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.