Compass Points: Setting a Direction for Minnesotas GIS Future A New Strategic Plan for Minnesota David Arbeit Fred Logman MN Governors Council on Geographic Information March 21, 2007

Overview Our Foundation for Strategic Planning Strategic Planning Retreat For the Councils Consideration Compass Points: Setting a Direction for Minnesotas GIS Future

GCGI Strategic Framework –A Foundation for Coordinated GIS (2004) –Conceptual Architecture for Enterprise GIS (2005) NSGIC and FGDC –50 States Initiative (2006) State Master Plan for IT Building on decades of informal collaboration, Minnesotas GIS community now needs to collaborate on a strategy that will bring the benefits of GIS to the entire state. Foundation for Coordinated GIS

A Foundation for Coordinated GIS Minnesotas Spatial Data Infrastructure Strengths History of effective ad hoc coordination LMIC as de facto coordinator and Clearinghouse steward Governors Council as forum for advice & guidance Strong partnerships with federal agencies Commitment to standards Track record of cooperative solutions to data acquisition Growing awareness of GIS to support business needs

A Foundation for Coordinated GIS Minnesotas Spatial Data Infrastructure Recommendations Explicit authority and responsibility for overseeing the MSDI should be assigned to a state cabinet level agency. Adequate resources should be provided to sustain coordination and development and implementation of the MSDI. GIS implementation by state agencies should be coordinated within the states IT architecture framework.

A Foundation for Coordinated GIS Minnesotas Spatial Data Infrastructure Organizational Issues GIS implementation by state, local and regional agencies should be coordinated with similar efforts by state and federal agencies. Emphasis should be placed on identifying emerging opportunities for effectively using GIS, for joint projects and for leveraging private and federal resources. The continued development of the MN Geographic Data Clearinghouse should be supported as an e-government solution for distributing geospatial data.

National States Geographic Information Council Coordination Criteria A 2005 study revealed that Minnesota had recently regressed and was lacking some important criteria for success!

National States Geographic Information Council 9 Coordination Criteria 1.A full-time, paid coordinator position is designated and has authority to implement the states business and strategic plans 26 of 48 states – Not Minnesota 2.A clearly defined authority exists for statewide coordination of geospatial information technologies and data production 20 of 48 states – Not Minnesota 3.The statewide coordination office has a formal relationship with the States CIO 28 of 48 states – Not Minnesota

National States Geographic Information Council 9 Coordination Criteria 4.A Champion (political or executive decision maker) is aware and involved in the process of coordination 16 of 48 states – Not Minnesota 5.Responsibilities for developing the NSDI and State Clearinghouse are assigned 29 of 48 states – Includes Minnesota 6.The ability exists to work and coordinate with local governments, academia, and the private sector 41 of 48 states – Includes Minnesota

National States Geographic Information Council 9 Coordination Criteria 7.Sustainable funding sources exist to meet projected needs 12 of 48 states – Not Minnesota 8.Coordinators have the authority to enter into contracts and become capable of receiving and expending funds 20 of 48 states – Includes Minnesota 9.The Federal government works through the statewide coordinating authority 27 of 48 states – Includes Minnesota

Compass Points: Setting a Direction for Minnesotas GIS Future The Minnesota Information and Telecommunications Systems and Services Master Plan February 28, 2007

Purpose of Master Planning To guide policy and investments through: –Coordination –Cooperation –Convergence Lay the foundation for effective management of information – data, technology, resources Provide the context for transformation of state government programs Improve performance of IT-supported business activities

The Minnesota Enterprise Blueprint: A Federated Model The federated enterprise model balances three ways of managing IT business for the state Agency-specific Services Shared Services Utility Services

IT Service Types Utility Services Services and applications common to all enterprise partners, and managed by one entity for all agencies and jurisdictions to improve service and/or reduce costs. Shared Service Services and applications required by more than one enterprise partner, and managed by one entity to improve service and efficiency. Agency- Specific Services Applications and services of a highly specialized nature for which there are no opportunities to add value through central management.

OETs Interest in GIS? Investment in data and applications is significant and growing Opportunities for sharing data and applications are obvious Value to citizens and government has been demonstrated in many areas of interest –economic development and analysis –land use –public safety –environmental management –services delivery –tax administration –many more Need for standards is apparent

How might Shared Services Work for GIS? Infrastructure (and hosting?) at OET Common applications and tools Baseline map info, standards and general data Specialized applications and thematic data COE Agency Utility

Moving Forward: We Need a Better Road Map! Now What?

Compass Points: Setting a Direction for Minnesotas GIS Future Develop a second generation strategic plan Build on previous work and commitments –Foundations for Coordinated GIS –Conceptual Architecture for Enterprise GIS –OET Master Plan Focus on State agencies while recognizing the larger Minnesota geospatial community Actively involve key stakeholders

Sponsored by Commissioner of Administration and State CIO Participants from all key stakeholder interests Professionally facilitated Planned by Core Group of stakeholders Build on previous work Constrained by legislative schedule and funding resources Next Step: A Strategic Planning Retreat

Core Planning Group David Arbeit (GDA) Fred Logman (LMIC) John Lally (OET) Mike Barnes/Dan Ross (MnDOT) Larry Palmer (Agriculture) Rick Gelbman (GCGI) Randy Johnson (MetroGIS) Annette Theroux (ProWest) Next Step: A Strategic Planning Retreat

Our Vision Minnesota is a national leader for the Coordinated, Affordable, Reliable, and Effective use of GIS technology to enhance services throughout the state. Minnesotas GIS technology and data organizational and operational infrastructures and resources will support the development and use of geospatially-enabled business applications that enhance the efficiency, effectiveness and economic competitiveness of public, private and non-profit organizations serving the people of Minnesota.

Retreat Purpose Recommendations about: relationships among agencies, their partners and their customers, assignment of roles and responsibilities, organization of state GIS government functions, strategies for securing necessary resources. Identify and develop strategies for achieving the vision of coordinated GIS within Minnesota.

Retreat Outcomes Results will help shape a Strategic Plan for Identify and develop strategies for achieving the vision of coordinated GIS within Minnesota.

Retreat Process Design Participants Keep size to about 40 – –Large enough for diversity – –Small enough to manage process – –Provides for breakouts into 4 small work groups Target specific participants – –Insures diversity of interests – –Allows balance between business and technical people – –Increases certainty of participation

Retreat Process Design Participant Survey before retreat to identify current strengths and key issues SWOT Start with SWOT exercise Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats Consider adjustments to to stop at this point.

Initial Project Milestones DATEMILESTONE November 17Core group confirmed December 1First core group meeting December 8Workshop attendees invited December 15Second core group meeting December 22Send pre-workshop materials to attendees January 5Final core group meeting January 12Workshop January 16Post-workshop survey January 22Debriefing with core group January 26Final workshop report Draft Schedule DATEMILESTONE January 23Core group confirmed February 2First core group meeting Mid to Late AprilWorkshop attendees invited February 23Second core group meeting Mid JuneSend pre-workshop materials to attendees Mid JuneFinal core group meeting Late JuneWorkshop Late JunePost-workshop survey Late JuneDebriefing with core group Early JulyFinal workshop report

For the Councils Consideration Endorsement is requested for Vision Statement Feedback is requested for Retreat Name Retreat Purpose Project Plan Council review and endorsement is important to project success.