Defining and Evaluating The Criteria For Effective ...Thesis submitted to the International...

Defining and Evaluating The Criteria For Effective Implementation Of A

National Geospatial Data Clearinghouse in Jamaica

Kizuwanda Reece March 2004

Defining And Evaluating The Criteria For Effective Implementation Of A National Geospatial Data Clearinghouse In Jamaica

By

Kizuwanda Reece

Thesis submitted to the International Institute for Geo-information Science and Earth Observation in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Geoinformation Management.

Degree Assessment Board

Chairman: Professor Paul van der Molen

Examiner: Dr. Arnold Bregt

Supervisors

Mr. Ir. Walter de Vries Dr. Ir. Yola Georgiadou

INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR GEO-INFORMATION SCIENCE AND EARTH OBSERVATION ENSCHEDE, THE NETHERLANDS

Disclaimer This document describes work undertaken as part of a programme of study at the International Institute for Geo-information Science and Earth Observation. All views and opinions expressed therein remain the sole responsibility of the author, and do not necessarily represent those of the institute.

International Institute For Geo-Information Science And Earth Observation I

Acknowledgements It is with heartfelt gratitude that I take this opportunity to thank the various persons who have contributed to this research. I thank God for His faithfulness and assurance that “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me” and for allowing me to complete this course of study. I thank my family and close friends who have supported me through prayers and words of encouragement and their love. Gratitude is extended to my employer Spatial Innovision Ltd. and the Director Mr. Silburn Clarke for granting sufficient study leave to complete this research. I also thank Ms. Cecille Blake and the staff of Geospatial Data Management Unit for their efforts during my fieldwork exercise. My gratitude extends to the Board of Directors and the Program Director of ITC for extending my fellowship and for the Masters of Science program. Thanks to my supervisors Mr. Ir. Walter de Vries and Dr. Ir. Yola Georgiadou for their insight and careful guidance throughout the research you. Thanks to those who specifically advised me at various stages of my work. Such persons include Mr. Rob Lemmens, Mr. Javier Morales, Mr. Richard Onchaga, Mr. Joep Crompvoets, Mr. Etien Koua, Mr. Ard Blenke, Mr. Wilfred Hartgerink and the IT department. Thanks to the Netherlands Fellowship Program for the granting me the scholarship and the ITC students’ affairs dept for their support and assistance. Finally, thanks to the general student body and ITC staff for sharing their experiences and knowledge throughout the duration for the studies. To my friends and GIM mates Acharya from India, Amy from the Philippines, Berhane from Ethiopia, Charles from Zambia, Maura from Poland, Park from South Korea and Samuel from Ghana whom I was able to share wonderful times with and exchange knowledge on various subjects, thank you for making my stay more relaxing and fulfilling. To God Be The Glory!

��

International Institute For Geo-Information Science And Earth Observation II

�

International Institute For Geo-Information Science And Earth Observation III

Abstract Governments all over the world are being challenged to develop Spatial Data Infrastructures (SDI) to provide access to information for decision support and sustain national development. A national geospatial data clearinghouse is considered to be a key component of any SDI and is designed to allow users to discover and access (online or offline) information required to meet specific objectives. Many governments have succeeded in physically implementing mechanisms but the extent to which they are being optimally managed, used and maintained are currently on the decline. Jamaica has recognized the need for a national clearinghouse to solve the problems associated with limited data discovery and access. However, in order to recommend guidelines for clearinghouse implementation the current global status of clearinghouses must be analyzed from the technical, institutional and managerial perspectives. The research will firstly describe the background and existing problem before outlining the research questions and the methodology. Technical, institutional and managerial considerations for clearinghouse development are then discussed with specific references to three cases, The Netherlands, The United States of America (USA) and Australia. An overview of Jamaica’s general ICT and clearinghouse activities are also presented. The research will then describe the extent to which GI users and providers exchange and share geodata in Jamaica based on the field study. The data collected is analyzed in two ways; situation analysis and stakeholders’ analysis. Situation analysis examines the extent to which technological, institutional and managerial issues impact GI related activities in Jamaica. Stakeholder analysis utilizes a series of matrices to assess the level of interests, powers, capacity and dependency of each stakeholder, which indicates the extent to which they can participate and contribute to National Geospatial Data Clearinghouse (NGDC) implementation. Additionally the needs of these stakeholders are outlined and used in the definition of the design criteria. Three options are then designed and evaluated using management techniques such as resource requirement, costing and operational process times. The most appropriate model is then recommended. The research proceeds to present guidelines for future implementation through a phased approach and concludes by stating the institutional requirements. The research ends with conclusions and recommendations for future research.

