Skip Maine state header navigation
Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation
|Home | Contact Us | Maine GIS | GeoLibrary||Site Map ||
March 14, 2007
David Kirouac, Chair, OIT/MEGIS
Nancy Armentrout, DOT/AITD
Seth Barker, DMR
Matthew Bampton, USM
Victor Chakravarty, OIT/Policy & Strategic Planning
Mary Cloutier, OIT/Policy & Strategic Planning
Liz Hertz, SPO
Maria Jacques, PUC/ESCB
Nate Kane, DOT
Don Katnik, IF&W
Christopher Kroot, DEP
David Maxwell, DEP/AITD
Jason Sardano, SOS
Vincent Valentine, USM
Agenda Item #1: Review Minutes of Feb 28 Meeting
Outcome: The minutes were approved unanimously without any modification.
Agenda Item #2: Review the Draft GIS Stakeholders Charter
Nancy started the discussion by interrogating the ultimate use of the Strategic Plan, and the role of the Stakeholders in its implementation. Christopher, Maria & Mary affirmed the advisory nature of this body. Liz emphasized that this body does not have any control of the budget. Nate offered the perspective of the drafting committee. Following further input from Christopher, Liz & Don, it was decided that the following three sections needed modifications. (i) The clause "facilitate the implementation of the Strategic Plan" should be appended to the Purpose. (ii) The phrase "AITD or their designees" should be included inside the parentheses following "appointees of the CIO" in the Membership. (iii) Under Functions, the second and third bullets should be combined and add “subsequent development, review, and update of the strategic plan to meet identified goals”; the fourth bullet should be eliminated, the fifth bullet should remove the word “regularly”, change “providing” to “provide, and add “and opportunities”; and the last bullet should change "Periodical" to "Periodic".
Outcome: The charter was approved unanimously pending the discussed changes. David Kirouac was charged with completing the changes and sending a final copy to the Stakeholders. The charter will need to be approved by the CIO.
Agenda Item #3: Process for Designating Agency Stakeholders
This is really about evangelizing the use of GIS among those that are not using it currently. How to educate the Commissioners and other members of Senior Management on the business-potential of GIS? Nancy had the brilliant idea of starting with the IT Executive Committee. David Maxwell, by dint of his own membership in the IT Executive Committee, offered invaluable insights on the composition, attendance record, and meeting frequency of that body. Maria suggested targeting the new MEMA director. Christopher repeatedly stressed the importance of targeting the business uses of GIS, and keeping the underlying technology mostly transparent. Christopher & David Maxwell proposed showcasing the recent DEP Shorebird project as a multi-agency, collaborative, regulatory application. Nancy & Nate offered to bring a Transportation example. Matthew proposed showcasing two U Maine applications: one about Facilities Management and the other about Community Outreach. Nate reminded all parties that any outreach effort should not fail to mention the wealth of spatial data already available, lest some presume that they might have to start building their spatial data from scratch.
Outcome: David Maxwell will email a list of IT Executive Committee members.
Agenda Item #4: Document comparing the GIS E.C., MEGIS, and the GeoLibrary
Mary Cloutier presented her research. (David Kirouac will email out the soft-copy.) The comments in red are from Jim Page, the Chair of the GeoLibrary, and the comments in blue are Mary's response to Jim. It was noted that the GIS Executive Council no longer exists and should be noted as such in the document.
Outcome: It was decided that David Kirouac will follow-up with Jim Page, Dan Walters & David Blocher re: the current status of the MEGIS-GeoLibrary MOU, and whether there exists any expectation of deliverables from the GIS Stakeholders re: this MOU. The MOU will be added to the agenda of a future meeting.
Agenda Item #5: Discussion: Restarting the GIS Strategic Planning Process
Nancy reminded us that we decided to update the Strategic Plan collectively at one of these meetings. Christopher reminded us of the eight-page extract of Business Needs that he emailed us earlier. There were some questions as to how the GIS Infrastructure Roadmap Workshop of Jan 24-25 aligned with the Strategic Plan. Christopher clarified that the final output of the Roadmap Workshop will form the infrastructure component of the Strategic Plan. Christopher further elaborated on the activities of the four subgroups that were launched from the Roadmap Workshop: Data, Application, Infrastructure and Organization. While the purposes of the Data, Application and Infrastructure subgroups were intuitively apparent, the same could not be said about the Organization subgroup. Christopher & Nate clarified that the Organization subgroup would filter out the policy & administrative components of the shared GIS infrastructure proposals, and present them for management consideration. Christopher repeatedly stressed that the final output of the four subgroups will be brought back to the entire body of GIS Stakeholders for further vetting. Since Liz had to leave early, Christopher & David Kirouac promised to take this feedback to Liz, the Chair of the Organization subgroup. Christopher stated that the other three subgroups are well positioned to deliver their final outputs in about a week or so. Nancy stressed the importance of exploring non-ESRI solutions. Christopher confirmed that even though ESRI was a participant in the Roadmap Workshop, the final recommendations will be kept as vendor-neutral as possible.
Outcome: It was decided to dedicate the all of the It was decided to bring a laptop & projector into the next meeting, and start working from Christopher's eight-page extract.
Agenda Item #6: GIS Roadmap Update
Discussion was wrapped into the discussion for agenda #5.
Outcome: The GIS Roadmap committees will each meet to wrap up the 4 different sections of the Roadmap.
|Copyright © 2004 All rights reserved.|