Digital Atlas Workshop- Institutional Working Group July 26, 2006 Institutional Working Group

Digital Atlas Workshop - Institutional Working Group July 26, 2006

Institutional Working Group


• Government mandate and inherent authority (3 points)• Public trust; ability to certify data content• Permanence of agency; long-term institutional support (1 point)• Stability of funding (to a point – some variability)• Ability to attract attention and additional support leads to

collaboration (3 points)– Other governments; academic institutions; industry

• Typically easier access to base data• Enable public participation in decision making• Marine sector representation in gov’t policy; national priority (1

point)• Academic institutions have some particular strengths

– Research; ability to leverage additional funds (5 points)– Heritage of stewardship with libraries– Access to educational discounts for software and IT– Tradition of philanthropy to support academic priorities– Educational training opportunities; internships; fellowships

Strengths


• Volatile nature of funding and all associated impacts (7 points)– Staff turnover and losing expertise on project– Inability to fund maintenance of projects (always needing to move

to next new funded activity)– Some funding agencies have limited budget cycles and typically

will not commit to long-term partnerships (makes maintenance difficult)

• Vulnerability to political trends and changes in priorities• Pace of change – e.g. inability to keep current with technology

changes• Tendency toward conservatism; unwillingness to take risks• Data licensing, access limitations, and desire to recoup costs

(4 points)• Competing for eyeballs (institutions typically not great at

marketing and building awareness)• “Mine” – tendency to want to control all aspects of a project

and not partner (silos; stovepipes)

Weaknesses


• Engage science journalists and educators – marketing and outreach– Education is a whole new market; curriculum development

• Collaboration; expertise from others who’ve done it before (1 point)• Demonstrate added value of atlases; exploit opportunities to

highlight best practices; increase efficiencies and save $$$• Visibility of certain partners (universities) can help market and build

credibility for projects• Movement to E-GOV and knowledge-based economy (Digital Atlas =

geospatial underpinnings for all government activities)• Delivering on gov’t policy (e.g. implement ICZM mandate) (12

points) • Open data licenses could lead to new products; economic

development• Leveraging data acquisition (e.g. opportunities to pull resources to

get more or better datasets) (4 points)• Reduce duplication (e.g. share code) (2 points)

Opportunities


• Changing policy drivers• Perception of ‘too many’ databases and mapping applications• Competition with private sector• Credibility = poor quality data; undocumented changes to

data; no metadata; poor models and DSS (3 points)

• Over or poor marketing = user expectations not met (under promise, then over deliver)

• Challenges of collaboration; partner doesn’t deliver up to specifications; partner seeks ‘divorce’

Threats


• [O] Delivering on gov’t policy (e.g. implement ICZM mandate) (12 pts)

• [W] Volatile nature of funding and all associated impacts (7 pts)

• [S] Research; ability to leverage additional funds (5 pts)

• [O] Leveraging data acquisition (4 pts)

• [W] Data licensing, access limitations, and desire to recoup costs (4 pts)

• [S] Government mandate and inherent authority (3 pts)

• [S] Ability to attract attention and additional support leads to collaboration

(3 pts)

• [T] Credibility = poor quality data; undocumented changes to data; etc. (3 pts)

• [O] Reduce duplication (e.g. share code) (2 pts)

• [S] Permanence of agency; long-term institutional support (1 pt)

• [S] Marine sector representation in gov’t policy; national priority (1 pt)

• [O] Collaboration; expertise from others who’ve done it before (1 pt)

Summary

Documents

Digital Atlas Workshop- Institutional Working Group July 26, 2006 Institutional Working Group