5-Year GIO Strategic Plan

The GIS Statute for Indiana (I.C. 4-23-7.3) assigns nearly two dozen responsibilities to the Indiana Geographic Information Office (IGIO) that involve coordination with hundreds of constituents, partners, and stakeholders and a comprehensive understanding of Politics (and politics), policy, economics, and budgets, state and national best practices, management, and data and technology in an environment that is ever-changing.  The challenges, opportunities, and choices facing a state geographic information officer (GIO) are nearly infinite.  Yet, the GIO is expected to effectively steward all of the resources (financial, technical, informational, and human) in a way that creates maximum benefit for the people who live and work in Indiana.

The GIO must daily depend on experience, intuition, and advice from trusted colleagues and others to navigate this complex landscape. With the completion and delivery of this document, a five-year Indiana IGIO Strategic Plan, the GIO adds one more critically important tool with which to carry out her statutory responsibilities.

This plan uses a tested and proven methodology for collecting information from statewide geospatial and leadership communities that is critical to understanding issues and priorities of those leaders and those constituents related to the duties of the IGIO. The information resulting from a survey and a series of interviews and workshops was reviewed and analyzed within the statutory requirements and the historical context of the IGIO in order to best establish realistic opportunities, challenges, strengths, and weaknesses that face the IGIO. The outcome of all of these inputs is a series of goals and recommendations that, once achieved, will result in an increased level of benefit provided to Hoosiers from the IGIO.

In recognition that the IGIO must react to an ever-changing environment, this strategic plan also offers criteria for measuring success as well as recommendations for how and when to monitor and review progress and amend the plan.

The plan should be viewed by the GIO as a strategic guide through the next five years that will serve best when shared with the various partners, stakeholders, elected officials, and community thought leaders who work with the GIO to lead GIS efforts in Indiana for the benefit of all.

GIS in Indiana began with the use of geospatial software in the early 1980s.  At that time use was not widespread but was getting a foothold in universities, state agencies, and the private sector.  The Indianapolis Geographic Infrastructure System, IMAGIS, an award-winning city-wide geographic system, came into existence in 1989 after over 200,000 hours of data conversion work. A year later several universities that had joined together to form the University GIS Alliance, UGISA, held the first statewide GIS conference.  At the same time several state government departments, including Transportation, Environmental Management, and Natural Resources were interested in sharing GIS knowledge, data, and ideas and therefore formed the Indiana State Government Forum for that purpose.

Interest in geospatial technologies and data continued to grow.  By the end of 1997 an informal group of representatives from federal, state, and county government, as well as universities and the private sector, began meeting to coordinate GIS across the state.  This group called itself the Indiana GIS Initiative, INGISI, and used grant funding from the Federal Geographic Data Committee and the Indiana Land Resources Council to organize and create and adopt a set of guiding principles to encourage GIS cooperation in Indiana.  By 1999, INGISI included representatives from 39 organizations.

The early 2000s saw increased support for GIS coordination and INGISI changed its name to the Indiana Geographic Information Council, IGIC, ( www.igic.org ) and took on the responsibility of administering activities to enhance GIS collaboration and coordination and created a formal organizational structure.  IGIC incorporated as a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization and formalized membership in 2002.  Its governing Board of Directors was composed of members that represent various sectors as follows:

• County Government (3)
• Municipal Government (3)
• State Government (3)
• Federal Government (2)
• Nonprofit (2)
• Commercial GIS Service Provider (1)
• Regional GIS At Large (5)
• Surveyors (2)
• Universities (3)
• Regional Planning Commission (1)
• Utilities (2)
• Critical Infrastructure (2)
• At Large (Any Sector or None) (3)

In the mid-2000s, with an appreciation of examples of other states’ coordination models as learned through the National States Geographic Information Council (NSGIC), IGIC became an influential force advocating for the creation of a state geographic information office through legislative means.  The “Indiana GIS Statute” (I.C.4-23-7.3) became law in July of 2007 and the first Indiana Geographic Information Officer was appointed by Governor Mitch Daniels later that year.  The statute assigned numerous GIS-related responsibilities to the office including statewide coordination of GIS activities, leveraging existing geospatial data, creating and improving geospatial data as needed, distributing those data, and serving as the Geographic Information Officer for state agencies.

