Governance Sub-Committee Report: A Proposal to Measure Progress Toward Realizing the NSDI Vision NGAC Governance Sub-Committee December 2, 2009

Role of the Governance Sub- Committee Vision…. Mission…. Process: (1) Review and analysis of NSDI development (2) Think about how to measure this development (3) Determination of future organizational requirements to facilitate progress toward NSDI vision. (4) Proposal of sub-committee recommendations to full NGAC for discussion and adoption.

Purpose of defining a measurement of NSDI development It is impossible to manage what has not been measured. Recent profound societal and technological change must be considered. Increasing relevance of spatial information resources to public policy development across “communities of interest” must be considered. NSDI concept, practical effectiveness and governance process must be commensurate with the increasing scope and complexity of integrated “multi-domain” spatial information requirements. Current critical “national” challenges require swift and effective mobilization of coordinated public and private sector resources.

Proposed “parameters of assessment” of NSDI development Societal impact NSDI environment statistics Data development and resources Technology capabilities Organization and governance

Parameter 1: Societal Impact Level of citizen understanding of and access to geospatial data, to empower their daily lives and to participate in the workings of government. Level of access to public geospatial and geospatially-enabled business data to support a) investment, economic development, jobs creation decisions? b) environmentally sustainable decisions? Extent to which government decision makers (Executive Branch at all levels of government) and legislators quickly access and analyze the geospatial data and geo-enabled business data necessary to engage in place-based policymaking, programming and budgeting? To what extent have NSDI online applications and geospatial data resources become embedded in academic curricula (e.g., elementary, secondary and higher education contexts.)?

Parameter 1: Societal Impact Climate Change Energy (to include Smart-Grid and Carbon Market Development) Health Care Intermodal Transportation Housing and Cadastre (to include the Mortgage Crisis) Emergency Response/Emergency Management Environment and Sustainable Development/High Performing Communities Homeland & National Security

Parameter 2: NSDI Environment Statistics Definition of the NSDI context Definition and quantification of stakeholder, sector and market involvement Quantification of geospatial activity (data development, processing capabilities…) and its economic implications Positioning of NSDI with respect to public and private sector policy, organizations, resources and programs

Parameter 3: Data Development and Resources Currency, completeness (which may include interoperability & metadata), accuracy, scale/resolution, accessibility and archival requirements for different versions of data). Quantify complete status of Framework layers across all sectors View these through a dashboard With COGO, advise FGDC on layers and characteristics most valuable for a dashboard information approach

Parameter 4: Technology Capabilities Do we have the production grade (99.999% uptime) technological infrastructure in place to share data (traditional geospatial and sensor data) via international standard geospatial web service interfaces? Are we are properly archiving these data to meet necessary missions?

Parameter 5: Organization and Governance Does an effective NATIONAL governance mechanism exist? Are component NSDI roles and responsibilities supported by willing organizations with sufficient capacity? Do priorities address needs defined in strategic plans of the breadth of NSDI stakeholders? Are decision makers at all levels of government informed and engaged in supporting, defining, and using the NSDI? Is a collaborative funding strategy in place in place? …

Potential findings and implications To the naked eye, it is clear that we have many problems, shortcomings, dangers, etc. There is a clear need for federal leadership within a national federated activity There is a need for a national geospatial policy to define direction, actions, roles and responsibilities, and governance There is a need for a consensus on an “end state” vision of a governance structure. Implications of the status quo are dire.

Actions NGAC endorses the high-level characteristics presented in the Phase I paper regarding a system of metrics to measure progress toward the desired “end-state.” As a next step, the Governance Subcommittee will immediately begin building upon this Phase I deliverable to include engaging other organizations (e.g. COGO, NSGIC, FGDC Lifecycle Management Committee, etc.) to comment on the paper and suggest their roles to: – Define a plan for vetting the high-level performance measurement concepts described herein among critical (national) stakeholder organizations. – Refine the example metrics, define candidates for support responsibility (national not federal) and recommend an implementation strategy. The NGAC and the Governance Subcommittee will continue to hold internal discussions regarding national NSDI governance.