Comments on the first draft of the Strategic Plan were received from eleven individuals.* This page offers a summary of the comments received, and issues which will be discussed with the Planning Committee for additional attention in the next draft. This second draft will be available for review January 8, following review and discussion at the upcoming Geographic Information Council meeting (December 17).
|
|
* Thanks very much to Harvey Queen, Stephen Rush, Carrie Wolfe, Karl Herzog, David Jennings, Glenn Patrick, Dave Steele, David Buckland, Lynn Singleton, Joy Denkers, and Gene Thorley for their comments, which are available for review (in detail) below.
Subject: GIS Strategic Plan Comments
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 09:44:14 -0800
From: Harvey Queen <Harveyq@cted.wa.gov>
To: bspatial@together.net
Hi,
The GIS Strategic Plan document appears to cover a wide
diversity of
potential issues and tethered stakeholders with need to use a
spatial
display/data analysis tool. The plan speaks to who and
what at high levels
in State government. The plan speaks to who should be
involved as citizens
and interested parties.
I see an excellent beginning for a central, top-down,
proscriptive design
for another state system which requires its own inertia to be
overcome
before any benefit comes to the ultimate end item the data
represents.
On reading the plan, it is difficult to see what the
direction is for
including different players - customers having data, but no
direct GIS,
managers of GIS, IS Shops-having to "support" data
transport or storage,
etc... in the initial steps of defining how GIS can be made
available;
enabling GIS in Washington State.
I had the great pleasure of meeting the GIS manager of DC
Metro Police
Dept. and discussing the implementation of GIS in all systems
of Washington
DC by the District's governing committee. The
BJS/NIJ/JRSA intern and
project manager used the District in a presentation at a
USDOJ GIS Workshop.
Their approach is unique for their situation, however, it has
great promise
for modeling an approach. A contact point is:
Emmanuel Onwukwe, GIS
Analyst, Information Services Div. Metro Police, Wash
DC. Phone (202)
727-4343/445-6964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Plan comments
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 11:24:55 -0800
From: "Rush, Steven F" <STEVEN_F_RUSH@rl.gov>
To: bspatial@together.net
Bruce:
I read the draft and I like what I see. No technical changes,
it is
readable. However, it seems that when starting
"wordsmithing" a person
can go on and on. Therefore, I have no comment....except
under "State of
Goals" the bold is inconsistent.....
I feel the most important points are "Statement of
Objectives". I was a
little confused with the structure. Perhaps modifying the
format would
help. For example, FRAMEWORK DATA DEVELOPMENT starts with 1.
(bold) 2,
and 3. Next is PARTNERSHIP GROWTH, then 4. I like the tasks,
we went
over that at the workshop. Didn't we have 50 or 100? Of
course we
couldn't include all, and there were duplications. I like the
filtering
you did.
I am happy with the content, my comments are more for
structure and
readability. Does this help? I am looking forward to the
second draft
and feel good that we are on the right track.
Thanks,
Steven Rush
509-376-4001
steven_f_rush@rl.gov
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Comments on 1st Draft Strategic Business Plan
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 13:31:51 -0800
From: CARRIE WOLFE <CWOL490@gwgate.wadnr.gov>
To: bspatial@together.net
Bruce,
I just have a couple quick comments regarding the first draft of the Strategic Business Plan:
1) Grammatical/Typo comments:
a) Page 2, first bullet
should be "affect" not "effect" ....factors affect
where growth occurs.
b) Page 3, 4th paragraph last
sentence - ...Washington's's public agencies,..... two "'s" on
Washington
2) Content comments:
a) Page 4, 1st objective, 3rd
action item - How about if we state the action
item as follows; "The Framework Management Group
should develop a FW
funding model for development, support, and distribution of
framework data."
b) Page 5, Information
Exchange & Education objective - Can we
include outreach to schools (K-12) in the statement?
"....and outreach
to citizens, schools, business, and government."
If we don't feel it is
appropriate for WAGIC to develop an ed. plan that addresses
K-12 audience,
at least we could promote programs that do (#22).
Take Care,
Carrie
Carrie Wolfe
WA Framework Coordinator
Department of Natural Resources
Information Technology Division
PO BOX 47020
Olympia, WA 98504-7020
Phone: 360-902-1639
Fax: 360-902-1790
E-mail: carrie.wolfe@wadnr.gov
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Strategic Plan comments
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 09:38:28 -0800
From: "Herzog, Karl" <KarlH@IAC.WA.GOV>
To: "'bspatial@together.net'"
<bspatial@together.net>
Hi Bruce,
Sorry for getting my comments on the Strategic Plan in to
you right at
the deadline. I have some overall comments on structure,
flow, and
content, with only minimal detailed comments due to my own
time
constraints. Here goes:
Overall
1. Need to add a short introduction describing what
the document is all
about, e.g. "This strategic plan develops a vision
and specific
objectives for GIS in Washington. It is the product
of..... It is
organized into three sections... etc."