International Institute For Geo-Information Science And Earth Observation V

Table of Content

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................................ I

ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................ III

TABLE OF CONTENT............................................................................................................................. V

LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................................. IX

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................... X

LIST OF APPENDIX................................................................................................................................ X

LIST OF ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................................ XI

1 THE NEED FOR NATIONAL CLEARINGHOUSE IN JAMAICA .................................................... 1

1.1 BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1.1 Development Of Clearinghouses .................................................................................. 1

1.2 PROBLEM DEFINITION ............................................................................................................... 2 1.2.1 Socio-Economic and Political Conditions...................................................................... 2 1.2.2 NSDI initiatives in Jamaica............................................................................................ 2 1.2.3 Status Of Data Sharing And Distribution in Jamaica .................................................... 3

1.3 RESEARCH FRAMEWORK .......................................................................................................... 3 1.4 PRIOR WORKS ......................................................................................................................... 4 1.5 MAIN OBJECTIVE ...................................................................................................................... 5 1.6 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ............................................................................................................ 5 1.7 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................... 5

1.7.1 Literature Review .......................................................................................................... 6 1.7.2 Situation Analysis .......................................................................................................... 6 1.7.3 Stakeholder Analysis..................................................................................................... 6 1.7.4 Design and Evaluative Testing...................................................................................... 6

1.8 OPERATIONAL PLAN ................................................................................................................. 6 1.9 THESIS STRUCTURE ................................................................................................................. 7

2 REVIEW OF CLEARINGHOUSE DEVELOPMENTS ................................................................... 9

2.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 9 2.2 THE GEOSPATIAL DATA CLEARINGHOUSE.................................................................................. 9

2.2.1 The Purpose and Functionality of Clearinghouses ....................................................... 9 2.3 TECHNOLOGICAL ASPECTS ..................................................................................................... 10

2.3.1 Components Of Clearinghouse................................................................................... 10 2.3.1.1 Geospatial Data ...................................................................................................... 10 2.3.1.2 Metadata ................................................................................................................. 10 2.3.1.3 The User Interface .................................................................................................. 11 2.3.1.4 The Servers............................................................................................................. 11

2.3.2 Client-Server Technology............................................................................................ 11 2.3.3 The World Wide Web (WWW)..................................................................................... 11 2.3.4 Internet GIS ................................................................................................................. 12 2.3.5 Technical Standards.................................................................................................... 13 2.3.6 Other Techno Innovations ........................................................................................... 13

2.4 INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES............................................................................................................ 14 2.4.1 Policies and Legislative issues.................................................................................... 14

2.5 GI STAKEHOLDERS................................................................................................................. 14 2.6 MANAGEMENT ISSUES ............................................................................................................ 14

2.6.1 Organizational Consideration...................................................................................... 15 2.6.2 Corporate Culture........................................................................................................ 15 2.6.3 Implementation Models ............................................................................................... 15 2.6.4 Funding and Revenue Models .................................................................................... 16

International Institute For Geo-Information Science And Earth Observation VI

2.7 INTERNATIONAL REVIEW ......................................................................................................... 16 2.7.1 NGDC Global Survey .................................................................................................. 16 2.7.2 International Case Review .......................................................................................... 17

2.7.2.1 The Netherlands NGDC.......................................................................................... 17 2.7.2.2 The United States of America NGDC ..................................................................... 18 2.7.2.3 Australia NGDC....................................................................................................... 19

2.8 LESSONS FROM CLEARINGHOUSE DEVELOPMENT.................................................................... 22 2.9 GENERAL ICT AND CLEARINGHOUSE ACTIVITIES IN JAMAICA .................................................... 22

2.9.1 Network Readiness and ICT Penetration.................................................................... 22 2.9.2 Clearinghouse Activities in Jamaica............................................................................ 23 2.9.3 Observations ............................................................................................................... 24

2.10 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 24

3 STATUS OF GI EXCHANGE IN JAMAICA (FIELD STUDY) ....................................................... 25

3.1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 25 3.2 AREA OF FIELD STUDY............................................................................................................ 25 3.3 OBJECTIVE OF FIELD STUDY ................................................................................................... 25 3.4 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 25

3.4.1 Pitfalls And Problems .................................................................................................. 26 3.5 STAKEHOLDER IDENTIFICATION ............................................................................................... 26 3.6 PRIMARY DATA COLLECTION................................................................................................... 27

3.6.1 Survey: Questionnaire Design And Development....................................................... 27 3.6.1.1 Structure And Distribution Of Questionnaire........................................................... 27

3.6.2 NSDI One Day Workshop ........................................................................................... 27 3.6.3 Interviews .................................................................................................................... 28

3.7 SECONDARY DATA COLLECTION.............................................................................................. 28 3.8 VALIDATION OF FIELD DATA COLLECTED.................................................................................. 28

3.8.1 Completeness of Results ............................................................................................ 28 3.8.2 Accuracy of Results..................................................................................................... 28 3.8.3 Reliability of Results .................................................................................................... 29

3.9 SURVEY RESULTS .................................................................................................................. 29 3.9.1 Summary of Technological / Technical Issues............................................................ 29 3.9.2 Summary Of Institutional And Management Issues.................................................... 31 3.9.3 Summary of Workshop Results................................................................................... 34

3.9.3.1 Internal And External Environment Scanning ......................................................... 34 3.9.3.2 GI Applications within the various organizations .................................................... 34 3.9.3.3 Results of User Interface Evaluation ...................................................................... 34

3.9.4 Interview Results ......................................................................................................... 35 3.10 SUMMARY OF RESULTS .......................................................................................................... 35

3.10.1 Technical advances..................................................................................................... 35 3.10.2 Institutional advances.................................................................................................. 36 3.10.3 Current Challenges in establishing NSDI.................................................................... 36

3.11 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 36

4 GI ENVIRONMENT AND THE STAKEHOLDERS ....................................................................... 37

4.1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 37 4.2 TECHNOLOGICAL SETTING ...................................................................................................... 37