IGIC continued to support GIS efforts across the state and to provide support to the GIO.  In 2019 and 2020, IGIC revised its mission and goals to reflect the legislative authority of the GIO.  It continues to provide networking and education responsibilities, including hosting an annual GIS conference as well as other events, and to support the activities of the GIO.  It remains an important resource to the Indiana GIS community.

Meanwhile, Megan Compton took over the leadership of the Indiana Geographic Information Office in April of 2018 when she was appointed GIO by Governor Eric Holcomb.  Indiana continues to have a reputation across the country as a GIS leader.  In fact, the latest NSGIC Maturity Assessment graded Indiana’s coordination efforts with an “A”, the highest grade in the country.

Strategic plans start from a current state of affairs and suggest a future state of affairs. The information-gathering phase of the strategic planning project yielded survey responses, comments (written and verbal), interview statements and notes, workshop ideas and discussions, and documents. (Appendices 1 through 3). The SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) methodology was used as a tool to organize findings and assist in determining strategic needs. In general, a SWOT assessment in strategic planning provides ideas to:

• Leverage strengths
• Address weaknesses
• Take advantage of opportunities
• Steer clear of threats

Each of the following strategic goals describes a desired outcome. The intent of the goals, and recommendations specific to them, is to state what should be achieved more than how to achieve the desired outcome. Recommendations that follow each strategic goal are more sub-goals than implementation statements. The recommendations (or sub-goals) included with each of the four strategic goals complement and will help guide the IGIO in achieving the strategic goals. 

The GIO and the IGIO already lead the use of geospatial data and technologies within state government. The statewide data, services, and activities of the IGIO bring together the entire community of geospatial interests, including federal, state, and local governments, businesses, industry and other organizations, educational institutions, and the general public. The benefits of IGIO’s strong leadership are already apparent, as discussed above.

This strategic goal furthers the GIO’s ability to guide the development and use of authoritative statewide spatial information. The benefits to Indiana are numerous, including efficient operations of state government, greater availability of up-to-date high-quality geospatial information for an ever-increasing variety of uses, leading to better lives for the people of Indiana.

GIO leadership is challenging. Leadership is never static: there are always new problems and opportunities to address, demanding yet another effort. Some of the difficulties faced by the GIO involve coordination of stakeholders, persuading decision-makers of the importance of the IGIO and geospatial coordination in general, funding, and making sure that GIO activities and policies are of greatest value to the most stakeholders.

Work with the Advisory Workgroup to find tangible examples and effective ways to communicate these solution examples, to both those who already are aware of how geospatial information helps Indiana, and to decision makers and policy leaders who do not yet understand this. The effort should be in concert with the communications strategy identified in Goal 2: IGIO Partnerships and Collaborations with Stakeholders and could involve using local government partners, industry, peer agencies in state government, and IGIC to communicate to legislators the importance of geospatial information and the IGIO.

The Indiana mapping data and standards fund called for in statute has not had a consistently stable source of funding. The fund is defined in statute however funding has not been achieved. A stable source of funding for staff, infrastructure, licensing, and data resources such as imagery, LIDAR, addresses, and others are necessary for the long-term success of the program and to allow the IGIO to provide grants called for in the statute.

