Dissolved Teams > Policy Advisory Team

December 1, 1999 Minutes

1. CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 9:05 a.m. by Brad Henry, Chair of the Coordinating Committee, in the absence of Chairperson Erdahl who arrived shortly after the meeting began. It was held at the Roseville City Hall.

Members Present: David Arbeit (LMIC), Gary Caswell for Partick O’Connor (Hennepin County), David Claypool (Ramsey County), Virginia Erdahl (Washington County), Brad Henry (AMM-Minneapolis), Richard Johnson (Metropolitan Council).

Members Absent: Cliff Aichinger (Ramsey-Washington–Metro Watershed District), Jerome Johnson (Anoka County) and Dennis Welsch (AMM-Roseville).

Consultant Team-MetroGIS Business Plan: Trudy Richter and Yvonne Chailett

Visitors: John Connolly, (Technical Advisory Team Co-Chair), Will Craig (Project Manager, MetroGIS Benefits Study, U of M CURA and academic representative to Coordinating Committee), Rick Gelbmann, (Project Manager, MetroGIS Data Finder and Metropolitan Council representative to the Coordinating Committee) and Gary Stevenson (Dakota County and member of the Coordinating Committee).

Support Staff: Randall Johnson and Theresa Foster

2. ACCEPT MEETING SUMMARY

Member Arbeit moved and Member Claypool seconded to approve the September 30 meeting summary as submitted. Motion carried, ayes all.

3. SUMMARY OF OCTOBER 27TH POLICY BOARD MEETING

Staff Johnson overviewed the highlights of the October 27, 1999 Policy Board meeting, as outlined in the Team’s agenda materials. He called attention to the Board’s acknowledgement of the Metropolitan Council’s commitment to continue financing MetroGIS’ coordinating functions through 2000 and the subsequent dialogue that resulted in a unanimously approved motion from the Council’s Board representative, Roger Williams, that there will likely be a need for a similar commitment from the Council in 2001. Johnson also encouraged the consultant team to review the Board’s October 27th and the Team’s September 30th meeting summaries as they containing several important referenced to direction pertaining to the Business Plan.

4. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS

4a. MetroGIS Business Plan and Related Topics

Overview of the Business Planning Process:

Trudy Richter, Business Plan consultant team project manager, introduced herself and one of her colleagues on the project, Yvonne Chailett, and thanked MetroGIS for the opportunity to continue to work on the MetroGIS Fair-Share Financial Model and Organizational Structure Project.

Ms. Richter referred the team to the Scope of Work for the MetroGIS Business Plan Project included in the agenda packet and noted that goals for this meeting are to obtain feedback from team members regarding initial findings for work on Task 1 (Yvonne Chailett’s project) and to address the topics presented in bullets 1 and 2 under Task 2. Team members were encouraged to suggest additions and/or modifications to the Scope of Work. No comments were offered.

Ms. Richter then summarized, also for team information and comment, the proposed MetroGIS Business Planning process, as conceived to date:

• Planning horizon of 2-3 years;
• Organizational Structure;
• Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats or competition (This component will evaluate how MetroGIS’ desired functions are different from and similar to the functions of GIS/LIS, Governor’s Council on Geographic Information, LMIC, and FGDC/NSDI, the purpose being to minimize duplication of effort.)
• Market Identification (emphasis will be on targeting)
• Market Needs

No comments were offered. She then summarized, again for information and comment, the proposed contents of the MetroGIS Business Plan document that would be delivered at the conclusion of the project, noting that the plan will mature the concept of a subscription fee as a financing mechanism for the mature MetroGIS organization as directed by the Policy Board:

• Services
• Staffing, contracts for services
• Financial, Capital and Operating Costs
• Budgets
• Funding

No comments were offered. Ms. Richter then commented on the three major phases of MetroGIS, as it evolves from concept to reality, these being: Definition, Coordination, and Mature Organization. The Definition Phase will be complete upon adoption of a Business Plan, which is proposed for March 2000. She noted that the following tasks have been incorporated into the Business Planning process, in response to direction provided by the Policy Board during the past year:

• Focus the work program on educating users on benefits of regional GIS data bases and the benefits of collaboration
• Prioritize the 22 previously endorsed functions for MetroGIS
• Formalize MetroGIS’ role concerning development of regional dataset following endorsement of desired data specifications (conceptual design) and identification of desires roles and responsibilities for primary and regional custodians.