4.2.1 ICT Policy .................................................................................................................... 37 4.2.2 Network Access........................................................................................................... 37 4.2.3 Network Learning ........................................................................................................ 38 4.2.4 ICT In Society .............................................................................................................. 38

4.3 INSTITUTIONAL SETTING.......................................................................................................... 38 4.3.1 Laws And Regulations Affecting Geo- Information Exchange .................................... 38

4.4 MANAGEMENT SETTING .......................................................................................................... 39 4.4.1 Government Role In GI Provision ............................................................................... 40 4.4.2 Public Private Partnerships ......................................................................................... 40

4.5 STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS........................................................................................................ 40 4.5.1 Identification Of Stakeholders ..................................................................................... 41 4.5.2 Steps In Stakeholder Analysis..................................................................................... 41

International Institute For Geo-Information Science And Earth Observation VII

4.5.2.1 Interest/Power Matrix .............................................................................................. 41 4.5.2.2 Dependency/Capacity Matrix .................................................................................. 45

4.6 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................... 48 4.7 STAKEHOLDER REQUIREMENTS............................................................................................... 49

4.7.1 Technical Requirements.............................................................................................. 49 4.7.2 Institutional Requirements........................................................................................... 50 4.7.3 GI Data Requirements................................................................................................. 50

4.8 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 51

5 NATIONAL GEOSPATIAL DATA CLEARINGHOUSE (NGDC) PROTOTYPE DESIGN AND EVALUATION........................................................................................................................................ 53

5.1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 53 5.2 DEFINITION OF DESIGN CRITERIA ............................................................................................ 53 5.3 THE USER INTERFACE DESIGN ................................................................................................ 54

5.3.1 Initial Web Interface Design ........................................................................................ 55 5.3.1.1 Summary of Pages Designed ................................................................................. 56

5.3.2 Testing The User Interface.......................................................................................... 57 5.3.2.1 Evaluation of User Interface.................................................................................... 57

5.4 THE NGDC CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURE ............................................................................. 57 5.4.1 Option 1 – Distributed Metadata Management ........................................................... 58 5.4.2 Option 2- Centralized Data Warehouse ...................................................................... 59 5.4.3 Option 3- Hybrid System: Decentralized Metadata and Geo-processing ................... 60

5.5 EVALUATION OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNS.............................................................................. 61 5.5.1 Resources Allocation and Costs ................................................................................. 61 5.5.2 Evaluation Of Process Time For Each Option ............................................................ 64

5.6 RECOMMENDATIONS – OPTION 2 ............................................................................................ 64 5.7 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 65

6 IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES............................................................................................... 67

6.1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 67 6.2 PHASED IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS....................................................................................... 67

6.2.1 Sub phase A: Environmental Scanning and User Requirement ................................. 67 6.2.2 Sub Phase B: Development of Strategic Plan............................................................. 68 6.2.3 Phase 1: Development and Implementation of a Funding Strategy............................ 69 6.2.4 Phase 2: Physical Implementation, Testing and Deployment..................................... 69 6.2.5 Phase 3: Marketing and Public Awareness................................................................. 71

6.3 POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................... 71 6.4 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 72

7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................ 73

7.1 CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................................ 73 7.2 RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................... 75

7.2.1 For Future Research ................................................................................................... 75 7.2.2 Other Recommendations ............................................................................................ 75

REFERENCES...................................................................................................................................... 77

BIBLIOGRAPHY.................................................................................................................................... 81

International Institute For Geo-Information Science And Earth Observation IX

List of Figures Figure 1.1Implementation of clearinghouses in Latin America and the Caribbean on FGDC Registry(Hyman et al., 2002) _________________________________________________________ 1 Figure 1.2 Research Framework ______________________________________________________ 4 Figure 1.3 Research Flow Diagram ____________________________________________________ 5 Figure 1.4 Operational Plan __________________________________________________________ 6 Figure 2.1 Architecture of the World Wide Web, a classic client server design (Plewe, 1997) ______ 12 Figure 2.2Types of Internet GIS (adapted from Internet GIS presentation) (Lemmens, 2003) ______ 13 Figure 2.3 Interaction of stakeholders with Clearinghouse (Activity Diagram(Nebert, 2001) _______ 15 Figure 2.4 Funding Pool for SDI Implementation in Emerging Nations (Giff et al., 2003) __________ 16 Figure3.1 Field Work Methodology ___________________________________________________ 26 Figure 3.2 Time spent per day using GI by users ________________________________________ 29 Figure 3.3 Mode and frequency of data exchange among users and providers _________________ 30 Figure 3.4 Technical Barriers to GI data exchange _______________________________________ 30 Figure 3.5 Type of GI software technologies currently used ________________________________ 31 Figure 3.6 Frequency of Data Maintenance_____________________________________________ 31 Figure 3.7 Respondents by stakeholder grouping ________________________________________ 32 Figure 3.8 Responses by GI Sector ___________________________________________________ 32 Figure 3.9 Most favoured (a) Revenue model and (b) Funding Model for NGDC ________________ 33 Figure 3.10 Awareness of NSDI initiatives______________________________________________ 33 Figure 3.11 Level of support by GI organizations for future online service _____________________ 33 Figure 4.1 Interest vs. Power Grid Definition ____________________________________________ 42 Figure 4.2 Results of Interest vs. Power matrix __________________________________________ 43 Figure 4.3 Dependency vs. Capacity Matrix (Risk and Action) ______________________________ 45 Figure 4.4 Stakeholders GI needs vs. GI technology Capacity Matrix_________________________ 46 Figure 4.5 Data Requirements _______________________________________________________ 50 Figure 5.1 Steps for User Interface Design, Testing and Implementation ______________________ 56 Figure 5.2 Geospatial One Stop Conceptual Design(FGDC, 2003) __________________________ 58 Figure 5.3 Option 1: Decentralized Metadata Management ________________________________ 58 Figure 5.4 Central Metadata Management _____________________________________________ 59 Figure 5.5 Decentralized Metadata and Service Design ___________________________________ 61 Figure 6.1 Steps in Strategic Planning_________________________________________________ 68