Data governance involves clarifying roles, responsibilities, and authority at every stage in the lifecycle of data.  The data lifecycle includes data stewardship, data exchange, data duplication, applicability of standards, coordinating and resolving issues, and general best practices at the enterprise level.  Enterprise geospatial data governance will help ensure that data are authoritative, discoverable, and that data creation and maintenance are not duplicating efforts. Data governance is focused on how one implements such standards -- not the standards themselves. Enterprise data frameworks - centralized, decentralized, and federated - are an encapsulation of data governance practices; defining these models should be part of Indiana’s enterprise data governance plan. The GIO, per statute, is uniquely positioned to take responsibility for enterprise geospatial data governance within state government (IC 4-23-7.3-14, Section 1). By doing so, the GIO will use its authority to ensure state government is efficient in its management of geospatial data. The GIO should work closely with the GIS Enterprise Committee to craft a data governance approach that can start in a simple fashion and become more detailed and complex over time.

Indiana’s data harvest is cited as a national model for statewide integration of local government data; Indiana should continue seeking similar situations in which its experience can be of benefit to others, and to advocate for national policies that are in the best interest of the Indiana GIS community.

The GIO’s role is defined in Indiana law. There is no immediate need to amend this statute. However, the statute was written at a time when geospatial information was far less widespread in its creation and use, and geospatial technologies were less advanced. Should the statute ever be reexamined with an eye toward its amendment, changes to it might include:

• Evaluate how the Data Integration Plan is called for in the statute, given changes in IGIC, the expansion of geospatial information into many aspects of government, business, and public use. Reevaluation should look at the content of the plan (i.e., subject matter), who should be the primary author, and how the plan is promulgated through the state. If the Advisory Workgroup concept is realized, then the evaluation should include its role in the process too.
• Decide if the biennial report called for in statute is useful, then decide whether to amend or remove as appropriate,
• Seek a legislative solution to secure annual funding as part of the statute
• Amend the definition of “framework data layer” in IC 4-23-7.3-3 to be broader, allowing the GIO to determine that a particular theme or data type is a framework data layer for the purposes defined in the statute. What data are important will change over time with new technologies and changes in public policy and interest. The GIO should be able to respond to those needs.
• Evaluate whether the Advisory Workgroup concept discussed in the 2021 Strategic Plan (whether implemented or not) should be part of the amended statute.

Partnerships, joint ventures, shared projects, and other collaborative activities have been tremendously valuable in creating the statewide geospatial infrastructure and data managed by the IGIO. For example, Indiana has received well-deserved national recognition for its Data Harvest, in which all counties provide framework datasets to a collaborative effort of the IGIO with the Polis Center, to update the authoritative statewide framework layers.

Because partnerships have been so valuable to the IGIO and its partners/collaborators, the GIO should continue to develop and support them. Strengthening existing partnerships enhances the stability of the IGIO. Forming new partnerships extends the GIO’s services and consistent approaches to statewide GIS, promoting consistency and efficiency in general.

Partnerships, such as what’s required for the Data Harvest, take tending in order to grow and prosper. Finding time and staff could be difficult within the IGIO at its current workloads. Finding and engaging new potential partners also requires effort. From time to time, events or serendipity may present opportunities for new collaborations too – and the GIO must be able to act upon these in a timely fashion in order to capture them. Partnerships in which the GIO is a leader, such as the Data Harvest, are always strengthened by funding. Finding funds to support partners will likely be an ongoing effort.

Communicating what the GIO does is an important aspect of IGIO leadership within Indiana. The GIO’s many responsibilities, activities, accomplishments are not well-known, even by the geospatial professional community. Consequently, the leadership role and activities of the GIO are poorly recognized by many who benefit from GIO activities. Specific methods and actions used to communicate should be devised within sustainable communications and coordination campaigns, bearing in mind that different channels of communication may be appropriate for different groups. The strategy should consider many elements, including regular travel to local meetings and events, engagement with other organizations, conference attendance and presentations, blogging, social media, newsletters, and other written communications, bearing in mind that different communication tools are needed for different audiences.

Use partners who are well-respected within their domain and who understand your mission and goals (a benefit of successful communication plan implementation) as advocates, promoters, and resources that communicate the value of the IGIO to others. Achieve and maintain meaningful community engagement. This will require significant effort and commitment and should be treated as a core function of the IGIO within the communication plan.

