The Geospatial Line of Business National Geospatial Advisory Committee June 3, 2008

1. The Geospatial Line of Business National Geospatial Advisory Committee June 3, 2008

2. Program • An Overview of the Common Solution/Target Architecture • Ivan B. DeLoatch • Staff Director, Federal Geographic Data Committee • Managing Partner, Geo LOB • An Overview of the 2006 and 2007 Data Calls for Federal Geospatial Investment Activity • Michael T. Thieme • On Detail to USGS • Lifecycle Management Work Group – • A presentation on A-16 Themes for NGAC • Wendy Blake-Coleman • US EPA

3. Geospatial Line of Business An Overview of the Common Solution/Target Architecture Ivan B. DeLoatch Staff Director, Federal Geographic Data Committee

4. The Problem • Geospatial information supports multiple mission requirements: national security, homeland security, law enforcement, health care, environment, natural resources, etc. • Over 25 Federal departments and agencies independently collect or produce geospatial information, or invest in potentially duplicative geospatial capabilities • Despite the prevalence of geospatial information, there continues to be room for improvement in the planning and coordination of geospatial activities and procurement at the Federal level

5. Geospatial LoB – Vision and Goals Vision The Nation’s interests are served, and the core missions of Federal agencies and their partners are met, through the effective and efficient development, provision, and interoperability of geospatial data and services. Goals • Productive intergovernmental collaboration for geospatial-related activities and investments across all sectors and levels of government. • Optimized and standardized common geospatial functions, services, and processes that are responsive to customers • Cost efficient acquisition, processing, and access to geospatial data and information

6. Request for Information • The LOB Task Force released a Request For Information (RFI) in April 2006. Responses from business, government, non-profits, and vendors were received May 2006 • Themes from responses to the RFI: • Need for a comprehensive national strategy to optimize spatial data activities • Improved, multi-mission, service delivery capability • Cost savings through acquisition and labor cost avoidance • Enhanced performance accountability and compliance mechanisms • Task Force used RFI input in development of the Geospatial Common Solutions and Target Architecture document

7. Concept of Operations

8. Common Solutions Map

9. Common Solution Framework Enhanced Governance Implement Performance Accountability and Compliance Mechanisms defines responsibilities and accountability for frames and implements define assets for improves effectiveness of Optimize & Standardize Shared and Reusable Geospatial and Geo- enabled Business Data and Services Planning & Investment Strategy Coordinated Budget Planning, Acquisition, and Labor Cost Avoidance enforces coordinated lifecycle for asset base for coordinated use

10. Solution Components Committee (FACA)

11. Solution Components Governance Strategy National Geospatial Advisory Committee

12. Solution Components

13. Solution Components

14. Key Benefits Summary • Clarified performance responsibilities and accountability • Establishment of a more collaborative and performance oriented culture • Multi-mission delivery capabilities • More effective investments through increased sharing and reuse • Nationally significant data managed as a Federal portfolio • Better service to agencies and citizens through increased functionality and more coordinated access to geospatial information • Improved data, services and tools

15. Target Architecture Approach The Target Architecture was derived from analyzing the vision, goals, and objectives, which provided the high-level business requirements • The Concept of Operations (ConOps) provides the business process framework • The common solutions partition the architecture into technology-driven, data-driven, and people-driven aspects • The RFI responses provided stakeholder perspectives on driving requirements and architecture principles

16. Target Performance Architecture The Performance Architecture establishes a set of measures and indicators to determine how successful the implementation of the common solution will be • Based upon the vision, goals and objectives • Establishes an initial set of FEA Performance Reference Model (PRM) measures and indicators • Provides guidance to the other layers of the Target Architecture • Informs the Joint Business Case • Provides the means to monitor the success of the planned benefits in relation to their actual achieved performance

17. Target Business Architecture The purpose of Target Business Architecture is to help Enterprise Architects map LoB and agency geospatial investments to business activities (functions, sub-functions and processes). • This will enable individual geospatial investments (whether, within an agency, cross-agency, or LoB-wide) to be assessed or aligned with business needs • Some 50% of the Business Reference Model (BRM) mappings reported by the Federal government have the potential for business enhancement through geospatial data services

18. Target Service Component Architecture The purpose of Target Service Component Architecture is to provide an organizing framework that describes how geospatial capabilities fit into an interoperable service architecture. • Can help to ‘geo-enable’ business data that have not been typically used in geospatial analysis so they may be more readily used in a geographic context for business purposes • Will help Architects to identify how to map unique geospatial functions to the FEA Service Components Reference Model, thus enabling service component-level alignment of geospatial capability within the agency’s enterprise architecture • Helps to link geospatial capability to geospatial services needed

19. Target Technology Architecture The Target Technology Architecture maps the functions of the GeoLOB Concept of Operations to the FEA Technical Reference Model (TRM) • Promotes widespread use of government-wide acquisition vehicles, such as SmarBUY, to realize cost savings and to support open consensus-based interoperability standards • Supports the capability for data providers to more readily make their assets accessible to the broadest user community • The Common Services Work Group is involved with realizing the Target Technology Architecture

