Compass Points: Setting a Direction for Minnesota’s GIS Future A New Strategic Plan for Minnesota David Arbeit MN Governor’s Council on Geographic Information May 16, 2007

Overview Our Foundation for Strategic Planning Strategic Planning Retreat The Importance of Regional Coordination Compass Points: Setting a Direction for Minnesota’s GIS Future

GCGI Strategic Framework –A Foundation for Coordinated GIS (2004) –Conceptual Architecture for Enterprise GIS (2005) NSGIC and FGDC –50 States Initiative (2006) State Master Plan for IT Building on decades of informal collaboration, Minnesota’s GIS community now needs to collaborate on a strategy that will bring the benefits of GIS to the entire state. Foundation for Coordinated GIS

A Foundation for Coordinated GIS Minnesota’s Spatial Data Infrastructure Strengths History of effective cooperative solutions LMIC as de facto state coordinator and Clearinghouse steward Governor’s Council as forum for advice & guidance Strong partnerships with federal agencies Commitment to data and technology standards Growing awareness of GIS to support business needs Development of local and regional capabilities

A Foundation for Coordinated GIS Minnesota’s Spatial Data Infrastructure Recommendations Authority and responsibility for coordination should be assigned to a state cabinet level agency. Adequate resources should be provided for GIS coordination and implementation. GIS implementation by state agencies should be coordinated within the state’s IT architecture framework.

A Foundation for Coordinated GIS Minnesota’s Spatial Data Infrastructure Organizational Issues GIS implementation by state, local, regional and federal agencies should be coordinated. Emphasis should be placed on emerging opportunities, joint projects and leveraging public and nonpublic resources. The MN Geographic Data Clearinghouse should be supported and developed as an e-government solution for distributing data.

National States Geographic Information Council Coordination Criteria A 2005 study revealed that Minnesota had recently regressed and was lacking some important criteria for success!

The Minnesota Enterprise Blueprint: A Federated Model The federated enterprise model balances three ways of managing IT business for the state Agency-specific Services Shared Services Utility Services

IT Service Types Utility Services Services and applications common to all enterprise partners, and managed by one entity for all agencies and jurisdictions to improve service and/or reduce costs. Shared Service Services and applications required by more than one enterprise partner, and managed by one entity to improve service and efficiency. Agency- Specific Services Applications and services of a highly specialized nature for which there are no opportunities to add value through central management.

How might Shared Services Work for GIS? Infrastructure (and hosting?) at OET Common applications and tools Baseline map info, standards and general data Specialized applications and thematic data COE Agency Utility

Moving Forward: We Need a Better Road Map! Now What?

Compass Points: Setting a Direction for Minnesota’s GIS Future Develop a second generation strategic plan Build on previous work and commitments –Foundations for Coordinated GIS –Conceptual Architecture for Enterprise GIS –OET Master Plan Start with focus on State government, but actively involve all stakeholders as partners and customers Build capacity to address needs of entire GIS community within the state

Sponsored by Commissioner of Administration and State CIO Participants from all key stakeholder interests Planned by Core Group of stakeholders Professionally facilitated Build on previous work Constrained by legislative schedule and funding resources Next Step: A Strategic Planning Retreat

Core Planning Group David Arbeit (GDA) Fred Logman (LMIC) John Lally (OET) Mike Barnes/Dan Ross (MnDOT) Larry Palmer (Agriculture) Rick Gelbman (GCGI) Randy Johnson (MetroGIS) Annette Theroux (ProWest) Next Step: A Strategic Planning Retreat

Our Vision Minnesota is a national leader for the Coordinated, Affordable, Reliable, and Effective use of GIS technology to enhance services throughout the state.

Retreat Outcomes Results will help shape a Strategic Plan for Identify and develop strategies for achieving the vision of coordinated GIS within Minnesota.

Retreat Process Design Participants Keep size to – –Large enough for diversity – –Small enough to manage process – –Provides for breakouts into 4 small work groups Target specific participants – –Insures diversity of interests – –Allows balance between business and technical people – –Increases certainty of participation

Retreat Process Design Participant Survey before retreat to identify current strengths and key issues SWOT Start with SWOT exercise Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats Probably stop here.

Project Milestones DATEMILESTONE January 23Core group confirmed February 2First core group meeting February 23Second core group meeting Late MayInvitations sent Mid JuneSend pre-workshop materials to attendees Mid JuneFinal core group meeting Late JuneWorkshop Late JunePost-workshop survey Late JuneDebriefing Early JulyFinal workshop report

The Importance of Regional Coordination John Chell, Arrowhead Regional Development Commission Randy Johnson, MetroGIS Charles Kost, SW Minnesota GIS Users Group Rick Moore, Pine to Prairie GIS Users Group Mark Sloan, Fargo/Moorhead Metro COG GIS Group Dave Wavrin, SE Minnesota GIS Users Group Regional organizations play an important role in formulating and implementing solutions for coordinated GIS within the state.

Compass Points: Setting a Direction for Minnesota’s GIS Future