2. The "What GIS is" section on the first page
needs a lot more beefing
from a layman's perspective. More on geography based
information with
some common real world examples that people are familiar
with. Would
weather maps work?
3. I'm not sure as much time needs to spent on defining WA
policy/environmental issues, which is now most of page
2. This could be
summarized in one paragraph. It is not the focus of the
document. If
this stays, it needs to focus on the specific GIS components
/ potential
contributions for each issue.
4. The "Building a Geographic Info
Infrastructure for Washington"
section initially leaves me befuddled. After getting to
the end of the
first paragraph, I'm left with the questions - so
what's missing,
what's the big deal? In this section, I'm still not
sure what the
strategic plan is targeted at - what's the problem?
This section is
critical - it needs to articulate the promise and barriers in
a direct
way, with real world examples - as this is the foundation for
all our
efforts.
5. There is a major gap between the first three
pages and the goals and
objectives. Many of the issues, terms, players, etc. in
the objectives
are not introduced adequately in the first three pages, so a
general
reader may have no idea what the objective means.
6. Overall, I think we need less "fluff" on the
first three pages, more
on what GIS is, why we're doing this, and setting up for the
second
half.
Detail
page 1, line 9: add "local" after "statewide"
page 1, lines 31 and 32: other italicized questions
could include: "What
are the impacts?" "What are my options?"
be careful of too much emphasis on natural heritage
throughout the
document, or this will be viewed as a commy/enviro conspiracy
document.
Bias is evident in placing natural heritage/resources as the
first item
in lists throughout the document, etc.
on page 3, need to include business/private sector needs
more
prominently
I disagree with the first goal on page 4. We are
already doing this!
Need something more tangible for the future here.
the objectives re: the 1999 session are probably insider
stuff that
doesn't need to be in the document - this document will
hopefully be
presented to the Legislature, eh?, so we don't need to let
them know our
plans...
Hope this helps. Sorry for the brevity.
Karl offered further comments following the December 18 WAGIC meeting. . . . .
Subject:
comments on the draft strategic plan
Date: Wed, 23
Dec 1998 20:17:17 -0800
From: "Herzog,
Karl" <KarlH@IAC.WA.GOV>
To:
"'bspatial@together.net'" <bspatial@together.net>,
"' wagic@dis.wa.gov'" < wagic@dis.wa.gov>
I only have a time for a few comments on the draft plan
(1.3). Overall,
I think the plan is moving in the right direction - good job
Bruce and
work group. However, I would still echo my earlier
comments about too
much environmental focus. I think folks at the GIC
meeting were
sensitive to this as well. I agree with the discussion
initiated by Don
E. at the meeting revolving around how GIS can help serve the
day to day
business needs of agencies. If emphasis in this area is
increased, it
will serve to better balance the document.
On page 2, lines 86-88, please add "land
ownership" to the list!! This
is my life! (Cadastral folks' too.)
I still have difficulty with Goal #1 on page
4. In my earlier
comments, I said we are already doing this (ie. we already
use WA's
growing GIS investment to address the listed issues.)
It's like saying
our goal is to use a hammer to build a house. Doesn't
excite me too
much. But, if someone told me their goal was to
fabricate a better
hammer in order to build a better house - that gets me
excited. Maybe
Goal #1could be rewritten to say something like:
"Improvements to
Washington's GIS systems and infrastructure provide better
and more
accessible information to decision makers and citizens as
they address
growth management, environmental protection, transportation,
economic,
and quality of life issues facing our state."
Might as well list the three Framework projects in the
Framework Box on
page 4, lines 137-143.
Buildable lands is really a subset of growth management -
maybe these
terms could be combined on page 5, line 147?
That's all for now. I won't be able to participate
in tomorrow's
conference call, but I wish you the best over the holidays.
Cheers.
