Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED 1

Business Plan for the

Geospatial Platform

September 20, 2012

‐ REDACTED ‐ 

              

   

The Geospatial Platform Federal Geographic Data Committee
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED 2

The Federal Geographic Data Committee approved the Business Plan for the Geospatial Platform at

its September 20, 2012 Steering Committee meeting. This version contains the same content except

for the redaction of the pre‐decisional funding estimates in the “Costs and Funding Options” section.

This document is available from the FGDC website: http://www.fgdc.gov

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................3

GEOSPATIAL PLATFORM VALUE PROPOSITION .................................................................................4

BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................................7

CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS ................................................................................................................9

GOVERNANCE AND ORGANIZATIONAL APPROACH.........................................................................17

COSTS AND FUNDING OPTIONS ......................................................................................................27

RISK MANAGEMENT .......................................................................................................................36

MEASURING PERFORMANCE ..........................................................................................................44

APPENDIX A: BENEFITS OF THE GEOSPATIAL PLATFORM................................................................ A‐I

APPENDIX B: RISK REGISTER........................................................................................................... B‐I

APPENDIX C: RISK WORKSHEET.......................................................................................................C‐I

APPENDIX D: GUIDE TO RISK IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT.................................................. D‐I

APPENDIX E: PERFORMANCE MEASURE DEFINITION TEMPLATE .....................................................E‐I

APPENDIX F: PAST GEOSPATIAL INITIATIVES AND LESSONS LEARNED.............................................F‐I

APPENDIX G: GEOSPATIAL PLATFORM SERVICE OFFERINGS DESCRIBED......................................... G‐I

APPENDIX H: CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS FOR USER FUNCTIONALITY ............................................. H‐I

   
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED 3

Executive Summary 

The Geospatial Platform provides a suite of well‐managed, highly available, and trusted geospatial

data, services, and applications for use by Federal agencies—and their State, local, Tribal, and

regional partners.  The Geospatial Platform is being implemented to help agencies meet their mission

needs, including communicating with and publishing data and maps to the public. The Geospatial

Platform focuses on web applications that facilitate participatory information sharing,

interoperability, user‐centered design, and collaboration on the World Wide Web.   

The Business Plan for the Geospatial Platform (Business Plan) complements the Modernization

Roadmap for the Geospatial Platform (Roadmap) and the Value Proposition for the Geospatial

Platform (Value Proposition) by serving as a “what and how” document, providing an overview of the

operational elements and the organizational structure of the Geospatial Platform.  It addresses

important issues such as the governance framework and funding options for the Geospatial Platform.  

The Business Plan aims to provide insight into the proposed operations of the Geospatial Platform so

that agency decision makers will commit to its startup, and support its growth and evolution.    

The Business Plan includes the following sections:

 Geospatial Platform Value Proposition:  provides an abridged version of the Value

Proposition including the value and benefits of the Geospatial Platform.  

 Background: explains initiatives of the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) preceding

the Geospatial Platform.

 Concept of Operations (ConOps): provides an overview of the scope of the Geospatial

Platform, its offerings, and how customers and users can interface with and contribute

content to the Geospatial Platform.  

 Governance and Organizational Approach: describes the Geospatial Platform’s proposed

governance model and some priority roles and responsibilities for key Geospatial Platform

stakeholders.  

 Funding Models and Costs: provides an overview of anticipated costs associated with the

Geospatial Platform and describes the proposed tiered cost sharing model based on usage

and other funding models considered along with the advantages and disadvantages of each

model.  The functionality requirements for the Geospatial Platform continue to evolve,   

therefore, the costs shown in this section are the  best estimates available at this time.

 Risk Management: discusses approaches to identifying and managing risk associated with the

Geospatial Platform, and reporting on the status of risks identified with startup.

 Measuring Performance: describes an approach for performance management and

developing performance metrics for the Geospatial Platform and provides an initial set of

measures.

   
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED 4

Geospatial Platform Value Proposition 

Why is the Geospatial Platform Needed? 1

To Address Issues of National Importance: The Geospatial Platform can effectively support problem

solving and policy formulation for the complex issues facing our Nation.  Issues and events that affect

the economy, employment, the environment, public health and welfare, security, and quality of life

will benefit from the decision support tools, shared applications, visualization, and trusted geospatial

data made available through the Geospatial Platform.  Solutions developed once and made accessible

through the Geospatial Platform can be reused.  For instance, tools and applications developed by

one agency to support hurricane response can potentially be applied to responses to floods or other

natural disasters.  Sharing applications and delivering trusted data through the Geospatial Platform

will save time and money, as well as promote consistency.  Best practices from organizations across

the United States can be brought to bear as agencies address local and national issues.  

To Support Decision Making: Federal agencies and their partners invest significant resources in

geospatial data, services, technology, and expertise to support their business operations.  Data and

information resources are among the most valuable assets any agency possesses.  However,

policymakers and executive managers alike observe that oftentimes the data and tools they need to

make decisions are not readily available in useful or intuitive forms.  This can result in delayed

responses, lost opportunities, and higher costs.  In addition, current practices have not yielded

consistent data publishing methods, leading to gaps in the availability of current and relevant

geospatial data for informed decision making.  

To Move Toward Shared Services: The Geospatial Platform enables the sharing of data, services, and

applications across the government on a shared cloud infrastructure.  This aligns with the

government‐wide shared services strategy2 , which is intended to improve return on investments,

close productivity gaps, and increase communications with stakeholders.   

To Meet Common Business Needs: Geospatial data, shared services, and tools also inform day‐to‐day

Federal agency management activities, including administering grant programs, regulatory oversight,

emergency preparedness and response preparations, facilities and asset management, human

resource management, and financial and performance management.  Data, shared services, and tools

to support these cross‐government functions frequently exist within multiple agencies, when they

should be developed once and shared across agencies and levels of government, thereby saving

money and promoting consistent approaches.  The Geospatial Platform will leverage existing

investments and avoid unnecessary costs associated with duplication of efforts.

                                                           

1 See the full Value Proposition for the Geospatial Platform (Value Proposition) at

http://resources.geoplatform.gov/documents.

2 See OMB’s Shared Services Strategy at http://www.cio.gov/documents/Shared_Services_Strategy.pdf
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED 5

How Will the Geospatial Platform Promote Effective Management of Federal

Geospatial Assets?  

Portfolio Management of Federal geospatial assets will be a key aspect in the development of the

Geospatial Platform.  The Geospatial Platform will leverage the new geospatial Portfolio Management

processes being implemented through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A‐16

Supplemental Guidance3 (A‐16 Supplemental Guidance), which directs Federal agencies to adopt a

Portfolio Management approach for geospatial information and defines a recommended Portfolio

Management process.  

Federal geospatial Portfolio Management is the management and monitoring of geospatial data

assets and investments to most effectively and efficiently utilize geospatial data to meet and address

the business needs and priorities of the Nation.  As part of the Portfolio Management process,

geospatial assets across the government will be inventoried and evaluated for strengths and

weaknesses.  The portfolio will be analyzed to determine asset investment recommendations to

support national priorities.  Portfolio Management is an action, decision, and goal‐based approach to

asset management.  The Geospatial Platform is the service and delivery mechanism for the Federal

geospatial portfolio assets, and the integration point for the shared leveraging of information from,

and with, other State, local, Tribal, and non‐governmental information sources.  The Portfolio

Management approach provides:

 An accurate and accountable inventory of Federal geospatial portfolio assets.

 Improved government accountability and transparency, by assessing existing assets and

investments to reduce duplication.

 Improved data quality through lifecycle evaluations for content quality and fitness for use.

 Data management practices to ensure national data are high‐quality, dependable, consistent,

and available to agencies.

 Increased return on existing geospatial investments by promoting the reuse of data,

applications, and tools.

What are the Benefits of the Geospatial Platform?

The Geospatial Platform will provide value through improved service capabilities and through

operational efficiencies, including:

 Improving mission outcomes.

 Increasing return on existing investments.

 Increasing government efficiency.

 Increasing access to shared data, services, applications, and infrastructure.

                                                           

3 http://www.fgdc.gov/policyandplanning/a‐16/key‐roles‐and‐responsibilities‐a16‐supplemental.pdf
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED 6

 Reducing redundancy.

 Increasing service delivery.

 Decreasing development and management costs.

 Increasing quality.

 Increasing usability.
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED 7

  

Background 

In 1990, the OMB established the FGDC, an interagency committee composed of representatives

from the Executive Office of the President and Cabinet‐level and independent Federal agencies.  Over

the last two decades, the FGDC led several geospatial initiatives that helped form the vision, and

provided the foundational policies, strategies, and content for, the Geospatial Platform.  

These FGDC‐led initiatives include: 1) The Geospatial Clearinghouse Network4; 2) Geospatial One Stop

(GOS); and 3) The Geospatial Line of Business (Geospatial LoB).  The development of the Business

Plan and evolution of the operational Geospatial Platform provides an opportunity to document

lessons learned from preceding geospatial initiatives and incorporate them into the development of

the Geospatial Platform.  Descriptions of these preceding initiatives and lessons learned are included

in Appendix F.  Figure 1 summarizes the progression of the initiatives.

                               

The Geospatial Platform: Bringing the Building Blocks Together

In 2010, FGDC member agencies came together to operationalize the planning, policies, and best

practices for managing geospatial assets.  The need for a comprehensive Geospatial Platform

received Executive Office support through the President’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 Budget, which called

upon Federal geospatial data managers to,

“creat[e] a Geospatial Platform to support...place‐based initiatives...facilitated by

improving the governance framework to address the requirements of State, local

and tribal agencies, Administration policy, and agency mission objectives.  The

Geospatial Platform will explore opportunities for increased collaboration...with an

                                                           

4 http://www.fgdc.gov/dataandservices  

Figure 1.  Progression of Geospatial Initiatives Led by the FGDC
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED 8

emphasis on reuse of architectural standards and technology, ultimately increasing

access to geospatial data.”5

  

In December 2010, the U.S. Chief Information Officer and Office of the White House released the “25

Point Implementation Plan to Reform Federal Information Technology Management” (the 25 Point

Implementation Plan) that outlined ways that Federal agencies could increase return on investment,

eliminate waste and duplication, and improve the effectiveness of IT solutions.  

The FGDC, with input from the geospatial community at‐large, articulated the high‐level “what” vision

for the Geospatial Platform in the Roadmap Version 46

, published in March 2011 and the “why” in the

Value Proposition, published in November 2011.  In November 2011, FGDC also launched the

Geospatial Platform Version 1.  

Most recently, OMB released the “Federal Information Technology Shared Services Strategy” (May

2012) which reinforced the strategies outlined within the 25 Point Implementation Plan and requires

agencies to use a shared approach to IT service delivery.   The Geospatial Platform will help agencies

meet the requirements and expectations outlined in both of these initiatives.         

Finally, on May 25, 2012, OMB released “Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to

Better Serve the American People” that requires the Federal government to embrace the opportunity

for more innovation with less costs. This publication prescribes a digital strategy that will improve the

management and storage of information, leverage government data more effectively, allow

customers and users to shape the information they consume, and ensure innovation occurs in a safe

and secure environment for digital services.

                                

                                                           

5 President’s Budget, Fiscal Year 2011, "Analytical Perspectives, Special Topics, Information Technology” (p. 325)

(www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/topics.pdf) 6 http://resources.geoplatform.gov/documents
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED 9

Concept of Operations 

What are the Building Blocks of the

Geospatial Platform?

The Geospatial Platform is comprised of two

discrete categories with several related

components:

Offering:  the suite of assets delivered through

the Geospatial Platform that comprises the

Geospatial Platform Portfolio, including:

 Data, services, and applications.  

 Infrastructure.

Supporting Processes: the business controls

necessary to ensure the Geospatial Platform

offering is delivered, including:

 Segment architecture.

 Governance.

 Portfolio Management.

 Customer service.

Each category and its components are

presented in Figure 2 and defined below.

The Geospatial Platform At a Glance

The Geospatial Platform is:

 A “one‐stop shop” to deliver trusted, nationally

consistent data and services.

 A portal for discovery of geospatial data, services,

and applications (www.geoplatform.gov).

 A publishing framework for geospatial assets.

 A place where partners can host data and

analytical services.

 A forum for communities to form, collaborate, and

share common geospatial assets.    

 Built within the Federal cloud computing

infrastructure.  

The Geospatial Platform Supports:  

 Open and interoperable standards to facilitate

sharing and use of geospatial assets.

 Organization and maintenance of a federated

network of organizations that contribute content.  

 OMB Circular A‐16 Portfolio Management to

ensure trusted content and funding for priority

data, services, and applications.  

 Brokering of enterprise geospatial acquisitions and

service level agreements for the Federal

Government.  

 Identifying requirements for and encouraging the

development of shared geospatial data, services,

and applications for the Federal Government.  

 Acquisition of standards‐based cloud services with

Federal Information Security Management Act

(FISMA) security accreditation.

 The future tracking of Federal geospatial

investments.
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED 10

Figure 2. The Geospatial Platform Offering – Conceptual Model

Offering  

The Geospatial Platform offering is defined as the suite of geospatial assets delivered to customers,

including geospatial data, services, applications, and infrastructure.  When viewed together, this suite

of assets can be viewed and managed as a set of inter‐related portfolios.

Data: includes individual datasets, integrated data (such as base maps), or other products derived

from multiple datasets.  These assets include foundational geospatial data that can be trusted, used

reliably and shared across organizations.  Governments at all levels or, in some instances non‐

governmental organizations, can provide data to the Geospatial Platform.  

The Geospatial Platform web‐based services will help customers discover desired geospatial data,

through an interface with Data.gov.  
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED 11

While all data will be discoverable, the Geospatial Platform will promote only data that meet the

Geospatial Platform portfolio inclusion criteria (to be developed).  Data that are included in the

portfolio will be “tagged” as trusted Geospatial Platform assets.  The Geospatial Platform portfolio

data, and all its assets, will be managed using lifecycle management practices.    

Services: provide a consistent, easily accessible way to access geospatial capabilities (e.g., access to

data, geocoding, geoprocessing services, metadata management, etc.).  The Geospatial Platform will

offer access to services that can used by multiple agencies as stand‐alone capabilities or as building

blocks to develop applications.  

Applications: consist of a set of tools or capabilities that enable a user to exploit geospatial

information through visualization, query, reporting, and spatial analysis to achieve their results.  

Applications may leverage one or more different services to conduct analysis and return results to the

user.  The Geospatial Platform will offer access to applications that can be downloaded, customized,

and used to meet customer business needs.

  

Infrastructure: includes both physical and logical technology components that can be leveraged by

multiple customers.  

The physical shared infrastructure includes (but is not limited to):

 Data centers and data repositories, including the cloud.

 Networks, including Internet and intranets.

 Host platforms for data, services, and applications, including portals and services.

The logical shared infrastructure includes (but is not limited to):

 Network routing services.

 Access control and security.

Supporting Processes

Segment Architecture: provides a process‐driven approach to designing and deploying large

computing components in the context of a broader enterprise, which results in a design that can be

readily deployed in an actionable solution architecture by partners that collaborate on geospatial

data and services.

Governance: processes by which parties with a stake in the Geospatial Platform are afforded an

opportunity to shape its structure, functions, and capabilities.  The ultimate vision is to be a national

system with shared governance.   
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED 12

Phased Implementation: The Geospatial Platform will be developed and deployed in phases to maximize

limited resources.  As an example, the phases might include and be sequenced as follows: (1) focus on Federal

agencies, (2) open the Geospatial Platform to other governmental agencies, (3) open the Geospatial Platform

to private sector partners.  Access by the general public may be possible throughout all phases or it could be a

phase 4 priority.

