Attendees
 

Strategic Planning Retreat Results

Cialek thanked all who participated in the Strategic Planning Retreat and distributed a summary of the retreat evaluations (Handout: Evaluation Comments - Standards Committee Planning Session 2/25/97). The committee now needs to set priorities within a realistic plan that contains measurable goals. Can any goals be consolidated? Should any goals be dropped, given our time and resource constraints? Kotz noted that retreat ideas fall into two categories: ideas for new product goals and for developing different ways of doing business.

1. Expand Communication and Education

Bixby focused on how the Standards Committee and the Governor’s Council Communications Committee might cooperate to improve communication and education by: 1. determining why the land records modernization initiative was not forwarded in the Governor’s budget; 2. creating a consistent "look" to Governor’s Council publications; 3. helping Standards Committee edit and distribute publications; 4. developing workshops for local officials and their staff who are starting GIS; 5. exploring standards for a "state library" of data, particularly DNR naming and data organizing conventions; 6. incorporating metadata into workshops.

Cialek emphasized the importance of investigating DNR’s conventions. Maki suggested creating a "support kit" for people who want to incorporate metadata development into contracts with data providers. Kotz suggested that a "hit counter" be added to the committee’s website, and emphasized that the site should only contain relevant material. Barnes underscored the pressing need to make maximum use of email and fax to communicate quickly and concisely with more people.

2. Broaden Committee Involvement

Kotz first summarized Alojado’s ideas about impediments to broader involvement: many people are geographically far from the metro area and it is costly for them to attend meetings; they perceive that standards are a task for the state to handle; many are not yet greatly involved with GIS or do not think that anyone else will use their data. He then discussed several ways to overcome these impediments: use video-conferencing to involve outstate people; involve people in working groups or as reviewers with finite tasks; involve people via email, mail, and phone; increase committee contact with local government and professional organizations.

The committee agreed that video-conferencing should focus on educating viewers, rather than being simply a broadcast of a regular meeting. Patton suggested increasing contact with organizations through newsletters, conferences, and one or two designated representatives.

3. Provide Metadata and Tools

Maki outlined several steps needed to promote the use of the metadata entry tool, DataLogr: finalize the licensing agreement, link DataLogr with the NSDI Clearinghouse; develop a distribution mechanism for the software; and present training sessions. The committee should also develop standards for a Minnesota clearinghouse and should collaborate with staff engaged in interagency data distribution (Handout: Issue 3: Provide Clearinghouse Metadata and Support Tools).

Barnes asked whether current data is of sufficient quality to support a clearinghouse, noting that MnDOT’s data library is just for internal use at this point. Cialek replied that a clearinghouse is designed only to document what exists and that remedying all data problems is out of scope. Kotz noted that the MetroGIS Access Team is investigating a clearinghouse idea. Tanya Mayer is the contact.

4. Re-examine Mission and Workplan

Cialek summarized reasons for revising the committee’s workplan and reviewed a draft timeline for accomplishing this task (Handout: Goal 4: Re-examine the Committee’s Mission and Purpose, and Create a Revised Committee Workplan). The target is to submit a plan to the Governor’s Council by the end of September 1997.

Discussion emphasized that the workplan should be a "living document" rather than a document that gets published in final form. It is intended primarily for internal committee use. Probably a few original authors will write the draft which could then be reviewed by outside people (e.g., DNR, MnDOT, Met Council, IPO). Patton suggested that one way to help define a mission statement is to make lists of what the committee does, why it does those things, and what it wants to do.

5. Utilize Small Groups

Kotz outlined the idea that tasks can be most efficiently completed in small working groups with periodic review by the full committee. In order for the idea to work, the task scope must be defined; a single person (not necessarily a committee member) must be responsible for ensuring that the task gets done; and a timeline or due date must be set. One way to recruit members for a working group would be through fax, email, and mail.

