# Presentation: 281694

## Office ofIntergovernmental Solutions

**November 4, 2002**

## Goals of this Presentation

- Organizations we work with
- Our intergovernmental products
- Our role regarding the 24 e-gov initiatives
- Discuss GWoB & Recreation One Stop
- Recreation Markup Language: Specifying a Vocabulary for Distributed Database of Opportunities for Fun

## Office of Intergovernmental Solutions Building a community of intergovernmental managers to promote seamless governmenthttp://www.gsa.gov/intergov

- Ensuring that Federal, State and local governments work together collaboratively to provide services to citizens, businesses and other governments.
- Building an intergovernmental community
- Developing tools to bring people together from governments around the world
- Saving governments valuable resources by sharing experiences and lessons learned between governments

## Building An Intergovernmental Community

**Building An Intergovernmental Community**

**FGIPC**

## Building An Intergovernmental Community

- International Council for Information Technology in Government Administration (ICA)
- Government On-Line Network
- Intergovernmental Advisory Board (IAB)
- Partnership for Intergovernmental Innovation (Pi2)

## Intergovernmental Products

- Directories
- Who’s Who in Government IT Worldwide
- Who’s Who in Grants Management in State Governments
- Intergovernmental Newsletter
- Intergovernmental Advisory Board Reports
- OIS Gateway
- http://www.gsa.gov/intergov

## Our Work With the 24 E-Gov Initiatives

- Motivate State and Local government officials  to engage in the E-Government Task Force Initiatives
- Encourage Federal officials to want to involve State and local officials
- Ensure a broad awareness across the country of the potential of each intergovernmental project

## Working with the Government to Government Initiatives

- E-Grants
- Geospacial One-stop
- E-Vital
- Disaster Assistance
- Wireless
- E-Authentication
- GovBenefits
- USA Services
- Recreation One-stop

## Issues Regarding Federal, State and Local Collaboration

- A broader awareness needs to be created
- Need to deal with some skeptical federal managers
- Need to motivate State and Local managers in lieu of a lack of resources
- Federal track record working with State and Local is spotty

## Motivating State and Local Officials to Participate

- Develop the case around four items
- Efficiency
- Better service to citizens
- Economic Development
- Citizens want an accountable government

## Government Without Boundaries

- Vision
- “A virtual pool of government information and services available from all levels of government and accessible by all constituents.”
- Mission
- “For all levels of government to collaborate as equal partners to provide citizen-centric services and share leading practices that demonstrate seamless government.”

**Notes:**
At the NASCIO 2000 annual meeting in Baltimore there was a special meeting of the Intergovernmental Advisory Board (IAB) and several state CIO’s, to initiate an effort to enable all levels of government to collaborate as equal partners to provide citizen-centric services and share leading practices that demonstrate seamless government.  

During the past year, in an attempt to achieve that mission, both New Jersey and Virginia working in conjunction with Fairfax County each developed pilots demonstrating “vertical integration.”  It is through this learning process that the approach to intergovernmental collaboration which I am about to describe evolved.

The vision -  Creation of a virtual pool of government information and services available from all levels of government and accessible by all constituents.

A no wrong door approach to government services (in contrast to a one stop) through interjurisdictional data exchange between shared services.

A model for transforming government through the collaborative framework

## Principles to Guide Collaboration

- Promotes Organized and Efficient Collaboration
- Maximizes Freedom to Participate
- Allows for Equal Participation Independent of Jurisdictional Level
- Allows for Equal Participation Independent of IT Maturity
- Preserves Autonomy

**Notes:**
A set of principles exists that illustrate the predominant themes of the GWoB effort. These principles could not be violated during the creation of the framework, the completed framework had to validate the principles, and any maturation of the framework must follow those principles. They are as follows:

Collaboration must be Organized and Efficient - The collaboration between and among the stakeholders exist in an organized environment and be efficient. Although there should be some flexibility in the approach, the direction and focus of each activity should be clear, understandable, and repeatable. The stakeholders will come from many different backgrounds and management styles. They will need some structure to be effective. Also, the process must be direct and make efficient use of the participant's time. Most of the stakeholders are already overburdened, and they deserve an environment that optimizes their time investment.