Portfolio Management: set of processes by which the Geospatial Platform will manage geospatial

assets that are contained within the offering.  The Geospatial Platform will strategically manage

existing geospatial assets as a portfolio to maximize business value, solve problems and  increase

accountability and transparency across Federal, State, local, Tribal and private partners.  

Customer Service: services offered to customers will include technical geospatial services, as well as

support services (e.g. acquisition, requirements development). The Managing Partner will be responsible

for collecting and evaluating customer feedback, and providing users with a channel to raise questions or

concerns as well as suggestions on how to improve the performance of the Geospatial Platform and its

offerings.

Geospatial resources and capabilities delivered through the Geospatial Platform are discoverable at

www.geoplatform.gov as seen in Figure 3.

Offering “Trusted” Assets through a Trusted Partner Network  

A key differentiating feature of

the Geospatial Platform is that it

provides customers access to a

broad range of geospatial assets,

including content from different

governments (Federal, State,

local, Tribal) and private

organizations through the

www.geoplatform.gov website.  

This is distinctly different from

Data.gov that provides access to

exclusively Federal assets. The

Geospatial Platform will embrace

open standards and an open

architecture to ensure a high level

of interoperability across existing

platforms, databases,

development languages, and

applications of all contributing

organizations.

Figure 3.  Screen Shot of www.geoplatform.gov Website
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED 13

The Geospatial Platform’s broad discovery function is a valuable service for Geographic Information

System (GIS) professionals who can discern the utility of geospatial resources for specific purposes,

but this wealth of content may be overwhelming to users without prior knowledge of GIS, or program

managers, who are seeking trusted data, services, or applications.  To address this challenge, the

Geospatial Platform is organized to highlight a subset of the overall content as “trusted” data,

services, and applications.  This additional value added by the Geospatial Platform guides users to

quality assured offerings that can be used with confidence. These “trusted” offerings would come

from existing products, services and collaboration efforts of programs such as The National Map, the

National Wetlands Inventory, and the National Aerial Imagery Program.  

The benefits of highlighting trusted data, services, and applications include the ability to:

1. Provide decision makers with content that they can use with confidence to support daily

functions and important issues.

2. Provide consistency of base maps and services that can be used by multiple organizations to

address complex issues.

3. Eliminate the need to choose from redundant geospatial resources by providing access to

preferred data, maps and services.  

The full range of types of Geospatial Platform offerings is depicted in Figure 4.

To categorize content published to the Geospatial Platform as trusted data requires careful

application of quality assurance methods.  The Geospatial Platform model will foster the

development and growth of a network of “trusted partners” from all levels of government and the

private sector that will contribute content.  These trusted partners are organizations that meet

defined criteria for developing and delivering trusted content.  Criteria to ascertain suitable trusted

Figure 4.  Overview of Geospatial Platform Offerings
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED 14

partner organizations will be developed in concert with key stakeholders working through the FGDC,

the National Geospatial Advisory Committee (NGAC), and other partner organizations. Examples of

criteria for trusted data might include:

 Availability of a business plan to support maintenance and future development.

 Adequately resourced and refreshed at appropriate intervals.

 Relevant and readily accessible.

 Have completed metadata.

 Meet appropriate FGDC and other applicable standards.

 Established partner with the National Map, Homeland Infrastructure Foundation‐Level Data

(HIFLD), or other existing interagency collaboration.

Upon completion of the development of criteria to define trusted content, the Geospatial Platform

will publish the criteria as guidance on www.geoplatform.gov and interested organizations can take

action to become trusted partners of the Platform. As the capabilities of the Geospatial Platform

mature, existing services can be added for delivery to end users. An example would be the composite

basemap service from The National Map, which could be exposed through the Geospatial Platform

and used as a foundational capability for map creation. Any features of the Geospatial Platform are

envisioned to be developed using open standards and will be compliant with requirements of the

Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC).

User Functionality, Roles, and Access Management

Throughout the summer and fall of 2011, the FGDC member agencies worked collaboratively to

develop and launch version 1 of the www.geoplatform.gov website.  This site is a key component of

the overall Geospatial Platform, and will allow users from across the Federal Government, partner

organizations, and the public to discover and use a wide range of geospatial information.  The

Geospatial Platform offers users data as a service (DaaS), software as a service (SaaS), infrastructure

as a service (IaaS), and platform as a service (PaaS) capabilities as depicted in Figure 5 and described

in Appendix G.  
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED 15

Figure 5. The Geospatial Platform Technical Model
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED 16

  

The major functions of www.geoplatform.gov are to:   

1. Enable Federal agencies and their partners to publish and catalog interoperable web services

for all geospatial data, including data identified as “nationally significant” under the auspices

of the A‐16 Supplemental Guidance;  

2. Enable Federal agencies and their partners to develop and share geospatial services and

applications through the use of shared application hosting infrastructure and source code

sharing capabilities;  

3. Offer a mechanism through which Federal agencies can access and/or procure commercially

licensed geospatial data and tools by leveraging shared infrastructure and common

procurement mechanisms; and

4. Empower a new generation of geospatial collaboration by enabling users of all types to

develop and share maps with data from trusted content along with user‐contributed data.

To enable these different capabilities fully in the site, a range of user accounts with varying privileges

and access rights will be implemented.  Additionally, policies and procedures to support the

provisioning and use of these accounts will be established and implemented.  

The ConOps for User Functionality describes these requirements at a high level and is included in

Appendix H.  
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED 17

  

Governance and Organizational Approach  

Governance Framework

The Geospatial Platform is an Executive Branch initiative that requires guidance, oversight, and

coordination involving a broad range of Federal organizations and external partners.  OMB Circular A‐

16 established the FGDC as the coordinating body for Federal geospatial activities.  The Geospatial

Platform’s governance framework utilizes the existing FGDC structure as its foundation.  The

Geospatial Platform provides a National and Federal operational capability where governmental, non‐

governmental, private, and public data, services and applications are visualized together to inform

and address national and regional issues.  The existing FGDC structure requires the establishment of

additional coordination, operational oversight, and service execution bodies in order to effectively

support the Geospatial Platform’s collaborative operational capabilities.  

The Geospatial Platform’s governance framework outlines the roles and responsibilities of the

associated governing bodies, the Managing Partner, and their decision making authorities relative to

the operations of the Geospatial Platform.  Key functions related to the delivery of the Geospatial

Platform capabilities include: management of business and information requirements from Federal

and non‐Federal governmental agencies; management of data and interoperability standards, design

and implementation of the Geospatial Platform interface and services, measurement and

management of performance, and the establishment of operational business rules.   

The governance framework is designed to address significant drivers that are crucial to the success of

the Geospatial Platform:

 Creating an integrated place‐based collaborative framework for addressing public policy

challenges.

 Improving the framework to address the requirements of Federal, State, local, regional, and

Tribal agencies.

 Prioritizing investments based on the most widely shared and most significant business needs

of government.

 Enhancing interagency and intergovernmental cooperation.

 Saving taxpayers money through more effective leveraging of intergovernmental activities.

 Increasing transparency and accountability.

 Acknowledging and aligning varying roles, capabilities, and interests of parties with a stake in

the Geospatial Platform.
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED 18

Geospatial Platform Conceptual Governance Model

The conceptual governance model for the Geospatial Platform (depicted in Figure 6) includes two

primary components, Geospatial Governance and Policy Guidance and Geospatial Platform

Operations.   

The Geospatial Governance and Policy Guidance component will utilize the existing FGDC framework

for governance and policy development.  The FGDC, through the FGDC Steering Committee and

Executive Committee, will provide overall policy guidance for operations of the Geospatial Platform.  

External policy advice and recommendations will be provided through the National Geospatial

Advisory Committee (NGAC).   

The Geospatial Platform Operations component describes the operational management framework

for the Geospatial Platform.  The daily operational responsibility for the Geospatial Platform will

reside with the Managing Partner, which will coordinate and execute interagency and

intergovernmental agreements and partnerships at an operational level with appropriate partners.  

The Managing Partner will provide operational management of the Geospatial Platform and its

common data, services, applications, and shared infrastructure on behalf of FGDC member agencies

and trusted partners.  The Managing Partner will directly oversee any contractor support utilized to

operate the Geospatial Platform.   

A new Geospatial Platform Oversight Body will serve as the management oversight body and change

control board for the Geospatial Platform.  The Geospatial Platform Oversight Body will include

representatives from the FGDC, Agency Geospatial Information Officers (GIOs), the Federal Chief

Information Officers (CIO) Council, and from the Office of Science and Technology Policy.  The

Oversight Body will also include involvement from State, local, regional, and Tribal governments.

Technical Support Team(s) will be organized as needed to address technical development issues.

Event Support Team(s) will be established on as‐needed basis to address technical issues related to

utilizing the Geospatial Platform to address specific business issues or events.  

Existing committees and teams identified within the governance framework are governed by their

respective charters.  Newly created entities, such as the Managing Partner and Geospatial Platform

Oversight Body, will develop charters and operating procedures in consultation with appropriate

partners and stakeholders.
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED 19

Figure 6. Geospatial Platform Conceptual Governance Model
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED 20

  

Roles and Responsibilities Table

Table 1 summarizes the individual entities that comprise the overall Geospatial Platform governance

framework.

Table 1.  Geospatial Platform Governance Framework

Group/Role Summary of Roles and Responsibilities

FGDC Chair/Vice Chair The FGDC Chair (Secretary of the Interior or designee) and FGDC Vice Chair (OMB

Deputy Director for Management or designee) provides policy‐level leadership and

strategic direction for the Geospatial Platform.  This includes coordination with

appropriate policy‐level officials within the Executive Office of the President,

within FGDC agencies, and with related Federal Management Councils (CIO

Council, etc.).  The Chair and Vice Chair will collaborate with the Geospatial

Platform Oversight Body to facilitate a shared investment strategy for the

continuing operation and support of the Geospatial Platform.

FGDC Steering Committee The FGDC Steering Committee will set overall strategic direction for the Geospatial

Platform. The members of the Steering Committee, in their roles as Senior Agency

Officials for Geospatial Information7 (SAOGIs) within their agencies, will oversee

and coordinate their agencies’ participation in the Geospatial Platform.   

FGDC Executive Committee The FGDC Executive Committee, a subset of the Steering Committee, which

includes agencies with major geospatial responsibilities, will provide guidance and

recommendations to the FGDC Chair, Vice‐Chair, and broader Steering Committee

membership on Geospatial Platform operational issues that require Steering

Committee direction.  Within the FGDC governance structure, the Executive

Committee will serve as the primary point of contact with the Geospatial Platform

Oversight Body and the Managing Partner.  Members of the Executive Committee

may also serve as members of the Oversight Body.  The Executive Committee will

determine which policy‐level issues should be elevated to the FGDC Steering

Committee for review and action.

National Geospatial

Advisory Committee

The NGAC, a Federal Advisory Committee that reports to the FGDC Chair and

provides advice on national geospatial policy issues, will be a primary mechanism

to obtain external advice and recommendations on policy and management issues

related to the Geospatial Platform.  NGAC members represent a wide cross‐

section of organizations across the geospatial community, and can provide

feedback representing multiple external perspectives.  Requests for feedback or

advice on Geospatial Platform issues will be channeled through the FGDC Chair,

and managed by the FGDC Secretariat.   

FGDC Coordination Group The FGDC Coordination Group will review and help shape the requirements for the

Geospatial Platform based on agency‐specific needs and priorities and will assess

technical feasibility of potential offerings.  The Coordination Group will be the

primary operational representatives to ensure their agencies are fulfilling their

roles.

                                                           

7 http://georgewbush‐whitehouse.archives.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2006/m06‐07.pdf  
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED 21

Group/Role Summary of Roles and Responsibilities

Geospatial Platform

Oversight Body

The Geospatial Platform Oversight Body will provide management guidance on

behalf of FGDC member agencies to the Managing Partner for Geospatial Platform

operations.  The Oversight Body will include representatives from the FGDC,

agency GIOs, members of the Federal CIO Council, and the Office of Science and

Technology Policy (OSTP).  The Oversight Body will also include involvement from

State, local, regional, and Tribal governments.  The Geospatial Platform Oversight

Body will be the focal point for integrating and providing interagency and

intergovernmental requirements and conveying operational guidance to the

Managing Partner, based on overall policy guidance provided through the FGDC

Steering Committee.   The chairmanship of the Oversight Body will rotate among

the members.  The Managing Partner will rely on the Geospatial Platform

Oversight Body to provide timely resolution to management, governance, and

coordination issues as they arise. The Geospatial Platform Oversight Body will be

responsible for the following:

 Providing guidance and advice on operational and management issues as

required.

 Managing a process to collect, integrate, prioritize, and recommend

requirements from Federal agencies and non‐Federal partners.

 Providing requirements, feedback, validation of service effectiveness, and

funding guidance to the Managing Partner.

 Ensuring that the Geospatial Platform’s business rules are enforced by

the Managing Partner through standardized reporting processes.

 Receiving and evaluating reports from the Managing Partner on the

Geospatial Platform’s usage, costs, capacities, and other operational

metrics and providing that information to FGDC committees and partner

agencies for consideration in investment and lifecycle decisions.

 Collaborating with the CIO Council’s Shared Services Subcommittee and

other management bodies as needed.

Managing Partner The Managing Partner will be responsible for managing the operations of the

Geospatial Platform, based upon the strategic direction provided by the FGDC

Steering Committee and Executive Committee through the Geospatial Platform

Oversight Body.  The Managing Partner will be responsible for the following

functions:

 Administering and maintaining website infrastructure.  

 Developing and implementing contracting strategy.

 Overseeing and managing service level agreements (SLAs) related to

Geospatial Platform services and provision.  

 Developing and implementing a risk management strategy.

 Developing and implementing a communications and outreach strategy.

 Establishing a Program Management Office (PMO) function to manage

day‐to‐day operations of the Geospatial Platform, including monitoring

and managing all aspects of Capital Planning and Investment Control

including cost, schedule, risk, and budget; contract management;

preparing required management reports; requirements management;

and operational‐level interaction with Federal agencies, FGDC bodies, and

external partners.   

National Geospatial Data

Asset (NGDA) Theme Leads

The NGDA Theme Leads will coordinate and oversee the strategic planning and

implementation of datasets under the purview of the data themes they manage.  
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED 22

Group/Role Summary of Roles and Responsibilities

Portfolio Managementfor NGDA Themes and associated NGDA Datasets is closely

tied to the Geospatial Platform, a primary interagency service delivery mechanism

for the NGDA data services.  NGDA Theme Leads will develop the requirements for

the annual NGDA Theme Report, as described in the A‐16 Supplemental Guidance.

Technical Support Teams/

Event Support Teams

Technical Support Team(s) will be organized as needed to evaluate technical

development issues, service capabilities, and other technical issues.  These teams

may include government staff, agency contract staff, and non‐Federal partners.  

Their purpose is to help evaluate technical capabilities/solutions while minimizing

overall Geospatial Platform costs.

Event Support Team(s) will be established as needed to provide timely provision of

Geospatial Platform capabilities and services in response to specific business

issues or events. These teams may include government staff, agency contract

staff, and non‐Federal partners.  The teams will help establish collaboration spaces

within the Geospatial Platform focused on addressing specific events or issues.   

These members would be knowledgeable about the Geospatial Platform’s

capabilities, operations, and resources and will work with agency subject matter

experts to identify and establish connections to data services, base maps,

information feeds, and other services as needed.   

Governance Roles and Responsibilities

The following provides additional detail on several key aspects of the Geospatial Platform governance

approach.

Managing Partner

The Managing Partner will be responsible for managing the operations of the Geospatial Platform,

based upon strategic guidance provided through the Geospatial Platform Oversight Body on behalf of

the FGDC Steering Committee.  The role of the Managing Partner will be based upon best business

practices for interagency project management, and will build upon lessons learned from similar

interagency initiatives and partnerships.