International Institute For Geo-Information Science And Earth Observation X

List of Tables Table 2.1Comparative Summary of Cases reviewed............................................................................ 21 Table 2.2 Network Readiness Index- Extraction and comparison (2002)............................................. 23 Table 2.3 Classification of Clearinghouse in Jamaica........................................................................... 23 Table3.1 GI Applications within various sectors.................................................................................... 34 Table 4.1 Laws and Regulations having an impact on GI exchange in Jamaica.................................. 39 Table 4.2 Examples of current and potential use of geospatial data available through clearinghouse 41 Table 4.3 Stakeholders with high interest but low power ...................................................................... 43 Table 4.4 Stakeholders with high interest and high power.................................................................... 44 Table 4.5 Stakeholders with low interest and low power ...................................................................... 44 Table 4.6 Stakeholders with low interest and high power ..................................................................... 45 Table 4.7 Summary of Stakeholders’ Dependency vs. Capacity Risk -Action Matrices ....................... 45 Table 4.8 Stakeholders with high dependency and low capacity for GI................................................ 46 Table 4.9 Stakeholders with high dependency and high capacity ........................................................ 47 Table 4.10 Stakeholder with high dependency and low capacity ......................................................... 47 Table 4.11 Stakeholders with low dependency and high capacity........................................................ 48 Table 4.12 Summary of Stakeholders Analysis .................................................................................... 49 Table 5.1Results of Expert Evaluation .................................................................................................. 57 Table 5.2Specific Resource Requirements........................................................................................... 62 Table 5.3 Determination of Base Salaries............................................................................................. 63 Table 5.4 FTE and Salaries of Roles defined for clearinghouse........................................................... 63 Table 5.5 Comparative Summary Of Start Up Costs For Implementation ............................................ 63 Table 5.6 Comparative Analysis of Processes...................................................................................... 64 Table 6.1Goals and Success Indicators................................................................................................ 68

List of Appendix Appendix A Fieldwork Supplements.......................................................................................................91 Appendix B Network Readiness Index.................................................................................................112 Appendix C Stakeholder Analysis ........................................................................................................113 Appendix D User Interface Web Design Sample Pages......................................................................114 Appendix E General Resource Requirement For NGDC Implementation ...........................................117

International Institute For Geo-Information Science And Earth Observation XI

List of Acronyms

ANZLIC Australia and New Zealand Land Information Council CENS Comité Européen de Normalisation (CEN) CIAT International Center for Tropical Agriculture ESMI European Spatial Metadata Infrastructure FGDC Federal Geospatial Data Committee GDC Geospatial Data Clearinghouse GDM Geospatial Data Management GIS Geographic Information System GML Geographic Mark-up Language ICT Information Communication and Technology INCITS International Committee for Information Technology Standards ISO International Standards Organization INSPIRE Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe LAMP Land Administration and Management Program LAN Local Area Network LICJ Land Information Council of Jamaica LSAJ Land Surveyors Association of Jamaica NCGI National Clearinghouse for Geospatial Information (The Netherlands) NGDC National Geospatial Data Clearinghouse NLP National Land Policy NSDI National Spatial Data Infrastructure OGC Open GIS Consortium SDI Spatial Data Infrastructure SVG Scalable Vector Graphics TCP/IP Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol USA United States of America USGS United States Geographic Survey URISA Urban and Regional Information Systems Association VPN Virtual Private Network VRS Virtual Reference System WAN Wide Area Network XML eXtensible Mark up Language

Defining And Testing The Criteria For Effective Implementation Of A Geospatial Data Clearinghouse In Jamaica

Chapter 1. The Need for Clearinghouse in Jamaica 1

0

5

10

15

Number of Nodes

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Year of Implementation

Latin American and Caribbean Clearinghouse in FGDC Registry

1 The Need for National Clearinghouse in Jamaica

1.1 Background

The term geospatial data clearinghouse can be defined as “an electronic facility for searching, viewing, transferring, ordering, advertising and disseminating spatial data from numerous sources through the Internet and as appropriate, providing complementary services” (Crompvoets et al., 2003). Clearinghouse forms a fundamental component of National Spatial Data Infrastructures (NSDI) worldwide. Although the components of NSDIs vary per jurisdiction an assessment of a number of international definitions have summarized the five main components as “the policies, access networks, technical standards, people (including partnerships) and data (Rajabifard et al., 2002). Through the developments of clearinghouses, the NSDI is able to achieve its goal which is to “to reduce duplication of effort among agencies, improve quality and reduce costs related to geographic information, to make geographic data more accessible to the public, to increase the benefits of using available data, and to establish key partnerships with states, counties, cities, tribal nations, academia and the private sector to increase data availability” (Clinton, 1994).

