# Presentation: 287419

## Advancing Statewide Spatial Data Infrastructures in Support of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI)Developing Strategic and Business PlansFebruary 22, 2009

## Introductions

**Bill Burgess**, NSGIC
**Michael Terner**, AppGeo
**Steve Anderson**, AppGeo
**Malcolm Adkins**, Baker
**Danielle Ayan**, GA-CGIS
- Also with us as an observer is **Rich Grady**, AppGeo

## Agenda

***8:30 : 9:00****	**	****Gathering, coffee and networking***
**9:00 : 9:05**		NSGIC Welcome & Introductions		Bill Burgess, NSGIC
**9:05 : 9:15**		Opening Remarks on 50 States Initiative			Ivan DeLoatch, FGDC
**9:15 : 9:45**		The Strategic Plan Template		Michael Terner, AppGeo
**9:45 : 10:00**   	Mini Case Studies: New York (’07) & Georgia (’08)		Michael Terner, AppGeo; Danielle Ayan, GA-CGIS
**10:00 : 10:15****	******* B R E A K *****
**10:15 : 10:45**	Strategic Planning Lessons Learned		Michael Terner, AppGeo
**10:45 : 11:05**	The Class of 2009 – What’s ahead		Malcolm Adkins, Baker
**11:05 : 11:20**	Strategic Plan Questions & Answers
**11:20 : 11:30****	******* B R E A K *****
**11:30 : 12:15 **	Business Planning Session		Steve Anderson, AppGeo
-  Template
-   Mini-case study
-   Lesson’s learned
**12:15 : 12:30**	Business Plan Question & Answers
**12:30 : 12:35****	**Summary Observations & Wrap-up

## Overview of Strategic Planning Process & Templates

## CAP Grant Supported Strategic Planning in a nutshell

- FGDC wants to create a National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI)
- State Spatial Data Infrastructures (SSDI) are critical to success of NSDI
- Strategic planning will aid process of building SSDI’s
- Thus, states need to self-assess and develop a strategic plan
- FGDC will Support Strategic Planning via CAP grants
- BUT, FGDC wants strategic plans to be similar in structure
- Allowing state-by-state comparison/contrast
- In partnership with NSGIC they created templates
- And require their use for CAP supported Strategic Planning

## What was done to create templates?

- Multi-state steering committee guidance
- Key guidance: “One size does _**not**_ fit all”
- Document Review
- Other Strategic & Business Plans, I-Plans
- Including: NC, GA, IN, KY, ME, OR, CT, RI, MD, MA
- Review past experiences
- By contractors
- By committee members
- Drafted Templates
- WIKI: Collaboration
- To edit and refine content
- Process comments
- Produced Final Docs
- Approved by NSGIC/FGDC

## One Strategic Plan, potentially many Business Plans
Strategic Plan 
What and Why
Vision & Goals
The “big picture” and overall context
Business Plan 
How, When, and How Much
Aimed at those who approve and fund
Details of initiative(s) emerge
Presented as a business case
Strategic planning process determineswhich business plan comes first

**Strategic Plan**
**What** and **Why**
- Vision & Goals
- The “big picture” and overall context
**Business Plan**
**How, When**, and **How Much**
- Aimed at those who approve and fund
- Details of initiative(s) emerge
- Presented as a business case
- Strategic planning process determineswhich business plan comes first

**The NSGIC Templates****The one-two punch of Strategic & Business Plans**

## Business Plan Details

**To implement a Statewide Spatial Data Infrastructure (SSDI) consistent with appropriate national standards**

**Primary Strategic Goal**

**GOAL 1:**
- Establish GIO position, clarify statutory authority

**GOAL 2:**
- Develop improved statewide elevation data

**GOAL 3:**
- Pursue goal 3

**Business Plan Details**

**SP**

**SP**

**BP**

**BP**

**Programmatic **
**Goals**

**Strategic Plan vs. Business Plan**

-  Business plans should relate to Strategic objectives
-  Business Plans come from goals
-  You can have more then one Business Plan

- Benefits

- Justification

- ROI

- Cost/Benefit

- Implementation Plan

- Costs

- Requirements

- Risks

## Strategic & Business Plan Template Revisions For 2009

- There will be minor revisions to both the Strategic & Business Plan Templates over the next 2 months
- Some of these will be highlighted later this morning during the “lessons learned” discussion
- Current templates are suitable for early-stage project planning
- You will be notified when the revised templates have been uploaded to the FGDC and NSGIC web-sites

## Strategic Planning Context

- Take an overall look at GIS in _*My State*_
- GIS **success stories** at all levels of government
- What are the ingredients for success?
- Identify **challenges and gaps**
- What are these and how do we overcome them?
- Take a look “outside the box”
- How does _*My State*_ fit into the larger national picture and relevant Federal initiatives
- National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI)
- Strategic Planning Process must be “**locally relevant**”
- It can’t be just about NSDI

**Notes:**
as a starting point, we’re going to take a look at GIS in Mass overall. We think that Where its’ being used, its doing what its supposed to do – help people understand and solve problems, provide information, improve operations, optimize decisions.   If you have GIS skills, you can get a good job.  But its not being used everywhere it could be, nor as effectively as it could be.  There are some real challenges, overlapping responsibilities, redundant efforts, lack of communication, inadequate funding and so on. Part of what we are trying to do, and where we need your help  is identify both the successes and the challenges  We’re looking at other states and using the guidance from the feds to help us think about where we stand and where we could be going.  We’ll talk about two relevant identify these  We’re starting by looking at mass in the context of other states and in relation to federal initiatives something called the national spatial data infrastrucure which funded this project through the fifty states initiative.   