The Managing Partner will coordinate the Geospatial Platform’s activities and develop, deploy,

operate, and manage the offering.  The Managing Partner needs full‐time resources to carry out its

functions.  It is anticipated that the Managing Partner will establish a PMO function to carry out these

responsibilities.  The Managing Partner will be responsible for establishing and managing

relationships with partners, facilitating requirements analyses, customer relationship management,

and outreach and marketing efforts.  The Managing Partner should have decision making authority on

Geospatial Platform content, based upon guidelines developed and approved through FGDC

processes.  
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED 23

Significant criteria for a successful Managing Partner should include the following:

 Leadership commitment and support;

 Credibility with the geospatial stakeholder community;

 Technical competency related to geospatial technology and information technology

management;

 Project management / Project Management Professional (PMP) capabilities;

 Contracting expertise and capacity, legal authority to accept multi‐agency funding;  

 Ability to negotiate and manage formal partner relationships (contracts, service level

agreements, etc.);

 Customer relationship management capabilities;

 Ability to meet or exceed operational support levels;

 Capability to conduct geospatial requirements analyses; and

 Capacity to scale‐up as needed.  

Designation of the Managing Partner

The role of the Managing Partner is critical to the successful implementation of the Geospatial

Platform.  Over the course of the development of this plan, there has been extensive dialogue and

analysis of the roles, responsibilities, and options for the designation of the Managing Partner.  This

dialogue has involved the FGDC Steering Committee, Executive Committee and Coordination Group,

senior leadership at the Department of the Interior and OMB, the CIO Council, and external input

from the National Geospatial Advisory Committee.   

At the January 2012 meeting of the FGDC Steering Committee, the Executive Committee was tasked

with developing recommendations for designation of the Managing Partner and a funding strategy

for the Geospatial Platform.  The FGDC community has engaged in extensive dialogue about the roles,

responsibilities and designation of the managing partner.   

At the April 2012 meeting of the FGDC Steering Committee, based upon the deliberations that had

taken place during the development of this plan, the FGDC Chair and Executive Committee

recommended that the Department of the Interior be designated as the operational Managing

Partner for the Geospatial Platform.  This role would be a follow‐on to Interior’s role as the Managing

Partner for the Geospatial Line of Business initiative.  Policy leadership for the Geospatial Platform

will be provided through the existing FGDC governance structure, led by the Steering Committee.  

The new Geospatial Platform Oversight Body, as described earlier in this plan, will provide

management oversight of the operations of the Geospatial Platform.  The minutes from the April

2012 Steering Committee meeting indicate the following:

“The Steering Committee concurred with the proposed governance model.  The governance
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED 24

model includes a new Geospatial Platform Oversight Body, which will have representatives

from the FGDC Executive Committee, Agency Geospatial Information Officers, the CIO Council,

and the Office of Science and Technology Policy.  The Oversight Body will also include

involvement from State/Local/Regional/Tribal Governments.  

The Steering Committee recommended that the Department of Interior (DOI) serve as the

Geospatial Platform managing partner.”

In addition, as described in the cost and funding section of the plan, FGDC partner agencies may

contribute in‐kind services and staff (technical expertise, project management, outreach/

communications, etc.) to help support the activities of the Managing Partner.   

The FGDC Secretariat will continue to coordinate the governance components of the Geospatial

Platform.  This will include managing the relationships and decision making processes involving the

FGDC Chair/Vice Chair, Steering Committee/Executive Committee, Coordination Group, Geospatial

Platform Oversight Body, Managing Partner, and external partners/stakeholders (including the

NGAC).  The FGDC Secretariat will also continue its roles of coordinating Portfolio Management

processes and supporting the development of geospatial standards processes.

Agencies

Agencies will be the key partners responsible for populating the Geospatial Platform with high value

geospatial data and tools.  Agencies’ functional roles related to the Geospatial Platform are described

below:  

Senior Agency Officials for Geospatial Information (SAOGIs), with the support of agency FGDC

Coordination Group members, will ensure that appropriate parts of their organizations jointly

coordinate and support Geospatial Platform requirements.  Agencies are encouraged to vet

Geospatial Platform requirements internally.  To accomplish this goal, agencies should involve key

mission, business, and organizational areas in assessing potential datasets that can be made available

for public dissemination through the Geospatial Platform.  Agencies should vet their requirements, as

appropriate, through the Geospatial Platform Working Group (once established).  

Agencies are the source of the Federal data posted to the Geospatial Platform and are therefore

responsible for offering data, services, and applications that are suitable (based on criteria and

business rules to be developed) for posting on the Geospatial Platform.  As they select datasets for

the Geospatial Platform, agencies will need to ensure the data meet required quality standards.   

Agencies are responsible for ensuring that the theme leads and dataset managers for particular data

assets complete the required metadata for each dataset, service, and application being publicized

through the Geospatial Platform.  Agencies are responsible for cataloging and understanding their

geospatial data assets and ensuring data quality.  Agencies are encouraged to engage their enterprise

architecture programs to formally catalog their geospatial data assets, determine which sources are

authoritative, and evaluate adherence to information quality guidelines.  
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED 25

The FGDC will provide agencies with tools and training on how to catalogue their data properly.   

Agencies retain the responsibility for managing their own mission specific data and providing

adequate technical and/or metadata documentation.  When these data are deemed “nationally

significant” this role will be carried out by NGDA Theme Leads and Dataset Managers within the

context of their particular missions.  

National Geospatial Data Asset (NGDA) Theme Leads and Dataset Managers

As described in the A‐16 Supplemental Guidance8, NGDA Theme Leads provide interdepartmental

leadership and coordination at the NGDA Theme level.  They work with NGDA Dataset Managers

whom have datasets that align to their theme to develop standards and provide guidance related to

dataset development, requirements, and relationships.  NGDA Themes have datasets that align to

them based on close thematic relationships, e.g. wetlands dataset is aligned to the Water‐Inland

Theme.  The NGDA Theme Lead, or designee, chairs the NGDA Theme’s Thematic Committee and

manages the annual process of providing NGDA Dataset collaboration and funding recommendations

to the FGDC Steering Committee for those NGDA Datasets within their NGDA Theme.  Additionally,

the NGDA Theme Lead reports to the Executive NGDA Theme Champion and the FGDC Coordination

Group on the NGDA Theme’s activities and investments (both current and planned).   

NGDA Dataset Managers provide coordination and standards for NGDA Datasets at a national level.  

NGDA Dataset Managers provide information to their NGDA Theme Lead for management and

reporting.

These roles and responsibilities are essential for successful NGDA Portfolio Management and

providing trusted data as a service (DaaS) offerings through the Geospatial Platform.  For more

information on Portfolio Management roles and responsibilities, please see the A‐16 Supplemental

Guidance and Reference Document: Roles and Responsibilities.9

  The Geospatial Platform is a primary

interagency service delivery mechanism for NGDA data services.

Involvement of External Partners

Partnerships with State and local government organizations are integral to the long‐term success of

the Geospatial Platform because local data are often critical to support sound decisions.  Developing

mechanisms for non‐Federal stakeholders to participate in Geospatial Platform governance, publish

resources to the Geospatial Platform, and adopt standards to ensure quality information will require

ongoing collaboration.  The FGDC and Managing Partner will work with professional associations,

such as the National Association of State Chief Information Officers (NASCIO), the National States

Geographic Information Council (NSGIC), and the National Association of Counties (NACO)

representatives, as well as with the NGAC, to develop partnership support mechanisms for

                                                           

8 http://www.fgdc.gov/policyandplanning/a‐16/omb‐circular‐a16‐supplemental‐guidance 9 http://www.fgdc.gov/policyandplanning/a‐16/key‐roles‐and‐responsibilities‐a16‐supplemental.pdf
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED 26

management and technical issues related to State and local government involvement in the

Geospatial Platform.  It is anticipated that some of these support mechanisms will need to take into

account public/private partnerships in relation to data and other service activities that may be

performed or supported by private entities.  In addition, the Geospatial Platform Working Group will

provide a forum for identifying Federal and non‐Federal agency requirements for common data,

services, applications, and shared infrastructure for the Geospatial Platform.

Governance of Ensuring Trusted Data, Services, and Applications

Relationship to Portfolio Management

Federal geospatial Portfolio Management is the management and monitoring of geospatial data

assets and investments to facilitate effective and efficient use of geospatial data to meet and address

the business needs and priorities of the Nation.  Geospatial Portfolio Management is an essential

component of the implementation of the A‐16 Supplemental Guidance.  As part of the Portfolio

Management process, geospatial assets across the government will be inventoried and evaluated for

strengths and weaknesses utilizing metrics and assessment reporting.  The portfolio will be analyzed

to determine asset investment recommendations to support national priorities.  Portfolio

Management is an action, decision, and goal‐based approach to asset management.  The Geospatial

Platform will be a critical service and delivery mechanism for the Federal geospatial portfolio assets,

and an integration point for the shared leveraging of information from, and with, other State, local,

Tribal, and non‐governmental information sources.  The Portfolio Management approach provides:

 An accurate and accountable inventory of geospatial portfolio assets.

 Improved government accountability and transparency, by assessing existing assets and

investments to reduce duplication and promote interoperability.

 Improved usability because of the increased understanding of what the data are and are not.

 Improved data quality through lifecycle evaluations for content quality and fitness for use as

described in the A‐16 Supplemental Guidance.

 Data management practices to ensure national data are high quality, dependable, consistent,

and available to agencies.

 Increased return on existing geospatial investments by promoting the reuse of data,

applications, and tools, executed through the Geospatial Platform.

The Geospatial Platform offering (as previously described in the Concept of Operations) is broader

than data, and includes services and applications.  These additional offerings can also benefit from

the use of Portfolio Management.  Over time, the FGDC will develop and adopt Portfolio

Management techniques and processes addressing the entire suite of offerings for implementation

by the Managing Partner.
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED 27

  

Costs and Funding Options 

Introduction

This section provides information on startup costs that have been expended in FY 2011 and projected

through FY 2015.  Costs are explained in terms of common cost factors – that is, the functions that

need to be performed and the purchases that need to be made over time – to ensure the Geospatial

Platform can continue to serve agencies and their partners far into the future.   

Equally important to the cost of the Geospatial Platform is the model through which funding will be

made available.  This section describes three options that have been considered for funding the

Geospatial Platform, as well as interim and long‐term strategies.  This section also describes the

preferred alternative that has been identified by the FGDC Steering Committee.  

As the Federal geospatial community is well aware, progress and technology‐enabled evolution have

been the hallmarks of the discipline since the early 1990’s. The high‐level emphases placed on

geospatial data demonstrates their importance to government work across many organizations,

missions, and disciplines, and has led to several initiatives aimed at ensuring community coalescence

and data interoperability.  As Federal geospatial stewards have learned more, and as new technology

has presented new opportunities, the community has responded well and quickly in transitioning to

each new initiative and capability.  

Figure 7 shows the evolution of initiatives over the last two decades that have helped to organize the

geospatial community around common goals.  This history of collaboration places the geospatial

community squarely at the forefront as the Federal government moves toward a shared services

environment, not only for the buying power such a move creates for commodity purchases, but for

accomplishment of agency missions.  The community has supported each new initiative in its

governance, funding, and operation using a variety of models for sharing responsibility.  Agencies are

currently engaged in activities in support of the Geospatial LoB and the Geospatial Platform, and are

well positioned to leverage these activities to move toward Geospatial Shared Services.  The options

for sharing funding and responsibility presented in this section build upon our experience with

previous initiatives and outline the pros and cons of each approach.  The funding models being

considered are designed to incorporate the best features and lessons learned from previous models.

Ultimately, the winner is the American public as duplicative endeavors diminish and developing and

providing geospatial data, services, and capabilities become increasingly efficient.
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED 28

Figure 7.  Progress and Evolution of Federal Geospatial Initiatives

Costs

Accurate cost and schedule estimates are as critical to the development, maintenance, and growth of

the Geospatial Platform as defining the scope and purpose of the program, as derived from

stakeholder requirements and expectations.  With this information as a baseline, the Managing

Partner is well positioned to develop a full business case and justification for the Geospatial Platform

to be introduced as a major investment for Fiscal Year (FY) 2014.  The information presented herein

provides a high‐level summary of costs incurred in FY 2011, budgeted costs for FY 2012 and FY 2013,

and projected costs for FY 2014 and FY 2015.

FY 2013 represents a transition period where the Managing Partner, along with a growing partner

network, will move from start‐up and proof‐of‐concept to an operational Geospatial Platform.  This

transition period will see the online Geospatial Platform system move from a relatively small project

managed and tracked through the Geospatial Line of Business investment to a major investment in its

own right, assuming responsibility and accountability for reporting not only what funds are

expended, but how they are expended.  As with every investment of this magnitude, this will require

the strategies, timelines, staffing, and funding needed to evolve and sustain the Geospatial Platform.  

But unlike many investments, the cross‐organizational nature of the Geospatial Platform also requires

the input and agreement of many Federal agencies on the critical components of cost, scope,

schedule, and level of service.  

Ongoing maintenance and expansion of the Geospatial Platform beyond the transition period will rely

on estimating long‐term costs associated with meeting stakeholder expectations and evolving

stakeholder requirements.  The Managing Partner will undertake a requirements analysis in FY 2012‐

FY 2013 to ensure understanding of the necessary core components of the fully implemented

Geospatial Platform.  Once these expectations and requirements are integrated fully into planned

Geospatial Platform enhancements, the Managing Partner will be better positioned to submit a full

budget request, including a description of the proposed funding model associated with long‐term

operations and maintenance.   

While funds will not be spent in exactly the same way from year to year, there are broad categories

of expenditures that will remain constant.  These categories are:
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED 29

 Program Management: This includes the planned and actual non‐IT costs associated with

organizing, convening, and operating an interagency body that is charged with developing

strategies (to be implemented by the Managing Partner and others as required) that ensure

the Geospatial Platform meets Federal goals for shared services.  In estimating this cost, we

have specifically excluded the work provided in‐kind by the agency representatives who

generously provide their time and expertise to ensure success.  We also have excluded the

time and efforts of agency employees who, while their work may advance the Geospatial

Platform, it also may be said to be just as relevant to their own agency mission.  In this way,

the Geospatial Platform is not unduly burdened by a sizable price tag, nor are we unrealistic

about cost savings and avoidance enabled by the Geospatial Platform for work that would be

done regardless of its existence.  These in‐kind contributions also represent an opportunity for

the Geospatial Platform to leverage other work taking place within agencies, leading to a

return on this investment that is robust and expected to grow.  A full cost‐benefit analysis is in

progress and will be provided as part of the capital planning (CPIC) process in the FY 2014

budget cycle.  Table 2, below, shows a best‐available‐estimate of the costs to develop a fully

functioning Geospatial Platform.  This estimate will evolve as requirements are better

understood.  Included in the cost of program management are the following factors:

o Administration costs including acquisition/contract support and management;

o Support to the PMO (documentation and reports, analysis of directives, portfolio

management, manage Service Level Agreements);

o Support for performance accountability;

o Support for Geospatial Platform Governance (meeting support, logistics, action item

tracking);

o Support partners and stakeholders (strategic planning, outreach and communication,

monitor and track requests from partners, develop and conduct training);

o Service contract costs associated with program management;

o Other costs for purchase of necessary supplies, travel (including local), and other

incidental costs.

