INFORMATION SHARING ENVIRONMENT

GEOSPATIAL 

INTEROPERABILITY

REFERENCE 

ARCHITECTURE (GIRA)

N A T I O N A L S E C U R I T Y T H R O U G H R E S P O N S I B L E 

I N F O R M A T I O N S H A R I N G

INFORMATION SHARING ENVIRONMENT

GEOSPATIAL 

INTEROPERABILITY

REFERENCE 

ARCHITECTURE (GIRA)

I N C R E A S E D I N F O R M A T I O N S H A R I N G T H R O U G H 

G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L O I T Y

SPRING 2015

Prepared by the

Program Manager, Information Sharing Environment
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

i i

This page intentionally left blank.
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

iii

Dedicated to the memory of:

Douglas Nebert

1963-2014

The Geospatial Interoperability Reference Architecture (GIRA) is dedicated to the memory of 

Doug Nebert who was a leader in the Geospatial Industry, consummate professional, and who 

advanced geospatial interoperability across the industry. Many of the authoritative references 

upon which the GIRA is based were authored by or contributed to by Doug.
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

i v

This page intentionally left blank.
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

v

CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ...............................................................................................IIX

LIST OF TABLES....................................................................................................X

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................XI

1 OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................1

1.1 Purpose.................................................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Background............................................................................................................................................ 1

1.3 Goals and Objectives............................................................................................................................. 2

1.4 Benefits and Outcomes......................................................................................................................... 2

1.5 Stakeholder Audience ........................................................................................................................... 3

1.6 Document Approach: How to Use......................................................................................................... 4

1.7 Authoritative Referencing ..................................................................................................................... 5

1.7.1 Geospatial ......................................................................................................................................5

1.7.2 Architecture ...................................................................................................................................6

1.8 Stakeholder Performance Guide ........................................................................................................... 8

2 GOVERNANCE ................................................................................................10

2.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 10

2.2 Governance Principles......................................................................................................................... 10

2.3 Governance Structures........................................................................................................................ 11

2.3.1 Executive Steering Committee.....................................................................................................11

2.3.2 Integrated Product/Project Team ................................................................................................12

2.4 Investment Governance ...................................................................................................................... 15

2.4.1 Information Technology Acquisition Review Process ..................................................................17

2.4.2 Capital Planning Investment Control Process ..............................................................................19

2.4.3 Procurement Policy Language......................................................................................................21

2.5 Interagency Agreements and Service Level Agreements: Information Sharing Agreements ............. 21

2.6 Stakeholder Performance Guide: Governance.................................................................................... 24

3 BUSINESS REFERENCE MODEL...................................................................26

3.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 26

3.2 Business Reference Model(s): Approach............................................................................................. 26

3.2.1 Geospatial Profiles .......................................................................................................................27

3.3 Operational Requirements Documentation........................................................................................ 27

3.4 Geospatial Baseline Assessment Matrix.............................................................................................. 29

3.5 Stakeholder Performance Guide: Business......................................................................................... 33

4 DATA REFERENCE MODEL ...........................................................................34

4.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 34

4.2 Data Reference Model Approach........................................................................................................ 34

4.3 Geospatial Baseline Assessment Matrix: Data Inputs and Datasets ................................................... 35
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

v i

4.4 Data Reference Model Alignment....................................................................................................... 37

4.4.1 Data Description...........................................................................................................................38

4.4.2 Data Context ................................................................................................................................43

4.4.2.1 Data Search and Discovery....................................................................................................45

4.4.3 Data Sharing .................................................................................................................................45

4.5 Data Access and Policy ........................................................................................................................ 45

4.6 Data Resources.................................................................................................................................... 47

4.6.1 Geospatial Platform .....................................................................................................................47

4.6.2 Geospatial Concept of Operations ..............................................................................................48

4.6.3 National States Geographic Information Council GIS Inventory ..................................................52

4.7 Stakeholder Performance Guidance: Data.......................................................................................... 53

5 APPLICATION/SERVICE REFERENCE MODEL.............................................53

5.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 53

5.2 Application/Service Reference Model(s): Approach ........................................................................... 54

5.3 Geospatial Services Taxonomy Structures .......................................................................................... 54

5.3.1 Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework, Version 2.0............................................................55

5.3.2 Geospatial Profile of the Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework, Version 2.0....................57

5.3.3 Segment Architecture Analysis of the Geospatial Platform, Version 1.0.....................................58

5.3.4 Open Geospatial Consortium: OpenGIS Service Architecture......................................................62

5.3.5 Spatial Data Infrastructure: Cookbook.........................................................................................63

5.3.6 Geospatial Taxonomy Considerations..........................................................................................66

5.4 Geospatial Baseline Assessment Matrix: Applications and Services................................................... 66

5.5 Geospatial Applications/Services Catalogs.......................................................................................... 69

5.5.1 Geospatial Platform .....................................................................................................................70

5.5.2 GEOINT App Store ........................................................................................................................74

5.5.3 Enterprise Registry and Repository..............................................................................................73

5.6 Geospatial Shared Services Strategy ................................................................................................... 75

5.6.1 Shared Services Implementation Step-wise Process....................................................................76

5.7 Stakeholder Performance Guidance ................................................................................................... 76

6 INFRASTRUCTURE REFERENCE MODEL ....................................................81

6.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 81

6.2 Alignment to the Enterprise Architecture Investment Planning Process............................................ 81

6.3 Geospatial Baseline Assessment Matrix: Infrastructure and Technology ........................................... 82

6.4 Digital Government Strategy Alignment ............................................................................................. 82

6.5 Geospatial 3-Tier Target Architecture................................................................................................. 84

6.5.1 Presentation Layer .......................................................................................................................85

6.5.2 Platform/Application Layer..........................................................................................................85

6.5.3 Information/Database Layer........................................................................................................85

6.6 Geospatial Target Architecture Artifacts............................................................................................. 86

6.6.1 Unclassified/Public Domain: Geospatial Platform .......................................................................86

6.6.2 For Official Use Only: Geospatial Information Infrastructure .....................................................89

6.7 Geospatial Target Architecture Considerations .................................................................................. 91

6.7.1 Cloud ............................................................................................................................................94
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

v i i

6.7.1.1 Phase 1 Process.....................................................................................................................93

6.7.1.2 Phase 2 Process.....................................................................................................................93

6.8 Stakeholder Performance Guide: Infrastructure................................................................................. 94

7 SECURITY REFERENCE MODEL...................................................................96

7.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 96

7.2 Security Principles ............................................................................................................................... 96

7.3 Stakeholder Roles and Responsibilities............................................................................................... 98

7.4 Stakeholder Performance Guide: Security and IdAM........................................................................ 103

8 STANDARDS-BASED INTEROPERABILITY.................................................107

8.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................................... 107

8.2 Standards-based Interoperability: Approach .................................................................................... 107

8.3 Standards Value Proposition ............................................................................................................. 108

8.4 Standards View: Open Standards vs. Open Source ........................................................................... 110

8.4.1 Open Standards..........................................................................................................................110

8.4.2 Open Source...............................................................................................................................111

8.5 Standards Governance ...................................................................................................................... 113

8.5.1 Geospatial Standards Development Organizations....................................................................115

8.6 Standards-based Acquisition Guidance: Reference Sources............................................................. 117

8.6.1 A Geospatial Interoperability Reference Model.........................................................................118

8.6.2 Geospatial Profile of the Federal Enterprise Architecture, Version 2.0 .....................................118

8.6.3 Federal Geospatial Architecture Guidance, Version 1.0 ............................................................119

8.6.4 Federal Geographic Data Committee Endorsed Standards........................................................119

8.6.5 Federal Geographic Data Committee Endorsed External Standards .........................................119

8.6.6 SDI Cookbook, Global Spatial Data Infrastructure .....................................................................120

8.6.7 GEOINT Standards......................................................................................................................122

8.6.8 Defense Geospatial Information Working Group (DGIWG) Standards......................................124

8.6.9 Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) Reference Model..............................................................125

8.6.10 United Nations Global Geospatial Information Management ...................................................129

8.7 Stakeholder Performance Guide: Standards..................................................................................... 130

9 PERFORMANCE REFERENCE MODEL .......................................................132

9.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................................... 132

9.2 Applying the Performance Reference Model: Approaches............................................................... 132

9.3 Performance Indices.......................................................................................................................... 135

9.3.1 Office of Management and Budget: Enterprise Roadmap.........................................................136

9.3.2 ISE Information Interoperability Framework: Interoperability Maturity Model........................137

9.3.3 DHS Common Operating Picture: Key Performance Indicators and Measures..........................138

9.3.4 National States Geographic Information Council: Geospatial Maturity Assessment.................138

9.3.5 Urban and Regional Information Systems Association: GIS Capability Maturity Model............139

9.4 Stakeholder Performance Guide: Performance ................................................................................ 136
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

v i i i

APPENDIX A: GOVERNANCE........................................................................... A-1

A.1 Executive Steering Committee Charter Template..............................................................................A-1

A.2 Information Sharing Agreement Checklist .........................................................................................A-8

A.3 Data Access Request Process – Questionnaire.................................................................................A-12

A.4 Standard Template – External Information Sharing.........................................................................A-16

APPENDIX B: BUSINESS REFERENCE MODEL.............................................. B-1

B.1 Baseline Geospatial Assessment Matrix: Core Capability ..................................................................B-1

APPENDIX C: DATA REFERENCE MODEL...................................................... C-1

C.1 Baseline Geospatial Assessment Matrix: Data Inputs........................................................................C-1

C.2 Baseline Geospatial Assessment Matrix: Datasets.............................................................................C-2

APPENDIX D: APPLICATIONS/SERVICES REFERENCE MODEL .................. D-1

D.1 Applications and Services Functionality Categories.......................................................................... D-1

D.2 Functionality of Applications and Services........................................................................................ D-2

APPENDIX E: INFRASTRUCTURE REFERENCE MODEL............................... E-1

E.1 Baseline Geospatial Assessment Matrix: Infrastructure ....................................................................E-1

E.2 Baseline Geospatial Assessment Matrix: Technology ........................................................................E-2

APPENDIX F: SECURITY REFERENCE MODEL...............................................F-1

F.1 ICAM Landscape ................................................................................................................................. F-1

APPENDIX G: PERFORMANCE REFERENCE MODEL...................................G-1

G.1 Enterprise Architecture Outcomes and Measurements Template ................................................... G-1

G.2 DHS Common Operating Picture (COP): Performance Management Scorecard............................... G-3

G.3 Stakeholder Performance Guide ....................................................................................................... G-5
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

i x

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 4-1. Data Reference Model Structure...................................................................................................37

Figure 4-2. Data Access and Policy Wrapper ...................................................................................................46

Figure 5-1. IT Shared Services Concept Overview............................................................................................55

Figure 5-2. Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework (FEAF): Application Reference Model .....................56

Figure 5-3. FEAF Application Reference Model: Geospatial Information ........................................................57

Figure 5-4. Geospatial Services Framework.....................................................................................................59

Figure 5-5. Uncle Sam’s List .............................................................................................................................69

Figure 5-6. Geospatial Platform: Add Your Tool or Application.......................................................................72

Figure 5-7. Shared Service Implementation Decision......................................................................................76

Figure 6-1. Three-Layers/Tiers of Digital Services............................................................................................84

Figure 6-2. Geospatial Platform Conceptual Model.........................................................................................88

Figure 6-3. Geospatial Platform Technical Architecture..................................................................................89

Figure 6-4. DHS Geospatial Information Infrastructure (GII) Technical Architecture ......................................90

Figure 6-5. DHS Common Operating Picture Aligned to DHS Geospatial Information Infrastructure.............91

Figure 7-1. FICAM Conceptual Diagram...........................................................................................................98

Figure 8-1. GEOINT Standards Pocket Guide .................................................................................................124

Figure 8-2. DGWIG and OGC Service Types and Profiles ...............................................................................125

Figure F-1. ICAM Components........................................................................................................................F-5
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

x

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1. What the GIRA Is and Is Not..............................................................................................................3

Table 1-2. Stakeholder Performance Guide Table Structure .............................................................................8

Table 2-1. Portfolio Management Guidance Principles...................................................................................17

Table 2-2. Standard Acquisition Checklist........................................................................................................18

Table 2-3. Types of Agreements ......................................................................................................................22

Table 2-4. Stakeholder Performance Guide: Governance ...............................................................................25

Table 3-1. Geospatial Baseline Assessment: Core Mission Services and Stakeholders...................................31

Table 3-2. Geospatial Baseline Assessment: Core Capability...........................................................................32

Table 3-3. Stakeholder Performance Guide: Business.....................................................................................33

Table 4-1. Geospatial Baseline Assessment Matrix: Data Inputs.....................................................................36

Table 4-2. Geospatial Baseline Assessment Matrix: Datasets (Extract)...........................................................36

Table 4-3. Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework V2.0: Data Categorization Methods.........................41

Table 4-4. Standards-based Content Search Methods ....................................................................................45

Table 4-5. GeoPlatform Datasets Published per Month..................................................................................48

Table 4-6. GeoCONOPS Authoritative Data Matrix (Extract)...........................................................................49

Table 4-7. Stakeholder Performance Guide: Data ...........................................................................................53

Table 5-1. Geospatial Profile V2.0: Geospatial Service Components (Extract)................................................58

Table 5-2. Geographic Services Taxonomy ......................................................................................................64

Table 5-3. OGC® Geospatial Services Taxonomy to ISO 19100 Series Standards Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 5-4. Geospatial Baseline Assessment Matrix: Functionality Categories.................................................67

Table 5-5. Geospatial Baseline Assessment Matrix: Applications and Services (Extract)................................68

Table 5-6. GEOINT App Store Index .................................................................................................................73

Table 5-7. Stakeholder Performance Guide: Applications/Services ................................................................78

Table 6-1. Geospatial Baseline Assessment: Infrastructure.............................................................................81

Table 6-2. Geospatial Baseline Assessment: Technology (Extract)..................................................................82

Table 6-3. Stakeholder Performance Guide: Infrastructure ............................................................................94

Table 7-1. Key Security Activities by SDLC Phase...........................................................................................103

Table 7-2. Stakeholder Performance Guide: Security....................................................................................104

Table 8-1. Standards Used in Deployed SDIs .................................................................................................121

Table 8-2. SDI Core Standards........................................................................................................................121

Table 8-3. SDI Supplemental Standards.........................................................................................................121

Table 8-4. SDI Future Standards ....................................................................................................................122

Table 8-5. Types of GEOINT Standards ..........................................................................................................122

Table 8-6. GEOINT Standards Baseline ..........................................................................................................123

Table 8-7. OGC Document Types...................................................................................................................128

Table 8-8. Stakeholder Performance Guide: Standards.................................................................................131

Table 9-1. EA Maturity Measurement Template: Areas of Measurement ....................................................136

Table 9-2. I2F Performance Domain Maturity Model Metrics .......................................................................137

Table 9-3. Stakeholder Performance Guide: Performance............................................................................140
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

x i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

An estimated $20 billion of the Federal Government’s $80 billion in IT spending is a potential 

target for migration to cloud computing solutions.1The value of the inherent benefits of cloud 

computing is based upon the cost efficiencies of shared services through interoperable 

architectures based upon standards. IT investment costs decrease as you move from Build to Buy 

to Leverage/Reuse. A goal of the National Strategy for Information Sharing and Safeguarding is, 

“to optimize mission effectiveness [to] include shared services, data and network 

interoperability.”

2

Interoperability is a term often used or implied but rarely defined. This document defines 

information interoperability as:

INTEROPERABILITY is the ability to transfer and use information in a uniform 

and efficient manner across multiple organizations and information technology 

systems.3, 4It is the ability of two or more systems or components to exchange 

information and to use the information that has been exchanged.5

The Geospatial Interoperability Reference Architecture (GIRA) is aligned with current Federal 

policy, principles, and practices for Enterprise Architecture and further adds to the authoritative 

body of knowledge of geospatial architecture documentation. It is an unclassified document 

aimed at an audience consisting of; Executive Leaders, Program Managers, and Solution 

Architects across Federal, State, Local, Territorial and Tribal governments and private sector 

stakeholders. It is intended to be a practical roadmap to increase government geospatial 

information sharing through interoperable capabilities that result in reduced operational costs 

within and across mission systems. It documents geospatial and architecture policy alignment, 

references authoritative practices and provides practical guidance including; templates, charters, 

exchange agreements, baseline requirements matrices, architecture artifacts and tools.

The GIRA is expected to have the following benefits:

• Provide a reference guide for geospatial interoperable architectures to guide 

solutions to effectively govern, manage, support and achieve information sharing

through geospatial system integration, acquisition and/or development.

 

1 Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB’s) Federal Cloud Computing Strategy, February 8, 2011.

2 White House National Strategy for Information Sharing and Safeguarding, December 2012.

3 Australian Information Interoperability Framework, 2006.

4 U.S. Code, Title 44: Public Printing and Documents (2011) U.S.C. Title 44, Chap. 36, § 3601.

5

IEEE Standard Computer Dictionary: A Compilation of IEEE Standard Computer Glossaries (New York, NY: 1990).
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

x i i

• Provide documented architecture artifacts that can be used to support geospatial 

program technical oversight and technical assessments for geospatial investments.

The GIRA provides a framework for the management, design and development of new or

alignment of existing geospatial system/solution investments. It recommends guidance 

considerations in the areas of governance, business, data, applications/services, infrastructure, 

standards and security; and performance measures for validating and reporting results.
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

1

1 1 OVERVIEW

2 1.1 PURPOSE

3 The intended purpose of this document is to be a reference guide for geospatial interoperable 

4 architecture governance, design and implementation as shared geospatial investments. It 

5 supports key stakeholders (e.g., Executive Leadership, Program Managers, and Solution 

6 Architects) and their responsibilities associated with geospatial systems implementation, 

7 integration and performance to drive interoperability and reduce operational costs as they move 

8 toward a shared service environment.

9 1.2 BACKGROUND

10 The GIRA is intended to be a compendium of artifacts to assist in the development of geospatial 

11 interoperable reference architecture(s) for enterprise investments. It provides a representation of 

12 geospatial systems that is expressed in terms of; governance practices, interoperability 

13 requirements, standards, and target implementation examples (e.g. artifacts). The GIRA builds 

14 upon and advances the foundational work of geospatial and architecture guidance documents 

and is complimentary to the Program Manager-Information Sharing Environment (PM-ISE)6 15

Information Interoperability Framework (I2F).

7 16 The December 2005 Presidential Memorandum 

17 directed building the ISE upon existing Federal Government resources that include standards, 

18 systems, and architectures. The Memorandum included requirements to develop a common 

19 framework for the sharing of information between and among executive Departments and 

Agencies8 20 and state, local, and Tribal (SLT) governments, law enforcement agencies, and the 

21 private sector and define common standards for how information is acquired, accessed, shared

and used within the ISE.9The I

2 22 F is intended to drive long-term information sharing requirements

23 that leverage reuse capabilities for improvement and information systems planning, investing, 

24 and integration to support the effective conduct of U.S. counterterrorism activities.

 

6

The PM-ISE was established under the authorities of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA), as 

amended.

7 Program Manager, Information Sharing Environment Information Interoperability Framework (I2

F): National Security Through

Responsible Information Sharing, Version 0.5, March, 2014, available at http://ise.gov/ise-information-interoperability-framework.

8

This document’s use of the term “Departments and Agencies” includes Departments, Agencies, Commissions, Bureaus, and Boards 

and other types of organizations in the Executive Branch of the U.S. Federal Government.

9 Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies: Guidelines and Requirements in Support of the Information 

Sharing Environment (White House: Washington, DC, 2005), Section 1, available at

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051216-10.html
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

2

1 1.3 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

2 The GIRA is intended to define a governance and oversight framework with which Executive

3 Leadership will manage program and acquisition decisions and provide references to key 

4 geospatial technical architectures established across government. The GIRA is focused upon:

5 • Stakeholder community: Aimed at Executive Leadership, Program Managers and 

6 Solution Architects, the GIRA provides actionable guidance to these key 

7 stakeholders in a general-to-specific manner, from providing basic management 

8 practices and processes to specific technical services and standards that are critical 

9 for geospatial data sharing and interoperability.

10 • Architecture alignment: Applying established architecture frameworks and 

11 accepted practices from the Federal community to improve communication by 

12 using standardized vocabulary and provide technical architecture descriptions that 

13 help simplify complex IT environments.

14 • Practical implementation: Providing target implementation examples, templates, 

15 checklists and reference artifacts to aide in making program management, technical

16 and acquisition related decisions.

17 1.4 BENEFITS AND OUTCOMES

18 Desired outcomes of the GIRA are to; 1) increase government geospatial information sharing of

19 interoperable capabilities, 2) promote reuse of existing information assets, and 3) minimize 

20 Department and Agency operational costs. To achieve the desired benefit, geospatial system 

21 investments must be leveraged as shared services by providing access to common capabilities 

22 (applications/services), and increased system integrations by establishing a technology platform 

23 that is services based.

24 The GIRA is expected to:

25 • Define governance oversight practices and considerations to ensure collaboration 

26 and consensus to meet mission objectives and drive cost efficiencies.

27 • Serve as a base-line target reference guide and resource to identify the necessary 

28 interoperability requirements within each of the key architecture elements (e.g., 

29 data, applications/services, infrastructure, security, standards and performance).

30 • Provide target implementation examples, artifacts, interoperability standards, 

31 engineering designs, contract and procurement language, performance measures 

32 and procedural guidance.

33 • Align and conform to the Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework (FEAF) v2, and 

34 The Common Approach to Federal Enterprise Architecture, Global Reference 

35 Architecture, Unified Architecture Framework, and notional aspects of the 

36 Intelligence Community architecture designs.
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

3

1 Each Chapter focuses upon those geospatial interoperability elements required for consideration 

2 for that portion of the Reference Model. The document does not attempt to provide a complete 

3 geospatial architecture reference implementation or duplicate other authoritative reference 

4 material. Table 1-1 describes what the GIRA is and is not.

5 Table 1-1. What the GIRA Is and Is Not

GIRA IS: GIRA IS NOT:

 A descriptive, not prescriptive, guide to geospatial 

interoperability investment considerations

 A reference for framing a governance structure for 

geospatial investment coordination and collaboration

 A reference for preparing and performing a common 

baseline assessment (As-Is) of geospatial capabilities and 

requirements across investments

 A means to compare geospatial investments among and 

between agencies in order to exchange, reuse, and share 

investments

 A reference for comparing several target implementation

geospatial architectures and artifacts

 A reference for supporting planning and procurement 

activities for geospatial investments

 A reference supporting Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) reporting activities, such as Enterprise Architecture 

(EA) maturity model and Roadmap

 A snapshot compilation reference guide that builds upon 

previous authoritative documentation; but intended to be 

on on-line collaborative resource in the future

• A “how to” manual for building and maintaining 

geospatial architectures

• A government-wide all inclusive conceptual or 

physical geospatial model

• A replacement of existing geospatial architecture 

structures within the agencies

• An endorsement of any referenced document, 

organization, process, product, service or 

capability other than those required by 

government policy

6 1.5 STAKEHOLDER AUDIENCE

7 The GIRA is designed as an instructive guide for the three primary stakeholders; Executive

8 Leadership, Program Managers, and Solution Architects. It provides a practical approach for the 

9 responsible governance, assessment, design/development, and implementation of interoperable 

10 geospatial investments. These three stakeholders form an interdependent role-based 

11 responsibility that must be sustained in order to achieve the intended mission benefit:

12 • Executive Leadership: is the responsible authority for the Department or Agency’s 

13 policy, fiscal and human resource requirements for geospatial investments. This 

14 stakeholder group will use the GIRA as the framework in which geospatial systems 

15 are governed, reviewed, resourced, shared, and collectively managed across an 

16 enterprise consisting of other geospatial investments.

17 • Program Managers: are responsible for the operational implementation and 

18 oversight of geospatial capabilities to ensure they meet the functional mission 

19 requirements defined by the intended users. They must communicate to both the 

20 Executive Leadership and Solutions Architects to ensure understanding and 

21 expectations of the requirements for interoperable geospatial systems investments.
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

4

1 Managers are required to quantify the benefit and resource impacts, both cost and 

2 integration savings, to Executive Leadership to ensure continued support, and 

3 resource sustainment. The GIRA provides Program Managers with a description of 

4 the key capabilities, processes, services, infrastructure, standards, performance 

5 measures, and artifacts that are required of an interoperable geospatial

6 architecture solution.

7 • Solution Architects: are responsible for acquisition requirements, 

8 design/development and the integration of geospatial solutions in accordance with 

9 their respective organization’s enterprise architecture technical and management 

10 requirements. The Solution Architects will be required to compare and quantify the 

11 technical implementation options, alternatives, and cost constraints to the Program 

12 Managers. The GIRA provides structured technical guidance and reference artifacts 

13 to assist in achieving geospatial system interoperability.

14 1.6 DOCUMENT APPROACH: HOW TO USE

15 The GIRA) is designed as an instructive guide and practical approach for the responsible 

16 assessment, design/development, and implementation of an interoperable geospatial investment.

17 The GIRA is organized, in part, to align with the Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework v2’s 

18 Consolidated Reference Model (CRM). The CRM is the core of the FEAF v2, “...which equips OMB 

19 and Federal agencies with a common language and framework to describe and analyze 

20 investments.” The CRM consists of a set of interrelated “reference models” designed to facilitate 

21 cross-agency analysis and collaboration in a common and consistent way. The six reference 

22 models in the CRM to be used within the GIRA include: Business, Data, Applications, 

23 Infrastructure, Security, and Performance. The GIRA will also include a section on Open Standards 

24 to promote interoperability.

25 By aligning with these FEAF v2’s CRM structure, the GIRA provides a framework for cross26 community communication, collaboration, requirements collection, resource alignment, and 

27 stakeholder buy-in for geospatial investments.

28 Each reference model Chapter of the GIRA is introduced with a description of the 

29 ‘What/Why/Who/How,’ along with a Stakeholder Performance Guide that frames the 

30 requirements, responsibilities, and key questions/issues that each stakeholder must address to 

31 achieve an efficient and effective interoperable geospatial investment:

32 • Definition/Description (What) – introduces the intent of the section and the 

33 expected results that the stakeholders should derive.

34 • Purpose/Function (Why) – defines the section’s content and its consideration 

35 within the geospatial system investment.
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

5

1 • Stakeholder Performance Guide (Who & How) – provides a practical question, task 

2 or action, from the stakeholder perspective (e.g., Executive, Program Manager 

3 and/or Solution Architect), that is critical for an effective and efficient system 

4 investment.

5 1.7 AUTHORITATIVE REFERENCING

6 Over 25 years ago, the Federal Interagency Coordinating Committee on Digital Cartography (the 

7 forerunner to the Federal Geographic Data Committee) prepared guidance for evaluating and 

8 selecting a Geographic Information System:

9 This document has been prepared to assist Federal managers and technical 

10 specialists in evaluating, designing, and procuring geographic information 

11 systems (GIS’s). Successful GIS implementation and application requires agency 

12 personnel to be cognizant of the capabilities and limitations of GIS technology 

13 and to carefully evaluate the needs of system users and applications. The variety 

14 of possible Federal GIS applications and users make it impractical and 

15 inappropriate to provide strict criteria for GIS implementation. However, this 

16 document provides general guidance for understanding the technology in a 

17 realistic perspective, evaluating the requirements of possible GIS users and 

18 applications, identifying applicable standards for information systems 

19 technology, selecting desirable software and hardware characteristics, and 

20 conducting benchmark tests to identify optimal hardware and software 

systems.10 21

22 The GIRA builds upon this basic premise and advances the foundational work of several 

23 subsequent geospatial and architectural guidance initiatives. The GIRA provides geospatial and 

24 architectural guidance and directs the reader to other key foundational materials that further 

25 geospatial system interoperability.

26 1.7.1GEOSPATIAL

27 • A Geospatial Interoperability Reference Model (GIRM), Version 1.1, December 2003.

28 Federal Geographic Data Committee, Geospatial Applications, and Interoperability (GAI) 

29 Working Group. (http://www.fgdc.gov/standards/organization/GIRM)

 

10 A Process for Evaluating Geographic Information Systems. USGS Open File Report, 1988. 88-105, 1998, 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1988/0105/report.pdf
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

6

1 Purpose: “This document references standards and specifications needed for 

interoperability among distributed geospatial services accessible over the Internet.”

11 2

3 • Geospatial Profile of the Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA), Version 2.0, March 06, 

4 2009. Architecture and Infrastructure Committee, Federal Chief Information Officers 

5 Council and Federal Geographic Data Committee. (http://www.fgdc.gov/geospatial-lob)

6 Purpose: “The Geospatial Profile is an educational resource for determining how and 

7 where geospatial approaches and associated geospatial resources fit into enterprise 

architectures.”

12 8

9  A Segment Architecture Analysis of the Geospatial Platform, Version 1.0, December 21, 

10 2010. Federal Geographic Data Committee, in support of the Federal Chief Information 

11 Officers Council. ( http://www.fgdc.gov/geospatial-lob/draft-segment-architecture12 review/Segment-Architecture-Analysis-of-the/view)

13 Purpose: “The guidance offers strategies for establishing goals, target designs, 

14 implementation guidance, and utilization of shared resources and for re-useable, and 

standards based capabilities.”

13 15

16 • SDI Cookbook, Global Spatial Data Infrastructure, GSDIWiki, last modified June 5, 2014. 

17 As a part of its role in the Global Spatial Data Infrastructure (GSDI) Association, the FGDC 

18 was the principal developer of the first edition of the reference manual on “Developing 

19 Spatial Data Infrastructures: The SDI Cookbook in 2000.” The second edition was 

20 subsequently published in 2004 and the current version is part of an active Wiki site:

21 (http://www.gsdidocs.org/GSDIWiki/index.php/Main_Page)

22 Purpose: “...this GSDI Cookbook identifies: existing and emerging standards, open-source 

23 and commercial standards-based software solutions, supportive organizational strategies,

and policies, and best practices.”

14 24

25 • Homeland Security Geospatial Concept of Operations (GeoCONOPS), Version 6.0, June 

26 2014. Department of Homeland Security (https://www.geoplatform.gov/geoconops-home) 

27 Purpose: “The Homeland Security GeoCONOPS is intended to identify and align the 

28 geospatial resources that are required to support the National Response Framework, 

29 Emergency Support Functions, and supporting federal mission partners all in coordination 

with Presidential Policy Directive-8 direction.”

15 30

 

11 A Geospatial Interoperability Reference Model (GIRM), Version 1.1, December 2003.

12 Geospatial Profile of the Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA), Version 2.0, March 06, 2009.

13 A Segment Architecture Analysis of the Geospatial Platform, Version 1.0, December 21, 2010.

14 SDI Cookbook, Global Spatial Data Infrastructure, GSDIWiki, last modified June 5, 2014.

15 Department of Homeland Security, Geospatial Concept of Operations (GeoCONOPS), Version 5.0, June 5, 2013.
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

7

1 1.7.2ARCHITECTURE

2 • The Common Approach to Federal Enterprise Architecture, May 2, 2012.

3 “This [document’s] common approach to Federal EA provides principles and standards for 

4 how business, information, and technology architectures should be developed across the 

5 Federal Government so they can be used consistently at various levels of scope within and 

between agencies, as well as with external stakeholders.”

16 6

7 • Federal Information Technology Shared Services Strategy, May 2, 2012.

8 “.... provides organizations [Federal Agencies} with policy guidance on the full range and 

9 lifecycle of intra- and inter-agency information technology (IT) shared services ... this 

strategy requires agencies to use a shared approach to IT service delivery.”

17 10

• Digital Government: Building a 21st 11 Century Platform to Better Serve the American 

12 People, May 23, 2012.

“The [Digital Government] strategy18 13 ...focusing on the key priority area that requires 

14 government-wide action: innovating with less to deliver better digital services. It 

15 specifically draws upon the overall approach to increase return on IT investments, reduce 

16 waste and duplication, and improve the effectiveness of IT solutions defined in the Federal 

17 Shared Services Strategy.”

18 • Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework, Version 2.0, January 29, 2013.

“The Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework v219 19 describes a suite of tools to help 

20 government planners implement The Common Approach to Federal Enterprise 

21 Architecture.” It contains the Collaborative Planning Methodology and is intended to be 

22 the next generation replacement for the Federal Segment Architecture Methodology 

23 (FSAM). It can be applied as a full planning and implementation lifecycle for use at all levels 

24 of scope defined in The Common Approach to Federal Enterprise Architecture.

 25 Federal Shared Services Implementation Guide, April 16, 2013.

 

16 Office of Management and Budget, The Common Approach to Federal Enterprise Architecture, May 12, 2012, available at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/egov_docs/common_approach_to_federal_ea.pdf

17 Office of Management and Budget, Federal Information Technology Shared Services Strategy, May 2, 2012, available at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/egov_docs/shared_services_strategy.pdf

18 Office of Management and Budget, Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to Better Serve the American People, 

May 23, 2012, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digital-governmentstrategy.pdf

19 Office of Management and Budget, Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework, Version 2, January 29, 2013, available at 

http://69.89.31.228/~mkerncom/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Federal-Enterprise-Architecture-Framework-v2-as-of-Jan-29-

2013.pdf
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

8

“The Federal Shared Services Guide20 1 provides information and guidance on the 

2 provisioning and consumption of shared services in the U.S. Federal Government. The 

3 guide provides agencies with a high level process and key considerations for defining, 

4 establishing, and implementing interagency shared services to help achieve organizational 

5 goals, improve performance, increase return on investment, and promote innovation.”

6

 7 ISE Information Interoperability Framework (I2F), May 2014.

8 The ISE I2F describes the components that enable information sharing and interoperability 

9 within a given reference implementation. The components of the ISE I2F framework allow 

10 for practitioners to organize information that defines the scope of what needs to be 

11 considered to achieve interoperability between ISE participants. Through the use of this 

12 information, ISE participants are able to identify touch points for sharing and safeguarding 

13 information in motion; while encouraging the use of interoperability within the scope of 

14 enterprise architecture concepts that are, and driven by, an organization’s internal 

15 enterprise architecture framework.

16 1.8 STAKEHOLDER PERFORMANCE GUIDE

17 The Stakeholder Performance Guide serves as a quick and concise reference table (see Table 1-2) 

18 for the three stakeholders (e.g., Executives, Program Managers, and Solution Architects) and 

19 identifies the major steps or decision points that are required for each stakeholder to be 

20 successful. The Performance Guide is structured to allow each stakeholder to see their specific 

21 area of responsibility based upon an identified task/action requiring their input/decision. It 

22 provides a recommended approach to accomplishing the identified tasks expected benefits (e.g., 

23 cost, infrastructure, shared services, etc.). The Performance Guide table is one mechanism to 

24 verify and measure performance of the investment.

25 Table 1-2. Stakeholder Performance Guide Table Structure

STAKEHOLDER PERFORMANCE GUIDE

CHAPTER 2 – GOVERNANCE

Role Responsibility Approach Benefit Executive Leadership

• Identify specific 

actions to be taken

• Identify the major 

tasks requiring 

go/no-go decisions

• Define what step(s) the Exec needs to 

take/support to accomplish the specified 

action

• Identify dependency of tasks and 

necessary steps

• Define the benefit in terms of 

quantifiable measures and expected 

outcomes (mission and resource 

impact) 

• Define the negative impact if not 

accomplished in terms of mission 

and resource impact

 

20 Federal CIO Council, Federal Shared Services Implementation Guide, April 16, 2013, available at (https://cio.gov/wpcontent/uploads/downloads/2013/04/CIOC-Federal-Shared-Services-Implementation-Guide.pdf).
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

9

STAKEHOLDER PERFORMANCE GUIDE

CHAPTER 2 – GOVERNANCE

Role Responsibility Approach Benefit Program Manager

• Identify specific 

actions to be taken

• Identify the major 

tasks requiring 

go/no-go decisions

• Define what step(s) the PM needs to 

take/support to accomplish the specified 

action

• Identify how the PM supports the other 

two stakeholders (Executive and/or 

Solution Architect) in the approach

• Identify shared benefit/responsibility 

if cross agency (if applicable)

Solution 

Architect

• Identify specific 

actions to be taken

• Identify the major 

tasks requiring 

go/no-go decisions

• Define what step(s) the SA needs to 

take/support to accomplish the specified 

action

• Identify how the SA supports the other 

two stakeholders (Executive and/or 

Program Manager) in the approach

• Quantify cost avoidance, services 

shared, and/or technical integration/

consolidation

1

2
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

1 0

1 2 GOVERNANCE

2 2.1 INTRODUCTION

3 Definition/Description (What) – Governance is a strategic decision-making process that grants 

4 authority, assigns accountability, defines expectations, and verifies performance. It also 

5 determines organizational objectives and monitors performance to ensure those objectives are 

attained.21 6

7 Purpose/Function (Why) – Provides a formal collaboration and consensus process for shared 

8 responsibilities (e.g., Executive Leadership) that drives economies of scale by identifying, 

9 prioritizing, and reusing investments to avoid duplicative costs. This chapter will describe how to:

10 • Establish collaborative governance and management oversight body for investment 

11 planning.

12 • Establish an Investment Technology Acquisition Review (ITAR) framework and 

13 checklist for portfolio management.

14 • Describe how to align to the Capital Planning Investment Control (CPIC) acquisition 

15 process.

16 • Provide information sharing agreement guidance for Service Level Agreements.

17 Stakeholder Performance Guide (Who & How) – For Executive Leadership and to a lesser degree 

18 Program Managers responsible for policy compliance, resource planning and approval (e.g., fiscal 

19 and human), and whom have “signature authority” to commit to program strategic direction and 

20 resourcing.

21 2.2 GOVERNANCE PRINCIPLES

22 The ability to coordinate across mission areas and collaborate on geospatial investments is a 

23 primary responsibility for the Executive Leadership to drive interoperability and cost efficiencies.

24 When a governance structure is executed effectively, it provides procedures for collaboration and 

25 consensus-based strategic decision-making, defines accountability, sets obtainable goals and 

26 requirements, shares resource investments, validates accomplishments, and provides measurable 

27 performance metrics. Effective governance structures will enable agencies to offer and reuse 

28 capabilities and services for sharing across the environment, consistent with an interoperable 

29 architecture approach.

 

21 Holistic Engineering Education, Systems Integration, Chapter 5, The MITRE Corporation, February 23, 2011.
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

1 1

1 Without a consensus-based governance structure, achieving interoperability and 

2 the maximum value from enterprise geospatial shared service investments is 

3 impossible.

4 While a “one-size-fits-all” governance model is not practical there are some common principles 

5 for successful governance:

6 • Executive Leadership sponsorship, decision-making authority, commitment, and 

7 participation.

8 • Defined roles and responsibilities with accountability by all members, usually 

9 through a Charter.

10 • Defined goals and objectives with quantifiable performance measures to 

11 demonstrate success.

12 • A systematic and repeatable approach for assessing investments and making 

13 decisions.

14 • Subject matter expertise either resident or available through reach-back.

15 • Inclusive discussions with consensus-based collaboration from all members.

16 2.3 GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES

17 There are numerous governance models that can be applied at varying levels of rigor depending 

18 upon an organization’s complexity and/or the number and level of geospatial investments that 

19 require coordination. The following two examples can be modified or combined to meet the 

20 specific needs of the organization and its members. While there is no “one-way” to establish a 

21 governance structure; there is “no-way” to succeed without one.

22 Geospatial programs may exist in multiple forms, and may in some cases be 

23 distributed throughout an agency without definable governance. In such cases it 

24 will be difficult to provide useful indicators of program performance in any 

measurement area, especially for customer results.22 25

26 2.3.1EXECUTIVE STEERING COMMITTEE

27 An Executive Steering Committee (ESC) structure should be established within and across an 

28 organization’s enterprise based upon the needs of the organizations (e.g. Office, Branch, 

29 Department, etc.) to be included in the committee. There is policy guidance for cross 

30 governmental (e.g., Federal and non-Federal involvement including the public) interaction and 

 

22 Geospatial Profile, Version 1.1, January 27, 2006. Architecture and Infrastructure Committee, Federal Chief Information Officers 

Council and Federal Geographic Data Committee. (no longer available)
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

1 2

1 coordination activities as defined by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). FACA became 

2 law in 1972 and is the legal foundation defining how federal advisory committees operate. The 

law has special emphasis on open meetings, chartering, public involvement, and reporting.23 3 In 

4 terms of Federal agency committees, both intra- and inter-agency coordination, committee 

5 structures and operating procedures are based upon consensus-based collaboration, usually with 

6 express language stating that the results or findings do not interfere with agency or governmental 

7 policy or law.

8 Numerous definitions exist; however, most steering committees are chartered with senior 

9 management leadership, are business-oriented and influence/direct resource investment.

10 Merriam-Webster defines a managing or directing committee (e.g., Steering 

11 Committee) as “a committee that determines the order in which business will be 

taken up in a United States legislative body.”

24 12

13 BusinessDirectory.com defines an advisory committee: “... usually made up of 

14 high level stakeholders and/or experts who provide guidance on key issues such 

15 as company policy and objectives, budgetary control, marketing strategy, 

resource allocation, and decisions involving large expenditures.”

25 16

17 Some organizations may have prescriptive requirements for the establishment of ESCs through 

18 their Office of General Council or related policy or legislative affairs offices depending upon the 

19 proposed membership of the committee (e.g., internal or external). Once policy guidance is 

20 determined, the structuring of the ESC can occur. As the name implies, an ESC is sponsored and 

21 lead by a decision-making level body of representatives, (see Section 1.5 Stakeholder Audience, 

22 for the definition of Executive Leadership). The sponsoring body, office or board often chairs/co23 chairs the committee; however, member roles and responsibilities are defined by a Charter (see 

24 Appendix A) as part of the collaborative and consensus-based approach.

25 2.3.2INTEGRATED PRODUCT/PROJECT TEAM

26 In 1995, the Secretary of Defense directed that the Department adopt Integrated Product/Project 

27 Teams (IPTs) as the preferred approach for development, review, and oversight of the acquisition 

process.26 28 An IPT process, while generally designed for an engineering approach to a system or 

29 “product,” it can also be applied to the governance of developing an interoperable geospatial 

30 investment either as a standalone approach or as part of the Executive Steering Committee 

 

23 http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/100916

24 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/steering%20committee

25 http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/steering-committee.html

26 Rules of the Road: A Guide for Leading Successful Integrated Product Teams, Revision 1, October 1999. Department of Defense.
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

1 3

1 structure described above. Generally, the “P” in IPT stands for product; however, it is also 

2 appropriate for project as defined below:

3 The Defense University, defines an Integrated Product Team as “a 

4 multidisciplinary group of people who are collectively responsible for delivering a 

defined product or process.”

27 5

6 The IT Law Wiki defines an Integrated Project Team as “composed of 

7 representatives from all appropriate functional disciplines working together with 

8 a Team Leader to build successful and balanced program, identify and resolve 

9 issues, and make sound and timely recommendations to facilitate decisionmaking.”

28 10

11 IPTs are used in complex development programs/projects for review and decision making. The 

12 emphasis of the IPT is on involvement of all stakeholders in a collaborative forum. IPTs are 

13 created most often as part of structured systems engineering methodologies, focusing attention 

14 on understanding the needs and desires of each stakeholder. The IPT approach simultaneously 

15 takes advantage of all members’ expertise and produces an acceptable product the first time.

16 Several more detailed resources are available for users to assess IPT processes and procedures to 

17 determine if the structure can be adopted/adapted for use in their geospatial governance. These 

18 documents have detailed operating principles and practices and provide example artifacts for the 

19 use to apply to meet their needs.

20 • Rules of the Road: A Guide For Leading Successful Integrated Product Teams, 

Revision 1, October 1999, Department of Defense29 21

• Integrated Project Team (IPT) Start-up Guide, February 2009, MITRE30 22

23 The following summarizes many of the practices and procedures of the authoritative sources 

24 listed above. IPTs, in general, will require operating principles and practices to include:

25 1. Chartering and Authorizing – requires the overall sponsorship and membership of the 

26 governing body within the existing policy and protocol structure of the organization. This 

27 may be prescribed by law, statute or other established agency specific policy and 

28 guidance. If no authorizing structure exists, the Charter sponsorship and membership 

29 agreement must be defined in the Charter which also defines the roles, responsibilities

30 and decision-making process.

 

27 https://acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=24675

28 http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Integrated_Project_Team#cite_note-0

29 http://www.navair.navy.mil/nawctsd/Resources/Library/Acqguide/IPT%20Rules%20of%20the%20Road.htm

30 http://www.mitre.org/publications/technical-papers/integrated-project-team-ipt-startup-guide
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

1 4

1 2. Goal Alignment – to ensure an agreed upon, mutually beneficial set of objectives that are 

2 quantifiable to all members.

3 3. Open Discussions with No Secrets – is the basis for mutual trust and collaboration. It is 

4 also a mechanism to ensure both leadership and individual members do not unduly 

5 influence the overall direction of the team.

6 4. Empowered, Qualified Team Members – ensures the best resources are applied to 

7 address the issue. This can also require ‘reach-back’ to subject matter experts for a 

8 limited duration to address a specific issue.

9 5. Dedicated/Committed Proactive Participation – ensures a collaborative and informed 

10 working environment without revisiting issues and unnecessary delays. The level of 

11 participation must be understood and agreed to by the member in advance to set 

12 expectations.

13 6. Issues Raised and Resolved Early – pending the structure of the IPT, issues should be 

14 resolved with an inclusive approach. If issues cannot be resolved, there needs to be an

15 escalation and resolution process to Executive Leadership for closure and advancement.

16 IPTs can be very involved requiring defined requirements, process, documentation, measures, and 

17 accountability. The need for a disciplined approach includes core tenants:

18 1. Understanding the requirements – an opportunity is identified that requires IPT 

19 resolution or assistance. This could be as broad as developing an interoperable enterprise 

20 geospatial capability or as limited as determining which organization within an enterprise 

21 will be the steward for an enterprise geospatial capability.

22 2. Outlining the approach – framing the goal and objectives with roles and responsibilities 

23 (and memorialized through a Charter) with clear outcome expectations is defined.

24 3. Planning the effort – working as an IPT, team members develop a Plan Of Action & 

25 Milestones (POA&M) to fully develop detailed tasking and levels of efforts estimates to 

26 allow the appropriate allocation of resources.

27 4. Allocating resources – key stakeholders are identified and the team members are 

28 launched by senior leadership to resolve the opportunity at hand. Leveraging financial 

29 resources will be determined by the Executive Leadership.

30 5. Executing and tracking the plan – project management skills are essential along with the 

31 subject matter expertise to execute the defined tasks. Reporting based upon the POA&M 

32 schedule (scope, schedule, and budget) and the ability to address issues that will arise 

33 during the project period. Most issues should be discussed and resolved within the IPT 

34 environment. When issues cannot be resolved, problems are escalated to Executive 

35 Leadership intervention.
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

1 5

1 6. Delivery – as issues are resolved and the POA&M executed, the IPT completes and 

2 delivers its Chartered outcome requirements.

3 7. Reevaluation – upon delivery and review with Executive Leadership, the IPT provides 

4 necessary feedback to IPT membership and evaluates the need for continuation of the 

5 IPT.

6 8. Finite Duration – if requirements are fulfilled the IPT is disbanded.

7 The governance of geospatial investments should be crafted based upon the complexity of the 

8 organization(s) involved, number and level of investments, and the agreed upon value to the 

9 mission/business.

10 2.4 INVESTMENT GOVERNANCE

11 Governance of geospatial investments can be viewed as operating at three different levels of an 

12 organization: Program, Portfolio and Enterprise. An integrated, multi-tiered governance 

framework unites disparate processes to eliminate redundant and low-value investments.31 13

14 • Program – program-level success is defined by meeting the goal of delivering a 

15 system that meets specified, contracted-for performance, price, and schedule 

16 parameters. Program-level decisions, directions, and actions align with that view of 

17 success and influence the expectations of systems engineering provided at that 

18 level.

19 • Portfolio – the focus shifts to making trades among a collection of programs to 

20 achieve capability-level outcomes. The tradeoffs balance various criteria, including 

21 the importance of capabilities to be delivered and expected delivery schedule 

22 within constraints, such as availability of funding and dates operational capabilities 

23 are needed. Portfolio-level decisions can result in programs being added and 

24 accelerated, cut back and decelerated, deferred, or cancelled.

25 • Enterprise – result in change of environment or rules in which programs and 

26 portfolios operate including their roles and responsibilities to achieve enterprise27 wide outcomes, such as joint interoperability or net-centricity. Often, this is 

achieved through departmental or agency-wide policies and regulations.

32 28

29 As organizations mature from Program to Portfolio to Enterprise levels, greater technical 

30 documentation should be developed and maintained to allow each pending new investment to be 

31 assessed, aligned, and adopted. The increase in the number of investments makes the complexity 

 

31 Ensuring IT Investments Deliver Their Promised Value, The Importance of Enterprise Governance, January, 2011, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer, DHS.

32 Department of Homeland Security, Systems Engineering and Acquisition, Best Practices: A Portal Companion, Version 1.0, 

September 2012. Developed by the Home Security Systems Engineering and Development Institute.
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

1 6

1 and challenge greater but also more important. At the individual Program level, the acquisition 

2 process may only use the existing Procurement Office procedures required of all investments 

3 within an organization. At the Portfolio level, a baseline assessment (e.g., As-Is environment) is 

4 essential to allow Senior Leadership the ability to make strategic investment, Program Managers 

5 to coordinate and allocate human resource coordination across individual programs, and Solution 

6 Architects the ability to design and develop interoperable components at the application and 

7 system level. The baseline assessment or As-Is (e.g., GeoBaseline) documentation (see Section 3.4 

8 and Appendices B, C and D) provides the foundation to perform these tasks and the basis upon 

9 which to achieve enterprise-wide outcomes.

10 A mature enterprise may strive to establish and sustain a Technical Reference Model (TRM) or 

11 Target Architecture of the desired technical framework to which investments should align. The 

12 TRM is a component-driven, technical framework categorizing the standards and technologies to 

13 support and enable the delivery of services and capabilities. It provides a foundation to advance 

14 the reuse and standardization of technology and Service Components from a government-wide 

perspective.33 15

16 Aligning agency capital investments to the TRM leverages a common, standardized vocabulary, 

17 allowing intra/interagency discovery, collaboration, and interoperability. Agencies and the federal 

18 government will benefit from economies of scale by identifying and reusing the best solutions and 

19 technologies to support their business functions, mission, and target architecture. Organized in a 

20 hierarchy, the TRM categorizes the standards and technologies that collectively support the 

21 secure delivery, exchange, and construction of business and application services and capabilities 

22 that may be leveraged in a component-based or service-oriented architecture.

23 The TRM or Target Architecture would list the types of technology an organization would use and 

may include categories of use to include:34 24

25 • Permitted – products and standards that currently reside in the TRM and approved 

26 for use.

27 • Go-To (Target) – products and standards that the Department/Agency is migrating 

28 towards and considered enterprise-wide solution, and have a compliance date for 

29 usage.

30 • Divest – products and standards which are obsolete and the Department/Agency

31 must actively plan for disposal and should not invest further, with a specified 

32 divestment date.

 

33 Office of Management and Budget, FEA Consolidated Reference Model Document, Version 2.3, October 2007.

34 Department of Homeland Security, Information Technology Acquisition Review (ITAR) Quick Essentials Guide, Version 3.0, 

January 23, 2013.
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

1 7

1 • Restricted – products and standards that can only be used by the organization 

2 obtaining approval.