## Federal Centric Outlook:NSDI and Statewide Spatial Data Infrastructures 

**NSDI**

- 50 States
- Initiative

- SSDI
- CA

- SSDI
- NC

**SSDI**
**New York**

- Data sharing between levels of government
- The best data are local
- Local rolls up to regional/state
- States roll up to National

**Notes:**
This slide illustrates the multi-level approach which the federal govt is endorsing with the NSDI.  The fifty states initiative, which is what funded our strategic planning effort, is all about data sharing between levels of govt.    everybody recognizes that the best data are local and they need to be rolled up to a regional or statewide and then a national level.   Certainly part of what’s driving this is the idea that when there’s a big disaster somewhere, the surrounding towns or MEMA or even federal agencies have all got to be reading from the same playbook.  but its also about just being efficient – why should the taxpayer who paid for local mapping also pay the state and federal govts to do the same mapping all over again. 

## State Centric Outlook: Statewide Spatial Data Infrastructure Makes Sense for States!Courtesy of Bill Johnson, NYCSCIC

**NSDI**

- 50 States
- Initiative

**Data sharing between ****levels of government**
- The best data are local
- Local rolls up to regional/state
- SSDI’s ***linked to other*** state SDI’s and National SDI

**Notes:**
This slide illustrates the multi-level approach which the federal govt is endorsing with the NSDI.  The fifty states initiative, which is what funded our strategic planning effort, is all about data sharing between levels of govt.    everybody recognizes that the best data are local and they need to be rolled up to a regional or statewide and then a national level.   Certainly part of what’s driving this is the idea that when there’s a big disaster somewhere, the surrounding towns or MEMA or even federal agencies have all got to be reading from the same playbook.  but its also about just being efficient – why should the taxpayer who paid for local mapping also pay the state and federal govts to do the same mapping all over again. 

## NSDI Supply Chain Outlook

## What is the Purpose of a Strategic Plan?

- Identify and articulate a **Vision**
- Identify and articulate **Long Term Goals**
- Determine Programmatic Goals
**What needs to happen** to achieve the long-term Vision?
- Identify **Risks**
- Develop Strategies for Overcoming Risks
- Provide a Process and Feedback Loop to Make Adjustments when Necessary
- The process itself is valuable
- Engage stakeholder community

- “Plans are nothing; planning is everything”

- http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/de34.html

## Key early question: Who is our Target Audience?

- What does FGDC expect and what does the Federal government need to understand about our state?
- Who owns the plan?
- State government?
- Geospatial stakeholders at large?
- The “coordination council”?
- Who do you need to convince?
- Decision makers?
- Stakeholders?
- What would make them support this initiative?
- Are there any political barriers?
- Election Year/Transition Year
- Party in control
- Timing can be everything
- There is no single “right answer” – it will vary from state to state

## Strategic Planning Process Map

**2**

**3**

**5**

**4**

- 1 = Iterative
- 2 = Inclusive
- 3 = Is Approved
- 4 = Supported
- 5 = Flows to the      business plan

**1**

**Strategic Planning Process Map**

## What does the Strategic Plan Template achieve?

- Provides a **Consistent Framework** for Articulating:
- Purpose and drivers
- Roles of participants
- Strengths & Weaknesses
- Objectives and long-term Vision
- Values (e.g. “free flow of data”)
- Without dictating specific content

## Let’s take a look inside the Strategic Plan Template...

**Straightforward high-level outline of 7 sections**
- Executive Summary
- Strategic Planning Methodology
- Current Situation
- Vision and Goals
- Requirements
- Implementation Program
- Appendices

## 1. Executive Summary

- Executive Level Presentation
- Brief, but Sufficient Detail
- 2 – 10 pages
- Or, two documents: short, very-short
- For example:
**MA**: 75 page document, 5 page Executive Summary
- Plus 10 page “standalone” extended summary
**VT**: “standalone” 2 page brochure
- Strategic Objectives of Plan
- Key findings that support objectives
- Benefits to be Realized
- Resource Needs
- Simplified Timeline
- Associated Costs

## 2. Strategic Planning Methodology

**2. Strategic Planning Methodology**

- Process followed to develop the plan
- Who “owns”, or approves the plan?
- Emphasize *process* not the situation
- Stakeholder identification and input
**Open, transparent process**
- Constraints or limitations
- Core methodology
- Stakeholder sessions/workshops
- Interviews
- Surveys
- Analysis/synthesis/deliberation
- Authoring

## 3. Current Situation

**Assessment of the status quo**
**Who** are we?
- Stakeholder community characterization
**Where** are we?
- GIS and **governance** history
- Relative to NSGIC/FGDC **9-criteria**
**Framework** data set status
- Identify relevant issues where GIS matters
- What’s on the governor’s agenda?
- We’re not doing this for the “sake of GIS”, we’re doing this because GIS helps policy, planning, decision making
- How do we interact with the Federal government? Can it be improved?
**SWOT**
_**S**_trengths and _**W**_eaknesses
_**O**_pportunities and _**T**_hreats
- Generally, one of the meatier sections of the plan
- What’s going well?
- Where are the gaps/problems?