Maximize the Freedom to Participate - For the many jurisdictions, there will also be a number of commitment levels. Some will want to be informed, but wait and see. Some will want to observe, but not commit resources. Others will want to test and prototype interim deliverables, but not develop them. Others many want to contribute money, not personnel (or vice versa). In many cases, this commitment level is constrained by forces outside the control of the participants. Every contribution is important, and value should be taken whenever and wherever possible.

Allow for Equal Participation Independent of Jurisdictional Level - There are several layers of jurisdictions. They are the federal level, the state level, and the local level (in all of their various labels and definitions). In some circumstances, the federal involvement may be directive (in cases when they exercise oversight for laws and regulations) and it may have a significant financial involvement. However, the services the citizens want are usually asked for locally, and in some cases, at the state level. All three jurisdictional levels must understand the role of the other two, the value they can contribute, and the obligations they must fulfill to their constituents.

Allows for Equal Participation Independent of IT Maturity- Innovation occurs at all jurisdictions. The collaboration framework must not seek to limit or control that innovation. On the other end of the spectrum, many more jurisdictions find current technical skill sets and resources to be scarce. The resources developed by the channels must allow for innovation that is accessible and easy to implement by those who cannot - solutions must span the e-government digital divide.

Preserve Autonomy - In all cases, the autonomy of stakeholders and participants must be preserved. Channel participants may invited to change during the course of the collaboration process, but they should do so only if that change is consistent with there own mission, and the vision of their own management and citizenry. Collaboration is design to use the best of each participant's identity, not eliminate it.

## How do we get there?

**A ****Channel**** – **
-    For a citizen constituent, it is an intuitive concept or idea around which web content and services will be organized, linked, and be readily available.
**A ****Collaborative Framework**** – **
-    The structure which will foster the creation and maintenance of channels.

**Notes:**
Two fundamental notions were deemed critical to the growth of intergovernmental collaboration:

Notion 1: Channel
All levels of government provide common information and services.  For  true  intergovernmental  collaboration to occur,  a business reason  for participating must be identified on the part of each jurisdiction otherwise a true commitment of resources will not occur.

Communication and shared deliverables should occur around an  information channel which addresses that business need. More specifically an information channel is:

For a citizen constituent, it is an intuitive concept or idea around which web content and services will be organized, linked, and be readily available. For providers of those services, it is an intersection of common interests held by multiple groups and levels of interests. It is what they have in common relative to the citizen concept. Example of a channel would be Parks, Youth or Aged Services, Fire Protection and Safety, and others. In some cases, a Channel may be clearly defined and understood by all participants. In other cases, a Channel may be loosely defined, and may split into multiple Channels as participants revise their objectives.

Notion 2: Collaborative Framework
An organized structure for developing and maintaining information channels which foster intergovernmental collaboration must be devised.  This structure was termed the “Collaboration Framework”

The notion of a framework within a channel will be introduced later.  The Collaboration framework refers to the characteristics shared across all information channels.

## The Collaboration Framework: Global

- FACILITATION LAYER

- Parks and
-  Recreation

- GIS
- 1Channel

- eGrants
- Channel 2

- Wireless
- Channel ...

- Applications

- Taxonomy

- Registry

- Interoperability Guidelines

- Others??

**Notes:**
The Collaboration Framework is a structured approach to intergovernmental collaboration in which jurisdictions work together to determine solutions to jointly developed collaboration priorities within a channel. This diagram depicts the “Global” framework, which includes all channels.

The need for facilitating collaboration and the fact that channels generate deliverables are the common ideas around which this Framework was designed.

This diagram depicts the  facilitation layer horizontally encompassing all channels.