3 • Emerging – products and standards that will be utilized in a very limited capacity 

4 during the prototypes or pilot phase of a program development with future 

5 decision pending approval.

6 • Prohibited – products and standards that are not aligned to the Department/Agency

7 TRM and may not be procured.

8 Once a TRM or Target is established, a pending geospatial investment can then be compared 

9 against both the As-Is GeoBaseline and TRM and reviewed by the governance body to ensure 

10 existing capabilities are reused and new capabilities can be shared across the enterprise.

11 2.4.1INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACQUISITION 

12 REVIEW PROCESS

13 A primary benefit of governance is the efficient and agreed upon use of geospatial resource 

14 investments. As part of the governance structure, an investment review process should be 

15 established to ensure the optimal reuse of existing capabilities and the effective development of 

16 new shared capabilities across the enterprise. While the geospatial governance body does not 

17 [necessarily] have “veto” authority, as each organization will have its own procurement approval 

18 procedures and signatory authorities (e.g., CIO or CFO), it does provide the ability to align 

19 investments and reduce duplication for maximum interoperability.

20 The governance body should establish portfolio management guidance to pending investments 

21 and help prepare for the Information Technology Acquisition Review (ITAR). Table 2.1 provides 

portfolio management guidance principles to ensure:

35 22

23 Table 2-1. Portfolio Management Guidance Principles

PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT GUIDANCE PRINCIPLES

• The program requirements are completely clear in meaning or intention, correct, and complete.

• Acquisition requirements align with established portfolio targets and transition plans.

• New acquisitions support a capability gap existing within a portfolio.

• If the acquisition provides services to other investments within the Department/Agency, the 

performance requirements are defined (e.g., Service Level Agreement (SLA) or Memorandum).

• Any other capability/service in the Department/Agency portfolio (existing or planned), as identified in 

the GeoBaseline or TRM, is identified. Acquisition requirements should not overlap and the investments 

should determine the most effective solution for the Program and Enterprise.

• Opportunities to consolidate all or part of the acquisition with other existing/planned acquisitions 

 

35 Department of Homeland Security, Information Technology Acquisition Review (ITAR) Quick Essentials Guide, Version 3.0, 

January 23, 2013
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

1 8

PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT GUIDANCE PRINCIPLES

within the Portfolio have been examined and resolved.

• If necessary, contractual or policy language must be developed to mandate portfolio alignment.

1 The governance body should define the required documentation for an investment review. A 

pending investment review submission package should include: 36 2

3 • A Standard Acquisition Check list (see Table 2-2).

4 • Acquisition Documentation (i.e., Statement of Work (SOW), Statement of 

5 Objectives (SOO), Performance Work Statement (PWS), Request for Proposal (RFP), 

6 or other supporting documents).

7 • Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) or Bill of Materials (BOM).

8 • Signed memorandum or other indication of Senior Leadership approval.

9 A Standard Acquisition Checklist for effective portfolio management should consist of the 

10 following:

Table 2-2. Standard Acquisition Checklist37 11

ITAR NAME ITAR ID #

Questions Responses Guidance/Instructions/Comments

Organization Name/POC Required – Department/Agency office and point-of-contact

Date Submitted Required – M/D/YYYY

Title Required – brief title; usually one sentence

Summary Required – brief summary; usually one clear paragraph

Description (expansion of 

summary)

Required – expansion of summary, providing a contextual framework 

of the acquisition, including background

Benefits

Required – explanation of why this procurement is necessary, how 

Department/Agency benefits, and explanation of potential risks if this 

acquisition is not complete

Alignment to Geospatial 

Baseline and/or TRM

Required – explanation of how this procurement is aligned to the 

GeoBaseline and/or TRM and any new technology needs

Is this a follow-on review? Required – a “follow-on” review for a continuation of existing 

procurement with additional capabilities

Previous review ID # If applicable, provide most recent review number

Have all previous review 

conditions been resolved?

Ensures that any prior deficiencies on the proposed acquisition have 

been addressed

Organization approval Required – ensures senior leadership understanding and commitment

Approval date Required – M/D/YYYY

 

36 Ibid.

37 Department of Homeland Security, Information Technology Acquisition Review (ITAR) Quick Essentials Guide, Version 3.0, 

January 23, 2013.
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

1 9

1 2.4.2CAPITAL PLANNING INVESTMENT CONTROL 

2 PROCESS

3 The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provides specific policy, procedural, and analytical 

4 guidelines for planning, budgeting, acquisition, and management of major IT capital investments.

5 OMB reviews and evaluates each agency’s IT spending, using the guidance on Exhibits 53 and 300, 

6 to effectively manage its portfolio of capital assets to ensure scarce public resources are wisely 

invested.38 7 Agencies are required to use a disciplined Capital Planning Investment Control (CPIC) 

8 process to acquire, use, maintain, and dispose of IT in alignment with the agency’s Enterprise 

9 Architecture (EA) planning processes. Exhibit 300 describes the justification, planning, and 

10 implementation of an individual capital asset included in the agency IT investment portfolio (as 

11 reported in Exhibit 53) and serves as a key artifact of the agency’s EA and IT CPIC processes.

12 Geospatial system investments are often considered a sub-system or supporting technology and 

13 may not be clearly identified or listed as the primary technology function of the desired system, 

14 making it more difficult to identify many (smaller) geospatial investments across an enterprise.

15 The Program Manager should ensure the geospatial capability of a larger system is identified as a 

16 sub-system to allow for identification within the CPIC process.

17 Capital programming integrates the planning, acquisition, and management of capital assets into 

18 the budget decision-making process. It is intended to assist agencies in improving asset 

19 management and in complying with the federal IT policy.

20 The practices, templates and other tools within the GIRA can be directly applied to supporting the 

21 development and investment justifications necessary for the OMB CPIC submission process, 

22 including:

23 • Chapter 2, Governance – provides the management oversight requirements and 

24 coordination mechanisms necessary for investment comparison and sharing.

25 • Chapter 3, Business Reference Model – provides the Geospatial Baseline 

26 Assessment Matrix to inventory investments in the areas of data, architecture, 

27 technology, applications and services.

28 • Chapter 6, Infrastructure Reference Model – provides the target architecture and 

29 artifacts that can be used in the required Three Alternatives Analysis for the

30 solution investment.

31 • Chapter 9, Performance Reference Model – provides many of the possible 

32 measurable tasks and milestones needed as metrics for investment and stakeholder 

33 satisfaction.

 

38 Office of Management and Budget, Guidance on Exhibits 53 and 300 – Information Technology and E-Government, available at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/egov_docs/fy14_guidance_on_exhibits_53_and_300.pdf
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

2 0

1 In the capital planning and investment control process, there are two separate and distinct plans 

2 that address IRM and IT planning requirements for the agency. The IRM Strategic Plan (44 U.S.C. 

3 3506 (b)(2)) addresses all information resources management of the agency and ensures IRM 

4 decisions are integrated with organizational planning, budget, procurement, financial 

management and program decisions.39 5

6 The IT Capital Plan is operational in nature; supports the goals and missions identified in the IRM 

7 Strategic Plan, and is a living document that must be updated twice yearly. This IT Capital Plan is 

8 the implementation plan for the budget year. The IT Capital Plan must be submitted yearly to 

9 OMB with the agency budget submission annually. An example of the required CPIC guidance and 

how the GIRA tools can be applied to meet this guidance include: 40 10

11 • Ensure decisions to improve existing information systems or develop new information 

12 systems are initiated only when no alternative private sector or governmental source can 

13 efficiently meet the need.

14 ◦ GIRA Chapter 2, Governance: Executive Steering Committee (Section 2.3.1) decision 

15 making for existing/new systems, applications and shared investment.

16 • Prepare and maintain a portfolio of major information systems that monitors 

17 investments and prevents redundancy of existing or shared IT capabilities. The portfolio 

18 will provide information demonstrating the impact of alternative IT investment strategies 

19 and funding levels, identify opportunities for sharing resources, and consider the agency’s 

20 inventory of information resources.

21 ◦ GIRA Chapter 3, Business Reference Model: Geospatial Baseline Assessment Matrix 

22 (Section 3.4) provides an inventory of system investments.

23 • Ensure improvements to existing information systems and the development of planned 

24 information systems do not unnecessarily duplicate IT capabilities within the same 

25 agency, from other agencies, or from the private sector.

26 ◦ GIRA Chapter 6, Infrastructure Reference Model: Geospatial Baseline Assessment 

27 Matrix: Infrastructure and Technology (Section 6.3) provides the target To-Be 

28 environment and artifacts for system investment comparison and compatibility.

29 • Establish oversight mechanisms to evaluate systematically and ensure the continuing 

30 security, interoperability, and availability of systems and their data.

31 ◦ GIRA Chapter 2, Governance: Executive Steering Committee (Section 2.3.1) decision 

32 making for existing/new systems, applications, and shared investment.

 

39 OMB Memorandum M-13-13, Open Data Policy – Managing Information as an Asset (May 9, 2013), available at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2013/m-13-13.pdf

40 http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg_a130notice
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

2 1

1 2.4.3PROCUREMENT POLICY LANGUAGE

2 At the highest maturity level, an enterprise would have policy in place within the procurement 

3 process that requires an Investment Review Board to ensure the proposed procurement aligns 

4 with the enterprise TRM or Target Architecture.

5 An example of geospatial procurement policy language could include:

DEPARTMENT/AGENCY GEOSPATIAL INFORMATION

SYSTEM

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

All geospatial implementation including data, information, systems, and services shall 

comply with the policies and requirements set forth by the Department/Agency 

Geospatial Governance Board, including but not limited to the following:

• All data created, adopted or acquired, shall be submitted to the government for 

review and insertion into the Department/Agency Technical Reference Model.

• All software created, adopted or acquired, shall be submitted to the government 

for review and insertion into the Department/Agency Technical Reference Model.

6 2.5 INTERAGENCY AGREEMENTS AND SERVICE 

7 LEVEL AGREEMENTS: INFORMATION SHARING 

8 AGREEMENTS

9 Information Sharing Agreement (ISA) governance is an essential, yet often overlooked element in 

10 the access to and sharing of geospatial data, applications, and services. When an organization has 

11 made a decision to share information and services, the provider/consumer need to negotiate, 

12 agree, and formally document the services to be provided. If funding will be transferred from one 

13 agency to another, then the agreement also needs to contain an authority to transfer funds, the 

14 amount being transferred, and a clause describing collection of costs upon cancellation. This 

15 information is provided in one of several types of agreements, as shown in Table 2-3: (a) 

16 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU); (b) Memorandum of Agreement (MOA); and (c) 

17 Interagency Agreement (IAA). Some agencies draw distinctions between different agreement 

18 types, while others focus only on the content in the agreement. The Federal Chief Information 

Officers Council’s Federal Shared Services Implementation Guide41 19 , provides clear and 

20 comprehensive description and understanding of the types of agreements that could be used as 

21 well as funding and pricing model approaches, to establish ISAs across organizations and should 

22 be reviewed when moving toward a shared-services environment.

23 

41 Federal Shared Services Implementation Guide, April 16, 2013. Federal Chief Information Officers Council, available at 

https://cio.gov/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2013/04/CIOC-Federal-Shared-Services-Implementation-Guide.pdf
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

2 2

1 Table 2-3. Types of Agreements

ACTION MOU MOA IAA

Establish a Non-financial Relationship X X X

Order a Service X

Terms and Conditions X

Requirements and Funding Information X

2 Information Sharing Agreements can include both internal as well as external (government) 

3 partners. This write-up does not address ISAs with foreign governments (see Department of 

4 State’s Information Sharing Environment Guidance (ISE-G) Checklist of Issues For Negotiating 

5 Terrorism Information Sharing Agreements and Arrangements), nor does it directly apply to 

6 private sector license agreements although many of the template sections or checklist items could 

7 be useful in assessing an offered license agreement from a commercial provider.

8 The Department of Homeland Security defines an Information Sharing and Access Agreement as:

9 An agreement that defines the terms and conditions of information/data 

10 exchanges between two or more parties. The term encompasses agreements of 

11 any form, including Memoranda of Understanding, Memoranda of Agreement, 

Letters of Intent, etc.42 12

13 Information sharing agreements can be complex and time consuming and if not executed 

14 properly can introduce cost, redundancies, dependencies, and potential risk into an enterprise.

15 ISAs are not merely a point-to-point discussion between a data owner/steward (e.g., provider) 

16 and a data consumer (e.g., requestor). While an agency or a direct point-of-contact within an 

17 agency may be the original data developer or custodian, the provisioning of data will require 

18 authorities and approvals in the areas of system/network administration, security, policy, privacy, 

19 general counsel, and others for the terms and condition of use and reuse or extended sharing to a 

20 third party. Third party reuse, in which Agency A (the provider) shares data with Agency B (User 

21 1), who then shares the original data with Agency C (User 2), requires permissions/restrictions to 

22 be established in the original ISA between Agency 1 and Agency 2 and by extension to any third 

23 party requestor.

24 To determine what data or services require an ISA, the Geospatial Executive Steering Committee 

25 (Section 2.3.1) should determine all existing ISAs that are in effect (or pending) across the 

26 enterprise to ensure a complete understanding of available data sharing resource investments 

27 and activities, especially if commercial data provider license or Enterprise License Agreements 

28 (ELAs) are required. The Steering Committee as part of its geospatial investment baseline 

 

42 Department of Homeland Security, Information Sharing and Access Agreements Guidebook and Templates, revision version 2.1, 

October 2010.
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

2 3

1 assessment (Section 3.3.1 and Appendix C) will be able to determine what data assets are 

2 available and which new assets are required. If new data assets are required by multiple 

3 components or business units across an organization, the ISA will need to reflect enterprise-wide 

4 access and use as well as considerations for Third Party access if applicable.

5 The following section is extracted and modified from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

6 Information Sharing and Access Agreements Guidebook and Templates, revision version 2.1, 

October 2010.

43 7 The DHS documentation is far more detailed and complete than this abbreviated 

8 and highlighted summation.

Prior to the development of a new ISA, an Information Sharing Checklist 44 9 (see Appendix A.2) can 

10 be used to determine whether to accept or reject the request for data. The Checklist, while it is 

11 used for both internal and external requests, has primary benefit for internal requests 

12 within/across a Department/Agency. The Checklist assists both parties (e.g., Requestor and 

13 Provider) in determining the breadth of the requirements and provides the initial framework of 

14 understanding necessary to structure either an internal or external sharing agreement or both.

15 Once the initial Checklist has been reviewed, and approved, a Data Access Process Questionnaire 

16 (see Appendix A.3) is used to provide the detailed information necessary to establish an ISA. The 

17 Requesting Department/Agency completes the Questionnaire with information pertaining to:

18 1. Points of Contact

19 2. Data Request

20 3. Purpose

21 4. Authorities – Requesting Department/Agency

22 5. Privacy and Civil Liberties Protections

23 6. Information Security Controls

24 7. Adjudication

25 8. Signatories

26 The Questionnaire provides the Requestor and Provider a process by which to fully vet the 

27 information sharing requirements and challenges. It should be used as a basis for a more in-depth 

28 discussion to ensure all aspects of the data and its use/protection are considered prior to an 

29 exchange. During the in-depth review, additional requirements can also be discussed, such as; 

30 value-added or derived data usage; data accuracy and correction returned to the Provider; 

31 updates if the data are not dynamic; metadata and data tagging requirements; disposition; etc.

 

43 Department of Homeland Security, Information Sharing and Access Agreements Guidebook and Templates, revision version 2.1, 

October 2010.

44 Ibid.
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

2 4

1 Once the requirements have been fully vetted, the ISA can be established (see Appendix A.4). A

2 basic ISA may include the following sections:

3 1. Contact information for parties entering into agreement. This includes both the 

4 Requestor(s) and Provider(s) information.

5 2. Statements on the purpose/need for the ISA.

6 3. Complete citations (including pinpoint cites to particular subsections in the authority) to 

7 applicable authorities including laws, regulations, directives, international obligations, 

8 and/or policies (including a parenthetical explaining why the authority is relevant to the 

9 particular ISA), as well as information regarding compliance with Civil Rights and Civil 

10 Liberties (CRCL), privacy, security, and other compliance guidelines.

11 4. Description of information/data being requested.

12 5. Statement on how the data will be collected, used, shared, protected, retained, 

13 disseminated, and destroyed.

14 6. Description of how the ISA will be monitored and reviewed.

15 7. Terms and conditions for ISA enforcement.

16 2.6 STAKEHOLDER PERFORMANCE GUIDE: 

17 GOVERNANCE

18 At its most basic level, governance comprises a set of formal and informal rules and practices. 

19 These rules and practices determine how decisions are made around investments, how decision 

20 execution is monitored and the results of these decisions are measured, how empowerment for 

decision making is exercised, and how those who make the decisions are held accountable.45 21

22 Stakeholder governance serves to formally recognize/legitimize the collaborative administration 

23 of a shared investment and frames the roles, responsibilities and accountability with 

24 corresponding performance measures. Some of those performance measures are highlighted 

25 below for each of the three stakeholder communities; Executive Leadership, Program Manager, 

26 and Solution Architect.

27

 

45 IT Governance Institute.
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

2 5

1 Table 2-4. Stakeholder Performance Guide: Governance

STAKEHOLDER PERFORMANCE GUIDE

CHAPTER 2 – GOVERNANCE

Role Responsibility Approach Benefit Executive Leadership

• Establish and/or Co-Chair the 

Chartered governance (ESC/IPT) 

body.

• Signatory to establish Investment 

Technology Acquisition Review 

(ITAR) framework.

• Signatory to ISAs for access or 

dissemination of data and/or 

services.

• Work with other Executives to 

frame Charter goals/objectives 

and commitment to level-ofeffort support/involvement.

• Establish review board with 

CIO/CFO representation and 

consider policy to ensure 

participation and commitment.

• Establish or follow General 

Council process and review and 

maintain repository of 

Agreements.

• Signatory with defined 

responsibility and stated 

measurable results (e.g., ELAs 

with % cost reduction, shared 

services with defined Steward, 

etc.).

• Promotes interoperability, 

reduces redundant investments, 

and allows for cost share.

• Reduce cost for data acquisition 

and/or document need for 

establishing an Enterprise 

License Agreement.

Program Manager

• Coordinate across other internal 

Department/Agency investment 

PMs for recommendations to 

Execs for strategic and tactical 

objectives.

• Staff and perform Working 

Group tasks as defined within the 

ESC/IPT Charter.

• Develop performance measures 

and target end-state (To-Be) 

environment.

• Ensure geospatial (sub-system at 

a minimum) is identified within 

the CPIC submission process.

• PMs identify and prioritize 

capability gaps and planned 

investments to determine To-Be 

end-state vs. As-Is environment 

and prepared business plan and 

value proposition for Execs 

approval.

• Recommend Working Group 

priority, short-term/high-value 

tasks, and early delivery results 

to demonstrate benefits.

• Within Charter define Working 

Group roles/responsibilities and 

prepare a work plan with Plan of 

Action & Milestones (POA&M).

• Within the annual CPIC 

submission (e.g., 53/300) 

process, ensure geospatial 

capability is identified so that 

search and identification across 

system investments can be 

performed.

• Early adoption/visibility to 

strengthen long-term 

commitment from Executive 

Leadership.

• Working Group member 

awareness of multiple 

investments across enterprise 

promotes coordination resulting 

in leveraged investments.

• Results oriented for measurable 

and quantifiable results 

demonstrating value of 

collaboration.

• Facilitates the search and 

identification of geospatial 

investments (especially for 

smaller systems) across the 

entire enterprise to foster 

participation within the 

Executive Steering Committee 

and technical solution teams.

Solution 

Architect

• SME and reach back for Working 

Group participation.

• Validate technical requirements 

for work plan.

• Develop baseline assessment and 

perform capability gap analysis 

for As-Is and To-Be 

environments.

• Develop technical approach for 

work plan tasks and POA&M.

• Technical vetting and validation 

across investments for desired 

To-Be end-state environment.

• Ensure broadest possible 

technical review, adoption and 

acceptance.

2

3
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

2 6

1 3 BUSINESS REFERENCE MODEL

2 3.1 INTRODUCTION

3 Definition/Description (What) – the Business Reference Model (BRM) provides planning and 

4 evaluation practices to document existing geospatial capabilities and identify requirements for 

5 new system investment alignment.

6 Purpose/Function (Why) – enables individual business investments, through collaborative 

7 governance and planning structure, to document and compare capabilities and requirements in 

8 the areas of infrastructure, data, applications, and services as a means to share investments and 

9 avoid redundant cost. It uses the established governance structure (see Section 2.3) to base-line, 

10 align, transition, and mature their geospatial invest across the enterprise. The chapter describes 

11 how to:

12 • Define mission/business needs in terms of geospatial functional/operational 

13 requirements.

14 • Establish a process for geospatial system investment base lining and comparison by 

15 analyzing capabilities and functionality, and identifying opportunities for reuse.

16 Stakeholder Performance Guide (Who & How)

17 • Executive Leadership and Program Managers responsible for policy setting and 

18 compliance, strategic program direction, resource planning and approval (e.g., fiscal 

19 and human)

20 • Solution Architects for validating feasibility of technical approach and establishing

21 target performance metrics

22 3.2 BUSINESS REFERENCE MODEL(S):

23 APPROACH

24 The GIRA BRM will focus upon a practical approach to framing the business and functional 

25 capabilities and requirements of the geospatial enterprise, based upon the Governance Structure 

26 in Section 2.3. The geospatial BRM will leverage The Common Approach to Federal Enterprise 

Architecture46 27 and its architecture project planning method, the Collaborative Planning 

Methodology47 28 (Section 3.2.2), by highlighting its process for identifying and documenting 

29 geospatial investments and requirements across the enterprise. This approach is a prerequisite to 

30 allow for system interoperability. Without this understanding and governance structure to 

 

46 Office of Management and Budget, The Common Approach to Federal Enterprise Architecture, May 2, 2012.

47 The Collaborative Planning Methodology, June 2012, Office of Management and Budget.
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

2 7

1 facilitate its collection, compilation, and assessment, an enterprise cannot effectively or efficiently 

2 leverage or reuse investments.

3 3.2.1GEOSPATIAL PROFILES

The Geospatial Profile of the Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA), Version 2.048 4 (e.g., GeoProfile 

5 2.0) is a resource for determining how and where geospatial capabilities fit into enterprise 

6 architectures. The GeoProfile 2.0 provides a methodology for geo-enabling business processes in 

7 which a series of steps can be used as a means to identify business areas that could benefit from 

8 geospatial capabilities and procure the resources to enable the change. To geo-enable a business 

9 process, architects and executives focus on identifying location-based methods for mission 

10 functions and analyzing the most cost-effective combination of possible approaches.

Geospatial Profile of the Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA), Version 2.049 11

12 defines a geo-enabled organization, as “one that deploys the staff and 

13 technological infrastructure necessary to provide enterprise geospatial data, 

14 services, and technological support to business processes across an 

15 organization, while also promoting economies of scale and reuse. This includes 

16 supporting agency-wide access to geospatial data and services for multiple 

17 business processes and deploying mechanisms for external partners to access 

18 the agency geospatial assets.”

19 Successful geo-enabled organizations have a governance structure in which senior management 

20 are engaged in integrating geospatial approaches and practices into the business architecture. A 

21 structured and active governance practice at a strategic level enhances optimization of 

22 investments by aligning them with mission objectives and business strategy.

23 3.3 OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS 

24 DOCUMENTATION

25 At its core, an architecture framework begins with the understanding that technology 

26 investments and development should be planned – and that the mission or business owner, not 

27 the technology providers, should determine what is needed (e.g., requirements). The 

28 Collaborative Planning Methodology, (Step 1: Identify and Validate) and the Enterprise Roadmap 

29 (II. Summary of Current Architecture) documents existing and planned capabilities and 

30 requirements.

 

48 Geospatial Profile of the Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA), Version 2.0, March 06, 2009. Available at 

https://www.fgdc.gov/initiatives/resources/geospatial-profile-of-the-FEA-v2-march-2009.pdf/view

49 Ibid.
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

2 8

1 An Operational Requirements Document (ORD) is a method in which to document technology, 

2 data and services capabilities, and requirements that provide the input for how investments are 

3 leveraged/aligned, purchased or built, and the performance indicators are defined. The 

4 capabilities and requirements, as defined by the mission and user community, are documented 

5 and prioritized and form the basis of the As-Is baseline and To-Be desired environment. To assist 

6 in the identification of new or existing business processes within an organization, which requires 

or could benefit from geo-enabling, the Geospatial Profile v2.050 7 provides a 3-stage process to 

8 help identify, assess, and select an investment as well as includes an Appendix (Approaches for 

9 Geo-Enabling Lines of Business) that would assist Use Case development to identify geospatial 

10 aspects of business/mission activities.

11 The ORD is a dynamic document, and as new requirements are identified, they are maintained 

12 and contribute to future capability development within the CPM lifecycle. An ORD should 

13 consider the following:

14 1. Who should perform the User Requirements Analysis (URA)?

15 2. Identification and definition of User Levels of capability/need

16 a. View

17 b. Analysis

18 c. Advanced Analysis

19 3. Definition of required (mission driven) products or services

20 4. Evaluation of work flow and data inputs/outputs

21 5. Investment Identification and Comparison

22 6. Baseline Assessment and Comparison Matrix for technology, data, applications, and 

23 services

The Segment Architecture Analysis of the Geospatial Platform51 24 provides Geospatial Use Cases to 

25 help facilitate the identification of geospatial business functions and requirements in a step-wise 

26 manner. Each use case describes a series of actions taking place, the actors involved, the data 

27 being exchanged, and the systems, applications, technology and standards being leveraged with 

28 an As-Is and Target Analysis including Gaps. Use cases include:

29 • Acquire or Create Geospatial Information.

30 • Store and Manage Geospatial Assets.

31 • Use Geospatial Information to Support Business Driven Applications.

 

50 Geospatial Profile of the Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA), Version 2.0, March 06, 2009.

51 Segment Architecture Analysis of the Geospatial Platform, Version 1.0, December 21, 2010. Federal Geographic Data Committee, in 

support of the Federal Chief Information Officers Council. Available at http://www.fgdc.gov/geospatial-lob/draft-segmentarchitecture-review/Segment-Architecture-Analysis-of-the
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

2 9

1 • Process Geospatial Information to Maintain or Update Resources.

2 • Find Geospatial Information or Services.

3 • Publish or Disseminate Geospatial Resources.

4 One of the most important elements of the ORD, as input to the CPM, will be the development of 

5 the Baseline Assessment or Asset Inventory. This forms the basis of the investment comparisons 

6 and allows a level-set understanding of the capabilities and requirements for the geospatial 

7 enterprise.

8 3.4 GEOSPATIAL BASELINE ASSESSMENT MATRIX

9 The Baseline Assessment is more than just an inventory of investments; but serves as a 

10 mechanism to normalize and compare investments; a means to demonstrate to Executive 

11 Leadership the magnitude of the collective geospatial need across an enterprise; and can be used 

12 as input to the OMB CPIC (Section 2.4.2) and annual OMB Roadmap submission for IT Asset 

13 Inventory. Performed as a task under the direction of an organization’s Geospatial Executive 

14 Steering Committee, the Baseline Assessment would include a profile of an enterprise’s 

15 organizations which have, need or plan to have geospatial capabilities mapped to their Core 

16 Stakeholders
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

3 0

1 Table 3-1). The Stakeholders could include communities or sectors such as: federal, state, local, 

2 tribal and territory government, public, private and international as well as business/mission 

areas or “Services for Citizens”

52 3 such as Defense and National Security, Intelligence, Law 

4 Enforcement, Operations, Emergency Management, etc. The OMB Federal Enterprise Architecture 

Business Reference Model v353 5 provides further subdivisions of the Services for Citizens (e.g., 111 

6 Homeland Security: 033: Border and Transpiration Security; 034: Key Asset and Critical 

7 Infrastructure Protection; and 035: Catastrophic Defense) that can be used to provide detailed 

8 business/mission area delineation.

9

 

52 http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/egov/a-3-2-services.html

53 http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/e-gov/fea/
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

3 1

1 Table 3-1. Geospatial Baseline Assessment: Core Mission Services and Stakeholders

(1) SERVICES FOR CITIZENS ORG #1 ORG #2 ORG #3 ORG #4 ORG #5 ORG #6

(103) Defense and National Security Y Y Y

(111) Homeland Security Y Y Y Y Y Y

(113) Intelligence Operations Y Y Y

(104) Disaster Management Y Y Y

(114) International Affairs and Commerce

(117) Natural Resources

(107) Energy Y

(108) Environmental Management

(105) Economic Development

(101) Community and Social Services Y

(118) Transportation Y

(106) Education

(119) Workforce Management

(110) Health

(112) Income Security

(115) Law Enforcement Y Y Y

(116) Litigation and Judicial Activities

(102) Correctional Activities

(109) General Science and Innovation

Internal to Agency Y

Federal Y Y

State Y Y Y

Local Y Y Y

Tribal Y Y Y

Territory Y Y Y

Public Y

Private

International Y

2 These business/mission alignments are directly aligned to the OMB CPIC process (Section 2.4.2) 

3 needed for investment planning and justification. Each fiscal year, Federal Agencies are required 

4 to submit Exhibit 53s and Exhibit 300s to request funding for new major projects and on-going 

5 capital investments and align these projects and investments to the Federal Enterprise 

6 Architecture Business Reference Model. This enables OMB to identify projects and investments 

7 across the Federal Government that support a common business purpose, which further allows 

8 OMB to identify candidate shared services that more agencies can use, thereby reducing the 

9 number of redundant services throughout the Federal Government. Through the use of a 

10 standard classification scheme, the BRM functional taxonomy, opportunities for shared services 
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

3 2

1 and elimination of redundancies may be identified. This high level profile provides a basic 

2 awareness of the enterprise organization’s stakeholder communities of interest and an early 

3 indication of the types of information sharing opportunities or limitations that may exist.

4 The Baseline Assessment Matrix describes an organization through a taxonomy of common 

5 (shared) business/mission functional requirements and/or support service capabilities (Table 3-2)

6 instead of through a stove-piped single organizational view.

7 Table 3-2. Geospatial Baseline Assessment: Core Capability

Enterprise 

Investment Visualization

GeoAnalysis/

Processing

Reporting Search &

Discovery

Alerts &

Notifications Collaboration Content Mgmt

Resource 

Mgmt

Data 

Mgmt

Asset 

Mgmt

Decision 

Support

IT 

Security Other

Org #1 C C C P P P P C C P P C

Org #2 C C C C C P C C C C

Org #3 C C C C C C C C C

Org #4 C C C C C C C C

Org #5 C C C C C C C C C C C

Org #6 C C C C C C C P C P

Org #7 P P P

Org #8 C C C C C C

Org #9 C C C C C

Commonality 

Score Percent 

(%)

9 7 6 6 8 6 4 4 7 3 5 9 0

100% 78% 67% 67% 89% 67% 44% 44% 78% 33% 56% 100% 0%

Status: C = Current, P = Planned

8 The Baseline Assessment Matrix will allow for a high-level view of an enterprise organization’s 

9 investments (e.g., C = Current and P = Planned) in the areas of: Visualization, Geospatial Analysis 

10 and Processing, Reporting, Search and Discovery, Alerts and Notifications, Collaboration, Content 

11 Management, Resource Management, Data Management, Asset Management, Decision Support, 

12 IT Security and other categories as defined by the Executive Steering Committee. This profile of 

13 Current/Planned investments provides an initial, high-level profile of the general types of needs 

14 each organization provides its stakeholders. This profile helps to frame the more detailed Baseline 

15 Assessments that will come in the areas of: Data Inputs and Datasets (Chapter 4); Functionality 

16 Assessment (Chapter 5); Infrastructure and Technology Assessment (Chapter 6).

17 Once all of the Baseline Assessment Matrices have all been developed, it will provide the 

18 framework for the Executive Leaders, Program Managers and Solution Architects to begin to 

19 assess opportunities to leverage and maximize shared-service capabilities across the enterprise. It 

20 will also provide the basis for an assessment of where possible redundant investments could be 

21 reduced; which planned investments could be avoided by agreeing to a steward or service 

22 provider (e.g., Org #X or Org #Y) for the use of one of the investments which is most effective. The 

23 Matrix will also begin to identify where gaps exist and planned investments can be prioritized and 

24 leveraged.
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

3 3

1 3.5 STAKEHOLDER PERFORMANCE GUIDE: 

2 BUSINESS

3 The Performance Guidance provides a summation of the key decision points necessary to 

4 determine the most effective and efficient design, development, and implementation of the 

5 geospatial system investment.

6 Table 3-3. Stakeholder Performance Guide: Business

STAKEHOLDER PERFORMANCE GUIDE

CHAPTER 3 – BUSINESS

Role Responsibility Approach Benefit Executive Leadership

• Establish and/or Co-Chair to 

Chartered governance (ESC/IPT) 

body.

• Signatory to establish Investment 

Technology Acquisition Review 

(ITAR) framework.

• Signatory to ISAs for access or 

dissemination of data and/or 

services.

• Work with other Executives to 

frame Charter goals/objectives 

and commitment to level-ofeffort support/involvement.

• Establish review board with 

CIO/CFO representation and 

consider policy to ensure 

participation and commitment.

• Establish or follow General 

Council process and review and 

maintain repository of 

Agreements.

• Signatory with defined 

responsibility and stated 

measurable results (e.g., ELAs 

with % cost reduction, shared 

services with defined Steward, 

etc.).

• Promotes interoperability, 

reduces redundant investments, 

and allows for cost share.

• Reduce cost for data acquisition 

and/or document need for 

establishing an Enterprise 

License Agreement.

Program

Manager

• Coordinate across other internal 

Department/Agency investment 

PMs for recommendations to 

Execs for strategic and tactical 

objectives.

• Staff and perform Working 

Group tasks as defined within the 

ESC/IPT Charter.

• Develop performance measures 

and target end-state (To-Be) 

environment.

• PMs identify and prioritize 

capability gaps and planned 

investments to determine To-Be 

end-state vs. As-Is environment 

and prepared business plan and 

value proposition for Execs 

approval.

• Recommend Working Group 

priority, short-term/high-value 

tasks and deliver early results to 

demonstrate benefits.

• Within Charter define Working 

Group roles/responsibilities and 

prepare a work plan with Plan of

Action & Milestones (POA&M).

• Early adoption/visibility to 

strengthen long-term 

commitment from Executive 

Leadership.

• Working Group member 

awareness of multiple 

investments across enterprise 

promotes coordination resulting 

in leveraged investments.

• Results oriented for measurable 

and quantifiable results 

demonstrating value of 

collaboration.

Solution 

Architect

• SME and reach back for Working 

Group participation.

• Validate technical requirements 

for work plan.

• Develop baseline assessment and 

perform capability gap analysis 

for As-Is and To-Be 

environments.

• Develop technical approach for 

work plan tasks and POA&M.

• Technical vetting and validation 

across investments for desired 

To-Be end-state environment.

• Ensure broadest possible 

technical review, adoption, and 

acceptance.

7
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

3 4

1 4 DATA REFERENCE MODEL

2 4.1 INTRODUCTION

3 Definition/Description (What) – defines the primary considerations for describing, discovering, 

4 delivering, and sharing common data using open standards and the promotion of uniform data 

5 management practices to sustain data as a national asset.

6 Purpose/Function (Why) – to promote the common identification, tagging, sharing, and reuse of 

7 appropriate geospatial data/information resources across communities. It contributes to the 

8 mission/business Operational Requirements Documentation (Section 3.3) to determine what data 

9 inputs and assets are required to meet the functional needs of the stakeholder. The chapter 

10 describes how to:

11 • Establish a process for base lining and documenting geospatial data inputs and 

12 datasets.

13 • Provide guidance for preparing data description, context, and sharing methods.

14 • Provide [limited] references to common operating data and other sources.

15 Stakeholder Performance Guide (Who & How) – driven by mission/business requirements and 

16 the associated functional capabilities identified in the Operational Requirement Document, data 

17 resource investment must be a shared responsibility agreed to by the Executive Leadership and 

18 managed as an enterprise/corporate resource and service administered by a steward (e.g., 

19 Program Manager) and implemented by the Solution Architects.

20 Geospatial data are the biggest cost to an enterprise geospatial solution, and 

21 remains the primary need, challenge and barrier to the geospatial community.

22 4.2 DATA REFERENCE MODEL APPROACH

23 Geospatial data identification, search, discovery, and access continues to be the primary 

24 challenge for the geospatial professional/user, but is now compounded by the fact that geospatial 

25 technology has become ‘commoditized’ to a level where the general public have come to expect it 

26 to be just another query tool on their web browser. This is the same expectation that the 

27 geospatial Program Manager and Solution Architect face when providing geo-data and services to 

28 the mission/business owner within their organizations who are not geospatial professionals.

29 The GIRA’s Data Reference Model will focus upon a practical approach to documenting the 

30 geospatial data requirements within and across an organization to meet mission/business 

31 requirements as well as provide guidance for data description, context, and sharing. The GIRA 

32 Data Reference Model is not:
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

3 5

1 • A data management “how to” manual for building and maintaining data 

2 architectures.

3 • A government-wide conceptual data model or fully attributed logical data model.

4 • A set of XML schemas.

5 • A replacement of existing data structures within an organization’s geospatial 

6 enterprise.

7 4.3 GEOSPATIAL BASELINE ASSESSMENT 

8 MATRIX: DATA INPUTS AND DATASETS

9 Once established, an organization’s Executive Steering Committee’s should have the authority

10 and ability to initiate an enterprise-wide Geospatial Baseline Assessment (Section 3.4). The 

11 baseline would include data requirements based upon mission/business functional needs taken 

12 from the Operational Requirements Document. Agencies should perform a business analysis that 

13 generates the geospatial data requirements including data model, geospatial and temporal 

14 coverage, accuracy, and quality. The potential sources for that geospatial information, ranging 

15 from self-production, to usage of another agency’s data product, to direct acquisition from 

16 commercial sources should be considered. This should yield a data architecture that defines 

17 information types and data requirements in terms of business needs.

18 The Baseline Assessment for Data can serve multiple benefits and reporting requirements. The 

19 Data Assessment is essentially an inventory and catalog of current data holdings as well as 

20 planned needs based upon functional requirements. However, the Matrix is a tool to help foster 

21 discussion with the stakeholder community to better understand the mission/business 

22 requirements.

23 “The creation of duplicative data and redundant capabilities often results from 

24 consumers’ inability to locate, access, understand, or trust that existing data 

assets meet their needs.”

54 25

26 The Data Assessment Matrix is not exhaustive and there are many themes of data within each 

27 category listed in the 

28

 

54 DoD 8320.02-G, Guidance for Implementing Net-Centric Data Sharing, April 2006, available at

http://dodcio.defense.gov/Portals/0/documents/832002g.pdf
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

3 6

1 Table 4-1 (see also Appendices C.1 and C.2) that would require further discussion to identify the 

2 best available dataset to meet the business need. Agencies should use the Data Reference Model 

3 from the Federal Enterprise Architecture to help create and maintain their inventory. The 

inventory would facilitate the identification of “authoritative”

55 4 and/or desired datasets; identifies 

5 redundant data assets for decommissioning; identifies opportunities to reuse or extend a data 

6 asset rather than creating a new one; and the opportunity to avoid redundancy costs based upon 

7 the establishment of enterprise licensing agreements.

The GeoCONOPS56 8 defines authoritative data owned and/or produced by the federal entities 

9 supporting the National Response Framework as:

10  Rational Authority: Government agencies are by default the “authoritative” sources for 

11 data or services that they produce, or have a statutory responsibility.

12  Expert Authority: Scientifically authoritative data is defined in the realm of the various 

13 professions under which the standards and methodology for data are created.

14 These classifications provide clarity beyond the frequent notion that an authoritative data source 

15 is simply the entity trusted because of a subjective belief that it is the “best” or “most accurate” 

16 source for a specific data theme. The owner or authoritative source of any geospatial data is 

17 responsible for defining the business rules for the access and sharing of that information across 

18 the stakeholder community.

The Baseline Assessment would also serve to meet OMB’s Open Data Policy57 19 responsibility to

20 “Create and maintain an enterprise data inventory... that accounts for datasets used in the 

21 agency’s information systems.”

22 The Baseline Assessment discussion would begin with a Data Inputs (

23

 

55 Department of Homeland Security, Geospatial Concept of Operation (GeoCONOPS), Version 5.0, June 2013, available at

See also https://www.geoplatform.gov/geoconops-home

56 Ibid.

57 OMB Memorandum M-13-13, Open Data Policy – Managing Information as an Asset (May 9, 2013), available at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2013/m-13-13.pdf
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

3 7

1 Table 4-1 and Appendix C.1) of general types of data required to meet the mission/business 

2 functional capabilities of the organizations stakeholders as identified in the Operational 

3 Requirements Document. This can generally be performed by the geospatial investment Program 

4 Manager and Solution Architects initiating discussions with both geospatial investment ‘owners’

5 as well as business owners that may need geospatial functionality/services but do not intend to 

6 have a system investment. A follow-on assessment with a more detailed (inventory) would be 

7 performed to fully identify the existing datasets either currently existing or planned for 

8 acquisition. Table 4-2 provides an extract of the 6-page Baseline Dataset Assessment Matrix that 

9 is contained in Appendix C.2.

10

11
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

3 8

1 Table 4-1. Geospatial Baseline Assessment Matrix: Data Inputs

2

3 Table 4-2. Geospatial Baseline Assessment Matrix: Datasets (Extract)

4

Geospatial Baseline Assessment: Data Inputs

Org #1 Org #3 Org #4 Org #5 Org #6

Common 

Score Pct %

Email P P C C C C 6 100%

SMS / Text Messages P C C P C C 6 100%

Internet Media P C P C C 5 83%

Critical Infrastructure C C C C C C 6 100%

Suspicious Activity Reports P P C C P 5 83%

Weather Service Forecasts / Warnings P C C C C C 6 100%

Natural Hazards P C C C C C 6 100%

Base Maps (see GIRA Appendix F-2) P C C C C C 6 100%

Business Directories P P C C C 5 83%

Personnel / Blue Force Tracking P C C 3 50%

Asset / Vessel Tracking P C C C 4 67%

Elevation & Terrain P C C C 4 67%

Navigation & Reference Grids P C C 3 50%

Population / Demographics C C C C 4 67%

Travel Conditions P C C C C 5 83%

Political Jurisdictions P C C C 4 67%

Tax Parcels P C 2 33%

Law Enforcement P C 2 33%

Emergency Services P C P 3 50%

Health & Disease Outbreaks P P C C 4 67%

Aerial Photography C C C C C C 6 100%

Satellite Imagery C C C C C C 6 100%

Traffic Camera / Feeds P C C C C C 6 100%

Camera Feeds / live video P C C C C C 6 100%

Business Partners Operating Status P P 2 33%

Personal Identifiable Information (PII) P P 2 33%

Classified / FOUO sensitivie data P P 2 33%

Others 2 33%

Status C - Current P - Planned 0%

Data Inputs Org #2
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

3 9

1 4.4 DATA REFERENCE MODEL ALIGNMENT

2 The Data Reference Model’s (DRM) primary purpose is to promote the common identification, 

3 use, and appropriate sharing of data/information across the federal government. The DRM is a 

4 flexible and standards-based framework to enable information sharing and reuse via the standard 

5 description and discovery of common data and the promotion of uniform data management 

practices.58 6 The DRM focus upon two core questions: What information is available for sharing 

and re-use, and what are the information gaps needing correction?59 7 The DRM provides a 

8 standard means by which data may be described, categorized, and shared while respecting 

9 security, privacy, and appropriate use of that information. It consists of three standardization 

areas:

60 10

11 • Data Description: Provides a way to uniformly describe data to convey meaning, 

12 thereby supporting its discovery and sharing.

13 • Data Context: Facilitates discovery of data through an approach to the 

14 categorization of data according to taxonomies. Additionally, enables the definition 

15 of authoritative data assets within a common operating environment.

16 • Data Sharing: Supports the access and exchange of data where access consists of 

17 ad-hoc requests (such as a query of a data asset), and exchange consists of fixed, 

18 reoccurring transactions between parties. This is enabled by capabilities provided 

19 by both the Data Context and Data Description standardization areas.

This standardized Data Reference model structure is depicted in Figure 4-1.

61 20

21

 

58 Office of Management and Budget, Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework, Version 2, January 29, 2013, available at 

http://69.89.31.228/~mkerncom/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Federal-Enterprise-Architecture-Framework-v2-as-of-Jan-29-

2013.pdf

59 Office of Management and Budget, A Common Approach to Federal Enterprise Architecture, May 2, 2012, available at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/egov_docs/common_approach_to_federal_ea.pdf

60 Ibid.

61 Office of Management and Budget, Consolidated Reference Model, Version 2.3, October 2007, available at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/fea_docs/FEA_CRM_v23_Final_Oct_2007_Revised.pdf.

DATA DESCRIPTION DATA CONTEXT

DATA SHARING

Data and Data Assets Taxonomies

Query Points and Exchange
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

4 0

1 Figure 4-1. Data Reference Model Structure

2 4.4.1DATA DESCRIPTION

3 Data Description provides a means to uniformly describe data, thereby supporting its discovery 

4 and sharing. Traditionally, data description was solely focused on organizing and describing 

5 structured data [geographic base data layers]. With unstructured data [mission/business data that 

6 may contain a geographic element] as the largest focus of agencies’ data management challenges, 

7 the Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework’s DRM Description component has been revised 

8 to focus on the larger topic of metadata, which includes both traditional structured data and 

unstructured data description.62 9

10 Metadata is structured information that describes, explains, locates, or otherwise makes it easier 

to retrieve, use, or manage an information resource (NISO 2004, ISBN: 1-880124-62-9).63 11 The 

12 challenge is to define and name standard metadata fields so that a data consumer has sufficient 

13 information to process and understand the described data. The more information that can be 

14 conveyed in a standardized regular format, the more valuable data becomes. Metadata can range 

15 from basic to advanced, from allowing one to discover the mere fact that a certain data asset 

16 exists and is about a general subject all the way to providing detailed information documenting 

17 the structure, processing history, quality, relationships, and other properties of a dataset that 

18 enable a potential user to determine its fitness of use for their purposes.

19 The International Standards Organization (ISO) 19115-1:2014: Geographic Information –

20 Metadata, Part 1: Fundamentals, available at 

21 http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=53798,

22 defines the schema required for describing geographic information and services. It provides

23 information about the identification, extent, quality, spatial and temporal schema, spatial 

reference, and distribution of digital geographic data.64 24 The Metadata Standard is applicable to:

25 • Cataloguing of datasets, clearinghouse activities, and the full description of 

26 datasets.

27 • Geographic datasets, dataset series, and individual geographic features and feature 

28 properties.

29 The ISO Metadata Standard also defines:

30 • Mandatory and conditional metadata sections, and metadata elements.

 

62 Office of Management and Budget, Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework, Version 2.0, January 29, 2013.

63 http://project-open-data.github.io/schema/

64 International Standards Organization, ISO 19115:2003 Geographic Information – Metadata, available at 

http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=26020
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

4 1

1 • Minimum set of metadata required to serve the full range of metadata applications 

2 (e.g., data discovery, determining data fitness for use, data access, data transfer, 

3 and use of digital data).

4 • Optional metadata elements—to allow for a more extensive standard description of 

5 geographic data.

6 • Method for extending metadata to fit specialized needs.

What is commonly understood as metadata comprises:

65 7

8 • Identification information, i.e., information to uniquely identify the resource such 

9 as:

10 ◦ Title, abstract, reference dates, version, purpose, responsible parties, ...

11 ◦ Data extent,

12 ◦ Browse graphics (overview, thumbnail, ...), and

13 ◦ Possible usage.

14 • Content Description, i.e., information identifying the feature catalogue(s) used 

15 and/or information about the coverage content.

16 • Distribution information, i.e., information about the distributor of, and options for 

17 obtaining the resource.

18 • Legal and security constraints; i.e., restrictions placed on the data and metadata in 

19 the context of delivering, accessing, and using.

20 • Portrayal information, i.e., information identifying the portrayal catalogue used.

21 • Reference system information, i.e., identification of the spatial and temporal 

22 system(s) used in the resource data.

23 • Spatial Representation, i.e., information concerning the mechanisms used to 

24 spatially represent the resource data.

25 • Quality and validity information, i.e., a general assessment of the quality of the 

26 resource data including:

27 ◦ Quality measures related to the geometric, temporal and semantic accuracy, 

28 the completeness or the logical consistency of the data,

29 ◦ Lineage information including the description of the sources and processes 

30 applied to the sources, and

 

65 Defense Geospatial Information Working Group (DGIWG), DGIWG Metadata Vision – 906, September 30, 2013, available at 

https://www.dgiwg.org/dgiwg/htm/documents/committee_enterprise_documents.htm
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

4 2

1 ◦ Validity information related to the range of space and time pertinent to the 

2 data; to whether the data has been checked to a measurement or performance

3 standard or to what extent the data is fit for purpose.

4 • Maintenance information, i.e., information about the scope and frequency of 

5 updating of the resource data.

6 • Information about metadata, i.e., identifier for the metadata itself, information 

7 about the language and character set of the metadata, metadata date stamp, 

8 metadata point of contact, name, and version of the metadata standard.

9 All nationally significant and other federally stewarded geospatial data should be documented 

10 with descriptive metadata to enable discovery, assessment of fitness-of-use, and sharing of 

geospatial data resources.66 11 Geospatial metadata should be organized by a common schema to be 

12 applied across the federal sector that:

13 • Is organized in accordance with ISO metadata specifications (ISO 19115-1:2014 and 

14 ISO 19139 - Geographic Metadata XML schema implementation), documenting key 

15 properties of geospatial data resources including but not limited to the following:

16 ◦ Identification information (e.g., context/topic, search keywords, dataset title),

17 ◦ Data quality information (e.g., positional accuracy and precision, adherence to 

18 data accuracy standards, completeness),

19 ◦ Spatial representation and reference system information (e.g., geometric 

20 properties, coordinate systems, projections, datum),

21 ◦ Other relevant information [e.g., maintenance frequency, data steward (POC) 

22 information, content description, distribution protocol and constraints], and

23 ◦ Explicitly defines distribution rights and restrictions to enable role-based access 

24 implemented through federal e-authentication initiatives.

The Office of Management and Budget’s Open Government Directive67 25 requires agencies to 

26 expand access to information by making it available online in open formats. Specifically, this 

27 Memorandum requires agencies to collect or create information in a way that supports 

28 downstream information processing and dissemination activities. This includes using common 

29 core and extensible metadata for all new information creation and collection efforts.

 

66 Geospatial Profile of the Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA), Version 2.0, March 06, 2009, available at 

http://www.fgdc.gov/geospatial-lob

67 OMB Memorandum M-1 0-06, Open Government Directive, December 8, 2009, available at 

 http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/memoranda_2010/m10-06.pdf
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

4 3

1 Federally sponsored Metadata Working Groups promote the advancement, adoption and use of 

2 geospatial metadata and provide considerable expertise, documentation, training, and 

3 information for users including:

4 • Geospatial Intelligence Standards Working Group’s (GWG) Metadata Focus Group 

5 (MFG), available at http://www.gwg.nga.mil/mfg.php,

6 • Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC), Metadata Working Group, available at 

7 http://www.fgdc.gov/participation/working-groups8 subcommittees/mwg/index_htm , and

9 • Defense Geospatial Information Working Group (DGIWG), available at 

10 https://www.dgiwg.org/dgiwg/htm/documents/committee_enterprise_documents.