The Indiana GIS community has historically been well prepared to take advantage of funding opportunities as they are presented.  For example, some of the federal funding for the buildout of an Indiana broadband service availability map was used to support IGIC as well as counties and the Data Sharing Initiative. Effective use of funding that exists outside of a stable, dependable funding stream will allow the IGIO flexibility to develop solutions for the costs of challenges that are not covered in a recurring budget. This will require that the IGIO, with partner communities, create business cases, especially cost estimates and a clear articulation of partner benefits, in support of the use of funds.  These business cases are most effective when prepared in advance of the need (what data sets, technologies, or tools are most likely to become critical in a given time horizon?) and can be helpful to promote the business case to appropriate audiences.

For some enterprise datasets, authoritative data may be best developed through federation with data providers in a federated data maintenance and sharing model. Federated data models are a sound practice because they place the locus of maintenance closest to the creators and maintainers of source data - a practice in accord with sound data governance. The IGIO can use existing or new partnerships to create frameworks for managing and sharing specific enterprise geo datasets where the federated data model makes sense in terms of data governance and IGIO operational efficiency.

Local governments vary in their abilities to support participating in the data harvest. A program could be designed that supports building local government capabilities over some number of years, with support waning in the later years as they achieve self-sufficiency and proficiency. Ideally, this would be funded through the Indiana Mapping and Data Standards Fund which calls for use of funds to provide grants and perhaps also by state and federal programs and projects that require GIS.  Use the stature of the GIO to influence existing grant programs, seeking to include GIS data and collaboration activities with the GIO as eligible for funding or as performance requirements for those accepting funds.

Indiana has made great progress in aggregating county data into publicly accessible statewide layers through its annual data harvest program. The data harvest has changed over time - for instance, it is now using defined data standards and distribution processes. One can expect that it will improve even more as time goes on, as local governments continue adopting and improving geospatial technologies. The IGIO should outline a strategy for assessing changes to the data harvest, share that strategy with others (see communications plan recommendation), and act on the strategy appropriately. The strategy must be dynamic in the mid-term time frame because technologies and needs will change over time. For example, this could initially be driven by the requirements for NG911 as well as other important statewide activities such as broadband mapping and analysis.

Geographic information and technologies have been widely adopted throughout government, business, and public life. Many stakeholders who interact with the IGIO do so almost solely to make use of products that the office delivers. The GIO must plan to continually improve how it provides data services, tools, training, software, and data itself. The IGIO is already very involved in the creation of a new version of IndianaMap, and this promises to go a long way toward streamlining how data are updated for public use, broadening the ways in which one can make use of geospatial data, and providing non-technical users easier and more powerful ways to view and query geospatial information. Nonetheless, expectations for the creation, maintenance, and delivery of geospatial data will continue to increase as time goes on, making continual improvement a strategic goal.

Improving the IGIO’s offerings over time has many benefits. Users of IGIO services and data, i.e., the people, governments, businesses, and organizations in Indiana, are immediate beneficiaries of better data and services that the IGIO may provide. Improvements also justify ongoing investment in the IGIO by the legislature and other agencies, and continued collaborations with partners. Lastly, Indiana has a well-deserved reputation as a national leader in geospatial integration at a state level; it will continue to be a model for other states to emulate.

Many of the recommendations regarding this goal are technical in nature. Some of these can be relatively minor updates or improvements that can be streamed into the IGIO’s routine activities. However, major improvements and changes to delivery likely require expertise, resources, software, and hardware. These generally have to be multi-year efforts that require considerable planning and marshaling of resources. Each large improvement to delivery may require its own planning effort, necessitating a project management effort and probably a project funding effort too. Additionally, changes in technology inevitably result in “modern delivery of data and services” constantly changing and falling out of date.