Karl Herzog
Manager, Public Lands Inventory Project
Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation
PO Box 40917
Olympia, WA 98504-0917
(360) 902-0352
karlh@iac.wa.gov
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Fwd: Re: GIS Strategic Business Plan
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 98 10:15:09 -0800
From: "Jennings, David" <dgj0303@doh.wa.gov>
Organization: WA State Dept of Health
To: bspatial@together.net
CC: carolp@dis.wa.gov
Hi Carol: two minor edits to the draft document:
1) Preservation and thoughtful use of Washington's water
resources are
the keys to being able to address both growth management and
salmon
recovery. We must be able to identify XXXXXXXXXXXthe
availability of
drinkable water supplies across the stateXXX, the water
quality of all
our streams and lakes, and legal rights and protections
associated with
each water resource.
identify and protect drinking water supplies across the state--
2) PARTNERSHIP GROWTH -- Expand the levels of cooperative
activities and
information exchange between governments, tribes and business
Promote the design, development and implementation of GIS
infrastructure
that supports key governmental business issues like
Salmon Recovery
Growth Management
Buildable Lands, and
Public Lands Inventory
XXXXXXX
add DRINKING WATER PROTECTION
David Jennings
WA State Dept of Health
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Strategic Plan Comments
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 1998 11:28:09 -0800
From: Glenn Patrick <GMP0303@hub.doh.wa.gov>
Organization: Washington State Department of Health
To: bspatial@together.net
Hi Bruce,
Good job on pulling together all the info. from the planning
meeting at
Snoqualmie Pass. Just a couple of comments;
1. The paragraph under "What do we need to do?"
could be written
clearer. Initially one of the benefits of GIS analyses
will be to
affect policy development, which addresses critical issues.
2. Under the listing of problems, public health should be
included. GIS
will likely become a significant policy development,
implementation, and
assurance tool for both DOH and local health jurisdictions.
3. Under "Partnership Growth" specifics are missing
regarding improving
coordination between state agencies, and for the inclusion of
county GIS
activities.
4. On a general note, many/most stated objectives are not
operationalized in terms of the timeframe for completion, who
will
complete the task, and what is expected of the final
product. This is
critical if these objectives are to be achieved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: GIS Strategic Business Plan
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 1998 12:13:19 -0800
From: DAVE STEELE <DSLL490@gwgate.wadnr.gov>
To: bspatial@together.net
CC: CarolP@DIS.WA.GOV
I'm sorry that this is so late, but at least completed.
The Strategic Plan is well written (at least, up to the
Objectives) and
seems to attempt to cure all. I was surprised that GIS
doesn't somehow
cure cancer through the marvels of interconnectivity (this is
intended
as humor not slander). I'm a believer and supporter of
GIS and am
impressed by the lofty goals of this plan. It provides
a strong, but
fairly broad direction for WAGIC and GIS in general.
I'm not at all
surprised at this with Larry Sugarbaker in a lead position.
Beginning with the Statement of Objectives section, there
are some comments.
This may be intended to be a bit more informal, yet there is
some
inconsistency in wording of some of the 26 items. Not
everything indicates
who will lead or do the work and what the time frame
is. I will make
direct comment about the objectives by their number and only
use line
numbers if the item number is not clear.
Objective 2. Some definition of "the Washington
Framework" should be
provided either in the objective or elsewhere. I don't
know what this
is and would guess that it is a collection of all Framework
themes or
the overall cooperative connection of agencies and the public
through GIS.
Objective 4. extra spaces after development and
after implementation
(line 139) and Who will promote? WAGIC
Objective 5. reword -WAGIC ??? Workgroup will
determine what the
data needs are that meet the key governmental business issues
(described in Objective 4) by May, 1999.
Objective 6. WAGIC will develop a workgroup by May,
1999, which will
locate key environmental data in a quick and efficient
manner. (I'm not
sure if this is the intent, but as worded, it is very
confusing and
indicates that the workgroup will collect data quickly and
that just
isn't going to happen).
Objective 7. Who and when?
Objective 12. Who? WAGIC
Objective 13. Who? WAGIC
Objective 14. I'm unsure of what this is intended to
accomplish. Who
will review and revise statutes for mapping and why? We
certainly need
a purpose or outcome rather than to just review and revise
laws. This
may be a big ticket item requiring significant time and
effort.
Objective 16. Who? WAGIC
Objective 17. The Framework Management Group will
develop and distribute
a standard data sharing agreement with support of the AG's
Office by the
end of 1999.
Objective 18. This objective has three different
goals and should be
separated. 1) WAGIC should create a Policy Workgroup
tasked with working
on the various policy objectives. 2) The Policy
Workgroup should
establish precise and practical thresholds between
cartography and land
surveying and to review and recommend a course of action to
certify GIS
technicians or to have the data collected and processed under
the guidance
of a Land Surveyor. The Land Surveyor's Association of
Washington (LSAW)
is currently tasked with this objective and should be
interfaced with
WAGIC for a meaningful solution. 3) The Policy
Workgroup should review
state agency public disclosure law and draft amendments to
address the
special needs of GIS.