20. Target Data Architecture The Target Data Architecture outlines a Conceptual target architecture that will enable the widespread adoption of shared and reusable geospatial and geo-enabled business data and services • Will be further elaborated as the operational phases of the Geospatial LoB progress • Sets forth principles by which various data sets are stewarded and used by the Nation • Proposes guidelines for how geospatial data should be defined, structured, and documented to facilitate efficient discovery, sharing, and reuse • The Data Lifecycle Management Work Group is involved with realizing the Target Data Architecture

21. Current Approach to Implementation Seven active Work Groups Evaluates and expands cross-agency procurement opportunities related to geospatial service and data sharing Common Services Assist federal program managers and executives to identify their geo-enabled business needs, capabilities, and opportunities Geo-Enabled Business Develops common grants language for geospatial information and services as well as for Federal geospatial contracts Grants & Contracts Aligns the Joint Business Case to the Geospatial Line of Business including: agency contributions, tasks, and task modifications Joint Business Case Evaluates existing geospatial data lifecycle frameworks and develops standard processes for improved lifecycle management Lifecycle Management Provides the mechanism for reporting and accountability within the Geo LoB to foster the completion of objectives Performance Management Develops geospatial requirements and recommendations for technology and telecommunications infrastructure Technical Architecture

22. Questions

23. Geospatial Line of Business An Overview of the 2006 and 2007 Data Calls for Federal Geospatial Investment Activity Michael Thieme On Detail to USGS

24. Background • The GeoLOB conducted three data calls to collect data on geospatial investments and activities across the federal government • 2006 • Broad-focus quantitative data call • Intended to help inform writing of the CS/TA • 2007 • Limited focus quantitative data call • Geospatial Data and Services Priorities Survey – a qualitative data call on OMB Circular A-16 priorities

25. 2006

26. 2006 Approach • Conducted April - June of 2006 and covered the years 2005 to 2007 • Requested cost data and information about lifecycle-stage (e.g., development stage, or steady state project) • Used a broad approach asking for information about: • OMB Circular A-16 data theme (e.g., Cadastral, Transportation, Vegetation, Wetlands, etc.) • Investment Type (Hardware, Software, Data, Services, and ‘Other’) • Geospatial Capability (e.g., Feature Server, Geocoder, GIS Server, Mapping Client, etc.)

27. 2006 Desired Outcomes • Gain awareness of the investments individual agencies were making in geospatial-related activities and capabilities • Use results to inform the writing of the Geo LOB Common Solution/Target Architecture document • Identify areas of opportunity for improvement

28. 2006 Level of Investment DME = Development, Modernization, or Enhancement; SS = Steady State

29. 2006 Key Findings • The Federal government financed directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, $2.33 Billion over a three year period (FY 2005 – FY 2007) in spatial data and geographic information systems activities • Level of geospatial investment was relatively consistent year over year for the three year reporting period • Forty six percent (46%) of agencies reported a three year average of less than one million ($1M) per year in geospatial activities.

30. 2006 Key Findings • A high degree of unnecessarily redundant investment types was not readily apparent in comparison with other Lines of Business (e.g., Human Resource or Financial Mgmt. LOBs) • OMB Circular A-16 Lead agencies are majority investors in the geodetic control, elevation, transportation, and hydrography nationally significant data themes • OMB Circular A-16 Lead agencies are not the majority investor in orthoimagery, cadastral, and governmental units nationally significant data themes

31. 2006 Issues • 20% of all reported investments did not specify the investment type as directed • 49% of all reported investments did not specify the GIS, or location-based data theme as directed • 37% of all reported investments did not specify the service component (or capability) provided by the investment as directed • These issues limited our ability to readily identify opportunities for LoB collaboration across like data themes, along with our ability to see LoB-wide enterprise architecture capabilities

32. Lessons Learned from 2006 • Across government, we should enhance the capability to report geospatial investments and activities in an accurate, consistent, and less burdensome way. • Without standard definitions and consistent agency reporting, information obtained from data calls of this sort will remain difficult to capture, be non-conclusive, and have limited utility. • The focus of the 2006 data call was likely too broad. Future data calls should narrow the focus and concentrate on priority data sets. • Despite data call issues, we saw that the federal government could possibly realize potential cost savings by leveraging SmartBuy or other aggregate purchasing programs.

33. 2007

34. 2007 Call for Geospatial Data • Conducted April - June of 2007 and covered the years 2007 to 2009 (2009 data are not included here – predecisional) • limited the focus of the request to specific datasets within A-16 data themes that contain the highest amount of investment activity or show the highest potential for inter-agency collaboration • Collected Quantitative data about services, data, and licensing agreements • Collected Qualitative data regarding specific OMB Circular A-16 data sets and priorities for future investments

35. 2007 Desired Outcomes • Through lessons learned from the 2006 data call, the Geospatial LoB developed a reporting approach designed to: • Develop a more accurate and targeted A-16 investment baseline. • Capture current data related to future Federal enterprise data and services priorities. • Capture additional data/service attribute requirements for high priority datasets. • Highlight and prioritize current and future common capability requirements. • Develop a better understanding of how agencies use A-16 data and services to meet mission requirements

36. 2007 Desired Outcomes • The desired outcomes to be realized by following this approach include: • Consistent, accurate and less burdensome baseline investment reporting. • Enhanced ROI analysis capability for future joint business case development activities. • Electronic record of geospatial activities for future analysis. • Prioritized A-16 data theme business activity patterns.