Facilitation includes things like  the GwoB information Portal or Web Site where participating jurisdictions virtually collaborate on the development of channel deliverables, and:
•         Managing Channel Resources where centralization is required
•         Providing mentoring for intergovernmental efforts
•         Encouraging collaboration and integration between efforts across 			channels
•         Creating a repository for the deliverables from each channel 				(www.gwob.gov)
Providing basic support, administrative and otherwise, to allow for collaboration 

A generic list of the deliverables which can be generated for an  information channel include:
Shared applications
A Common Information Glossary or Taxonomy
A Registry of Web Services ( A Web service is a snippet of code which generates raw data in XML format.)
Interoperability Guidelines including shared schema definitions and guidelines for their use.

... and I am sure that there are others we have yet to identify.

## Collaborative Framework: Channel

**Cycle**

**Roadmap**

**Business**

**Technical**

**Facilitation**

**Views**

**Notes:**
In addition to the overall Collaboration Framework, we have defined a framework around which individual channels develop.  

Components of the Channel Framework include a road map; cycles and views.  

Channels are developed following a prescribed methodology termed a Road map.

Channels have a repeatable  Time Oriented Cycle for deliverables.

The Charter should define roles and responsibilities in the channel.

Channels also have  Business, Technical and Facilitation Views:
The Business view defines the channel, identifies resources and sets channel objectives based on resources and opportunities.
The Technical view determines what is technically possible? What it will cost?, etc.  They add realism to the objectives.
The Facilitation View manages channel resources where centralization is required: (i.e. web site, collaboration tools, etc.) and provides mentoring for intergovernmental efforts (the glue)

## Channel Views

- Business
- Technical
- Facilitation

**Notes:**
Views - The Views notion is common in architectural circles. Each environment contains a reality that is viewed different by various groups. In this collaborative environment, three views exist - the business view, the technical view, and the facilitator view. Each Roadmap process executed during a Cycle can be viewed from three different perspectives. Each perspective has one or more voices that must be heard. If not, the deliverable will not satisfy the intended objective because:

It does not satisfy a valid need (missing the business view)

It is impractical or not workable (missing the technical view)

It cannot be used by others (missing the facilitator view)

## Collaborative Framework with Views

## The Parks and Recreation Pilot

- Why Parks?
- Channels Generate Interoperability Tools
- Interoperability Standards
- Shared Applications and Components
- Shared Information Glossary
- Registry of Web Services

**Notes:**
We chose Parks and Recreation as the first information channel to develop. Why ?
	met individual business of the participating jurisdictions
	certain resources that could be adapted for use
	discrete and least controversial
	area of high citizen interest

Interoperability Standards - During this current cycle we have developed the framework concept I just shared and at the facilitation level have created a web site for collaboration. We  are currently working on specific deliverables which will allow us to conclude Cycle I of the Parks Channel in January.

Deliverables being developed for Cycle I of the Parks Channel include:
	Interoperability Standards – Created  2 draft XML schemas 1 to support a  Facility/Activity Type Search, the 2nd to support a 	Shared Calendar of Events
	Shared Applications – www.recreation.gov search and NJ Calendar of Events adapted
	An Shared Information Glossary with Layman’s definitions of the Park data to be exchanged
	A Registry of Web Services containing snippet of code which generate raw Park data in XML format.

I will now describe each of those deliverables in more detail.

Shared Information Glossary - Technical resources from each of the participating jurisdictions  within the Parks Channel identified the Data Entities which would be exchanged in support of the identified Shared Applications.  We defined each of those entities and their  attributes.

For example:  We knew we needed to exchange contact data about the Agency managing a given Park.  We termed that the Agency Entity.  It has the following attributes: a Name, a physical address, an email address and a URL.  We then defined each of those attributes.

Those entities and attributes identified in layman’s terms in this Information Glossary became  the building blocks  for the next deliverable which were the Application Schemas.

Application Schemas - An application schema can be thought of as the intersection of the data entities that jurisdictions want to share.  