Barnes noted that this idea could also include "interest groups" that would track activity in a particular area and would already be in place if action were needed. Bixby suggested that GIS/LIS could invite representatives from different local and professional organizations to attend standards workshops, perhaps providing an incentive such as free registration if they wrote an article about standards in their newsletter.

6. Determine Priorities Based on User Community

Wencl reviewed four aspects of this goal (Handout: Goals for the Future, #6): 1. identify the community and its needs; 2. assess the expectations of the community; 3. identify and prioritize user requirements; and 4. be considered useful by the GIS community, broader information technology community, and policy-makers. The community is difficult to define since it is very dynamic, but we should use information from several previous user surveys. The committee needs to define what it is trying to offer so that it can evaluate its success.

Patton wondered whether user needs should be the sole criteria for guiding the committee or whether the committee also needed to provide leadership on issues not yet considered of highest importance by users. The GIS/LIS conference provides a "reality-check" for the committee, but this could be accomplished more effectively. Again, a better communications link with users is vital. Barnes volunteered to head this effort.

7. Expand Usefulness of Starting Points, Investigate Standards Clearinghouse

Cialek described a grant proposal to create a pilot standards clearinghouse coordinated by David Stage, State of Florida Geographic Information Board, through the National States Geographic Information Council (NSGIC) (Handout: Establishing a Digital Library of Geographic Information Standards and Practices). It is designed to complement the Federal Geographic Data Committee’s metadata clearinghouse and is compatible with the Government Information Locator System (GILS) format. It models a way to communicate information about standards and to provide one place for starting to search for information about standards (without prioritizing those standards). The committee has the opportunity to test this system.

8. Secure an Operating Budget

Cialek noted that committee projects are often slowed by the need to request funding after an idea is in progress. (Handout: Goal 8: Secure a Base Level of Financial Resources to Help Accomplish an Expanded Set of Goals). If the Governor’s Council could approve a general workplan and then allocate a committee budget, the committee could accomplish its tasks more efficiently.

The ensuing discussion emphasized that the committee needs to be very careful how the money is spent (it should be targeted toward special projects) and that all work should continue to be volunteer, including expenses incurred in attending meetings.

9. Prioritize Standards

Cialek distributed a summary of the argument for prioritizing standards and some possible approaches to determine a workable method (Handout: Goal 9: Prioritize Standards). Time constraints precluded discussion of this goal and of Goal #10.

10. Develop a Process for Adopting Standards

No time for discussion.

Final Announcements

Cialek reported that the Minnesota Geographic Metadata Guidelines are now on the committee’s website (http://www.lmic.state.mn.us/gc/stds/metadata.htm). He requested that members look at them and provide feedback.

Cialek will make a short presentation to the Information Policy Council on April 17 about the metadata guidelines.

The committee needs to provide the revised County Codes standard to the Information Policy Office.

Cialek will be attending a National Mapping Division (NMD) Standards Planning meeting in Denver on April 23. He will provide a state perspective to help NMD develop internal standards procedures, and all attendees will explore ways in which NMD and the states can more effectively collaborate.

The Federal Spatial Data Accuracy Standard is out for review. Cialek suggested that Julie Maitra of USGS, co-author of the standard, may be willing to come to Minnesota for a half-day workshop about the standard. Committee members suggested several people who would likely be interested in attending.

Action Items People who volunteered to investigate one of the ten goals listed above will write a short description of the major elements of the goal and send it to Cialek before the next committee meeting.

Cialek will draft a more complete outline and mission statement.

Barnes will talk with Laura Muessig and a representative from GIS/LIS to investigate the idea of efficient electronic communication.

Cialek will contact Julie Maitra about a possible workshop.

Committee members should consider whether extending meeting times by a half-hour is needed to accomplish our goals. The next meeting of the GIS Standards Committee is Tuesday, May 13th, 1997, 9:30 - 11:30, Room 301, Centennial Office Building, St. Paul.