## 4. Vision and Goals

- Overarching goal is SSDI
- Or is it?
- Vision Statement/Definition
- Statement of values
- Articulating programmatic goals
- What is needed to achieve the vision?
- Series of projects and initiatives
- Defining steps to get there
- Realistic short and long-term horizons
- The goals are **your recommendations**

**The Kansas Geographic Information System Partnership initiative will be a *****collaborative***** effort among the statewide geospatial community that delivers robust, map-based, *****geospatial***** *****information and services***** to support policy and decision making at *****all levels of government*****, to provide access to *****public information***** and to enhance the *****safety, economy, environment and quality of life***** in Kansas.**

## 5. Requirements

**5. Requirements**

- Generally, comes after sections 3 and 4 are completed
- Section 3: Identifies status, strengths and weaknesses
- Section 4: Identifies Vision and recommendations
- That’s the “hard part”
- Once there’s consensus on *what to do*, this is a straightforward enumeration of new requirements to make progress
- And, an assessment of existing resources available to support
- Assessment of existing technical infrastructure
- Data Requirements
- Technology Requirements
- Human Resource Requirements
- Standards
- Organizational Needs
- Executive support
- Coordination
- Policy
- Staffing
- Budget
- Outreach
- Risk assessment

## 6. Implementation Program

**6. Implementation Program**

- Should be high-level
- Business Plan(s) provide the details
- General timeline showing dependencies
- Phased approach
- Strategic plan may layout a 5+ year program
- General budget showing itemized magnitude of expenditures
- Present cost ranges
- Marketing the program
- Measuring success

## Mini-Case StudiesHow Strategic Planning Worked in New York & Georgia

## New York State GIS Strategic Plan Case StudyConducted 2007-2008Project sponsor:NY Office of Cyber Security & Critical Infrastructure Coordination

**New York State GIS Strategic Plan ****Case Study****Conducted 2007-2008****Project sponsor:****NY Office of Cyber Security & Critical Infrastructure Coordination**

## Planning Process Overview
Objectives: transparent and inclusive process
Achieve consensus and broad-based support
Spring 2007: Kickoff & project planning
Summer/Fall 2007: Six Regional Stakeholder Meetings
Winter 2007/2008: Report Authoring
SWOT
Recommendation development
March 2008: Draft distributed for comment
To broad stakeholder community
60+ sets of comments received
April/May 2008: Feedback incorporated
Input from Coordinating Body and CSCIC Director
May 2008: Plan “approval”
Prioritization of recommendations by Coordinating Body

**Planning Process Overview**
- Objectives: **transparent** and **inclusive** process
- Achieve consensus and broad-based support
- Spring 2007: **Kickoff** & project planning
- Summer/Fall 2007: Six **Regional Stakeholder Meetings**
- Winter 2007/2008: Report **Authoring**
- SWOT
- Recommendation development
- March 2008: Draft distributed for **comment**
- To broad stakeholder community
**60+ sets of comments received**
- April/May 2008: **Feedback** incorporated
- Input from Coordinating Body and CSCIC Director
- May 2008: Plan “**approval**”
- Prioritization of recommendations by Coordinating Body

## There are significant regional variations in GIS outlook and practice within New York
Strengths:
Mature coordination program within sustainable funding
Solid foundation on all 7 framework layers
National leadership in recurring, statewide orthoimagery program
Data sharing cooperative
Weaknesses:
Orthoimagery web services performance
Implementation of the Data Sharing Cooperative
Dated holdings
Usability of web-site
Private sector is not included
Branding w/ Cyber Security & Critical Infrastructure Coordination
Data: elevation quality and county/municipal boundaries accuracy
Freedom of information law is applied inconsistently
Opportunities:
Huge demand for statewide parcels – 11 state agencies currently collect this information
Leverage ortho program’s success: new layers (e.g. wetlands), oblique imagery, 3D structures

**Strengths:**
- Mature coordination program within sustainable funding
- Solid foundation on all 7 framework layers
- National leadership in recurring, statewide orthoimagery program
- Data sharing cooperative
**Weaknesses:**
- Orthoimagery web services performance
- Implementation of the Data Sharing Cooperative
- Dated holdings
- Usability of web-site
- Private sector is not included
- Branding w/ Cyber Security & Critical Infrastructure Coordination
- Data: elevation quality and county/municipal boundaries accuracy
- Freedom of information law is applied inconsistently
**Opportunities:**
- Huge demand for **statewide parcels** – 11 state agencies currently collect this information
**Leverage ortho program’s success**: new layers (e.g. wetlands), oblique imagery, 3D structures

**SWOT and Findings**

## The Recommendations

**Highest Priority**
- Pursue **statewide parcels** in association with Office of Real Property
- Further **focus CSCIC GIS Coordination role**
- Re-branding from CSCIC; Foster local govts; Deploy web services
**High Priority**
- Pursue improvements in **statewide elevation data**
- Develop long-term program to improve **statewide administrative boundaries **(i.e., county and municipal boundaries)
**Medium Priority**
**Strengthen** and expand statewide **orthoimagery program**
**Strengthen the Data Sharing Cooperative**
- Active DB stewardship
- Improving the web-site
- Explore broader membership

## Unique Elements of New York’s Process

- New York’s Unique **Data Sharing Cooperative**
- It’s not for everyone and there are some issues
- New York is heavily invested in the model
- Location of the GIS Coordination Program within the Office Cyber Security and Critical Infrastructure Coordination
- Coordination as a secondary mission
- Branding challenges
- Large amount of **feedback received** on the draft plan
- 60 sets of written comments
- Spoke well for the open and inclusive process that was run

## Placeholder for Georgia’s Slides

## Lessons Learned & Common Observations on the 50 States Initiative’s Strategic Planning Process

## Common Patterns in Statewide GIS Strategic Plans

- 43 CAP grants awarded since 2006 (this includes 8 for 2009)
- 18 completed **Strategic Plans** posted
- 13 completed **Business Plans** posted
- All plans posted at: _[http://www.fgdc.gov/policyandplanning/50states/tableofplans](http://www.fgdc.gov/policyandplanning/50states/tableofplans)__ _
- Tremendous variety among plans
- In-house production vs. professional consultant
- Use of FGDC/NSGIC provided templates, ***or not***
- Depth and breadth (e.g. 12 – 75 pages)
- Planning context
**Think strategically**; Look “outside the box”
- Address a **problem**
- Lack of a GIS Office (WY, NH)
- Post-Katrina after action (LA)
**Improve coordination**, generally
- State government vs. statewide “GIS community”
- Broad perspective vs. single issue focus
- SD’s plan is just about **cadastral data**