11 htm.

12 4.4.2DATA CONTEXT

13 Data Context is any information that provides additional meaning to data and an understanding 

14 to the purposes for which it was created. The Data Context method can also be called 

“categorization” or “classification.”

68 15 OMB’s Open Data Policy responsibility to “Create and 

16 maintain an enterprise data inventory ... that accounts for datasets used in the agency’s 

information systems,”

69 17 provides input for the categorization. The Baseline Assessment (Section 

18 4.3 and Appendix C.2) allows organizations the ability to begin to agree upon data taxonomies, 

19 definitions and authoritative sources. Once data assets are inventoried, categorized, and then 

20 shared in data registries, these catalogs become source for discovering data and assessed based 

21 upon metadata that determine utility to the user. The catalog and its taxonomy are not meant to 

22 be fixed and unchanging, but flexible and scalable so that new Subjects and Topics can be added 

23 as the business model for the organization changes as needed, for their respective business 

24 processes.

The Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework V2.0 describes Data Categorization Methods70 25

26 and provides best practices examples (Table 4-3) used to describe the common data assets.

27 Table 4-3. Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework V2.0: Data Categorization Methods

METHOD DESCRIPTION AUTHORITATIVE REFERENCE

Data Asset 

Catalog

A data asset catalog reduces time and cost to 

implement change by reducing the time to locate 

needed data, identifies redundant data assets for 

decommissioning, and identifies opportunities to 

Data Management Book of Knowledge 

(DMBOK) DAMA, April 2009.

 

68 Office of Management and Budget, Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework, Version 2.0, January 29, 2013.

69 OMB Memorandum M-13-13, Open Data Policy – Managing Information as an Asset, May 9, 2013, available at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2013/m-13-13.pdf

70 Office of Management and Budget, Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework, Version 2.0, January 29, 2013. Appendix C: Data 

Reference Model.
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

4 4

METHOD DESCRIPTION AUTHORITATIVE REFERENCE

reuse or extend a data asset rather than creating 

a new data asset.

Using the Data Taxonomy, agencies should 

inventory their data assets, associate or map the 

data assets to the Data Taxonomy and create a 

data catalog consisting of the Taxonomy Subject, 

Taxonomy Topic, Entity Name (table, class, file 

name), Attribute Name (column, attribute, field, 

tag), and Data Asset Population (a rule to limit 

scope of an association). The data asset catalog is 

populated through a “bottom up” process that 

associates the data contents of a data asset 

documented in the data asset’s data model to 

the Data Taxonomy.

DoD 8320.02-G, Guidance for Implementing 

Net-Centric Data Sharing, April 2006

An agency can create a data catalog with the 

following steps: 1) Inventory data assets and 

collect the data model or structure for each 

asset, 2) Map the asset characteristics to the 

Data Taxonomy, 3) Present the results in a data 

catalog. The data asset catalog provides the 

foundation of an enterprise data inventory, 

which lists and describes all agency data sets 

used in the agency’s information systems and is

required by OMB’s Policy on Managing 

Government Information as an Asset.

1 In summary, an organization can create a geospatial data catalog with the following steps:

2 1. Inventory data assets and collect the data model or structure for each asset.

3 2. Map the asset characteristics to the DRM Taxonomy.

4 3. Preserve the results in a data catalog that is exposed for Search and Discovery.

5 There are numerous geospatial data cataloging initiatives and websites available for search, 

6 discovery, posting and retrieval (Section 4.6). Each catalog capability however uses its own 

7 taxonomy for the inventory and includes variations such as: Community Categories, Types, 

8 Groups, Tags, Layers, Name, Keyword, etc.

9 The geospatial community does not maintain a standardized, consensus driven 

10 or commonly applied taxonomy to catalog geospatial data assets.

11 Taxonomies describing nationally significant and other federally stewarded geospatial data should 

12 be documented using eXtensible Markup Language (XML) Topic Maps, Web Ontology Language 

(OWL), Resource Definition Format (RDF) hierarchies, or ISO 11179 classification schemes.71 13

14 Taxonomies describing geospatial data can then be made accessible via services to facilitate 

15 efficient search, discovery, and data translation capabilities and to facilitate development of more 

16 detailed data schemas and logical data models.

 

71 Geospatial Profile of the Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA), Version 2.0, March 06, 2009, available at

http://www.fgdc.gov/geospatial-lob
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

4 5

1 4.4.2.1DATA SEARCH AND DISCOVERY

2 Mapping each geospatial data asset in an agency’s data asset catalog to the agency’s data 

3 categorization taxonomy, enables users to identify the data assets that satisfy the search criteria 

of the user.72 4 There are three primary search and discovery methods as described in Table 4-4.

5 Table 4-4. Standards-based Content Search Methods

STANDARD 

SEARCH METHOD DESCRIPTION

Federated Search

A real-time, simultaneous search of multiple resource collections that may reside on many 

separate domains. Federated Search utilizes a broker to accept a query request, broadcast it 

out to a number of providers, and aggregates the results into a combined set for the 

consumers.

Centralized Search Operates by creating a central index of content obtained by crawling web sites and following 

web feeds. Search queries are then executed against the index.

Enterprise Metadata 

Catalog

A central catalog of discovery metadata organized into collections. The Enterprise Metadata 

Catalog searching mechanism supports precise criteria such as geospatial and temporal 

parameters as well as full-text search. The Defense Discoverable Metadata Specification 

(DDMS)73 is an example of an appropriate metadata tagging standard for the contents of an 

Enterprise Metadata Catalog.

6 Regardless of the search method applied, each requires the effective use of Data Description and 

7 Data Context in order to identify the requested data.

8 4.4.3DATA SHARING

9 Geospatial data sharing (e.g., identification of and access to requested data) is often the greatest 

10 need and obstacle for the user community. Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Open 

11 Government Directive requires agencies to expand access to information by making it, “online in 

12 an open format that can be retrieved, downloaded, indexed, and searched by commonly used 

web search applications.”

74 13 Specifically, this Memorandum requires agencies to collect or create 

14 information in a way that supports downstream information processing and dissemination 

15 activities. This includes using machine readable and open formats, data standards, and common 

16 core and extensible metadata for all new information creation and collection efforts.

17 CHALLENGE: “Federal, state, local, and tribal organizations typically use 

18 different definitions in the storage and exchange of like data across a community 

of interest.”

75 19

 

72 Office of Management and Budget, Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework, Version 2.0, January 29, 2013.

73 http://metadata.ces.mil/dse/irs/DDMS/

74 OMB Memorandum M-1 0-06, Open Government Directive, December 8, 2009, available at

http://www.whitehouse.gov/open/documents/open-government-directive

75 Office of Management and Budget, Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework, Version 2.0, January 29, 2013.
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

4 6

1 Creating a standardized information exchange with agreed upon data descriptions, or Content 

2 Model, enables each participating organization to create the necessary interface to receive or 

3 provide data only once. Content models refer to community agreements on the elements, 

4 relationships between elements, semantics and so forth for a specific data set in a given domain. 

5 Further, content models are implementation independent and vendor neutral. In order to 

6 automate and make the exchange of domain specific geospatial data seamless, consensus needs 

7 to be built among the community participants on:

8 ● A shared data model for data exchange, in terms of a common understanding and 

9 agreement for how different systems “understand” each other;

10 ● Common definitions of the different data entities and their properties; and

11 ● Common controlled vocabularies and taxonomies.

12 Creating a standardized information exchange with agreed upon data descriptions enables each 

13 participating organization to create the necessary interface to receive or provide data only once.

14 Existing exchange partners can use a new participant’s data without having to write any interface 

15 or transformation. Also, it improves the quality of information exchange by ensuring that the 

16 source and target mapping is accurate, by utilizing the exchange model and standardized data 

17 definitions.

18 For example, the DRM abstract model can be implemented using different combinations of 

19 technical standards. As one example, the Exchange Package concept in the Data Sharing 

20 standardization area may be represented via different messaging standards (e.g., eXtensible

21 Markup Language (XML) schema, Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) transaction set) in a system 

architecture for purposes of information sharing.76 22

The Geospatial Profile of the Federal Enterprise Architecture77 23 describes geospatial data sharing in 

24 the following context. Geospatial data schemas define how geospatial data are organized, how 

25 geospatial objects relate to each other, and list the attributes associated with each object. For 

26 maximum interoperability, these schemas must be based on standards for logical 

27 (abstract/database design) and physical (encoding/exchange) applications. The National 

Information Exchange Model (NIEM)78 28 is an example of a federally developed data schema which 

29 incorporates geospatial content. Community collaboration and harmonization of semantics and 

30 exchange schema is used to provide common approaches and resolve discrepancies.

 

76 Office of Management and Budget, Consolidated Reference Model, Version 2.3, October 2007.

77 Geospatial Profile of the Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA), Version 2.0, March 06, 2009, available at 

http://www.fgdc.gov/geospatial-lob

78 National Information Exchange Model (NIEM). https://www.niem.gov/Pages/default.aspx
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

4 7

1 The FEA DRM provides an architectural pattern for sharing and exchanging data through a 

2 services-oriented strategy. Geospatial data should be encoded using appropriate interface 

3 standards and specifications to enable data exchange (fixed recurring transactions between data 

4 suppliers and consumers) and less structured requests for data access.

5 Geospatial architectures should leverage metadata catalogs as exposure mechanisms to enable 

6 consumers to discover availability and fitness-of-use of relevant geospatial data while also 

7 providing an effective means to connect consumers with authoritative geospatial data through 

8 service-oriented discovery, brokering, and access. To facilitate data sharing geospatial standards 

9 should:

10 • Be open and vendor-neutral to enable exploitation by a broad range of technology 

11 solutions.

12 • Be based on consensus (ISO/ANSI/FGDC/OGC) or community standards.

13 • Promote encoding of full geographic information (i.e., raster and vector spatial data 

14 and their attributes) in support of multiple mission requirements.

15 4.5 DATA ACCESS AND POLICY

16 The goal of a data architecture is to facilitate accurate (timely and precise information), trusted 

17 (data authorities and security), and common (agreed upon information source) data across the 

18 geospatial investments. Data access is key to understanding the ‘who and why’ of data 

19 management. Access is a leveraged capability involving policy considerations. This consists of 

20 identity and role based access that relies upon standards defined through the Federal Identify and 

Access Management (FICAM) roadmap.79 21 Additionally, Information Sharing Agreements (ISA) and 

22 Memorandums of Agreement/Understanding (Section 2.5) must be structured and adaptive 

23 among mission partners to gain access to data sets to be used in the respective agency geospatial 

24 systems.

One of the five goals of the 2012 National Strategy for Information Sharing and Safeguarding,

80 25

26 (NSISS) is to improve information discovery and access through common standards. Goal 2 of the 

27 strategy states:

28 “Secure discovery and access relies on identity, authentication and authorization 

29 controls, data tagging, enterprise-wide data correlation, common information 

30 sharing standards, and a rigorous process to certify and validate their use.”

31 – National Strategy for Information Sharing and Safeguarding

 

79 http://www.idmanagement.gov/identity-credential-access-management

80 National Strategy For Information Sharing and Safeguarding, December 2012, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/2012/12/19/national-strategy-information-sharing-and-safeguarding
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

4 8

1 The NSISS Goal 2.1 goes on to state:

2 “Discovery and access are distinct concepts: the first addresses a user’s ability 

3 to identify the existence of information, and the second relates to a user’s ability 

4 to retrieve it. Our national security demands relevant information is made 

5 discoverable, in accordance with existing laws and policies, to appropriate 

6 personnel. Discovery and access require clear and consistent policy and 

7 standards, as well as technical guidance for implementing interoperable process 

8 and technology.”

9 – National Strategy for Information Sharing and Safeguarding

10 Data handled by various governmental authorities is subject to differing concerns regarding 

11 operational security, as well as the privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties of individuals and 

12 organizations described by the data or having access privileges to the data. As such, organizations 

13 will likely caveat source data with various access restrictions, and any operations on the source 

14 data will need to appropriately propagate those access controls through data access policies and 

15 reflected in the metadata at varying degrees of granularity. Figure 4-2 graphically depicts the data 

16 access and policy element “wrappers” necessary for sharing.

17

18 Figure 4-2. Data Access and Policy Wrapper

19 The granularity of the metadata applied to each data object is critical for enabling repeatable fine20 grain access control. This allows for maximizing information integration while minimizing risks 

21 associated with over-sharing. Each organization and associated data stewards are ultimately 

22 responsible for defining the security policies that govern how data is acted upon. These policies 

23 should be machine executable to dynamically provide a grant/deny decision to each data object 

24 at run-time.
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

4 9

1 4.6 DATA RESOURCES

2 The number of geospatial data resource catalogs are too numerous to attempt to list, as many of 

3 the geospatial community (federal, state, local, private, international, and academia) have on4 going initiatives to provide a variety of these data resources. The following examples are offered 

5 as examples of (primarily) government geospatial data resources available to users.

6 4.6.1GEOSPATIAL PLATFORM 

7 “The Geospatial Platform (GeoPlatform) is a managed portfolio of common geospatial data, 

8 services, and applications contributed and administered by trusted sources and hosted on a 

9 shared infrastructure, for use by governmental agencies and partners to meet their mission 

requirements and the broader needs of the Nation.”

81 10 The GeoPlatform.gov was developed by the 

11 member agencies of the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC), in coordination with the 

12 Federal CIO Council, as an interagency Federal initiative and OMB shared service and is hosted by 

the U.S. Department of Interior, as the Managing Partner for the Geospatial Platform.82 13

14 The GeoPlatform provides open standards compliant catalog web services supporting the 

GeoPlatform and Data.gov83 15 (e.g., official U.S. government site providing increased public access 

16 to federal government datasets). The shared catalog provides access via the Catalog Service for 

17 the Web (CSW) standard for both first-order and all metadata (including members of large 

18 collections) for harvested data, services, and applications. The Catalog Service for the Web is an 

Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC)84 19 standard that defines common interfaces to discover, 

20 browse, and query metadata for data and services. The catalog enables both data and services 

21 searching via several methods (e.g., Categories, Types, Groups, Tags, Name, Keyword, etc.) and

22 provides the metadata on that specific dataset or tool. Some datasets are downloadable, while 

23 others are extraction tool or widgets. The user must also be aware of and acceptable to the data 

24 policy use conditions for the requested dataset.

25 Many of the Federal datasets available on the GeoPlatform are part of the National Geospatial 

26 Data Asset (NGDA) portfolio management approach prescribed by OMB Circular A-16 

Supplemental Guidance.85 27 To ensure quality and usability, the data must be:

28 • Discoverable – published and available.

29 • Reliable – coordinated by a recognized national steward.

 

81 Geospatial Platform. https://www.geoplatform.gov/overview-page

82 Federal Geographic Data Committee, Steering Committee meeting minutes, April 19, 2012. 

 http://www.fgdc.gov/participation/steering-committee/meeting-minutes/april-2012/meeting-minutes-public-sc-20120419.pdf

83 Data.gov. https://www.data.gov/

84 http://www.opengeospatial.org/

85 OMB Memorandum M-11-03, Issuance of OMB Circular A-16 Supplemental Guidance, November 10, 2010, available at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2011/m11-03.pdf
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

5 0

1 • Consistent – supported by defined schema, standards and understood content 

2 definitions to ensure their integrity (including conformance with FGDC Standards as 

3 applicable).

4 • Current and applicable – maintained regularly and adaptable to current needs.

5 • Resourced – established and recognized as an enterprise investment.

6 The GeoPlatform provides a Datasets Published per Month for the previous 12-month period and 

7 the most recent summary at the time of this writing is displayed in 

8 Table 4-5.

9

Table 4-5. GeoPlatform Datasets Published per Month86 10

AGENCY NAME

NUMBER OF DATASETS PUBLISHED BY MONTH TOTAL IN THE 

PAST 12 

MONTHS

May 

‘13

Jun 

‘13

Jul

‘13

Aug 

‘13

Sep 

‘13

Oct 

‘13

Nov 

‘13

Dec 

‘13

Jan 

‘14

Feb 

‘14

Mar 

‘14

Apr 

‘14

Department of Agriculture – – – – – – 48 – – 3 5 – 56

Department of Commerce 25217 – – 317 3422 64 236 41 61 22 76 116 29572

Department of Homeland Security – – – 1 – – – – – – – – 1

Department of the Interior – – – 388 461 2 41 275 9 9 5 – 1190

Department of Transportation – – – – – – – – – 49 – – 49

Total 25217 – – 706 3883 66 325 316 70 83 86 116 30868

Data as of 04/03/2014 1:08 AM.

11 At the time of this writing, the GeoPlatform listed 80,603 datasets found with the dataset type of 

12 “geospatial.”

13 4.6.2GEOSPATIAL CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS 

The Homeland Security Geospatial Concept of Operations (GeoCONOPS)87 14 is a multiyear effort

15 focused on the geospatial communities supporting the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

16 and the Federal Emergency Management Agency activities under the National Response 

17 Framework (NRF) and in coordination with Presidential Policy Directive 8: National Preparedness 

18 (PPD-8), which describes the Nation’s approach to preparing for the threats and hazards that pose 

19 the greatest risk to the security of the United States. The GeoCONOPS, in its sixth year, is a 

20 multiyear product to document the current geospatial practices and serves as a guide to federal 

21 departments and agencies providing support under the NRF, PPD-8, and Stafford Act activities.

 

86 Geospatial Platform. Available at https://www.geoplatform.gov/node/509

87 Geospatial Concept of Operations (GeoCONOPS), Version 6.0, June 2014, available at

https://www.geoplatform.gov/geoconops-home
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

5 1

1 The GeoCONOPS is an interagency collaboration with strategic direction provided by a federal 

2 interagency Geospatial Interagency Oversight Team (GIOT). The participants and intended 

3 audience of the GeoCONOPS include the GIOT Members, 15 Emergency Support Functions (ESF), 

4 both primary and support, and other federal mission partners. The GeoCONOPS is updated on a 

5 yearly basis to ensure it meets the needs of all mission partners.

6 The intended audiences for this document are the geospatial communities supporting homeland 

7 security and emergency management activities from the Joint Field Offices and operations 

8 centers to NRF headquarter entities. The GeoCONOPS outlines federal geospatial capabilities in 

9 support of state, local, and tribal authorities during homeland security and emergency 

10 management operations across the entire emergency management life cycle. The GeoCONOPS 

website88 11 is a resource that provides:

12 • Geospatial mission blueprint of the resources and capabilities available for support 

13 in the Homeland Security Enterprise.

14 • Identifies points of coordination and collaboration.

15 • Documents authoritative geospatial data sources.

16 • Describes best practices.

17 • Identifies technical capabilities.

18

19 Table 4-6 is an extract from the GeoCONOPS Appendix: Authoritative Data Matrix, which lists over 

20 1,200 data themes (datasets) by subcategory (Appendix C-2). These datasets are the desired 

21 resources, although many of those assets may not be available or have a URL link to their source 

22 availability. Users can search the on-line catalog for data listing content through the GeoCONOPS 

23 taxonomy using attributes, including; Type, Keywords, Category/Subcategory, etc.

24 Table 4-6. GeoCONOPS Authoritative Data Matrix (Extract)

HOMELAND SECURITY GEOSPATIAL CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS (GeoCONOPS)

SUB 

CATEGORY THEME TYPE POC RESTRICTIONS SOURCE URL ESF# PPD-8 MISSION

Egg Production 

Farms Polygon USDA n/a http:www.ers.usda.gov/topics/animalproducts/poultry-eggs.aspx#.UbcWJpxyaYk 5, 11 Protection, Response

Sheep/Goat Farms Polygon USDA n/a

http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/animalproducts/sheep,-lambmutton.aspx#.UbcWYpxyaYk

5, 11 Response

Support 

Facilities

Agriculture Chemical 

Manufacture Point USDA n/a unavailable 5, 10, 11 Protection, Response

State Fairgrounds Point NGA-PMHP No HSIP Gold https://gii.dhs.gov/arcrest/services 5, 8, 11 Protection, Mitigation, 

Response

U.S. Agriculture Point USDA n/a unavailable 5, 11

 

88 https://www.geoplatform.gov/geoconops-home Team Members
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

5 2

Census

Veterinary 

Pharmaceutical 

Manufacture

Point USDA n/a unavailable 5, 10, 11 Protection, Response

Veterinary Services Point

Dun & 

Bradstreet 

(D&B)

n/a HSIP Gold https://gii.dhs.gov/arcrest/services 1 thru 13

Prevention, Protection, 

Mitigation, Response, 

Recovery

BANKING/FINANCE

Banking and 

Credit

Automated Check 

Clearing Houses Point Federal Reserve n/a unavailable 5, 13 Protection, Response

Banking 

Institutions–

National Credit 

Union 

Administration 

(NCUA)

Point NCUA n/a http://www.ncua.gov/Legal/GuidesEtc/Page

s/CUDirectory.aspx 5, 13 Protection, Response

Branches/Agencies 

of Foreign Banks Point FDIC Yes HSIP Gold https://gii.dhs.gov/arcrest/services 5, 13 Protection

Credit Unions HQ Point NCUA Yes HSIP Gold https://gii.dhs.gov/arcrest/services 5, 13 Protection

Farm Credit 

Administration (FCA) 

Financial Institutions

Point FCA n/a unavailable 5, 13 Protection

1

2 4.6.3NATIONAL STATES GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION 

3 COUNCIL GIS INVENTORY

The GIS Inventory89 4 of the National States Geographic Information Council (NSGIC) is a tool for 

5 states and their partners. Its primary purpose is to track data availability and the status of 

6 Geographic Information System (GIS) implementation in state and local governments to aid the 

7 planning and building of Spatial Data Infrastructures. The random access metadata for online 

8 nationwide assessments (RAMONA) database is a critical component of the GIS Inventory.

9 RAMONA moves its FGDC-compliant metadata for each data layer to a web folder and a Catalog 

10 Service for the Web (CSW) that can be harvested by Federal programs (e.g., GeoPlatform.gov) and 

11 others. This provides far greater opportunities for discovery of user information. The GIS 

12 Inventory allows the user to search by keywords including Theme or Place Names, Layer Category, 

13 Layer Name, Production Date, and Production Status. The GIS Inventory is maintained by 

14 individual users that document their own organizational information and data holdings.

15 At the time of this writing, the NSGIC GIS Inventory listed 23,012 results under its “Browse Data 

16 Layers” tab.

 

89 National State Geographic Information Council (NSGIC), available at http://www.gisinventory.net/ PPD-8 Mission Areas Requirements & Capabilities GeoCONOPS
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

5 3

1 4.7 STAKEHOLDER PERFORMANCE GUIDANCE: 

2 DATA

3 The Performance Guidance provides a summation of the key decision points necessary to 

4 determine the most effective and efficient design, development, and implementation of the 

5 geospatial system investment.

6 Table 4-7. Stakeholder Performance Guide: Data

STAKEHOLDER PERFORMANCE GUIDE

CHAPTER 4 – DATA

Role Responsibility Approach Benefit Executive Leadership

• Authorize a Business Needs 

Analysis to identify geospatial 

data requirements using the 

Baseline Assessment Matrix: 

Data.

• Agreed upon data authorized 

source to reduce redundancy and 

determine Enterprise License 

Agreement (ELA) opportunity 

with data provider/vendor.

• Require any/all funded data 

creation or enhancement 

initiatives (e.g., contract award, 

cost-share, grant, etc.) include 

metadata standard compliance.

• Work with other Executives to 

acknowledge the need to reduce 

data costs by leveraging 

investment and performing the 

Baseline Assessment based upon 

mission/business needs.

• Based upon business/mission 

need during Data Matrix 

assessment, may require Service 

Level Agreement and cost share 

for availability and Enterprise 

License Agreement (ELA) with 

vendor/provider.

• Working with Exec Leadership 

approach Chief Procurement 

Officer to require contract 

language for the inclusion for all 

financial obligations.

• Signatory with defined 

responsibility and stated 

measurable results (e.g., IT Asset 

Inventory for OMB Open Data 

Policy reporting and a 

quantifiable data resource 

inventory).

• The inventory would facilitate 

the identification of desired 

datasets; identifies redundant 

data assets for decommissioning; 

identifies opportunities to reuse 

or extend a data asset rather 

than creating a new one; and the 

opportunity to reduce 

redundancy costs based upon 

the establishment of enterprise 

licensing agreements and allows 

for cost share for economies of 

scale.

• Provides a way to uniformly 

describe data, thereby 

supporting its discovery and 

sharing resulting in cost 

avoidance. Compliance with 

government Open Data Policy.
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

5 4

STAKEHOLDER PERFORMANCE GUIDE

CHAPTER 4 – DATA

Role Responsibility Approach Benefit Program Manager

• Coordinate across organization’s 

geo investment PMs for 

completion of Data Matrix and 

document business/mission 

functional requirements that 

drive data needs.

• Determine which dataset will be 

used enterprise-wide based upon 

data content, currency, and 

availability.

• Work with PMs across enterprise 

to perform review of internally 

produced data includes 

metadata with a common 

taxonomy and cataloged for 

discovery.

• Post datasets in open standards 

to appropriate catalogs for 

discovery.

• PMs prepare Data Matrix and 

schedule survey and follow-on 

interviews to clarify Data findings 

with business owners to 

understand functional needs.

• Detailed assessment of datasets 

and how they meet the 

mission/business functional 

requirements. May require ELA

with broader use terms and 

additional attributes requiring 

cost-share.

• Review procurement vehicles to 

ensure metadata standard 

compliance language. Develop a 

common taxonomy for 

cataloging the metadata 

enhanced data resources.

• Ensure enterprise data are 

exposed or ‘harvestable’ to 

appropriate web catalog services.

• Awareness and understanding of 

enterprise data requirements 

and business/mission owner 

functional needs that drive data.

• Reduced contracting for vendor 

provided data, ELA discounts for 

volume-based pricing, data 

Steward responsibility as 

opposed to multiple 

posting/storage of datasets.

• Ability to identify, search, 

discover and share datasets 

across the enterprise.

• Facilitates the search and 

identification of geospatial data 

sharing. Compliance with 

government Open Data Policy.

Solution Architect

• Data Assessment Matrix design 

and development.

• Ensure data are cataloged and 

available in open standards and 

posted to web catalog service.

• Assist the data matrix interview 

with mission/business owner to 

determine functional 

requirements that drive data and 

application needs.

• Develop technical approach for 

ensuring enterprise data 

resources are available, vetted,

and provided in compliance with 

open data requirements.

• Technical vetting and validation 

across investments for desired 

To-Be end-state environment. 

Understand functional 

requirements to optimize 

application development and 

data resource acquisition.

• Facilitates the search and 

identification of geospatial data 

sharing. Compliance with 

government Open Data Policy.

1

2
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

5 5

1 5 APPLICATION/SERVICE REFERENCE 

2 MODEL

3 5.1 INTRODUCTION

4 Definition/Description (What) – is a mission/business driven functional framework that provides 

5 guidance and evaluation practices used to identify, document, classify, discover, deliver, and 

6 share geospatial application and service (App/Svc) capabilities. It provides the basis for 

7 categorizing IT App/Svc investments across an organization’s enterprise geospatial architecture.

8 Purpose/Function (Why) – as an organization documents and catalogs their current and planned 

9 App/Svc investments, gaps and redundancies will become evident, which will aid in identifying 

10 opportunities for sharing, reuse, consolidation, redesign, renegotiating or developing new 

11 sources. Organizations and enterprise architectures will benefit from economies of scale by 

12 identifying and reusing the best solutions and technologies for applications that are developed, 

13 provided or subscribed to support their mission, business functions and target geospatial 

architecture.90 14 This chapter provides a process to document and leverage IT investment assets 

15 from a shared services perspective by:

16 • Establish a process for base lining and documenting geospatial applications and 

17 services.

18 • Providing an understanding of design principles for shared services.

19 • Provide guidance for complying with Federal shared services policy.

20 • Provide [limited] references to resources for shared applications and services.

21 Stakeholder Performance Guide (Who & How) – Executive Leadership and Program Managers 

22 responsible for policy setting and compliance, strategic program direction, resource planning and 

23 approval (e.g., fiscal and human), and Solution Architects for identifying, documenting, and 

24 sharing technical solutions for applications and services. This model helps managers or architects 

25 understand the geospatial services delivered by their organization, and others; and assess 

26 whether there is an opportunity to group like services and create opportunities for reuse or 

27 shared services.

28

 

90 Segment Architecture Analysis of the Geospatial Platform, Version 1.0, December 21, 2010. Federal Geographic Data Committee, in 

support of the Federal Chief Information Officers Council. Available at http://www.fgdc.gov/geospatial-lob/draft-segmentarchitecture-review/Segment-Architecture-Analysis-of-the
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

5 6

1 5.2 APPLICATION/SERVICE REFERENCE 

2 MODEL(S): APPROACH

3 Federal Agencies are expected to implement the Federal Information Technology Shared Services 

Strategy91 4 and make “Shared-First” the default approach to IT service planning and delivery.

5 Geospatial Apps/Svcs are becoming “commoditized” to a level where users, including the general 

6 public, have come to expect these services to be readily available to them anytime, anywhere, on 

7 any device, at no/low cost. These expectations are impacting the way in which Apps/Svcs are 

8 designed, developed, and delivered. Federal Agencies must also eliminate wasteful spending that 

9 result from implementing duplicative solutions for mission, support, and commodity IT functions.

10 A review of over 7,000 Federal Agency IT investments reported to OMB for Budget Year 2013 

11 revealed many redundancies and billions of dollars in potential savings that could be achieved 

12 through consolidation and a shared approach to IT service delivery within and between 

agencies.92 13 Along the same lines, in 2011 the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

14 identified thirty-four (34) areas where Federal Agencies provide similar services to the same 

15 customer groups within and outside of government, with billions of dollars in potential savings if 

16 these services were reconciled, consolidated, and moved to a shared delivery model.

17 The App/Svc Reference Model will focus upon a practical approach to documenting the geospatial 

18 App/Svc requirements and capabilities within and across an organization to meet 

19 mission/business requirements as well as provide guidance for description, cataloging, sharing

20 and Federal policy compliance. The App/Svc Reference Model is not:

21 • A “how to” manual for building and maintaining applications and services.

22 • A taxonomy for cataloging applications and services.

23 • A definitive list of available applications and services.

24 5.3 GEOSPATIAL SERVICES TAXONOMY 

STRUCTURES93 25

26 There are differences of opinion across the geospatial community whether geospatial is a mission 

27 specific capability, or an enterprise-wise service offering, and now many expect it to simply be 

28 another commodity service offering. The cross-cutting nature of Geospatial Information Systems 

29 makes it difficult to neatly categorize the technology other that the widely held opinion that it 

30 needs to be a shared service.

 

91 Federal Information Technology Shared Services Strategy, OMB, May 2, 2012,

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/egov_docs/shared_services_strategy.pdf

92 Federal Information Technology Shared Services Strategy, OMB, May 2, 2012.

93 Much of the information in this section is taken directly from the Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework, V2.0; the Federal 

Information Technology Shared Services Strategy; and the Federal Shared Services Implementation Guide.
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

5 7

1 5.3.1FEDERAL ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE 

2 FRAMEWORK, VERSION 2.0

3 An IT shared service is defined as: “An information technology function that is provided for 

consumption by multiple organizations within or between Federal Agencies.”

94 4 There are three 

5 general categories of IT shared services: commodity, support, and mission; which are delivered 

6 through cloud-based or legacy infrastructures, as is shown in Figure 5-1. Note that Geospatial is 

7 highlighted within the Mission IT Category as a Service Type.

8

9 Figure 5-1. IT Shared Services Concept Overview

10 However; when the three general categories of IT shared services are defined, the Shared Services 

11 Strategy also places Geographic Information Systems as an IT Support Service:

12 • Commodity IT Services: A category of back-office IT services whose functionality 

13 applies to most, if not all, agencies (e.g., infrastructure and asset management, 

14 email, hardware and software acquisition, and help desks).

15 • Mission IT Services: A category of enabling IT that support agency core business 

16 functions.

17 • Support IT Services: A category of back-office IT services whose functionality applies 

18 to multiple agencies and is business focused (e.g., Geospatial Information 

19 Systems).

20 The purpose of the Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework’s Application Reference Model 

21 (ARM) is to provide the basis for categorizing applications and their components. It is expected 

22 that as agencies map their current and planned Information Systems to the ARM categories (as 

23 required by the OMB IT asset inventory annual reporting guidance), gaps and redundancies will 

 

94 Office of Management and Budget, Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework, Version 2.0, January 13, 2013.

Inter-Agency Lines of Business/Business Centers

Intra-Agency Shared Service Centers

Commodity IT Support IT Mission IT

Website and Content 

Management

Infrastructure and 

Asset Management

Email, Help Desk, and 

Collaboration

Records

Management

HR

Management

Financial 

Management

Performance 

Management

Geospatial

Federal Health 

Architecture

Legacy Intranets/Extranets

Public, Private, Hybrid Clouds

Online Service Catalog

CHANNELS

EXAMPLE 

SERVICE TYPES

CATEGORY

LEVEL
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

5 8

1 become evident, which will aid in identifying opportunities for sharing, reuse, and consolidation 

2 or renegotiation of licenses.

3 As seen in Figure 5-2, the ARM consists of three levels: Systems, Application Components, and 

4 Interfaces. Note that Geospatial is highlighted within the Application Components category as 

5 opposed to a [Mission IT] support System.

6

7 Figure 5-2. Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework (FEAF): Application Reference Model

8 The three levels: Systems, Application Components, and Interfaces are defined as:

9 • Systems – are discrete sets of information technology, data, and related resources, 

10 organized for the collection, processing, maintenance, use, sharing, dissemination 

11 or disposition of information in support of a specific business process. The ARM 

12 Systems category does not include mission-specific systems.

13 • Application Components – are self-contained software that can be aggregated or 

14 configured to support, or contribute to achieving, many different business 

15 objectives, processes, and multiple IT Systems.

16 • Interfaces – are protocols used to transfer information from system to system.

17 When the Geospatial Information Application Component is further expanded as shown in Figure 

18 5-3, the granular level of detail is limited to five categories.

Application Interface

Interfaces

Middleware

Analysis, Reporting, and Statistics Process Automation and Management

Data Management Productivity

Development Environment and Tools Security Controls

Document and Content Management Unified Communication and Collaboration

Geospatial Information Visualization

Knowledge Discovery and Management Web Access

Application Components

Acquisition Management Legal

Customer Service Human Resources Management

Emergency Management Physical Safety

Financial Management Property and Asset Management

Grants Management Security Management

Workforce Management Systems Management

Systems
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

5 9

1

2 Figure 5-3. FEAF Application Reference Model: Geospatial Information

3

4 5.3.2GEOSPATIAL PROFILE OF THE FEDERAL 

5 ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE FRAMEWORK, 

VERSION 2.095 6

7 The Geospatial Profile of the Federal Enterprise Architecture provides an Appendix that lists a set 

8 of some 68 geospatial service components that might apply within an agency’s services 

9 architecture. It is a business-driven, functional framework that describes how geospatial services 

10 can support mission/business and performance objectives. This list provides Program Managers 

11 and Solution Architects with a view of how geospatial fits within an organization operational 

12 requirements and can be used to educate mission/business owners about how geospatial can 

13 support their needs (Section 3.3). Table 5-1 is an extract from the Geospatial Profile’s Appendix C: 

14 Geospatial Service Components that describes the business-driven geospatial services.

15

 

95 Geospatial Profile of the Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA), Version 2.0, March 06, 2009.

Analysis, 

Reporting, and 

Statistics

(A02.020)

Ad hoc 

Reporting

(A02.020.200)

Balanced 

Scorecard

(A02.020.201)

Business 

Intelligence

(A02.020.202)

On Demand

(A02.020.204)

Mathematical

(A02.020.206)

Portfolio 

Reporting and 

Statistics

(A02.020.208)

Standardized/ 

Canned

(A02.020.210)

Decision 

Support

(A02.020.203)

Forensics

(A02.020.205)

Online 

Analytical 

Processing

(A02.020.207)

Simulation

(A02.020.209)

Statistical 

Analysis

(A02.020.211)

Survey Data 

Collection

(A02.020.212)

Development 

Environment 

and Tools

(A02.022)

Integrated 

Development 

Environment

(A02.022.240)

Libraries

(A02.022.241)

Software 

Configuration & 

Management

(A02.022.242)

Software 

Development 

Kit

(A02.022.243)

User Innovation 

Kit

(A02.022.244)

Validation Tools

(A02.022.245)

Document and 

Content 

Management

(A02.023)

Document 

Imaging & OCR

(A02.023.260)

Document 

Library

(A02.023.261)

Document 

Management 

System

(A02.023.262)

Forms 

Management

(A02.023.263)

Mash-up Editor

(A02.023.264)

Web Content 

Management

(A02.023.266)

Records 

Management

(A02.023.265)

Cartography

(A02.024.380)

Collection and 

Manipulation 

of Satellite and 

Aerial 

Photographs

(A02.024.382)

Geospatial Data 

Analysis

(A02.024.385)

Geospatial Data 

Collection

(A02.024.386)

Imagery

(A02.024.389)

Knowledge & 

Discovery 

Management

(A02.025)

Categorization

(A02.025.280)

Data Mining

(A02.025.281)

Information 

Retrieval

(A02.025.2852)

Knowledge 

Capture

(A02.025.283)

Knowledge 

Distribution 

and Delivery

(A02.025.284)

Modeling

(A02.025.285)

Data 

Management

(A02.021)

Data Backup 

and Recovery

(A02.021.220)

Data Extraction, 

Transformation

, and Loading

(A02.021.221)

Data 

Integration and 

Exchange

(A02.021.222)

Data Lifecycle 

Management

(A02.021.223)

Data Quality 

Management

(A02.021.224)

Data 

Warehouse and 

Data Mart

(A02.021.225)

Database 

Management 

System

(A02.021.226)

Directory

(A02.021.227)

Master Data 

Management

(A02.021.228)

Metadata 

Management

(A02.021.229)

Geospatial 

Information

(A02.024)

Geospatial 

Information

(A02.024)

Cartography

(A02.024.380)

Collection and 

Manipulation 

of Satellite 

and Aerial 

Photographs

(A02.024.382)

Geospatial 

Data Analysis

(A02.024.385)

Geospatial 

Data 

Collection

(A02.024.386)

Imagery

(A02.024.389)

Application Interface

Interfaces

Middleware

Analysis, Reporting, and Statistics Process Automation and Management Data Management Productivity Development Environment and Tools Security Controls Document and Content Management Unified Communication and Collaboration Geospatial Information Visualization

Knowledge Discovery and Management Web Access

Application Components

Acquisition Management Legal

Customer Service Human Resources Management

Emergency Management Physical Safety

Financial Management Property and Asset Management Grants Management Security Management Workforce Management Systems Management

Systems

Application Components
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

6 0

1 Table 5-1. Geospatial Profile V2.0: Geospatial Service Components (Extract)

FEA SERVICE 

DOMAIN

FEA SERVICE 

TYPE

FEA SERVICE

COMPONENT

FEA SERVICE 

COMPONENT 

DESCRIPTION

GEOSPATIAL SERVICE 

COMPONENT 

(* = Multiple Entries)

GEOSPATIAL SERVICE 

COMPONENT 

DESCRIPTION

Back Office 

Services 

Domain

Assets/

Materials 

Management

Facilities 

Management

Defines the set of 

capabilities that 

support the 

construction, 

management, and 

maintenance of 

facilities for an 

organization.

Facilities 

Management System

A GIS-based Facilities 

Management System

Back Office 

Services 

Domain

Assets/

Materials 

Management

Property/

Asset 

Management

Defines the set of 

capabilities that 

support the 

identification, 

planning, and 

allocation of an 

organization’s 

physical capital and 

resources.

Property/Asset 

Management System

A GIS-based Property 

– Asset Management 

System

Back Office 

Services 

Domain

Data 

Management

Data 

Exchange

Support the 

interchange of 

information between 

multiple systems or 

applications; includes 

verification that 

transmitted data was 

received unaltered.

Geospatial Data 

Exchange and 

Translation Services

The ability to 

import/export, 

manipulate, and 

convert geospatial 

data through 

standard data 

exchange and transformation services. 

Services to transform 

geospatial data 

schemas between 

disparate systems.

2 5.3.3SEGMENT ARCHITECTURE ANALYSIS OF THE 

3 GEOSPATIAL PLATFORM, VERSION 1.0

The Segment Architecture Analysis of the Geospatial Platform96 4 noted that a complex business 

5 component system such as a GIS does not fit neatly under the Federal Enterprise Architecture 

6 taxonomy. Geospatial cuts across many, if not all service types defined within the FEAF. To 

7 address this complexity, the Geospatial Platform analysis recognized the variation in taxonomies 

8 and provided an expanded categorization adaptation from several the geospatial service 

9 components to reflect the roles of geospatial across an enterprise. Figure 5-4 depicts the seven 

10 higher-level service categories or “Types” that are grouped into the areas of; access, analysis, 

 

96 Segment Architecture Analysis of the Geospatial Platform, Version 1.0, December 21, 2010. Federal Geographic Data Committee, in 

support of the Federal Chief Information Officers Council. Available at http://www.fgdc.gov/geospatial-lob/draft-segmentarchitecture-review/Segment-Architecture-Analysis-of-the
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

6 1

1 services, and systems. Within these 7 types are the 23 dependent service “Components.” The 

2 figure represents two main layers of the Geospatial Services Framework:

3 • Service Type – Provides a seven-layer categorization that defines the context of a 

4 specific set of service components.

5 • Service Component – A self-contained business process or service with 

6 predetermined and well-defined functionality that may be exposed through a 

7 business or technology interface.

8

Figure 5-4. Geospatial Services Framework97 9

The seven services “Types” are described as:

98 10

 

97 Service types taken from the Enterprise Architecture Segment Report (Draft Interim Instruction Guide for Quarter 4 FY2009). Service 

components taken from the Geospatial Profile of the Federal Enterprise Architecture, Version 2.0.

98 Segment Architecture Analysis of the Geospatial Platform, Version 1.0, December 21, 2010. Federal Geographic Data Committee, in 

support of the Federal Chief Information Officers Council.

IMAGE PROCESSING 

SYSTEM

Geospatial Imagery 

Processing Server

Terrain Simulator

GEOGRAPHICAL 

ANALYSIS

Sensor Planning Service

Geoparser Service

Geolocate Service

Navigation Service

Model Service

GEO-CODING AND 

GAZETTEER SERVICES

Gazetteer Update 

Service

Geocoder/Reverse 

Geocoder Service

Coordinate 

Transformation Service

METADATA AND 

CATALOG SERVICES

Geospatial Resource 

Metadata (Catalog) 

Update Service

Geospatial Service 

Metadata (Catalog) 

Update Service

Registry Service

GEOGRAPHICAL 

FEATURE DATA ACCESS

Native Geospatial

DBMS Server

Geospatial Data 

Exchange and 

Translation Services

Web Feature Service

Geospatial Information 

Broker

IMAGERY ACCESS

Web Map Service

Map Publication Service

MAPPING SERVICES

Geographical 

Information System

GIS Server

Map(ping) Client

Topology Service
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

6 2

1 • Mapping Services Descriptions – access vector and raster data and render them in 

2 the form of a map for display (combines access and portrayal). Independent of 

3 whether the underlying data are features (point, line, and polygon) or coverages 

4 (such as gridded digital terrain models or images), the mapping service produces 

5 data that can be directly viewed in a Web browser. Data are labeled as one or more 

6 “layers,” each of which is available in one or more “styles.”

7 • Imagery Access Descriptions – provides an image of a requested layer(s) in either 

8 the specified or default rendering style(s). Typical output formats include Portable 

9 Network Graphics (PNG) format, Graphics Interchange Format (GIF), Joint 

10 Photographic Expert Group (JPEG) format, and Tagged Image File Format (TIFF).

11 • Geographic Feature Data Access Descriptions – for selecting, browsing, extracting, 

12 transforming, and updating of a geographic feature database.

13 • Metadata and Catalog Services Descriptions – for browsing, entering, transforming, 

14 integrating, and updating metadata for geospatial resources, and optionally, 

15 updating of associated geospatial resource records. A geospatial catalog supports 

16 search against geographic feature and imagery data through metadata.

17 • Geo-Coding and Gazetteer Services Descriptions – provides the ability to determine 

18 the geospatial coordinates for a place, given an address, place name, or identifier.

19 This function accesses a database of geographic features and returns the location 

20 and other descriptive information.

21 • Geographical Analysis Services Descriptions – is a Web service that computes a 

22 geographic function for a specified geographic input, including computational 

23 overlay functions of a GIS.

24 • Image Processing System Services Descriptions – is an integrated system for 

25 collecting, storing, accessing, sharing, disseminating, integrating, manipulating, 

26 visualizing, analyzing, and otherwise exploiting geospatial imagery.

27 The 23 Service Components within the 7 Types are each defined within the Segment Architecture 

28 Analysis of the Geospatial Platform.

29 5.3.4OPEN GEOSPATIAL CONSORTIUM: OPENGIS 

30 SERVICE ARCHITECTURE

The Open Geospatial Consortium99 31 (OGC®) notes that, “There exist multiple possible taxonomies 

32 for services, based on various classification dimensions ... the purpose of defining a taxonomy ... is 

33 to have one way of identifying geographic extensions to various existing service types. [This] is not 

34 intended to be the only taxonomy to be used in the context of geographic services.”

 

99 Open Geospatial Consortium. http://www.opengeospatial.org/
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

6 3

The OGC® Service Architecture Abstract Specification100 1 applied the International Standards 

Organization (ISO) 19101101 2 to define six classes of information technology services as the basis to 

3 categorize geographic services. ISO 19101 defines the Extended Open Systems Environment 

4 (EOSE) model for geographic information. The EOSE defines classes of services based on the 

5 semantic type of computation that they provide. EOSE provides the functional decomposition of 

6 the services for the geographic domain by extending the more general Open System Environment 

7 model [ISO/IEC TR 14252]. The IT Services use to categorize geographic services included:

8 • Human interaction services – for management of user interfaces, graphics, 

9 multimedia, and for presentation of compound documents.

10 • Model/Information management services – for management of the development, 

11 manipulation, and storage of metadata, conceptual schemas, and datasets.

12 • Workflow/Task services – for support of specific tasks or work-related activities 

13 conducted by humans. These services support use of resources and development of 

14 products involving a sequence of activities or steps that may be conducted by 

15 different persons.

16 • Processing services – perform large-scale computations involving substantial 

17 amounts of data. Examples include services for providing the time of day, spelling 

18 checkers, and services that perform coordinate transformations (e.g., that accept a 

19 set of coordinates expressed using one reference system and converting them to a 

20 set of coordinates in a different reference system). A processing service does not 

21 include capabilities for providing persistent storage of data or transfer of data over 

22 networks.

23 • Communication services – for encoding and transfer of data across communications 

24 networks.

25 • System management services – for the management of system components, 

26 applications, and networks. These services also include management of user 

27 accounts and user access privileges.

28 The resulting Geographic Services Taxonomy, depicted in Table 5-2, uses the IT services and 

29 expands the processing services to include; spatial, thematic, temporal, and metadata.

30

 

100 OpenGIS Abstract Specification, Topic 12 “System Architecture,” OpenGIS Consortium, Version 4.2, October 2001. Available at 

http://www.opengis.org/techno/abstract.htm Volume 12 is equivalent to ISO/DIS 19119, Geographic information – Services (2002). 

ISO 19119 was subsequently published in 2005. As of the date of this document, ISO 19119 is under revision.

101 International Standards Organization (ISO), ISO 19101:2002 Geographic information – Reference Model. INCITS subsequently 

approved ISO 19101:2002 as INCITS/ISO 19101-2002 (R2012), available for purchase at 

http://webstore.ansi.org/RecordDetail.aspx?sku=INCITS%2fISO+19101-2002+(R2012). ISO 19101-1 rev. Geographic information -

Reference model - Part 1: Fundamentals (Revision of ISO 19101:2002) is pending publication as of the date of this document.
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

6 4

Table 5-2. Geographic Services Taxonomy102 1

GEOGRAPHIC SERVICES TAXONOMY

• Geographic human interaction services

• Geographic model/information management services

• Geographic workflow/task management services

• Geographic processing services

◦ Geographic processing services – spatial

◦ Geographic processing services – thematic

◦ Geographic processing services – temporal

◦ Geographic processing services – metadata

• Geographic communication services

• Geographic system management services

2 The OGC® Service Architecture Abstract Specification goes on to map its Geospatial Services 

3 Taxonomy to that of the ISO 19100 series standards as displayed in Error! Reference source not 

4 found..

5 Table 5-3. OGC® Geospatial Services Taxonomy to ISO 19100 Series Standards

EXTENDED OSE SERVICE CATEGORY RELEVANT ISO 19100 SERIES STANDARD

Geographic human interaction services

19117 Geographic information – Portrayal

19128* Geographic information – Web Map Server interface

Geographic model/information 

management services

19107# Geographic information – Spatial schema (See note)

19110 Geographic information – Methodology for feature cataloguing

19111+ Geographic information – Spatial referencing by coordinates

19112 Geographic information – Spatial referencing by geographic 

identifiers

19115# Geographic information – Metadata

19123 Geographic information – Schema for coverage geometry and 

functions

19125-1* Geographic information – Simple feature access – Part 1: 

Common architecture

19128* Geographic information – Web Map server interface

19136* Geographic information – Geography Markup Language

19142* Geographic Information - Web Feature Service Interface

19143* Geographic Information – Filter Encoding Interface

19156:2011* Geographic information -- Observations and measurements

Geographic workflow/task management 

services (no relevant ISO 19100 series standards)

Geographic processing service 19107# Geographic information – Spatial schema

 

102 Based on OpenGIS Abstract Specification, Topic 12 “System Architecture,” OpenGIS Consortium, Version 4.3, October 2002, 

Available at http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/as.
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

6 5

EXTENDED OSE SERVICE CATEGORY RELEVANT ISO 19100 SERIES STANDARD

19108 Geographic information – Temporal schema

19109 Geographic information – Rules for application schema

19111+ Geographic information – Spatial referencing by coordinates

19116 Geographic information – Positioning services

19123 Geographic information – Schema for coverage geometry and 

functions

19118 Geographic information – Encoding

Geographic communication services 19149* Geographic information -- Rights expression language for 

geographic information -- GeoREL

Geographic system management services (no relevant ISO 19100 series standards)

1

2 “*” An OGC standard that was submitted to ISO.

3 “#” An ISO standard approved as a topic volume of the OGC Abstract Specification

4 “+” Jointly developed OGC and ISO standard

5

5.3.5SPATIAL DATA INFRASTRUCTURE: COOKBOOK103 6

7 The SDI Cookbook identifies existing and emerging standards, open-source and commercial 

8 standards-based software solutions, supportive organizational strategies and policies, and best 

9 practices. “The SDI Cookbook wiki is intended as a ‘living document’ which provides information 

10 on standards and best practices for implementing a Spatial Data Infrastructure.”

11 The SDI Cookbook defines services as:

12 “... self-contained, self-describing, modular applications consisting of collections 

13 of operations, accessible through interfaces, which allow clients to evoke 

14 behaviors of value to the user. Clients can invoke services from across a network 

15 using standardized protocols independently of platform, language, or object 

16 model on which the services or the client were deployed.”