Expand data focus beyond framework data layers. The IGIO is heavily focused on framework data layers while other specialty GIS layers that exist either statewide or for more limited areas are not thoroughly cataloged or accessible through the IGIO. It is not necessary that the data be hosted at IGIO, but it should be discoverable through the data search function hosted by the IGIO, with pass-through links to access the data at its native host sites. The portal should be promoted as a central access point for all data.  There are many possible mechanisms for improving data discovery and access such as open data portals, hub aggregations and websites, and capabilities within the nascent IndianaMap 2.0.  Regardless of which mechanism is used, care and feeding to ensure participation and ensure data is fresh will be needed.

Web services that stream data to client software (desktop or web) from a central, authoritative, service are a best practice for disseminating datasets for general use. Contemporary GIS software and web development itself are designed to use streaming data services. There are many varieties of web services, such as feature services (in which raw geometric data and attributes are in the streamed data), map services (in which the information necessary to display and query entities is preserved but the raw geometric data is not conveyed), image services (for raster or other gridded data). There are also a few different standards commonly used such as Esri’s services and those that meet the Open Geospatial Consortium service standards. In general, web services follow the REST service pattern.

Many users have made use of IGIO data by downloading entire datasets, even though they use only a small part of them at any given time. This consumes user time and resources and leads to stale data usage in order to avoid the effort and time of re-downloading data in order to make sure a dataset is up to date. Large, detailed, datasets like many of the framework layers and other data themes that the IGIO disseminates are especially well-suited to being served through web services that stream data to GIS and other software as needed for a given use.

Business plans for framework layers and other enterprise datasets (e.g., high-resolution elevation data, orthoimagery) can be created to assist the IGIO in several ways:

• Business plans can focus on efficient delivery of datasets, by helping to determine user needs.
• Business plans can help the IGIO be cost-effective by finding ways to deliver datasets that are common across many data themes, reducing unnecessary effort and cost.
• Business plans can help the IGIO set priorities for updating data layers or other thematic data.
• Business plans can define funding needed for framework layers, other datasets, and the creation or improvement of delivery mechanisms.
• By having defined funding needs, business plans can assist the GIO in seeking long-term support for data dissemination and development.

The use of GIO resources, such as services and tools (geoprocessing services, code snippets, toolboxes, templates, etc.), by state agencies has grown continually and will likely continue to do so. The GIO can support usage by further creating guidance on how to use the services and tools that the office provides. This guidance could be built in many different ways, depending upon common use cases for the services or tools. A contemporary example is the series of web pages (an Esri story map) used to explain the data harvest. Depending upon the kind of guidance needed, other media or modes of presentation may be appropriate. Another example, yet to be developed, is a guidance document on using web services rather than downloading data. In a similar vein, the GIO could publish technical tips on a periodic or scheduled basis, including discussions of new technologies and methods. Although the GIO is not responsible for training under the statute, the office could also publish training opportunities that are available from other agencies and organizations. While these activities focus on state government and enterprise GIS needs primarily, they will also be of great benefit to local governments and other partners.

Users of GIO data, services, and applications vary in their technical literacy and capabilities. So, the GIO needs to consider the best technical means to help stakeholders use geospatial products. Feedback mechanisms should be considered part of the implementation of this recommendation so that the GIO can continually improve its delivery to stakeholders. For example, new map services (e.g., IndianaMap v2) are opportunities to define data delivery and data services needs and implement identified improvements.

The IGIO is a small office with a large mission. The office must manage datasets, provide sophisticated web applications, offer technical services and support GIS users, help lead an entire arena of data management and technology within state government and among over a hundred partners. Finding ways to increase operational efficiency is crucial to advancing the mission of the GIO and the office.

Operational efficiency helps the IGIO in many ways. Establishing expectations about how common tasks are handled reduces frustration and makes planning work much easier. Defining areas of responsibility aids in establishing workflows and also in determining where more staff may be needed (if one can find them). It also helps to define what cannot be accomplished, giving the GIO a basis for deciding what work not to take on board. Obviously, efficient operations allow more to be done with the same level of effort.  