## Lesson’s LearnedThe Utility and Challenges of the Templates

**Template is an effective tool** and does _not_ force one size to fit all
- Extract the essence of sections
- Tune to local conditions and priorities
- Provides guidance on **form and organization, content will vary greatly**
- Adjust semantics
- Sec. 3.1 “Who Are We”  “Who is the New York Geospatial Stakeholder Community”
- But, **too much variety** among the current crop of plans
- Some used templates rigorously
- Some loosely followed templates
- Some ignored templates entirely
- Contractor led projects tended to follow them more closely
- Class of 2009 **should use the templates**
- The planning process itself is valuable regardless
- Opportunity for state program to “connect” with stakeholders
- Stakeholder participation has generally exceeded expectations
- Choose your “Steering Committee” carefully:
- There’s a lot of work to do and you will need help
- Team building opportunity

## Addressing Strategic Plan VarietyPotential Minimum Required Elements

- Key perspective gained preparing for Federal Stakeholder’s Workshop when we reviewed the 18 completed plans
- Some level of **commonality** required so that:
- Plans can be better compared and contrasted
- Summary info can be assembled
- This is of key value to Federal stakeholders
- 50 States Initiative is designed to help them
- A resource where people can gain a quick thumbnail of a state’s GIS effort and priorities
- Such a resource should be valuable to states too (e.g. to learn from/about your peers and neighbors)
- Implemented at the _next version_ of the Strategic Plan Templates
- Will be finalized and available by April 24, 2009

## Addressing Strategic Plan VarietyPotential Minimum Required Elements

- Current thinking on what might be required:
- Section 2: Enumeration of **Methodology**
- Who was involved in the planning effort and what did we do?
- Section 3:** Current Situation** must include:
- Commentary relative to NSGIC 9-criteria
- Enumeration of status of 7 Framework data sets
- Basic SWOT
- Top 3 strengths
- Top 3 weaknesses
- Section 4:** Vision & Goals** must be enumerated:
- Top 3 goals/recommendations
- What does your plan recommend to be done?
- Class of 2009 should use the templates
- FGDC will be prepared to validate that the required elements are provided
- FGDC wants your input so that the minimum required elements facilitate and improved two-way dialog between states and Feds
- Project team will be in touch with you and other past awardees to gain your input over the next 2 months

## Lesson’s LearnedOn Contractor Involvement

- There’s a full spectrum of possibilities that have delivered effective results
**State/GIS Clearinghouse takes lead** (TX, GA)
- Potential support by temp/academic staff
- Is outside “objectivity” desirable?
- State takes lead **with contractor professional facilitation** support (VT, WI)
- Many states report “facilitator is critical”
- VT: “allows us (state program) to participate like everyone else”
**State divides** work with contractor (MA, CO, UT)
- Co-authoring of documents (MA, UT)
- State-led workshops (CO)
**Contractor leads** the effort (KS, NH, DC, CA, FL, ID)
- Some involvement is critical for success
- State logistical support, committee involvement and editing

## Lesson’s LearnedOn Planning Process Governance

**Who’s plan is it anyway?**
- State GIS Program’s plan?
- State Coordinating Body’s plan?
- “On behalf” of all GIS Stakeholders?
**Who is managing the project?**** **
- Who has final editorial control?
- Most often, a “Strategic Plan Steering Committee”
- Who convenes this committee?
- Sometimes a sub-committee of the State Coordinating Body
**Who sits** on the committee and **how big** a committe?
- In UT, 5 (plus state program staff)
- In MA, 27 (plus state program staff)

## Lesson’s LearnedOn Stakeholder Input

**Many potential forums**
**On-line surveys** (UT, CT, FL, MO, CA, IN)
- Individual **interviews** w/ key stakeholders
- Smaller, **focus groups** around an issue
- Larger, public “stakeholder information gathering sessions” (aka “Listening Session”)
- How diverse and vocal is your community?
- 7 sessions in CA
- 6 sessions in PA, ID, GA, NY, CO and MA
- 5 session in SC, VT, HI
- 3 sessions in CT, FL (600+ participants)
- 2 sessions in NH, UT, KS, DC
- Final review of the document
**What info are you trying to collect?**
- Characterize the state of GIS (SWOT)
- Identify priorities
- Assess the potential for consensus
- Solicit new ideas directly

## Lesson’s LearnedVisioning

**Can be more challenging than it sounds**
- Do you know what is wanted/needed?
- Looking for stakeholder ratification
- Do you need to do original discovery?
**What is the “Vision thing”?**
- Succinct statement (e.g. Mission Statement)?
- Lengthier and more descriptive?  Pictorial?
- Opportunity to state values (e.g. KS)
- Does it sound like NSDI?
- Does SWOT help in forming it?

## Lesson’s LearnedGoals Development & Prioritization

**How do programmatic goals flow from the Vision?**
- Review the SWOT
***Leverage*** strengths
***Address*** weaknesses
***Seize*** opportunities
***Avoid*** threats
- Think in terms of “projects”
**What projects do we need to complete to realize the Vision?**
**How do we prioritize? How do we gain consensus?**
- Listen carefully; Don’t be afraid to take a first stab at it
- Ask the stakeholders/committee for input
- Stakeholders respect an open process and appreciate a common sense approach
- New York’s committee completed a formal “prioritization voting” process

## Lesson’s LearnedCommon Issues the state’s face

- Many states have internal coordination challenges
- Intra-governmental coordination between agencies can be a challenge
- State “coordination office” might not be the biggest or most important GIS shop in the state
- Important, large states like FL and CA have **no central GIS coordination** office (same applies in smaller states like NH or WY)
- GIS happens at the State Agency level: DOT, DNR, DEP, DPH
- States face a microcosm of some of the federal NSDI coordination challenges
- Getting Fed agencies to better coordinate (e.g. US-DOT, DOI and DOD)
- FGDC is sincerely interested in state input on challenges of working with the Federal govt.
- Getting our partners to coordinate with us
- States are to the Feds as Counties are to a State

