To kick off a new Initiative on Place-Based Public Management, the National Academy of Public Administration hosted a forum on Friday, May 20, 2011, to explore the potential that place-based policies and geospatial capabilities hold for improving public management. Speakers included:
- Xavier Briggs, the primary author of the 2009 White House memo on Place-Based Policy and OMB Associate Director for General Government Services
- Raphael Bostic, Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research, Department of Housing and Urban Development
- Keith Barber, the lead for implementing DoD priorities for “whole of government” geospatial capabilities, National Geospatial-Intelligence Administration
- Michael Byrne, GIO, Federal Communications Commission, and lead for implementing the National Broadband Map
- Jerry Johnston, GIO, Environmental Protection Agency, and geospatial lead for Data.gov
- Mark Reichardt, President and CIO, Open Geospatial Consortium, a leading standards organization enabling place-based strategies
You can find more information about this initiative here.
R. Scott Fosler, who moderated the forum, summarized the key points of the discussion. First, Fosler stated, we must demonstrate “purposeful leadership.” We must identify the public purpose of geospatial technology implementation — economic development, environmental sustainability, community health, and security — at the outset. What are the expected outcomes and impacts for citizens? Second, Fosler noted that with respect to Place-Based Policies and related technologies, the Obama Administration is taking a demand-based approach, not a supply-based approach. Again, what is the impact, and how do we keep costs down? Third, Fosler asked, what are the processes and instruments that can be used to further develop and carry out place-based policies? “All these technologies are tools of management to be used in real-time and in real places,” he said. Lastly, Fosler stressed the importance of ongoing collaboration across boundaries, professions, governments, and sectors.
As we think about the future of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure, Jerry Johnston reiterated that we must focus on the public policy use cases first, not on the technology. Raphael Bostic emphasized that technology does not equal policy, and stressed the need for: 1) innovation and openness; 2) simplicity and ease of use; and 3) flexibility. He also listed several challenges that we must meet, including providing leadership on governance; creating community around placed-based policy making; lifting up applied uses; and developing “playbooks” from which communities can adopt solutions. Michael Byrne quipped, “think ‘where’ first, not last,” and then closed with an important point that federal data publication and consumption should be in a single vein.
- NAPA Forum on Place-Based Public Management (geodatapolicy.wordpress.com)
- Best Practices for Local Government Geospatial Programs (geodatapolicy.wordpress.com)
- Geospatial Technology as a Core Tool (usnews.com)
- The National Map. (obxcommonground.org)
- Augmented Reality: The Second International AR Standards Meeting (wired.com)
- Open Geospatial Consortium Standards: in more places than you realize (geodatapolicy.wordpress.com)
- Open Geospatial Consortium’s New Deal for Local and Subnational Governments (geodatapolicy.wordpress.com)
State GIS Strategic Plans, most developed with grant support from the FGDC, are starting to gain traction and find support among more than just the GIS “true believers.”
Arkansas GIO Shelby Johnson testified before his state legislature’s Advanced Communications and Information Technology Joint Committee on June 9, 2010. With strategic planning consultant Michael Terner, of Applied Geographics, at his side, Mr. Johnson gave a presentation, below, on the state of GIS coordination in Arkansas and on the recently accepted Geospatial Strategic Business Plan (PDF).For full article, visit NSGIC blog here.
If you haven’t already heard:
The Federal Geographic Data Committe’s (FGDC) National Geospatial Advisory Committee (NGAC) will meet on May 12-13, 2009 at the George Washington University Cafritz Conference Center, 800 21st Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20052. The meeting will be in Room 405. The meeting will be held from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on May 12 and from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on May 13.
The May NGAC agenda focuses on the development of a new national geospatial policy and strategic plan. Is it time for a new governance structure? Do we need a national Geographic Information Officer (GIO) under the National CIO? What is the distinction between a “national GIS” and a “federal GIS”? How can we improve stakeholder engagement in national geospatial priority setting? Stay tuned!
Click here to check out the following NGAC documents:
NGAC Report: The Changing Geospatial Landscape
NGAC Transition Recommendations
Summary of Key Recommendations (Decisions made over last year)
Two things of possible interest: The first is a discussion of the implications of a possible appointment of a Geospatial Information Officer (GIO) for the Department of the Interior. Joe Francica and Adena Schutzberg explore two questions: is there time to find the right person? And, what should be the role of a GIO for such a large agency?
The second is an interview with Vint Cert on the need for a national technology policy, on the question to centralize or not to centralize, and the possibility of a national Chief Technology Officer.
Podcast: A GIO for DOI
“Last week Secretary Kempthorne announced plans to appoint a Geographic Information Officer, or GIO, for the Department of the Interior. After having a week to ponder the announcement, our editors raise some practical and political questions about the position and who may fill it.”
For podcast, visit: http://www.directionsmag.com/article.php?article_id=2840&trv=1
Source: Joe Francica and Adena Schutzberg, Directions Magazine, August 12, 2008
See also NSGIC commentary on GIO for DOI: http://www.nsgic.org/blog/2008/08/discussion-of-roles-of-gio-and-state.html
Towards a National Technology Policy
“A final excerpt from my conversation with Vint Cerf (previous bits here; I’ll get the whole thing online soon, with a shorter version set to appear in the print mag). Here, Cerf discusses the need for a national technology policy. Perhaps unsurprisingly for an architect of the internet, he believes a relatively decentralized approach would work best.
When it comes to national policy, I worry about the idea of trying to centralize everything. The Washington tactic is, when there’s a problem, you appoint a czar, and the czar is responsible. It’s like the War on Drugs, or the War on Poverty. But it never quite works like that, because the economy is highly distributed, and our entire governmental structure is highly distributed, so what you’re looking for, more than centralizing, is to infuse our very distributed environment certain postures and principles that will influence people’s decisions, whether it’s a company CEO or a policy-maker somewhere in the government structure, whether it’s local or state or national.
An example of a posture that I’d be very pleased to see would be increased attention to technical input into policy development. We have lost a great deal of that input over the course of the last eight years.
I’d like to see visible evidence of the reconstitution of bodies providing technical input to policy makers. A small example would be the President’s Information Technology Advisory Committee, PITAC, that President Clinton put in place. I’m a little biased because I served on the committee, but what I observed in the course of my time on that committee is that it had a very strong drawing power, convening power to bring together people from various parts of the government who were particularly concerned about information technology and its further development.
And the consequences of the committee deliberations had what I thought was direct effect not only in policy decision in the executive branch, for example in the research area, but also helped influence thinking at the legislative level. The committee went out of its way to brief members of Congress and staff about issues that had come under the purview of that committee. …”
For full text of the article, visit: http://blogs.cioinsight.com/knowitall/content001/towards_a_national_technology_policy.html?kc=CIOQUICKNL09022008MOD
Source: Ed Cone, CIOInsight, on August 28, 2008