37. 2007 Level of Investment for Selected Data sets $1.26 B Total in 2007 and 2008

38. 2007 Key Findings • The level of geospatial investment was relatively consistent for the three year reporting period. • Fifty two percent (52%) of agencies reported a three year average of less than one million ($1M) per year in selected geospatial data and services investments • As in 2006, a high degree of redundant investment types was not readily apparent in comparison with other LoB initiatives

39. 2007 Key Findings • A-16 Lead federal agencies are the majority investor in their respective data themes 50% of the time. • When the A-16 lead federal agency is not the majority investor, 50% of the time USDA is the majority investor. • DHS, DOC, DOI, and USDA investments, when combined, total over 90% of total reported selected federal geospatial data and services investments, and these agencies are lead federal agencies for 87% of the data themes within the scope of the 2007 geospatial investment reporting request.

40. Cost Data Issues • Gathering data on geospatial investment relies almost completely on agency self reporting. Additionally, there are few geospatial investment mechanisms in federal financial and acquisition systems that allow for a reliable and accurate automated accounting of geospatial investment. • The current designation of a geospatial investment as either Information Technology (IT) or Non-IT can have variable and arbitrary impact on whether the investment is included in a data call exercise such as this one.

41. Qualitative Data Call • The Geospatial Data and Services Priorities Survey was designed to obtain a better understanding of agency business activities and how agencies use selected OMB Circular A-16 data to meet their business and/or mission requirements. • Data sets selected for review were believed to potentially yield the highest opportunity for better coordination and collaboration toward satisfying agency requirements. • Each agency was asked to identify specific data themes as Mission Critical, Very Important, Important, Somewhat Important or Not Important in meeting their business requirements in 2009. What's Really Important?

42. Qualitative Data Call • Government Units (State, County, Municipal, Tribal and/or Congressional Boundaries) received the most ‘Mission Critical’ responses with eight agencies; Transportation (Street/Road Network) received seven ‘Mission Critical’ responses. • Eleven agencies ranked Near Shore Bathymetry as ‘Not Important’ to meeting their business requirements – much to the dismay of Bathymetry enthusiasts. • Additional handout on qualitative data results by theme is available. What's Really Important?

43. Lessons Learned • DHS, DOC, DOI, and USDA account for the majority of federal civilian investments in geospatial products and services. Agencies who are majority investors in geospatial data and services should coordinate and align NSDI execution strategies and strive to find commonality across data acquisition and collection investment types. • Lead federal agency assignments and framework data classifications should be re-evaluated. Several agencies have data theme lead assignments that are disproportionate to their level of funding to support those assignments.

44. Lessons Learned • There is a clear need to implement geospatial investment coding mechanisms in federal financial and acquisition systems that allow for a reliable and accurate automated accounting of geospatial investment. • It may be more effective to work on influencing lead federal agency NSDI Strategic Plans and promoting a more developed portfolio management capability than to conduct further investment analyses of agency reported investments until further investment coding mechanisms are in place.

45. Questions

46. A presentation on A-16 Themes for NGAC by Wendy Blake-Coleman US EPA Lifecycle Management Work Group

47. Briefing Purpose • Summarize challenges/opportunities with existing OMB Circular A-16 document and processes • Review issues being addressed by the Geospatial LOB Lifecycle Management Work Group • Discuss Work Group products and timeline • Discuss NGAC feedback on selected Work Group products in Fall 2008

48. Concerns with Current A-16 Processes and Requirements • Critical data often are not available for business processes in timeframe necessary, or not available at all • Geographic data approach in A-16 should be better aligned with business process approaches (e.g. FEA) which have emerged since 2002 • Long timeframes to complete national data sets can lead to duplicative efforts, decreased performance, and increased costs • Inconsistent A-16 portfolio management and reporting limits the ability to evaluate completion schedules and cost of A-16 themes and datasets • Need for improved communication and coordination across multiple programs, initiatives, and stakeholders

49. Lifecycle Management Work Group Activities Evaluating “as-is” state of OMB Circular A-16 and impact on theme/dataset portfolio management Definitions Management and reporting requirements Scope Developing strategy to improveA-16 portfolio management Providing more precise operational definitions Defining nationally significant themes/datasets Creating criteria to add, delete, or consolidate themes/datasets Incorporating lifecycle management practices into portfolio management Identifying opportunities for efficient data development

50. Lifecycle Management Work GroupActivities Developing recommendations for supplemental guidance for implementation of A-16 portfolio management and reporting More robust definitions Clearer roles and responsibilities More consistent reporting process As appropriate, changes to Appendix E: NSDI Data Themes, Definitions, and Lead Agencies Recommending to FGDC Coordination Group a set of procedures to: Track and evaluate progress for completing the NSDI Make recommendations on: Priorities for cross government partnerships Management or composition of themes/data sets under OMB Circular A-16 More efficient data development