17 The OGC Service Framework groups geospatial services into five categories corresponding to the 

18 OGC services taxonomy top-level domains described in OGC’s Service Architecture Abstract 

Specification (also ISO 19119104 19 ). The SDI Cookbook provides a summary of these categories 

20 (below), and when available, includes implementation specifications for these services:

 

103 The information in this section is taken directly from SDI Cookbook, Global Spatial Data Infrastructure, GSDIWiki, last updated 5 

June 2014. Available at http://www.gsdidocs.org/GSDIWiki/index.php/Main_Page

104 ISO 19119:2005 Geographic information – Services. “ISO 19119:2005 identifies and defines the architecture patterns for service 

interfaces used for geographic information, defines its relationship to the Open Systems Environment model, presents a geographic

services taxonomy and a list of example geographic services placed in the services taxonomy. It also prescribes how to create a 

platform-neutral service specification, how to derive conformant platform-specific service specifications, and provides guidelines for 
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

6 6

1 • Catalogue Services – respond to requests for metadata in a Catalogue that comply 

2 with certain browse or search criteria. Geospatial data that are stored for use in 

3 local databases can often be used in external applications once they are published. 

4 In this chapter, the concepts and implementation of geospatial data catalogues are 

5 presented as a means to publish descriptions of your geospatial data holdings in a 

6 standard way to permit search across multiple servers.

7 ◦ Note: A Catalogue is a single collection of metadata entries that are managed 

8 together.

9 • Geospatial Data Services - provide access to a wide range of collections of 

10 geospatial data stored in distributed repositories and databases. Examples of data 

11 services include:

12 ◦ Feature Access Services: provide access and management of feature stores. 

13 Applicable implementation specification: OGC Web Feature Service

14 (WFS; http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/wfs

15 http://www.opengis.org/docs/02-058.pdf)

16 ◦ Coverage Access Services: provide access and management of coverage stores. 

17 Applicable implementation specification: OGC Web Coverage Service

18 (WCS; http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/wcs)

19 ◦ Sensor Collection Services: provide access, manipulation and collection of sensor 

20 observations. Applicable implementation specification: OGC Sensor Collection 

21 Service (SCS; http://www.opengis.org/docs/02-028.pdf)

22 ◦ Image Archive Services: provide access and management of large sets of digital 

23 images and related metadata

24 • Data services also provide access to location-based data in the form of the following 

25 services (Applicable implementation specification: OGC Location Services OLS; 

26 http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/ols ):

27 ◦ Directory Services: provide access to online directories to find the locations of 

28 specific or nearest places, products or services

29 ◦ Geocoding Services: transform a description of a location (place name or street 

30 address) into a normalized description of the location

31 ◦ Navigation Services: determine travel routes and navigation between two points

32 ◦ Gateway Services: fetch the position of a known mobile terminal from the 

33 network

 

the selection and specification of geographic services from both platform-neutral and platform-specific perspectives.” INCITS 

approved ISO 19119:2005 as an American National Standard.

Available for purchase at http://webstore.ansi.org/RecordDetail.aspx?sku=INCITS%2fISO+19119-2005
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

6 7

1 • Portrayal services – provide visualization of geospatial information. Given one or 

2 more inputs, portrayal services produce rendered outputs (maps, perspective views 

3 of terrain, annotated images, etc.). They can be tightly or loosely coupled with 

4 other services such as the Data and Processing services, and can transform, 

5 combine, or create portrayed outputs. Examples of such services include:

6 ◦ Map Portrayal Services

7 ◦ Coverage Portrayal Services: Applicable implementation specification: OGC 

8 Coverage Portrayal Service (CPS; http://www.opengis.org/docs/02-019r1.pdf)

9 ◦ Mobile Presentation Services

10 • Processing services – unlike data services, are not associated with specific datasets. 

11 Instead, they provide operations for processing or transforming data in a manner 

12 determined by user specified parameters. Processing services can be tightly or 

13 loosely coupled with other services such as the Data and Processing Services. The 

14 most common examples of processing services are:

15 ◦ Coordinate Transformation Services: convert geospatial coordinates from one 

16 reference system to another. Applicable implementation specification: Coordinate 

17 Transformation Services (CTS; http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/ct)

18 ◦ Image Processing Services, detailed in OGC’s Abstract Specification Topic 15

19 http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/as, include:

20 • Image Manipulation Services - manipulate images (resizing, changing color and 

21 contrast values, applying various filters, manipulating image resolution, etc.) and 

22 are used for conducting mathematical analyses of image characteristics (computing 

23 image histograms, convolutions, etc.).

24 • Image Exploitation Services - support the photogrammetric analysis of remotely 

25 sensed and scanned imagery and the generation of reports and other products 

26 based on the results of the analysis.

27 • Image Synthesis Services - create or transform images using computer-based spatial 

28 models, perspective transformations, and manipulations of image characteristics to 

29 improve visibility, sharpen resolution, and/or reduce the effects of cloud cover or 

30 haze.

31 • Geospatial Analysis Services: exploit information available in a Feature or Feature 

32 Collection to derive application-oriented quantitative results that are not available 

33 from the raw data itself.

34 • Gazetteers: provide access to geospatial data indexed by place name rather than by 

35 coordinate locations. Applicable Gazetteer Service – Application profile of the Web 

36 Feature Service Best Practice 1.0 (http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/bp)
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

6 8

1 • Service Chaining – can be considered as a special case of processing services, 

2 enabling the combination or pipelining of results from different services in response

3 to clients’ requests. Efficient service chaining is critical to the ability to leverage and 

4 combine multiple information sources hosted by various service providers. Service 

5 chaining is required when a task needed by a client cannot be provided by a single 

6 service, but rather by combining or pipelining results from several complementary 

7 services. Most GIS applications will require the chaining of multiple geospatial and 

8 non-geospatial services.

9 5.3.6GEOSPATIAL TAXONOMY CONSIDERATIONS

10 The successful adoption and use of the geospatial Application/Service Reference Model will 

11 depend upon achieving consensus on a consistent, well-known and well-understood set of names 

12 and definitions for geospatial service components. Aligning agency capital investments to an 

13 agreed upon Apps/Svcs Reference Model leverages a common, standardized vocabulary, allowing 

14 interagency discovery, collaboration, and interoperability. Agencies and the Federal Government 

15 will benefit from economies of scale by identifying and reusing the best solutions and 

16 technologies for applications that are developed/provided or subscribed to support their business

functions, mission, and target architecture.105 17

18 Several initiatives described above have attempted to refine a view of geospatial 

19 applications/services taxonomies. These examples will be useful to the geospatial stakeholders 

20 (e.g., Program Managers and Solution Architects) developing the geospatial services and how they 

21 expose them as shared services in places like Repositories and App Stores. However, there is no 

22 commonly agreed to, consensus-driven or policy-based geospatial applications and services 

23 taxonomy to uniformly categorize capabilities across the geospatial community. No one 

24 categorization [currently] will meet the user communities’ requirements in terms of 

25 mission/business function(s), understanding and ease of use.

26 When developing an organization’s IT Asset Inventory and corresponding 

27 Apps/Svcs categorization, the geospatial investment owners responsible for 

28 delivering the mission/business functionality across the enterprise must agree 

29 upon the name, definition of the service types and their components.

30 5.4 GEOSPATIAL BASELINE ASSESSMENT 

31 MATRIX: APPLICATIONS AND SERVICES

32 As part of the Executive Steering Committee’s authority to initiate the enterprise-wide Geospatial 

33 Baseline Assessment (Section 3.4), application and service requirements based upon 

 

105 Office of Management and Budget, The Common Approach to Federal Enterprise Architecture, May 12, 2012.
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

6 9

1 mission/business functional needs from the Operational Requirements Document must also be 

2 identified. This business analysis should include a categorization of the general types of Apps/Svcs 

3 necessary to meet the functional needs of the organizations. Regardless of the final categorization 

4 used in defining the Apps/Svcs (Section 5.3), the Baseline Assessment will require a discussion 

5 with the user community to define requirements, especially mission/business owners not 

6 intending to create a geospatial capability of their own. One of the challenges with defining the 

7 geospatial application/services functional requirements with non-geospatial centric 

8 mission/business owners is that geospatial functionality is often merely one type of capability that 

9 is needed by the user or system. Often, geospatial is a secondary service capability that may be 

10 used to contribute to or integrate with other primary service requirements. An example of this is 

11 the requirement for a Common Operating Picture (COP), while having a geospatial visualization 

12 component, it is primarily a decision support system requiring such functionality as; document 

13 management, incident management tracking, reporting, alerts and notifications, email triage with 

14 automated ingest, request for information, and archival capabilities.

15 Table 5-4 and Appendix D.1 provides an example of the general functional categories of 

16 applications and services that do not necessarily correspond directly with the taxonomies in 

17 Section 5.3, but provide a starting point for which to develop more detailed or drill-down 

18 Apps/Svcs assessment.

19 Table 5-4. Geospatial Baseline Assessment Matrix: Functionality Categories

20

21 This initial categorization is expanded in Table 5-5 which provides a basis to perform an inventory 

22 of specific Apps/Svcs either currently existing, planned for development or acquisition. Table 5-5

Org #1 Org #2 Org #3 Org #4 Org #5 Org #5

Common 

Score Pct %

Geospatial: Visualization C C P C C C 6 100%

Geospatial: Analysis / Processing C C C C C 5 83%

Reporting C C P C C 5 83%

Search & Discovery P C C C 4 67%

Alerts & Notifications P C P P C C 6 100%

Collaboration P C C C 4 22%

Content Management P C C C 4 22%

Resource Management C C C 3 50%

Data Management C P C C C 5 83%

Modeling C P P P P C 6 100%

Analytics C C P C C C 6 100%

IT Security C P P C C C 6 100%

Other 0%

Status c - Current P - Planned

Geospatial Baseline Assessment: Functionality

Category
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

7 0

1 provides an extract of the two-page Baseline Apps/Svcs Assessment Matrix that is contained in 

2 Appendix D.2.

3 Table 5-5. Geospatial Baseline Assessment Matrix: Applications and Services (Extract)

4

5 Table 5-4 and Table 5-5 (Appendix D.1 and D.2) are not intended to be a definitive list of 

6 geospatial Application/Services functional capabilities, but serve as a basis for the Executive 

7 Steering Committee to task the development of a comprehensive and mutually agreed upon 

8 taxonomy of Apps/Svcs among the organization’s geospatial practitioners (e.g., Program 

9 Managers and Solution Architects) and mission/business owners. This will in turn foster the 

10 discussion to determine operation requirements and the opportunity to share geospatial services 

11 across the enterprise. The inventory of these Applications/Services across the enterprise will also 

serve to meet the OMB reporting requirement of the Federal IT Shared Services Strategy106 12 to 

13 submit an “Enterprise Roadmap” that includes a list of IT assets agency-wide to include all IT 

14 systems and services that support mission, administrative, and commodity IT programs, using [or 

15 aligned to] the Federal Enterprise Architecture Reference Model taxonomies provided in the 

16 Common Approach.

 

106 Office of Management and Budget, Federal IT Shared Services Strategy, May 2, 2012.
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

7 1

1 5.5 GEOSPATIAL APPLICATIONS/SERVICES 

2 CATALOGS

3 Currently, Federal Agencies have limited information 

4 regarding the full spectrum of inter-agency IT shared service 

options that are available.107 5 The OMB, working with the 

6 Federal CIO Council’s Shared Services Subcommittee 

established an online IT Services Catalog108 7 to provide Federal 

8 Agencies with a list of available services and contract 

9 vehicles. The Federal Shared Services Catalog – Uncle Sam’s 

10 List (Figure 5-5) is intended to be a “prices paid portal,” that 

11 identifies candidate shared services in the areas of: 

12 Commodity IT, Support Services and Mission IT, which 

13 included Geospatial listed under Mission IT in Section 5.3.1; 

14 however, it does not, nor is it intended to, provide geospatial 

15 applications/services as described in this chapter.

Although the OMB Enterprise Roadmap109 16 will include an 

17 inventory of all of the agency’s IT applications, systems, and 

18 services, there are limited resources for geospatial 

19 applications/services catalogs available to the user community. The Segment Architecture 

Analysis of the Geospatial Platform,

110 20 as part of its Target Analysis states that in the [desired or 

21 To-Be] target state; “metadata is produced for both geospatial data and services, adheres to a 

22 common standard, is governed by coordinated agency policies, and supports catalogs 

23 dynamically.” The document further, highlights the ‘Enable Discovery’ portion of the Process 

24 Flow section with three prescribed tasks:

25 1. An agency stands up a catalog to enable metadata storage and discovery. Catalogs are 

26 deployed in the context of goals, objectives, and technical specifications to ensure they 

27 are open, flexible, and accessible to a broad audience. Catalogs are only implemented if 

28 no suitable existing catalog (internal or federal) exists to fit the agency’s goals.

29 2. The agency implements harvesting or update services that automatically populate 

30 catalogs with new metadata on a set schedule. The catalogs to be updated as well as the 

31 schedule are set forth in agency policy.

 

107 Office of Management and Budget, Federal IT Shared Services Strategy, May 2, 2012.

108 Uncle Sam’s List, April 2013. Available to Federal employees through the OMB MAX at 

https://login.max.gov/cas/login?service=https%3A%2F%2Funclesamslist.max.gov%2F

Public site available at http://unclesamslist.us/

109 Office of Management and Budget, The Common Approach to Federal Enterprise Architecture, May 12, 2012.

110 Segment Architecture Analysis of the Geospatial Platform, Version 1.0, December 21, 2010. Federal Geographic Data Committee, in 

support of the Federal Chief Information Officers Council.

Figure 5-5. Uncle Sam’s List
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

7 2

1 3. The agency implements alternate discovery mechanisms/service as planned. Once 

2 deployed, the agency publishes use of the new mechanisms/service.

3 The following provides brief examples of Federal Applications/Services Catalogs and is intended to 

4 highlight the differences in approaches for the establishments of catalogs for the identification 

5 and delivery of services.

6 5.5.1GEOSPATIAL PLATFORM

7 “The Geospatial Platform enables the sharing of data, services, and applications across the 

8 government on a shared cloud infrastructure. This aligns with the government‐wide shared 

9 services strategy, which is intended to improve return on investments, close productivity gaps, 

and increase communications with stakeholders.” 10 111 While predominantly regarded a data catalog 

11 service site, it also has additional services offerings. The Geospatial Platform offering is 

12 considered to be “the suite of geospatial assets delivered to customers, including geospatial data, 

services, applications, and infrastructure,”

112 13 as defined as:

14 • Data: includes individual datasets, integrated data (such as base maps), or other 

15 products derived from multiple datasets. These assets include foundational 

16 geospatial data that can be trusted, used reliably and shared across organizations. 

17 Governments at all levels or, in some instances nongovernmental organizations, can 

18 provide data to the Geospatial Platform.

19 • Services: provide a consistent, easily accessible way to access geospatial capabilities 

20 (e.g., access to data, geocoding, geoprocessing services, metadata management, 

21 etc.). The Geospatial Platform will offer access to services that can used by multiple 

22 agencies as stand‐alone capabilities or as building blocks to develop applications.

23 • Applications: consist of a set of tools or capabilities that enable a user to exploit 

24 geospatial information through visualization, query, reporting, and spatial analysis 

25 to achieve their results. Applications may leverage one or more different services to 

26 conduct analysis and return results to the user. The Geospatial Platform will offer 

27 access to applications that can be downloaded, customized, and used to meet 

28 customer business needs.

29 • Infrastructure: includes both physical and logical technology components that can 

30 be leveraged by multiple customers.

31 • Geospatial Platform Marketplace: provides the “Marketplace” as a public facing

32 listing of datasets that are planned for acquisition by one or more Federal agencies. 

33 Utilizing metadata records registered with the shared Data.gov/Geospatial Platform 

 

111 http://www.geoplatform.gov/sites/default/files/document_library/2012-09-12-geospatial-platform-business-plan-redactedfinal.pdf

112 Ibid.
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

7 3

1 data catalog, and tagged as both “geospatial” and “planned”, Federal agencies and 

2 non-federal partners use this listing to identify potential partnering opportunities 

3 for data purchase. 

4 The Geospatial Platform is generally considered a dataset catalog and maintains a shared catalog 

between Data.gov113 5 through an open standards compliant Catalog Service for the Web (CSW) 

6 specification that defines common interfaces to discover, browse, and query metadata about 

data, services, and other potential resources.114 7 The catalog provides access for both first-order 

8 and all metadata (including members of large collections) for harvested data, services, and 

9 applications. The first-order CSW endpoint provides collection level filtering of all metadata 

10 records. The all metadata CSW endpoint provides all levels of metadata at varying levels of 

11 granularity. Any client supporting CSW (desktop, GIS, web application, client library, etc.) can 

12 integrate the Geoplatform.gov/Data.gov CSW endpoints.

The Geospatial Platform provides a Tutorial and Training resource with a link115 13 to a “Data.gov 

14 CSW How To” that allows any client supporting CSW (desktop, GIS, web application, client library, 

15 etc.) the ability to integrate the Data.gov CSW endpoints.

16 In terms of the Applications/Services offered by the Geospatial Platform, the site provides a 

17 Featured Applications page (https://www.geoplatform.gov/applications) that has several user 

18 generated examples. The link to the “Maps and Apps” (https://www.geoplatform.gov/labs-add19 your-app) results in a page for “Add Your Application” (Figure 5-6) where future functionality is 

20 expected.

 

113 https://www.data.gov/

114 https://gist.github.com/kalxas/5ab6237b4163b0fdc930

115 Ibid.
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

7 4

1

2 Figure 5-6. Geospatial Platform: Add Your Tool or Application

3 5.5.2GEOINT APP STORE

4 “The GEOINT App Store is an online platform that provides useful apps, widgets, and web services 

5 for members of the IC. These powerful yet intuitive software tools are simple to find and use for 

completing specific GEOINT tasks.”

116 6 The GEOINT App Store accepts contributions from across 

7 the Intelligence Community to include; apps, widgets, or web services through a submission, 

8 review, and approval process.

The GEOINT App Store117 9 has a number of web applications and unclassified applications (more 

than 270 in late 2013118 10 ) for handheld devices. The GEOINT Applications Storefront assists 

11 Android and iOS users find National Geospatial Intelligence Agency and partner applications from 

12 their devices. Patterned off of commercial storefronts, it provides downloadable apps for 

13 smartphones and tablets in the three security domains—unclassified, secret, and top secret.

 

116 National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA). GEOINT App Store. https://apps.nga.mil/about

117 https://www1.nga.mil/DATAAPPS/Pages/AccessDataAppStore.aspx

118 http://defensesystems.com/articles/2013/10/22/geoint-app-store.aspx
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

7 5

1 GEOINT App Store allows authorized users to search by keyword or category to download the 

2 application they need directly. Most apps are designed around simply bringing information to 

3 handheld devices, such as reports and maps, although some apps will allow users to create 

4 reports as well. Though not every application works on every device, the services are cross 

5 indexed by category, type as well as a smaller grouping by community as depicted in Table 5-6.

6 While the Apps are grouped in multiple locations, the cross-indexing allows the intended user 

7 communities to more rapidly search for services.

8 Table 5-6. GEOINT App Store Index

GEOINT APP STORE

CATEGORIES # TYPES # COMMUNITIES #

Communication/Collaboration 4 Algorithm 0 First Responder Apps 4

Mapping 19 Android 7 Mariner Apps 3

Navigation 4 Desktop 2 Aviator Apps 2

Reference 2 Idea 8 Wildfire Apps 10

Situational Awareness 19 iOS 4 Tropical Weather Apps 10

Mobile Web 4

Web 14

Web Service 8

Widget 1

5.5.3ENTERPRISE REGISTRY AND REPOSITORY119 9

10 The overarching goal of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) is to ensure that 

11 the elements of the Intelligence Community (IC) and Department of Defense (DoD) are working 

12 collaboratively to provide useful, timely, and accurate intelligence to support those who make 

13 and implement U.S. National Security policy, defend our Nation, and enforce our laws. A mission 

14 objective is to provide the intelligence community the ability to publish, manage, discover, 

15 retrieve, access and govern information about mission, business, and enterprise information 

16 technology (IT) resources throughout their lifecycle resulting in the effective management, 

17 sharing and integration of IT across the entire IC enterprise.

18 In response to increasing threats to national security and a growing need for better information 

19 sharing between IC elements, the DNI embarked on making significant enhancements across the 

20 community by creating a “Single Information Environment (SIE)” for the community and the 

21 establishment of a Common Software Repository and Service Registry. This service registry 

22 (Enterprise Registry and Repository (ER2) was first established on the Joint Worldwide Intelligence 

23 Communications System (JWICS) to support software and services reuse within the IC. The ER2 

 

119 The information in this section is taken directly from the (Unclassified) Enterprise Registry and Repository entry from Intellipedia as 

redirected from http://www.intelink.gov/wiki/ER2
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

7 6

1 also has an instance on the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet). The goals of ER2 

2 are:

3 • Support the DNI and community’s efforts in achieving an efficient IT environment.

4 • Enable information sharing for IC business and IT data.

5 • Adapt IT rapidly to changes in IC mission and business needs.

6 • Enable IT discovery, retrieval, access, and reuse.

7 • Lower the lifecycle costs of IT through sharing and reuse.

8 • Help reduce unwarranted duplication of IT resources.

9 ER2 is part of the IC enterprise service delivery infrastructure featuring:

10 • Publishing and Managing – Easy to populate and update data (supports bulk loads).

11 • Discovery and Reuse – Search for and take advantage of available capabilities.

12 • Enhanced Portfolio Management – Provides for better informed decision making, 

13 automated reporting, improved management and the leveraging of IT investments.

14 • Governance and Oversight – Supports publishing, tracking, decision points, and 

15 lifecycle milestones.

16 The ER2 solution is based upon community-developed requirements and is aligned with existing

17 IC element technical solutions including controlled vocabularies and taxonomies from commonly 

18 agreed to architecture reference models. ER2 allows IC elements to transition their internal 

19 software repositories into the service to enable discovery and sharing of available assets. IC 

20 elements have published thousands of shared assets such as widgets, services, Enterprise 

21 Standards Baseline and many other asset types. ER2 manages a variety of asset types, including 

22 services, software and applications. The different types of community IT assets include:

23 • Web services

24 • Applications

25 • Software

26 • Web Service Definition Language (WSDLs) and Schemas

27 • Endpoints and Bindings

28 • Providers and Points of Contact

29 • IC Standard Citations

30 • IC Profiles

31 • Widgets
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

7 7

1 An important benefit to the IC is the ability to discover the relationships between the IC-wide 

2 shared IT assets and make a better informed decision on utilization, maintenance, and 

3 management of these assets. Organizations are employing the ER2 as a primary asset registry and 

4 repository and require the register and search of the ER2 for existing assets that can be reused or 

5 consumed. If an asset already exists that performs the functions required by the program, full 

6 development may be avoided, thus reducing the program’s overall costs while decreasing time7 to-field.

8 The IC user community has benefited from the identification and collection of the applications 

9 and services registered within the ER2 in many areas, including:

10 • Developers – find already-built components for the mission solution they are 

11 supporting.

12 • Analysts – find tools and data sources that have information about the problem 

13 they are working.

14 • Architects – find pre-built profiles that show standards and reference architecture 

15 to design a community-compatible information sharing capability.

16 • Community Providers – find and edit metadata, add artifacts, and update the 

17 lifecycle of a community asset and advertise the availability of the services to the 

18 community for reuse.

19 • Program Managers – reduce development costs and shorten delivery cycles by 

20 reusing existing community components.

21 5.6 GEOSPATIAL SHARED SERVICES 

STRATEGY120 22

23 The Federal IT Shared Services Strategy requires agencies to default to a shared solution when 

24 opportunities for consolidation exist. Cloud-First and Shared-First concepts and policies are 

25 intended to work in tandem to continue to advance the Federal Government’s move toward 

26 cloud-based IT solutions that will serve as a catalyst for the broader adoption of IT shared 

27 services.

28 The Federal Shared Services Implementation Guide provides information and guidance on the 

29 provisioning and consumption of shared services in the U.S. Federal Government. The guide 

30 provides agencies with a high level process and key considerations for defining, establishing, and 

31 implementing interagency shared services to help achieve organizational goals, improve 

32 performance, increase return on investment, and promote innovation. It includes specific steps 

 

120 The information in this section is taken directly from the CIO Council’s Federal Shared Services Implementation Guide, April 16, 

2013. Available at https://cio.gov/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2013/04/CIOC-Federal-Shared-Services-ImplementationGuide.pdf
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

7 8

1 that should be considered for identifying shared services candidates, making the business case, 

2 examining potential funding models, using agency agreements, and discusses some of the key 

3 challenges that should be expected along the way.

4 5.6.1SHARED SERVICES IMPLEMENTATION STEP-WISE 

5 PROCESS

6 The Federal Shared Services Implementation Guide provides a step-by-step assessment indicating 

7 tasks and activities, best practices, and risk areas with mitigations to consider and prepare for 

8 when implementing shared services.

9 The decision to move agency or department functions to a shared service is best served by a 

10 methodical approach that helps to ensure achievement of the desired outcomes and benefits (see 

11 Figure 5-7).

12

13 Figure 5-7. Shared Service Implementation Decision

14 This approach can be applied to evaluate the transition costs and demonstrate future savings. It is 

15 also needed to understand the capabilities that can be supported and changes in business 

16 processes that may be required to fit into an existing shared service. The Implementation Guide 

17 provides high-level guidance on the Steps and Tasks needed to determine whether to pursue 

18 implementation of a shared service.

19 5.7 STAKEHOLDER PERFORMANCE GUIDANCE

20 The Performance Guidance provides a summation of the key decision points necessary to 

21 determine the most effective and efficient design, development, and implementation of the 

22 geospatial system investment.

23 When developing their organization’s annual strategic plans and performance goals, Senior 

24 Leadership and Program Managers must evaluate the prior performance of their organization. 

This presents an opportunity to question and assess the following:

121 25

 

121 Ibid.

STEP 7:

Deployment Operations 

and Management

STEP 6:

Negotiate Inter-Agency 

Agreement and Service 

Levels

STEP 5:

Fund Shared Services

STEP 4:

Make Shared Service 

decision – Go/No-Go

STEP 3:

Analyze legacy services to 

shared service providers

STEP 2:

Identify potential shared 

service providers

STEP 1:

Inventory, Benchmark and 

Assess current internal 

functions and services
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

7 9

1 • What is the performance of existing processes and services?

2 • What existing capabilities can be improved?

3 • What is the cost structure of current capabilities?

4 • How efficient is service delivery?

5 • What new capabilities are needed and funded by the organization?

6 When considering each of these questions, the leadership team should consider the availability of 

7 existing capabilities that may potentially be provided by a shared service provider and to leverage 

8 these capabilities prior to buying or building a new capability.

9
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

8 0

1 Table 5-7. Stakeholder Performance Guide: Applications/Services

STAKEHOLDER PERFORMANCE GUIDE

CHAPTER 5 – APPLICATIONS/SERVICES

Role Responsibility Approach Benefit Executive Leadership

• Authorize the Application and 

Service inventory using the 

Baseline Assessment and catalog 

App/Svc capabilities across the 

enterprise using a common 

taxonomy.

• As part of the Investment 

Technology Acquisition Review 

(ITAR) framework, require all 

new applications and services be 

compared against the App/Svc 

Catalog to determine shared first 

requirement.

• Apply the Shared Services 

Implementation Step-wise 

Process to geospatial investment.

• Work with other Executives to 

acknowledge the need to reduce 

data costs by leveraging 

investment and performing the 

Baseline Assessment based upon 

mission/business needs.

• Establish review board with 

CIO/CFO representation and 

consider policy to ensure 

participation and commitment.

• During annual budget 

review/planning cycle or with 

proposed new investments 

review against process.

• Signatory with defined 

responsibility and stated 

measurable results (e.g., IT Asset 

Inventory for OMB Open Data 

Policy reporting and a 

quantifiable App/Svc resource 

inventory).

• Promotes interoperability, 

reduces redundant investments, 

and allows for cost share.

• Reduce cost for App/Svc 

development/acquisition 

alignment to Share-First policy.

Program Manager

• Coordinate across other internal 

Department/Agency investment 

PMs to establish Geospatial 

Taxonomy Working Group and 

Geospatial App/Svc Catalog.

• Staff and perform inventory and 

of existing/proposed App/Svc 

investment.

• Staff and perform Shared 

Services Implementation Stepwise Process to assess geospatial 

investments.

• Initiate the Taxonomy 

development and perform 

App/Svc inventory for 

documenting App/Svc and 

creating a catalog.

• Perform Baseline Assessment: 

Apps/Svcs across enterprise and 

populate catalog.

• Develop repetitive process for 

evaluating investment to share 

services.

• Shared awareness of investment 

and value of geospatial 

capabilities across the 

organization. Basis for shared 

service capabilities.

• Provides baseline for shared 

service investment and leveraged 

capability

• Catalog meets Share First policy 

and forms basis for reduced 

investment.

Solution Architect

• SME and reach back for 

Taxonomy Working Group 

participation.

• Perform technical evaluation of 

App/Svc investments to 

determine commonality and 

alignment.

• Develop baseline assessment and 

perform inventory of App/Svcs.

• Technical review of services for 

alignment to TRM and 

Infrastructure compatibility 

(Section 6.3).

• Cross enterprise collaboration for 

technical exchange and 

comparison.

• Ensure broadest possible 

technical review, adoption and 

acceptance.

2

3
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

8 1

1 6 INFRASTRUCTURE REFERENCE 

2 MODEL

3 6.1 INTRODUCTION

4 Definition/Description (What) – the Infrastructure Reference Model (IRM) establishes a roadmap 

5 to achieve an organization’s mission/function through optimizing its information technology 

6 environment. The IRM will provide an architectural “blueprint” for effectively defining an 

7 organization’s current (Baseline/”As-Is”) and/or desired (Target/”To-Be”) geospatial system 

8 environments.

9 Purpose/Function (Why) – the IRM is used to inform, guide and constrain the geospatial 

10 investment decisions for the enterprise/organization. Geospatial reference architecture should 

11 serve as a primary authoritative resource for organizational planning, a baseline from which to 

12 insert new technologies and capabilities into the infrastructure of the enterprise, and a 

13 documentation source for investment justification. The IRM provides a roadmap from the “As-Is”

14 environment to the “To-Be,” target environment using documentation tools and artifacts. It 

15 contributes to the investment governance structure (see Section 2.4) to baseline, align, transition,

16 and mature their geospatial invest across the enterprise. It describes how to:

17 • Establishes a process for base lining and categorizing geospatial technology and 

18 functionality.

19 • Defines a 3-Tier geospatial architecture as the To-Be target.

20 • Provides reference artifacts for the 3-Tier architecture.

21 Stakeholder Performance Guide (Who & How) – Solution Architects serve as the primary 

22 developer and user of the Infrastructure Reference Model documentation, planning tools, and 

23 system artifacts necessary for the design and subsequent leverage/buy/build investment strategy.

24 Program Managers must facilitate the cross organizational collaboration necessary to document 

25 the technology investments and negotiate implementation options that support both mission and 

26 enterprise needs. Executive Leadership must assess the justification for approving/denying a 

27 proposed geospatial investment.

28 Design for the Mission ... Develop for the Enterprise.

29 6.2 ALIGNMENT TO THE ENTERPRISE 

30 ARCHITECTURE INVESTMENT 

31 PLANNING PROCESS

32 The Infrastructure Reference Model will focus upon a practical approach to documenting the 

33 technical and functional capabilities and requirements of the geospatial enterprise. The IRM
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

8 2

1 supports architectural analysis and reporting within an organization’s overall Enterprise 

Architecture.122 2 The IRM also unifies existing agency infrastructure portfolios and guidance by 

3 providing a foundation to advance the reuse and standardization of technology and service 

4 components. Aligning agency capital investments to the IRM leverages a common, standardized 

5 vocabulary, allowing intra/interagency discovery, collaboration, and interoperability.

6 Organizations and enterprise architectures will benefit from economies of scale by identifying and 

7 reusing the best solutions and technologies for applications that are developed/provided or 

8 subscribed to support their business functions, mission, and target architecture.

Agencies must document and submit their Enterprise Architecture (EA) documentation to OMB.

123 9

10 The EA provides the explicit description and documentation of the current and desired 

11 relationships among business and management processes and information technology. It 

12 describes the “current architecture” and “target architecture” as well as providing a strategy that 

13 will enable the agency to support its current state and also act as the roadmap for transition to its 

14 target environment. These transition processes will include an agency’s capital planning and 

15 investment control (CPIC) processes (Section 2.4.2). The EA should inform the CPIC process by 

16 defining the technologies and information critical to operating an agency’s business, and by 

17 creating a roadmap which enables the agency to transition from its current to its targeted state.

18 The EA helps the agency respond to changing business needs, and ensures that potential solutions 

19 support the agency’s targeted state. A proposed IT solution that does not comply with the EA 

20 should not be considered as a possible investment, and should not enter the CPIC process. The 

21 CPIC process helps Executive Leadership select, control, and evaluate investments that conform to 

22 the EA. For example, during the select stage of capital planning an agency identifies and 

23 investigates different potential solutions for an investment. An agency then selects the option 

24 with the best business case. If any of these alternatives does not conform to the EA, the agency 

25 should drop it from consideration.

26 6.3 GEOSPATIAL BASELINE ASSESSMENT 

27 MATRIX: INFRASTRUCTURE 

28 AND TECHNOLOGY

29 Each agency must support the Enterprise Architecture with a complete inventory of agency 

30 information resources, including personnel, equipment, and funds devoted to information 

resources management and information technology, at an appropriate level of detail.

124 31 Agencies 

32 must implement the EA consistent with the following [amongst others] principles:

 

122 Office of Management and Budget, The Common Approach to Federal Enterprise Architecture, May 2, 2012.

123 http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg_a130notice

124 Ibid.
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

8 3

1 1. Develop information systems that facilitate interoperability, application portability, and 

2 scalability of electronic applications across networks of heterogeneous hardware, 

3 software, and telecommunications platforms.

4 2. Meet information technology needs through cost effective intra-agency and interagency 

5 sharing, before acquiring new information technology resources.

6 To accomplish this requirement, the organization’s Executive Steering Committee (Section 2.3.1) 

7 should authorize the development of the Baseline Assessment Matrix (Section 3.4) that begins to 

8 document the existing and planned geospatial infrastructure and technology investments across 

9 the organization’s enterprise. The Baseline Assessment provides a framework to begin to profile 

10 the geospatial system infrastructure environment. The Solution Architects from across the 

11 organization’s geospatial investments should develop the Infrastructure Assessment Matrix 

12 (Appendix E.1) to include the entire infrastructure core capabilities involved in or impacted by 

13 their geospatial system capability.

14 Table 6-1. Geospatial Baseline Assessment: Infrastructure

15

Infrastrcuture Core Capability Org #1 Org #2 Org #3 Org #4 Org #5 Org #6 Score Pct

Initial Operating Capability System Maturity Level C C 2 33%

Full Operating Capability System Maturity Level C C C 3 50%

Prototype System Maturity Level C 1 17%

Other System Maturity Level 0 0%

COTS Solution Software Components C C C C C C 6 100%

GOTS Solution Software Components C C 2 33%

Open Source Solution Software Components C 1 17%

Custom Solution Software Components C C C 3 50%

Internal Hosting Hosting Capability C C 2 33%

External Hosting Hosting Capability C C 2 33%

Datacenter Hosting Capability P C 2 33%

Disaster Recovery / Failover Capability Hosting Capability P P C P C 5 83%

Certification & Accreditation Complete IT Security P P C C C P 6 100%

Authority to Operate IT Security P C C C C P 6 100%

Section 508 Compliance User Accessibility C C 2 33%

NIEM Compliant Information Exchange P C 2 33%

Unclassified System Designation C C C C 4 67%

Sensitive But Unclassified System Designation P C P 3 50%

Classified System Designation P 3 50%

Public System Designation C P 2 33%

Network #1 Operating Environment P C 2 33%

Network #2 Operating Environment 0 0%

Network #3 Operating Environment 0 0%

Other Network Operating Environment C C 2 33%

Data Exchange Agreements System Overview P C 2 33%

Service Level Agreements System Overview P 1 17%

< 1,000 Current Users System Capacity C C C C C 5 83%

1,000-5,000 Current Users System Capacity P 1 17%

>10,000 Current Users System Capacity 0 0%

> 5,000 Surge Users System Capacity C 1 17%

5,000-10,000 Surge Users System Capacity 0 0%

> 10,000 Surge Users System Capacity P 1 17%

Mobile Version Interoperability P P C P C 5 83%

Status: C = Current P = Planned

Geospatial Baseline Assessment: Infrastructure
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

8 4

1 Additionally, the Solution Architects will need to prepare the Technology core capability matrix for 

2 the Baseline Assessment. Table 6-2 is an extract of the three-page Technology Assessment Matrix 

3 (Appendix E.2) and combined with the Infrastructure Matrix will provide the foundation for 

4 investment comparison, both existing and planned to determine the optimal technology 

5 infrastructure and how it should align to the Enterprise Architecture. It will also provide the 

6 content necessary to respond to the OMB Common Approach to Federal Enterprise Architecture

and submit an Enterprise Roadmap125 7 which includes a summary of current architecture, including 

8 infrastructure.

9 Table 6-2. Geospatial Baseline Assessment: Technology (Extract)

10

11 6.4 DIGITAL GOVERNMENT STRATEGY 

12 ALIGNMENT

The Digital Government Strategy126 13 is intended to be disruptive, realizing the need to do more 

14 with less.

 

125 Office of Management and Budget, The Common Approach to Federal Enterprise Architecture, April 30, 2012.

126 Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to Better Serve the American People, May 23, 2012.
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

8 5

1 “[The Digital Strategy] gives the federal workforce the tools needed to carry out 

2 their mission of delivering services to all citizens—whether to a warfighter in the 

3 field retrieving geospatial imagery information ... or a rural farmer accessing real4 time forecast of seasonal precipitation. It provides a platform to fundamentally 

5 shift how government connects with, and provides services to, the American 

people.”

127 6

7 To drive this transformation, the strategy is built upon four overarching principles:

8 • An “Information-Centric” approach – focuses on ensuring data and content are 

9 accurate, available and secure. Transforming unstructured content into structured 

10 data – then ensure all structured data are associated with valid metadata and 

11 providing this information through web Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) 

12 helps to architect for interoperability using open standards. This approach also 

13 supports device-agnostic security and privacy controls, as attributes can be applied 

14 directly to the data and monitored through metadata, enabling agencies to focus on 

15 securing the data and not the device.

16 • A “Shared Platform” approach – requires the reuse of resources and to “innovate 

17 with less”, accelerates the adoption of new technologies, lowers costs and reduces 

18 duplication. A shared platform approach to developing and delivering digital 

19 services and managing data needs to leverage existing services, build for multiple 

20 use cases at once, apply common standards and architectures, produce shared 

21 government-wide solutions to ensure consistency in how information is created and 

22 delivered.

23 • A “Customer-Centric” approach – means quality information is accessible, current 

24 and accurate at any time. It requires an understanding of stakeholder 

25 business/mission requirements (Section 3.3) and makes content more broadly 

26 available and accessible in a device-agnostic way.

27 • A platform of “Security and Privacy” – requires the transformation to happen in a 

28 way that ensures the safe and secure delivery and use of digital services to protect 

29 information and privacy. Architecting for openness and adopting new technologies 

30 have the potential to make devices and data vulnerable to malicious or accidental 

31 breaches of security and privacy. Architectures must adopt solutions in areas such 

32 as continuous monitoring, identity, authentication, and credential management, 

33 and cryptography (Chapter 7: Security Reference Model) that support the shift from 

34 securing devices to securing the data itself and ensure that data is only shared with 

35 authorized users.

 

127 http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digital-government.html
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

8 6

1 The development of any Federal geospatial infrastructure must align with the Digital Government 

2 Strategy principles.

3 6.5 GEOSPATIAL 3-TIER TARGET ARCHITECTURE

The Digital Government Strategy128 4 establishes a conceptual model that acknowledges three 

5 “layers” of digital services. Three-tier architecture is a client-server architecture in which the 

6 functional process logic, data access, computer data storage, and user interface are developed 

and maintained as independent modules on separate platforms.

129 7 Three-tier architecture allows 

8 any one of the three tiers to be upgraded or replaced independently. The user interface is 

9 generally implemented on the client-side environment either at the desktop or web browser uses 

10 a standard graphical user interface with different modules running on the platform layer that 

11 hosts the application server(s). The data layer includes a relational database management system 

12 that contains the computer data storage logic (e.g., schemas, metadata, topology, and 

13 ontologies). This 3-Tier architecture model includes: the Presentation Layer, the Platform or 

14 Application Layer, and the Information of Database Layer.

15

16 Figure 6-1. Three-Layers/Tiers of Digital Services

17 The three layers or 3-Tier model separates information creation from information presentation—

18 allowing organizations to create content and data once, and then use it in different ways through 

19 hosted applications or publication services operating on the shared platform.

 

128 Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to Better Serve the American People, May 23, 2012.

129 Technopedia.com 3-Tier Architecture definition. http://www.techopedia.com/definition/24649/three-tier-architecture

“CUSTOMERS”

PRESENTATION 

LAYER

Private Sector 

Digital Services

(Websites and 

Applications)

Government 

Digital Services

(Websites and 

Applications)

PLATFORM 

LAYER

Systems, Processes, Management 

and Web APIs

INFORMATION 

LAYER

Open Data and Content

(Information)

SECURITY AND PRIVACY
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

8 7

1 6.5.1PRESENTATION LAYER

2 The Presentation Layer defines the manner in which information is organized and provided to 

3 customers. It displays information related to services available on a platform. This tier 

4 communicates with other tiers by sending results between the user applications and interfaces

5 and other tiers in the network and represents the way information delivery occurs (e.g., data or 

6 content), whether through desktop clients, websites, mobile applications or other modes of 

7 delivery. The presentation layer must support open interface standards and allow application 

8 programmers, software developers, web service publishers and device manufacturers’

9 extensibility in presentation of information resources. The Infrastructure Assessment Matrix 

10 (Appendix E.1) illustrates some of the common technical elements to consider in the 

11 implementation process such as web browser support, application programmer interfaces and 

12 methods. The Infrastructure Assessment Matrix also includes the core infrastructure capabilities 

13 involved in or impacted by the target geospatial system capability.

14 6.5.2PLATFORM/APPLICATION LAYER

15 The Platform or Application Layer, also known as the logic or business logic tier, is where it 

16 controls application functionality includes all the systems and processes used to manage the 

17 information. Examples include systems for content management, processes such as web API and 

18 application development, services that support mission critical IT functions such as mapping and 

19 situational awareness, as well as the hardware used to access information (e.g., mobile devices).

20 Solution Architects should use the Infrastructure Assessment Matrix (Appendix E.1) as a blueprint 

21 to address common technical elements to consider for assessing infrastructure serviced through 

22 an on premise data center or off premise cloud service offering. These considerations include 

23 operating systems, user and system access controls, support for commercial or government off24 the-shelf software, distributed processing capability, and search and indexing software.

25 6.5.3INFORMATION/DATABASE LAYER

26 The Information or Database Layer houses the database servers where information is stored and 

27 retrieved. Data in this tier is kept independent of application servers or business logic and 

28 contains the digital information. It includes structured information (e.g., the most common 

29 concept of “data”) such as geospatial data layers and metadata, plus unstructured information 

30 (e.g., content), such as fact sheets, guidance documentation geospatial search indexes, or 

31 geocoding / geo-tagging dictionaries. The Infrastructure Assessment Matrix (Appendix E.1) 

32 provides Solution Architects a frame of reference for technical considerations such as database 

33 software, support for federated search and queries using structured query language (SQL), ability 

34 to provide geospatial search and indexing capabilities, access control at the data layer and role 

35 level.
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

8 8

1 6.6 GEOSPATIAL TARGET ARCHITECTURE 

2 ARTIFACTS

3 The goal of the Geospatial Interoperability Reference Architecture is to make geospatial 

4 information and technology more broadly accessible, geospatial investments more effective, and 

5 geospatial practitioners and business systems more productive. The GIRA provides a blueprint for 

6 architectural analysis and reporting within an Agency’s Enterprise Architecture. The reference 

7 implementations of the GIRA are intended to provide Solution Architects with go-to Target 

8 Architectures for the sensitive-but-unclassified and public domains that so Government Program 

9 Managers can reuse and/or emulate. These reference implementations provide best practices for 

10 geospatial interoperability and information sharing to drive:

11 • Discoverability – Discoverable by appropriate users, systems, and communities of 

12 interest.

13 • Accessibility – Available in a usable form that is easily understood.

14 • Understandability – Able to be used intelligently using commonly defined terms and 

15 intuitive interfaces and tools.

16 • Interoperability – Readily consumed and combined with other geospatial 

17 capabilities (software, data, services, or systems) using open-standards or best 

18 practices for geospatial information and services exchange.

19 • Reliability – Capabilities are consistently delivered over time.

20 • Trust – Accuracy, currency, completeness, and source of capabilities (software, 

21 data, services, and systems) are available to users.

22 6.6.1UNCLASSIFIED/PUBLIC DOMAIN: GEOSPATIAL 

23 PLATFORM

The Federal Geospatial Platform130 24 is a FY 2011 budget initiative and Presidential call for action. 

25 Through the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC), federal departments and agencies are 

26 developing the Geospatial Platform to more effectively share place-based products and services 

27 to the public. The Geospatial Platform will be a managed portfolio of common geospatial data, 

28 services, and applications contributed and administered by authoritative sources and hosted on a 

29 shared infrastructure, for use by government agencies and partners to meet their mission needs 

30 and the made openly available.

31 The content of all datasets and services are required to be verified by the agencies to be 

32 consistent with federal privacy, national security, and information quality policies. Additionally, 

33 the Geospatial Platform provides access to data from various partners across state, tribal, 

 

130 https://geoplatform.gov/
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

8 9

1 regional, and local governments as well as non-governmental organizations. The overall goal is to 

2 reduce duplication of efforts and promote the use of open standards among agencies’ geospatial 

3 programs. The move to a standard Geospatial Platform offers many advantages to its users:

4 • A “one-stop shop” to deliver trusted, nationally consistent geospatial products, with 

5 a preference towards interoperable web services.

6 • Tools for the centralized discovery, access, and use of data and services managed 

7 and maintained in multiple agencies.

8 • Tools that enable cross-government data to be displayed in a visual context.

9 • Tools enabling on-line collaboration communities focused on mission and/or 

10 priority issues, where federal and non-federal agencies and partners can share and 

11 create geospatial data and map products to provide common understanding of 

12 information for decision making.

13 • Problem-solving applications that are built once and reused many times.

14 • A shared cloud computing infrastructure.

15 Figure 6-2 provides a high-level conceptual depiction of the Geospatial Platform. Some of the 

16 features include the migration of the Geospatial Open Source catalog to geo.data.gov, which 

17 includes a search interface and community features. In addition to catalog search, users will be 

18 able to create and share maps. Agencies are also encouraged to provide content supporting their 

19 business cases.
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

9 0

1

2 Figure 6-2. Geospatial Platform Conceptual Model

3 The Geospatial Platform employs a multi-tired, services-based architecture that support open 

4 standards. Figure 6-3 provides a more detailed view of the technical architecture. The Geospatial 

5 Platform provides users a standard web interface and developers with application programmer 

6 interfaces. Web services are provisioned on the platform layer. Data services are managed in a 

7 shared data layer.
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

9 1

1

2 Figure 6-3. Geospatial Platform Technical Architecture

3 The Geospatial Platform is expected to expand access to high quality data, enabling the increased 

4 sharing and reuse of resources resulting in reduced costs. The integrated approach will mean that 

5 the federal portfolio of geospatial data will be better managed, service a broader audience, and 

6 be easier to use.

7 6.6.2FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY: GEOSPATIAL 

8 INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE

The Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Geospatial Information Infrastructure (GII)131 9 is a 

10 target architecture for the enterprise platform to support multiple missions across the Homeland 

11 Security community. It provides access to a wide set of shared capabilities that support geospatial 

12 visualization, analysis, processing, modeling and simulation, and content delivery of geospatial 

13 information. The GII provides secure hosting services for geospatial web and mobile applications, 

14 interoperable access to more than 600 layers of geospatial foundation and infrastructure 

15 information that includes high resolution US population information, pre- and post-incident 

 

131https://gii.dhs.gov
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

9 2

1 imagery, public alerts and warnings, and derivative map products. It also includes a general 

2 purpose web map viewer called OneView, interoperable web map services for desktop GIS users 

3 and system integrators based on OGC standards, support for multiple viewing solutions, and 

4 application programmer interfaces (APIs) that allow application developers to extend GII 

5 functionality (web services, and data feeds) into customer centric applications. Developers can 

6 use the GII APIs with the underlying binaries and programming references to build internet-based 

7 mobile or web mapping applications using GII services and components.

8 Figure 6-4 depicts the multi-tiered, services-based architecture for the GII. The GII technical 

9 architecture supports open standards for search, web services, APIs, and data publication. GII 

10 application hosting and web services are provisioned on the platform layer. Data services are 

11 managed in a shared data layer.

12

13 Figure 6-4. DHS Geospatial Information Infrastructure (GII) Technical Architecture

14 Figure 6-5 illustrates how GII services can be leveraged to support business application and 

15 systems as referenced by the DHS Common Operating Picture (COP).
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

9 3

1

2 Figure 6-5. DHS Common Operating Picture Aligned to DHS Geospatial Information Infrastructure

3

4 6.7 GEOSPATIAL TARGET ARCHITECTURE 

5 CONSIDERATIONS

6 As part of the baseline assessment, Solution Architects should make considerations for IT security 

7 including cyber security, identity, credentialing, and access management, certification and 

8 accreditation (C&A), authority to operate (ATO) and trust boundaries, and network domain (e.g. 

9 public, sensitive-but-unclassified, classified). Solution Architects should also evaluate the 

10 resiliency requirements for the capability including disaster recovery, failover, and surge capacity.

11 Compliance requirements for Section 508 Accessibility and Privacy Impact Assessments (PIAs) are 

12 crucial and support multiple open standards for geospatial information exchange and geospatial 

13 search. The Baseline Assessment Matrix (Appendix E) provides a blueprint for assessing these 

14 technical considerations during the capital planning and investment process.

15 It is important that Agencies consider the maturity of the investment and not just the technical 

16 capability as part of the baseline assessment. Factors to consider are:
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

9 4

1 • Where is the investment in its lifecycle? Is the technology near end of life or still 

2 emergent?

3 • What is the schedule for technology refresh?

4 • What is the concept of operations for operating and maintaining the investment?

5 • How are technical support services provisioned? Is training or help desk support 

6 available?

7 • Does system have a completed certification and accreditation package or authority 

8 to operate?

9 • Is the investment compliant with Agency enterprise architecture policy?

10 • Is the investment compliance with federal privacy and accessibility requirements?

11 6.7.1CLOUD

12 The Federal Cloud Computing Strategy states that, “When evaluating options for new IT 

13 deployments, OMB will require that agencies default to cloud-based solutions whenever a secure, 

reliable, cost-effective cloud option exists.”