## Lesson’s LearnedHow states are trying to making GIS relevant

- It’s not about GIS technology, it’s about what GIS does
- Decision makers are not as excited about technology as we are
- Issues of the day: **economic development, public safety, environment, alternative energy**
- Improving the “health and well being” of citizens
**Florida’s** Vision Statement:
- “To improve the *quality of life* in Florida by optimizing the use of geographic information through communication, coordination, and collaboration.”
- From **Wisconsin’s** Executive Summary:
- 	Emergency response. Wireless 911. Pandemic planning. Voter registration. Sex offender tracking. Each of these presents serious challenges for our society, and the public expects and deserves these and numerous related issues to be addressed efficiently and effectively. The coordinated use of geographic information and technologies, including geographic information systems (GIS), is the most effective way to meet these challenges.

## Lessons LearnedBarriers to NSDI

**GIS equity** issues at the state level
- Several states describe a situation of GIS “haves” and “have nots” (MA, KS, FL)
- How do we get nationwide parcels until everyone is a “have”?
- 5,000 person counties in KS
- 500 person towns in MA
- Application of **Freedom of Information** laws for GIS data (UT, NH, NY, MA, KS)
- OMB Circular A-130 Emphasizes Federal/NSDI policy:“free flow of information between the government and the public is essential to a democratic society”
- Very inconsistent application of existing statutes
- Controversial local issue
- You don’t want to anger or alienate your stakeholders
- How can we assemble statewide layers, much less nationwide layers when counties and local governments may not willingly share data?
- Or, when they charge exorbitant sums to obtain data?
- Emerging case law is critical – and reiterates that **GIS data are public records**
- CT Supreme Court decision against Greenwich, CT
- Recent CA Court of Appeals decision against Santa Clara County, CA
- Rejected homeland security and copyright arguments of the county

## The Class of 2009What Lies Ahead

## Congratulations 2009 Cat 3 CAP Grant Recipients!

## 2-Minute Project Snapshot per State

- Please take two minutes to introduce your representatives and outline your project (NSGIC Virtual Timer in Effect)
- Project Objective(s)
- Challenge Area(s)
- Timeline
- Interactive session is intended to:
- Identify Potential **Synergies**
- Find **Common Interests**
- Discover **Bodies of Knowledge**

## Arizona

**AGIC Strategic and Business Plan Project**
**Strategic Plan:** the strategic plan will identify a vision for improved access to geospatial data, the organization required for future statewide coordination to meet state geospatial data and technology needs and support the NSDI.
**Business Plan:** the business plan will define how objectives will be achieved along with justification for doing them. The business plan will identify partnership opportunities to establish and maintain an Arizona Geospatial Clearinghouse.
- Revising AGIC E.O. 2004-19 or establish AGIC in Legislation
- Adopting State Geospatial Policies
- 	Eugene Trobia, State Cartographer
- 	Kevin Blake, AGIC President 2009
- 	Tom Sturm, USGS Geospatial Liaison for AZ & NV

**AZ**

## Arkansas

**Framework Data Development Sustainable Funding Plan**
- Develop a strategic business plan for the development and maintenance of statewide framework GIS data in Arkansas.  The project will involve stakeholder input from all corners of the state.  The final deliverable will be a written business plan to assist the Arkansas State Land Information Board and the Arkansas Geographic Information Office in meeting its legislative mandate to develop a coordinated GIS for the State.
- 	Learon Dalby, AR Geographic Information Office
- 	Bill Sneed, USGS Geospatial Liaison for Arkansas

**AR**

## Delaware

**Delaware Geospatial Data Coordination Strategic Planning**
- The Delaware Geographic Data Committee (DGDC) will create a strategic plan, and appropriate business plans based on that strategic plan, to coordinate the continued collection of Delaware Spatial Data Framework Layers and the use and sharing of these and other geospatial data in Delaware. The project will also examine integration of Delaware data with national-level geospatial data and data from neighboring states.
- A draft strategic plan will be drafted for consideration by the Steering Committee, the full DGDC, and finally the DGDC Executive Council.
- Following Executive Council approval of that plan, business plans to manage the maintenance of the state spatial data infrastructure.
- The State SDI will enable Delaware’s support for the development of a National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI).
- 	Michael Mahaffie, Delaware Office of Management & BudgetKim Cloud, Dept of Technology & Information

**DE**

## Kentucky

**Commonwealth of Kentucky Geospatial Strategic Plan**
- Kentucky Division of Geographic Information (DGI) will work with the Kentucky Geographic Information Advisory Council (GIAC) membership to develop the Geospatial Strategic Plan for the Commonwealth.
- The planning process will evaluate the business needs of all stakeholders, identify opportunities for consolidation of resources and services, and open the flow of geospatial information between agencies.
- Additionally, the Enterprise Architecture Standards that relate to GIS Software and Hardware will be reviewed for currency and applicability within today’s information technology environment. Collectively, the process will yield recommendations that will improve the support of GIS initiatives for all member organizations.
- 	Kim Anness, Division of Geographic Information
- 	Kent Anness, Division of Geographic Information
- 	Bruce Bauch, USGS Geospatial Liaison for KY & TN