1.1.1 Development Of Clearinghouses

Between 1994 and 2002, 67 countries established national clearinghouses (Crompvoets et al., 2002). The first national clearinghouse was established in the United States of America (USA) followed by several developments in Europe, Australia and later the south and Central American region. Clearinghouse implementation within the Central American region began in 1999 being established by Mississippi State University for the Gulf of Mexico(Hyman et al., 2002). However it was in 2001 that the numbers escalated being supported technically and financially by the USA.

Figure 1.1Implementation of clearinghouses in Latin America and the Caribbean on FGDC Registry(Hyman et al., 2002)

A total of 34 clearinghouses have been established of which 15 are currently hosted on USGS or FGDC websites. This represents approximately 50% of the implementation within the region. A review of those hosted on FGDC’s registry indicated a peak in 2001 followed



by a drastic decline in 2002 as shown in figure 1.1. This was associated with a major Central American project, which apparently ended in 2001. A lack of strategy to transfer technology and knowledge from the more developed to the less developed countries during project implementation has been cited as one of the reasons for the decline in the maintenance of the nodes. The countries within the region that are more developed have the tendency to establish and maintain clearinghouses on their own initiative. Although some experiences of implementation exist the quality of the clearinghouse to integrate user requirements is of greater concern (Hyman et al., 2002).

1.2 Problem Definition

Jamaica is located in the northern Caribbean Sea with a landmass of 10,991 square km and is the third largest island. The island is strategically located between North and South America providing easy trade and travel links. Jamaica is subdivided into 14 parishes (administrative boundaries) and has 2 cities, Montego Bay and Kingston. Kingston is the capital and the seat of central government and several private sector organizations(Kariyawasam, 2002).

1.2.1 Socio-Economic and Political Conditions

Jamaica is a member of the British Commonwealth and follows the Westminster Parliamentary model. The Governor General is the head of state while the Prime Minister is the head of government and leader of the majority in the elected House of Representatives. The population is 2,607,632 and more than 25% currently reside in the capital city for social, educational and economical reasons. Jamaica has a high young population with high literacy rate and ranks 3rd in the world with 98% literacy (STATIN, 2003). The education system is considered to be world class and consists of basic, primary, secondary and tertiary levels. Though not free, education is subsidized by the government, which seeks to give every child an opportunity to be educated up to the secondary level. Three Universities exist which not only serves the local population but also the entire Caribbean region. The society is marred by regular social unrest, which is defined by the ongoing political strife, high crime rate and economic instability. Survival strategies are more and more individualist and socially destructive(daCosta, 2003). Rising unemployment leads to high crime rates and is a major deterrent to investment and job creation(GoJ, 2003). As a result several sectors mainly the tourism, manufacturing and commercial sector have suffered termination of international relations. In addition there is mismanagement of natural resources and the environment, which leaves much of these resources highly depleted(daCosta, 2003).

1.2.2 NSDI initiatives in Jamaica

The vision for NSDI evolved out of a land titling reform process in the early 1980’s(Sorensen, 2000). However, NSDI initiatives in Jamaica started in 1991 with the formation of the Land Information Council of Jamaica (LICJ). The LICJ was formed from a small group of professionals who saw the vision to implement land related strategies under development in the National Land Policy (NLP). The LICJ is now a well established executive body comprising public and private professionals mandated to outline, coordinate and execute policies and technical programs for the development of GIS in Jamaica(daCosta, 2003). The NLP published in 1996, became increasingly necessary when it was observed that over the years Jamaica used its land/natural resources indiscriminately



with some 50% to 70% of development taking place outside of the formal system (daCosta, 2002). The NLP addresses issues relating to land management, policies to overcome these issues and strategies on implementing these policies. Two issues addressed in the NLP describes the existing problem with geospatial data:

• “The lack of knowledge and inaccessibility to existing data stores, which has resulted in difficulties in compiling basic inventories of land assets including government owned properties.

• Inadequate mechanisms to facilitate inter-agency sharing of information, which leads to costly duplication of data collection and storage efforts” (Patterson, 1994).

Several initiatives to tackle these and other problems have been developed and are currently being executed as far as possible.

1.2.3 Status Of Data Sharing And Distribution in Jamaica

The government is the main provider of geospatial data. Several government agencies are mandated to make their information available to the public. However for security purposes not all information produced is published. The status of sharing and access varies among these agencies. In some agencies information is freely exchanged, through an informal organizational network. In other contractual arrangements are made between interested parties. Others agencies will charge for data however the service is slow and in some cases the product does not satisfy the needs of the users. The service is hindered by the lack of a mechanism within the organization to make information readily accessible. Having recognized these issues LICJ has outlined the terms of reference for the establishment of a geospatial one-stop facility as a part of the Land Information Management component of the (Land Administration and Management Programme) LAMP to address the issue of access to geospatial data among the government agencies. This programme is also extended to include the private sector agencies later in the future. A work plan was developed in the past however because of several technological advancements in telecommunication, GIS applications and database developments this work plan is outdated. It has become necessary to redevelop this plan to reflect proper design, implementation and management of NSDI across the five sector groups that currently provide geoinformation.