 Information Technology: Creation of a new technological capability is accomplished in three

phases of the life cycle including 1) planning; 2) development / modernization /

enhancements (DME); and 3) ongoing operations and maintenance, also called steady state

operations.  The IT costs of building the Geospatial Platform include the following types of

costs in each phase:

o Cloud storage and infrastructure costs (hardware);

o Software costs (including purchases, modifications if required, and licenses);

o Service contract costs (technical support, development, configuration management,

Operations & Maintenance (O&M), help desk, documentation, evaluation of new

technology, etc.);

o Business intelligence/analytics (usage statistics, establish and support portfolio

management tool/s);
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED 30

o Rent, communication and utilities (if specific to the Geospatial Platform);

o Other relevant costs;

o Government full time equivalent (FTE) travel (local and non‐local); and

o Government FTE costs (technical coordination, security, contract/acquisition costs,

user support/help desk (unless supplied under contract), project management tracking

and reporting (capital planning support), and other inherently governmental functions

as needed.
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED 31

Table 2. Geospatial Platform Costs (REDACTED)

GEOSPATIAL PLATFORM PROJECTED COSTS AND SHORTFALLS

Fiscal Years 2011 2012 2013 

Cost Elements Expended Required Available Delta10 Required Available11 Delta PPROG. MGT. COST12FTEs13Service Contract14TravelOther

Subtotal

IT COST15FTEs16TravelHardwareSoftwareService Contract17Rent/Comm/UtilitiesOther

Subtotal

Total

10 Delta columns show the difference between the estimated required cost to perform all tasks and the available budget.11 Available column represents Geospatial LOB joint funding upon agreement of the agencies.12 Program Management Cost refers to the cost of performing programmatic activities required to develop, operate, and maintain the 13 Program Management FTEs include those engaged in the overall management of the Geospatial Platform effort including developme

Trusted Partner Network, PMO, communication and outreach, and management of contracts. Cost represents fully burdened salaries t

FGDC Secretariat budget, working on Platform activities. This does not include work provided in‐kind by partner agencies.

14 Costs for 2011 and 2012 were funded through the existing Geospatial Line of Business service contract.15 IT Cost refers to costs associated with the technical development of the online implementation of the Geospatial Platform (www.geo16 IT FTEs include technical coordination, security, and Capital Planning and Investment Control (CPIC) management. Cost represents fu

are covered by the FGDC Secretariat budget, working on Platform activities. This does not include work provided in‐kind by partner age

17 REDACTED
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED 32

  

The lifecycle phases described above often overlap.  For example, when initial development of a basic

system is completed and is in O&M, the investment team will likely be planning for enhancements to

be implemented the following year, and possibly overseeing enhancements defined in the previous

year.  Such is the case for the Geospatial Platform.  Geospatial Platform Version 1 was designed and

built as a prototype, and has been used as a proof of concept that demonstrates a keen level of

interest and participation across government and beyond.  This version went live on November 1,

2011 (FY 2012).  To implement enhancement requests, the investment team already is considering

how to prioritize stakeholder requirements and the level of effort that can be undertaken in the next

year.  For this reason, the Geospatial Platform will enter the CPIC process as a mixed life cycle

investment in FY 2014.

Establishing the Geospatial Platform Version 1 required leveraging of existing resources and

identification of new resources including: executing planned project activities of the Geospatial LoB;

engagement of a contractor as developer of the operational Geospatial Platform; and developing a

partnership with the General Services Administration (GSA) to execute and manage that contract.  

With the exception of funding the contract, much of the work done on the Geospatial Platform to

date has been enabled though in‐kind contributions from FGDC member agencies.  Primarily, these

in‐kind elements have been in the form of FTEs contributing their time and expertise.  It is anticipated

that leveraging such in‐kind contributions will always be a part of the funding strategy for the

Geospatial Platform.  However, as the Geospatial Platform grows, some of that in‐kind support will

need to be shifted to funded positions to ensure the sustainability of the investment.  Both

contracted FTE and Federal agency in‐kind FTE (from across the FGDC agencies) will be required and

utilized to support the Geospatial Platform operations. Table 3 shows the value of in‐kind services (in

FTEs) received or expected in each year.  

The bottom line Table 3 shows the leveraging ratio for the Geospatial Platform, derived by dividing

the value of the in‐kind services by the total cost in dollars.  This value is being factored into the cost

benefit analysis that is now underway, and represents a significant and ongoing portion of the return

that will be realized on the Geospatial Platform investment.

The leveraging ratios in Table 3 demonstrate that for every dollar spent to build the Geospatial

Platform, additional value is being added without specific cost to the investment.  This additional

value is projected to decline slightly as budgeted costs increase, providing greater stability to the

investment since in‐kind services are generally provided on a time‐available basis and cannot always

be counted upon to remain as projected.  Note that this table and discussion pertain only to in‐kind

value added by FTEs.  The overall return on investment for the Geospatial Platform is expected to

grow over time due to the cost savings and cost avoidance that will be realized by agencies as more

services become available through the Geospatial Platform.
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED 33

Table 3.  Anticipated Leveraging Ratio for Each Year Projected through FY 2015 (REDACTED)

Anticipated leveraging ratio for each year projected through FY 2015*

In‐Kind 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

In‐Kind FTEs Value          

FTE Costs          

Leveraged against costs          

*Shown in thousands dollars

Funding Options

A number of options exist for providing the funds necessary to build, operate, and maintain the

Geospatial Platform to a level of functionality wanted and needed by the agencies.  While a large

number of models were explored, this section details the three models deemed by the FGDC member

agencies to be the most feasible, and describes the option recommended by the FGDC Executive

Committee.

Option One: Single Agency Appropriation  

Funding the ongoing enhancement, operation and

maintenance of the Geospatial Platform by directing

appropriated funds to a single agency (most likely the

Managing Partner) would authorize a definitive annual

budget to be allocated to various baselines and

planned activities.  Funds may be designated as multi‐

year or no‐year to ensure their availability over time

and maximize flexibility in expenditures, or working

capital funds may be used to achieve similar ends.  

Within the Geospatial Platform governance structure,

the Managing Partner would be authorized to expend

the funds for the agreed‐upon activities and ongoing

operations of the Geospatial Platform.  Figure 8

outlines the advantages and disadvantages of the

Single Agency Appropriation Model.  

Option Two: Equal Cost Sharing  

Under a cost‐sharing model, the data, services, and applications available on the Geospatial Platform

would be paid for by pooling funds from individual FGDC member agencies.  These funds, which

would be transferred to the Managing Partner from the other agencies, would be used to pay for

agreed‐upon, planned activities and ongoing operations of the Geospatial Platform.

Figure 8.  Single Agency Appropriation Pros and Cons
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED 34

Figure 9.  Equal Cost Sharing Pros and Cons

Under this model, FGDC member agencies would

each provide an equal amount of funds to support

the costs, and in return would have unlimited access

to the data and technology assets of the Geospatial

Platform.  Other Federal and non‐Federal partners

would be invited to provide content and feedback on

the Geospatial Platform.  Figure 9 provides a list of

advantages and disadvantages of the Equal Cost‐

Sharing Model.

Option Three: Tiered Cost Sharing

As with the Equal Cost Sharing Model, the data,

services, and applications available on the Geospatial

Platform would be paid for by pooling funds from

individual FGDC member agencies, which these

agencies would redirect to the Managing Partner.  In

this model, the amount of funding provided by each

agency is based on an algorithm (to be developed)

that considers organization size, mission, geospatial

investment expenditures, and current geospatial

capabilities.  The FGDC member agencies will be

grouped into multiple tiers, with a reduced funding

requirement for each successive tier based on a

minimum requirement for the lowest tier.  This model

was used for Geospatial One Stop.   

For example, Tier 1 agencies would pay $X. Tier 2

through Tier 4 would pay a fraction of $X based on

the algorithm.  Collectively, agency contributions

comprise the pool of funding for Geospatial Platform

ongoing operations.  Figure 10 shows the advantages

and disadvantages of the Tiered Cost Sharing Model.    

FGDC Steering Committee Preferred Option: Tiered Cost Sharing

At the April 2012 meeting of the FGDC Steering Committee, the group reviewed and discussed the

funding options. The FGDC Chair and Executive Committee recommended adoption of the tiered cost

sharing model (Option Three).  Based upon analysis and discussion of the options described above, the

Steering Committee concurred with this approach.   The minutes from the April 2012 Steering Committee

meeting indicate the following:   

“The Steering Committee concurred that a tiered, shared funding strategy should be used to

fund the Geospatial Platform operations and Program Management Office (PMO) activities,

Figure 10.  Tiered Cost Sharing Pros and Cons
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED 35

starting in FY 2014. The Steering Committee agreed with a suggestion that the funding

allocations include both a primary contribution and a potential reserve contribution to cover

unforeseen contingencies.”

Considerations for selecting the tiered cost sharing model include the following:

 Provides a broad level of ownership and participation across the FGDC agencies in the

Geospatial Platform;

 Parallels the existing funding model used for the Geospatial Line of Business (although the

per‐agency costs may change);

 The process for soliciting, collecting, and applying the funds is already in place;

 Reflects the intent of the Shared Services approach.

The planned levels of investment per agency under the preferred model are displayed in Table 2,

Geospatial Platform Costs.

Potential Additional Sources of Funding

Additional models or supplementary approaches for funding the Geospatial Platform may be

considered in the future to enhance its overall utility and cost effectiveness.  These approaches may

include the following:

 Fee‐for‐Service: generates revenue by requiring users to pay for access to specific content of

the Geospatial Platform.

 Subscription Program: charging a lump‐sum for accessing the Geospatial Platform offerings.

 In‐Kind Contributions: voluntary, non‐cash contribution that can be assigned a cash value

(donated time, space, labor, and materials).

 Public‐Private Partnerships: cooperative contractual agreements between the Federal

Government and one or more private sector companies.

Fees collected from customers for use of the Geospatial Platform through subscription or fee for

service might be retained to reduce the overall cost sharing required for the following year’s planned

enhancements and operations.
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED 36

Risk Management 

For the purpose of this Business Plan, risk is defined herein as an uncertain event or condition that, if

it occurs, has a positive or negative effect on at least one project objective such as time, cost, scope

or quality.18 The Geospatial Platform has developed this risk management plan to 1) document the

organizational approach to risk management; 2) document the objective assessment and evaluation

of identified risks; and 3) establish the process for monitoring and control of those risks.  The risk

register (Appendix B) is a listing of all active risks, their ratings and proposed mitigation strategies.

This register is considered to be a living document, which will be updated throughout the lifecycle of

the Geospatial Platform with risks that have been identified and assessed.  The Geospatial Platform’s

risk management approach is consistent with the approach to risk undertaken for all projects and

activities and past initiatives of the FGDC.  The Managing Partner will consult with the Geospatial

Oversight Body when practical prior to implementing the risk management strategy.

Identifying and Assessing Risk

The Managing Partner will engage participants in a

continuous risk identification and assessment process in

order to minimize the risk – and the cost – of the

investment to the American public.  When not properly

managed, the risk of IT projects can have significant impact

on performance.   

Conscientious application of a consistent approach to risk

management will minimize risk by identifying risks as early

as possible, analyzing them based on an honest

assessment, developing a risk management strategy with

specific mitigations, and controlling and reporting risks.  

The Geospatial Platform’s risk management approach includes the following core processes

 Identification of potential risks.

 Assessment/evaluation of potential risks.

 Continuous monitoring and controlling of risks.

 Strategies for managing risk.

                                                           

18 American National Standards Institute. (2011, August 30). Retrieved from ANSI eStandards Store:

ttp://webstore.ansi.org/RecordDetail.aspx?sku=ANSI%2fPMI+99%2f001%2f2008

Crane, G. (2011). Annual Cost of Project Failure. Retrieved November 7, 2011, from The Papercut Project Manager:

http://edge.papercutpm.com/annual‐cost‐of‐project‐failure/

“40 percent or more of endeavors

with significant IT components are

cancelled before completion.  Of

the remaining projects, 33 percent

are challenged by time and cost

overruns, some due to changes in

scope.  Overall, failed and

challenged projects cost an

estimated $1.2 trillion annually in

the United States alone.”
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED 37

Identification of Potential Risks.  The risk identification process is continuous and will proceed over

the lifetime of the project, considering risks in a number of categories as they become relevant in

each phase of the system development lifecycle.  Some risks identified by the Managing Partner are

characteristic of development efforts in general, but some are specific to the Geospatial Platform.  As

a risk becomes irrelevant due to progress through the lifecycle or other circumstance, it will be

moved from the active register to an historic record.

Assessment/Evaluation of Potential Risks.  Once the Managing Partner identifies risk factors, those

risks are documented in a risk assessment worksheet (Appendix C) then grouped by category.  The

risk assessment worksheet serves as a mechanism for assigning a quantitative score that assists in

balancing the overall project risk burden and is updated at least quarterly as part of the risk

monitoring and control process.  A Program Evaluation Review Technique (PERT) Analysis is one

common technique for determining and quantifying risk scores.

Continuous Monitoring and Control of Risks.  Risk monitoring and control will be an ongoing process

throughout the life of the Geospatial Platform development project.  The purpose of this process is to

determine if initial risks are still valid, whether assessments are accurate, whether mitigation and/or

avoidance strategies have been effective, and to track risk trends.  This monitoring and control

process will help to validate the efficiency  of this risk management approach.

Development of Strategies for Managing Risk.  There are four valid and generally accepted methods

for managing and responding to risk.  At least one of following strategies will be implemented for

each risk.  These strategies are  

 Avoid: the process of determining if there is a feasible way to change a method or activity to

eliminate the potential pitfall or risk; this is the preferred strategy.  The rationale for this

decision is that a risk that does not occur cannot influence the project.  It is important to note

that many if not most risks cannot be avoided, or at least cannot be avoided without

unreasonably raising costs or creating new, more critical risks.

 Transfer: the process of ensuring that if a risk factor occurs, the impact of that factor will be

absorbed by a party outside of the project organization.  This can be thought of as an

insurance policy for the project, and is used if risk cannot be avoided.  It is not feasible,

however, to transfer all risks and some risks can be costly to transfer.   

 Mitigate: the process of developing a plan that minimizes the negative impacts of a risk if the

risk were to occur.  Mitigation strategies may be simple or complex, costly or free, depending

upon the risk.  One thing that makes a risk mitigation strategy stand out from the other

acceptable responses to risk is that it is implemented in real‐time, and outlines a plan for

action when the risk factor actually occurs19.  Because mitigation strategies often carry a cost,

                                                           

19 Although all risk response strategies must be planned in advance of the risk occurring to be effective, avoidance and

transference are actually executed in advance of the risk occurring through implementation of some process or other

change, or through a contractual strategy.
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED 38

it becomes important to ensure that the mitigation strategy is right‐sized to the level of the

risk itself.

 Accept: the process of accepting certain risks is a valid method of risk management.  For risks

with an extremely low likelihood of occurrence, or those for which any attempt to avoid,

transfer or mitigate is deemed infeasible, too costly or too time consuming, acceptance will be

considered as a strategy.    

Regardless of the risk mitigation strategy employed, the prerogative to implement the strategy – that

is, to turn on “Plan B” – is the responsibility of the Managing Partner, who should be in the best

position to determine that the risk actually has occurred.  When a risk event occurs, the Managing

Partner will inform the governance structure of the Geospatial Platform that the pre‐determined and

pre‐approved mitigation strategy is being implemented.  Since mitigation strategies are planned in

advance and the cost is known by all relevant parties, the Managing Partner will be in a position to

begin immediately implementing the strategy, minimizing potential further damages and costs

associated with the risk.  To facilitate the risk response process, the Managing Partner will address

risk as a standing agenda item at the Executive Committee level.  

The urgency of the decision to implement will be determined by the Managing Partner, who will

consider the potential impact of the risk and the cost of implementation.  For this reason, the

Managing Partner must ensure that costs associated with risk mitigation are understood by the

Geospatial Platform’s hierarchy and included in the project’s risk‐adjusted baseline.