Objective 20. rewording this one since it is
confusing. WAGIC will
devise methods of tracking data and application development
efforts to
assist partnering and avoid duplication. Note:
this objective will
need assignment to a workgroup rather than WAGIC and will
need a date
or else it is just a statement and nothing will be
done. Maybe examples
will help i.e. by using a data resource collection tool and
posting to
the WAGIC Web Page for easy access by agencies and the
public.
Objective 22. who and when
Objective 23. WAGIC will promote information
exchange through the
Framework Management Workgroup and the Local Govt. Workgroup
and
education seminars on the following activities on an on-going
basis: a...thru.. d.
Objective 24. who and when
Objective 25. who and purpose. WAGIC
will become prepared to educate
the GIS community in the legislative process of funding new
GIS
initiatives during 1999 and actively disseminate that
information
through its outreach program in 2000.
Objective 26. WAGIC shall enlist....existing
statement...followed by...
and to foster partnerships with framework projects and other
new
initiatives during the next year.
David Steele, PLS
DNR Survey Manager
dave.steele@wadnr.gov
voice 360-902-1181
fax 360-902-1191
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: GIS Strategic Plan
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 13:22:41 -0800 (PST)
From: David Buckland <David.Buckland@West.Sun.COM>
To: bspatial@together.net
CC: David.Buckland@West.Sun.COM
Bruce,
I understand you are collecting comments about the
proposed GIS Strategic Plan
for the State of Washington.
I have been involved in GIS in the State since 1990 when I
started at ESRI in
Olympia. I worked there for 6.5 years, and the majority of my
accounts were
the State/Local accts in WA. I got to know many of these
accounts on a
personal basis, and have kept up with the major GIS users now
I am their
Account Rep for Sun Microsystems Inc.
During one of my conversations with Governor Locke when we
were discussing web
access and Access Washington he showed concern that overseas
potential
business partners have a need to find out where the
products/services are
located in the State. In reading the initial draft of
the recommendations I
did not see any mention of this. In fact it seemed to be much
more of an
"Intra-State" GIS than an "Extra-State"
GIS.
I believe that CTED could and should be responsible for
authoring and
maintaining this data in the GIS, and that Tim Douglas would
welcome the idea.
GIS needs to be used to influence the product sales and
economy of the state,
to put us ahead of the other entities on the west coast doing
business around
the Pacific Rim.
I am very willing to discuss this with you further, please
do not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely,
David Buckland.
========================================================
/\ David J.B. Buckland
\\ \ Sales
Representative
\ \\ / Seattle
District
Olympia:
/ \/ / / Sun Microsystems Computer
Company
/ / \//\ 10210 NE Points Drive,
Suite 200 407 S Adams, Suite 208
\//\ / / Kirkland, WA
98033
Olympia, WA 98501
/ / /\ /
/ \\ \ Phone:
425.889.1362
360.786.0776
\ \\
Fax:
425.827.9723
360.786.9247
\/ E-mail: david.buckland@west.sun.com
Pager: 888.793.1050 7931050@skytel.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject:
Comments on the Draft Plan
Date: Wed, 23
Dec 1998 18:30:18 -0800
From:
"Singleton, Lynn" <lsin461@ECY.WA.GOV>
To:
"'westcott,bruce--bspatial'" <bspatial@together.net>
I do have a few questions and comments for your consideration. It is getting late so I will just give you my direct comments.
The natural resources, water resources and the fishery
issues that we all
face in Washington are prominent in the introductory
comments--page 2, but
specifics are essentially absent from any of the
objectives--aside from the
references to Salmon Recovery. Perhaps if Salmon
Recovery was amended to be
Salmon recovery and Water issues I would feel better.
There are two reasons
to consider this change--the issues are intermixed and one or
the other are
hot with the legislature, the entire states and all local
governments, the
natural resource agencies, and the public. Some might
argue that Salmon
Recovery is not a statewide issue. The debate can be
avoided if water is
included. The second reason is that there has been a
lot of activity
already started in the water area that should be acknowledged
and fostered
to some completion stage.
The water related efforts that have been ongoing for a few
years now are one
of the few where we have made significant progress. It
is not mentioned. I
wasn't at day 2 of the workshop so perhaps I am missing some
part of the
discussion or reasoning but, I believe that completion of the
hydro layer
and the needed infrastructure is critically more important
and a much closer
success than trying to sort through all of the habitat
classification
schemes in place throughout the nation and the state. I
agree that habitat
is a need but I do not hear a consistent voice for habitat
clarity and
consistency. I am not aware of a champion either.