1.3 Research Framework

As shown in figure 1.2, the research is specifically within the framework of clearinghouse development in Jamaica with particular emphasis on the institutional, management and technological requirements for successful development and use. It describes and analyses cases of international National Geospatial Data Clearinghouses (NGDC) implementation and uses these conclusions as inputs in the final design of the future NGDC.



Figure 1.2 Research Framework

1.4 Prior Works

Several researchers have explored technical, institutional and even cultural issues towards the development of geospatial data clearinghouses at different levels. The main issues currently being researched include metadata standardization, data exchange, supporting technological innovations, organizational involvement, legal and policy support, funding models and integration of commercial services. The efforts in the USA are considered as benchmarks for successful NGDC implementation. A number of its research projects are geared towards assisting other countries in developing their NGDC as well as building their own NSDI. These projects have produced substantial documentation on data and metadata standards, tools for update, funding program and organizational approach(FGDC, 2003). In Europe, researches are increasingly focusing on open standards and how to solve heterogeneity issues to facilitate more data sharing across national borders. There is also more emphasis on users requirements for clearinghouse services. Although most efforts have been individualistic, there are collaborative projects for seamless cross border GIS mechanisms to improve integration. The INSPIRE initiative towards the development of European SDI is one example of such efforts(van Lonen et al., 2004). Research on clearinghouse development at ITC mainly emphasizes technology and technical implementation with less detail on management. Some examples are listed below

• “Conceptual design of the Chinese national geospatial data clearing house prototype” looks at the stakeholders and general success factors for implementation(Yanying, 1996).

• “Guidelines for the development of a geospatial clearinghouse in heterogeneous environment” which focused on technical implementation considerations where the locality has varied interpretations of geospatial data (Radwan et al., 1997)

• “Development of a prototype for geographic data sharing in a distributed heterogeneous environment” which concentrated heavily on technical implementation issues(Balek, 1997).

• “Web based geoinformation supply system for the clients of the Survey Department of Jamaica” focused on cadastral data dissemination over the web with emphasis on Internet GIS functionality(Lewis, 2000).



• “The implementation of a clearinghouse user interface on the internet” focused on technical development procedure(Man-Ho, 2000)

• “A Conceptual design of the Ecuadorian geospatial data clearinghouse” which examined the broader context of NSDI and the feasibility of clearing design from an abstract level for Ecuador(Molina, 2003).

1.5 Main Objective

The main objective is to develop and propose a strategy for effective implementation and use of a geospatial data clearinghouse for Jamaica through the design and testing of a National Geospatial Data Clearinghouse (NGDC) prototype.

1.6 Research Questions

1. What technical, institutional and management issues need to be considered for NGDC development?

2. What management and implementation strategies can be drawn from the developments of NGDC internationally?

3. To what extent do GI users and providers exchange and use GI data in Jamaica? 4. What current technological, institutional and management issues affect GI related

activities in Jamaica? 5. Who are the stakeholders and how can their roles be assessed for future NGDC

implementation? 6. How can the NGDC user interface and architecture be designed and tested? 7. What guidelines are necessary for the successful implementation, management

and use of the NGDC in the future?

1.7 Research Methodology

The research is a combination of descriptive, evaluative and design. It involves qualitative analysis of data collected in the field. The various methods that will be employed are detailed in figure 1.3.

Figure 1.3 Research Flow Diagram



1.7.1 Literature Review

Literature review involves extensive research of various journal articles, conference proceedings, past thesis and reports, books, news articles and web references that detail information about clearinghouse development. The technique uses key words from the research questions to search authentic sources (libraries, search engines etc). Literature found was pre-analyzed for relevance to the topic based on the main issues and conclusions, specific results and derived research question(s). It has been found that literature review is a constant process as new articles emerge throughout the life of the research.

1.7.2 Situation Analysis

Situation analysis involves two main components; reviewing international cases of clearinghouse development to evaluate the specific lessons learnt and to review the situation in Jamaica as it relates to geographic information provision, exchange and use. Additionally it analyses the impact of the current ICT readiness and institutional issues on the future development of clearinghouse in Jamaica.

1.7.3 Stakeholder Analysis

Stakeholder analysis is used to determine the various organizations that have an interest in the development of the clearinghouse and who can contribute to future implementation of the clearinghouse. The stakeholders are assessed using a series of matrices (interest vs. power and GI dependency vs. capacity).

1.7.4 Design and Evaluative Testing

Design is done from two perspectives: technically for the user interface and conceptually for the architecture. The method used to test in both cases was evaluative design. For the user interface this involves a focused group evaluation among a set of stakeholders in the field and later among experts. The conceptual design options were evaluated based on resource requirements, costs and process time.