**KY**

## Michigan

**Creating a Statewide Geospatial Business Plan**
- With full support of the Michigan State CIO and Center for Shared Solutions and Technology Partnerships (CSSTP), the Local and State Cross Boundary Technology Steering Committee will collaborate with existing geospatial communities to develop a geospatial business plan by:
- engaging the support of key state-wide professional associations;
- holding a series of independently facilitated stakeholder listening sessions across Michigan;
- integrating results to develop win-win ‘local-scale’ solutions completion of the orthoimagery, elevation, transportation, hydrography, and cadastral themes.
- This geospatial business plan will use, as a foundation, the goals outlined in the 2008 Michigan IT Strategic Plan.
- 	Paul Harmon, MI Technology Partnerships
- 	Bill Rowe, Marquette County, IMAGIN Rep
- 	Jeroen Wagendorp, Grand Valley St. Univ., MiCAMP  Rep
- 	Steve Aichele, USGS Geospatial Liaison for Oregon

**MI**

## Oregon

**Oregon Statewide Strategy for Geographic Information Management**
- Produce a refreshed strategic plan for geographic information management and coordination for Oregon. Previous plan created in 2001, prior to the Fifty States Initiative. A detailed business plan was developed last year for the Oregon program, called navigatOR ... but no documentation of the strategy behind that business plan has been produced.
- Six facilitated meetings will be conducted
- ...refreshing and revising our collaborative strategic plan for navigatOR.
- ~ ten GIS and accounting professionals from around the country will develop an accounting mechanism to track the accrual of benefits from coordinated development of GIS.
- 	Cy Smith, State of Oregon
- 	Ed Arabas, State of Oregon

**OR**

## Virginia

**Commonwealth of Virginia Five Year GIS Strategic Plan Development**
- Virginia Geographic Information Network (VGIN) will develop a five year strategic plan that will focus on three areas:
- completion of all framework data layers including sustainability plans;
- identification, prioritization and planning for the development of the most commonly needed geospatial services (e.g. web and geoprocessing services);
- maturity modeling for the Geospatial Enterprise Platform data repository as the “go to” location for Virginia GIS data.
- VGIN is tightly coupled organizationally with the state E911 coordinating body through the Integrated Services Program of the Virginia Information Technologies Agency. This partnership provides unique opportunities to meet the overlapping business needs of GIS and public safety.
- 	Daniel Widner, Coordinator, Virginia Geographic Information NetworkStuart Blankenship, Geospatial Projects ManagerDiane Eldridge, USGS Geospatial Liaison for Virginia

**VA**

## Washington

**Update the Washington GIS Strategic Plan & ****Build a Business Plan for Tracking Progress and Results in Washington**
- Updating the Washington’s GIS Strategic Plan and building a business plan for framework data that will help guide and track results in Washington.
- Updating the existing GIS Strategic Plan to reflect current business needs in Washington and the Fifty States Initiative Action Plan
- Developing and building a comprehensive business plan to implement the strategic plan.
- Enhance and expand a network of partnerships among GIS practitioners and the Information Services Board Geographic Information Technology Committee (ISB-GIT).
- 	Joy Paulus, Washington State Department of Information ServicesScott Van Hoff, USGS Geospatial Liaison for ID & WA

**WA**

## ?

**Strategic Planning****Questions and Answers**

## 2009 NSGIC Mid-Year Conference Business Planning

## Overview:

- Review of the Business Planning Process
- What is a business plan?
- Why do you do it?
- How does it differ from a strategic plan?
- What Business Plans have been completed through the CAP grant program?
- What are they about?
- What different approaches were used?
- Case Study: Kansas Improved Elevation Business Plan
- Lessons Learned

## Business Plan Purpose

- To support the **successful** **implementation** of the programs identified in your organization’s **Strategic** Plan.
- Provides the **details** of the steps required to achieve the goals identified.
- Lays out a **schedule** for the order and timing of the steps.
- Makes a sound **business case** to one or more of the decision** **makers to approve and provide the resources needed to achieve your goals (funding, staffing, time, etc)

## What should be in a Business Plan?

- Describes **who** you are
- Describes **what** you want to achieve
- Describes the **benefits** to be realized
- Quantifies **cost**
- Details potential** **return on investment, cost benefit (or not?)
- Outlines an **implementation** **plan**
- Provides evidence of **due diligence**

## Business Plan Details

**To implement a Statewide Spatial Data Infrastructure (SSDI) consistent with appropriate national standards**

**Primary Strategic Goal**

**GOAL 1:**
- Establish GIO position, clarify statutory authority

**GOAL 2:**
- Develop improved statewide elevation data

**GOAL 3:**
- Pursue goal 3

**Business Plan Details**

**SP**

**SP**

**BP**

**BP**

**Programmatic **
**Goals**

**Strategic Plan vs. Business Plan**

-  Business plans should relate to Strategic objectives
-  Business Plans come from goals
-  You can have more then one Business Plan

- Benefits

- Justification

- ROI

- Cost/Benefit

- Implementation Plan

- Costs

- Requirements

- Risks

## Strategic Plan vs. Business Plan in Connecticut

**GOAL 1:**
- Organize Geospatial activities across State and Local Governments

**GOAL 2:**
- Develop a core set of data layers that are kept up-to-date and made broadly accessible in a state managed data repository

**GOAL 3:**
- Communicate and educate potential users and decision makers about the benefits and capabilities achieved by GIS investments.

**SP**

**SP**

**BP**

**Strategic Plan vs. Business Plan in Connecticut**

- Strategic Plan identified **three ****goals** that needed to be met to achieve the primary strategic goal
- An overall Business Plan that:
- Detailed the status of each of the programs
- Addressed phasing of strategic goals
- Laid out important state initiatives to tie to
- Defined funding required

**Programmatic **
**Goals**

**Primary Strategic Goal**

## Strategic Plan vs. Business Plan in Connecticut

- Organize Geospatial activities across State and Local Governments

**GOAL 2:**
- Develop a core set of data layers that are kept up-to-date and made broadly accessible in a state managed data repository

**GOAL 3:**
- Communicate and educate potential users and decision makers about the benefits and capabilities achieved by GIS investments.

