1 / 16

Eye on the Prize: Assessing the success of metadata CAP grants

Eye on the Prize: Assessing the success of metadata CAP grants. Chris Cialek Minnesota Land Management Information Center ASPRS Annual Conference Denver, CO May 25, 2004. Metadata. Implemented as an information system An innovation that requires: Standards Software New processes

zeus-alston
Download Presentation

Eye on the Prize: Assessing the success of metadata CAP grants

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Eye on the Prize:Assessing the success of metadata CAP grants Chris Cialek Minnesota Land Management Information Center ASPRS Annual Conference Denver, CO May 25, 2004

  2. Metadata • Implemented as an information system • An innovation that requires: • Standards • Software • New processes • New business practices • New commitments • Challenge: developing implementation strategy

  3. Diffusion Theory • Diffusion is the process by which an innovation is adopted and gains acceptance by members of a certain community. Everett Rogers

  4. Diffusion Theory • Perceived Attributes: adopters judge an innovation based on their perceptions: • can be triedon a limited basis before adoption • offers observableresults • has an advantage relative to the status quo • is not overly complex • is compatiblewith existing practices and values

  5. Diffusion Theory • Rate of Adoption:

  6. A State MetadataImplementation Plan • Provide a Metadata Standard (3. Advantage, 4. Complexity) • Distribute Free Software for Collecting Metadata (1. Trialable, 2. Observable, 3. Advantage) • Offer Web-based Search Capabilities (2. Observable, 3. Advantage) • Provide Training & Support (5. Compatible)

  7. Applying the PlanProvide a Metadata Standard

  8. Applying the PlanDistribute Metadata Collection Software Format Converter DataLogr ArcCatalog

  9. Applying the PlanOffer Web-based Search Capabilities

  10. Applying the PlanProvide Training & Support

  11. CAP Motivates Action TWO GRANTS COMPLETED: • 146 metadata records created • 12 training events held statewide; 64 orgs represented • 3 new Clearinghouse nodes created • 2 state strategic planning sessions held • Metadata branding study conducted • Collection software made available online • 2 state awards received • State matched 95%

  12. Success Example Clearinghouse technology has dramatically increased LMIC’s data delivery effectiveness Data Deliveries

  13. Metadata TimelineOnline Records & Major Events CAP I CAP II 1st MN Metadata Workshop FGDC Video- conference

  14. Reasons for Optimism • A new wave of adopters seems to be emerging: • Student workshop attendees asking for instruction in their new workplaces • Those beyond core adopters are collaborating • Local government advocates are publishing • Number of metadata mentors is growing • Unsolicited records are submitted to Clearinghouse • Neighboring states/provinces are sharing ideas

  15. Observations from CAP Experience • Stated goals (e.g. build the NSDI; all data discoverable) may mask more subtle achievements • A second generation of innovators & adopters may be emerging • CAP funding provides persistent resources to help proceed through adoption ramp-up • Minnesota’s metadata implementation plan would have little traction without FGDC support

More Related