1.8 Operational Plan

Figure 1.4 Operational Plan



1.9 Thesis Structure

Chapter 1- The Need for Clearinghouse in Jamaica This chapter provides an overview of the research. It presents the background to the study, the research problem, the research framework and key references to prior works done. It further outlines the objectives, the research questions and the methodology used to answer these questions. Finally, it gives an overview of the structure of the thesis. Chapter 2- Review of clearinghouse developments Three main considerations for geospatial data clearinghouse are discussed in this chapter: the technical institutional and management requirements. Critical review of international clearinghouse development is also conducted to provide specific lessons to be later integrated in the guidelines for implementation. Chapter 3- GI data exchange in Jamaica (Field Study) This chapter details the activities and the results of data collected. The outcomes of fieldwork activities are based on the level of preparation and what was determined as the expected outcome. A systematic methodology for collection of primary and secondary data will be outlined. Chapter 4- GI environment and the stakeholders This chapter firstly describes the current situation (general socio-economic, political and technological situation) in Jamaica. Stakeholder analysis is then used to evaluate each stakeholder’s power, interest, capacity and dependency on GI data. Finally it extracts the user’s requirements for a geospatial data clearinghouse. Chapter 5- National Geospatial Data Clearinghouse (NGDC) prototype, design and evaluation The focus of this chapter is to describe three design options based on a set of design criteria. It will then evaluate these options from a management perspective considering the resource requirements, cost and processes. Chapter 6 Strategies and guidelines for future implementation of NGDC This chapter firstly outlines the policy requirements and the goals of the NGDC against success indicators. It further describes the phases involved in implementation. Chapter 7 Conclusion and Recommendations Finally, a summary of the findings and the results will be outlined as well as recommendation for further research.


Chapter 2. Review of Clearinghouse Development 9

2 Review of Clearinghouse Developments

2.1 Introduction

Similar to the banking clearinghouse system 150 years ago is the emergence of the Geospatial Data Clearinghouse (GDC) concept. The New York Clearing House Association was the first bank clearinghouse and in 1853 its role was to:

“Establish order from confusion, to simplify the chaotic exchange and settlement process among the banks of New York City”(The Clearing House Service Company, 2003).

With the explosion of technology and online information in the 1970’s, GI data was rapidly produced according to unique needs with unique software and hardware platforms in unique formats. It became very difficult to trace information, which lead to duplication and confusion. Ideally, the geospatial data clearinghouse is to provide a solution by answering the question of what data resides where and in what form. To do this effectively consideration for a number of issues is required. The use of appropriate technology together with involvement of the stakeholder (users and providers in both private and public sector and at all levels) and management can provide effectiveness to the implementation and use of clearinghouses. This chapter seeks to answer the research questions 1 and 2 by discussing the various considerations for GDC implementation. This includes a description of a GDC, its purpose and functionality, its components, Internet GIS, client/server and technical standards applicable to clearinghouse development. Institutional and management issues affecting GDC development are then discussed. International cases of GDC are reviewed to gather lessons on implementation strategies as a direct answer to question 2. The chapter concludes with a general review of ICT readiness and the status of clearinghouses in Jamaica in relation to international developments.

2.2 The Geospatial Data Clearinghouse

A GDC can be defined as a distributed and electronically connected network of geospatial data producers, managers and users(Clinton, 1994). It allows GI data providers to make known what geographic data exists, what is the condition of these data and what instructions are necessary to access geospatial data. Descriptions of these datasets are outlined by the provider and made available electronically(Radwan et al., 1997). The definition is extended to the discovery and use of GI services in the form of interactive maps and datum transformation which encourage users to see the condition of the data and establish business connections and trust(Crompvoets et al., 2003).

2.2.1 The Purpose and Functionality of Clearinghouses

The primary goal of a clearinghouse is to find spatial data throughout the entire GI community from a decentralized set of servers. It has three main purposes.

• To minimize duplication of effort in spatial data collection and processing



• To provide means to advertise data collection requirements, inventory, and quality

• To support documentation of basic spatial data sets for advised re-use for internal and external applications

The main function of a GDC is to allow access to geospatial data through descriptive details of the data by utilizing a web user interface. It helps the users discover data and simultaneously facilitates advertising for the data providers at minimal cost(Nebert, 2001). From a business perspective it pulls geospatial data users and providers together in a virtual market place.

2.3 Technological Aspects

The technical aspects incorporate all the supporting technologies that need to be considered in designing and implementing a GDC. How these technologies are integrated with the various components of clearinghouse is discussed.

2.3.1 Components Of Clearinghouse

Four (4) main components of geospatial data clearinghouse have been identified. These are geospatial data, metadata (including the metadata server), the user interface and the servers.

2.3.1.1 Geospatial Data

There are two categories of geospatial data; framework and thematic data. Framework data are the seven most frequently used datasets, which provide a reference for thematic data(FGDC, 2003). These may typically vary by location however as indicated below that should be considered when developing NGDC although these vary by region and country. These are usually collected by government agencies and therefore become national assets having potential for multiple applications(Groot et al., 2000).

1. Land use/cover 2. Cadastral 3. Hydrography 4. Transportation 5. Administrative Boundary 6. Ortho-imagery 7. DEM Foundation Data 8. Geodetic control

2.3.1.2 Metadata

Metadata includes the content, quality, currency, access and availability of geospatial data. For spatial information, metadata deals with the "what, when, who, where and how" of the data(ANZLIC, 2001). Metadata enables the use of geographic data in the most efficient way by knowing its basic characteristics. It facilitates discovery, retrieval and reuse of geodata(Buehler, 2003). There are three levels at which metadata may be used, for discovery (what data exists), for exploration (what data can be analyzed) and for exploitation (how can these datasets be obtained). This helps determine the content and the technology required for implementation when appropriately aligned with the users requirements.



