Geospatial Platform: The Value Proposition Summary of Comments NGAC Geospatial Platform Subcommittee October 2011

National Geospatial Advisory Committee Observations on Context of the Review and Subsequent Results This committee is hungry for the details of how the platform would be implemented. This document does not present these details and perhaps was not intended as such. The committee’s suggestion is to complete this document as a high level overview that is used as a marketing tool to garner interest at the executive level of government. The committee suggests that a more detailed business plan be developed to answer the implementation requirement and to gain implementation support at the executive level of government.

National Geospatial Advisory Committee General Comments In general, the document is a good high-level introduction to the concept. Not really sure who the intended audience is. Paper is too long for the intended audience if it is a general introduction or marketing document. What’s the purpose of this document, marketing? Doesn’t seem focused enough or inclusive enough to build consensus and support for the initiative. Too much repetition in the document oversells the value. Needs to be streamlined.  Trying too hard to make the case. Opening is weak. Need a compelling introduction to hook the audience.  Consider synthesizing a use case into something real for the introduction. Section on Effective Management of Federal Geospatial Assets is very good and important.

National Geospatial Advisory Committee Highlights: Concerns & Suggestions WHY? What is it offering? What are the compelling reasons? What are the alternatives that exist? Why should the government provide these services? Consider getting right to the point by answering… What’s different about the Platform? Built for end-users Complement the Federal cloud computing initiative and OMB Circular A-16 Portfolio management of geospatial assets A one-stop shop for Federal agencies

National Geospatial Advisory Committee Highlights: Concerns & Suggestions No cost information. In today’s Fiscal/Budget environment the value proposition must include how the platform will reduce costs.  Use cases are a good place to address projected savings  Appendix B: Should we include proposed metrics?  Need to demonstrate the cost benefits that will accrue from implementation. What is the platform – a system, initiative, portal?  The Platform is a robust portal of tools, capabilities, and data. The system itself will not promote use or data sharing at any level. Policies and people promote.

National Geospatial Advisory Committee Highlights: Concerns & Suggestions Benefits are asserted and not necessarily documented and in some cases the benefits are really benefits of GIS in general.  Document in quantitative terms, does not need to be monetary but need some indicator of value.  Separate benefits. List benefits of GIS first then add the specific value and unique benefits of the Platform.  Blue Callout Box of benefits – good succinct list – question the claims of the last bullet  Use a Benefits Story to illustrate impacts.  Consider estimating benefits in jobs  What about adding better decision making and better evaluation of policy choices?

National Geospatial Advisory Committee Highlights: Concerns & Suggestions Open standards, although mentioned numerous times in the Roadmap, seems to be missing in the Value Proposition. Document does use the word “cloud” often, but without open standards.  Introduce Open Standards as one ingredient in making the Platform a reality in terms of tools, services and infrastructure. Challenge to guarantee the platform delivers “trusted, authoritative, reliable data”  Where is the concept of how to provide "authoritative" data reliable, validated, managed, maintained, audited for accuracy, and is it defendable?  Look at data.gov Privacy Policy and Disclaimer

National Geospatial Advisory Committee Highlights: Concerns & Suggestions Use Cases don’t really make the case for the Platform.  There are alternatives in place that would accomplish the same outcome.  They need to be more specific and succinct.  Good examples of collaboration, GIS support for decision making, and value of crowdsourcing, but don’t see the added value of the Platform.  What about the projected savings?  What are the alternatives that exist?  Use cases are a little long. Cut down to 2-pages so they could be used as stand alone documents.

National Geospatial Advisory Committee Recommended Next Steps Define the intended audience and purpose of this document. Streamline next version to meet these requirements with committee’s comments in mind. Develop an annotated outline for a business case, or follow on document that is responsive to the subcommittee commentary on the what, why, who, how much and from whom & by when.

National Geospatial Advisory Committee Lingering Questions to be Addressed Will federal agencies be required to use the Geospatial Platform? Will federal funding be required to provide funding to support the platform? What does it mean to “get on board?” What am I responsible for? What do I get as a participant? What are the rules of the road to opt in or opt out? Who is managing it? What agency is going to ensure and be the overall executive sponsor to manage and affirm quality of data from all sources, as the draft seems to promise?