Risk Management Approach

Each component of this approach to assessing and managing risk is considered critical to the overall

success of the project, and is not optional.  For clarity, each component is described as a stand‐alone,

linear step.  However, the components of the risk management process actually are quite dynamic

and interactive, and must be combined with other effective management techniques to maximize the

chances of project success.     

Risk identification.  Risk identification is discovering, defining, describing, documenting, and

communicating risks before they become problems and adversely affect a project20.  The Managing

Partner will be responsible for identifying and capturing new risks and for maintaining the risk

register, which shows risks that previously have been identified and assessed.  Any involved party or

stakeholder may submit risks for inclusion on the register.    

In conducting risk identification sessions, the Managing Partner will employ a number of techniques

including brainstorming, surveys, and experiential reports.  In later phases of development, the

historical record also will be useful in identifying and anticipating risks.  Risk identification items will

be included on the agendas of regular meetings conducted by the Managing Partner.

                                                           

20 Defense Acquisition University, 2008
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED 39

At present, risks are being characterized and categorized consistent with OMB’s guidance on capital

planning, as follows:

 Strategic: project does not tie to mission or strategic goals; project is not managed in a

manner consistent with Federal standards and processes for IT project management; data

quality standards are not defined; data acquisition and or conversion costs are unknown; data

quality is not defined; and data quality is impossible or difficult to determine.

 Lifecycle Costs: business process re‐engineering; acceptance by users and management; time

and commitment from managers to overseeing the changes. lack of participation of business

owners in the re‐engineering process; necessary change in manuals and handbooks;

personnel management issues; labor unions.

 Management of Project Schedule, Scope and Resources: uncertain and or changing

requirements; inability of stakeholders to agree on requirements; failure to comprehensively

gather requirements; misunderstood or miscommunicated requirements; addition of new

requirements after the development phase in which the requirement occurs has been priced,

scheduled, or begun; lack of understanding of requirements that may be considered to be

outside of the scope of this project; insufficient or unavailable resources; overly optimistic

task durations; unnecessary activities within the schedule; and critical deliverables or reviews

not planned into the schedule.

 Reliability of Systems and Technology: lack of expertise; software and hardware maturity or

immaturity; installation complexities; customization requirements for Government off the

Shelf (GOTS) or Commercial off the Shelf (COTS) software; O&M requirements; component

delivery schedules availability; design/programming errors and or omissions; technical

obsolescence; and overall system reliability.  This category also includes risks associated with

dependencies and interoperability including poorly written contracts; market or industry

changes; new competitive products become available; creating a monopoly for future

procurements; failure to recognize critical interactions and relationships with other systems.

 Security / Security of Systems and Data: project does not conform to the security and/or

privacy requirements of OMB Circular A‐130.

Risk evaluation.  The goals of the risk evaluation activity are to arrive at a most likely scenario for the

probability and impact associated with each risk factor; determine an overall project risk score; and,

identify and plan for those risks requiring mitigation.  A realistic assessment of risks increases the

chances of program success, provides a disciplined process for internal communication of status,

allows for a demonstration of project control, and helps maximize the use of time and other

resources.  To manage the Geospatial Platform’s risk, periodic evaluations of risk impact and

probability will be performed.  The robust process for risk evaluation, as described below, is fully

compliant with industry best practices.  The benefits of this process include 1) objectivity and focus

during assessment; 2) consensus risk analysis and prioritization; 3) informed decision making; 4)

improved ability to plan, track, and control risks; and 5) improved ability to manage investment costs

by understanding the cost of unmanaged risks.  
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED 40

Risks are scored using the PERT Analysis technique, which is used as a way to determine and quantify

each risk.  The formula for a risk score is considered to be PROBABILITY x IMPACT; that is, a quantitative

expression of the likelihood that the risk will occur, multiplied by a quantitative expression of the

level of impact if the risk should occur.

In this context, impact and probability are defined as follows:

 Probability: the statistical chance that the risk will occur.  It is expressed in terms of likelihood

on a scale where 1 = improbable; 2 = moderately probably; 3= highly probably; and 4 =

definite.  

 Impact: the loss or effect if the risk occurs.  Impact is assessed on a scale where 1 = no impact;

2 = low impact; 3 = moderate impact; and 4 = high impact.  

Risk evaluation is a five‐step process consisting of:

1. Scoring.

2. Consolidating.

3. Assessment/review.

4. Analysis/prioritization.

5. Response planning.

Step 1 (Scoring): In this step, each participant, referred to as assessors or raters, independently

assigns a numerical score to the risks by completing a risk survey.  Raters use a scoring template  

containing instructions and drop‐down menus.  Numerical scores are input then automatically

calculated via embedded formulas.  A sample risk scoring template can be seen in Appendix C.   

Step 2 (Consolidating): Here, the Managing Partner compiles all scores from individual raters’

worksheets for all risk factors and performs a PERT Analysis.

 Rater Worksheets – these worksheets illustrate the range of responses provided by risk team

participants while preserving the anonymity of the responses provided by each risk rater.  

These statistics provide content for the risk factor probability assessments and the risk factor

impact assessments.    

 PERT Analysis – this worksheet consolidates the individual risk assessments into a single

assessment.  Results of the PERT Analysis will be provided to appropriate parties highlighted in

the governance framework, as appropriate, and other government management, as necessary

and appropriate.  Results will be displayed in a table such as the following shown in Table 4.
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED 41

Table 4.  Sample PERT Analysis Results Table (using dummy data)

Geospatial Platform Sample Risk Analysis Report

Raw Scores PERT Data

Raters Composite Score Optimistic Most Likely Pessimistic

1 291

2 260 260

3 306

4 268

5 385 385

etc. 307

Average Score 303

PERT Analysis 309 MEDIUM RISK

Quantitative to Qualitative Crosswalk

Under 200 Low Risk

200‐350 Medium Risk

350‐500 High Risk

Composite scores were derived as follows:

 Consolidated probability assessments – averaged, rounding up to the next highest whole

number.

 Consolidated impact assessments – averaged, rounding up to the next highest whole number.

The overall risk value is calculated by summing the result of the consolidated rater scores to

determine the optimistic (O), most likely (ML) and pessimistic (P) scores, then applying the PERT

formula:

PERT Formula = 0 + (4ML) +P

 6 

Step 3 (Assessment/review): At least annually, the Managing Partner will host a risk assessment

meeting with the goal of updating the assessment of the identified risks and developing a single

assessment that represents a consensus of the entire project’s level of risk.  These two assessments

provide the input to risk analysis and prioritization.

In the assessment review meeting, participants evaluate the results of the independent risk

assessments to ensure agreement and determine priorities.  A major function of this review comes

into play when the work being done is managed as more than one project.  In this case, this group is

asked to perform a portfolio‐wide assessment of risks, determining any common risk areas and

noting whether planned mitigation strategies can be used across the board.  
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED 42

Step 4 (Analysis/prioritization): The

risk assessment provides the input to

development of the Probability and

Impact Matrix (Figure 11), which is

used to prioritize risks for subsequent

analysis or action by assessing and

combining each risk’s probability of

occurrence and impact.  This

combination of probability and impact

is used to classify risks as high risk

(“red”), moderate risk (“yellow ”), or

low risk (“green”).  This tool allows for

quick identification of risks that need

attention or monitoring.  In practice,

the formulas in Figure 11 would be

replaced with the number of risks that

fall into each square of the matrix,

providing a risk dashboard.  The

Probability and impact matrix

provides a visual representation of the

classification of each risk by illustrating how individually scored risks would plot out in relation to one

another and by showing how they form a picture of the overall risk for the investment.  Assessed

probability rating appears on the x‐axis and the impact rating on the y‐axis of Figure 11.   

                                   

Step 5 (Response Planning): In this step, the Managing Partner, and other participants as appropriate,

determines which of the four valid risk response strategies should be assigned to each risk then

develops a plan for responding to each risk.  The results of analysis and prioritization are used to

identify risk factors for which 1) preventive measures should be defined in order to reduce risk and 2)

countermeasures should be identified in order to successfully address these risks when they develop.  

In addition, each tracked risk is assigned to an individual, referred to as the risk owner, who becomes

responsible for monitoring that particular risk and ensuring one of the following response planning

activities will be performed:

 High‐level risks (Red).  Must be actively managed.  Create a response plan for each high‐level

risk to ensure the risk is managed successfully.  This plan should include activities to manage

the risk, as well as the people assigned, completion dates and periodic dates to monitor

progress.   

 Moderate‐level risks (Yellow).  May warrant additional evaluation and close monitoring.  

Evaluate the medium‐level risks to determine if the impact is severe enough that they should

have a risk response plan created for them as well.  If so, prepare high‐level risk mitigation

strategies.  If not, continue to monitor these risks to see if the initial evaluation should be

maintained, raised to red, or lowered to green and take appropriate action.

Figure 111.  Probability and Impact Matrix of Project Risk
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED 43

 Low‐level risks (Green).  Evaluate annually.  Assess low‐risk items to determine whether they

should be listed as assumptions.  In this way, the risk is recognized as a potential source of

problems, but because the risk is low, it is assumed' that the condition will not occur.  

Risk Register

Creation and maintenance of a risk register, sometimes referred to as “risk monitoring and control,”

aids managers in tracking identified risks, identifying new risks, implementing response plans as

needed, and ensuring overall risk management effectiveness.  The Managing Partner will maintain a

risk register using the fields identified in Figure 12.  This figure also shows how these fields equate to

the steps of the risk management process described earlier.  Guidance on how to identify risks in

each category is provided in Appendix D.

IDENTIFY EVALUATE/ASSESS/REVIEW RESPONSE CONTROL

Risk 

ID 

Risk 

Factor 

OMB 

Risk 

Category 

Probability Impact Analysis 

Score 

Risk Mgmt. 

Strategy Status Mitigation Owner 

Figure 12.  Relationship of Risk Register Fields to the Phases of the Risk Management Process

   
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED 44

Measuring Performance 

Government operates more effectively when it focuses on outcomes, when leaders set clear and

measurable goals, and when agencies use measurement to reinforce priorities, motivate action, and

illuminate a path to improvement.  This outcome‐focused performance management approach has

proved a powerful way to achieve large performance gains in other countries, several States, an

increasing number of local governments, and a growing number of Federal programs.  The

performance measurement process provides a foundation for the quantitative assessment for

determining the effectiveness of activities.  Through systematic measurement, managers can readily

determine the benefits of the effort being put forth as well as the value of those benefits in the

return on the investment.  This performance measurement approach will provide quantified results

to support the viability and sustainability of the Geospatial Platform initiative, and determine where

or when adjustments are needed.

The Geospatial Platform will employ a framework for performance measurement built upon common

metric definitions agreed upon by the Managing Partner, stakeholders, and governing bodies

involved in the creation, deployment, and management of the initiative in accordance with the

governance framework.  Agreement on performance metric definitions will be documented and

made available.  Appendix E contains a sample performance measures definition template that can

facilitate this process.  Effective performance frameworks improve management of the initiative at a

strategic level by providing a means for using the Federal enterprise architecture (FEA) to measure

the impact and success of governance, workflows, and specific activities on strategic outcomes.   

Performance Strategy

To evaluate the performance of the Federal effort aimed at creating geospatial shared services in the

coming fiscal years, the Managing Partner will pursue three performance management strategies:

 Use performance information to lead, learn, and improve Geospatial Platform outcomes.  

The Managing Partner will set high‐priority goals and use constructive evidence‐based reviews

to keep the Geospatial Platform on track to deliver on strategic goals, collecting lessons

learned along the way.  

 Communicate performance coherently and concisely to improve results and transparency.  

Using the Geospatial Platform governance framework, the Managing Partner will

communicate the priorities, problems, and progress of the Geospatial Platform, explaining

trends, the impact of past actions, and future plans.  

 Strengthen problem‐solving networks.  The Managing Partner will tap into and encourage

geospatial practitioner communities, inside and outside the Government, to work together to

improve outcomes and performance management practices.

The ultimate test of an effective performance management system is how effectively it is used, not

the number of goals and measures produced.  Therefore, by following the structure of the Federal
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED 45

Performance Reference Model (PRM) the Geospatial Platform Managing Partner will act as a

performance steward to objectively measure and report on the Geospatial Platform’s actual

performance and effectiveness against targets, strategic goals, and operational plans.  As

development of the Geospatial Platform enterprise progresses, metrics aimed at measuring and

evaluating the maturity of Portfolio Management process will be developed and implemented. The

Managing Partner will put in place constructive quarterly feedback and review related to the entire

performance measurement effort.

National Outcomes  

Outcome‐focused policies, management practices, and capacity building for the Geospatial Platform

should support the needs of all stakeholders, both users and contributors.  Implementation of the

Geospatial Platform should incrementally provide geospatial assets to governing entities across the

country.  In light of the fiscal challenges faced by the Nation, the Geospatial Platform must help

decision makers eliminate unnecessary spending, spend taxpayer dollars wisely, and focus Federal

resources on effectively addressing clear needs or problems.  By coordinating their programs within

the Geospatial Platform, Federal agencies can promote collaboration and place‐based outcomes to

link, leverage, and align Federal, State, local, and regional resources through shared services, and to

catalyze private and philanthropic investment, increasing the resources available to stakeholders.   

In creating a virtual environment that enables efficient and effective access to geospatial assets for

decision making, initiatives like the Geospatial Platform show special promise for achieving

comprehensive, extensible outcomes.  Opportunities and options for improving the intra‐ or inter‐

agency coordination and effectiveness in policy and administrative services can be highlighted

through Geospatial Platform participation.  In addition, joint innovation across diverse communities

of citizens, industry, academic, and non‐governmental organizations can foster stakeholder

innovation, and create capacity for preemptive and rapid response to complex public problems.

Measurement  

The Geospatial Platform will employ a performance measurement system that facilitates end‐to‐end

visibility for optimizing the Geospatial Platform implementation as well as the management structure,

processes, and content on three levels: strategic, tactical, and operational.  The Managing Partner will

develop the measurement system with concurrence from the Geospatial Platform Oversight Body.  

The Managing Partner will then be responsible for reporting to the Geospatial Platform Oversight

Body that will conduct ongoing performance evaluation.

At a strategic level, this framework leverages the FEA to measure the success of the geospatial

community production, governance, workflow, and specific activities, as well as their successful

implementation of planned strategic outcomes.  

At a tactical level, the framework helps to articulate the linkages and dependencies among internal

business components and the achievement of business and customer‐centric outputs and outcomes.  

Additionally, it facilitates resource‐allocation decisions based on comparative determinations of the

overall effectiveness of the Geospatial Platform.  
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED 46

At the operational level, performance measurement activities emphasize tangible management of

the deployment and delivery of shared geospatial data, services, and applications.  These measures

and metrics help determine actual contributions associated with Geospatial Platform workflow,

process, business rules, roles and responsibilities, and other direct and/or indirect factors.    

To be successful, the Geospatial Platform must result in eliminating duplication of services, ensuring

interoperability of remaining assets, and helping rationalize program investment.  Commodity

technology services are often duplicative and sub‐scale, including services such as: IT infrastructure

(e.g., data centers, networks, desktop computers, and mobile devices); enterprise IT systems (e.g.,

collaboration tools, identity and access management, security, and web infrastructure); and, GIS

systems (e.g., geocoding, geoprocessing, and cartography functions).  As an implementation of the

“Shared First” methodology, the Managing Partner will establish tools to improve participating

agency purchasing power to drive down costs and improve service for commodity solutions.

  

Performance Management

Alignment with the Geospatial Platform’s Strategic Goals

Performance measurement systems succeed when an initiative’s strategy and performance measures

are in alignment, and when senior leadership conveys the mission, vision, values and strategic

direction to internal and external stakeholders.  Performance measures give life to the mission,

vision, and strategy by providing a focus that lets each stakeholder know how he or she contributes

to the success of the effort and its stakeholders’ measurable expectations.

Integration makes it possible for performance measures to be effective agents for change.  If the

measures quantify results of an activity, one can compare the measured data with the desired goals

to understand what actions, if any, are needed; the measures should carry the message.  The

strategic goals of the Geospatial Platform are shown in the left column in Table 5.  For each of the

Geospatial Platform goals, we can define a series of Critical Success Factors (CSFs) to help define what

constitutes “success” within the appropriate context.  CSFs, shown in the right column in Table 5 are

statements that embody how we will know when we are succeeding.

Table 5.  Goals and Critical Success Factors (CSF)

Goal Critical Success Factors

Enhance the availability of

geospatial information by

providing a centralized access

point.   

 Steadily increasing use of the Geospatial Platform at the Federal, State, and

local levels.

 General satisfaction from the user community related to the ability of the

Geospatial Platform to meet their data access needs.

 The inclusion of representative data, services, and applications from each of

the framework themes outlined in OMB Circular A‐16.
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED 47

Goal Critical Success Factors

Promote information sharing and

collaboration across multiple levels

of government and with partners

in the private sector.

 Participation and contribution from all Federal agencies with geospatial

business interests.

 General satisfaction from contributors related to the ability of the Geospatial

Platform to meet their needs.

 An increased awareness of agency geospatial activities and associated

decrease in potential duplications of effort.

 Partnerships developed whereby the geospatial information obtained from the

Geospatial Platform is helping organizations identify overlapping missions,

goals, and objectives through a spatial context.

Provide a shared cloud computing

infrastructure.

 An overall decrease in agency expenditures related to geospatial information

infrastructure or the ability to reallocate funds to further their own missions

by not having to build what the Geospatial Platform provides.

 High availability of Geospatial Platform infrastructure.     

Facilitate the use and application

of geospatial information.

 Users are leveraging the Geospatial Platform to develop maps that inform the

decision making process.

 Outcomes from the application of geospatial information to issue areas are

highlighted within the Geospatial Platform.

These Geospatial Platform performance goals are intended to promote public services that result in

transparent, accountable, and participatory governance.  As an enabler of transformation, the

Geospatial Platform’s performance will be managed to increase its capability to invigorate problem‐

solving partnerships, and grow capacity to focus on place‐based solutions.  The Geospatial Platform

must help break down Federal “silos” and create, provision, and consume geospatial assets in such a

way that encourages coordination.  To make the Federal government a more effective and nimble

partner, the Geospatial Platform should demonstrate a model for developing opportunities to engage

State, local, and Tribal governments, faith institutions, nonprofit organizations, businesses, and the

public as collaborators.  Effective collaboration rests on developing shared agendas for action, smart

strategies, logical and relevant success measures, and results‐focused implementation.

The Geospatial Platform should also promote geospatial data and service planning as well as

collaboration across jurisdictional boundaries.  Programs in neighboring zones and within larger

regions ‐‐ some of which connect rural communities to metropolitan regions ‐‐ should complement

each other.  Geospatial Platform performance management should reflect stewardship for the

Nation’s economic and social diversity and allow communities to identify distinct needs and address

them in appropriate, strategic ways.  

Data derived from measuring performance supports decision makers by providing a direct link

between the Nation’s investment in geospatially‐relevant resources and the Federal government’s

strategic goals that effectively demonstrate how this investment is closing a critical gap in the

required National capacity.
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED 48

Performance Measures

The performance measurement framework for the Geospatial Platform will be fully compliant with

OMB requirements for capital investments to ensure compatibility with the Federal Information

Technology Dashboard.  These requirements stipulate that at least two measurements be results‐

specific, with one of these results‐specific metrics measuring quality of service.  In addition, at least

three metrics must be specific to activities and technology, designed to measure actual performance

against defined process standards or technical service level agreements.

Results‐specific measures

 Support Delivery of Services:  number of Federal geospatial datasets and map services

accessed through the Geospatial Platform.

 Service Quality:  percent of Geospatial Platform users who report satisfaction with the quality

of information received through Geospatial Platform.

 Customer Benefit: percent of Geospatial Platform users who report satisfaction with data,

services, applications or other scientific, technical and data products and increased

effectiveness because of Geospatial Platform accessibility. Percent of users that indicate

increased knowledge and understanding of the Geospatial Platform.  

Activities and Technology‐specific measures

 Quality: percent of Geospatial datasets available through the Platform coordinated by a

recognized national steward per OMB Circular A‐16.

 Financial: percent of cost savings associated with the use of the NGDA through the Geospatial

Platform for partner agencies.

 Management and Innovation: number of partnerships developed whereby the geospatial

information obtained from the Geospatial Platform is helping organizations identify

overlapping missions, goals, and objectives through a spatial context.

Descriptive Example   

To illustrate the definition of success as it relates to the Geospatial Platform, we will use the

“Assessing Impacts of Sea Level Rise and Coastal Flooding” use case from the Value Proposition.  

Climate change adaptation is multi‐faceted and place‐based, requiring a large amount of data and

information to develop comprehensive adaptation strategies.  Coastal communities could use the

Geospatial Platform to obtain data, services, and applications that would help them determine their

risk and vulnerability from a changing climate.  Success in this case would be defined through an

increasing number of coastal communities as users of the Geospatial Platform.  This, in turn, would

directly relate to the number and quality of local‐level data and services made available through the

Geospatial Platform.
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED 49

As the use case matures, an inventory of existing Federal data holdings related to community risk and

vulnerability will be compiled and gaps identified; key Federal agency contributors would be

identified, convened, and encouraged to contribute.  Here, success would be defined by the

increased participation of these identified Federal agencies as contributors to the Geospatial

Platform.  Additional success would be realized through increased collaboration between the

contributors and users, resulting in the identification of common activities and outputs across

agencies.  It is important to note that agency participation will be limited initially to those who

possess the technical capability to provide data and services to the Geospatial Platform.  However, it

is anticipated that additional Federal agencies will manage critical data and information that could be

used to examine further the risk and vulnerability issue.  The provision of a shared infrastructure for

data management and access would greatly benefit these agencies and further contribute to the

success of the Geospatial Platform as a collaborative medium.  Over time, all Federal agencies

contributing data and services to this use case would benefit from the migration of their geospatial

data holdings to the shared infrastructure, which would result in a net decrease in the IT

infrastructure investments that the organizations would incur.  

With this new wealth of distributed geospatial data consolidated into a single access point, coastal

communities could leverage the mapping and visualization capabilities that the Geospatial Platform

provides to derive information that would direct local‐level adaptation planning.  New maps would be

created, managed, and served through the Geospatial Platform, integrating Federal agency data with

local datasets.  The outcomes related to the application of these maps to the decision making process

would be highlighted through the Geospatial Platform, demonstrating its utility as a mechanism for

sharing best practices and lessons learned.  
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED A ‐ I

Appendix A: Benefits of the Geospatial 

Platform 

The following is a summary of the benefits, positive returns, and operational efficiencies that can be

expected through the implementation of the Geospatial Platform.

Increasing Return on Existing Investments

 Increases the return on government investment in geospatial data, applications, services, and

shared infrastructure by enabling discovery, access, and multiple uses of existing assets.

 Increases transparency of government geospatial investments.

 Decreases the cost of geospatial data and services to agencies by leveraging large scale

purchasing.

 Increases the utility of administrative and statistical data by putting it into a spatial context

where additional analyses can be run quickly at little or no additional cost.

 Decreases the time required to get information on existing geospatial assets to decision

makers for determining an appropriate course of action.

Increasing Government Efficiency

 Decreases the time required to determine the data, tools, services, and infrastructure

available to address and understand national issues and events.

 Increases agency resources that can be refocused on core mission requirements by

establishing responsible, trusted data sources for multiple agency use so they do not have to

create and manage separate datasets.

 Increases the tools and analysis techniques available to decision makers with little to no new

investment in hardware, software, or staff.

 Increases the amount of useful information available to decision makers.

 Decreases the time spent by agencies on data calls, data discovery, data reformatting and

processing.

Reducing Redundancy

 Increases the ability of Federal programs to provide their geospatial data, services, and

applications for use and reuse by other agencies.
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED A ‐ II

 Increases the ability of agencies to make the data and or services available by reducing their

costs and management requirements through use of cloud computing.

 Increases the discoverability of assets available to address agency mission requirements.

 Decreases government expenditures on duplicative data creation and management efforts.

Increasing Service Delivery

 Increases the government’s ability to utilize high‐value geospatial tools, data, services, and

applications to support agencies and decision makers.

 Increases the Federal government’s ability to interact with and leverage the high‐value data

assets of State, Tribal, regional, local, and non‐governmental organizations.

 Decreases the time and resources required to locate, obtain, and use data managed and

available from non‐Federal agencies.

 Decreases the cost of service management to agencies through shared services and

infrastructure.

 Decreases the time required to leverage existing data and investments to solve problems,

answer questions, and respond to the public.

Decreasing Development and Management Costs

 Reduces application or services development investments by making existing services

available for reuse and avoiding duplicative development.

 Reduces time‐to‐market by reducing service and application development cycles.

 Decreases the time and resources expended by agencies by reducing the number of data calls.

 Increases usability by enabling deployment in a cloud computing environment designed to

handle surges in use without requiring additional hardware investments.

 Decreases the cost and burden to agencies to host services or build infrastructure.

 Reduces significantly the cost to agencies to meet the Federal Information Security

Management Act (FISMA) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)

Certification and Accreditation (C&A) requirements while ensuring appropriate security

protocols are enforced.   

Increasing Quality

 Increases transparency of available data, their value, and authority.

 Increases the consistency, documentation, and provenance of data used for decision making

by enabling efficient access and use of validated data sources.
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED A ‐ III

Increasing Usability

 Increases usability of data by making them available beyond a single agency or program.

 Increases usability of data by making them available within a number of shared mapping and

analytical tools designed to meet specific mission requirements.

 Increases data consistency, usability, and clarity by providing single format, validated data

sources.

 Decreases the complexities of using shared data and tools by enabling discovery and use

through a single Web portal, minimizing the need to learn where and how to find the

information across multiple sites.

 Increases access to geospatial applications and services to agencies that cannot afford to

manage geospatial programs or data development efforts.

The FGDC will coordinate with FedStats (for subject matter and statistical expertise) so that data are

used correctly and ethically.
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED B ‐ I

Appendix B: Risk Register The risk register shows those risks that currently have been identified and assessed. As to be expected during the Geospat

many are business‐type risks rather than technical, which will become predominant later in the project’s lifecycle.

Risk

ID Risk Factor OMB Risk Category Probability Impact Analysis Score Risk Mgmt. Strategy 

1.1 Agency participants do not include one or more important Federal

agencies

Agency capability

1.2 Project fails to fill a performance gap;

project not driven by requirements.

Strategic

1.3 Managing Partner fails to

communicate well with stakeholders.

Strategic

1.4 Project has insufficient measurable

objectives to determine status.

Business

1.5 Project schedule and course is driven

by non‐business or technical agendas.

Strategic

1.6 Managers lack up to date data about

status of project.

Business

1.7

Agencies cannot agree on common

standards, processes, practices, or

solutions.

Strategic

2.1 Costs do not remain within budget. Lifecycle costs2.2 Inadequate funding stream to continue development and operation

of the Geospatial Platform.

Initial costs

2.3 Earned value is difficult to track. Lifecycle costs
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED B ‐ II

Risk

ID Risk Factor OMB Risk Category Probability Impact Analysis Score Risk Mgmt. Strategy 

2.4

Return on investment is not defined,

low, or inadequate to justifyexpenditure.

Lifecycle costs

2.5

Unbalanced allocation of resources

between development andoperations/maintenance.

Lifecycle costs

3.1 Project lacks resources with

appropriate skill mix.

Project resources

3.2 Business partners do not take the

time to define the scope.

Agency capability

3.3 Development is subject to repeated delays due to inefficiency in the

decision making process.

Schedule

3.4 Development contractor is unable to retain experienced/trained personnel

familiar with the project.

Project resources

3.5 Project team is undermined by

unreasonable deadlines.

Agency capability

3.6 Project manager fails to effectively manage changes to technology,

scope, or schedule.

Changemanagement

3.7 Project schedules are incomplete (not

detailed enough).

Schedule

3.8 Inadequate quality control processes are developed to ensure quality of

data.

Data / info

4.1 System crashes due to inability to implement recovery strategies

following natural disaster.

Surety (asset

protection)
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED B ‐ III

Risk

ID Risk Factor OMB Risk Category Probability Impact Analysis Score Risk Mgmt. Strategy 

4.2 System becomes vulnerable due to

lack of maintenance. Project resources

4.3 Architecture is too rigid to

accommodate new opportunities.

Reliability of

systems

4.4 Catastrophic system failure occurs. Reliability of systems4.5 Development activities are not well

documented.

Lifecycle costs

4.6 System upgrades are not performed

due to lack of resources.

Project resources

5.1

Infrastructure security is

compromised due to inability toperform maintenance on schedule.

Security

5.2

Portfolio manager fails to see

dependencies in time to prevent

adverse impacts.

Dependencies &interoperability

5.3

Other systems or programs are

dependent on this investment's

success.

Dependencies &interoperability

5.4 System is hacked and critical data are

lost or manipulated.

Security

5.5 System crashes due to failure to perform adequate mitigation planning

and contingency testing.

Security
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED C ‐ I

Appendix C: Risk Worksheet 

Instructions: For each risk factor, please determine how likely you think it is to occur (Column B ‐ Probability) and, if it should occur, wimpact it will have on the Geospatial Platform (Column C ‐ Impact). When you click on the cell, a drop‐down menu icon will appear. down arrow to select your choices. The spreadsheet will automatically tally the results for you.

Geospatial Platform Risk Register and Worksheet

Project: Geospatial Platform

Rater: [name]

Date: [mm/dd/yyyy]

Overall Risk Score: 0.00

Probability Impact 

1.0 Strategic Risks

Risk Factor 1.1: Agency participants do not include one or more important Federal agencies.

How likely is it the event will occur? If event occurs, what is the impact? 0 

Risk Factor 1.2: Project fails to fill a performance gap; project not driven by requirements.

How likely is it the event will occur? If event occurs, what is the impact? 0 

Risk Factor 1.3: Managing Partner fails to communicate well with stakeholders.

How likely is it the event will occur? If event occurs, what is the impact? 0 

Risk Factor1.4: Project has insufficient measurable objectives to determine status.

How likely is it the event will occur? If event occurs, what is the impact? 0 

Risk Factor 1.5: Project schedule and course is driven by non‐business or technical agendas.

How likely is it the event will occur? If event occurs, what is the impact? 0 

Risk Factor 1.6: Managers lack up to date data about status of project.

How likely is it the event will occur? If event occurs, what is the impact? 0 

Risk Factor 1.7: Agencies cannot agree on common standards, processes, practices, or solutions.

How likely is it the event will occur? If event occurs, what is the impact? 0 

Overall Strategic Risk Sco

2.0 Cost Risks
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED C ‐ II

Risk Factor 2.1: Costs do not remain within budget.

How likely is it the event will occur? If event occurs, what is the impact? 0 

Risk Factor 2.2:

Inadequate funding stream to continue development and operation of the Geospatial

Platform.

How likely is it the event will occur? If event occurs, what is the impact? 0 

Risk Factor 2.3: Earned value is difficult to track.

How likely is it the event will occur? If event occurs, what is the impact? 0 

Risk Factor 2.4: Return on investment is not defined, low, or inadequate to justify expenditure.