2.3.1.3 The User Interface

Commonly referred to as the search or browse interface, the user interface is the electronic front door or the portal through which users can enter, discover, select and order data and GI services. It is based on communication protocols such as TCP/IP built on top of web browsers such the Internet Explorer or Netscape and facilitates different types of users. The user interface can facilitate either of two types of user interaction: browse or query. By browsing users can choose from categories of information while in querying users can specify exactly what they require using a simple or advanced search string. These communication protocols allow interaction between the clearinghouse gateway and local servers. According to some, the user interface can be implemented and accessed in three ways(Nebert, 2001).

• From a remote server by a search form or a java applet

• Customizable by the user even from a remote location.

• Located on the desktop and is fully controlled by the user, with direct connections to the remote servers.

The flexibility of the user interface will depend on the GI expertise of the users.

2.3.1.4 The Servers

There are several types of servers with different functions such as for web access, data storage servers, clearinghouse registry, metadata servers and servers for online or offline GIS processing. According to the design of the NGDC servers can be multi-purposed and must always be running. Depending on their purpose the type of machine, storage capacity and processing speed will vary. In a decentralized design a number of local servers; provide direct access, ordering, and delivery of geospatial datasets to user community. They are therefore managed and maintained by the GI providers(Groot et al., 2000).

2.3.2 Client-Server Technology

Clearinghouse is built on the client-server technology. The client-server processing design allows sharing of processes between the client (the computer receiving geospatial services) and the server (the computer hosting the geospatial service). A primary example is the World Wide Web as illustrated in fig 2.1. There are 3 ways in which the client server design can be implemented and this depends on the factors previously highlighted(Plewe, 1997).

• Thin client/ heavy server where users are restricted in the level of interactivity that can be conducted from the client side however processes are executed on the server machine and served on completion.

• The thick client /light server where users (usually GIS proficient) are provided with the tools to manipulate, interact and process data served by the server.

• Medium client/medium server where both computers share equal processes in order to execute geo-processes.

These are key consideration when developing the conceptual and physical design of the clearinghouse.

2.3.3 The World Wide Web (WWW)

The WWW is fast becoming a standard platform for GIS. The clearinghouse takes advantage of the advanced communication system, client/server technology and the distributed technology that comes with WWW to deliver metadata services(Plewe, 1997). Search engines such as Yahoo, Google and AltaVista utilize WWW to search and retrieve



information and this is the future paradigm anticipated by users of a geospatial data clearinghouse.

Figure 2.1 Architecture of the World Wide Web, a classic client server design (Plewe, 1997)

2.3.4 Internet GIS

Clearinghouse functionalities are integrating Internet GIS concepts in the form of interactive maps to aid users in data discovery and the display of search results. Internet GIS is a special GIS tool that uses the Internet as a means of accessing and transmitting remote geo-data; conduct analysis and present GIS results (Lemmens, 2003). Other useful and interchangeable terms are Networked GIS, Online GIS, Web Cartography, Distributed GIS, Web Mapping and Web GIS. Internet GIS brings several advantages to disseminating geospatial data.

• It provides world wide access to spatial information

• It uses the common web browsers, which provides a standard interface commonly used by web users as opposed to proprietary software Graphical User Interfaces (GUI). This also means lower cost of investment for data providers.

• It allows information to be accessed at the source, which also provides cost efficient maintenance and prevents duplication.

Internet GIS applications vary in terms of functionality and location. They fall into three broad categories metadata; spatial data dissemination and processing as shown if figure 2.2. Within these categories are five types of processes: raw data download, metadata search, map displays, geo-processors, web based query and analysis(Lemmens, 2003). A clearinghouse will need to incorporate a combination of these processes according to the requirements of the users. As the technology is fairly new its development is subject to four issues. These include

• The need for more dynamic web techniques to facilitate GIS functionality

• The security of data and private information

• The cost recovery aspects

• The speed of Internet data transfer to allow fast transfer of data



Figure 2.2Types of Internet GIS (adapted from Internet GIS presentation) (Lemmens, 2003)

2.3.5 Technical Standards

There is an increasing effort to adopt one common specification to facilitate interoperability and integration of data from various platforms(Groot et al., 2000). The International Standards Organization (ISO) represents the highest level of standardization. Other international standards bodies such as Open GIS consortium (OGC), Comité Européen de Normalisation (CEN) and (International Committee for Information Technology Standards (INCITS L1) liaison with ISO in developing and updating geographic information standards. For instance ISO has a technical committee (TC2100), which has representatives, which meet regularly with other standards bodies to update and publish GI standards. Specific countries have such as USA and Australia have advanced in developing standards according to these specifications. The Australian and New Zealand Land Information Council (ANZLIC) has identified three standards that affect clearinghouse development (ANZLIC, 2003):

• Content standards including land use codes, surveyor codes, data dictionaries for cadastre, geographical place names, bathymetry;

• Access standards including GDA94, ISO 19100 series (Geographic information), ISO 23950 (Information Retrieval - Z39.50), most OpenGIS standards; and

• Exchange standards such as Geography Markup Language (GML), Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG), Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs, also known as URLs).

2.3.6 Other Techno Innovations

The web has brought several innovative developments, which are being used for GI provision and exchange. Firstly, Java from Sun Microsystems is a object oriented programming language with advanced graphic features (Groot et al., 2000; Green et al., 2002) and is commonly used in the development of interactive mapping. