00 PM at Metropolitan Council Mears
Park Offices.
The meeting adjourned at 4:10 p.m.
Prepared by, David Vessel, GIS Specialist, Metropolitan Council
|