The Coordination phase, as currently conceived, would involve:

• Implement Business Plan and its components.
• Develop solutions to 13 business information needs plus implement a process to expand these priorities as appropriate.
• Measure and communicate "perceived value"
• Determine organizational structure needs
• Determine timing of subscription fee-based revenue program

Finally, the Business Plan’s emphasis for the Mature Organization Phase will be on whether a separate legal organizational structure is needed to achieve the MetroGIS vision and on securing a sustainable means of adequate funding. Ms. Richter asked the group to defer comment on this phase until later in the process.

Comparison of MetroGIS’ Functions with Those of Other Organizations:

Yvonne Chailett presented a table that summarized her analysis of MetroGIS’ 22 functions and how they align with the functions of GI/LIS, Governor’s Council on Geographic Information, LMIC, and Ramsey County GIS User’s group. The purpose of this task is to look beyond MetroGIS and through the Business Planning process for partners and ways to minimize duplication of effort.

Team members suggested several modifications: 1) change the beneficiary of GIS/LIS to GIS from institutions to GIS professionals, 2) Change the beneficiary of the Governor’s Council on GI to state the beneficiaries initially proposed for the GIS/LIS consortium, 3) fill-in the three missing function letter labels –[R]—"endorse standards…", [I] "provide a directory of data …"., [M] Maintain liaison relationships…4) add an "x" under LMIC for functions H and I, 5) add an "x" under MetroGIS for functions [D], [Q], and [I].

Comment on the information presented in the table prepared by Ms. Chailett was interrupted at this point by an extended discussion of the similarities and differences of MetroGIS Data Finder and the Minnesota Geographic Data Clearinghouse, which serves two capacities -- a node of NSDI Clearinghouse and a gateway to the NSDI Clearinghouse. This discussion was initiated by Ms. Richter’s inquire about overlaps between these two solutions for an Internet-based way to search and retrieve geospatial data. David Arbeit, provided the team with an overview of the both the unique and the overlapping aspects of each. In brief, both sites use exactly the same metadata format, the Data Finder’s user interface is superior to that of the NSDI Clearinghouse, and the technical architecture of Data Finder site currently does not permit it to be searched simultaneously with nodes within the NSDI network, Washington County being one of these other nodes. The result of the latter situation is a current need for redundant metadata postings and a modest support effort to keep the metadata synchronized on MetroGIS site and NSDI node(s). The case of Washington County wanting to be a separate node within the NSDI Network also was touched on. Washington County’s concern was that they wanted to maintain their own node to insure the metadata is up to date. As a producer they want to avoid the possibly of multiple versions of metadata in the searchable system.

Members Caswell and Stevenson noted that they believe the posting of metadata should be the responsibility of the data producer and questioned the need for MetroGIS to support Data Finder. Member Craig commented that support of a "directory of data and a mechanism to search and retrieve GIS data" function has substantial support by the MetroGIS community and, secondly, not all of the data producing organizations may want to or be willing to maintain a node to enable searching of their metadata. Rick Gelbmann, Data Finder Project Manager, commented that the purpose of both the NSDI and Data Finder tools is to provide the user with an effective one-stop point of entry to quickly find out about data holding and how they relate to the user’s needs and also a means to quickly link data users with data producers. He stated that when Data Finder was developed in 1997 the NSDI solution fell short of MetroGIS user needs. He also commented that information overload is a major problem with the Internet environment that MetroGIS is attempting to address through a centralized source. Member Henry added that even if each producer agreed to maintain a node, which he doubted, and even if they all adhered to NSDI metadata data guidelines he suspected that there would be inconsistencies that would be result in lost efficiency. He also offered that MetroGIS Data Finder has the potential to reduce redundancy in posting of metadata on numerous individual nodes. Finally, Member Claypool reminded the group that MetroGIS is a regional operation with needs that in some cases are different than those of our own organizations and challenged the group to think about the broader market needs when setting policy that effects the functionality of MetroGIS, such as for Data Finder.