132 14 The OMB also requires a Cloud Computing 

Alternatives Evaluation133 15 for an agency’s capital planning submission specifying a cloud 

16 alternative was evaluated for the investment or components/systems within the investment, per 

17 the Cloud First policy. All investments should answer this question regardless of the overall 

18 lifecycle stage of the investment, as operational investments may consider performing such an 

19 evaluation during or as a result of an operational analysis. The evaluation should indicate one of 

20 the following answers:

21 1. The agency evaluated a cloud alternative and chose a cloud alternative for some or all of 

22 the investment.

23 2. The agency evaluated a cloud alternative but did not choose a cloud alternative for any of 

24 the investment.

25 3. The agency did not evaluate a cloud alternative but plans to evaluate a cloud alternative 

26 by the end of the Base Year.

27 4. The agency did not evaluate a cloud alternative and does not plan to evaluate a cloud 

28 alternative by the end of the Base Year.

29 As part of that evaluation, the Solution Architect and Program Manager should develop an 

30 operational requirements document (ORD) that is cross referenced against the Baseline 

31 Assessment Matrix. These artifacts should serve as the basis of comparison for completing the 

32 cloud computing alternative analysis. The evaluation process should be conducted in two phases.

 

132 Office of Management and Budget, Federal Cloud Computing Strategy, February 8, 2011.

133 http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/egov_docs/fy14_guidance_on_exhibits_53_and_300.pdf
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

9 5

1 The first phase should identify commercial and federal government candidates from a functional 

2 and technical perspective and flag these for further evaluation. An application is considered viable 

3 if it passes all the steps of the evaluation process as discussed in the following paragraphs. If 

4 Phase 1 identified no viable solutions, the alternative analysis would have concluded at the end of 

5 Phase 1 and the recommended alternative would be custom build-out or maintain the status-quo. 

6 The second phase should perform a comparison of the costs, benefits, and risks associated with 

7 each of the potential solutions identified in Phase 1 and the costs, benefits, and risks of custom 

8 build-out or maintaining the status-quo.

9 6.7.1.1PHASE 1 PROCESS

10 The Phase 1 evaluation process contains several steps that serve as filters to either eliminate 

11 solutions or pass them on for more detailed evaluation. Each step answers a particular set of 

12 questions:

13 • Step 1 – Does the solution provide geospatial cloud services (i.e.; operational 

14 requirements)? Does it appear to be a good choice for the Agency’s operating 

15 environment? Only the solutions with “yes” responses are passed to Step 2.

16 • Step 2 – Does the solution feature appropriate technical capabilities? How does it 

17 compare with other solutions? Only applications with the highest technical 

18 capability scores are passed on to Step 3.

19 • Step 3 – Are technical capabilities present in a robust, flexible, and easy-to-use 

20 fashion? Will the solution be difficult to integrate with the Agency’s operating 

21 environment and existing geospatial software packages and systems? Only 

22 applications that appear to have a high probability of success will be passed on to 

23 Step 4.

24 • Step 4 – Is the solution proven technology currently used within the Agency or 

25 other federal agencies? Consult technical experts about the suitability of the 

26 solution to meet Agency operational requirements, how it compares with its 

27 competitors, current user base, financial stability of the vendor, future viability of 

28 the solution.

29 6.7.1.2PHASE 2 PROCESS

30 The Phase 2 evaluation process compares the most viable candidate identified in Phase 1 to a 

31 custom-build-out or maintain status-quo approach in terms of cost, benefits, and risks.

32 • Step 1 – Costs. For custom build-out or maintaining status-quo, use Agency 

33 infrastructure pricing, supplementary GSA software licensing and existing 

34 FTE/Contractor rates. For viable alternatives, compute the cost by adjusting the 

35 Agency cost factors for items that will be eliminated or changed to accommodate a 
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

9 6

1 commercial solution. Add the costs to acquire the commercial solution. Compare 

2 the two costs.

3 • Step 2 – Benefits. Identify a set of possible benefits. Ascertain the probability that 

4 these benefits will occur with the commercial solution and with a custom-built 

5 solution. Compare the two results.

6 • Step 3 – Risks. Identify the risks for both solutions, along with the probabilities that 

7 the risks will occur and the impacts of those occurrences. Compare the two results.

8 • Step 4 – Compare costs, risks, and benefits. Recommend a solution.

9 6.8 STAKEHOLDER PERFORMANCE GUIDE: 

10 INFRASTRUCTURE

11 The Performance Guidance provides a summation of the key decision points necessary to 

12 determine the most effective and efficient design, development and implementation of the 

13 geospatial system investment.

14 Table 6-3. Stakeholder Performance Guide: Infrastructure

STAKEHOLDER PERFORMANCE GUIDE

CHAPTER 6 – INFRASTRUCTURE

Role Responsibility Approach Benefit Executive Leadership

• Executive Steering Committee 

authorization and commitment 

to perform Baseline Assessment 

Matrix: Infrastructure and 

Technology.

• Approve/disapprove a proposed 

IT solution depending upon its 

compliance with Enterprise 

Architecture for inclusion within 

CPIC process.

• Ensure Cloud Option assessment 

is performed as part of a 

proposed IT solution.

• Task Program Managers 

responsible for geospatial system 

oversight to perform develop 

and execute the Baseline 

Assessment.

• Ensure that the 

infrastructure/technology 

Baseline Matrix capabilities are 

aligned to EA and proposed new 

infrastructure/technology aligns 

to and not duplicative of existing 

capabilities.

• Task Program Manger to apply 

cloud process review as option 

for IT solution.

• Provides input for CPIC (53/300) 

and reporting to OMB as well as 

establishes the enterprise 

baseline of the As-Is geospatial 

investments across the 

organization.

• Promotes interoperability, 

reduces redundant investments, 

and allows for cost share.

• Complies with Cloud First policy 

and provides economies for 

implementation.
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

9 7

STAKEHOLDER PERFORMANCE GUIDE

CHAPTER 6 – INFRASTRUCTURE

Role Responsibility Approach Benefit Program Manager

• Coordinate across organization’s 

geospatial investments to ensure 

committed participation in 

Baseline Assessment.

• Identify opportunities for shared 

infrastructure and/or technology 

based upon Baseline Assessment 

Matrix comparison.

• Review report of finding for 

cloud options for IT solution and 

make recommendations to 

Executive Leadership.

• PMs identify and prioritize 

capability gaps and planned 

investments aligned to 

Operational Requirements 

Document (ORD) and prepare 

recommendations and/or 

options for Execs approval.

• Based upon gap analysis, identify 

candidate investments to 

leverage, eliminate or new 

develop based upon ORD 

priorities.

• Coordinate Cloud assessment 

process evaluation for IT solution 

architecture.

• Cross organization agreement for 

prioritized geospatial system 

development priorities and 

leveraged resource commitment.

• Reduce duplicative IT footprint 

and identify opportunity to 

leverage or reprioritize 

investments.

• Complies with Cloud First policy 

and provides economies for 

implementation.

Solution Architect

• Develop the Infrastructure 

Assessment Matrix from across 

the entire organization’s 

geospatial investments.

• Vet ‘new’ technology insertions 

to EA and Technical Reference 

Model to ensure alignment with 

organization’s To-Be 

environment.

• Prepare report of finding for 

cloud options for IT solution.

• Work with other organization SAs 

to ensure a complete baseline 

assessment and perform 

capability gap analysis for As-Is 

and To-Be environments.

• Determine ‘optimal’ solution if 

duplicative investments and 

ensure alignment to EA for ‘new’

technology.

• Perform Cloud assessment 

process evaluation for IT solution 

architecture.

• Ensure broadest possible 

technical review, adoption and 

acceptance.

• Technical vetting and validation 

across investments for desired 

To-Be end-state environment 

and alignment to EA target 

ensures compatibility and 

reduces IT footprint cost.

• Provides awareness of 

architecture investment and 

solution options. 

1

2
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

9 8

1 7 SECURITY REFERENCE MODEL

2 7.1 INTRODUCTION

Definition/Description (What) – The Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA)134 3

4 defines information security as “the protection of information and information systems from 

5 unauthorized access, use, disclosure, disruption, modification. Or destruction in order to provide 

6 confidentiality, integrity, and availability.”

7 Purpose/Function (Why) – There is considerable guidance across the Federal community for 

8 security planning, reporting, and monitoring investments. Federal Government IT programs have 

9 a wide range of security requirements. FISMA requirements include but are not limited to: 

10 compliance with Federal Information Processing Standards agency specific policies; Authorization 

11 to Operate requirements; and vulnerability and security event monitoring, logging, and reporting.

12 This chapter will not replicate that guidance; instead, this section will focus upon the Identity and 

13 Access Management (IdAM) aspect of security as it is elemental to all of the reference models.

14 This chapter will describe:

15 • Differences between identity and access management.

16 • Roles and responsibilities of stakeholders.

17 Stakeholder Performance Guide (Who & How) – Security transcends each of the Federal 

18 Enterprise Architecture Reference Models (e.g., Business, Data, Application/Service, 

19 Infrastructure, and Performance) and impacts each of those stakeholders responsible for its 

20 implementation. Security compliance should also be included within Governance since it is an 

enforcement point for Information Technology investments.

135 21

22 7.2 SECURITY PRINCIPLES

23 The term “security” is exceptionally broad and means many things to many people. In the context 

of this chapter, the focus is specifically upon the IdAM aspect of security,136 24 which is the most 

25 common user-facing aspect of security. IdAM is about how a system interacts with its users and 

26 includes Identity and Access Management components. Identity Management is focused on 

27 knowing who it is (as well as the individual’s basic characteristics) that is interacting with a system 

 

134 Public Law 107-347-DEC. 17 2002. Federal Information Security Management Act, 2002. 44 U.S.C., Sec 3542

135 Office of Management and Budget, Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework, Version 2, (January 29, 2013), available at 

http://69.89.31.228/~mkerncom/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Federal-Enterprise-Architecture-Framework-v2-as-of-Jan-29-

2013.pdf

136 Other significant aspects include Certification & Accreditation (now called Assessment & Authorization), FISMA compliance, Physical 

Security, Network Security, Communications Security, and many others. These aspects are outside of the scope of this document.
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

9 9

1 or data. Access Management is focused on determining whether or not that individual should be 

2 permitted to interact with a specific resource in a specific way.

3 The Federal Identity, Credential, and Access Management (FICAM) Roadmap and Implementation 

Guidance137 4 (“FICAM Roadmap”) defines the concepts as:

5 • Authorization and Access - are the processes of granting or denying specific 

6 requests for obtaining and using information processing services or data and to 

7 enter specific physical facilities. It ensures individuals can only use those resources 

8 they are entitled to use and then only for approved purposes, enforcing security 

9 policies that govern access throughout the enterprise.

10 • Authentication - is the process of verifying that a claimed identity is genuine and 

11 based on valid credentials. Authentication typically leads to a mutually shared level 

12 of assurance by the relying parties in the identity. Authentication may occur 

13 through a variety of mechanisms including challenge/response, time-based code 

14 sequences, biometric comparison, PKI or other techniques.

15 Information must be protected against unauthorized access for national security, privacy, and 

16 other reasons. The government has a wealth of information obtained via a variety of means and 

17 has an obligation to ensure that that information is used appropriately. This means ensuring that 

18 all access is appropriate, permissible, and accountable. The government also has a responsibility 

19 to be financially efficient. A well thought-out IdAM architecture meets both of these goals by 

20 allowing a system to effectively control access, improving the security of the data in a system,

21 while at the same time reducing duplication by leveraging external (shared) IdAM services. Fine22 grained access control, enabled by IdAM, allows the system owner to manage the system risk by 

23 safeguarding use of information without hindering responsible sharing of mission information.

24 Leveraging such external services allows the system owner to focus on the mission need the 

25 system is intended for, while leveraging enterprise IdAM and security services which have been 

26 designed to meet the specific needs of the IdAM and security domains. This focus not only 

27 strengthens the capabilities of the system, but also allows for the enterprise to recognize 

28 economies of scale on reusable IdAM and security services. Systems incorporating interfaces to 

29 interoperate with such reusable services add flexibility to adapt as such services mature and 

30 policy dictates new additional requirements. Security that incorporates the capabilities prescribed 

31 in the FICAM Roadmap allows system owners to build robust security appropriate to their mission 

32 needs that complements other network and cybersecurity activities in a way that meaningfully 

33 manages the risk of the system both independently and in conjunction its network environment.

 

137 Federal Identity, Credential, and Access Management (FICAM) Roadmap and Implementation Guidance, Version 2.0, December 2, 

2011. Federal Chief Information Officers Council. The guidance is available at 

http://www.idmanagement.gov/sites/default/files/documents/FICAM_Roadmap_and_Implementation_Guidance_v2%200_201112

02_0.pdf
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

100

1 Figure 7-1 provides a high-level view of core components of the FICAM Roadmap. FICAM provides 

2 the framework for implementing secure role-based and data access capabilities using authorized 

3 identities and credentials to secure and safeguard data and information.

4

5 Figure 7-1. FICAM Conceptual Diagram

6 IdAM needs to balance the need to safeguard the system and its data with the need to 

7 responsibly share information and enable the mission. Identity Management and Access 

8 Management are two primary Service Types in the FICAM Roadmap, with Part A, as the Federal 

9 Government segment architecture for ICAM and IdAM.

10 Appendix F provides a high-level snapshot of the Identity Credential and Access Management 

11 activities that will continue to evolve and mature over time. The Appendix is a tri-fold of the ICAM 

12 Landscape and describes on-going initiatives and describes common terminology used across the 

13 ICAM community.

14 7.3 STAKEHOLDER ROLES AND 

15 RESPONSIBILITIES

16 IdAM addresses the policies and technical practices defined by a data owner, vetted by 

17 governance and oversight bodies, and enacted by a system owner to protect the information 

18 contained in the system. These policies and technical practices must be incorporated into the 

19 business practices of the system owner, implemented in the technical capabilities of the system, 
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

101

1 and enforced as users’ access and use the system. As IdAM capabilities become more robust for 

2 identifying users and their business purpose in accessing system information, the security model 

3 for the system should evolve to take advantage of the additional opportunities for safeguarding 

4 system information through fine-grained access control.

5 Executives must recognize the value of implementing reusable (sharable) IdAM services for 

6 mission systems and must reinforce the value provided by such services to their organization 

7 through the support of an organizational EA function, aligned with larger federal EA efforts, that 

8 identifies and incorporates such shared services. Program Managers must ensure that their 

9 system engineering lifecycle incorporates their organization’s architecture considerations, as well 

10 as larger federal enterprise considerations. The Program Manager must ensure that the 

11 requirements for the system incorporate interfaces for external IdAM services so that reusable 

12 enterprise shared services can be leveraged for the mission system, and that the timeline for use 

13 of such services is aligned with the organizational or federal roadmap and timeline for 

14 implementation for those services. The Solution Architect will need to create a system that 

15 provides flexible interfaces to interoperate with IdAM and security services and standards. Those 

16 interfaces must adapt as those services and standards evolve during the lifecycle of the system.

17 Data Architects, working with the relevant Data Owners, must ensure that data is accurately 

18 tagged in such a way that access control may be maintained over it. An effective access control 

19 capability must know certain things about each piece of data, such as its sensitivity, releaseability, 

20 or copyright restrictions. These requirements must be incorporated into a data tagging 

21 methodology, in alignment with relevant data standards, and built into the system.

22 System owners must work to balance safeguarding and sharing through appropriate risk 

23 management measures, applying IdAM’s safeguarding capabilities close to their data and system

24 while additionally leveraging those employed by the fabric, network, or environment as a whole.

25 The security concept for the system should reflect that environment, using the security of the 

26 surrounding environment to complement the local system security to provide defense in depth.

27 Network-wide security measures are necessary supporting elements of security, but are not 

28 sufficient on their own to satisfy modern information safeguarding needs.

29 Significant stakeholders in IdAM are diverse and include Data and Mission Owners, Program and 

30 Project Managers, System Owners, Enterprise Architects, Information Assurance, and even 

31 Procurement personnel.

32 • Data and Mission Owners – are responsible for determining, in plain English, the 

33 access control policies for the data they maintain stewardship over. Does their data 

34 require users to be from a certain part of the organization? Perhaps have a certain 

35 security clearance or have taken certain training? Can their information be accessed 

36 by others outside of their Department or Agency? Under what circumstances?
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

102

1 ◦ These policies must be developed in coordination with, and often approved by, 

2 some sort of Governance or Oversight body that often includes General Counsel, 

3 the Privacy Office, and others involved in legal and regulatory activities.

4 • Program and Project Managers – are responsible for ensuring the system lifecycle, 

5 beginning with the requirements definition through the design and 

6 implementation, incorporates the capabilities necessary to meet IdAM and Security 

7 requirements for their systems and ensuring that the funding for such capabilities is 

8 provided for in the system budget planning.

9 • System Owners – are responsible for ensuring that their systems implement the 

10 access control policies defined by Data Owners, as well as for ensuring that their 

11 systems implement only the FICAM Service Types that can’t be shared.

12 ◦ The FICAM Roadmap lists the following service types: Digital Identity, 

13 Credentialing, Privilege Management, Authentication, Authorization and Access, 

14 Cryptography, and Auditing and Reporting.

15 ◦ A system owner should generally not need to address Digital Identity or 

16 Credentialing, as those service types can generally be implemented at the 

17 organizational level and shared. System owners may need to incorporate pieces 

18 and parts of Privilege Management, Authorization and Access, Auditing and 

19 Reporting, and aspects of both Authentication and Cryptography into their 

20 system lifecycle.

21 • Enterprise Architects – are responsible for ensuring that shared IdAM-related 

22 services are known about and, where appropriate, re-used. Does an in-progress 

23 project truly need to have all of its own internal IdAM services? Can it re-use an 

24 existing enterprise service?

25 • Information Assurance Personnel – are responsible for ensuring that IdAM is 

26 implemented properly, when a shared service is first constructed, when it is re27 used, and when a system builds its own internal capabilities.

28 • Procurement Personnel – are responsible for ensuring that IT procurements 

29 incorporate the right standards, allowing a system to leverage a shared IdAM 

30 service. These personnel are also responsible for ensuring that requests for 

31 proposal indicate the desired re-use.

32 System owners should focus on the IdAM service types inherent to their system, and should 

33 leverage reusable services where applicable. Certain FICAM Service Components may be provided 

34 by enterprise capabilities (e.g., cryptography for classified communications security) or by shared 

35 capabilities (e.g., shared PKI services), and implementers should examine each of the FICAM 

36 Service Components, taking into account the security domain on which they operate, to 

37 determine which should be reused and which should be built within their system. This “focus on 
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

103

1 the system” approach allows the system owner to protect their systems, and data, more robustly 

2 than either the traditional perimeter network defense model or a situation where the 

3 implementer must account for all FICAM Service Components on their own.

4 7.4 STAKEHOLDER PERFORMANCE GUIDE: 

5 SECURITY AND IDAM

6 It is the responsibility of the geospatial system investment owner (both existing and pending), to

7 understand and ensure compliance with information security policy and individual agency 

8 practices. Information security considerations must occur prior to the procurement and 

9 implementation phases of the System Development Life Cycle (SDLC). Security controls, policy, 

10 and processes must be built into the SDLC for information security to be implemented 

11 successfully and cost-effectively. Each organization should have a mechanism by which risk and 

12 security concerns inform the design and implementation of systems and applications, to avoid 

13 creating cost and schedule impacts due to security requirements being added at the operations 

14 and maintenance stage of the SDLC. The continuous assessment of risk and the effectiveness of 

controls are required throughout the entire lifecycle of the IT system.138 15 Table 7-1 provides an 

16 overview ok key security activities that must occur at each phase of the SDLC.

Table 7-1. Key Security Activities by SDLC Phase139 17

SDLC PHASE KEY SECURITY ACTIVITIES FOR THIS PHASE INCLUDE:

Initiation Initial delineation of business requirements in terms of confidentiality, integrity, and availability:

• Determine information categorization and identification of known special handling 

requirements to transmit, store, or create information such as personally identifiable 

information

• Determine any privacy requirements

• Early planning and awareness will result in cost and timesaving through proper risk 

management planning. Security discussions should be performed as a part of (not 

separately from) the development project to ensure solid understanding among project 

personnel of business decisions and their implications to the overall development project.

Development/ 

Acquisition

Conduct the risk assessment and use the results to supplement the baseline security controls:

• Analyze security requirements

• Perform functional and security testing

• Prepare initial documents for system authorization and accreditation

• Design security architecture

Implementation/ 

Assessment

Integrate the information system into its environment:

• Plan and conduct system certification activities in synchronization with testing of security 

controls

• Complete system accreditation activities

Operations and Manage the configuration of the system:

 

138 Office of Management and Budget, Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework, Version 2, January 29, 2013, available at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/e-gov/fea

139 National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST Special Publication 800-64 Revision 2, Security Considerations in the System 

Development Life Cycle, October 2008. http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-64-Rev2/SP800-64-Revision2.pdf
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

104

SDLC PHASE KEY SECURITY ACTIVITIES FOR THIS PHASE INCLUDE:

Maintenance • Institute processes and procedures for assured operations and continuous monitoring of 

the information system’s security controls

• Perform reauthorization as required

Disposal Build and execute a Disposal/Transition Plan:

• Archive critical information

• Sanitize media

• Dispose of hardware and software

1 The Performance Guidance (Table 7-2) provides a summation of the key decision points to 

2 facilitate the awareness and understanding of the roles and responsibilities of geospatial 

3 investment owners for security considerations.

4 Table 7-2. Stakeholder Performance Guide: Security

STAKEHOLDER PERFORMANCE GUIDE

CHAPTER 7 – SECURITY

Role Responsibility Approach Benefit
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

105

STAKEHOLDER PERFORMANCE GUIDE

CHAPTER 7 – SECURITY

Role Responsibility Approach Benefit Executive Leadership

• Identify appropriate access 

policy for system data 

necessary to ensure 

responsible information 

sharing according to 

mission need.

• Ensure risk management 

function for the 

organization is established 

and applies repeatable, 

consistent evaluation 

criterion.

• Embrace the use of 

reusable, shared services 

for IdAM and security 

capabilities within the 

agency, and ensure 

Enterprise Architecture 

provides for adoption of 

federal shared services, 

particularly IdAM and 

security services, as they 

become available.

• Empower organizational 

enterprise architect to 

direct the inclusion of 

relevant IdAM and security 

standards in organizational 

IT acquisition actions by 

holding systems 

accountable for EA 

compliance.

• Understand Policy Requirements:

◦ Mission need for system 

information security

◦ Business processes that 

incorporate the system 

information

◦ Severity of risk of unauthorized 

disclosure

• Risk management function should be 

staffed sufficiently and empowered 

to reconcile interests of stakeholders. 

Clear risk management criteria 

formed with input from all relevant 

stakeholders (security, privacy, 

CR/CL, mission owners).

• Designate organizational Executive 

Agents responsible for implementing 

IdAM and Security EA and policy. 

Responsible for:

◦ Organization. EAs represent 

organization at relevant 

intergovernmental committees, 

governance bodies, and WGs.

◦ Develop acquisition strategy that 

requires transition of solutions to 

repeatable shared services.

• EA functions include:

◦ Organizational process for 

approval of systems to ensure EA 

for IdAM and Security (services 

and standards). If compliance not 

currently feasible, POA&Ms to be 

required.

◦ Engage organizational acquisitions 

and procurement functions to 

ensure contractual commitments 

and acquisitions are consistent 

with IdAM and Security EA and 

implementation plans.

◦ Recommend restriction of funding 

of noncompliant systems.

• A clear statement of information 

sharing policy can be vetted 

through the relevant stakeholders 

and then digitally implemented 

within mission systems to 

efficiently execute the mission.

• Provides consistent feedback that 

can be incorporated for system 

design and avoids delays from 

inability to plan due to ambiguous 

guidance or interference from 

dissatisfied stakeholders.

• Assist in complying with Federal 

policy guidance and drives cost 

efficiencies through shared, 

common services.

• Ensures that system planning 

incorporates appropriate guidance 

from an early stage to avoid delays 

or wasted expenditures resulting 

from noncompliant system 

architecture.

• Incorporating EA function into 

organizational approval process 

provides enforcement mechanism 

for EA compliance at an early 

stage, when noncompliance can 

be more easily mitigated.
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

106

STAKEHOLDER PERFORMANCE GUIDE

CHAPTER 7 – SECURITY

Role Responsibility Approach Benefit Program Manager

• Ensure access policy 

requirements for the 

system information are 

included in system 

acquisition, tech refresh 

actions, and system 

engineering lifecycle.

• Ensure 

compliance/evaluation/ 

approval of the system in 

accordance with the 

organizational risk 

management framework.

• Ensure requirements for 

relevant IdAM 

requirements are included 

in procurement language.

• Identify access policy rules that have 

been enumerated for information 

contained in the system.

• Program Manager actively engages 

with relevant governance bodies 

from system planning phase onward

(see Table 7-1).

◦ Give EA organization visibility into 

each phase of system lifecycle.

◦ EA communicates emerging 

requirements to Program 

Managers.

• Draft and include approved guidance 

with system acquisition, tech refresh 

actions, and system engineering 

lifecycle documentation.

• Assist in complying with Federal 

policy guidance and drives cost 

efficiencies through shared, 

common services.

• Assists in CPIC reporting 

requirements and drives early 

security awareness and 

compliance resulting in cost 

savings.

• Assists in CPIC reporting 

requirements and drives early 

security awareness and 

compliance resulting in cost 

savings.

Solution Architect

• Ensure solution roadmap 

aligns with FICAM 

Roadmap.

• Ensure solution meets 

requirements of 

organizational risk 

management framework.

• Implement solution that is 

compliant with EA model 

for IdAM and security as 

well as organizational 

FICAM implementation 

plans.

• Implement solution with 

sufficient interfaces to take 

advantage of enterprise 

IdAM and security services.

• Detail functionality for currently 

available capabilities and provide 

POA&Ms demonstrating alignment 

for future capabilities.

• Clear system with risk management 

function during planning stage. If 

system is operational, coordinate 

roadmap to satisfy RM function.

• Solution is described in terms of 

functional and technical 

requirements, which are mapped to 

service types and components of the 

relevant EA model.

• Interfaces are defined sufficiently to 

show interoperability of system with 

repeatable shared services and 

standards.

• Ensures flexibility and adaptability 

of systems to incorporate 

upcoming capabilities.

• Expedites development by 

coordinating risk management 

requirements into system planning 

and design phase rather than 

waiting for approval after build is 

complete.

• Ensures that solutions are 

engineered or selected to meet all 

relevant requirements from the 

planning and design phase.

• Ensures that the solution is 

designed and sufficiently 

technically implemented to 

provide flexibility to interoperate 

with emerging IdAM and security 

capabilities without the need for 

extensive re-engineering.

1

2
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

107

1 8 STANDARDS-BASED 

2 INTEROPERABILITY

3 8.1 INTRODUCTION

4 Definition/Description (What) – is an operational requirement needed to achieve the maximum 

5 benefit for geospatial systems investment resulting in increased access to and sharing of 

6 functional capabilities for applications, services, data, and infrastructure to meet mission/business 

7 requirements.

8 Purpose/Function (Why) – to serve as a reference guide to an organization in the preparation of 

9 documentation for the procurement and/or development of geospatial systems and services.

10 Organizations and enterprise architectures will benefit from standards-based acquisitions and 

11 deployment of industry accepted interoperability solutions and technologies to meet their 

12 mission/business functions.

13 Stakeholder Performance Guide (Who & How) – Program Managers responsible for geospatial 

14 system and services acquisition and development of procurement language for solicitations and 

15 support services. Solution Architects for identifying, understanding and implementing systems 

16 and services using industry open standards.

17 8.2 STANDARDS-BASED INTEROPERABILITY: 

18 APPROACH

19 The requirement for Federal Agencies to implement the Federal Information Technology Shared 

Services Strategy140 20 and to make “Shared-First” their default approach to IT service planning and 

21 delivery, will require a standards-based approach for implementation. To access and use 

22 geospatial Applications/Services (Chapter 5) and leverage existing Infrastructure investments 

23 (Chapter 6), the geospatial investment owner must identify and implement industry open 

24 standards and best practices to derive mission value.

The Common Approach to Federal Enterprise Architecture141 25 states that, “services should be 

26 standardized within and between agencies where possible,” and has as one of its General 

27 Principles, criteria against which potential investment and architectural decisions are weighed, to 

28 include:

 

140 Federal Information Technology Shared Services Strategy, OMB, May 2, 2012 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/egov_docs/shared_services_strategy.pdf

141 http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/egov_docs/common_approach_to_federal_ea.pdf
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

108

1 Interoperability Standards: Federal EA promotes intra- and inter-agency 

2 standards for aligning strategic direction with business activities and technology 

3 enablement. Agencies should ensure that EA solutions conform to Federal-wide 

4 standards whenever possible.

5 The Standards-based Interoperability Chapter will focus upon identifying sources for open 

6 standards that could/should be used in the development of standards-based acquisition. The 

7 chapter will not:

8 • Provide a definitive list or procurement-ready language for geospatial standards 

9 required for systems and/or services,

10 • Include an exhaustive list of all geospatial standards in use or planned by Standards 

11 Development Organizations (SDOs),

12 • Describe the SDO’s standards consensus and adoption process, or

13 • Provide a technical explanation of standards or how to implement them.

14 8.3 STANDARDS VALUE PROPOSITION

15 “The value of a [geospatial service] component increases in proportion to the 

number of places it can be used.”

142, 143, 144 16

17 Geospatial service components are a self-contained process, service, or IT capability with pre18 determined functionality that may be exposed through a business or technology interface. These 

19 components or “building blocks” when built in compliance with industry standard practices and 

20 technologies are more likely to integrate efficiently into a multi-agency information sharing and 

21 processing environment. Components based upon on a standard such as GML or NIEM will result 

22 in greater interoperability since a consortium of organizations have “pre-agreed” to adhere to the 

23 standard. Common standards also help ensure a compatible execution environment, which in 

turn benefit implementation.145 24

25 There have been numerous citations as to the value of standards across Information Technology 

26 in the areas of Enterprise Architecture and geospatial. The United Nation Economic and Social 

27 Council’s Committee of Experts on Global Geospatial Information Management (UN-GGIM) 

 

142 Federal Enterprise Architecture Geospatial Profile, Version 1.1, January 27, 2006. (no longer available)

143 NASA Geospatial Standards Study, http://www.ec-gis.org/sdi/ws/costbenefit2006/reference/ROI_Study.pdf. 

144 German DIN Study on the economic value of standards. http://www.din.de/cmd?level=tplartikel&languageid=en&cmstextid=145918 

145 Ibid.
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

109

1 prepared a Report of the Secretariat on the “Establishment and implementation of standards for 

the global geospatial information community.”

146 2 The findings of the report identified that:

3 “Standardization, the process of developing and implementing technical 

4 standards, brings uniformity, compatibility and interoperability to millions of 

5 processes, devices, and applications in all sectors of a global economy. This 

6 reliance on standards is just as relevant in the geospatial sector, where having 

7 the right standard-setting procedures and interoperability rules in place create 

8 the means for geospatial information, devices, applications, data repositories, 

9 services and networks to all communicate as one.”

10 The report finds that:

11 “Standardization is a key aspect to enhancing the integration processes of 

12 geospatial information into daily decision-making at all levels of society. 

13 Geospatial information, spatial data infrastructures and geospatial web services 

14 are now widely accessible, shared and reused in many contexts primarily 

15 because geospatial information, systems, and services are interoperable—that is, 

16 able to be integrated and shared. Standardization has contributed significantly to 

17 the evolution and development of the interoperability of geospatial information 

18 and services.”

The Principles for Federal Engagement in Standards Activities to Address National Priorities,

147 19

20 authored by the Office of Management and Budget, U.S. Trade Representative and Office of 

21 Science and Technology Policy, finds that:

22 “The vibrancy and effectiveness of the U.S. standards system in enabling 

23 innovation depend on continued private sector leadership and engagement. Most 

24 standards developed and used in U.S. markets are created with little or no 

25 government involvement. This approach—reliance on private sector leadership, 

26 supplemented by Federal Government contributions to discrete standardization 

27 processes as outlined in OMB Circular A-119, “Federal Participation in the 

28 Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity 

Assessment Activities 29 148—remains the primary strategy for government 

30 engagement in standards development. Consistent with the Administration’s 

 

146 United Nation Economic and Social Council, 14 June 2013, Committee of Experts on Global Geospatial Information Management.

http://ggim.un.org/docs/meetings/3rd%20UNCE/E-C20-2013-8-Setting%20Geospatial%20Standards%20Report.pdf

147 http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2012/m-12-08.pdf

148 http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a119/
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

110

1 commitment to openness, transparency, and multi-stakeholder engagement, all 

2 standards activities should involve the private sector.”

3 8.4 STANDARDS VIEW: OPEN STANDARDS VS. 

OPEN SOURCE149 4

5 Confusion in the understanding and use of the terms “Open Standards” and “Open Source”

6 resulted in the development of a White Paper prepared collaboratively by the Open Geospatial 

7 Consortium (OGC) and the Open Source Geospatial Foundation (OSGeo) to describe how they 

8 relate and how they are different.

9 8.4.1OPEN STANDARDS

10 Communication means “transmitting or exchanging through a common system of symbols, signs 

11 or behavior.” Standards are a pre-requisite for communication, because standardization means 

12 “agreeing on a common system.” Geospatial software vendors, developers, and users collaborate 

13 in the OGC’s voluntary consensus standards process to develop and agree on standards that 

14 enable information systems to exchange geospatial information and instructions for 

15 geoprocessing. The result of these efforts are Open Standards. The OGC defines Open Standards 

16 as standards that are:

17 1. Freely and publicly available – They are available free of charge and unencumbered by 

18 patents and other intellectual property.

19 2. Non-discriminatory – They are available to anyone, any organization, anytime, anywhere 

20 with no restrictions.

21 3. No license fees – There are no charges at any time for their use.

22 4. Vendor neutral – They are vendor neutral in terms of their content and implementation 

23 concept and do not favor any vendor over another.

24 5. Data neutral – The standards are independent of any data storage model or format.

25 6. Defined, documented, and approved, by a formal member driven consensus process. The 

26 consensus group remains in charge of changes and no single entity controls the standard.

27 The OGC’s Open Standards are specifications for interfaces and encodings that enable 

28 interoperability between geoprocessing systems from different developers, whether employed by 

29 proprietary product vendors, independent integrators, application developers, or active in Open 

30 Source projects.

 

149 Much of the information in this section is taken directly from the Open Source Geospatial Foundation (OSGeo) Wiki. The content of 

this section is taken from an article that is a white paper (Open Source and Open Standards, May 5, 2011) jointly published by the 

Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) and OSGeo. The article is available at 

http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Open_Source_and_Open_Standards.
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

111

1 A standard is like a blueprint that guides people who build things. A standard documents the use 

2 of rules, conditions, guidelines or characteristics for products or related processes and production 

3 methods. Standards can arise from a single company whose successful products become “de 

4 facto” standards. Standards may also be set by agreement among two or more software 

5 producers, by government edict, a government-run process, or by representatives from multiple 

6 governments. OMB Circular A-119 directs Federal agencies to use voluntary consensus standards 

7 in lieu of government-unique standards except where inconsistent with law or otherwise 

8 impractical. Alternatively, standards can be developed, as in ISO or the OGC, through a voluntary 

9 consensus process governed by well-defined policies and procedures. These standards are agreed 

10 upon by the participants in the consensus process.

11 The OGC’s Open Standards are free, publicly available specifications for interfaces, encodings and 

12 best practices. They are not software.

13 8.4.2OPEN SOURCE

14 Open Source encompasses two related concepts regarding the way software is developed and 

15 licensed. They are codified in the “Free Software” and the “Open Source” definitions. “Free and 

16 Open Source Software” refers to software which has been made available under a free software 

17 license with the rights to run the program for any purpose, to study how the program works, to 

18 adapt it, and to redistribute copies, including modifications. These freedoms enable Open Source 

19 software development, a public, collaborative model that promotes early publishing and frequent 

releases. The Open Source Initiative150 20 has developed a set of 10 requirements of any software 

21 license that is to be considered an Open Source license.

22 Open source doesn’t just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source 

23 software must comply with the following criteria from the Open Source Definition

24 (http://opensource.org/osd ):

25 1. Free Redistribution – The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away 

26 the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs 

27 from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such 

28 sale.

29 2. Source Code – The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in 

30 source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed 

31 with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for 

32 no more than a reasonable reproduction cost preferably, downloading via the Internet 

33 without charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer 

 

150 http://opensource.org/
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

112

1 would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. 

2 Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed.

3 3. Derived Works – The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow 

4 them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.

5 4. Integrity of the Author’s Source Code – The license may restrict source-code from being 

6 distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of “patch files” with 

7 the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The license must 

8 explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. The license may 

9 require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original 

10 software.

11 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups – The license must not discriminate against 

12 any person or group of persons.

13 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor – The license must not restrict anyone from 

14 making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict 

15 the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

16 7. Distribution of License – The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom 

17 the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by 

18 those parties.

19 8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product – The rights attached to the program must not 

20 depend on the program’s being part of a particular software distribution. If the program is 

21 extracted from that distribution and used or distributed within the terms of the program’s 

22 license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed should have the same rights as 

23 those that are granted in conjunction with the original software distribution.

24 9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software – The license must not place restrictions on 

25 other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the 

26 license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be 

27 open-source software.

28 10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral – No provision of the license may be predicated on 

29 any individual technology or style of interface.

30 It is sometimes helpful to understand that Open Source is a matter of liberty, not price. To this 

end, the Free Software Foundation151 31 says that you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not 

32 as in “free beer.” It means that the program’s users have the four essential freedoms

33 (https://gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html):

34 1. The freedom to run the program, for any purpose.

 

151 http://www.fsf.org/
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

113

1 2. The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish. 

2 Access to the source code (Open Source) is a precondition for this.

3 3. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor.

4 4. The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others.

5 These freedoms are the prerequisites to Open Source software development.

The Federal Shared Service Implementation Guide152 6 suggests, “When adopting a new shared 

7 service, determine whether a proprietary-based or open standards-based solution should be 

8 purchased. While it may be difficult in some situations to obtain an open standards-based 

9 solution, Customer/Partner Agencies should be aware that open standards increase their agility in 

10 moving to other providers. Open standard and constructs such as XML [Extensible Markup 

11 Language], or open source software, provide levels of agility that help agencies make shared 

12 services implementations more agile.”

13 8.5 STANDARDS GOVERNANCE

The Federal Open Data Policy153 14 requires agencies to collect or create information in a way that 

15 supports downstream information processing and dissemination activities. This includes using 

16 machine-readable and open formats, data standards, and common core and extensible metadata 

17 for all new information creation and collection efforts.

OMB Circular A-119154 18 for Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary 

19 Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities directs agencies to use voluntary 

20 consensus standards in lieu of government-unique standards except where inconsistent with law 

21 or otherwise impractical. It also provides guidance to agencies on participation in the 

22 development of voluntary consensus standards, and articulates policies relating to the use of 

23 standards by Federal agencies.

24 The Federal Open Data Policy directs agencies to follow OMB Circular A-119 in the development, 

25 maintenance, and use of standards and specifications that are developed through an open, 

26 collaborative, and transparent process that is defined by the following attributes:

27 • Openness

28 • Balance of interest

 

152 CIO Council Federal Shared Services Implementation Guide, April 16, 2013. Available at 

https://cio.gov/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2013/04/CIOC-Federal-Shared-Services-Implementation-Guide.pdf

153 Office of Management and Budget, Memorandum M-13-13, Open Data Policy – Managing Information as an Asset, May 9, 2013. 

Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2013/m-13-13.pdf

154 http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a119
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

114

1 • Due process

2 • An appeals process

3 • Consensus

4 The National Science and Technology Council’s Subcommittee of Standards developed proposed 

5 policy recommendations as Principles for Federal Engagement in Standards Activities to Address 

National Priorities,

155 6 for government engagement in private-sector standards development 

7 activities. The report outlines policy recommendations for the government involvement in the 

8 standards development activities to include:

9 1. Recognize that in most government-private-sector standards engagements, the primary 

10 role of the government will continue to be that of active contributor to the private-sector11 led process.

12 2. Identify the context(s) where Federal government leadership/coordination may be 

13 appropriate.

14 3. Outline objectives for government engagement in standardization activities to support 

15 national priorities.

16 4. Effective coordination and participation by agencies.

17 5. Clarify agency responsibilities with respect to the full range of standards setting 

18 alternatives.

19 6. Lay out key principles underpinning voluntary standardization processes.

20 A limited set of foundational attributes of standardization activities are called out in OMB Circular 

21 A-119, focusing on voluntary, consensus standards activities. It is important to recognize as well 

22 the contributions of standardization activities that take place outside of the formal voluntary, 

23 consensus process, particularly in emerging technology areas. The following additional attributes 

24 should also be considered, to maximize the impact of those activities on enabling innovation and 

25 fostering competition, while also assuring fulfillment of agency regulatory, procurement, and 

26 policy missions:

27 • Transparency: essential information regarding standardization activities is 

28 accessible to all interested parties.

29 • Open Participation: all interested or affected parties have an opportunity to 

30 participate in the development of a standard, with no undue financial barriers to 

31 participation.

32 • Flexibility: different product and services sectors rely on different methodologies 

33 for standards development that meets their needs.

 

155 http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/federal_engagement_in_standards_activities_october12-final.pdf
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

115

1 • Effectiveness and Relevance: standards are developed in response to regulatory, 

2 procurement and policy needs, and take account of market needs and practices as 

3 well as scientific and technological developments.

4 • Coherence: the process avoids overlapping and conflicting standards.

5 • International Acceptance: as product and service solutions cross borders, the public 

6 and private sectors are best served by standards that are international in scope and 

7 applicability.

8 • Net Benefit: standards used to meet regulatory and procurement needs should 

9 maximize net benefits of the use of such standards.

10 8.5.1GEOSPATIAL STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT 

11 ORGANIZATIONS

12 The pace at which organizations develop and deploy geospatial information technology 

13 applications and services exceeds the ability of Standards Development Organizations (SDOs) to 

14 prepare consensus-based standards to help guide their implementation. There are a number of 

15 [geospatial] SDOs that play a pivotal role in advancing location-based interoperability standards.

16 Readers are encouraged to review (and participate where possible) the standards, specifications, 

17 and best practices documentation these organizations have developed and continue to enhance. 

18 This section, although not comprehensive, provides a brief description and links to many of the 

19 geospatial SDOs and their efforts:

20 • International Organization for Standardization, Technical Committee on 

Geographic Information/Geomatics (ISO/TC211)156 21 – Responsible for the ISO 

22 geographic information series of standards. These standards may specify, for 

23 geographic information, methods, tools and services for data management 

24 (including definition and description), acquiring, processing, analyzing, accessing, 

25 presenting, and transferring such data in digital/electronic form between different 

26 users, systems and locations. As of July 2014, ISO/TC211 has published 64 standards 

related to digital geographic information.157 27

28 • International Committee for Information Technology Standards (INCITS), technical 

committee L1 on Geographic Information Systems158 29 – Work consists of adopting 

30 or adapting information technology standards and developing digital geographic 

31 data standards. L1 is the U.S. Technical Advisory Group (TAG) to ISO/TC 211.

 

156http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards_development/list_of_iso_technical_committees/iso_technical_committee.htm?commid=5

4904 

157 http://www.iso.org/iso/en/stdsdevelopment/tc/tclist/TechnicalCommitteeDetailPage.TechnicalCommitteeDetail?COMMID=4637

158 http://standards.incits.org/a/public/group/l1
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

116

• Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC®)159 1 – The OGC is an international voluntary 

2 standards organization focused on defining, testing, and maintaining standards that 

3 enable geodata discovery, sharing, integration, viewing, and processing across 

4 different technologies and vendor products, the web and wireless networks. The 

5 OGC is an open membership organization. The OGC offers a range of membership 

6 options for industry, government, academic, research and not-for-profit 

7 organizations interested in supporting the Consortium’s global mission (see 

8 http://www.opengeospatial.org/ogc/join/levels). There are nearly 500 member 

9 organizations representing private sector GIS companies, commercial open source 

10 organizations, government, NGOs, universities, research organizations and system 

11 integrators.

• United States Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC)160 12 – Established by the 

13 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Circular A-16, Coordination of 

14 Geographic Information and Related Spatial Data Activities, the FGDC is a 32 

15 member interagency committee that promotes the coordinated development, use, 

16 sharing, and dissemination of geospatial data on a national basis known as the 

17 National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI). The FGDC develops geospatial data 

18 standards for implementing the NSDI, in consultation and cooperation with state, 

19 local, and tribal governments, the private sector and academic community, and, to 

20 the extent feasible, the international community. The FGDC develops geospatial 

21 data standards only when no equivalent voluntary consensus standards exist, in 

22 accordance with OMB Circular A-119.

• Geospatial Intelligence Standards Working Group (GWG)161 23 – The GWG is a

24 National System for Geospatial-Intelligence (NSG) forum that serves the Director, 

25 National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) and the NGA Chief Information 

26 Officer who is the delegated functional manager for geospatial intelligence 

27 (GEOINT) architecture and standards. The GWG provides the forum for the 

28 coordination of GEOINT standard activities where Core members are responsible 

29 for reviewing current or emerging standards, coordinating advice with their 

30 agency’s technical and acquisition experts, and reporting in GWG meetings their 

31 agency’s position on the standards. The GWG is led and chaired by the NGA’s 

32 National Center for Geospatial Intelligence Standards (NCGIS).

33 o In addition to its designation as an NSG Functional Management forum, the 

34 GWG is a Joint Technical Working Group that participates in both the DoD and 

35 IC standards governance processes. In the DoD, the GWG votes and manages 

36 GEOINT standards lifecycle recommendations reported to the Information 

 

159 http://www.opengeospatial.org

160 http://www.fgdc.gov/standards

161 http://www.gwg.nga.mil/index.php
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

117

1 Technology Standards Committee (ITSC), the governing group responsible for 

2 developing and promoting standards interoperability in support of net3 centricity within the Department of Defense (DoD). GWG recommendations 

4 for mandating standards for the DoD are approved by the DoD Architecture 

5 and Standards Review Group (ASRG). Approved GEOINT standards are then 

6 cited in the DoD Information Technology (IT) Standards Registry (DISR), 

7 helping to create a centralized database to better enable the discovery, 

8 access, integration, dissemination, exploitation, and interoperability of 

9 GEOINT.

• Defence Geospatial Information Working Group (DGIWG)162 10 – DGIWG is the multi11 national body responsible for geospatial standardization for the defense 

12 organizations of member nations. DGIWG develops and maintains a suite of digital 

13 geospatial information (DGI) standards that foster the interchange, access, and use 

14 of geographic information between the defense organizations of member nations. 

15 DGIWG has been established under a memorandum of understanding between 

16 member nations, and addresses the requirements for these nations to have access 

17 to compatible geospatial information for joint operations. The DGIWG geospatial 

18 standards are built upon the generic and abstract standards for geographic 

19 information defined by the International Organization for Standardization 

20 (ISO TC/211) and makes use of the service specifications endorsed by the Open 

21 Geospatial Consortium (OGC). DGIWG defines information components for use in 

22 the development of product specifications and application schemas for military 

23 geospatial data. DGIWG also establishes service specifications, encoding formats,

24 and testing methodologies to meet military geospatial intelligence requirements.

25 8.6 STANDARDS-BASED ACQUISITION GUIDANCE: 

26 REFERENCE SOURCES

27 Geospatial standards-based acquisition guidance in the form of procurement 

28 language and ‘boiler plate’ templates does not readily exist across the 

29 community.

30 While the value of standards are clear, one of the challenges facing standardization is the 

31 combination of rapid advancements in Information Technology; the evolution of location-based 

32 applications/services as geospatial commodities; the pace of standards development keeping up 

33 with technology; and the pace of the government procurement process requiring the inclusion of 

34 standards in contracts.

 

162 http://www.dgiwg.org/dgiwg/
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

118

1 Because of the dynamic nature of these challenges, standards-based acquisition guidance is not 

2 readily available or maintained and adopted for use in geospatial investments. Several attempts 

3 to identify ‘base-line’ or ‘essential’ geospatial standards that could be included in scopes of work 

4 or procurement compliance language are identified in lieu of an authoritative or consensus-driven 

5 guide or template. The following reference documentation have been developed over the past 

6 decade and are provided in a general sequence from oldest to most recent, although some are 

7 continuing to be maintained.

8 8.6.1A GEOSPATIAL INTEROPERABILITY REFERENCE 

9 MODEL

10 The Federal Geographic Data Committee’s (FGDC) Geospatial Applications and Interoperability 

11 (GAI) Working Group (now inactive) released the Geospatial Interoperability Reference Model 

(GIRM)163 12 in December 2003.

13 “The document references standards and specifications needed for

14 interoperability among distributed geospatial services accessible over the 

15 Internet. It describes and explains them within a structured model of geospatial 

16 processing, as they apply to the design of geospatial software and services, to 

17 guide the reader to the most relevant standards for a given design, policy, or 

18 procurement ... [GIRM] is intended not as a rigid definition of standards to be 

19 implemented, but rather as a consultative tool to help decision makers define 

20 what standards apply to a given set of activities, technologies, or organizations, 

21 to facilitate interoperable geoprocessing.”

22 8.6.2GEOSPATIAL PROFILE OF THE FEDERAL 

23 ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE, VERSION 2.0

The Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA) Geospatial Profile164 24 document created in 2009 was 

25 released by the Architecture and Infrastructure Committee, Federal Chief Information Officers 

26 Council and the Federal Geographic Data Committee. Like its predecessor, the document included 

27 an Appendix of Geospatial Standards and Extended TRM that made limited reference to “Relevant 

28 Standards” for categories of service platform and infrastructure, component framework, and 

29 service interface and integration levels.

 

163 http://www.fgdc.gov/standards/organization/GIRM

164 http://www.fgdc.gov/initiatives/resources/geospatial-profile-of-the-FEA-v2-march-2009.pdf
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

119

1 8.6.3FEDERAL GEOSPATIAL ARCHITECTURE GUIDANCE, 

VERSION 1.0165 2

3 The FGDC, in support of the Federal Chief Information Council, developed the Segment 

Architecture Analysis of the Geospatial Platform166 4 as a guidance document to improve the design 

5 and deployment of geospatial capabilities. Appendix D: Geospatial Standards and Extended TRM 

6 describes a number of specialized systems and standards at the service platform and 

7 infrastructure, component framework, and service interface/integration levels.

8 8.6.4FEDERAL GEOGRAPHIC DATA COMMITTEE 

9 ENDORSED STANDARDS

10 The FGDC Standards Working Group (SWG) actively promotes and coordinates FGDC standards 

11 activities. The SWG provides guidance on FGDC standards policy and procedures, facilitates 

12 coordination between subcommittees having overlapping standards activities, and reviews and 

13 makes recommendations on the approval of standards proposals, draft standards for public 

14 review, and draft standards for FGDC endorsement. The SWG has advanced 27 standards

developed within the FGDC167 15 to FGDC endorsement at the time of this draft document.

16 8.6.5FEDERAL GEOGRAPHIC DATA COMMITTEE 

17 ENDORSED EXTERNAL STANDARDS

18 The FGDC Steering Committee has officially endorsed over 60 non-Federally authored standards 

that play an important role in enabling geospatial interoperability.168 19 The standards include 

20 standards from Open Geospatial Consortium; ISO Technical Committee 211, Geographic 

21 information/Geomatics; the American National Standards Institute (through International 

22 Committee for Information Technology Standards Technical Committee L1, Geographic 

23 information systems) and de facto standards.