How likely is it the event will occur? If event occurs, what is the impact? 0 

Risk Factor 2.5: Unbalanced allocation of resources between development and operations/maintenance.

How likely is it the event will occur? If event occurs, what is the impact? 0 

Overall Cost Risk Sco

3.0 Management RisksRisk Factor 3.1: Project lacks resources with appropriate skill mix.

How likely is it the event will occur? If event occurs, what is the impact? 0 

Risk Factor 3.2: Business partners do not take the time to define the scope.

How likely is it the event will occur? If event occurs, what is the impact? 0 

Risk Factor 3.3: Development is subject to repeated delays due to inefficiency in the decision making process.

How likely is it the event will occur? If event occurs, what is the impact? 0 

Risk Factor 3.4: Development contractor is unable to retain experienced/trained personnel familiar with the project.

How likely is it the event will occur? If event occurs, what is the impact? 0 

Risk Factor 3.5: Project team is undermined by unreasonable deadlines.

How likely is it the event will occur? If event occurs, what is the impact? 0 

Risk Factor 3.6: Project manager fails to effectively manage changes to technology, scope, or schedule.

How likely is it the event will occur? If event occurs, what is the impact? 0 

Risk Factor 3.7: Project schedules are incomplete (not detailed enough).

How likely is it the event will occur? If event occurs, what is the impact? 0 

Risk Factor 3.8 Inadequate quality control processes are developed to ensure quality of data.

How likely is it the event will occur? If event occurs, what is the impact?

Overall Management Risk Sco

4.0 Systems/Technology RisksRisk Factor 4.1: System crashes due to inability to implement recovery strategies following natural disaster

How likely is it the event will occur? If event occurs, what is the impact? 0 
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED C ‐ III

Risk Factor 4.2: System becomes vulnerable due to lack of maintenance

How likely is it the event will occur? If event occurs, what is the impact? 0 

Risk Factor 4.3: Architecture is too rigid to accommodate new opportunities.

How likely is it the event will occur? If event occurs, what is the impact? 0 

Risk Factor 4.4: Catastrophic system failure occurs

How likely is it the event will occur? If event occurs, what is the impact? 0 

Risk Factor 4.5: Development activities are not well documented.

How likely is it the event will occur? If event occurs, what is the impact? 0 

Risk Factor 4.6: System upgrades are not performed due to lack of resources

How likely is it the event will occur? If event occurs, what is the impact? 0 

Ove

Systems/Technol

Risk Sco

5.0 Systems and Data Security and Controls RisksRisk Factor 5.1: Infrastructure security is compromised due to inability to perform maintenance on schedule

How likely is it the event will occur? If event occurs, what is the impact? 0 

Risk Factor 5.2: Portfolio manager fails to see dependencies in time to prevent adverse impacts

How likely is it the event will occur? If event occurs, what is the impact? 0 

Risk Factor 5.3: Other systems or programs are dependent on this investment's success.

How likely is it the event will occur? If event occurs, what is the impact? 0 

Risk Factor 5.4: System is hacked and critical data are lost or manipulated.

How likely is it the event will occur? If event occurs, what is the impact? 0 

Risk Factor 5.5: System crashes due to failure to perform adequate mitigation planning and contingency testing

How likely is it the event will occur? If event occurs, what is the impact? 0 

Overall Systems / Data Security and Controls Risk Sco

Overall Pro

R
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED D ‐ I

Appendix D: Guide to Risk Identification and AssRisk Type Questions to Guide Risk Identification and Assessment KeyStrategic  Is there a clear understanding of how the project supports the organization’s strategic goals?

 Is there a clear understanding of the relationship of the Geospatial Platform to Data.gov and other

related systems?

Spendetadeve

Lifecycle Costs  Have or are project costs or schedule likely to vary greater than 10% from the baseline?

 What is the sensitivity of cost estimates for selected alternative?

 Are costs risk adjusted? Are there a contingency reserve fund and a management reserve fund in

place?

 Does the project uses cost reimbursement contracts for acquisition or maintenance and support?

Assig

proje

Writrequvalu

Management ofProjectSchedule, Scopeand Resources

 Does the management team have skills in budgeting, finance, planning, procurement, user

requirements, and earned value management?

 Can contract staff be brought on board in adequate numbers, with adequate skills in a reasonable

timeframe?

Undrequ

Reliability of

Systems andTechnology

 Does the technical design include features that ensure availability, reduce failure, and reduce repair

time?

 Is the project designed for maintainability?

 Has the project undergone usability testing (or is it planned)?

 Does the project have an adequate inventory of spares and a clearly defined supply chain?

 Is there a current contingency plan in place and approved?

 Are restorations tested frequently? Is this project heavily dependent on other modernization projects or steady state systems?

 Does this project conform to the Federal Enterprise Architecture?

 Is this a collaborative project with partners from other government organizations?

Whe

prov

coorand 

Surety /Security ofSystems andData

 Will the hardware be located in government facilities? What physical security problems are anticipated? Is the disaster recovery process in place, tested and approved? Is security plan in place with mitigation strategies for risk associated with integrity, unauthorized use

of assets, etc.?

Implprac
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED E ‐ I

Appendix E: Performance Measure Definition TeEnd Outcome Goal [Strategic goal]Intermediate Outcome Goal [Sub‐ or interim goal, if any]Full Measure Name [Wording of the measure]Short Measure Name [The way you want to refer to the measure]Beginning YearEnd YearMeasure Scope [Statement of exactly what is being measured. If useful, you could eve

within the scope of this measure.]

Measurement Process [Describe how you will get the data for this measure.]
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED E ‐ II

Data Validation and Verification [Describe any calculations, algorithms, or other mechanisms you will us

measure. How will you know your data are accurate.]

Data Source [Related to above.]Submitted By Date CommentsFinalized DateLast Updated DateData Point A (Numerator when applicable)Short NameDefinitionUnit of Measure
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED E ‐ III

Data Point B (Denominator when applicable)Short NameDefinitionUnit of MeasureData Point CShort NameDefinitionUnit of MeasureData Point DShort NameDefinitionUnit of MeasureDefinition of Key TermsBureaus Reporting 1 2 3 4 Bureau Contact NameBureau Contact EmailBureau Contact Phone NumberData Contact NameData Contact Email
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED E ‐ IV

Data Contact Phone NumberResponsible Manager NameResponsible Manager EmailResponsible Manager Phone Number
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED F ‐ I

Appendix F: Past Geospatial Initiatives and 

Lessons Learned 

Geospatial Clearinghouse Network

The Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) promotes the coordinated development, use,

sharing, and dissemination of geospatial data on a national basis; this nationwide data publishing

effort is known as the National Spatial Data Infrastructure21 (NSDI).  The NSDI is a physical,

organizational, and virtual network designed to enable the development and sharing of the Nation's

digital geographic information resources.  Early FGDC geospatial initiatives focused on developing

core functions and roles of the FGDC and its member agencies, refining the vision and for the NSDI,

identifying framework data, and developing geospatial policies and standards.  In 1992, the FGDC

established the Geospatial Clearinghouse Network22, a community of distributed data providers who

publish collections of metadata that describe their map and data resources within their areas of

responsibility, documenting data quality, characteristics, and accessibility.

Lessons Learned  

 Metadata matters.  Metadata standards, a common set of terms and definitions about data in

a structured format, allow humans and machines alike to use data more effectively.

 Be patient.  Developing standards, guidelines, and making things “operational” takes time and

progress is incremental.  Partners need to be committed for the long‐term and need to work

together toward the common vision and goals (sometimes one at a time).

 Incentives help.  Finding the right incentives inspires participation and helps partners find

value in participation.   

Key Building Blocks of the Geospatial Platform

In 2002, the "Electronic Government" (E‐Government) Act fostered the development of government

initiatives focused on using web‐based Internet applications and other information technologies to

enhance the access to and delivery of government information and services and bring about

improvements in government operations.  Geospatial One‐Stop (GOS) and the Geospatial Line of

Business (LoB) are two E‐Government initiatives that helped pave the way for the development of the

Geospatial Platform.  In 2009, the White House introduced Data.gov, a third initiative that became a

key building block for the Geospatial Platform.

                                                           

21 http://www.fgdc.gov/nsdi/nsdi.html   22 http://www.fgdc.gov/dataandservices  
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED F ‐ II

Geospatial One‐Stop

The intergovernmental GOS project, launched in 2001, promoted the coordination and alignment of

geospatial data collection, maintenance, and access among all levels of government.  The project

provided one‐stop access to the Nation's geospatial information through development of a data

discovery portal populated by hundreds of Federal, State, local, and Tribal organizations.  GOS

leveraged geospatial resources and best practices and made it easier, faster, and less expensive for all

levels of government and the public to access national geospatial data coverage, providing the tools

for finding and analyzing multiple sources of information.

Lessons Learned

 Invest in people.  Leadership needs to invest in staff and resources to support operations and

outreach; using a “volunteer only” approach does not provide the consistency needed to

sustain momentum.

 Share the vision.  Outreach and education are important to sharing the vision and garnering

the support of key partners and stakeholders and for building user communities.  

 Invite people to contribute in a meaningful way.  Educate the broader community about

what the initiative needs (e.g., data, leaders for user communities or interest groups, etc.) and

then tell people how to get involved.  By setting expectations and being specific about needs,

the initiative can target key groups and focus energy to obtain the best return, make

contributors feel their contribution really counts, and to fulfill the needs of the stakeholder by

strategically increasing or addressing gaps in content.  

Geospatial Line of Business

Established in 2006, the Geospatial LoB aimed to further refine opportunities for optimizing and

consolidating Federal geospatial‐related investments, to reduce the cost of government, and improve

services to citizens.  Cross‐agency coordination of geospatial activities helped identify, consolidate,

and reduce or eliminate redundant geospatial investments.  Developing the Geospatial LoB resulted

in a more coordinated approach to producing, maintaining, and using geospatial data, and created a

collaborative framework for participation from Federal partners around geospatial‐related activities.  

These activities included Enterprise Geospatial Programs, Common Business Requirements and

Common Services, Data Lifecycle Management, and Geospatial Segment Architecture.  

Lessons Learned

 Shared Responsibility.  Funding and governance models need to be established that actively

involve member agencies to take ownership for success and to ensure sustainability of efforts.  

 Practice Stewardship.  Agencies and partners need to be good stewards of their data by

making strategic investments in staffing and maintenance to help ensure data are high quality

and managed according to best practices.
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED F ‐ III

 Take a seat at the table.  Agencies and partners need a willingness and commitment to

participate in the governance, decision making, and problem‐solving processes.

 Don’t just talk about it, do it.  Planning and developing guidance and strategies are all good,

however if too much time is spent on these topics it takes away from the ability to

operationalize or implement initiatives.  There needs to be a balance in time spent on

planning and strategy, operationalization and implementation, and evaluation and

assessment.

Data.gov/Geo.Data.gov

Data.gov23, launched in 2009, was designed to facilitate access to Federal datasets that 1) increase

public understanding of Federal agencies and their operations; 2) advance the missions of Federal

agencies; 3) create economic opportunity; and 4) increase transparency, accountability, and

responsiveness across the Federal Government – i.e., "high‐value" datasets.  A primary goal of

Data.gov is to improve access to Federal data and expand creative use of those data beyond the walls

of government by encouraging innovative ideas (e.g., web applications).  As an Open Government24

initiative, the public was encouraged to participate in government by not only downloading Federal

datasets found on Data.gov to build applications, conduct analyses, and perform research, but also by

offering feedback on the data available through the website.  On October 1, 2011, Federal geospatial

datasets from GOS moved to Geo.Data.gov, within the Data.gov infrastructure; this merger brought

together over 400,000 maps, datasets, and services.  While Geo.Data.gov, only accounts for Federal

geospatial assets, the Geospatial Platform will ultimately expose Federal and non‐Federal data,

services, and applications, and offer shared infrastructure for hosting data, services, and applications

through cloud computing capabilities.

Lessons Learned

 Quality is better than quantity.  Having a large quantity of data and services available is great,

but just as—if not more—important is high‐quality data and services.  Making sure data and

services come from (or are hosted on) trusted and reliable sources and making sure they are

of highest possible quality will improve customer satisfaction and the credibility of the

initiative.

 Give contributors criteria to follow.  When organizations provide specific parameters or

criteria for what is considered acceptable or high‐quality data, services, and applications,

contributors understand what is expected of them and can strive to meet the standards of

“quality”.  In addition, users can see the product they are receiving and know they can trust

the data, services, and applications made available to them.

 Ask for user feedback.  Open participation and feedback channels provide valuable

information for evaluating progress and assessing the relative value of government data

                                                           

23 http://geo.data.gov/geoportal/catalog/main/home.page   24 http://www.whitehouse.gov/open/about  
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED F ‐ IV

sources.  The more feedback available, the more effectively leadership can address concerns,

make improvements or investments, and manage expectations.   
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED G ‐ I

Appendix G: Geospatial Platform Service 

Offerings Described  

Platform as a Service (PaaS)

Description: PaaS offerings facilitate deployment of applications without the cost and complexity of

buying and managing the underlying hardware, software, and hosting capabilities.  PaaS provides all

of the facilities required to support the complete lifecycle of building and delivering web

applications and services entirely through the Internet.  PaaS offerings typically provide some level of

support to ease the creation of user interfaces, either based on standards such as HTML, JavaScript,

PHP, or rich Internet Application technologies like Microsoft Silverlight, Adobe Flex, Flash, and AIR.  

PaaS offerings typically attempt to support use of the application by many concurrent users by

providing concurrency management, scalability, fail‐over, and security.  

Relationship to the Geospatial Platform: Many Federal agencies develop and deploy public

geospatial applications using the same underlying technologies, application libraries, and software.  

The current process for deployment is not efficient, and is often stymied by a complex and lengthy

security review process and expensive hosting costs.  A single platform that streamlines the

application development, deployment, and security review processes can greatly aid agencies’

abilities to deploy their own applications and make use of common Geospatial Platform offerings.  

This approach aligns directly with the Administration’s 25‐Point Implementation Plan to Reform

Federal Information Technology (IT) Management25.  The plan states,

“A government‐wide risk and authorization program for cloud computing will allow agencies to rely on

the authorization completed by another agency or to use an existing authorization, so that only

additional, agency‐specific requirements need to be separately certified.  Our aim is to drive to a set of

common services across the government supported by a community, rather than an agency‐specific risk

model.  This will allow the Federal Government to ’approve once and use often.’”

The Geospatial Platform environment can be provisioned to accommodate separate Federal‐only,

non‐Federal governmental, and general public spaces to support varying access and security

requirements.  Additionally, the Geospatial Platform can allow for different access levels and control

by different providers, depending on their preferences.  Implementation options may range from

direct user access to and control of their shared space on the server to a much lighter approach

through open standards compliant web interfaces.   

Benefits:  

 Consolidate services and infrastructure used by agencies to build their applications.

                                                           

25 http://www.cio.gov/documents/25‐Point‐Implementation‐Plan‐to‐Reform‐Federal%20IT.pdf  
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED G ‐ II

 Provide common libraries and middleware that can be used across multiple groups.

 Reduce deployment costs and streamline operational processes.  

 Enable agencies to deploy their products as reusable services.  

 Align with the Administration’s 25‐point implementation plan for reforming Federal IT.

Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS)

Description:  IaaS is the delivery of computer infrastructure as a service.  It is a provision model in

which an organization outsources the equipment used to support operations, including storage,

hardware, servers, and networking components.  The service provider owns the equipment and is

responsible for housing, running, and maintaining it.    