The group agreed that MetroGIS Data Finder, has a role in achieving the "directory" function for: a) organizations that do not want to or can not support their own "metadata/data search Internet searchable nodes" and capturing an economy of scale by collaboratively supporting in one location, b) data not produced by government but available to government (e.g., The Lawrence Group’s regional Street Centerline dataset and possibly the socioeconomic data solution being piloted by InSight Mapping and Demographic), and c) and possibly some regional datasets when beyond the internal business need of any of the partners. All also agreed there is need to clearly define the unique role for MetroGIS Data Finder and where does its support exceed the internal needs of the Metropolitan Council who is currently.

Ms. Richter asked the group to hold further comments on this topic until the group had commented on the results of the MetroGIS Benefits Study regarding the functions that were endorsed by the Policy Board in 1998 as appropriate for MetroGIS.

Functions and MetroGIS Benefits Study Results- Stakeholder Survey Component

Ms. Richter stated the Business Plan objectives concerning the functions will support are as follows:

• Consider which functions to continue or add using benefit study and input received at the Peer Review Forum in September.
• Rank the functions using "business riles" (essential/when feasible)
• Consider other organizations; involvement in functions
• Match functions with resources/budgets for next 2-3 years.

Craig reported the survey of stakeholders had an 82 percent response rate. He explained the findings for four of the survey questions: 1) Do you feel that your participation In MetroGIS has been an effective use of your time? 2) Has MetroGIS ever helped you to obtain any data either free or at reduced rates? 3) Are there any other datasets you need from others but can’t get? And 4) Other than delivering data to you, has MetroGIS made a positive impact on your work in any of the following ways (nine listed)?

The results illustrated strong support for continuing to work toward fulfillment of the MetroGIS vision. Three-quarters of the respondents felt their involvement has been an effective use of their time. Over 50 percent have found the data available to date to be useful. Three-quarters obtained the data they needed. Non-data benefits of MetroGIS are significant and similar across the sectors. The complete results of the study along with the questionnaire and methodologies are presented in a final report that will be available on the MetroGIS Internet site.

Lack of service to cities is a recurring theme in the analysis. Craig noted cities are the least likely to say their participation in MetroGIS is an effective use of their time (68% vs 83% overall). Cities & counties are least likely to have gotten useful data through MetroGIS (29% vs 40% overall). On the non-data benefits they are always at the low of those items where these is a difference among groups; 44% of cities say they received none (vs 22% overall).

The group discussed other issues raised by the survey. There were too few responses from school and watershed districts to report as individual sectors. Staff also noted that in subsequent surveys a distinction should be made between generally needing data from another organization for a particular business need to finding out whether they need data from organizations other than the county in which they are located. Craig also concluded that there is strong support for the networking and facilitation functions such as those provided by the county user groups; MetroGIS has clearly made the right choice in adding a requirement for such groups in each county agreement. (Facilitating creation and/or active participation in users groups is a requirement of each county agreement.)

Arbeit summarized the methodology he and Craig used to analyze the results from the other two questions asked in the survey. These questions focused on the 22 previously endorsed functions: "How important is each of the following functions to your organization? Responses ranged from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important) and 3 (indifference). The second question was "Should MetroGIS invest its resources in this function? Responses were Yes and No. The results of the analysis technique produced a nine-cell matrix. The combined "high", "medium" and "low" rankings for each question for each of the 22 functions are plotted in the cells to distinguish importance on each scale (e.g. high/high, high/medium, medium/high, med/med, and low-low). The breakpoints used to establish the high, medium, and low categories were set high to reflect the need for strong support in a colloborative-funding environment. This methodology is being documented and will be available on the MetroGIS Internet site. In addition to matrix that included all of the responses, separate matrices were also produced for each of the organizational groups (sectors): cities, counties, state, metropolitan, and federal.