**SP**

**BP**

**Strategic Plan vs. Business Plan in Connecticut**

**P-GOAL 1:**
- Statewide Orthophoto Program

**BP**

**P-GOAL 2:**
- Statewide Cadastral Program

**P-GOAL 3:**
- Statewide Addressing Program

**P-GOAL 4:**
- Create State Clearinghouse

**BP**

**BP**

**BP**

- Building from the NSDI CAP grant working groups were setup by their council and individual business plans have been developed for framework data layers

**Programmatic **
**Goals**

## Differences between Strategic Plan and Business Plan in CT:

**Strategic Plan**
- What was done and why
- Who was engaged and how
- Situation Analysis
- SWOT Analysis
- Vision and Goals
- Programmatic Goals
- Requirements Analysis (data, staffing, technology)

**Business Plan**
- Programmatic Goals
- Current Status
- Vision for the future
- Recommended Approach
- Measurement of Success
- Funding Requirements
- Initiative Based Funding (SAFE schools, Responsible Growth, Econ Dev, etc)
- Which initiatives
- Potential benefits
- Implementation Plan

## When writing a Business Plan think of these things:

**Relevant** to the decision makers
- Relatively **short** (e.g., 20 pages plus or minus)
- Easy to read and approve (no GIS lingo)
- Clear and **concise**
**Compelling**
**Credible** and factually** **correct
**Action** oriented
**	****Content is aimed at a very specific readership**

## Strategic Plan vs. Business Plan, structural differences and similarities...

**Strategic Plan**
- Executive Summary
- Strategic Planning Methodology
- Current Situation
- Vision and Goals
- Requirements
- Implementation **Program**
- Appendices
- 50-60 Pages

**Business Plan**
- Executive Summary
- Program Goals
- Program Benefits and Justification
- Program Requirements and Costs
- Organizational Approach
- Implementation **Plan**
- 15-25 Pages

## Strategic Plan vs. Business Plan, content differences and similarities...

**Strategic Plan**
- Executive level presentation
- Can have supporting or reference docs
- Defines strategic objectives of plan
- Outlines benefits to be realized
- Outlines resources needed
- Simplified timeline
- High-level budget estimates
- 50-60 Pages

**Business Plan**
**Detailed** presentation
- Should **stand alone**
- Details objectives into **actionable** items
- Aimed at getting **approval** and funding
- Makes **business case**
- Detailed implementation plan
- Includes **marketing** or branding
- Details **resources** needs
- 15-25 Pages

## Business Plan: Program Benefits and Justification

- What is the expected **value** of the program?
- Can the **benefits** of the program be defined?
- Values can be either **quantitative** and **qualitative**

## Business Plan: Program Benefits and Justification

- Quantitative
- Measuring the value of your proposal enhances credibility
- ROI assessment
- Cost Savings
- Time saving
- Cost avoidance
- Cost of doing nothing
- Revenue Generation

- ROI = (benefit-cost)/cost

- GIT Businesses Case Development and ROI Literature Review
- GITA Research Division

- Indiana CBA & ROI

- Measurement Metrics:
- Time
- CB Ratio
- Dollars
- % Increase
- Annualized Staff Reduction

## Business Plan: Program Benefits and Justification

- QualitativeNon-Financial/Hard to quantify/Collateral Benefits
- Meeting a mandated requirement
- Societal/community benefit
- Better or more available data
- More efficient data exchange
- Improved customer service
- Improved quality of life
- Better management of environment
- Saving life's
- Improved Decision Making
- Increase in responsiveness
- Spin-off benefits
- Improved mapping
- Response to the unexpected
- Enhanced revenue
- Improved efficiency
- Benefit accrual

- Oregon GIS Utility
- Initiative

- Georgia, Case for a GIO

## Budget Requirements
Short-term, long-term projected costs broken down as appropriate:
Planning, acquisition, implementation, operations, maintenance, consultant, other
Cost of the Status Quo
Sources of funding:
General funds, mission specific, service fees, permits/licenses, grants, cost recovery
What is the source of funding over the long-term?
Remaining insulated from being cut

- Short-term, long-term projected costs broken down as appropriate:
- Planning, acquisition, implementation, operations, maintenance, consultant, other
- Cost of the Status Quo
- Sources of funding:
- General funds, mission specific, service fees, permits/licenses, grants, cost recovery
- What is the source of funding over the long-term?
- Remaining insulated from being cut

**Phase I costs estimates:**
- Low estimate: $815,000
- High estimate: $1,477,000
**Phase II cost estimates:**
- Low estimate: $1,016,000
- High estimate: $2,032,000
**Total Cost: $1,831,000 - $3,509,000**
**Average: $2,670,000**
**Breakdown by activity**(calculated from the average of low/high bracket):
- Hardware & Software: 17.4%
- Professional Services: 25.0%
- Application Development: 57.6%

- Commonwealth of Massachusetts Investment Brief for parcels data development

**Business Plan: Program Requirements and Costs **

## Program Requirements and Costs

- Risk Assessment
- What is Risk?
- Uncertainty about a situation
- Program not successful
- Loss of key people
- Conflicts with mandates
- Part of planning
- What is the likelihood and potential impact
- How to mitigate

- Identify
- Quantify
- Plan Response
- Monitor

- Oregon GIS Utility
- Initiative

## Marketing Plan

- Deliver the message
- To:
- Senior level decision makers
- Other ‘change’ agents
- Stakeholders

- By:
- Website
- Special events
- Presentations at workshops, conferences, other
- Site visits
- Press releases

-   Develop a message
-   What is the objective?
-   What is the value proposition?
-   How does this initiative directly support other ‘high visibility’ initiatives?
-   How does your message support your stakeholder community?
-   Develop collaterals

- Are you ready with the 2 minute synopsis (read, sales pitch)?