24 The FGDC Steering Committee endorsed these standards in accordance with the FGDC Policy on 

25 Recognition of Non-Federally Authored Geographic Information Standards and Specification. The 

26 standards were identified, reviewed and endorsed by the FGDC Steering Committee.

27 The list comprises a broad range of geospatial standards that include: Reference and Abstract 

28 Standards, Common Encoding Standards, Common Service Standards and Content/Code 

29 Standards. The FGDC maintains the standards list.

 

165 The information in this section is taken from the Segment Architecture Analysis of the Geospatial Platform, Version 1.0, 

May 14, 2010.

166 http://www.fgdc.gov/geospatial-lob/draft-segment-architecture-review/Segment-Architecture-Analysis-of-the/view

167 http://www.fgdc.gov/standards/projects/FGDC-standards-projects/fgdc-endorsed-standards

168 http://www.fgdc.gov/fgdc-news/fgdc-endorses-64-external-standards
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

120

1 The FGDC maintains a standards tracking spreadsheet that tracks over 200 standards from FGDC, 

2 INCITS L1, ISO/TC 211, OGC, GWG, and other standards organizations. It has been maintained 

3 continuously for over three years and can be accessed from the FGDC web site at the following: 

4 http://www.fgdc.gov/standards/monthlyStandardsUpdate/index.

5 8.6.6SDI COOKBOOK, GLOBAL SPATIAL DATA 

INFRASTRUCTURE169 6

The Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI) Cookbook170 7 is sponsored by the Global Spatial Data 

8 Infrastructure Association identifies: existing and emerging standards, open-source and 

9 commercial standards-based software solutions, supportive organizational strategies and policies 

10 and best practices. Chapter 10: Standards Suites for Spatial Data Infrastructure has the following

11 Problem Statement of:

12 “SDI initiatives worldwide are implementing a variety of international standards 

13 for data and service discovery, data access, visualization, and analysis. The use 

14 of different combinations and/or versions of these standards limits 

15 interoperability between systems and initiatives. Guidance on best practices and 

16 approaches to solving these interoperability issues is critical to our ability to 

17 define and implement a SDI.

18 This document seeks to answer the following questions:

19 • What standards make up the SDI standards baseline?

20 • Which versions of core standards should be cited in the SDI standards 

21 baseline?

22 • What tests shall be performed to make sure that software is compliant with 

23 standards?”

24 The SDI Cookbook notes that geospatial specific standards may be dependent upon other 

25 foundational standards. The SDI Cookbook estimates that, “well over 75 standards, including 

26 underlying Internet standards, may be relevant to the geospatial domain.” Therefore 

27 procurement language would need to be inclusive of those industry standards for an effective and 

28 interoperable investment.

29 To address the diversity in the number and type of relevant standards, the SDI Cookbook 

30 proposes the establishment of “an SDI standards baseline that allows for the federation of 

 

169 Much of the content in this sub-section is taken directly from the GDSI Wiki site. The Wiki is available at 

http://www.gsdidocs.org/GSDIWiki/index.php/Main_Page

170 http://www.gsdidocs.org/GSDIWiki/index.php/Main_Page
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

121

1 provider-operated services and data to be discovered, visualized, and assessed by Web browsers 

2 and software applications,” based upon criteria for inclusion. The standards baseline is one of the 

3 best examples of a concise listing (e.g., tables) where standards are identified that could be 

4 included within procurement language for geospatial investments. The following tables and 

5 supporting narrative are taken directly from the SDI Cookbook chapter on standards.

6 Table 8-1 lists foundational standards on which geospatial standards may be dependent. Not all of 

7 these standards are required for implementation, but may be required or expected to be present 

8 in a community’s operating environment.

9 Table 8-1. Standards Used in Deployed SDIs

W3C Recommendation: eXtensible Markup Language (XML) Version 1.1

W3C Recommendation: XML Schema Version 1.0

W3C Recommendation: Hyper Text Transport Protocol (HTTP) Version 1.1

W3C Recommendation: Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) Version 1.2

W3C Note: Web Services Description Language (WSDL), Version 1.1

Oil and Gas Producer (OGP, formerly EPSG) Geodetic Parameter Dataset, Version 6.9 (2006)

Geographic Tagged Image File Format (GeoTIFF) Version 1.0

JPEG-2000 (ISO/IEC 15444-1:2004)

Information retrieval (Z39.50)—application service definition and protocol specification (ISO 23950:1998)

W3C XLink 1.1 Schema

10 Table 8-2 through Table 8-4 list core, supplemental, and possible future standards for the SDI 

11 standards baseline.

12 Table 8-2. SDI Core Standards

OGC Web Map Service 1.3

OGC Web Feature Service 2.0/ISO 19142:2010

OGC Filter Encoding 1.1

OGC Web Coverage Service 1.1.2

OGC Geography Markup Language 3.2.1

OGC Catalogue Service 2.0.2 HTTP protocol binding (CS-W)

OGC Catalogue Service 2.0.2 HTTP protocol binding (CS-W) ebRIM and ISO Profiles

ISO 19115:2003 and ISO/TS 19139:2007

OGC KML 2.2

OGC WPS 1.0 + corrigenda

GeoRSS-Simple, GeoRSS GML

13 Table 8-3. SDI Supplemental Standards

OGC Styled Layer Descriptor 1.1

OGC Web Map Context 1.1/Corrigendum 1
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

122

1 Table 8-4. SDI Future Standards

OGC Web Coverage Service 2.0, corrigenda, and KVP, XML/POST, XML/SOAP, and GeoTIFF extensions

OGC GML 3.3

OGC Filter Encoding 2.0

2 The SDI Cookbook is inclusive of contributors from public and private communities and was last 

3 updated on February 21, 2014 at the time of this draft document

8.6.7GEOINT STANDARDS171 4

5 GEOINT standards support specific elements of the National System for Geospatial Intelligence 

6 (NSG) architecture and represent approximately 25% of all the standards relevant to the 

7 architecture. They are formally defined as documented agreements containing technical 

8 specifications or other precise criteria to be used consistently as rules, guidelines, or definitions of 

9 characteristics to ensure that materials, products, processes, or services are fit for the analysis 

10 and visual representation of physical features and geographically referenced activities.

11 GEOINT standards characterize GEOINT data, data constructs, data services, products, and 

12 interfaces. They enable the collection, processing, analysis, and exploitation of GEOINT. They also 

13 govern GEOINT access, dissemination, and storage. The use of common GEOINT standards 

14 reduces the use of multiple and incompatible sets of data and makes it possible to create and 

15 share suitable, accurate, comprehensive, and timely GEOINT.

16 Examples of various types of GEOINT standards are shown in Table 8-5.

17 Table 8-5. Types of GEOINT Standards

TYPES OF GEOINT STANDARDS

• GEOINT metadata

• Still/motion imagery content/format

• Sensor modeling

• Geographic feature encoding

• Feature data dictionaries/catalogs

• Geographic portrayal

• Geospatial referencing

• Information transfer

• Data compression

• GEOINT reporting

• GEOINT product specifications

• GEOINT web services

18

19 As NSG functional manager for GEOINT, the NGA endorsed a suite of web services and other 

20 standards developed by the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC). This suite of OGC standards, 

21 along with other standards adopted into the DoD IT Standards Registry (DISR), comprise the 

22 current NSG GEOINT Standards Baseline. Standards are added to the baseline as they are 

23 matured, approved, and implemented across the NSG. Key standards that compose the NSG 

24 GEOINT Standards Baseline are shown in 

 

171 Much of the content in this sub-section is taken directly from the Geospatial Intelligence Standards Working Group web site and is 

available at http://www.gwg.nga.mil/guide.php
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

123

1 Table 8-6.

2 Table 8-6. GEOINT Standards Baseline

KEY STANDARDS IN THE NSG GEOINT STANDARDS BASELINE

OGC® Standards Other Standards

• Web Features Service (WFS)

• Web Map Service (WMS)

• Web Map Context (WMC)

• Web Coverage Service (WCS)

• Geography Markup language (GML)

• Styled Layer Descriptor (SLD)

• Catalog Services (CS-W)

• Filter Encoding Specification (FE)

• ISO 19115 Geographic Information – Metadata

• ISO 19119 Geographic Information – Services

• ISO/IEC 15444-1:2004 Information Technology – JPEG 2000 

image coding system: Core coding system

• NSG Feature Data Dictionary (NFDD)

• NSG Entity Catalog (NEC)

3 The GEOINT standards that support the NSG architecture come from a variety of private sector 

4 and government standards bodies. Adopted national and international standards are used 

5 whenever feasible in order to reduce reliance on government developed standards. This prevents 

6 the development of unnecessary and costly government standards that may be duplicative of 

7 existing commercial standards.

8 The GEOINT Standards Working Group (GWG) serves as a technical working group under the DoD 

9 Information Technology Standards Committee and recommends the adoption of standards into 

10 the DoD IT Standards Registry (DISR). The GWG governs a total of 128 GEOINT standards and as of 

11 the time of this draft document. The DISR is updated three times each year. The GWG produces a 

12 “Pocket Guide” (see Figure 8-1) that contains all of the IC and DoD GEOINT mandated and 

13 emerging schemas, implementation specifications, and web service standards required for use in 

14 GEOINT development and acquisitions. The pocket guide provides the list of standards and other 

15 additional information like applicability and where/how to acquire the standard.
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

124

1

2 Figure 8-1. GEOINT Standards Pocket Guide

3 8.6.8DEFENCE GEOSPATIAL INFORMATION WORKING 

GROUP (DGIWG) STANDARDS172 4

5 The DGIWG creates and maintain standards and implementation profiles for geospatial web 

6 services which foster the discovery, retrieval, exchange, and use of geospatial data and products. 

7 It addresses the technical issues related to geospatial information services, respective interfaces, 

8 and required formats. The DGIWG geospatial standards are built upon the generic and abstract 

9 standards for geographic information defined by the International Organization for 

10 Standardization (ISO TC/211) and makes use of the service specifications endorsed by the Open 

11 Geospatial Consortium (OGC).

DGIWG released the Web Services Roadmap – 909173 12 as a technology Roadmap for the integration 

13 of new interfaces and services within the DGIWG community. This roadmap has been developed 

14 in order to facilitate current and future planning of DGIWG Web Services activity. DGIWG requires 

15 a Web Service Roadmap that looks three years into the future from the Roadmap completion 

16 (2013 to 2016) for current standards and up to six years to track industry for future research and 

17 development (emerging standards).

18 DGIWG defines Base Services as those that allow users to discover, access, and view data. Base 

19 services can be further defined as:

 

172 The content in this sub-section is taken directly from the Defense Geospatial Information Working Group (DGIWG) web site and 

supporting documents and is available at http://www.dgiwg.org/dgiwg/

173 DGIWG – 909 Web Services Roadmap, 3 October 2013. This document is approved for public release and is available on the DGIWG 

website, http://www.dgiwg.org/dgiwg/htm/documents/committee_enterprise_documents.htm

National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency

Prepared: 23 March 2013

Online Resources:

GEOINT Standards Citations (http://nsgreg.nga.mil/DISR)

NSG Standards Registry (http://nsgreg.nga.mil/)

GWG (GEOINT Standards Working Group) (http://www.gwg.nga.mil/)

DISRonline Registry (https://gtg.csd.disa.mil/)

Citations Summary:

Mandated: 129 Citations (8 New)

Emerging: 31 Citations (6 New)

Information/Guidance: 13 Citations

DISR Baseline Release 13-1.0

GEOINT Standards Pocket Guide

[Baseline established: 3/21/2013]
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

125

1 • Viewing services – provide an interface for users to visualize geospatial data.

2 • Data access – provides an interface for users to access and write geospatial data.

3 • Data discovery – allow users to search using metadata from the data.

4 DGIWG also identifies Emerging Services that will require long term projects to develop profiles or 

5 services (e.g., Cloud Computing). The relationship between OGC standards and DGIWG Base 

6 Services for profiles and projects can be seen in Figure 8-2.

7

Figure 8-2. DGWIG and OGC Service Types and Profiles174 8

9 8.6.9OPEN GEOSPATIAL CONSORTIUM (OGC) 

10 REFERENCE MODEL

11 OGC standards are technical documents that detail interfaces or encodings. These standards are 

12 the main “products” of the Open Geospatial Consortium and have been developed by the 

13 membership to address specific interoperability challenges. The OGC Reference Model (ORM) 

14 provides a framework for the ongoing work of the OGC. The ORM describes the OGC Standards 

Baseline175 15 focusing on the relationships between the various OGC standards. The OGC Standards 

 

174 http://www.dgiwg.org/dgiwg/htm/documents/committee_enterprise_documents.htm

175 The Open Geospatial Consortium Reference Model, Version 2.1, December 12, 2011, Reference number OGC 08-062r7. The 

document is available at http://www.opengis.net/doc/orm/2.1

EMERGING

DATA ACCESS

VIEW

Content Specifications:

SLD

GML

GMLJP2

OWC

GeoPackage

Released Standard

Released Profile

Emerging Standard

DGIWG Project

DGIWG Profile

Legend:

DISCOVERY

CSW ebRIM

CSW ISO

CSW

WMTS

SLD-WMS

WMS

Geo S REST

WFS

WFS-G

WCS

WCPS

SWE

SOS

SPS

Event Service

WPS

GSS

Mediation

DGIWG

DGIWG DGIWG

DGIWG

DGIWG
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

126

1 Baseline consists of the approved OGC Abstract and Implementation Standards (Interface, 

2 Encoding, Profile, and Application Schema – normative documents) and OGC Best Practice 

3 documents (informative documents). OGC publishes several types of documents and 
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

127

1 Table 8-7 provides an extract of the OGC document types describing Abstract and Implementation 

2 Standards as well as Best Practices.

3
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

128

1 Table 8-7. OGC Document Types

DOCUMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION

OpenGIS 

Implementation 

Standard

A document containing an OGC consensus, technology dependent standard for application 

programming interfaces and related standards based on the Abstract Specification or 

domain-specific extensions to the Abstract Specification. There are five subtypes: Interface, 

Encoding, Profile, Application Profile, and Application Schema.

Abstract 

Specification

A document (or set of documents) containing an OGC consensus, technology-independent 

standard for application programming interfaces and related standards based on objectoriented or other IT accepted concepts. It describes and/or models an application 

environment for interoperable geoprocessing and geospatial data and services products.

Best Practices

A document containing discussion related to the use and/or implementation of an adopted 

OGC document. Best Practices Documents are an official position of the OGC and thus 

represent an endorsement of the content of the paper.

2 The OGC provides considerable guidance documentation for standards understanding and 

3 implementation. The following links provide several key resources for open standards:

4 • OGC Standards List: http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards

5 • OGC Abstract Specification: http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/as

6 Abstract Specification provides the conceptual foundation for most OGC standard 

7 development activities. OGC standards are built and referenced against the 

8 Abstract Specification, thus enabling interoperability between different brands and 

9 different kinds of spatial processing systems. The Abstract Specification provides a 

10 reference model for the development of OGC standards.

11 • OGC Implementation Specifications: http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/is

12 Implementation Standards are different from Abstract Specifications. They are 

13 written for a more technical audience and detail the interface structure between 

14 software components. When two or more software engineers independently 

15 implement an IS, the results are plug-and-play components at that interface.

16 • OGC Best Practices: http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/bp

17 Documents containing discussion of best practices related to the use and/or 

18 implementation of an adopted OGC document and for release to the public. Best 

19 Practices Documents are an official position of the OGC and thus represent an 

20 endorsement of the content of the paper. Schemas for some of these documents 

21 can be at http://bp.schemas.opengis.net/. Any Schemas (xsd, xslt, etc.) that support 

22 an approved Implementation Standard can be found in the official OGC Schema 

23 Registry.

24 • OGC Schema Updates:

25 http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/ogc_schema_updates

26 • OGC Cookbooks are free, online, easy-to-use technical documents for developers.

27 • On-line demonstrations of OGC specifications and interoperable software are 

28 available from previous OGC Interoperability Program initiatives.
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

129

1 • OGC NetworkTM contains information on OGC-compatible software, services, and 

2 information models (e.g., GML profiles, SLD examples, etc.). From this site you can 

3 quickly locate OGC-compatible geospatial web services, the latest XML schema 

4 documents, discussion forums, conformance testing resources, and GML profile 

5 working areas.

6 8.6.10 UNITED NATIONS GLOBAL GEOSPATIAL 

7 INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

8 The United Nations Global Geospatial Information Management (UN-GGIM) is “an inter9 governmental mechanism spearheaded by the United Nations which seeks to guide the making of 

10 joint decisions and set directions on the production and use of geospatial information within 

national and global policy frameworks.”

176 11 It provides a forum to liaise and coordinate among 

12 Member States, and between Member States and international organizations to improve policy, 

13 institutional arrangements, and legal framework; thereby making accurate, authoritative, reliable 

14 geospatial information readily available to support national, regional, and global development.

15 The UN-GGIM is mandated, among other tasks, to provide a platform for the development of 

16 effective strategies on how to build and strengthen national capacity on geospatial information. It 

17 is also tasked to compile and disseminate best practices and experiences of national, regional, and 

18 international bodies on geospatial information related to legal instruments, management models,

19 and technical standards.

20 In keeping with those objectives, the UN-GGIM Secretariat requested from key standards 

21 organizations—International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Technical Committee 211, 

22 International Hydrographic Organization (IHO), and the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC)—to 

23 advance a “core essential standards guide” for use by member nations to improve their 

24 understanding of the value of standards, and guide the adoption and application of open 

geospatial standards to meet their geospatial missions.177 25 The pending release (Fall 2014) of the 

26 UN-GGIM’s A Guide to the Role of Standards in Geospatial Information Management (hereafter 

27 called the UN Standards Guide) is intended to “inform policymakers and Program Managers in 

28 Member States about the value in using and investing in geospatial standardization and describe 

the benefits of using ‘open’ geospatial standards.”

178 29 The goal is an easy to understand, and 

30 relatively non-technical document focusing on communicating and educating key decision makers 

31 within member nations on topics such as:

 

176 http://ggim.un.org/

177 OGC “Call for Volunteers to advance UN-GGIM Core Standards Guide” memo to Technical Committee and Business Value 

Committee members. January 23, 2014.

178UNGGIM’s A Guide to the Role of Standards in Geospatial Information Management, (Draft version), May 30, 2014. Prepared 

cooperatively by the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC); ISO/TC 211, Geospatial Information/Geomatics; and the International 

Hydrographic Organization (IHO). External identifier of this document: http://www.opengis.net/doc/WP/unggim-standards/1.0.
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

130

1 • Role and value of open geospatial standards

2 • Core geospatial standards and related best practices explained

3 • Implementation examples

4 • References (e.g., national, regional, and international cookbooks, Spatial Data 

5 Infrastructure guides, etc.)

6 It is anticipated that the UN Standards Guide will provide “Geospatial Standards and Related Best 

7 Practices for Geospatial Information Management” that frames the phases of an organization’s 

8 geospatial capability maturation and the adoption and use of key geospatial standards used to 

9 achieve those capability levels. It is hoped that the development of this Guide, will provide a line10 of-sight for a sequence of standards identification and adoption for an organization to adopt and 

11 implement.

12 8.7 STAKEHOLDER PERFORMANCE GUIDE: 

13 STANDARDS

14 It is incumbent upon an organization’s procurement documentation to ensure the inclusion of the 

15 appropriate standards compliance references when contracting for geoprocessing software, data, 

16 technology, applications and services; whereby promoting vendor neutrality. This will enable 

17 exploitation by a broad range of technology offerings leading to the purchase of solutions that 

18 implement the use of standards-based products and interchangeable services and components.

19 While geospatial standards-based acquisition guidance in the form of procurement language and 

20 boiler plate templates does not readily exist across the community, there are several 

21 organizations and sources that provide lists of “key” or “baseline” geospatial standards and 

22 maintain status updates as new standards evolve. The Performance Guidance (Table 8-8) provides 

23 a summation of the key decision points to facilitate the identification, adoption, and use of 

24 geospatial standards for the efficient design, development, and implementation of geospatial 

25 system investments.

26
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

131

1 Table 8-8. Stakeholder Performance Guide: Standards

STAKEHOLDER PERFORMANCE GUIDE

CHAPTER 8 – STANDARDS

Role Responsibility Approach Benefit Executive Leadership

• Develop and adopt Standards 

Policy within and across the 

Geospatial Executive Steering 

Committee and your 

Department or Agency.

• Ensure all geospatial 

procurements/awards have the 

appropriate Standards 

Compliance Section included in 

the contract language.

• Standards resourcing for 

subject matter expertise (SME) 

and SDO involvement.

• Working with Executive Leadership 

across geospatial investments, the 

Office of the Chief Information Officer; 

Financial Management Office; and 

Grants Office, agree upon and include 

Standards-based acquisition language 

for procurements and awards.

• Review procurement action prior to 

sign-off and the assign Program 

Manager the responsibility to include 

the necessary language in the 

procurement/award action.

• Budget for a staffing position (e.g., full 

or part time) to perform standards 

guidance. Position would participate 

on and provide into to SDOs and cross 

organization geospatial investments.

• Ensure contract continuity 

and compliance for 

consistent geospatial 

investments. Enforces vendor 

neutrality and promotes 

competition for industry 

standards adoption. Drives 

interoperability across 

investments.

• Ensures procurement/award 

consistency and compliance.

• Provides awareness and 

understanding of standards 

requirements, benefits and 

advancement in geospatial 

standards development and 

adoption.

Program Manager

• Coordinate across other 

internal Department and 

Agency investment PMs for 

identification and agreement 

on content for Standards Policy 

development.

• Prepare “boiler plate”

standards-based procurement 

language for inclusion need 

contracts/awards.

• Determine resourcing 

requirements and availability 

for geospatial standards 

capability development for:

◦ Subject Matter Expert

◦ SDO participation

• Draft Standards Policy for 

procurement and grants guidance.

Work with and vet for completeness 

and currency across organization and 

review SDO listings.

• Work with OCIO, OFM, and Grants 

Offices to determine process for 

standards-based procurement / grant 

language inclusion within policy 

guidance and contract vehicles.

• Prepare Position Description for 

Geospatial Standards SME as a core 

competency within job category (e.g.,

GS-2210: Information Technology 

Management Series). Participate on 

and/or contribute to geospatial SDO 

initiatives.

• Provides awareness and 

understanding of baseline 

and current standards 

requirements. Allows for a 

definition of “Value 

Proposition” of standardsbased interoperability.

• Policy-based guidance for 

government and industry 

understanding and 

compliance.

• Increase internal capacity for 

geospatial standards 

understanding and 

compliance.

Solution Architect

• Document current standards in 

use within/across organization 

geospatial investments.

• Contribute to development of 

baseline standards for inclusion 

into Policy Guidance.

• Contribute to identification of 

SME resource for geospatial 

standards. Ensure awareness of 

geospatial standards for 

inclusion in system 

procurement and 

development.

• Coordinate with SAs across 

organization’s geospatial investments 

to identify and document geospatial 

standards usage.

• Develop baseline of key geospatial 

standards derived from Federal and 

SDO current and emerging standards 

documentation.

• Provide input for Position Description 

for Geospatial Standards SME. 

Participate on SDOs for awareness of 

geospatial standards development and 

update.

• Technical vetting and 

validation across investments 

for As-Is standards usage.

• Ensure broadest possible 

technical review and allows 

identification of gaps and 

deficiencies for 

enhancement.

• Strengthen breadth of 

geospatial standards 

awareness across 

organization’s geospatial 

investments.

2
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

132

1 9 PERFORMANCE REFERENCE MODEL

2 9.1 INTRODUCTION

3 Definition/Description (What) – “links agency strategy, internal business components, and 

4 investments, providing a means to measure the impact of those investments on strategic 

outcomes.”179 5

6 Purpose/Function (Why) – to provide documentable value to all stakeholders by setting 

7 manageable and measurable metrics to achieve the geospatial system investment goals as 

8 defined by the stakeholders. The chapter will provide:

9 • References to performance guidance and implementation approaches. 

10 • Examples of performance indices.

11 Stakeholder Performance Guide (Who & How) – driven by mission/business requirements and 

12 the associated functional capabilities identified in the Operational Requirements Document, 

13 performance is a shared responsibility that provides the Executive Leadership metrics to monitor 

14 and take corrective action to address program progress and demonstrate benefit to the 

15 stakeholders. Often administered by the Program Manager and documented by the Solution 

16 Architects, performance is a measure of value.

17 Value is defined by the user ... but quantified by the usage.

18 9.2 APPLYING THE PERFORMANCE REFERENCE 

19 MODEL: APPROACHES

20 Performance spans all of the Reference Models of the Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA) 

21 guidance. The GIRA Chapters includes a Performance Guide Table for each of the three (3) 

22 stakeholders (e.g., Executive Leadership, Program Managers, and Solution Architects). These 

23 tables are combined within Appendix G as a consolidate geospatial investment performance 

24 indicators, but only serve as a starting point for consideration.

The Common Approach to Federal Enterprise Architecture180 25 uses the performance reference 

26 model to show the linkage between internal business components and the achievement of 

27 business and customer-centric outputs and outcomes. Performance measures help support 

 

179 Office of Management and Budget, Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework, Version 2, January 29, 2013, available at 

http://69.89.31.228/~mkerncom/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Federal-Enterprise-Architecture-Framework-v2-as-of-Jan-29-

2013.pdf.

180 Office of Management and Budget, The Common Approach to Federal Enterprise Architecture, May 12, 2012, available at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/egov_docs/common_approach_to_federal_ea.pdf
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

133

1 planning and decision-making based upon comparative determinations of which programs and 

2 services are more efficient and effective. The Performance Reference Model focuses on three 

3 main objectives:

4 • Produce enhanced performance information to improve strategic and daily 

5 decision-making.

6 • Improve the alignment and better articulate the contribution of inputs to outputs, 

7 thereby creating a clear “line of sight” to desired results.

8 • Identify performance improvement opportunities that span traditional 

9 organizational structures and boundaries.

10 One of the most visible uses of the Performance Reference Model is for the OMB reporting as 

part of Exhibit 300 investment proposals. Federal agencies are required to:

181 11

12 • Describe the relationship between investment and agency strategic goals. A 

13 narrative explanation of the investment’s specific contribution to mission delivery 

14 and management support functions is required in Section B for the Exhibit 300A. 

15 Investment owners must identify how the investment contributes to the agency 

16 target architecture and links to performance objectives in the published agency 

17 strategic plan.

18 • Provide investment-specific performance measures that quantify the intended 

19 performance benefits. Each measure must be categorized using a FEA Performance 

20 Measurement Category, and investment owners must ensure that the measures are 

21 balanced and drawn from multiple measurement categories. Performance metrics 

22 will be reported on the IT Dashboard.

23 • Report on investment results using these measures monthly, quarterly, semi24 annually and annually.

25 Reporting on investment results, using the Governance processes established through the 

26 Executive Steering Committee (see Chapter 2), provides an opportunity to validate success and 

27 make course corrections to meet changing stakeholder requirements (see Section 3.3). The 

Federal Shared Services Implementation Guide182 28 recommends when developing their 

29 organization’s strategic plans and performance goals, Executive Leadership and Program 

30 Managers should evaluate the prior performance of their investments. This presents an 

31 opportunity to question and assess the following:

32 • What is the performance of existing processes and services?

33 • What existing capabilities can be improved?

 

181 Office of Management and Budget, Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework, Version 2, January 29, 2013.

182 https://cio.gov/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2013/04/CIOC-Federal-Shared-Services-Implementation-Guide.pdf
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

134

1 • What is the cost structure of current capabilities?

2 • How efficient is service delivery?

3 • What new capabilities are needed and funded by the organization?

4 The Shared Services Implementation Guide also recommends that the Agencies should objectively 

5 and continuously assess their IT investment portfolios throughout the investment lifecycle as part 

6 of Capital Planning and Portfolio Management oversight. Each checkpoint should be considered 

7 an opportunity to re-evaluate whether an investment is still performing as desired and continues 

8 to deliver the level of business value and capabilities required by end users and key stakeholders. 

9 For this reason, capital planning, business, and IT Program Managers should discuss whether 

10 there is an opportunity to leverage an existing shared service before embarking on development 

11 of a new initiative that will incur significant costs, as well as risks.

The Segment Architecture Analysis of the Geospatial Platform, Version 1.0183 12 describes 

13 performance architecture as a means to align strategic goals and objectives with specific metrics 

14 that can be applied to processes, systems, and technology in order to evaluate success against 

15 those goals. The performance metrics creates a reporting framework to measure the geospatial 

16 activities and investments across the enterprise. Improved performance is realized through 

17 greater focus on mission, agreement on goals and objectives, and timely reporting of results. The 

18 Segment Architecture Analysis also outlines the ways in which these performance metrics should 

19 evolve in order to align geospatial initiatives across an enterprise’s stovepipes and incorporate 

20 additional considerations critical to geospatial functionality. The document concludes by 

21 providing high-level recommendations for the development of a “Geospatial Transition Roadmap 

22 and Milestones” for the federal geospatial community to consider; including nine (9) government23 wide level governance initiatives.

The Geospatial Profile of the Federal Enterprise Architecture, Version 2.0184 24 notes that “the PRM is 

25 of particular use to the development of fledgling geospatial programs across government because 

26 it provides a structure for analyzing both means and ends. Using performance measures allow 

27 agencies to define how much more effective their business processes are by incorporating 

28 geospatial resources, approaches, or methods.

29 All activities of an agency’s geospatial program—developing policies and using standards, 

30 implementing geospatial services and geo-enabling functions within the organization, and 

31 implementing and providing geospatial data services both inside and outside the agency—can 

32 benefit by evaluating performance. There are two primary measures for evaluating performance:

 

183 http://www.fgdc.gov/geospatial-lob/draft-segment-architecture-review/Segment-Architecture-Analysis-of-the/view

184 http://www.fgdc.gov/initiatives/resources/geospatial-profile-of-the-FEA-v2-march-2009.pdf
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

135

1 • Measures of the performance of business processes incorporating geospatial 

2 resources and investments (how much does the business process save by using 

3 geospatial technology and data, how many users does it support).

4 • Measures of the maturity of a geospatial program responsible for developing an 

5 agency’s geospatial architecture (is the program progressing towards offering 

6 better services to more customers and does its geospatial data meet quality 

7 standards).”

8 9.3 PERFORMANCE INDICES

9 Performance measures are often seen as an administrative burden and additional cost to the 

10 system investment. However, performance metrics, if reflective of the stakeholder requirements, 

11 provides awareness of the value of the investment and enables effective management for 

12 operations and maintenance.

13 “You cannot manage what you cannot measure.”

14 – Anonymous

15 The Enterprise Architecture and Geospatial communities of practice have several performance 

16 indices that may be used in part or whole to help design and develop meaningful measures for 

17 investments. Performance indices (e.g., Maturity Models) may provide a normalizing or level18 setting functional for an organization to better understand the range of capabilities and 

19 investments and also contribute to the baseline assessment activities (see Section 3.4) when an 

20 organization performs its Operational Requirements Document (Section 3.3).

21 One of the challenges of any maturity model is the general lack of a Return on Investment (ROI) 

22 indicator for moving from one level to the next in the maturity progression ladder. A maturity or 

23 capability model may have ~ 5 levels of maturity and while an organization assesses its maturity 

24 to be a “3” there are generally no explicit cost/benefit to determine the value proposition for 

25 moving to the next level. In fact, there may be diminishing returns and the stakeholders will need 

26 to determine the optimal level of geospatial proficiency that meets the needs of the entire 

27 investment. However; a performance management framework for geospatial capabilities that are 

28 embedded within a larger system environment may include the necessity to tie the value to the 

29 overall or ‘parent’ enterprise architecture investment.
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

136

1 9.3.1OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET: 

2 ENTERPRISE ROADMAP

OMB’s Memorandum for Increased Shared Approached to Information Technology Services185 3

4 “provides Federal Agencies with policy guidance and management tools to use in increasing 

5 shared approaches to information technology (IT) service delivery across mission, support, and 

6 commodity areas.” The policy memo directs Federal Agency Chief Information Officers to submit 

7 an “Enterprise Roadmap” each year that documents an agency’s current and future views of its 

8 business and technology environment from an architecture perspective. In the 2013 submission 

of the Enterprise Roadmap includes:

186 9

10 1. Business and Technology Architecture (Main Body): a high-level, integrated description of 

11 the agency’s IT-related strategic goals, business objectives, and enabling IT capabilities 

12 across all operating units, and program areas.

13 2. Enterprise Architecture (EA) Maturity Measurement Template (Appendix 1): a self14 evaluation of the maturity of the Agency’s EA Program.

15 3. EA Outcomes and Measurements Template (Appendix 2): a self-evaluation of the 

16 effectiveness of the agency’s enterprise architecture program, examples of contributions 

17 to beneficial outcomes, areas for improvement, and measurement of value using the 

18 attached template.

19 4. IT Asset Inventory (Appendix 3) (Optional): a list of IT systems and applications that 

20 support mission, administrative, and commodity IT services, using the attached template 

21 and the Federal Enterprise Architecture Reference Models that are provided in the 

22 Common Approach. This Appendix will be considered “For Official Use Only.”

23 The EA Maturity Measurement Template (see Appendix G.1) provides a matrix that includes the 

24 primary evaluation categories (e.g., Spending, Systems, Services, Security) and requires the 

25 inclusion of IT investment Inventory and Outcomes with descriptions for; Area of Measurement, 

26 Specific Measurement Indicators, Measurement Method and Targets (Timeline), and 

27 Comments/Artifacts. Depending upon the category of Inventory or Outcome, the Areas of 

28 Measurement may include:

29 Table 9-1. EA Maturity Measurement Template: Areas of Measurement

INVENTORY & OUTCOME AREA OF MEASUREMENT

Inventories Completeness

Accuracy

Ratio

 

185 OMB Memo: Increasing Shared Approaches to Information Technology Services, May 2, 1012, available at

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/egov_docs/sharedapproachmemo_0502.pdf

186 OMB Memorandum to Agency Chief Architects, Guidance on 2013 Federal Agency Enterprise Roadmaps, March 29, 2013.
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

137

INVENTORY & OUTCOME AREA OF MEASUREMENT

Outcomes Cost Savings/ Avoidance

Reduction of Duplication

Efficiency

IT Enablement

1 9.3.2ISE INFORMATION INTEROPERABILITY 

2 FRAMEWORK: INTEROPERABILITY MATURITY 

3 MODEL

The Information Sharing Environment (ISE) Interoperability Framework (I

2 4 F) is used to guide the 

implementation of the ISE information sharing capabilities.187 The ISE I

2 5 F leverages existing 

6 systems architecture guidance, suggested standards, tools, and methodologies to foster the 

7 linkage of systems as well specifying the development of common artifacts that are intended to 

8 enable disparate architectures to improve information sharing.

The Interoperability Maturity Model of the ISE I2 9 F is aligned with the OMB guidance Federal 

10 Enterprise Architecture Framework and The Common Approach to Federal Enterprise Architecture

11 and is broken down by domains (e.g., Business, Data, Applications, Infrastructure, Security, and 

12 Performance). The model establishes characteristics for each level of interoperability (e.g., ad hoc, 

13 repeatable, enhanced, managed, and optimized) for each interoperability requirement. Each row 

14 in the maturity model represents a functional area within the domain. Each column represents a 

15 different stage of maturity. Interdependences between functional areas exist but the goal is to 

16 assess a system independently for each functional area.

Within the I2 17 F Performance Domain maturity model, it is divided into functions or process groups 

18 (rows) and maturity levels (column). The maturity model is then followed by several supporting 

19 questions.

Table 9-2. I

2 20 F Performance Domain Maturity Model Metrics

0

ABSENT

1

AD HOC

2

REPEATABLE

3

ENHANCED

4

MANAGED

5

OPTIMIZED

Metrics Formalized 

performance metrics 

that provide direct line 

of sight between 

strategic planning and 

the investment review 

process do not exist.

Formalized 

performance metrics 

exist and align with 

strategic goals of 

organization as well as 

to applicable policy, 

guidance, and laws.

Formalized performance 

metrics that identify 

common performance 

elements across 

investments or activities 

exists.

Formalized performance 

metrics are used to 

inform gap analysis of 

interoperability 

requirements and adhere 

to relevant performance 

goals.

 

187 Program Manager – Information Sharing Environment (PM-ISE), Information Interoperability Framework (I2

F), Version 0.5, March 

2014, available at http://ise.gov/ise-information-interoperability-framework.
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

138

1 9.3.3DHS COMMON OPERATING PICTURE: KEY 

2 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS AND MEASURES

3 The Department of Homeland Security has chartered an Executive Steering Committee (ESC) for 

4 its Common Operating Picture (COP)/User Defined Operating Picture (UDOP) Domain. The 

5 Components of DHS have invested in multiple COP/UDOP capabilities to support situational 

6 awareness for law enforcement, emergency management, intelligence, and homeland 

7 security/defense mission activities. The goal of the COP ESC has been to increase COP 

8 interoperability, effectiveness, and shared capabilities while reducing the Department’s collective 

9 operational costs by managing COP systems as enterprise mission service investments. It is 

10 expected to promote and guide the development and operation of, and investment in the DHS 

11 Common Operating Picture domain. The COP ESC will provide analytical support and provide 

12 recommendations, guidance, and procedures for improving the sharing of data, information, 

13 infrastructure, tools, and services across DHS COP investments.

14 In support of the COP ESC, the DHS Geospatial Management Office prepared the DHS Sensitive 

But Unclassified COP/UDOP Segment Architecture188 15 document is to provide a holistic and 

16 conceptual view of the future consolidated or interoperable state of the COP domain for 

17 Homeland Security. This initial version focused upon the target technical architectural areas: 

18 business, data, services, technology, security, and performance. It presents a Target Architecture 

19 based on a common services framework that relies on shared services and enterprise delivery of 

20 core data, software, and infrastructure using approved standards. This shared services approach 

21 ensures data and system interoperability and reliable exchange of information in a usable and 

22 geospatial format.

23 The target performance architecture for the DHS COP segment architecture prepared a 

24 performance management scorecard (Appendix G.2) to tracking progress and effectiveness 

25 toward achieving the strategic goals and objectives for the COP domain. The scorecard is based on 

26 the key performance indicators (KPIs) to include; Governance, Information Sharing, Mission 

27 Enablement and Technology Management. These scorecard metrics were established from the 

28 COP Domain priorities for interoperability, effectiveness, authoritative/trusted information in a 

29 geospatial format, standards-based information exchanges, reliability, and shared capability.

30 9.3.4NATIONAL STATES GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION 

31 COUNCIL: GEOSPATIAL MATURITY ASSESSMENT

32 The National States Geographic Information Council’s (NSGIC) Mission is to promote statewide 

33 geospatial coordination activities in all states and to be an effective advocate for states in national 

34 geospatial policy and initiatives, thereby enabling the National Spatial Data Infrastructure 

 

188 Department of Homeland Security, COP/UDOP Sensitive But Unclassified Segment Architecture, Version 1.0 (DRAFT), April 27, 2012, 

prepared by the Geospatial Management Office.
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

139

(NSDI).189 1 NSGIC maintains a Geospatial Maturity Assessment (GMA) that is a “baseline 

2 assessment methodology to routinely and continuously monitor and validate statewide geospatial 

capabilities.” 190 3 The GMA included eighty three (83) questions that characterized their geospatial 

4 programs. The assessment is over one-half data focused, but also includes questions on staffing 

5 and budget, strategic and business planning, and interagency coordination and data sharing.

6 9.3.5URBAN AND REGIONAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS 

7 ASSOCIATION: GIS CAPABILITY MATURITY MODEL

The Urban and Regional Information Systems Association (URISA)191 8 promotes the effective and 

9 ethical use of spatial information and information technologies for the understanding and 

10 management of urban and regional systems. URISA members and participants typically use 

11 geospatial and other information technologies to solve challenges in government agencies. URISA 

12 provides educational programs, offers volunteer GIS expertise through its GISCorps program, and 

13 assists government agencies with benchmarking GIS maturity through its GIS Management 

14 Institute®.

“The URISA GIS Capability Maturity Model192 15 is a key component of the GIS Management 

16 Institute. Its primary purpose is to provide a theoretical model of a capable and mature enterprise 

17 GIS operation within a designated organization. The URISA Model is intended to serve the GIS 

18 community as a stand-alone document to define the framework for an effective enterprise GIS. 

19 The Model was developed initially with a focus on local government agencies (e.g., cities, 

20 counties, regional agencies, and other similar entities) but it is intended for future use by any 

21 enterprise GIS. As a stand-alone document, the Model is intended to facilitate discussion amongst 

22 GIS managers and the decision makers who deploy and fund GIS to maximize effectiveness and 

23 return on investment from a given level of investment.”

24 The Capability Maturity Model assumes two (2) broad areas of GIS operational development:

25 • Enabling Capability – the technology, data, resources, and related infrastructure 

26 that can be bought, developed, or otherwise acquired to support typical enterprise 

27 GIS operations. Enabling capability includes GIS management and professional staff.

28 • Execution Ability – the ability of staff to utilize the technology at their disposal 

29 (subject to separate assessment as part of the Model).

 

189 http://www.nsgic.org/

190 http://www.nsgic.org/geospatial-maturity-assessment/

191 http://www.urisa.org/main/about-us/

192 http://www.urisa.org/clientuploads/directory/GMI/GISCMM-Final201309%28Endorsed%20for%20Publication%29.pdf
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

140

1 9.4 STAKEHOLDER PERFORMANCE GUIDE: 

2 PERFORMANCE

3 The Performance Guide provides several key considerations and decision points that may 

4 influence the design and development of the performance metrics necessary to assess the most 

5 effective and efficient design, development, and implementation of the geospatial system 

6 investment. Appendix G.3 provides a consolidated Performance Guide for all of the reference 

7 models (e.g., Business, Data, Applications/Services, Infrastructure, Security, and Performance).

8 Table 9-3. Stakeholder Performance Guide: Performance

STAKEHOLDER PERFORMANCE GUIDE

CHAPTER 9 – PERFORMANCE

Role Responsibility Approach Benefit Executive Leadership

• Define mission context for 

geospatial investments across 

the enterprise.

• Ensure Performance metrics 

and indicators are included in 

all CPIC (OMB 300/53) 

geospatial investments.

• Provide overall mission context and 

expected contribution of geospatial 

to/within programs to Program 

Managers, and align program success 

to improved performance of business 

functions.

• Using Performance indicators for each 

reference model (e.g., Business, Data, 

Applications/Services, Infrastructure, 

Security, and Performance) prepare 

matrix for ESC review and adoption 

and monitoring.

• Creates quantifiable measures 

and expected outcomes 

(mission and resource impact) 

of a geospatial investment.

• Ensures OMB reporting 

compliance and senior 

leadership commitment to 

managed/measured success of 

investment.

Program Manager

• Define measures of 

effectiveness and success 

criteria for geospatial 

investments under oversight.

• ESC to oversee cost, schedule, 

and scope of geospatial 

investments across 

enterprise.

• Provide clear guidance to Solution 

Architects for requirements and 

dependencies of required solutions.

• Communicate with Executive 

Leadership and stakeholder 

community (mission holders) to foster 

an understanding of the value of 

current efforts with the overall mission 

success.

• Creates clarity as to the value 

of programs being managed to 

overall mission effectiveness.

• Enables easier management 

through a better 

understanding of how 

measures of effectiveness 

translate into system 

requirements and benefits.

Solution Architect

• Derive functional and 

technical requirements and 

associated quantifiable 

performance success 

measures given target 

objective.

• Oversee technical 

implementation and schedule 

and provide status to 

leadership and recommended 

course corrections as needed.

• Analyze program requirements and 

measures of effectiveness and identify 

solution elements that will enable the 

program to meet success criteria.

• Create a clear understanding of how 

the project scope, schedule, and 

budget is progressing and provides 

line-of-sight with respect to the overall 

program and enterprise requirements.

• Demonstrable solution 

effectiveness, tied directly to 

executive-level interests which 

enables an end-to-end picture 

of how delivered solutions fit 

into an enterprise-level 

mission

• Enables clear communication 

with the Project Managers and 

Executive Leadership regarding 

schedule and scope of system

delivery.

9

10
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

141

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 This page intentionally left blank.

12
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

A - 1

1 APPENDIX A:

2 GOVERNANCE

3 A.1 EXECUTIVE STEERING COMMITTEE 

4 CHARTER TEMPLATE

5 [Note: Replace underlined text with organization specific information.]

6 EXECUTIVE STEERING COMMITTEE CHARTER

7 FOR

8 GEOSPATIAL SYSTEM INVESTMENT (GSI)

9 PURPOSE

10 This Charter defines the mission, authority, membership, responsibilities, and operating principles 

11 for the Department/Agency’s Executive Steering Committee (ESC) for geospatial system 

12 investment coordination. The GSI ESC is charted by the Department/Agency’s sponsoring body. (if 

13 applicable).

14 MISSION

15 The GSI ESC will promote and guide the development and operation of, and investment in the 

16 Department/Agency’s geospatial technology domain.

17 OBJECTIVE

18 The objective of the GSI ESC is to increase geospatial interoperability, effectiveness, and shared 

19 capabilities while reducing the Department/Agency’s collective operational costs by managing 

20 geospatial systems as enterprise mission service investments.

21 BACKGROUND

22 The operational organizations with the Department/Agency have invested in multiple geospatial

23 capabilities to support mission activities.

24 [Note: Additional, organization mission specific information can be included, especially if member 

25 representation would include non-geospatial equities such as OGC, Finance, Policy, Civil Right Civil Liberties, 

26 CIO, etc.]
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

A - 2

1 SCOPE

2 The GSI ESC will provide governance and guidance, oversight of, and recommendations 

3 concerning, all aspects of the Department/Agency’s geospatial domain. This includes investments, 

4 systems, data, policies, and procedures needed to ensure mission partners have an enduring 

5 capability to effectively, efficiently, and rapidly access needed data, geospatial referencing of 

6 data, and information; integrate and fuse data, provide timely, accurate, and tailored displays of 

7 data and geographic views; facilitate collaborative planning; and enhance situational awareness.

8 The GSI ESC will oversee the review of geospatial equities and provide recommendations, 

9 guidance, and procedures for improving the sharing of data, information, infrastructure, tools, 

10 and services across Department/Agency’s geospatial investments.

11 AUTHORITY

12 The GSI ESC has the authority to oversee and make recommendations regarding the 

13 Department/Agency’s geospatial domain. The GSI ESC will execute its duties within the scope of 

14 this Charter, as informed by any applicable laws, regulations, Department/Agency’s directives, 

15 and any additional assignments of responsibility from senior governance bodies. The GSI ESC will 

16 work to align the geospatial domain with applicable strategic goals and objectives established by 

17 the Department/Agency’s and senior governance bodies. As the need arises for decisions outside 

18 the level of authority of the GSI ESC, the GSI ESC will formulate recommendations for 

19 consideration by the Department/Agency’s sponsoring body.

20 The GSI ESC may also charter and oversee advisory bodies, subcommittees, working groups, 

21 integrated project teams, etc., as necessary to assist the GSI ESC.

22 MEMBERSHIP

23 GSI ESC Chair and/or Co-Chairs are designated positions and serve for a period of _______.

24 [Note: designation assumes that the ESC is sponsored by a Department/Agency as required by that 

25 organizations policy guidance. If not sponsored, then the positions may be by volunteer or election. Service 

26 duration may be indefinite or specified time frame, usually 2 years.]

27 GSI ESC membership is designated positions from the organization’s executive leadership and 

28 serves for a period of _______.

29 GSI ESC membership is subject to change at the direction of the Department/Agency or by mutual 

30 agreement of the members based on the needs of their Department/Agency and the ESC. A roster 

31 of the individuals who hold those positions shall be maintained by the GSI ESC and updated as 

32 necessary.
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

A - 3

1 GSI ESC members must have the authority to represent and make decisions on behalf of their 

2 offices/organizations, and are expected to fully participate in the work of the GSI ESC. If principal 

3 members cannot attend, they will designate a single alternate to consistently participate on their 

4 behalf. The designated alternate should be from the same organization as the regular member 

5 and will be delegated the same powers as the regular member at the GSI ESC meeting.

6 ESC Co-Chairs:

7 • Department/Agency #1

8 • Department/Agency #2

9 ESC Members:

10 Voting Members:

11 [Note: Generally the operational mission owner often with existing geospatial investment. If a 

12 Department/Agency has more than one Program or Office with geospatial equities, that Department/Agency 

13 should coordinate across their constituencies to ensure awareness and involvement. However, if the ESC 

14 allows multiple representatives from a Department/Agency the voting should remain “one Department/Agency 

15 one vote,” so as to not to unduly influence decision-making approval authorities.]

16 • Department/Agency Mission Area #1

17 • Department/Agency Mission Area #2

18 • Department/Agency Mission Area #3

19 • Department/Agency Mission Area #4

20 • Department/Agency Mission Area #N

21 Non-Voting Members:

22 [Note: Generally the non-operational mission support providers with no geospatial investment but perhaps 

23 geospatial needs impacts as exampled below.]

24 • Office of the Chief Information Officer

25 • Office of Research and Development

26 • Office of Chief Procurement Officer

27 • Office of the Chief Financial Officer

28 • Office of the General Counsel

29 • Office of Legislative Affairs

30 • Privacy Office

31 • Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

A - 4

1 • Office of Policy

2 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

3 ESC Co-Chair(s)

4 • Serve as the executive champion of the mission and work of the GSI ESC.

5 • Develop processes and priorities for the work of the GSI ESC to ensure that relevant 

6 issues are elevated to the GSI ESC and addressed promptly.

7 • Set the schedule, agenda, and guest list for GSI ESC meetings with assistance from 

8 the ESC Secretariat and in consultation with the GSI ESC members.

9 • Co-Chair the GSI ESC meetings:

10 • Review action items

11 • Facilitate discussion and collaboration

12 • Identify consensus decisions or initiate voting

13 • Elevate unresolved issues, or issues outside the scope of ESC authority, to the 

14 Department/Agency’s sponsoring body [if applicable] and other appropriate senior 

15 governance bodies.

16 • Ensure appropriate reporting of GSI ESC activities and decisions to senior 

17 governance bodies components, and other stakeholders as appropriate.

18 • Recommend GSI ESC operational changes to the appropriate senior executives or 

19 governance bodies.

20 • Communicate taskings to subcommittees, working groups or integrated project 

21 teams as appropriate.

22 ESC Members

23 • Provide strategic recommendations; identify and communicate issues and concerns 

24 in a clear and timely manner.

25 • Serve as a liaison between the geospatial domain and the member’s functional area 

26 and/or organization; ensure organizational support for the activities of the GSI ESC.

27 • Execute activities, as assigned, in support of the GSI ESC.

28 • Identify subcommittee, working group and/or integrated project team members to 

29 represent their respective business function(s) and Department/Agency.
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

A - 5

1 NON-MEMBERS

2 The GSI ESC Co-Chairs and members may invite subject matter experts to attend GSI ESC meetings 

3 to present information and participate in discussions, as appropriate. Members may also invite an 

4 appropriate number of support staff to attend GSI ESC meetings in order to facilitate the 

5 member’s GSI ESC participation. Other observers may attend and participate in meetings at the 

6 discretion of the Co-Chairs. The Chair may exclude non-members in situations the Co-Chairs

7 deems sensitive or inappropriate for non-member review, or if non-member attendance is not 

8 otherwise practical.