Organizational change of any sort is often daunting, even when resources are readily available to support a change. For the IGIO, achieving operational efficiency within a limited budget will be challenging. Determining how to implement changes in the office is itself a project that will take time and effort by the GIO and IGIO staff – time that may be difficult to find. Where there are significant resources needed to effect changes in responsibility, workflow, or duties, finding money, space, or technology required for change may be difficult.

The GIO has a difficult mission to accomplish with a small staff. Defining areas of responsibility within the office is helpful because it defines what is to be done by the staff. Some areas of responsibility are sufficiently well-defined (in practice or statute) that they become roles, best accomplished by a single individual. However, a role is distinct from jobs, positions, or current staff. For example, two individuals might share the role of “Programs Coordination Lead”. Similarly, the area of responsibility “Training Resource Coordination” could be passed to different individuals over time, so that they all develop skills at communicating with others through formal channels. Defining areas of responsibility and adjusting to them both formally and informally will take some time. Nonetheless, without defined areas of responsibility, the GIO risks being overwhelmed by unstructured workloads.

Strike a balance between helping agencies with reasonable tasks vs. pointing them to external resources (e.g. state educational institutions, vendors). This is especially needed with regard to urgent tasks such as help desk tickets as they compete with strategic priorities.

Project-based models are not sustainable due to inevitable variations in funding; they also take the GIO focus away from the greater good by putting the focus on the "paying customer" rather than long-term initiatives that benefit everyone. Long-term, funded, data development and maintenance programs, perhaps in partnership with others (as discussed above), are more stable and more likely to serve the statewide mission of the GIO. The INDOT-GIO partnership is a good example of this type of partnership.

Effective prioritization of discrete activities requiring finite IGIO resources, especially human resources, is necessary to make the best use of those resources and to ensure that time-sensitive opportunities can be appropriately addressed.  Prioritization is usually a subjective exercise based on one or more guiding criteria. The criteria used to rank the goals and recommendations are relative importance and relative urgency.  This yields a four-box matrix to organize with relative urgency increasing left to right and relative importance increasing bottom to top as follows.

The following table provides each of the goals and recommendations with its corresponding quadrant designation and a brief rationale of the quadrant placement.

It may also be insightful to consider the goals and recommendations in terms of relative time frames for each. A suggested timeline chart is presented below. This perspective adds the dimension of time duration and provides more specificity to the time frame than urgency as presented in the quadrant graphic.  

Note that these timeframes consider both the consumption and availability of resources as well as the need for coordination. Generally speaking, the higher the need for resources the longer the timeframe required to accomplish the goal. Likewise, the more coordination that is required to accomplish a goal the longer the timeframe that will be needed.  Also, this chart indicates that the effort associated with some goals is ongoing. In these cases, we are showing the optimum time frame to place emphasis on the goal rather than the entire time frame for the goal.

We have provided multiple ways to consider the priority of the goals and recommendations.  Specifically, we considered each goal in terms of relative importance and relative urgency.  In addition, we have provided a high-level timeline showing the optimum opportunity for focusing on accomplishing each goal.  Together, these perspectives will help the IGIO plan the activities recommended in this document in a more strategic and deliberate way.

While this plan presents a multi-year vision and set of recommendations, the conditions (organizational, political, technological) in which this plan was formed will evolve over time. It will be essential to revisit the plan periodically and to recalibrate priorities based on what has been achieved as well as new technological and political developments. Ultimately, strategic planning – particularly for technology – must be viewed as an ongoing effort and not a one-time exercise. We recommend a collaborative, quarterly review of the strategic goals and recommendations with input from both the GIO and the Advisory Workgroup to (1) assess progress as compared to the schedule/priorities presented in this plan and (2) to recalibrate goals based on new information/circumstances. This periodic (e.g., quarterly) snapshot should be captured using the following chart, as a similar rubric.  Ratings are based on a qualitative assessment, all things considered.

Strategic Plan Created by:

and

for