Regardless of the
merits, the reference seems misplaced among the items
included in number 8.
You have several general infrastructural
items and then the specific environmental data standards
reference. Perhaps
a separate grouping and the addition of some others--like
water?? I also
think it is appropriate to include water in the Framework
Data Development
section. If the section's goal is to only mention those
things that aren't
underway then a section might be added to acknowledge the
things that are in
process and need ongoing support. If dollars are limited, I
would rather
finish initiated work than start something new and have snail
progress on
all fronts.
A point that seems missing and should be included
somewhere is the notion
that agencies still need to and will collect information for
their own
purposes/mission. This will not change and it is why we
do what we do.
Framework is not about supporting the whole and not getting
your own needs
met. It is about including an additional objective of
making your work
available to others so that their needs--the secondary users'
needs are
supported in their business needs. You then also have
the potential to
benefit. As you know the real cost is in the wasted
efforts and re-work
that occurs every day.
I would like to see references to the Department of
Ecology included in the
appropriate sections with other agencies. We have been
active in the GIS
community, have a large investment in the business outcomes
of Framework,
have championed progress in the area of standards and
collaboration, and
have prominent roles in the resolution of the environmental
issues of
importance in the state.
Lastly, I printed the document and the Statement of Goals
printed as a size
1 font--so I didn't review them. Also you may want to
add FW and IT to your
list of Acronyms. You will need to add ECY for the
Washington State
Department of Ecology after you add us in the appropriate
places--per
comments above.
Thanks again for the opportunity to review this and I
apologize if some of
my comments were a bit blunt--but it is now 6:25 and I am
suppose to bring
pizza home--and I am late.
I will be working this next week so if you have any
questions about my
comments I can be reached at 360-407-6610.
Have a great holiday
Lynn Singleton
Washington State Department of Ecology
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject:
WAGIC Strategy
Date:
Mon, 14 Dec 1998 14:48:03 -0800
From:
"Denkers, Joy" <JDEN461@ECY.WA.GOV>
To:
"'bspatial@together.net'" <bspatial@together.net>
CC:
"Monn, Bob" <bmon461@ECY.WA.GOV>
These represent the combined comments of myself and Bob Monn,
Information
Resources Services Manager.
General Comments:
Regarding the introductory pieces ( Vision, What do we
need..., Building a
geographic ...) ---
There seems to be an emphasis on natural resources in the
first three pages
of the document. Given the audience that we're hoping
to entice, it might
be advantageous to broaden the scope and nature of GIS uses
to include such
things such as health, education, and welfare type examples.
The "Statement of Objectives" piece lists
numerous things that need to be
accomplished. In some cases these numbered items have
an identified group
and delivery time while others are not identified with a
"who" or "when."
For consistency, it may help to identify a
"who" and "when" for each of
these items -- even if we just identifies WAGIC and
date-to-be-determined.
Specific Comments:
Improved Data Sharing. Number 8 has an "a"
through "e" list . Is this a
list of examples or rather ones that were specifically
identified by the
Strategic Planning participants as needing to be
addressed? If it's the
latter, then it would help to add some language to # 8 that
would indicate
that business area experts would be used to help develop data
specific
standards like "Environmental Habitat Data
Standards." I view the
Standards Workgroup (SWG) efforts more in the area of a, c,
d, and e.
We've had this discussion in the SWG in the past.
Number 9 has listed specific standards to be
developed. What is the
significance of these? Were they specifically
identified by the Strategic
Planning participants or just listed as examples? If
examples, then it
would help to identify them as such. The Framework
group and especially the
Standards Workgroup members wouldn't necessarily have the
appropriate
members to tackle some of these area specific
standards. But, the SWG could
provide coordination assistance and/or guidance along with
the business area experts.
Policy Review and Advocacy there are specific
agencies listed in #12 and
#13. Is this list exclusive or just a representative
sample? It might help
to help to clarify this since it seems to exclude others that
are all ready
involved in these activities. Or rather, are the listed
agencies the ones
that have been identified as the "who" referred to
above in the general comments?
If you have any questions I can be reached at (360)
407-7128. Otherwise, good luck on the document!
=====================
Joy P. Denkers, Manager
GIS Technical Services
WA Department of Ecology
(360) 407-7128
FAX (360) 407-6493
jden461@ecy.wa.gov
GIC Standards Work Group Chair
Last Updated: December 29, 1998
Contact: Carol Pendleton, WAGIC Administrative Support