9 ESC Secretariat

10 • The Department/Agency will serve as Secretariat and provide logistical support for 

11 ESC deliberations. It will:

12 • Develop meeting agendas and recommend agenda priorities in conjunction with the 

13 Co-Chairs.

14 • Plan and schedule GSI ESC meetings and meeting rooms.

15 • Consolidate and disseminate meeting agendas and briefing materials in advance of 

16 the meeting.

17 • Assist the GSI ESC to adhere to criteria and thresholds for issue consideration, 

18 documentation requirements, and other procedures as established by the GSI ESC.

19 • Track and report all GSI ESC action items, decisions, and recommendations to 

20 conclusion.

21 • Develop and disseminate all GSI ESC meeting minutes.

22 • Utilize a collaboration GSI ESC website [if applicable] to manage and report GSI ESC 

23 activities and serve as the GSI ESC site administrator.

24 ESC OPERATIONS

25 Frequency of Meetings

26 The GSI ESC will meet on a schedule determined by the Co-Chairs based on the needs of the 

27 geospatial domain, but no less than every other month.

28 Attendance, Quorum

29 The Co-Chairs, GSI ESC Voting Members, and a representative from the Secretariat are required to 

30 attend all meetings.
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

A - 6

1 GSI ESC Voting Members must notify the Co-Chairs at least one day in advance of the meeting 

2 when unable to attend and are responsible for arranging for the attendance of an approved 

3 alternate.

4 At a minimum, sixty percent (60%) of GSI ESC Voting Members (either the approved regular or 

5 alternate members) must be in attendance to constitute a quorum for a meeting and eighty 

6 percent (80%) voting.

7 Decision Making

8 The Co-Chairs will strive to reach decisions through consensus of the committee members. Once a 

9 consensus is reached, the Co-Chairs will clearly summarize the consensus decision, which will be 

10 recorded in the minutes.

11 If the Co-Chairs determine that a consensus decision or recommendation cannot be reached 

12 within a reasonable time, the Co-Chairs may either call for a vote or escalate the issue to a senior 

13 decision authority.

14 In the event of a vote, each GSI ESC Voting Member (either the approved regular or alternate 

15 member) has one vote. The Co-Chairs do not vote except in the event of a tie, in which case they 

16 may break the tie or decide to escalate the issue to a senior decision authority. If the Co-Chairs 

17 cannot agree, the issue must be elevated to a senior decision authority.

18 The Co-Chairs may invoke electronic comment and/or voting (or “E-Vote”) via email or the GSI

19 ESC team site.

20 [Note: the ESC may decide an electronic voting protocol and time duration for responding to votes where no 

21 response equals concurrence and a NO vote should be scheduled for discussion and resolution when 

22 possible.]

23 Communication

24 Read-ahead information will be provided to the membership at least three business days in 

25 advance of meetings.

26 Meeting minutes and action items will be distributed no later than three business days after the 

27 meeting. Members shall submit comments on the minutes within five business days after receipt.

28 The minutes from the previous GSI ESC meeting shall be reviewed and approved at the next 

29 subsequent GSI ESC meeting.

30 A teleconference line may be established for the GSI ESC meetings at the discretion of the Co31 Chairs.
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

A - 7

1 Non-member individuals may be included on communications distribution lists for any reason 

2 deemed appropriate by the Co-Chairs.

3 EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERMINATION

4 This Charter shall be effective upon approval by the Department/Agency and signed by the Co5 Chairs. This Charter will remain in effect until amended or replaced or until terminated by the 

6 Department/Agency and/or mutual agreement of the member representatives.

7

8 SIGNATORY APPROVAL

Department/Agency #1 Date

9

Department/Agency #2 Date

10

11
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

A - 8

1 A.2 INFORMATION SHARING AGREEMENT 

CHECKLIST193 2

3 Please provide the requested information in the space provided below and return this form to the 

4 Geospatial Executive Steering Committee.

5 A. GENERAL INFORMATION

6 1. Requestor Information:

7 Organization: ______________________

8 Phone Number: ____________________

9 2. Intended recipient/end user: ________________________

10 3. Provider Information:

11 Organization: ______________________

12 Phone Number: ____________________

13 4. Provide a general description of the information/data to be shared.

14 5. List the system(s) associated with the shared information/data.

15 6. Provide the purpose for the information sharing relationship.

16 B. INTERNAL INFORMATION SHARING REQUESTS

17 1. Describe the use(s) for which the recipient/end user organization will obtain the information.

18 2. Number of individual users contemplated: _______

19 3. All users have “need to know” information to perform job functions? ___Yes ___ No

20 4. Describe how “need to know” will be verified for each user and each access event.

21 5. Department/Agency Component:

22 a. Source/Originator of the information (i.e., what organization originally collected the 

23 information):

24 Name of organization: ______________________

25 Department/Agency? ___Yes ___ No

26 If no, complete 5b. If yes, skip to 6.

27 b. Was information obtained subject to a written ISAA or other agreement? ___Yes ___ No

28 If yes, complete 5c. If no, skip to 6.

29 c. Confer with Office of General Council (OGC) re: whether existing agreement is compliant 

30 and covers the contemplated information sharing:

 

193 Department of Homeland Security, Information Sharing and Access Agreements Guidebook and Templates, revision version 2.1, 

October 2010.
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

A - 9

1 ___ New ISAA with originating party needed

2 ___ Internal Department/Agency Sharing permitted under existing agreement

3 6. Office of General Counsel (OGC):

4 a. Confer with OGC re: whether there are any legal prohibitions to recipient 

5 obtaining/receiving the information:

6 ___ No legal prohibitions to recipient obtaining/receiving the information

7 (If there are legal prohibitions, work with OGC to attempt to mitigate or resolve them.)

8 b. Confer with OGC re: whether recipient may further disseminate information (if applicable):

9 ___ New ISAA must restrict further dissemination of information within 

10 Department/Agency

11 ___ New ISAA must restrict further dissemination of information outside of 

12 Department/Agency

13 ___ No restrictions on further dissemination of data (subject to a new ISAA)

14 7. Purpose for which information was originally collected.

15 a. Identify applicable SORNS, if any.

16 8. List any conditions required to properly size/scope the required data elements.

17 a. List any mandated data exchange protocols that must be followed.

18 9. Are there other Department/Agency Components with concurrent jurisdiction/need for the 

19 same information? ___ Yes ___ No

20 If yes, describe:

21 10. Personally Identifiable Information (PII):

22 a. Does the information include PII? ___Yes ___ No

23 If yes, describe:

24 If yes, go to 10b. If no, skip to 10c.

25 b. Is use of anonymized data possible and sufficient for recipient purposes? ___Yes ___ No

26 If no, explain:

27 c. Conferred with Department/Agency Privacy Office re: privacy considerations and need for 

28 PIA?

29 ___Yes ___ No

30 11. Does the data require any context to be properly understood? ___Yes ___ No

31 If yes, describe:

32 a. Will training be provided to accomplish this? ___Yes ___ No

33 If yes, describe:

34 12. Describe how the parties will protect the information from unauthorized access, misuse, 

35 disclosure during transmission, use and maintenance.

36 13. What is the classification level of the information?
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

A - 1 0

1 14. Describe auditing functions/trails/logs to be maintained by the recipient.

2 C. EXTERNAL INFORMATION SHARING REQUESTS

3 Note: This section should be used in conjunction with the DARP Questionnaire (Appendix A.3) for 

4 data requests from non-Department/Agency external parties.

5 1. Source/originator of information (i.e., what organization originally collected the information):

6 Name of organization: ______________________

7 2. DARP Questionnaire completed and submitted? ___Yes ___ No

8 3. Review existing ISAAs to determine whether sharing is covered under an existing ISAA?

9 ___Yes ___ No

10 4. Purpose for which information was originally collected:

11 a. Identify applicable SORNS, if any:

12 5. Civil Rights and Civil Liberties – Confer with Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) re:

13 a. Whether there are any prohibitions/concerns related to recipient obtaining information?

14 ___Yes ___ No

15 b. Whether information may be used, in whole or in part, to interfere with an individual’s 

16 exercise of lawful First Amendment activities? ___Yes ___ No

17 (Note: For requests made by external parties, this step will be part of the DARP process.)

18 6. Privacy – Confer with Office of Privacy (PRIV) re:

19 a. Whether the proposed sharing and use of the information is compatible with “routine 

20 uses” identified in an applicable SORN? ___Yes ___ No

21 b. Whether there are any prohibitions/concerns related to recipient obtaining information? 

22 ___Yes ___ No

23 7. Conferred with OGC and Geospatial Executive Committee re: whether there are any 

24 prohibitions/concerns related to recipient obtaining information? ___Yes ___ No

25 8. Conferred with OGC, CRCL, and PRIV re: necessary restrictions on additional dissemination of 

26 information shared:

27 OGC: ___Yes ___ No CRCL: ___Yes ___ No PRIV: ___Yes ___ No

28 a. Describe restrictions on further dissemination to be incorporated into ISAA.

29 9. List any conditions required to properly size/scope the required data elements.

30 10. List any mandated data exchange protocols that must be followed.

31 11. Are there other Department/Agency Components with concurrent jurisdiction/need for the 

32 same information? ___Yes ___ No

33 If yes, describe:

34 12. Personally Identifiable Information (PII):

35 a. Does the information include PII? ___Yes ___ No
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

A - 1 1

1 If yes, describe:

2 If yes, go to 13b. If no, skip 12b.

3 b. Is use of anonymized data possible and sufficient for the recipient’s purposes?

4 ___Yes ___ No

5 If no, explain:

6 c. Confer with Department/Agency Privacy Office re: privacy considerations and need for 

7 Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA)? ___Yes ___ No

8 (If a PIA is required, work with your Office of Privacy to resolve any issues.)

9 13. Contextual Understanding:

10 a. Does the data require any context to be properly understood? ___Yes ___ No

11 If yes, describe:

12 If yes, go to 13b. If no, skip 14b.

13 b. Will training be provided to accomplish this? ___Yes ___ No

14 If yes, describe:

15 14. How will recipient authenticate individual users/access events to the data?

16 15. What is the classification level of the information?

17

18
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

A - 1 2

1 A.3 DATA ACCESS REQUEST PROCESS –

QUESTIONNAIRE194 2

3 This questionnaire is intended to facilitate the creation of an Information Sharing Access 

4 Agreement (ISAA) between the requesting department/agency (Requesting Agency) and 

5 provisioning department/agency (Providing Agency). This questionnaire is a preliminary 

6 document and does not bind or otherwise constrain either party. The ISAA will serve as the official 

7 data access agreement between both parties.

8 Information Sharing and Access Agreement (ISAA): An ISAA is an agreement that defines the 

9 terms and conditions of information/data exchanges between two or more parties. The term 

10 encompasses agreements any form, including Memoranda of Understanding, Memoranda of 

11 Agreement, Letters of Intent, etc.

12 Please respond to the questions listed below in and be as specific as possible. Upon completion 

13 of the form, please submit the form to ____________.

14 SECTION 1: INITIATE REQUEST FOR PROVIDING AGENCY DATA (Completed by 

15 Requesting Agency)

16 A. Points of Contact

17 1. Requesting Agency/Department?

18 2. What is the general mission of the requesting agency?

19 3. Requesting agency POC?

20 4. Requesting agency General Counsel POC?

21 5. Requesting agency technical POC?

22 6. Requesting agency Privacy POC?

23 7. Requesting agency Civil Rights and Civil Liberties POC?

24 B. Data Request

25 1. Requesting access to which system(s) or data set(s)?

26 2. What data elements are needed?

27 3.

28 a. How do you envision receiving this data? (i.e., account access, bulk transfer, other)?

 

194 Department of Homeland Security, Information Sharing and Access Agreements Guidebook and Templates, revision version 2.1, 

October 2010.
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

A - 1 3

1 b. For a data transfer scenario how often does the requesting agency envision receiving the 

2 data (e.g., real-time, hourly, daily, weekly, etc.)?

3 4. Are there any known or potential technical constraints? If yes, please describe.

4 C. Purpose

5 1. Why does the requesting agency need the data?

6 2. What will the data be used for, and how will it be used? (Please be specific)

7 3.

8 a. With whom, internal to your Department/Agency might the information derived from 

9 Providing Agency data be shared with? (Please be specific as to the other components 

10 within your Department/Agency.)

11 b. If you plan to share the data with others external to your Department/Agency, please list 

12 the third parties and describe the circumstances and means by which the data will be 

13 shared.

14 (Note: Any sharing external to your Department/Agency will be predicated upon the 

15 express authorization of that sharing by Providing Agency).

16 4. What is the anticipated number of people within your Department/Agency who will have 

17 access to the information derived from the system(s)?

18 5. What benefits, if any, are there to the Providing Agency mission to provide your 

19 Department/Agency with the data?

20 6. If Providing Agency is expected to receive any information in return, can Provider presume 

21 that it will be able to share this information across other Provider’s Components and Offices 

22 that have the need for the information in the performance of their official duties?

23 (Note: If this is NOT the case, the Requestor must work with Providing Agency to have the 

24 Provider Component send a request for an exemption.)

25 7. If your request is for account access to a Provider system, what is the anticipated number of 

26 users from your Department/Agency?

27 D. Authorities – Requesting Agency

28 1. What is your Department/Agency’s authority, under law, to use the data for the purpose 

29 stated above? (Please provide a specific citation to the relevant statute, regulation, or link to 

30 other document.)

31 2. What SORN(s) cover(s) the system(s) into which the requested data will be entered? (Please 

32 provide federal register citation.)

33 E. Privacy and Civil Liberties Protections

34 1. Redress: What mechanisms will the Requesting Agency use to correct out-of-date or 

35 expunged data in their own system?
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

A - 1 4

1 2. Data Integrity/Deconfliction: How will the Requesting Agency notify Providing Agency when it 

2 finds incorrect or conflicting information, or updates to the data?

3 3. Accountability: Assuming Providing Agency grants express authorization, how will the 

4 Requesting Agency share the data with third parties? What mechanisms will the Requesting 

5 Agency use to ensure the data is limited to authorized users, for the purpose authorized 

6 under the SORN/planned MOU (i.e., account controls, audit logs). Please describe the 

7 circumstances and means by which data would be shared with third parties.

8 4. Auditing: Will the requesting agency audit the use of PII in the system into which the 

9 requested data will be placed?

10 5. Data Minimization: Is the request only seeking that PII which is directly necessary to 

11 accomplish the specified purpose?

12 6. Please describe the privacy and civil liberties training the requesting agency provides to 

13 employees and contractors who will be accessing Provider systems or using the system(s) into 

14 which the requested data will be placed.

15 7. Does the Requesting Agency plan to use the system(s) the requested data will be entered into 

16 to conduct data mining?

17 8. Does the system(s) the requested data will be entered into permit retrieval of information via 

18 queries based on religion, race, national origin, or ethnicity? Will the Requesting Agency use 

19 this function?

20 9. Is a written policy for privacy and civil rights and civil liberties protections in place that applies 

21 to the requesting agency’s use of the requested data? (Y/N) If yes, please provide the policy.

22 10. Does the system(s) into which the requested data will be entered have a PIA? (Please provide 

23 a citation or link to any relevant PIAs.)

24 F. Information Security Controls

25 1. Detail the security safeguards against risks such as loss, unauthorized access or use, 

26 destruction, modification, or unintended or inappropriate disclosure the Requesting Agency 

27 intends to implement.

28 2. Does the requesting agency have a data breach policy in place to respond to an incident?

29

30 SECTION 2: PARTIES ACCOUNTABLE TO ADJUDICATE REQUEST IN A TIMELY 

31 MANNER (Completed by Providing Agency and Communicated to Requesting 

32 Agency)

33 A. Points of Contact

34 1. Reviewing official?

35 2. System/Data Steward POC?

36 3. Privacy POC?
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

A - 1 5

1 4. General Counsel POC?

2 5. Civil Rights/Civil Liberties POC?

3 6. Technical POC?

4 B. Authorities

5 1. What system(s) contain the information requested?

6 2. If the request seeks a subset of data, can it be parsed in the requested manner?

7 3. What SORN routine use covers the sharing of this information with the Requesting Agency?

8 4. Is the proposed use of the requested data discussed in the PIA for the requested database?

9

10 By signing below, I hereby affirm that the information on this form, and on any attachments to it, 

11 are true, complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and are made in good 

12 faith.

Requesting Agency/Department Official Date

13

Providing Agency Official Date

14

15
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

A - 1 6

1 A.4 STANDARD TEMPLATE – EXTERNAL 

INFORMATION SHARING195 2

3 Templates are provided as a guide to writing ISAAs and may be adapted to suit any type of 

4 information sharing arrangement. Information to be completed by the drafting party is indicated 

5 in [brackets]. Sample language and additional instructions are noted in italics.

6 NOTE: This template is for reference guidance only and should be reviewed by your 

7 Department/Agency Office of General Council (OGC) for review and approval prior to its use or 

8 establishing formal agreements.

9

10

11 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

12 BETWEEN

13 DEPARTMENT/AGENCY #1

14 [INTERNAL PARTY]

15 AND

16 DEPARTMENT/AGENCY #2

17 [EXTERNAL PARTY]

18 REGARDING

19 [SUBJECT MATTER]

20 1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE. The Department #1 [INTERNAL PARTY] and Department #2 

21 [proposed recipient, External Party], hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Parties,” have 

22 entered into this Memorandum of Agreement (“MOA” or “Agreement”) to govern the collection, 

23 use, access, disclosure, security, retention, and other usage of data and information described 

24 herein for the purpose of [briefly describe purpose].

25 2. BACKGROUND.

26 [Provide a brief description of INTERNAL PARTY responsibility related to subject matter of 

27 agreement and authority to share].

28 [Provide a brief description of EXTERNAL PARTY responsibility related to subject matter of 

29 agreement and authority to share.]

30 [If access to a system is to be provided, also add a brief description of system.]

 

195 Department of Homeland Security, Information Sharing and Access Agreements Guidebook and Templates, revision version 2.1, 

October 2010.
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

A - 1 7

1

2 3. DEFINITIONS. As used in this Agreement, the following terms will have the following meanings:

3 a. INFORMATION: INTERNAL PARTY shall share [specify the information or system to be made 

4 available or exchanged. Include specific information on the sources of the data and data fields to 

5 be shared or exchanged]. EXTERNAL PARTY shall [specify the information or system to be made 

6 available or exchanged. Include specific information on the sources of the data and data fields to 

7 be shared or exchanged]. Collectively, all information described under this subpart is 

8 “Information,” under the terms of this Agreement.

9 b. INFORMATION SHARING ENVIRONMENT (ISE): Include this definition if Parties are members of 

10 the ISE. The Information Sharing Environment (ISE) as established by section 1016(b)(1)(A) and 

11 defined in section 1016(a)(3) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 

12 (IRTPA), (as amended by the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 

13 2007).

14 c. INFORMATION INCIDENT: (a) The loss of control, compromise, unauthorized disclosure, 

15 unauthorized acquisition, unauthorized access, or any similar term referring to situations where 

16 persons other than authorized users, and for an other than authorized purpose, have access or 

17 potential access to the Information in usable form, whether physical or electronic; and/or (b) any 

18 violation of any of the terms of this Agreement. The term encompasses both suspected and 

19 confirmed incidents.

20 d. PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION (PII): means any information that permits the 

21 identity of an individual to be directly or indirectly inferred, including other information that is 

22 linked or linkable to an individual. For example, when linked or linkable to an individual, such 

23 information includes a name, social security number, date and place of birth, mother’s maiden 

24 name, account number, license number, vehicle identifier number, license plate number, device 

25 identifier or serial number, internet protocol address, biometric identifier (e.g., photograph, 

26 fingerprint, iris scan, voice print), educational information, financial information, medical 

27 information, criminal or employment information, and information created specifically to identify 

28 or authenticate an individual (e.g., a randomly generated number).

29 e. PROTECTED INFORMATION: Include this definition if Parties are members of the ISE. 

30 Information related to terrorism, homeland security, or weapons of mass destruction as those 

31 terms are used in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA), (as 

32 amended by the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007). The term 

33 includes information about U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents that is subject to 

34 information privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties protections required under the U.S. Constitution 

35 and Federal laws of the United States. Under INTERNAL PARTY policy, any PII that is collected, 

36 used, maintained, and/or disseminated in connection with a mixed system is treated as a system 

37 of records subject to the administrative protections of the Privacy Act regardless of whether the 

38 information pertains to a U.S. citizen, legal permanent resident, visitor, or alien.
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

A - 1 8

1 f. [Define additional terms specific to this Agreement.]

2 4. AUTHORITY. The information sharing and enhanced cooperation among the Parties to this 

3 Agreement is authorized under and complies with the provisions of:

4 a. INTERNAL PARTY authorizing legislation citation;

5 b. [Insert Component specific authorities;]

6 c. 5 U.S.C. § 552a, Privacy Act of 1974; [Insert specific INTERNAL PARTY System of Records Notice, 

7 Date and Federal Register Citation];

8 d. Public Law 107-347, §208, “The E-Government Act of 2002; [Insert specific INTERNAL PARTY

9 Privacy Impact Assessment, as appropriate];

10 e. [If parties are part of the federal ISE, include:] Public Law 108-458, “Intelligence Reform and 

11 Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA) of 2004,” as amended;

12 f. [If parties are part of the federal ISE, include:] Public Law 110-53, “Implementing 

13 Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007;”

14 g. [If parties are part of the federal ISE, include:] Program Manager’s Office, Information Sharing 

15 Environment, “Privacy Guidelines,” December 4, 2006;

16 h. [If parties are part of the federal ISE, include:] Privacy and Civil Liberties Policy Guidance 

17 Memorandum 2009-01.

18 i. [list all additional applicable statutory and regulatory authorities for each party].

19 5. RESPONSIBILITIES. The following roles and responsibilities have been defined for each of the 

20 parties to this Memorandum of Agreement (MOA):

21 A. DATA SENSITIVITY. It is the intent of the Parties to conduct the exchange of the Information at 

22 the [Enter the sensitivity or classification level of the information to be exchanged. Use the 

23 highest sensitivity or classification for any of the Information to be shared, e.g., Controlled but 

24 Unclassified] level. Specific technical and security details appropriate to this level of data 

25 sensitivity are set forth in the SAFEGUARDS section, below, [optional clause: and in separate 

26 technical documentation, titled [insert documentation title or other direction] and attached as 

27 Attachment A to this Agreement and incorporated herein.]

28 B. DELIVERY OF DATA. [Enter a description of the requirements pertinent to the exchange of 

29 information/data among and between the parties, using one of the 3 options provided. If direct 

30 access to a system is allowed, use option 3.]

31 Option 1: Use if separate documents define technical standards. Must use this option if the DATA 

32 SENSITIVITY optional clause was used and no direct access of the system is contemplated. The 

33 technical standards related to transfer of data between INTERNAL PARTY EXTERNAL PARTY as 

34 provided in this Agreement are attached and incorporated into this Agreement at Appendix 

35 [letter]. In general, the Parties agree to use efficient, commercially available network and 
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

A - 1 9

1 database technology that meets or exceeds industry standards to securely store and transfer data 

2 in a manner that will allow data to be transferred and updated in a real time or near real time 

3 manner. The Parties are committed to updating the technologies employed to implement this 

4 Agreement to ensure maximum efficiency and data-sharing as data volumes increase and more 

5 efficient technologies become available.

6 OR

7 Option 2: INTERNAL PARTY will electronically transmit the Information to the [title of EXTERNAL 

8 PARTY person responsible for receiving the Information]. INTERNAL PARTY will transmit the 

9 Information to EXTERNAL PARTY via an agreed upon secure delivery system based on best 

10 practices and strong privacy and data security protections.

11 OR

12 Option 3: Use if direct access to a system is to be provided. [Insert language that describes 

13 delivery and security parameters for direct access to a system by external users. Specify the 

14 security parameters that are exchanged among/between systems that authenticate requests and 

15 classes of service as being within the proper scope of this Agreement. Describe the number and 

16 types of users that will be permitted access. Also, any additional security parameters that are 

17 required to allow the system to determine whether a user is authorized to receive the 

18 information and/or services requested and whether all details of the transaction fall within the 

19 scope of user services authorized by this Agreement (such as personal accountability) should be 

20 specified here. See example below]

21 Example: INTERNAL PARTY will establish [insert number] user accounts providing access to the 

22 [system] programs for EXTERNAL PARTY personnel at specified locations, including [specified 

23 locations, if any] [optional clause: and locations where EXTERNAL PARTY and INTERNAL PARTY

24 personnel are co-located]. EXTERNAL PARTY agrees to limit access to the [system] to only 

25 individuals to whom access accounts have been properly issued and who have successfully 

26 completed the training required under this Agreement. In no case will more than [insert same 

27 number from above] distinct individuals be provided access to the [system]. INTERNAL PARTY will 

28 transfer records on a timely, periodic basis to EXTERNAL PARTY from the [system] programs, as 

29 described in this Agreement. The periodic transfer of records will begin as soon as practicable. 

30 The specific technical and operational requirements for the establishment of user accounts and 

31 the periodic transfer of data as described in this section are set forth in [name of separate 

32 documentation], attached at [Appendix identification] and incorporated herein.

33 C. USE.

34 The information shared in accordance with this Agreement will be used only as described and for 

35 the purposes stated in this Agreement, and in a manner consistent with any statutory or 

36 regulatory requirements, including privacy compliance requirements.

37 Add if applicable: Each party will use the data only for the purpose stated in [statutory citation].

38 [Describe any additional limits on authorized use of information].
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

A - 2 0

1 D. RECORDS.

2 The Parties will retain the Information for only as long as is needed to fulfill the purposes stated in 

3 Section 1. In no instance will the retention period for any data item exceed [fill in time period] or 

4 the maximum period permissible by applicable legal and regulatory requirements or official 

5 retention policies. Each Party will dispose of the Information accessed under this Agreement in 

6 accordance with its own records retention authorities and policies, as well as applicable laws and 

7 regulations, whichever is shorter.

8 [Describe any additional specific requirements for disposition/retention of records].

9 E. DISSEMINATION.

10 The Parties will limit access to information covered under this Agreement to only those 

11 authorized personnel who have a mission need for the data to carry out their official duties. The 

12 Information will not be disseminated outside INTERNAL PARTY without the expressed consent of 

13 [External Party]. The Information will not be disseminated outside of EXTERNAL PARTY without 

14 the express consent of INTERNAL PARTY.

15 Before any information originating from INTERNAL PARTY records can be disclosed to any third 

16 party other than those identified in the DISSEMINATION section above (for example Congress, 

17 Government Accountability Office, the courts, and the general public), the EXTERNAL PARTY will 

18 contact INTERNAL PARTY to determine the appropriate action or response. Should INTERNAL 

19 PARTY and EXTERNAL PARTY agree to EXTERNAL PARTY’s disclosure of the information, 

20 EXTERNAL PARTY shall document the disclosure and provide such documentation to INTERNAL 

21 PARTY. Likewise, before any information originating from EXTERNAL PARTY records can be 

22 disclosed to any third party other than those identified in the DISSEMINATION section above (for 

23 example Congress, Government Accountability Office, the courts, and the general public), 

24 INTERNAL PARTY will contact EXTERNAL PARTY to determine the appropriate action or response. 

25 Should INTERNAL PARTY and EXTERNAL PARTY agree to INTERNAL PARTY‘s disclosure of the 

26 information, INTERNAL PARTY shall document the disclosure and provide such documentation to 

27 EXTERNAL PARTY. For the purposes of disclosure under this Agreement, Components within 

28 INTERNAL PARTY are not considered third parties or agencies.

29 [Optional clause] Added to respond to (in part) INTERNAL PARTY concern relating to applicability 

30 of state and local laws to INTERNAL PARTY data: This is the only formal preemption of state and 

31 local privacy laws for federal data of which we are aware, so any need for further guidance on this 

32 point should be addressed to the OGC for specific ISAAs.

33 Dissemination of information from one Party to another shall not be considered a release of 

34 information to the public, nor shall it constitute a waiver of any exemption to the relation of 

35 information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. §522 or similar state law.

36 Add, if applicable:

37 Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, pursuant to 6 U.S.C. § 482, information 

38 obtained by a State or local government from a Federal agency shall remain under the control of 
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

A - 2 1

1 the Federal agency, and State or local law authorizing or requiring such a government to disclose 

2 information shall not apply to such information. The state or local agency shall: (a) withhold such 

3 information from any response; (b) release such information only with the expressed approval of 

4 the Federal agency; or (c) refer the request to the originating Federal agency for a direct response 

5 to the requester.

6 Each Party shall ensure that access to [insert marking level] information is limited to those 

7 persons who possess requisite security clearances [optional clause: and who have executed a 

8 non-disclosure’ agreement prohibiting unauthorized use and disclosure of information.] All 

9 EXTERNAL PARTY personnel who receive user account access to the [system] programs must be 

10 verified as having a current [required security level, e.g., secret] or higher security clearance 

11 before being allowed access to the information.

12 F. SUPPORT. [Describe the nature of analytic or technical services to be offered by each 

13 organization].

14 G. SAFEGUARDS. The Parties agree to maintain reasonable physical, electronic, and procedural 

15 safeguards designed to appropriately protect the Information shared under this Agreement 

16 against loss, theft, or misuse, as well as unauthorized access, disclosure, copying, use, 

17 modification or deletion. When the information is no longer used by the Parties, the Parties will 

18 destroy all electronic data from their systems as well as all paper records that they have in their 

19 possession as a result of this Agreement in such a manner as to render it unreadable and 

20 unrecoverable.

21 AND if appropriate:

22 INTERNAL PARTY considers the Information to be [category of information] under [statutory and 

23 regulatory citation] and will be handled in accordance with requirements for handling of [category 

24 of information].

25 [Add additional safeguards related to the transmission, storage, and retention of the Information]

26 H. TRAINING. [Enter the details of any security awareness or training requirements and the 

27 assignment of responsibility for conducting it. If existing training will be used, so state. If the 

28 information shared includes PII, include the additional clause below.]

29 Example: Upon request from INTERNAL PARTY, EXTERNAL PARTY will provide sufficient training 

30 and technical assistance to implement the transfer of [system] information and ensure 

31 appropriate interpretation of such information. This includes general training of a core group of 

32 users in the functions of [system] to ensure accurate interpretation of the information. The core 

33 users would be utilized in a train the trainer program.

34 If the information to be shared includes PII, also include the following:

35 The Parties, including all personnel with access to the Information, shall be appropriately 

36 educated and trained regarding the proper handling of personally identifiable information and 

37 proper care of the information systems to ensure the overall safeguarding and security of the 
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

A - 2 2

1 Information. Each Party will ensure that its employees, including contractors with access to any of 

2 the Information, have completed privacy training on the handling of personally identifiable 

3 information which includes information on applicable laws, regulations and policies related to 

4 information privacy and security.

5 I. PRIVACY.

6 The collection, use, disclosure, and retention of personally identifiable information shall be 

7 limited to that which is necessary for purposes of the Parties as set forth in this Agreement. 

8 Personally identifiable information shall be protected by administrative, technical and physical 

9 safeguards appropriate to the sensitivity of the information. Personally identifiable information 

10 will only be disclosed to authorized individuals with a need to know and only for uses that are 

11 consistent with the stated purposes under this Agreement and for which the information was 

12 originally collected.

13 Add, if applicable:

14 The Parties are members of the Information Sharing Environment (ISE) as established by section 

15 1016(b)(1)(A) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA), (as 

16 amended by the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007). As such, 

17 the Parties understand and acknowledge that their collection, use, maintenance, and 

18 dissemination of protected information under this Agreement must conform to the requirements 

19 established for ISE members by the President, the Program Manager for the ISE (PM-ISE), and the 

20 PM-ISE’s Privacy Guidelines Committee. The Parties also acknowledge that they will collect, use, 

21 maintain and disseminate protected

22 J. CORRECTION AND REDRESS. If Information includes PII, include the following:

23 Personally identifiable information shared and/or maintained under this Agreement shall, to the 

24 extent feasible, be as accurate, complete, and current as necessary for the purposes identified in 

25 this Agreement. The Parties shall cooperate with each other in this regard. The EXTERNAL PARTY

26 will, in a timely manner, take appropriate action with regard to any request made by INTERNAL 

27 PARTY for access, additions, changes, deletions, or corrections of PII. In addition, the EXTERNAL 

28 PARTY will, in a timely manner, notify INTERNAL PARTY of any data errors that it discovers.

29 The EXTERNAL PARTY shall maintain an ability to locate and alter PII provided under this 

30 Agreement. Additionally, the EXTERNAL PARTY shall correct any disseminated information based 

31 on the Information shared under this Agreement that is later deemed to be erroneous. Location 

32 and correction of records shall be accomplished in not more than three working days and 

33 EXTERNAL PARTY will provide written confirmation to EXTERNAL PARTY of the corrections made.

34 K. COOPERATION/DECONFLICTION. [Describe any coordination and/or deconfliction 

35 responsibilities]

36 The Parties shall work together to the greatest extent possible to achieve the maximum 

37 preventative, preemptive, and disruptive effect on potential threats, including coordinating 

38 simultaneous and complementary activities when appropriate. The parties agree to coordinate 
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

A - 2 3

1 operational activities to the greatest possible extent. Specifically, each party shall take all 

2 reasonable steps to ensure coordination and de-confliction of homeland-security-related law 

3 enforcement or intelligence activities under its authority, with such activities of the other party.

4 If Parties contemplate coordination of investigative or enforcement activities include the 

5 following:

6 Where the Parties have a mutual investigative interest based on information shared pursuant to 

7 this Agreement, the Parties will coordinate with each other to determine the appropriate 

8 investigative/enforcement course of action. In such matters, unless there are exigent 

9 circumstances requiring immediate action, the EXTERNAL PARTY will verify information and 

10 coordinate with INTERNAL PARTY before taking action on leads or disseminating intelligence 

11 products developed as a result of information shared pursuant to this Agreement. In the event of 

12 exigent circumstances, the EXTERNAL PARTY will notify the designated INTERNAL PARTY

13 EXTERNAL representative as soon as possible but no longer than 24 hours after taking the action. 

14 This section does not apply to matters in which INTERNAL PARTY and EXTERNAL PARTY do not 

15 have a mutual investigative interest.

16 L. REPORTING AND COMPLIANCE. [Use this section to describe the responsibilities concerning the 

17 reporting of and responses to information sharing incidents for both organizations.]

18 The Parties will provide notice, written unless otherwise specified, of any information incidents. 

19 Such notice is to be provided to the INTERNAL PARTY point of contact listed in this agreement 

20 immediately after the party first learns of the unauthorized information incident. The Parties 

21 agree to cooperate with any Party’s investigation or auditing of such information incidents and 

22 measures taken in response to same.

23 To further safeguard the privacy, security, confidentiality, integrity and availability of the 

24 connected systems and the information they store, process and transmit, the Parties agree to 

25 maintain records of information provided to each other under the terms of this Agreement 

26 consistent with applicable law, as well as established records retention policies and guidance of 

27 the respective Parties.

28 The Parties shall designate responsible officials to meet annually, or at the request of any Party, to 

29 discuss and review the implementation of this Agreement. Any disagreement over the 

30 implementation of this Agreement shall be resolved in accordance with the ISSUE RESOLUION 

31 paragraph, below.

32 M. AUDITING. [Enter a description of how the audit trail responsibility, if any, is to be shared by 

33 participating systems and what events each shall note. Also be sure to identify audit timeframes 

34 and schedules.]

35 Both Parties shall work together to develop review standards to conduct annual self-audits of 

36 their compliance with the privacy, redress, and security requirements set forth in this Agreement. 

37 The results of such audits shall be exchanged with the other party. The [official to receive reports] 

38 shall be provided copies of the self-audits of both Parties for review. As part of this responsibility, 
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

A - 2 4

1 the EXTERNAL PARTY further agrees to conduct its own annual audits of compliance with the 

2 terms of this Agreement, and to provide the results of these audits to [title of INTERNAL PARTY

3 person to receive audit reports].

4 The EXTERNAL PARTY will cooperate fully with any INTERNAL PARTY audit of the collection, use, 

5 access, disclosure, security, and retention of Information under this Agreement, and/or of 

6 compliance with this Agreement. The EXTERNAL PARTY agrees to provide the INTERNAL PARTY

7 with timely and reasonable access to records and information demonstrating compliance with this 

8 Agreement, upon request.

9 Additional optional language: INTERNAL PARTY may also verify compliance through a Computer10 Based Training course and an automated certification test. All EXTERNAL PARTY [system] users 

11 will be required to pass this certification test in order to access any functions or data in [system].

12 N. [Enter any additional specific roles or requirements of each participating party.]

13 O. Sanctions

14 EXTERNAL PARTY will report to INTERNAL PARTY in writing any instance in which information 

15 under this MOA is accessed, disseminated, or used in an unauthorized manner. Such notice is to 

16 be provided immediately after the party first learns of the unauthorized access, dissemination, or 

17 use.

18 Any user who is determined by [external group] or INTERNAL PARTY to be in systemic or 

19 repeated violation of applicable laws and procedures governing access to and use of the 

20 information under this Agreement will have access to the information subject to this Agreement 

21 revoked, and may be prosecuted or fined, when appropriate, under applicable federal or state 

22 law, or may be subject to administrative or disciplinary actions.

23 6. POINTS OF CONTACT. The individuals responsible for implementation of this MOA and the 

24 resolution of issues hereunder shall be:

25 [Identify the POCs for INTERNAL PARTY and EXTERNAL PARTY, including office symbol, address 

26 and phone number (fax number and e-mail or internet addresses can also be included).]

27 7. SEVERABILITY. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to conflict with current law or regulation

28 or the directives of the INTERNAL PARTY or EXTERNAL PARTY. If a term of this agreement is 

29 inconsistent with such authority, then that term shall be invalid, but the remaining terms and 

30 conditions of this agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

31 8. NO PRIVATE RIGHT. This MOA is an agreement between INTERNAL PARTY and EXTERNAL 

32 PARTY. It does not create or confer any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable by 

33 any third party against the Parties, the United States, or the officers, employees, agents, or 

34 associated personnel thereof. Nothing in this MOA [or its appendices] is intended to restrict the 
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

A - 2 5

1 authority of either party to act as provided by law, statute, or regulation, or to restrict any party 

2 from administering or enforcing any laws within its authority or jurisdiction.

3 9. FUNDING. This MOA is not an obligation or commitment of funds, nor a basis for transfer of 

4 funds. Unless otherwise agreed to in writing, each Party shall bear its own costs in relation to this 

5 MOA. Expenditures by each Party will be subject to its budgetary processes and to the availability 

6 of funds and resources pursuant to applicable laws, regulations, and policies. The Parties 

7 expressly acknowledge that this in no way implies that Congress will appropriate funds for such 

8 expenditures.

9 10. ISSUE RESOLUTION. Throughout the course of this Agreement, issues such as scope of the 

10 Agreement, interpretation of its provisions, unanticipated technical matters, including 

11 improvements, and other proposed modifications can be expected. Both parties agree to appoint 

12 their respective points of contact to work in good faith towards resolution. Disputes arising under 

13 or relating to this Agreement shall be resolved only through consultations between the Parties. 

14 Such disputes shall not be referred to any outside Party or to any other settlement without the 

15 consent of both Parties. This Agreement shall be governed United States law exclusively.

16 11. EFFECTIVE DATE. The terms of this agreement will become effective on [insert the effect 

17 date].

18 12. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This MOA [including all appendices] constitutes the entire agreement 

19 between the parties.

20 13. MODIFICATION. This agreement may be modified upon the mutual written consent of the 

21 parties.

22 14. TERMINATION. The terms of this agreement, as modified with the consent of both parties, 

23 will remain in effect until [date, completion of project, or upon agreement of parties.] The 

24 agreement may be extended by mutual written agreement of the parties. Either party upon 

25 [number] days written notice to the other party may terminate this agreement.

26 The forgoing represents the agreement reached by the INTERNAL PARTY and EXTERNAL PARTY.

27 APPROVED BY:

28 [Give the name and position of the official signing and dating for the INTERNAL PARTY. If known, 

29 give the name and position of the official signing and dating for the EXTERNAL PARTY.]

30
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

A - 2 6

[Name]

[Position]

INTERNAL PARTY

Date

1

[Name]

[Position]

EXTERNAL PARTY

Date

2

3
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

B - 1

1 APPENDIX B:

2 BUSINESS REFERENCE MODEL

3 B.1 BASELINE GEOSPATIAL ASSESSMENT

4 MATRIX: CORE CAPABILITY

5

Enterprise 

Investment Visualization

GeoAnalysis/ 

Processing

Reporting Search &

Discovery

Alerts &

Notifications Collaboration Content Mgmt

Resource 

Mgmt

Data 

Mgmt

Asset 

Mgmt

Decision 

Support

IT 

Security Other

Org #1 C C C P P P P C C P P C

Org #2 C C C C C P C C C C

Org #3 C C C C C C C C C

Org #4 C C C C C C C C

Org #5 C C C C C C C C C C C

Org #6 C C C C C C C P C P

Org #7 P P P

Org #8 C C C C C C

Org #9 C C C C C

Commonality 

Score Percent 

(%)

9 7 6 6 8 6 4 4 7 3 5 9 0

100% 78% 67% 67% 89% 67% 44% 44% 78% 33% 56% 100% 0%

Status: C = Current, P = Planned

6

7
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

C - 1

1 APPENDIX C:

2 DATA REFERENCE MODEL

3 C.1 BASELINE GEOSPATIAL ASSESSMENT 

4 MATRIX: DATA INPUTS

5

6

7

8

Geospatial Baseline Assessment: Data Inputs

Org #1 Org #3 Org #4 Org #5 Org #6

Common 

Score Pct %

Email P P C C C C 6 100%

SMS / Text Messages P C C P C C 6 100%

Internet Media P C P C C 5 83%

Critical Infrastructure C C C C C C 6 100%

Suspicious Activity Reports P P C C P 5 83%

Weather Service Forecasts / Warnings P C C C C C 6 100%

Natural Hazards P C C C C C 6 100%

Base Maps (see GIRA Appendix F-2) P C C C C C 6 100%

Business Directories P P C C C 5 83%

Personnel / Blue Force Tracking P C C 3 50%

Asset / Vessel Tracking P C C C 4 67%

Elevation & Terrain P C C C 4 67%

Navigation & Reference Grids P C C 3 50%

Population / Demographics C C C C 4 67%

Travel Conditions P C C C C 5 83%

Political Jurisdictions P C C C 4 67%

Tax Parcels P C 2 33%

Law Enforcement P C 2 33%

Emergency Services P C P 3 50%

Health & Disease Outbreaks P P C C 4 67%

Aerial Photography C C C C C C 6 100%

Satellite Imagery C C C C C C 6 100%

Traffic Camera / Feeds P C C C C C 6 100%

Camera Feeds / live video P C C C C C 6 100%

Business Partners Operating Status P P 2 33%

Personal Identifiable Information (PII) P P 2 33%

Classified / FOUO sensitivie data P P 2 33%

Others 2 33%

Status C - Current P - Planned 0%

Data Inputs Org #2
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

C - 2

1 C.2 BASELINE GEOSPATIAL ASSESSMENT 

2 MATRIX: DATASETS

3

4

5

Geospatial Baseline Assessment: Datasets 

Org #1 Org #2 Org #3 Org #4 Org #5 Org #6

Common 

Score Pct %

Base Map2 (* indicates OMB A-16 Framework Layer)

Baseline (Maritime) C 1 17%

Biological Resources C C C 3 50%

Boundaries C C 2 33%

Cadastral* C P 2 33%

Cadastral* (Offshore) P P C C 4 67%

Climate C 1 17%

Cultural and Demographic Statistics P P C 3 50%

Cultural Resources C C C 3 50%

Digital Ortho Imagery* C C 2 33%

Earth Cover (Land Use / Land Cover) C P 2 33%

Elevation Bathymetric* P P C C 4 67%

Elevation Terrestrial* C 1 17%

Buildings and Facilities P P C 3 50%

Federal Land Ownership Status C 1 17%

Flood Hazards C C C 3 50%

Geodetic Control* C C 2 33%

Geographic Names C P 2 33%

Geologic P P C C 4 67%

Government Units* C 1 17%

Housing C C C 3 50%

Hydrography* C C C 3 50%

International Boundaries C C 2 33%

Law Enforcement Statistics C P 2 33%

Marine Boundaries P P C C 4 67%

Offshore Minerals C 1 17%

Outer Continental Shelf Submerged Lands P P C 3 50%

Public Health C 1 17%

Public Lands Conveyance (patent) Records C C C 3 50%

Shoreline C 1 17%

Soils C P 2 33%

Transportation* P P C C 4 67%

Transportation (Marine) C 1 17%

Vegetation P P C 3 50%

Watershed Boundaries C 1 17%

Wetlands C C C 3 50%

Others 0%

Agriculture/Food

Animal Health Surveillance C P 2 33%

Mobile Food P P C C 4 67%

Processing / Packaging / Production C 1 17%

Product Distribution P P C 3 50%

Product Storage C 1 17%

Product Transportation C 1 17%

Supply C 1 17%

Support Facilities C 1 17%

Other C 1 17%

Banking / Finance

Banking and Credit C 1 17%

Securities / Commodities / Financial Investments C 1 17%

Other 0%

Datasets1
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

C - 3

1

2

Chemical and Hazardous Materials

Manufacturing Facilities C 1 17%

Release C 1 17%

Storage C 1 17%

Superfund Sites C P C 3 50%

Transportation Routes C C 2 33%

Other C C 2 33%

Commercial Assets

Industry C P C C C 5 83%

Lodging C C 2 33%

Manufacturing C C 2 33%

Mining C C 2 33%

Public Venues C C 2 33%

Retail Facilities C C 2 33%

Other 0%

Dams

Dam Types

Defense Industrial Base

Defense Industrial Base

Emergency Services

American Red Cross 0%

Emergency Management / Operations Centers 0%

Emergency Resources 0%

Fire 0%

Law Enforcement 0%

Rescue and Emergency Medical Services 0%

Others 0%

Energy

Electricity 0%

Natural Gas 0%

Petroleum 0%

Other 0%

Event Impact

Animal Impact 0%

Damage - Infrastructure 0%

Evacuation Routes 0%

Event Location 0%

Impacted Area 0%

Impact-Human 0%

Modeling 0%

Other 0%

Field Operating Locations

Federal 0%

Blue Force Tracks 0%

Other 0%

Government Facilities

Federal 0%

State/Local/Tribal/Territory 0%

GSA 0%

COOP Sites 0%

Foreign 0%

Judicial 0%

Military Installations 0%

Field Offices or Operating Locations 0%

Other 0%
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

C - 4

1

2

3

Telecommunications

Broadcasting 0%

Communications 0%

Internet 0%

Priority / Emergency Assets 0%

Satellite 0%

Transport Facilities 0%

Wired 0%

Wireless 0%

Other 0%

Threat / Suspicious Activity

Reports 0%

Surveillance 0%

Aviation 0%

Intermodal 0%

Maritime 0%

Mass Transit 0%

Railroad 0%

Road 0%

Other 0%

Water

Raw Water Storage 0%

Raw Water Supply 0%

Treated Water Distribution Systems 0%

Treated Water Storage 0%

Wastewater Facilities 0%

Other 0%

Sources: 1) GeoCONOPS v5.0, Appendix B: Authoritative Data Matrix, GeoCONOPS located at - http://www.napsgfoundation.org/attachments/article/81/GeoCONOPS_v5.pdf

Sources: 2) Basemaps: OMB Circular A-16 Supplemental Guidance, Appendix E: National Geospatial Data Asset Themes 

* - indicates A-16 Framework theme
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

D - 1

1 APPENDIX D:

2 APPLICATIONS/SERVICES REFERENCE 

3 MODEL

4 D.1 APPLICATIONS AND SERVICES 

5 FUNCTIONALITY CATEGORIES

6

7

8

9

Ops OHA DNDO Mgmt CIS DOD

Org #1 Org #2 Org #3 Org #4 Org #5 Org #5

Common 

Score Pct %

Geospatial: Visualization C C P C C C 6 100%

Geospatial: Analysis / Processing C C C C C 5 83%

Reporting C C P C C 5 83%

Search & Discovery P C C C 4 67%

Alerts & Notifications P C P P C C 6 100%

Collaboration P C C C 4 22%

Content Management P C C C 4 22%

Resource Management C C C 3 50%

Data Management C P C C C 5 83%

Modeling C P P P P C 6 100%

Analytics C C P C C C 6 100%

IT Security C P P C C C 6 100%

Other 0%

Status c - Current P - Planned

Geospatial Baseline Assessment: Functionality

 Category
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

D - 2

1 D.2 FUNCTIONALITY OF APPLICATIONS AND 

2 SERVICES

3

4

5

Geospatial Baseline Assessment: Functionality of Applications and Services

Functionality Category

Org 

#1

Org 

#2

Org 

#3

Org 

#4

Org 

#5

Org 

#6

Common 

Score

Pct (%)

GIS Visualization Geospatial C C C C C C 6 100%

ANSI 415 Map Symbology Geospatial C C P P 4 67%

Mil 2525B Map Symbology Geospatial P 1 17%

Geocode Address / Place Geospatial C C C C C C 6 100%

Reverse Geocode Geospatial C P C C P 5 83%

Batch Geocode Geospatial P P C C C 5 83%

Gazeteer Geospatial P C C C C 5 83%

Translate Coordinate Systems / Grids Geospatial P C C C 4 67%

Decimal Degrees Geospatial P C C C C C 6 100%

Decimal Minutes Seconds Geospatial P C C C C 5 83%

Other Coordinate Systems / Projections Geospatial C C 2 33%

US National Grid Geospatial P C C C 4 67%

Military Reference Grid Geospatial P C C 3 50%

Add Custom GIS data Geospatial P P C C C 5 83%

Export Data Layers Geospatial P P C C C 5 83%

Print Map Geospatial C P C C C C 6 100%

Export Map Geospatial P P C C C C 6 100%

GIS analysis / processing Geospatial C C C 3 50%

Imagery Visualization Digital Photography / Streaming Video C P C C C 5 83%

Streaming Video Digital Photography / Streaming Video P P C C C 5 83%

Live Camera Feeds Digital Photography / Streaming Video P P C C C 5 83%

Reporting Reporting C P C C C C 6 100%

Reporting Templates Reporting C P C C C C 6 100%

Standard Form Generation Reporting P P C C C C 6 100%

Export Reports / Output Reporting C P C C C C 6 100%

Search Tools Search & Discovery P C C C C C 6 100%

Auto-ingest / Harvesting Search & Discovery P C C C C C 6 100%

Unstructured Text / Document Search Search & Discovery P P C C C C 6 100%

Cataloging Search & Discovery P C C C 4 67%

Indexing Search & Discovery P C C C 4 67%

Tagging Search & Discovery P C C C 4 67%

Geotagging Search & Discovery P P C C C 5 83%

Entity Extraction Search & Discovery P C C C 4 67%

Triage / Filtering Search & Discovery P C C C 4 67%

Federated Queries Search & Discovery P P C 3 50%

Contextual Search Search & Discovery P P C 3 50%

Rank Profiles / Best Bets Search & Discovery P C 2 33%

Taxonomy Integration Search & Discovery P P C P 4 67%

Alert Notification Tools Alerts & Notifications P C C C C C 6 100%

Publish Alerts Alerts & Notifications P P C C C 5 83%

Subscribe to Alerts Alerts & Notifications P P C C C C 6 100%

Manage Alerts Alerts & Notifications P P C C C C 6 100%

Messaging Services Alerts & Notifications P C C C C C 6 100%

Chat Collaboration P C C C 4 67%

Email Collaboration P C C C C 5 83%

Videoconferencing Collaboration P C C C 4 67%

Shared Workspace Collaboration P C C 3 50%

Message Boards Collaboration P C C C 4 67%

Customer Segmentation / Communities of Interest Content Management P P C C C 5 83%

