Geospatial LoB: Lifecycle WG Update

1. Geospatial LoB: Lifecycle WG Update November 3, 2009

2. Questions Posed to FGDC CGOctober 2009 Questions Posed as a follow-up to CG dialogues at August and September 2009Cooridantion Group meetings • Do you agree with the concept of national geospatial data set assets? Further, do you agree these assets need to be managed and monitored robustly in order to meet the user requirements as presented at the July 2009 CG Meeting? • Do you understand the scope of responsibilities outlined for Theme Leads and National Data Set Managers in the OMB Circular A-16 Supplemental Guidance? If you have themes or data sets, are you willing to advocate to your management setting up the infrastructure and resources necessary to conduct the coordination/management as outlined? • Do you support validating the national geospatial data assets that make up the A-16 portfolio as discussed at the September 4, 2009 CG Meeting?

3. RESULTS OF DISCUSSIONS Conversations with 25 CG members 12 out of 23 Departments & Independent Agency representatives 13 additional representatives from members from Sub-Agencies 11 Departments & Independent Agency representatives sent note on 10/30 Responses 23 Affirmative on all three questions 2 no opinion Some skeptical about ability to achieve management and funding goals LIFECYCLE WG UPDATES Draft walk through guidance being refined Draft list of BMPs ready to be posted for review 3 draft Best Practices ready to be posted for review Draft Lifecycle stage maturity metrics ready to post for review 6 walk through complete-evaluations in draft Lifecycle Current Activities

4. LMWG - Next Steps • Meet with CG members on November 5, 2009 to discuss process for validating data sets that should be within the Portfolio • Execute agreed upon process in November 2009 • Propose sending CG recommendation re establishing an A-16 portfolio in FY 2010 to the Executive Steering Committee

5. Geospatial LoB FY2010 Work Plan Summation November 3, 2009

6. Outcomes from October CG meeting • Presentation of the plans resulted in consensus around the Technology & Architecture WG, Common Services WG, Grants & Contracts WG and Lifecycle WG. • Questions remain around the Geo-Enabled WG effort. • Our objective today is to better describe the GEB intention to facilitate and support place-based initiative from OMB and seek ratification of work plans for FY2010. • Open a discussion around what goals the CG is aiming for in FY2011.

7. Place-based Policy • The GEB WG is positioning the CG to impact use of geospatial technologies for: • Measuring performance of place-based policies as they are implemented • Supporting agencies use GIS to successfully deliver place-based policy initiatives – this may range from policy assistance to consulting on how to use GIS to demonstrate policy delivery

8. GEB Actions • Agencies evolving place-based policy initiatives will need assistance to present their outcomes. • GEB proposes: • Developing a curriculum to support agency needs • Creating a ‘tiger team’ with OMB support to ‘pilot’ with an agency the use and/or application of a place-based strategy.

9. GEB Discussion “The GEB Work Group will approach this effort as follows: • In coordination with OMB, develop a strategy for assisting agencies with implementing their geo-enabled project submittals as part of the FY11 budget planning. It is anticipated that the strategy may include training and/or a consultative activity with the following assistance for agencies: • Assist organizations in deciding how to define their business requirements in the context of the OMB memo. • Assist agencies in geo-enabling existing agency databases to generate useful info that could be geo-enabled. • Help agencies identify externally available geospatial information that might be useful to better achieve their agency missions. • Help agencies utilize internally and externally available data to frame and make policy choices on a geographic basis • Help agencies measure the success of those policy choices by accessing performance data related to the specified geographic areas of interest.” • Does the CG need more detail or does this clarify intent?

10. Do we ratify FY2010 Workplans?

11. What do we want for FY2011? • Once the outlined actions are complete • What should move forward into FY2011? • What tasks? • Which work groups?

12. Indicators • Common Services WG has more ideas than bandwidth. There is continued agency interest in leveraging acquisition opportunities. Success with low hanging fruit is likely to generate interest in additional projects.

13. FY2011 Indicators • Lifecycle WG indicates that efforts around portfolio management should continue into FY2011. As the inventory is assessed a review process will need to be instantiated to create consolidation value and leverage collaboration opportunities. • Is this the right forward direction?

14. CG LoB Requirements • What major elements should be focused on as we move toward FY2011? • How are we contributing to making the NSDI a reality?

15. Next steps • Develop a requirements document • Types of requirements suggested by current information • Administrative support (minutes, facilitation, etc) • Coordination & logistics • Requirements management (such as market surveys, requirements development, base requirements or Section C type materials) • Operational requirements (planning & SLA development)