## Summary...The Business Plan

- Business Plan is designed to detail steps to follow to achieve one or more goals
- Makes a compelling business case for:
**what** you want to achieve
- what **benefits** to be realized
**Relevancy** to the organization
- Targeted document aimed at the decision makers
- Plan is “fresh” for a short period so “act”
- Leverage the geo-community and other resources
- NSGIC website – Hot Topics / 50 State Initiative
- Other State activities and plans
- Take credit for your successes

## Examples of Business Plans that have been completed or are under development through the CAP program

| Data Centric
Administrative Boundaries: IA
Cadastral: CT, SD, MO, IA
Elevation: KS, IA
Geodetic Control: IA
Hydrography: IA
Imagery: CA, CT, IA
Transportation: IA, CT
Addressing: CT, IA
Centerlines: CT
 | Coordination
Coordinating Body: FL, IN, WV, CT, UT, IA
GIO: WY, NH, MD, 
State Office: MD, CT, WY, OK
Council Structure: MD
Communication/Marketing: CT, MD, OK
 |
| --- | --- |
| Infrastructure
Clearinghouse: UT, CT
Technical Environment: OK, RI, ID
Land Records: ME
 | Funding
Sustainable Funding: NC, CT, MD
ROI: IA, IN |

## Case Study: State of Kansas Elevation Business Plan

## The Strategic & Business Planning Process

**Project Goal - **To produce a **Strategic Plan for GIS**
- As well as the highest priority** Business Plan**
**Process:**
- 2 broad-based Information Gathering Workshops
- Topeka in July-07
- Salina in Sept-07
- In-depth interviews with major stakeholders
- Draft Strategic Plan, solicit comments, finalize
*Prioritize* Business Plan to create
- Draft Business Plan, solicit comments, finalize

## Strategic Goals:
Develop improved statewide elevation data that will support two-foot contours to support detailed topographic mapping necessary for a multitude of critical applications and risk determination
Development of a long-term, sustainable funding strategy that will enable Kansas to better sustain its spatial data infrastructure
Explicit outreach to the Kansas Department of Revenue to pursue the goal of a statewide parcel data layer
Develop a coordinated approach for statewide critical infrastructure mapping
Develop a program for electronically managing and disseminating existing geodetic control points to the public

- Develop **improved statewide elevation data** that will support two-foot contours to support detailed topographic mapping necessary for a multitude of critical applications and risk determination
- Development of a **long-term**, **sustainable funding strategy** that will enable Kansas to better sustain its spatial data infrastructure
- Explicit outreach to the Kansas Department of Revenue to pursue the goal of a **statewide parcel data** layer
- Develop a coordinated approach for **statewide critical infrastructure** mapping
- Develop a program for **electronically managing and disseminating existing geodetic control points** to the public

**State of Kansas: Strategic Plan Findings**

## Develop improved statewide elevation data that will support two-foot contours to support detailed topographic mapping necessary for a multitude of critical applications and risk determination. Subtasks of program:
Identify elevation program management team 
Gather core requirements for stakeholder community
Analyze current and near future high resolution elevation data collection efforts
Evaluate available technologic options 
Determine data storage and other management strategies
Request program cost estimates from qualified solution/data providers 
Identify and pursue program funding source(s); encumber funds
Develop technical specifications
Procure services
Advertise and make available project deliverables to stakeholders
Conduct post-project assessment

- Identify elevation program management team
- Gather core requirements for stakeholder community
- Analyze current and near future high resolution elevation data collection efforts
- Evaluate available technologic options
- Determine data storage and other management strategies
- Request program cost estimates from qualified solution/data providers
- Identify and pursue program funding source(s); encumber funds
- Develop technical specifications
- Procure services
- Advertise and make available project deliverables to stakeholders
- Conduct post-project assessment

**State of Kansas: Programmatic Goal**

## Applications and Benefits

**Flood Prediction and Mitigation**
- Floodplain delineation
- Flood prone properties
- Risk determination & insurance assessment
- Flood flow characterization (i.e., direction, velocity, depth)
- Flood preparedness
- Evacuation planning
- Reverse E-911: proactive notification
**Transportation**
**Precision Agriculture and Soil Mapping**
**Habitat Characterization**
**Urban Planning**
**Watershed Analysis and Delineation**
**Emergency Response**
**Orthorectification of Aerial Imagery**

## Budget Estimates & Timeline

**Budget Estimates & Timeline**

## Business Planning Lesson’s Learned

- Show **knowledge** and **awareness** of your state’s budget process and Fiscal Year
- Ask other states for **case studies**
- The benefits and justification section should answer the question, **“Who cares?”**
- Determine **who** you are trying to **convince** that your program initiative is worthy of their support (and ultimately, funding)
- Make it clear whom the **participants** are in your program initiative (i.e., if approved, who gets the work done, and how are they held accountable?)
- Develop a **clear plan of action** and milestones, with phases if appropriate – phasing can make the program initiative more palatable (and more realistic)

## What not to do...

- Write **complex** or **confusing** plans
**Assume** people know what you are talking about
- Skip number crunching
**Inflate** the numbers

## Ensuring Success

**Evaluate** whether or not you created a **realistic** and workable solution
- Can you **articulate** the compelling **reasons** for funding your project?
**Repeatedly** ask (don’t give up)
- The right people must remember your solution
- Everyone must **ask** for the **same thing**
- Provide a **consistent message** about solving problems
- Be **confident** and always prepared to make your case
- Be **reasonable** and always ready with intelligent compromises
- Don’t despair – be patient
- Manage expectations

## ?

**Business Planning****Questions and Answers**