Arbeit also shared draft category labels and decision rules prepared by the analysis team functions in like categories (e.g. high/high, med/med, etc.) The following labels and decision rules were accepted by the Team for the function(s) in combined sector analysis matrix:

Following a lengthy discussion that included consideration of the sector analysis and comments provided by the respondents, the group agreed to revise the original function statements and/or rankings as follows:

• Combine [Q] and [D] and delete the "required" terminology for a new [D "Develop and endorse standards for GIS data content, data documentation, and data management for regional datasets. The group recognized the large discrepancy between the county sector and all other sectors". The conclusion was there is no need to include the "require" because if an organization wishes to take full advantage of a regional dataset(s), it will have to agree to comply with the regional guidelines. The High/High designation for [D] is also retained.
• Modify [I] Provide a directory of data…." To include a phrase noting the goal to provide a single point of access.
• Move [G] " create and maintain datasets for MetroGIS based upon identified priorities" from the Selectively Desirable category to the Partnered Support category. The group concluded this category is the most appropriate to reflect the modified policy for regional dataset development endorsed by the Policy Board’s on October 27th. Henry argued that the most successful thing MetroGIS has done is to make the TLG Street Centerline dataset available to its stakeholders and that these types of data development/acquisition efforts are fundamental to the success of MetroGIS.
• Move [H] "Fill gaps in metadata for identified priorities" from the Selectively Desirable category to the Funded Support category. This function had an investment (in favor) rating of 79.8 percent. One more response in favor would have raised it to the Funded Support Category on its own. Further, up-to-date metadata is fundamental to the effective operation of Data Finder and the State’s clearinghouse.

Due to time constraints, the group postponed consideration of the other functions currently classified as Selectively Desirable (E, R, T, J, O) until the next meeting. At that time, cost estimates for support will be added to the equation to continue evaluation of the staging of each of the functions. Arbeit also stressed the Business Plan needs to address the subtleties in the differences between the decision rules when deciding how to proceed with a particular function that is in the middle of the pack in terms of importance and investment support.

Henry suggested that the 2000 survey should include question of two to assess the amount of the resources budgeted by MetroGIS stakeholder organizations for data acquisition. Erdahl concurred noting that she is aware that watershed districts routinely enter into substantial contracts with consultants for data capture.

Next Steps

Ms Richter informed the group she will meet with the Technical Advisory Team on December 7th to discuss a proposed process for MetroGIS to monitor development of regional dataset for compliance with the MetroGIS’ endorsed conceptual design. This process will be become part of the Business Plan. She mentioned to the group that a subcommittee of Charboneau, Erdahl and Claypool will be looking into partnerships with the private sector, in particular for access for to parcel, and the associated intellectual property rights issues. She asked for a subcommittee to work with her to define strategic relationship that the Business Plan needs to explore, including defining the broad market categories – government, private sector, quasi-government – and whether government organizations should be distinguished from one another. The entire group volunteered to meet with Ms. Richter on January 6, 2000.

Craig commented that the Business Plan strategy should include a strategy for outreach to organizations within the current MetroGIS stakeholder community that have not been involved and outreach to a broader base of departments within organizations that have been involved in MetroGIS in addition to outreach for new partners.

4b. Preliminary Agenda – December 16 Coordinating Committee Meeting

No discussion

5. INFORMATION ITEMS

5a. Priority Information Needs Update

No discussion

5b. Final Report – MetroGIS Fair Share Financial Model Project

Staff Johnson commented that the deadline for submission to the NSDI was Friday, December 3, 1999 and asked if any one had any comments on the draft that had been included in the agenda packet. No comments were offered.

6. OTHER BUSINESS

None

7. NEXT MEETINGS

All in 2000 at 8:30 a.m. at Roseville City Hall

• Thursday, January 6 and Wednesday January 19
• Thursday, February 10
• Thursday, March 16

8. ADJOURN

Arbeit moved and Claypool seconded to adjourn at 12:10 p.m. Motion carried, ayes all.

Prepared by Randall Johnson, AICP, MetroGIS Staff Coordinator