Fairfax County has a Parks database.
New Jersey has a Parks database.
Virginia has html pages with Parks data.

The only data from each of those distinct data sources that  we were interested in exchanging were those items required by the shared application (the Parks Calendar of Events) and defined in the Information Glossary.

 Envision the NJ, Fairfax and Virginia data stores as overlapping circles.  The data entities required to support the shared application are  found in the intersection of those three circles.

In order to foster true  collaboration a draft of the proposed schema to support the Shared Calendar of Events Application was posted on the Information Channel Portal and made available for comment on by all participating jurisdictions for a period of time before we actually adopted that schema.

Finally, “Guidelines for Use” are being developed to accompany each schema.  These guidelines are an aggregation of the experiences that each jurisdiction has with implementing the schemas.

Registry of Web Services -  Once the data that needed to be exchanged was identified and agreed upon, it was up to each jurisdiction to determine the manner in which it would  provide that data to the jurisdiction hosting the shared application.

In the Parks channel, we in Fairfax were interested in exploring exchange of the data in XML format through the use of a web service. We created the  web service ( a snippet of code which generated the raw XML data) and registered it with the Information Portal so that the hosting jurisdiction knows how to access the data.

The State of Virginia will be creating their XML data manually and will register a link to that data once it is created.

For now the web services listed in the Parks Registry will be accessed only by New Jersey who is hosting the Shared Calendar of Events application, but it is quite likely that organizations like Expedia and AAA would be interested in that same data.  They would simply be directed to this Registry to access the data for use in their own unique applications.

The ultimate business goal for the Fairfax County Park Authority is not to have people come to the Fairfax County web site to find out about our Parks.  The ultimate goal is to have as many people as possible visit our Parks.  The more available our Park information is, the more people we are likely to attract to our Parks.  This is the business reason for pursuing this project.

## Channel Success Criteria

- Critical Mass of participation needed
- Business Needs Drive Technology Solutions
- Participants choose how they participate and to what extent
- Identify Stakeholders Affected by the Channel Services

## Facilitation Needs

- Formal Definition of Roles
- Central Coordination
- Web Site and Custodian
- Type of facilitation needed will vary according to channel

**Notes:**
A formal mechanism for defining roles, responsibilities and common objectives is required. A central coordinating group is needed to facilitate the creation evolution of channels. This would include maintenance of the channel portal (i.e. Web site) to promote communication, house deliverables and archive information.  Its purpose is to provide an environment for intergovernmental collaboration that is efficient, organized, flexible and inclusive.  

## Technical Truths

- Jurisdictions Deliver Similar Information and Services
- Information is Structured or Unstructured
- Unstructured Data is Described with Different Words
- Structured Data is Described with Similar Data Entities
- Unique Levels of Technical Expertise

## A New Type of Leadership

- Ability to manage to a goal without direct authority
- Vast knowledge of the culture and environment of partnering jurisdictions
- Art of negotiation
- Ability to bring a team together to develop a shared vision
- Balance shared objectives with individual priorities

## Next Steps	

- Expand Parks and Recreation Pilot Demonstration under Recreation One Stop
- Promote the GWoB Collaborative Framework, XML and Web Services
- Facilitate State & Local Participation in the Federal E-gov Initiatives

## Government Without Boundaries

**Government Without Boundaries**

**Notes:**
In conclusion, Jurisdictions choose to participate in Information channels which meet an identified business need.

Information channels support the creation of deliverables to meet those business needs. The Channel  Framework facilitates collaborative creation of those deliverables.  

The Collaboration Framework provides a mechanism by which all channels can share lessons learned and facilitation resources.

## How to Contact Us

- U.S. General Services Administration
- GSA Office of Citizen Services and Communications
- Office of Intergovernmental Solutions
- 1800 F Street, NW
- Washington, DC  20405
- John Clark	 (202) 501-4362
- John.Clark@gsa.gov