Input Forms Content Management C P C C 4 67%

Workflow Management Content Management C C C 3 50%

Document Repository Content Management C P C C C 5 83%
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

D - 3

1

2

3

Secure / Restricted Access IT Security C C C C C P 6 100%

User Account Management IT Security C C C C C C 6 100%

Identity Management IT Security C C C C C 5 83%

Access Controls IT Security C P C C C C 6 100%

Change Detection Analytics P C 2 33%

Line of Sight Analytics P C 2 33%

Flood Inundation / Modeling Analytics P C 2 33%

Population Interpolation Analytics P P C C 3 50%

Service Area Analysis Analytics P C C 3 50%

Nearest Point Analytics P C C C 4 67%

Routing Analysis Analytics C C P C 4 67%

Surface Profile Analytics P C 2 33%

Calculate Viewshed Analytics P C 2 33%

Plume Modeling Analytics P C C 3 50%

Suspicious Activity Report Analysis Analytics P P C C 4 67%

Search & Rescue Report Analysis Analytics P 1 17%

Recidivist Analysis Analytics 0 0%

Point Context Service Analytics P P C C C C 6 100%

Distance and Azimuth Service Analytics P P C C C C 6 100%

Employee Proximity Analysis Analytics 0 0%

Point/Poly Buffer Analysis Analytics P P C C C C 6 100%

Drift Modeling Analytics 0 0%

Optimized Effort Allocation Analytics 0 0%

Probability of Success (POS) reporting Analytics 0 0%

Search Pattern Generation and Edit Analytics C 1 17%

Range and Bearing Measurement Analytics P P C C C C 6 100%

Wind and Current Vector Field Display Analytics P P C C C C 6 100%

Prability Densitu Graphic Support (heat maps) Analytics 0 0%

Temporal Animation Analytics C 1 17%

Status C-Current P-Planned
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

E - 1

1 APPENDIX E:

2 INFRASTRUCTURE REFERENCE MODEL

3 E.1 BASELINE GEOSPATIAL ASSESSMENT 

4 MATRIX: INFRASTRUCTURE

5

6

7

8

Infrastrcuture Core Capability Org #1 Org #2 Org #3 Org #4 Org #5 Org #6 Score Pct

Initial Operating Capability System Maturity Level C C 2 33%

Full Operating Capability System Maturity Level C C C 3 50%

Prototype System Maturity Level C 1 17%

Other System Maturity Level 0 0%

COTS Solution Software Components C C C C C C 6 100%

GOTS Solution Software Components C C 2 33%

Open Source Solution Software Components C 1 17%

Custom Solution Software Components C C C 3 50%

Internal Hosting Hosting Capability C C 2 33%

External Hosting Hosting Capability C C 2 33%

Datacenter Hosting Capability P C 2 33%

Disaster Recovery / Failover Capability Hosting Capability P P C P C 5 83%

Certification & Accreditation Complete IT Security P P C C C P 6 100%

Authority to Operate IT Security P C C C C P 6 100%

Section 508 Compliance User Accessibility C C 2 33%

NIEM Compliant Information Exchange P C 2 33%

Unclassified System Designation C C C C 4 67%

Sensitive But Unclassified System Designation P C P 3 50%

Classified System Designation P 3 50%

Public System Designation C P 2 33%

Network #1 Operating Environment P C 2 33%

Network #2 Operating Environment 0 0%

Network #3 Operating Environment 0 0%

Other Network Operating Environment C C 2 33%

Data Exchange Agreements System Overview P C 2 33%

Service Level Agreements System Overview P 1 17%

< 1,000 Current Users System Capacity C C C C C 5 83%

1,000-5,000 Current Users System Capacity P 1 17%

>10,000 Current Users System Capacity 0 0%

> 5,000 Surge Users System Capacity C 1 17%

5,000-10,000 Surge Users System Capacity 0 0%

> 10,000 Surge Users System Capacity P 1 17%

Mobile Version Interoperability P P C P C 5 83%

Status: C = Current P = Planned

Geospatial Baseline Assessment: Infrastructure
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

E - 2

1 E.2 BASELINE GEOSPATIAL ASSESSMENT 

2 MATRIX: TECHNOLOGY

3

4

5

6

Geospatial Baseline Assessment: Technology

Technology Core Capability Org #1 Org #3 Org #4 Score Pct

Internet Explorer Web Browser C C C C 4 100%

Chrome Web Browser C 1 25%

Firefox Web Browser C C C 3 75%

Opera Web Browser 0 0%

Safari Web Browser 0 0%

Other Web Browsers Web Browser 0 0%

Windows OS Operating System C C C C 4 100%

Linux OS Operating System C C 2 50%

UNIX Operating System 0 0%

Other OS Operating System 0 0%

Anakam IT Security P 1 25%

Open SSO IT Security P 1 25%

Active Directory IT Security C 1 25%

Other IT Security IT Security C 1 25%

.Net Framework Programming Framework C C 2 50%

Flash Programming Framework C 1 25%

JAVA Programming Framework C C 2 50%

Other Frameworks Programming Framework C 1 25%

AJAX API C 1 25%

FLEX API C 1 25%

Silverlight API C C 2 50%

Rest API C 1 25%

Other APIs API C 1 25%

ESRI Flex API API C 1 25%

ESRI Silverlight API API 0 0%

ESRI Javascript API API 0 0%

ESRI ArcExplorer API API 0 0%

Oracle Database Software C C C 3 75%

SQLServer Database Software P C C 3 75%

MySQL Database Software C 1 25%

Other Database Database Software C 1 25%

ESRI ArcGIS Server GIS Software C C C 4 100%

GoogleEarth Enterprise Server GIS Software 0 0%

Pitney Bowes AddressBroker Geocoding Software 0 0%

BingMaps Geocoder Geocoding Software C 1 25%

GoogleMaps Geocoder Geocoding Software 0 0%

ArcGIS Online Geocoder Geocoding Software C 1 25%

Other Geocoder Geocoding Software 0 0%

Org #2
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

E - 3

1

2

3

4

5

Geospatial Baseline Assessment: Technology

Technology Core Capability Org #1 Org #2 Org #3 Org #4 Score Pct

OpenMap GIS Visualization 0 0%

BingMaps GIS Visualization C C C 3 75%

GoogleMaps GIS Visualization 0 0%

ArcGIS Online GIS Visualization C 1 25%

Other GIS Visualization GIS Visualization 0 0%

DRMS Reporting Software Reporting Software 0 0%

Microsoft SQL Server Report Reporting Software P 1 25%

Oracle Reports Reporting Software 0 0%

ArcGIS Server Reports Reporting Software C 1 25%

Other Reporting Software Reporting Software 0 0%

Microsoft Exchange Email Email P 1 25%

ListServ Email 0 0%

Real-Time Alert Manager Email 0 0%

Google Mail (Gmail) Email C 1 25%

Jabber Chat Chat P C 2 50%

Pokein.com Chat 0 0%

 VideoConferencing VTC P 1 25%

Apache Tomcat Webserver Web Server C 1 25%

Microsoft IIS Webserver Web Server C C 2 50%

IBM Websphere Web Server 0 0%

Other Webserver Web Server 0 0%

Sharepoint Portal Portal Technology C 1 25%

ESRI GeoPortal / Portal Toolkit Portal Technology 0 0%

Other Portal Portal Technology 0 0%

GoogleSearch Search Technology 0 0%

Microsoft Search Search Technology 0 0%

FAST Search Search Technology P 1 25%

Lucene OpenSearch Search Technology 0 0%

Tripwire Analytic Capability Search Technology 0 0%

Apache Solr Search Technology 0 0%

Other Search Technology Search Technology 0 0%

ESRI GeoPortal Search Search Technology C 1 25%

GeoFinder for the Environment Search Technology 0 0%
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

E - 4

1

2

3

4

Geospatial Baseline Assessment: Technology

Technology Core Capability Org #1 Org #2 Org #3 Org #4 Score Pct

XML Format Information Exchange P C C C 4 100%

JSON Information Exchange C 1 25%

OGC WMS Information Exchange P C C C 4 100%

OGC WMTS Information Exchange P C C 3 75%

OGC WCS Information Exchange P C C 3 75%

OGC WFS Information Exchange P C C C 4 100%

KML Information Exchange P C C 3 75%

GeoRSS Information Exchange P C C C 4 100%

SMS Information Exchange P C C 3 75%

Email Information Exchange P C C C 4 100%

ESRI Native Information Exchange C C 2 50%

REST Information Exchange P C 2 50%

GeoPDF Output Format P 1 25%

JPEG Output Format C P 2 50%

PNG Output Format C 1 25%

PDF Output Format C P 1 25%

PPT Output Format P 1 25%

RTF Output Format 0 0%

Word Output Format 0 0%

Other File formats Output Format 0 0%

Status C-Current P-Planned
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

F - 1

1 APPENDIX F:

2 SECURITY REFERENCE MODEL

3 F.1 ICAM LANDSCAPE

4 F.1.1 FEDERAL IDENTITY, CREDENTIAL, AND ACCESS

5 MANAGEMENT (FICAM)

6 The FICAM Roadmap lays out an architecture and common terminology for use across 

7 organizations. This ensures a common understanding of terms, so when a document uses a term 

8 it means the t thing to the author and the reader.

9 FICAM 2.0 divides the ICAM mission space into seven types of services—four of which have active 

10 PM-ISE-related efforts:

11 • Digital Identity – capture and validate information to uniquely identify an 

12 individual, and manage that information over its lifecycle

13 • Credentialing – bind an identity to a physical or electronic token

14 • Authentication – verify a claimed identity is genuine and based on valid credentials

15 • Authorization – grant or deny requests for services, data, or to enter a physical 

16 facility

17 FICAM also defines the Privilege Management, Cryptography, and Auditing service types which 

18 do not currently have active PM-ISE-related efforts.

19 Additionally, while FICAM includes the concept of Federation, it is not a defined FICAM service 

20 type.

21 • Federation – the capability to perform the FICAM types of service between 

22 organizations

23 As a conceptual architecture, FICAM is a combination of many technical solutions, policies, and 

24 processes: you won’t find a FICAM for sale in a catalog.

25 F.1.2 STATE IDENTITY CREDENTIAL AND ACCESS 

26 MANAGEMENT (SICAM)

27 The SICAM Guidance and Roadmap outlines a strategic vision for a state-based trusted digital 

28 identity environment. This NASCIO sponsored guidance provides a state-oriented architecture, 

29 analogous to, but wholly separate from, FICAM, that is comprised of programs, processes, and 
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

F - 2

1 technologies addressing trust, interoperability, security, and process improvement enabling states 

2 and their partners to ensure the integrity of the data entrusted to them.

3 F.1.3 THE SBU FABRIC

4 The primary source of governance for the ICAM landscape for the SBU Fabric is the Federal CIO 

5 Council and its various subordinate organizations, as supported by GSA’s Office of Government 

6 wide Policy (OGP) Information Assurance and Trusted Access Division (IATAD).

7 F.1.3.1 FICAM TRUST FRAMEWORK SOLUTIONS

DIGITAL IDENTITY CREDENTIALS

8 FICAM TFS provides a mechanism for non-federal entities to become approved issuers of 

9 credentials trusted by the federal government for secure citizen and business facing online service 

10 delivery.

11 F.1.3.2 NATIONAL IDENTITY EXCHANGE FEDERATION

DIGITAL IDENTITY CREDENTIALS

12 NIEF is one of several non-federal entities undergoing approval under the FICAM TFP. Once 

13 approved, credentials issued by NIEF members will be trusted under the FICAM framework and 

14 will be eligible for acceptance by appropriate federal IT systems.

15 F.1.3.3 NIEF QUICKSTART

FEDERATION

16 NIEF QuickStart is a joint effort between NIEF and NASCIO to expand participation in the NIEF 

17 federation by lowering the bar to entry.

18 F.1.3.4 NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR TRUSTED IDENTITIES IN 

19 CYBERSPACE

DIGITAL IDENTITY FEDERATION

20 NSTIC applies similar third-party credentialing concepts to the Citizen-to-Business and Citizen-to21 Government use case. For example, NSTIC envisions a citizen using a University-issued credential 

22 to access an IRS website in order to submit tax returns.

23 F.1.3.5 TRUSTMARK

FEDERATION

24 TrustMark is an effort to enable interoperability between various disjointed, siloed identity 

25 federations without requiring explicit bilateral agreements.

26 F.1.3.6 GLOBAL FEDERATED IDENTITY AND PRIVILEGE 

27 MANAGEMENT

DIGITAL IDENTITY AUTHENTICATION AUTHORIZATION CREDENTIALS FEDERATION
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

F - 3

1 GFIPM is a collection of SAML-based specifications that allow systems and agencies to securely 

2 exchange user identity and attribute information to facilitate authentication and authorization 

3 decisions. GFIPM defines both the protocol for exchange of attributes as well as the attribute set 

4 (vocabulary) available (and required) for exchange.

5 F.1.3.7 BAE PILOT ON SBU

AUTHORIZATION FEDERATION

6 The BAE Pilot on SBU is an effort to allow Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) users on an 

7 internal network access to controlled content on RISSNet, an external system, without their 

8 having to be provisioned access in advance based on attributes maintained by the Bureau of 

9 Justice Assistance (BJA). RISSNet requests the user’s attributes on demand from BJA, enabling 

10 immediate, automated access decisions.

11 F.1.3.8 PERSONAL IDENTITY VERIFICATION

AUTHENTICATION CREDENTIALS

12 PIV is a federal-wide credential, bearing name, photo, affiliation, and other information, issued 

13 under HSPD-12 that provides for both physical and logical (PKI-based) access capabilities. PIV is 

14 defined in the FIPS 201 standard.

15 F.1.3.9 PIV INTEROPERABLE

AUTHENTICATION CREDENTIALS

16 PIV-I is a way for non-federal credentials to be treated as trustworthy as equivalent federal PIV 

17 credentials.

18 F.1.3.10 FIRST RESPONDER AUTHENTICATION CREDENTIAL

AUTHENTICATION CREDENTIALS

19 FRAC is a major initiative to develop a FIPS-201 compliant smart identity credentialing system for 

20 emergency response officials (EROs) that is interoperable between local, state, and federal 

21 organizations. FRAC credentials will provide EROs the ability to quickly and easily access 

22 government facilities in the event of a disaster.

23 F.1.3.11 IISC SBU IDENTITY AND AUTHORIZATION ATTRIBUTES 

24 FEDERATION

AUTHORIZATION FEDERATION

25 IISC SBU IAAF is an emerging effort establishing the governance and technical means to share 

26 identification and authorization attributes among members in a secure, scalable, and cost27 effective manner. IISC SBU IAAF members represent federal, state, and local interests. An 

28 Attribute Registry Service effort is ongoing to facilitate use of these attributes.
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

F - 4

1 F.1.4 THE SECRET FABRIC

2 The primary source of governance for the ICAM landscape for the Secret Fabric is the Committee 

3 for National Security Systems.

4 F.1.4.1 SECRET FABRIC ATTRIBUTE EXCHANGE

AUTHORIZATION FEDERATION

5 The SFAE is a BAE-based attribute exchange, initially between DHS and an Intelligence Community 

6 element. SFAE will operate in much the same way as the BAE Pilot on SBU.

7 F.1.4.2 FICAM ON SECRET IMPLEMENTATION GUIDANCE

DIGITAL IDENTITY AUTHENTICATION AUTHORIZATION CREDENTIALS FEDERATION

8 The FICAM on Secret Implementation Guidance provides a roadmap of sequenced activities, 

9 milestones, and timelines for the implementation of FICAM on the Secret fabric in alignment with 

10 Priority Objective 4 of the National Strategy for Information Sharing and Safeguarding.

11 F.1.4.3 SECRET FABRIC TOKEN

AUTHENTICATION CREDENTIALS

12 The Secret Fabric Token is a physical smart card being issued for logical access to the Secret 

13 Fabric. This card will replace login names and passwords, providing for better security. While 

14 similar to the way PIV is used for login to the SBU fabric, the Secret Fabric Token is not a PIV, is 

15 not used for physical access, and does not have a name, photo, or other identifying information 

16 printed on it.

17 F.1.5 THE TOP SECRET/SCI FABRIC

18 The primary source of governance for the ICAM landscape for the TS/SCI Fabric is the IC CIO.

19 The TS/SCI fabric is managed by the Intelligence Community (IC). The IC Identity, Access and 

20 Authorization (IAA) effort is responsible for ICAM on the TS/SCI fabric. More information is

21 available via classified networks.

22 F.1.6 RELATED SPECIFICATIONS

23 F.1.6.1 BACKEND ATTRIBUTE EXCHANGE

24 BAE is a SAML-based specification that allows systems to securely exchange user identity and 

25 attribute information to facilitate authorization decisions. Unlike GFIPM, BAE does not define an 

26 attribute vocabulary, merely the protocol for the exchange of whatever attributes are agreed-to 

27 by the members of the federation.
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

F - 5

1 F.1.6.2 XML ACCESS CONTROL MARKUP LANGUAGE

2 XACML is an open OASIS specification that provides a common machine-readable language for 

3 expressing security policy. XACML allows organizations to express complex access control policies, 

4 including those based on user attributes, data tags, and other environmental or contextual 

5 information.

6

7 Figure F-1. ICAM Components

8

GOVERNANCE

GOVERNANCE

GOVERNANCE

GOVERNANCE

DIGITAL IDENTITY

AUTHENTICATION

AUTHORIZATION

FEDERATION

CREDENTIALING

STANDARDS AND ARCHITECTURE
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

G - 1

1 APPENDIX G: 

2 PERFORMANCE REFERENCE MODEL

3 G.1 ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE OUTCOMES 

4 AND MEASUREMENTS TEMPLATE

5

PERSPECTIVES

INVENTORY & 

OUTCOME

AREA OF

MEASUREMENT

SPECIFIC MEASUREMENT

INDICATOR

MEASUREMENT 

METHOD & 

TARGETS 

(TIMELINE)

COMMENTS 

AND 

ARTIFACTS

Spending

“Ensure effective 

IT spending 

through informed 

decision making”

Inventories Completeness % of IT investments going 

through the IRB that have been 

reviewed by the EA Team

% of the Agency IT spend 

represented in the Enterprise 

Roadmap

Accuracy % of IT investments approved 

by the IRB aligned to the Target 

Architecture

Ratio O&M to DME Spending

Outcomes Cost Savings/

Avoidance

# of dollars saved or how the EA 

Program contributes in cost 

savings or avoidance

Reduction of 

Duplication

# of duplicate investments EA 

helped identify

Efficiency % of IT governance processes 

that EA participates in

% of acquisitions aligned to the 

standards product list

Systems

“Ensure IT 

supports the 

Mission”

“Derive Cost 

Savings through 

system 

consolidation”

Inventories Completeness % of Agency’s systems 

identified in Agency’s Technical 

and Application Architectures 

(i.e., IRM and ARM)

Outcomes Cost Savings/

Avoidance

# of dollars saved or how the EA 

Program contributes in cost 

savings through system 

consolidation

Reduction of 

Duplication

# of duplicate systems EA 

helped identify

Efficiency % of cycle time reduced or how 

the EA Program contributes to 

reduction in cycle time

# of FTEs reduced or how the EA 

Program contributes to 

alignment of FTEs to Agency’s 

missions

IT Enablement EA contribution to new IT 

adoption, using Technical 

and/or Application Architecture
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

G - 2

PERSPECTIVES

INVENTORY & 

OUTCOME

AREA OF

MEASUREMENT

SPECIFIC MEASUREMENT

INDICATOR

MEASUREMENT 

METHOD & 

TARGETS 

(TIMELINE)

COMMENTS 

AND 

ARTIFACTS

Services

“Identify services 

for adoption or 

expansion 

throughout the 

Agency”

Inventories Completeness % of Agency services defined in 

Business Architecture (i.e., PRM 

and BRM)

Accuracy % of Agency services that are up 

to date and accurate

Outcomes Cost Savings/

Avoidance

Cost savings/ avoidance gained 

from consolidating and sharing 

services

Reduction of 

Duplication

# of duplicate services EA 

helped identify

Efficiency % of survey participants rating 

EA services satisfaction (e.g., 

high / medium / low)

# of new shared services 

implemented every two years

Security

“Increased IT 

Security”

Inventories Completeness % of investments mapped to 

the SRM

Accuracy % of Security Architecture that 

is accurate and up to date

Outcomes Cost Savings/

Avoidance

# of dollars saved or how the EA 

Program contributes in security 

cost savings 

Reduction of 

Duplication

# of duplicate security 

implementations EA helped 

identify

Efficiency # of FTEs reduced or how the EA 

Program contributes to 

alignment of FTEs to Agency’s 

missions 

IT Enablement How EA contributes in 

improving security architecture 

for new IT adoption

Others Inventories

Outcomes

1

2
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

G - 3

1 G.2 DHS COMMON OPERATING PICTURE (COP): 

2 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SCORECARD

3

GOVERNANCE INFORMATION SHARING MISSION ENABLEMENT TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT

OVERALL SCORETotal Anticipated InvestmentsTotal IT Investments TrackedSteering Committee EngagementWorking Groups ParticipationInvestment Transition PlansInvestment Aligned to ArchitectureShared Investment/ Collaboration ActivitiesGovernance SCOREEnterprise Data Sharing AgreementsDatasets Geocoded/ GeotaggedDatasets Compliant with NIEM/OGC StandardsData Services Registered to COP/GIIData Services Published using Symbology StandardsInformation Sharing SCOREEnterprise Services AdoptionData Service AdoptionsSymbology Standards AdoptionEnterprise Software AdoptionLiscensed Data/Services AdoptionMission Enablement SCOREELAs for Common SoftwareELAs for Commercial Data/ServicesCost Avoidance for SoftwareCost Avoidance for Licensed Data/ServicesCost Avoidance for Shared Investment/Collaboration ActivitiesTechnology Management SCORE

Agency 1

Agency 2

Agency 3

Agency 4

Agency 5

Agency 6

COP ESC→

Score Legend: Not So Good 0 1 2 3 4 5 Really Good

4

INDICATOR MEASURES DESCRIPTION

Governance Executive Steering 

Committee Engagement

This score measures the level of participation in governance 

activities such as decisions, policy, and attendance at ESC 

meetings.

Working Group Participation This score measures the level of participation in collaborative 

working groups and participation in COP ESC Governance or 

Resources and Capabilities working group activities.

Investment Transition Plans This score measures the number of investments that have 

submitted transition plans for alignment to the COP 

architecture. This score is a percentage of the number of 

investments with transition plans against the number of 

investments.

Investments Aligned to 

Technology Architecture

This score measures the number of investments that are 

aligned to the COP architecture based on COP ESC review 

and/or implementation of an approved transition plan.

Shared Investments/ 

Collaboration Activities

This score indicates Component involvement in shared 

investments or collaboration activities.

Information 

Sharing

Enterprise Data Sharing 

Agreements

This score measures the number of enterprise data sharing 

agreements in place to support operating data requirements.

Datasets Geocoded/ 

Geotagged

This score measures the number of datasets that have been 

geocoded/geotagged based on operating data requirements.

Data Services compliant with 

NIEM/ OGC Standards

This score measures the number of data services that are NIEM 

/ OGC compliant to ensure interoperability.

Data Services Registered to 

COP/ GII

This score measures the number of data services that have 

been registered to the COP / GII based on operating data 

requirements.

Data Services published using This score measures the number of data services that have 

3 3 4 3 5
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

G - 4

INDICATOR MEASURES DESCRIPTION

Symbology Standards been published using symbology standards based on operating 

data requirements.

Mission 

Enablement

Adoption of Enterprise 

Services

This score measures the number of investments that have 

adopted enterprise services described in the COP architecture.

Adoption of Data Services This score measures the number of investments that have 

adopted data services described in the COP architecture.

Adoption of Symbology 

Standards

This score measures the number of investments that have 

adopted symbology standards described in the COP 

architecture.

Adoption of Enterprise 

Software

This score measures the number of investments that have 

adopted enterprise software described in the COP architecture.

Adoption of Licensed Data / 

Services

This score measures the number of investments that have 

adopted licensed data or services described in the COP 

architecture.

Technology 

Management

Enterprise Licensing 

Agreements for Common 

Software

This score measures the number of enterprise licensing 

agreements for common software.

Enterprise Licensing 

Agreements for Commercial 

Data/ Services

This score measures the number of enterprise licensing 

agreements for commercial data or services.

Cost Avoidance from 

Enterprise Licensing of 

Software

This score measures the amount of cost avoidance derived 

from enterprise licensing of common software.

Cost Avoidance from 

Enterprise Licensing of 

Commercial Data/ Services

This score measures the amount of cost avoidance derived 

from enterprise licensing of commercial data or services.

Cost Avoidance from Shared 

Investment/ Collaboration 

Activities

This score measures the amount of cost avoidance derived 

from shared investment or collaboration activities such as 

cross-component mission project or partnerships. 

Overall Total Anticipated 

Investments

This measure is a count of investments identified during 

portfolio reviews across the HLS enterprise architecture.

Total Investments Tracked This measure represents the number of investments used in 

tracking Component progress.

Overall Score This is an average of the indicator scores and indicates a level of 

maturity of the COP Domain.

1

2
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

G - 5

1 G.3 STAKEHOLDER PERFORMANCE GUIDE

2 G.3.1 GOVERNANCE

3

STAKEHOLDER PERFORMANCE GUIDE

GOVERNANCE

Role Responsibility Approach Benefit Executive Leadership

• Establish and/or Co-Chair to 

Chartered governance (ESC/IPT) 

body.

• Signatory to establish Investment 

Technology Acquisition Review 

(ITAR) framework.

• Signatory to ISAs for access or 

dissemination of data and/or 

services.

• Work with other Executives to 

frame Charter goals/objectives 

and commitment to level-ofeffort support/involvement.

• Establish review board with 

CIO/CFO representation and 

consider policy to ensure 

participation and commitment.

• Establish or follow General 

Council process and review and 

maintain repository of 

Agreements.

• Signatory with defined 

responsibility and stated 

measurable results (e.g., ELAs 

with % cost reduction, shared 

services with defined Steward, 

etc.).

• Promotes interoperability,

reduces redundant investments, 

and allows for cost share.

• Reduce cost for data acquisition 

and/or document need for 

establishing an Enterprise 

License Agreement.

Program Manager

• Coordinate across other internal 

Department/Agency investment 

PMs for recommendations to 

Execs for strategic and tactical 

objectives.

• Staff and perform Working 

Group tasks as defined within the 

ESC/IPT Charter.

• Develop performance measures 

and target end-state (To-Be) 

environment.

• Ensure geospatial (sub-system at 

a minimum) is identified within 

the CPIC submission process.

• PMs identify and prioritize 

capability gaps and planned 

investments to determine To-Be 

end-state vs. As-Is environment 

and prepared business plan and 

value proposition for Execs 

approval.

• Recommend Working Group 

priority, short-term/high-value 

tasks and deliver early results to 

demonstrate benefits.

• Within Charter define Working 

Group roles/responsibilities and 

prepare a work plan with Plan of 

Action & Milestones (POA&M).

• Within the annual CPIC 

submission (e.g., 53/300) 

process, ensure geospatial 

capability is identified so that 

search and identification across 

system investments can be 

performed.

• Early adoption/visibility to 

strengthen long-term 

commitment from Executive 

Leadership.

• Working Group member 

awareness of multiple 

investments across enterprise 

promotes coordination resulting 

in leveraged investments.

• Results oriented for measurable 

and quantifiable results 

demonstrating value of 

collaboration.

• Facilitates the search and 

identification of geospatial

investments (especially for 

smaller systems) across the 

entire enterprise to foster 

participation within the 

Executive Steering Committee 

and technical solution teams.

Solution 

Architect

• SME and reach back for Working 

Group participation.

• Validate technical requirements 

for work plan.

• Develop baseline assessment and 

perform capability gap analysis 

for As-Is and To-Be 

environments.

• Develop technical approach for 

work plan tasks and POA&M.

• Technical vetting and validation 

across investments for desired 

To-Be end-state environment.

• Ensure broadest possible 

technical review, adoption and 

acceptance.

4
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

G - 6

1 G.3.2 BUSINESS

2

STAKEHOLDER PERFORMANCE GUIDE

BUSINESS

Role Responsibility Approach Benefit Executive Leadership

• Establish and/or Co-Chair to 

Chartered governance (ESC/IPT) 

body.

• Signatory to establish Investment 

Technology Acquisition Review 

(ITAR) framework.

• Signatory to ISAs for access or 

dissemination of data and/or 

services.

• Work with other Executives to 

frame Charter goals/objectives 

and commitment to level-ofeffort support/involvement.

• Establish review board with 

CIO/CFO representation and 

consider policy to ensure 

participation and commitment.

• Establish or follow General 

Council process and review and 

maintain repository of 

Agreements.

• Signatory with defined 

responsibility and stated 

measurable results (e.g., ELAs 

with % cost reduction, shared 

services with defined Steward, 

etc.).

• Promotes interoperability, 

reduces redundant investments, 

and allows for cost share.

• Reduce cost for data acquisition 

and/or document need for 

establishing an Enterprise 

License Agreement.

Program

Manager

• Coordinate across other internal 

Department/Agency investment 

PMs for recommendations to 

Execs for strategic and tactical 

objectives.

• Staff and perform Working 

Group tasks as defined within the 

ESC/IPT Charter.

• Develop performance measures 

and target end-state (To-Be) 

environment.

• PMs identify and prioritize 

capability gaps and planned 

investments to determine To-Be 

end-state vs. As-Is environment 

and prepared business plan and 

value proposition for Execs 

approval.

• Recommend Working Group 

priority, short-term/high-value 

tasks and deliver early results to 

demonstrate benefits.

• Within Charter define Working 

Group roles/responsibilities and 

prepare a work plan with Plan of

Action & Milestones (POA&M).

• Early adoption/visibility to 

strengthen long-term 

commitment from Executive 

Leadership.

• Working Group member 

awareness of multiple 

investments across enterprise 

promotes coordination resulting 

in leveraged investments.

• Results oriented for measurable 

and quantifiable results 

demonstrating value of 

collaboration.

Solution 

Architect

• SME and reach back for Working 

Group participation.

• Validate technical requirements 

for work plan.

• Develop baseline assessment and 

perform capability gap analysis 

for As-Is and To-Be 

environments.

• Develop technical approach for 

work plan tasks and POA&M.

• Technical vetting and validation 

across investments for desired 

To-Be end-state environment.

• Ensure broadest possible 

technical review, adoption and 

acceptance.

3

4
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

G - 7

1 G.3.3 DATA

2

STAKEHOLDER PERFORMANCE GUIDE

DATA

Role Responsibility Approach Benefit Executive Leadership

• Authorize a Business Needs 

Analysis to identify geospatial 

data requirements using the 

Baseline Assessment Matrix: 

Data.

• Agreed upon data authorized 

source to reduce redundancy and 

determine Enterprise License 

Agreement (ELA) opportunity 

with data provider/vendor.

• Require any/all funded data 

creation or enhancement 

initiatives (e.g., contract award, 

cost-share, grant, etc.) include 

metadata standard compliance.

• Work with other Executives to 

acknowledge the need to reduce 

data costs by leveraging 

investment and performing the 

Baseline Assessment based upon 

mission/business needs.

• Based upon business/mission 

need during Data Matrix 

assessment, may require Service 

Level Agreement and cost share 

for availability and Enterprise 

License Agreement (ELA) with 

vendor/provider.

• Working with Exec Leadership 

approach Chief Procurement 

Officer to require contract 

language for the inclusion for all 

financial obligations.

• Signatory with defined 

responsibility and stated 

measurable results (e.g., IT Asset 

Inventory for OMB Open Data 

Policy reporting and a 

quantifiable data resource 

inventory).

• The inventory would facilitate 

the identification of desired 

datasets; identifies redundant 

data assets for decommissioning; 

identifies opportunities to reuse 

or extend a data asset rather 

than creating a new one; and the 

opportunity to reduce 

redundancy costs based upon 

the establishment of enterprise 

licensing agreements and allows 

for cost share for economies of 

scale.

• Provides a way to uniformly 

describe data, thereby 

supporting its discovery and 

sharing resulting in cost 

avoidance. Compliance with 

government Open Data Policy.

Program Manager

• Coordinate across organization’s 

geo investment PMs for 

completion of Data Matrix and 

document business/mission 

functional requirements that 

drive data needs.

• Determine which dataset will be 

used enterprise-wide based upon 

data content, currency and 

availability.

• Work with PMs across enterprise 

to perform review of internally 

produced data includes 

metadata with a common 

taxonomy and cataloged for 

discovery.

• Post datasets in open standards 

to appropriate catalogs for 

discovery.

• PMs prepare Data Matrix and 

schedule survey and follow-on 

interviews to clarify Data findings 

with business owners to 

understand functional needs.

• Detailed assessment of datasets 

and how they meet the 

mission/business functional 

requirements. May require ELA 

with broader use terms and 

additional attributes requiring 

cost-share.

• Review procurement vehicles to 

ensure metadata standard 

compliance language. Develop a 

common taxonomy for 

cataloging the metadata 

enhanced data resources.

• Ensure enterprise data are 

exposed or ‘harvestable’ to 

appropriate web catalog services.

• Awareness and understanding of 

enterprise data requirements 

and business/mission owner 

functional needs that drive data.

• Reduced contracting for vendor 

provided data, ELA discounts for 

volume-based pricing, data 

Steward responsibility as 

opposed to multiple 

posting/storage of datasets.

• Ability to identify, search, 

discover and share datasets 

across the enterprise.

• Facilitates the search and 

identification of geospatial data 

sharing. Compliance with 

government Open Data Policy.
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

G - 8

STAKEHOLDER PERFORMANCE GUIDE

DATA

Role Responsibility Approach Benefit Solution Architect

• Data Assessment Matrix design 

and development.

• Ensure data are cataloged and 

available in open standards and 

posted to web catalog service.

• Assist the data matrix interview 

with mission/business owner to 

determine functional 

requirements that drive data and 

application needs.

• Develop technical approach for 

ensuring enterprise data 

resources are available, vetted 

and provided in compliance with 

open data requirements.

• Technical vetting and validation 

across investments for desired 

To-Be end-state environment. 

Understand functional 

requirements to optimize 

application development and 

data resource acquisition.

• Facilitates the search and 

identification of geospatial data 

sharing. Compliance with 

government Open Data Policy.

1

2
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

G - 9

1 G.3.4 APPLICATIONS/SERVICES

2

STAKEHOLDER PERFORMANCE GUIDE

APPLICATIONS/SERVICES

Role Responsibility Approach Benefit Executive Leadership

• Authorize the Application and 

Service inventory using the 

Baseline Assessment and catalog 

App/Svc capabilities across the 

enterprise using a common 

taxonomy.

• As part of the Investment 

Technology Acquisition Review 

(ITAR) framework, require all 

new applications and services be 

compared against the App/Svc 

Catalog to determine shared first 

requirement.

• Apply the Shared Services 

Implementation Step-wise 

Process to geospatial investment.

• Work with other Executives to 

acknowledge the need to reduce 

data costs by leveraging 

investment and performing the 

Baseline Assessment based upon 

mission/business needs.

• Establish review board with 

CIO/CFO representation and 

consider policy to ensure 

participation and commitment.

• During annual budget 

review/planning cycle or with 

proposed new investments 

review against process.

• Signatory with defined 

responsibility and stated 

measurable results (e.g., IT Asset 

Inventory for OMB Open Data 

Policy reporting and a 

quantifiable App/Svc resource 

inventory).

• Promotes interoperability, 

reduces redundant investments, 

and allows for cost share.

• Reduce cost for App/Svc 

development/acquisition 

alignment to Share-First policy.

Program Manager

• Coordinate across other internal 

Department/Agency investment 

PMs to establish Geospatial 

Taxonomy Working Group and 

Geospatial App/Svc Catalog.

• Staff and perform inventory and 

of existing/proposed App/Svc 

investment.

• Staff and perform Shared 

Services Implementation Stepwise Process to assess geospatial 

investments.

• Initiate the Taxonomy 

development and perform 

App/Svc inventory for 

documenting App/Svc and 

creating a catalog.

• Perform Baseline Assessment: 

Apps/Svcs across enterprise and 

populate catalog.

• Develop repetitive process for 

evaluating investment to share 

services.

• Shared awareness of investment 

and value of geospatial 

capabilities across the 

organization. Basis for shared 

service capabilities.

• Provides baseline for shared 

service investment and leveraged 

capability

• Catalog meets Share First policy 

and forms basis for reduced 

investment.

Solution Architect

• SME and reach back for 

Taxonomy Working Group 

participation.

• Perform technical evaluation of 

App/Svc investments to 

determine commonality and 

alignment.

• Develop baseline assessment and 

perform inventory of App/Svcs.

• Technical review of services for 

alignment to TRM and 

Infrastructure compatibility 

(Section 6.3).

• Cross enterprise collaboration for 

technical exchange and 

comparison.

• Ensure broadest possible 

technical review, adoption and 

acceptance.

3

4
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

G - 1 0

1 G.3.5 INFRASTRUCTURE

2

STAKEHOLDER PERFORMANCE GUIDE

CHAPTER 6 – INFRASTRUCTURE

Role Responsibility Approach Benefit Executive Leadership

• Executive Steering Committee 

authorization and commitment 

to perform Baseline Assessment 

Matrix: Infrastructure and 

Technology.

• Approve/disapprove a proposed 

IT solution depending upon its 

compliance with Enterprise 

Architecture for inclusion within 

CPIC process.

• Ensure Cloud Option assessment 

is performed as part of a 

proposed IT solution.

• Task Program Managers 

responsible for geospatial system 

oversight to perform develop 

and execute the Baseline 

Assessment.

• Ensure that the 

infrastructure/technology 

Baseline Matrix capabilities are 

aligned to EA and proposed new 

infrastructure/technology aligns 

to and not duplicative of existing 

capabilities.

• Task Program Manger to apply 

cloud process review as option 

for IT solution.

• Provides input for CPIC (53/300) 

and reporting to OMB as well as 

establishes the enterprise 

baseline of the As-Is geospatial 

investments across the 

organization.

• Promotes interoperability, 

reduces redundant investments, 

and allows for cost share.

• Complies with Cloud First policy 

and provides economies for 

implementation.

Program Manager

• Coordinate across organization’s 

geospatial investments to ensure 

committed participation in 

Baseline Assessment.

• Identify opportunities for shared 

infrastructure and/or technology 

based upon Baseline Assessment 

Matrix comparison.

• Review report of finding for 

cloud options for IT solution and 

make recommendations to 

Executive Leadership.

• PMs identify and prioritize 

capability gaps and planned 

investments aligned to 

Operational Requirements 

Document (ORD) and prepare 

recommendations and/or 

options for Execs approval.

• Based upon gap analysis, identify 

candidate investments to 

leverage, eliminate or new 

develop based upon ORD 

priorities.

• Coordinate Cloud assessment 

process evaluation for IT solution 

architecture.

• Cross organization agreement for 

prioritized geospatial system 

development priorities and 

leveraged resource commitment.

• Reduce duplicative IT footprint 

and identify opportunity to 

leverage or reprioritize 

investments.

• Complies with Cloud First policy 

and provides economies for 

implementation.

Solution Architect

• Develop the Infrastructure 

Assessment Matrix from across 

the entire organization’s 

geospatial investments.

• Vet ‘new’ technology insertions 

to EA and Technical Reference 

Model to ensure alignment with 

organization’s To-Be 

environment.

• Prepare report of finding for 

cloud options for IT solution.

• Work with other organization SAs 

to ensure a complete baseline 

assessment and perform 

capability gap analysis for As-Is 

and To-Be environments.

• Determine ‘optimal’ solution if 

duplicative investments and 

ensure alignment to EA for ‘new’ 

technology.

• Perform Cloud assessment 

process evaluation for IT solution 

architecture.

• Ensure broadest possible 

technical review, adoption and 

acceptance.

• Technical vetting and validation 

across investments for desired 

To-Be end-state environment 

and alignment to EA target 

ensures compatibility and 

reduces IT footprint cost.

• Provides awareness of 

architecture investment and 

solution options. 

3

4
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

G - 1 1

1 G.3.6 SECURITY

2

STAKEHOLDER PERFORMANCE GUIDE

SECURITY

Role Responsibility Approach Benefit Executive Leadership

• Identify appropriate access 

policy for system data 

necessary to ensure 

responsible information 

sharing according to mission 

need.

• Ensure risk management 

function for the organization is 

established and applies 

repeatable, consistent 

evaluation criterion.

• Embrace the use of reusable, 

shared services for IdAM and 

security capabilities within the 

agency, and ensure Enterprise 

Architecture provides for 

adoption of federal shared 

services, particularly IdAM and 

security services, as they 

become available.

• Empower organizational 

enterprise architect to direct 

the inclusion of relevant IdAM 

and security standards in 

organizational IT acquisition 

actions by holding systems 

accountable for EA compliance.

• Understand Policy Requirements:

◦ Mission need for system 

information security

◦ Business processes that 

incorporate the system

information

◦ Severity of risk of unauthorized 

disclosure

• Risk management function should be 

staffed sufficiently and empowered 

to reconcile interests of stakeholders. 

Clear risk management criteria 

formed with input from all relevant 

stakeholders (security, privacy, 

CR/CL, mission owners).

• Designate organizational Executive 

Agents responsible for implementing 

IdAM and Security EA and policy. 

Responsible for:

◦ Organization. EAs represent 

organization at relevant 

intergovernmental committees, 

governance bodies, and WGs.

◦ Develop acquisition strategy that 

requires transition of solutions to 

repeatable shared services.

• EA functions include:

◦ Organizational process for 

approval of systems to ensure EA 

for IdAM and Security (services 

and standards). If compliance not 

currently feasible, POA&Ms to be 

required.

◦ Engage organizational acquisitions 

and procurement functions to 

ensure contractual commitments 

and acquisitions are consistent 

with IdAM and Security EA and 

implementation plans.

◦ Recommend restriction of funding 

of noncompliant systems.

• A clear statement of 

information sharing policy can 

be vetted through the relevant 

stakeholders and then digitally 

implemented within mission 

systems to efficiently execute 

the mission.

• Provides consistent feedback 

that can be incorporated for 

system design and avoids 

delays from inability to plan 

due to ambiguous guidance or 

interference from dissatisfied 

stakeholders.

• Assist in complying with 

Federal policy guidance and 

drives cost efficiencies through 

shared, common services.

• Ensures that system planning 

incorporates appropriate 

guidance from an early stage 

to avoid delays or wasted 

expenditures resulting from 

noncompliant system 

architecture.

• Incorporating EA function into 

organizational approval 

process provides enforcement 

mechanism for EA compliance 

at an early stage, when 

noncompliance can be more 

easily mitigated.
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

G - 1 2

STAKEHOLDER PERFORMANCE GUIDE

SECURITY

Role Responsibility Approach Benefit Program Manager

• Ensure access policy 

requirements for the system 

information are included in 

system acquisition, tech 

refresh actions, and system 

engineering lifecycle.

• Ensure compliance/evaluation/ 

approval of the system in 

accordance with the 

organizational risk 

management framework.

• Ensure requirements for 

relevant IdAM requirements

are included in procurement 

language.

• Identify access policy rules that have 

been enumerated for information 

contained in the system.

• Program Manager actively engages 

with relevant governance bodies 

from system planning phase onward

(see Table 7-1).

◦ Give EA organization visibility into 

each phase of system lifecycle.

◦ EA communicates emerging 

requirements to Program 

Managers.

• Draft and include approved guidance 

with system acquisition, tech refresh 

actions, and system engineering 

lifecycle documentation.

• Assist in complying with 

Federal policy guidance and 

drives cost efficiencies through 

shared, common services.

• Assists in CPIC reporting 

requirements and drives early 

security awareness and 

compliance resulting in cost 

savings.

• Assists in CPIC reporting 

requirements and drives early 

security awareness and 

compliance resulting in cost 

savings.

Solution Architect

• Ensure solution roadmap aligns 

with FICAM Roadmap.

• Ensure solution meets 

requirements of organizational 

risk management framework.

• Implement solution that is 

compliant with EA model for 

IdAM and security as well as 

organizational FICAM 

implementation plans.

• Implement solution with 

sufficient interfaces to take 

advantage of enterprise IdAM 

and security services.

• Detail functionality for currently 

available capabilities and provide 

POA&Ms demonstrating alignment 

for future capabilities.

• Clear system with risk management 

function during planning stage. If 

system is operational, coordinate 

roadmap to satisfy RM function.

• Solution is described in terms of 

functional and technical 

requirements, which are mapped to 

service types and components of the 

relevant EA model.

• Interfaces are defined sufficiently to 

show interoperability of system with 

repeatable shared services and 

standards.

• Ensures flexibility and 

adaptability of systems to 

incorporate upcoming 

capabilities.

• Expedites development by 

coordinating risk management 

requirements into system 

planning and design phase 

rather than waiting for 

approval after build is 

complete.

• Ensures that solutions are 

engineered or selected to 

meet all relevant requirements 

from the planning and design 

phase.

• Ensures that the solution is 

designed and sufficiently 

technically implemented to 

provide flexibility to 

interoperate with emerging 

IdAM and security capabilities 

without the need for extensive 

re-engineering.

1

2
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

G - 1 3

1 G.3.7 STANDARDS

2

STAKEHOLDER PERFORMANCE GUIDE

STANDARDS

Role Responsibility Approach Benefit Executive Leadership

• Develop and adopt Standards 

Policy within and across the 

Geospatial Executive Steering 

Committee and your 

Department or Agency.

• Ensure all geospatial 

procurements/awards have the 

appropriate Standards 

Compliance Section included in 

the contract language.

• Standards resourcing for 

subject matter expertise (SME) 

and SDO involvement.

• Working with Executive Leadership 

across geospatial investments, the 

Office of the Chief Information Officer; 

Financial Management Office; and 

Grants Office, agree upon and include 

Standards-based acquisition language 

for procurements and awards.

• Review procurement action prior to 

sign-off and the assign Program 

Manager the responsibility to include 

the necessary language in the 

procurement/award action.

• Budget for a staffing position (e.g., full 

or part time) to perform standards 

guidance. Position would participate 

on and provide into to SDOs and cross 

organization geospatial investments.

• Ensure contract continuity 

and compliance for 

consistent geospatial 

investments. Enforces vendor 

neutrality and promotes 

competition for industry 

standards adoption. Drives 

interoperability across 

investments.

• Ensures procurement/award 

consistency and compliance.

• Provides awareness and 

understanding of standards 

requirements, benefits and 

advancement in geospatial 

standards development and 

adoption.

Program Manager

• Coordinate across other 

internal Department and 

Agency investment PMs for 

identification and agreement 

on content for Standards Policy 

development.

• Prepare “boiler plate”

standards-based procurement 

language for inclusion need 

contracts/awards.

• Determine resourcing 

requirements and availability 

for geospatial standards 

capability development for:

◦ Subject Matter Expert

◦ SDO participation

• Draft Standards Policy for 

procurement and grants guidance.

Work with and vet for completeness 

and currency across organization and 

review SDO listings.

• Work with OCIO, OFM, and Grants 

Offices to determine process for 

standards-based procurement / grant 

language inclusion within policy 

guidance and contract vehicles.

• Prepare Position Description for 

Geospatial Standards SME as a core 

competency within job category (e.g.,

GS-2210: Information Technology 

Management Series). Participate on 

and/or contribute to geospatial SDO 

initiatives.

• Provides awareness and 

understanding of baseline 

and current standards 

requirements. Allows for a 

definition of “Value 

Proposition” of standardsbased interoperability.

• Policy-based guidance for 

government and industry 

understanding and 

compliance.

• Increase internal capacity for 

geospatial standards 

understanding and 

compliance.

Solution Architect

• Document current standards in 

use within/across organization 

geospatial investments.

• Contribute to development of 

baseline standards for inclusion 

into Policy Guidance.

• Contribute to identification of 

SME resource for geospatial 

standards. Ensure awareness of 

geospatial standards for 

inclusion in system 

procurement and 

development.

• Coordinate with SAs across 

organization’s geospatial investments 

to identify and document geospatial 

standards usage.

• Develop baseline of key geospatial 

standards derived from Federal and 

SDO current and emerging standards 

documentation.

• Provide input for Position Description 

for Geospatial Standards SME. 

Participate on SDOs for awareness of 

geospatial standards development and 

update.

• Technical vetting and 

validation across investments 

for As-Is standards usage.

• Ensure broadest possible 

technical review and allows 

identification of gaps and 

deficiencies for 

enhancement.

• Strengthen breadth of 

geospatial standards 

awareness across 

organization’s geospatial 

investments.
G E O S P A T I A L I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y R E F E R E N C E A R C H I T E C T U R E ( G I R A )

G - 1 4

1 G.3.8 PERFORMANCE

2

STAKEHOLDER PERFORMANCE GUIDE

PERFORMANCE

Role Responsibility Approach Benefit Executive Leadership

• Define mission context for 

geospatial investments across 

the enterprise.

• Ensure Performance metrics 

and indicators are included in 

all CPIC (OMB 300/53) 

geospatial investments.

• Provide overall mission context and 

expected contribution of geospatial 

to/within programs to Program 

Managers, and align program success 

to improved performance of business 

functions.

• Using Performance indicators for each 

reference model (e.g., Business, Data, 

Applications/Services, Infrastructure, 

Security, and Performance) prepare 

matrix for ESC review and adoption 

and monitoring.

• Creates quantifiable measures 

and expected outcomes 

(mission and resource impact) 

of a geospatial investment.

• Ensures OMB reporting 

compliance and senior 

leadership commitment to 

managed/measured success of 

investment.

Program Manager

• Define measures of 

effectiveness and success 

criteria for geospatial

investments under oversight.

• ESC to oversee cost, schedule, 

and scope of geospatial 

investments across 

enterprise.

• Provide clear guidance to Solution 

Architects for requirements and 

dependencies of required solutions.

• Communicate with Executive 

Leadership and stakeholder 

community (mission holders) to foster 

an understanding of the value of 

current efforts with the overall mission 

success.

• Creates clarity as to the value 

of programs being managed to 

overall mission effectiveness.

• Enables easier management 

through a better 

understanding of how 

measures of effectiveness 

translate into system 

requirements and benefits.

Solution Architect

• Derive functional and 

technical requirements and 

associated quantifiable 

performance success 

measures given target 

objective.

• Oversee technical 

implementation and schedule 

and provide status to 

leadership and recommended 

course corrections as needed.

• Analyze program requirements and 

measures of effectiveness and identify 

solution elements that will enable the 

program to meet success criteria.

• Create a clear understanding of how 

the project scope, schedule, and 

budget is progressing and provides 

line-of-sight with respect to the overall 

program and enterprise requirements.

• Demonstrable solution 

effectiveness, tied directly to 

executive-level interests which 

enables an end-to-end picture 

of how delivered solutions fit 

into an enterprise-level 

mission.

• Enables clear communication 

with the Project Managers and 

Executive Leadership regarding 

schedule and scope of system 

delivery.

3