Governance Sub-Committee Report A Proposal to Measure Progress by yurtgc548


									Measuring Progress Toward
 Realizing the NSDI Vision

NGAC Governance Subcommittee
     September 22, 2010
        (…for Governance Subcommittee developing the White
           Paper endorsed by the NGAC in December 2009)

To catalyze and provide guidance for defining:
• NSDI components to be measured – must be responsive to
   complex natural and societal challenges facing the nation
• Effective performance measurement and reporting
   mechanism to monitor NSDI development progress
• Major components and scope of NSDI governance to ensure:
   - Relevance to addressing national policy needs and directives
   - Sustained and measureable progress toward accomplishing
       critical NSDI maturity objectives
          Recap – Direction Received
             December 9, 2009
•White Paper Endorsed:
 - An effective, cross-sector mechanism is needed to measure progress toward
   realizing the NSDI vision. “Cannot manage what you cannot measure”
 - Accepted the Subcommittee’s recommended high-level metrics program and
   strategy to accomplish
 - Acknowledged need for consensus on “end state” vision for a governance
   structure – a critical need to effectively measure performance
 - Acknowledged need for a national geospatial policy to define direction,
   actions, roles and responsibilities, and governance

•Next Steps - Subcommittee Authorized to:
 - Engage with the broader community to refine the metrics program described
   in White Paper (Today’s Topic)
 - Continue internal discussion within the NGAC regarding NSDI governance
           Endorsed Metrics Themes
        (…to Measure NSDI Development Progress)

    •   Societal impact
    •   NSDI environment statistics
    •   Data development and resources
    •   Technology capabilities
    •   Organization and governance

Numerous example metrics for each theme presented in White Paper
    High-Level Implementation Strategy
       (…to Measure NSDI Development Progress)

• Involve several national organizations
• Lead federal agency to coordinate administration
• Measures across numerous constituencies
• Annual survey, with 3-5 year repeat cycle for each
• Annual results shared with overseer of national
      geospatial policy
       Engaging and Coordinating with the
              Broader Community
(to refine the example metrics, define candidates for support responsibility
   (national not federal) and recommend an implementation strategy)

• Major national stakeholder organizations invited to:
   - Share related metrics efforts they are supporting
   - Offer feedback on high-level national strategy (White Paper)

• Ask of NGAC today:
   - Identify characteristics of on-going efforts appropriate for nation
   - Offer ideas for effectively sharing knowledge among efforts
   - Identify desired measures with no current implementation lead
      (e.g., those involving measures of private sector capabilities)
          Today’s Presentations:
    In-Progress Related Metrics Efforts
• FGDC Lifecycle Management Work Group
      (Wendy Blake-Coleman, EPA)
• URISA Geospatial Capabilities Maturity Model for
      (Greg Babinski, King County, WA | URISA Board Member)
• COGO Data Report Card
      (John Palatiello, MAPPS)
• NSGIC Statewide Geospatial Maturity Model
      (Danielle Ayan, Georgia Tech Research Institute |NSGIC
      Board Member)

To top