Relationship to the Geospatial Platform: Many Federal agencies would like to make their resources

available to the public more efficiently and effectively.  In many instances, identifying technology

infrastructure from which to deploy their data or applications is not easy.  The Geospatial Platform

will leverage General Services Administration’s (GSA) contract vehicles for secure IaaS solutions and

streamline the provision of a location that allows Federal agencies to load and manage their

geospatial content without the need for procuring separate servers or software.  By reducing their

own costs and burden, this environment will provide a great incentive for contributors to make their

resources available to others through the Geospatial Platform.  This approach not only aligns with the

philosophy of Open Government and transparency, but it also aligns with the Administration’s call for

Federal agency data center consolidation and supports the recently announced “Cloud First” policy

from OMB.   

Utilizing IaaS offerings through the Geospatial Platform will allow agencies to rely on the

authorization completed by another agency or to use an existing authorization, so that only

additional, agency‐specific requirements need to be separately certified.  Additionally, today’s

growing cloud infrastructure provides an opportunity for the Geospatial Platform to:

 Deploy a well‐designed environment that can solve many common Federal business needs;  

 Be scalable to offer services to other geospatial organizations in the future; and  

 Provide better and more timely resources and services to agency staff, their partners, and the

public.  

Benefits:  

 Support Federal agency resource delivery to customers.

 Consolidate servers, infrastructure, and avoid redundancy.

 Streamline the deployment process by avoiding individual security review.  

.
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED G ‐ III

Data as a Service (DaaS)

Description:  DaaS is the provisioning of ‘on demand’ data to users regardless of geographic or

organizational separation of provider and consumer.   

Relationship to the Geospatial Platform: The Geospatial Platform can offer a mechanism and focal

point for delivering trusted DaaS.  The Federal portfolio of National Geospatial Data Assets (NGDAs),

designated under the OMB Circular A‐16, will constitute the Federal data contribution to the

Geospatial Platform Portfolio.  These NGDAs are actively managed and reviewed for reliability and

quality, so they may be used by other agencies, non‐Federal governments, and the public as trusted

resources to support decision making.  The availability and designation of trusted, high‐quality data

will result in increased use of the data and decreased redundant investment.  Architecting an

environment that supports the deployment of the NGDA Themes (A‐16 Themes) will be a critical

component of Geospatial Platform offerings.  This environment can be made available to consumers

as a managed portfolio of data products that are provided as highly available, on‐demand services.

Benefits:   

 Deliver trusted geospatial assets (i.e., NGDA) consistently to all levels of government and the

public.

 Increase stewardship and accountability for data management across all levels of government,

starting with Federal data.  

 Increase consistency in the use and delivery of NGDAs and “trusted” data from Federal and

non‐Federal Partners.

Software as a Service (SaaS)  

Description:  SaaS is a software delivery model in which software and its associated data are hosted

centrally (typically in the Internet cloud) and accessed by users using a thin client, normally using a

web browser over the Internet.  SaaS has become a common delivery model for most business

applications, including accounting, collaboration, customer relationship management (CRM),

enterprise resource planning (ERP), invoicing, human resource management (HRM), content

management (CM), and service desk management.  SaaS has been incorporated into the strategy of

most, if not all, leading enterprise software companies.  

Relationship to the Geospatial Platform:  Many government business functions are common across

agencies; problem‐solving applications that are developed once can be made available for continued

use through the Geospatial Platform.  These applications, developed by Federal agencies, could be

deployed as services through the Geospatial Platform and used as‐is by other agencies with similar

business requirements.  Likewise, many of these services could have far greater value as a set of

building blocks that others could utilize to build their own applications and tools.  Some examples of

services that could be deployed are listed below:
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED G ‐ IV

 Reporting and aggregation services.

 Common geoprocessing services.

 Common visualization processes.  

 ‘Metadata as a service’ components.

Additionally, the first implementation of the www.geoplatform.gov website is in and of itself a SaaS

offering.  Agencies can re‐use the infrastructure made available through this website to create and

share their own interactive web maps, and develop completely hosted applications using reusable

templates.    

Benefits:  

 Build software and applications once and offer them as shared services.

 Leverage existing tools for efficiency of development and quick response.

 Decrease redundant development and investment.

The Geospatial Platform: Bringing the Building Blocks Together

A key differentiating feature of the Geospatial Platform is that it provides customers access to a

broad range of geospatial assets, including content from different governments (Federal, State, local,

Tribal) and private organizations through the www.geoplatform.gov website.  This is distinctly

different from Data.Gov and GeoData.Gov, which provide access to exclusively Federal assets.

Providing trusted content through the Geospatial Platform: The Geospatial Platform’s broad

discovery function is a valuable service for Geographic Information System (GIS) professionals who

can discern the utility of geospatial resources for specific purposes, but this wealth of content may be

overwhelming to more casual users, or program managers, who are seeking trusted data, services, or

applications.  To address this challenge, the Geospatial Platform is organized to highlight a subset of

the overall content as “trusted” data, services, and applications.  This additional value added by the

Geospatial Platform guides users to quality assured offerings that are promoted as trusted resources

and can be used with confidence.  Trusted content is:  

 Discoverable: published and available;

 Reliable: coordinated by a recognized national steward and available when needed;

 Consistent: supported by defined schema, standards and understood content definitions to

ensure their integrity (including conformance with FGDC Standards as applicable);  

 Of known quality: reviewed and maintained according to sound Portfolio Management

practices;  

 Current and applicable: maintained regularly and adaptable to current needs;   

 Resourced: established and recognized as an enterprise investment; and
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED G ‐ V

 User‐friendly: easily used, understandable and readily accessible and re‐purposed through

downloads or by using available services and applications.   

When trusted data, applications, and services are discoverable and accessible through a one‐stop

government Portal – the Geospatial Platform – there are multiple benefits to users.  These include:

1. The Geospatial Platform provides decision makers with content that they can use with

confidence to support daily functions and important issues.

2. The Geospatial Platform provides consistency of base maps and services that can be used by

multiple organizations to address complex issues.

3. The Geospatial Platform eliminates the need to choose among redundant geospatial

resources by providing access to trusted data, maps and services.  
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED H ‐ I

Appendix H: Concept of Operations for User 

Functionality  

This Concept of Operations (ConOps) for User Functionality describes initial Geospatial Platform

requirements at a high level and has served as initial guidance for both technical development on the

geoplatform.gov website and as the basis for further development of policies and procedures needed

to support the technical implementation.

Functionality Matrix

Table 1 serves as a conceptual overview depicting the different classes of geoplatform.gov users and

the functions that will be accessible to each user class in the site.  In the text that follows, each of

these capabilities is described in further detail.  Beginning with a set of definitions, information is

provided on each capability or requirement by its functional category as shown below.

NOTE: This document does not describe the intended workflow for integrating the metadata catalogs and

associated workflows for publishing records to Geo.Data.gov and geoplatform.gov. This ConOps will continue

to be refined as Geospatial Platform is further developed.

Table 1.  Overview of Functionality by User Class

Functional

Category   Capability / Requirement PublicUser

Authorized

Government

User

Government

Publisher

Commercial

Publisher

Account External Authentication x          

   geoplatform.gov LDAP26    x x X

Data Register in “My Content” x x x    

   Share with Community Groups x x x X

   Share with Government Groups    x x    

   Share with Public Groups       x    

Services and   Register in “My Content” x x x X

Applications Share with Community Groups x x x X

   Share with Government Groups    x x    

Share with Public Groups x

   Upload Source Code       x    

Maps Register in “My Content” x x x    

   Share with Community Groups x x x x

   Share with Government Groups       x    

                                                           

26 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol, a set of protocols for accessing information directories.
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED H ‐ II

Functional

Category   Capability / Requirement PublicUser

Authorized

Government

User

Government

Publisher

Commercial

Publisher

   Share with Public Groups       x    

   Publish Hosted Applications     x x    

   Promote maps to Gallery       x    

Groups Create new Community Groups x x x x

   Create new Government Groups     x x    

Create new Public Groups x

   Create External Gallery Groups       x    

Definitions

 Public User:  Public Users are authenticated users of geoplatform.gov who have not been

vetted or authorized for special access to the site.

 Authorized Government User:  Authenticated users of geoplatform.gov who have been

identified by their agency as being authorized to access restricted content on

geoplatform.gov.

 Government Publisher:  Authenticated users of geoplatform.gov who have been identified by

their agency as having the authority to publish web services, applications, metadata records,

etc. on geoplatform.gov.  These users additionally have the authority to access restricted

content on geoplatform.gov.

 Commercial Publisher:  Authenticated users of geoplatform.gov who have entered into a

partnership agreement with the FGDC, and have access rights to maintain the metadata

records for their private sector data on geoplatform.gov.

 Community Content:  geoplatform.gov content (datasets, web services, web maps,

applications) that has not been contributed by Government Publishers.

 Trusted Content:  Trusted Content is geoplatform.gov content (datasets, web services, web

maps, applications) that has been contributed by trusted partners who are registered as

Government Publishers.  This includes datasets and associated services under A‐16 as well as

featured maps to be included in map galleries on Geo.Data.gov and eventually elsewhere.  

The Geospatial Platform model will foster the development and growth of a network of

trusted partner organizations from all levels of government and the private sector that will

contribute content.  These trusted Partners are organizations that meet defined criteria for

developing and delivering trusted content.    

 Community Group:  A Community Group is a group created by a user who is not a Government

Publisher or an Authorized Government User.  These groups are available to users of

geoplatform.gov by invitation only, and are not discoverable as Public Groups on the site.

 Government Group: A Government Group is a group created by a user who is either a

Government Publisher or an Authorized Government User.  These groups are available to
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED H ‐ III

users of geoplatform.gov by invitation only, and are not discoverable as Public Groups on the

site.

 Public Group:  A Public Group is a group created by a Government Publisher.  These groups are

available to all users of geoplatform.gov and are discoverable as Public Groups on the site.  

These include the existing A‐16 theme groups currently available to all users.

Function Category: Account

External Authentication

Public users of geoplatform.gov will ultimately be authenticated via external mechanisms as

determined by OMB27.  The National Institute of Health (NIH) site “PubMed” currently allows public

users to authenticate to their application using credentials from Google and other external providers,

and this model will be followed for the geoplatform.gov website using a growing list of approved

authentication providers as it becomes available from OMB and the Federal CIO Council.   

Geoplatform LDAP

Users of geoplatform.gov who are either Government Authorized or Publishers of any type will

require an account in the geoplatform.gov directory system.  A user interface will be made available

on geoplatform.gov that allows these users to create their own accounts for use in the Geospatial

Platform, or alternatively, to request that their existing accounts for publishing to Geo.Data.gov are

granted access rights in the Platform.  Account requests will be placed into an approval queue for the

geoplatform.gov operations team who will determine whether the requests shall be approved and

take the appropriate action.

Function Category: Data

Register in “My Content”

All users of geoplatform.gov will have the ability to manage content in the “My Content” section of

geoplatform.gov.  This includes the ability to register web services, web maps and applications, and

to upload supported content types to the site including CSV, KML, and Shapefiles.  Public Users will

have an initial quota of 100MB of storage space allocated for their use, while all other users of the

site will be given the default quota of 2GB.

Share with Community Groups

All users of the site will be able to share content (as registered in their “My Content” space on

geoplatform.gov) with Community Groups.  These private groups are discoverable in searches on the

                                                           

27 see 10/6/11 memo on “Requirements for Accepting Externally‐Issued Identity Credentials” at

http://www.cio.gov/documents/OMBReqforAcceptingExternally_IssuedIdCred10‐6‐2011.pdf
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED H ‐ IV

site, however content in these groups are accessible only to group members.  Members can either be

invited to join by group administrators or to can request to join a group allowing an administrator to

accept or reject the request.  This will enable Public Users in particular to share content with

individuals of their choosing without giving them the ability to expose content on the site that might

reasonably be construed as being trusted government content.   

Share with Government Groups

Authorized Government Users and Government Publishers will be able to share content with

Government Groups.  These private groups are not discoverable in searches on the site, and

accessible via invitation to specific users only.  These groups are intended to enable Government

Authorized Users to share content with individuals of their choosing in a trusted group of government

collaborators and partners.  Examples of this type of group include the currently implemented

“Emergency Management” group on the site, where only government‐vetted users of

geoplatform.gov are given access to group contents.

Share with Public Groups

Government Publishers will be able to share content with Public Groups.  Contents of these groups

are discoverable by all users in searches of the site, and accessible without invitation to the group.  

The content in these groups will predominantly be datasets that correspond to the A‐16 themes (with

those groups ultimately being managed by the appropriate Theme Lead when designated by FGDC).  

Government Publishers will also have the ability to set flags on metadata records in the site that

identify whether or not content is “consistent with Data.gov policies,” and therefore marked with the

Data.gov globe logo.  Additionally, public groups on current themes that are of interest (ongoing

emergency responses, topics of cross‐government special interest, etc.) will be created and made

available for use by Government Publishers when the need arises.  Requests for the creation of new

Public Groups shall be approved by the geoplatform.gov operations team.

Function Category: Applications and Services

Register in “My Content”

Refer to description for this function in the Function Category “Data.”

Share with Community Groups

Refer to description for this function in the Function Category “Data.”

Share with Government Groups

Refer to description for this function in the Function Category “Data.”

Share with Public Groups
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED H ‐ V

Refer to description for this function in the Function Category “Data.”

Upload Source Code

When registering an application, Government Authorized Users and Government Publishers will

optionally be able to upload a zip file containing source code for the application to the

geoplatform.gov site.  As a part of the upload process, the zip file shall be scanned for viruses and

other malware before being stored on the site.  Users shall include appropriate documentation for

the source code in their archive so that others can understand how the code is written and can be

used to suit their specific needs.

Function Category: Maps

Register in “My Content”

Refer to description for this function in the Function Category “Data.”

Share with Community Groups

Refer to description for this function in the Function Category “Data.”

Share with Government Groups

Refer to description for this function in the Function Category “Data.”

Share with Public Groups

Refer to description for this function in the Function Category “Data.”

Publish Hosted Applications

One of the most powerful features of the geoplatform.gov website is the ability for users to turn their

web maps into completely hosted web applications using reusable templates that are made available

by Administrators of the site.  Government Authorized Users and Government Publishers will both

have the appropriate access privileges to publish their web maps as applications, and to share those

applications with groups for which they are authorized.  

Promote Maps to Gallery

Geoplatform.gov features a number of different “Gallery” groups.  These groups allow for map

content to be exposed on other websites as a series of thumbnails.  This currently includes the Map

Gallery available to users of Geo.Data.gov.  Discussions are underway about including similar

capabilities on ocean.data.gov and on other sites.  Initially, only Government Publishers will have the

ability to add maps to these gallery groups.  As time goes on, it may be the case that Government

Authorized Users need to be given these rights as well.
Geospatial Platform Business Plan, September 20, 2012 ‐ REDACTED H ‐ VI

Function Category: Groups

Create new Community Groups

Any authenticated user of geoplatform.gov will have the capability of creating new Community

Groups on the site.  Community Groups contain non‐vetted, non‐trusted content on the site, and are

intended to enable collaboration among users without creating the appearance of exposing user‐

generated content as being from government source.

Create new Government Groups

Government Authorized Users and Government Publishers will be able to create Government Groups

on the site.  Government Groups are intended to enable Government Authorized Users and

Publishers to share content with individuals of their choosing in a trusted group of government

collaborators and partners.   

Create New Public Groups

Government Publishers will be able to create Public Groups.  These groups and their contents are

discoverable by all users in searches of the site, and accessible without invitation to the group.  

Requests for the creation of new Public Groups shall be approved by the geoplatform.gov operations

team.

Create External Gallery Groups

Government Publishers will be able to create External Gallery Groups.  These groups are designed to

organize maps so that they are easily able to be shared with external websites as a series of

thumbnail images.  Requests for the creation of new External Gallery Groups shall be approved by the

geoplatform.gov operations team.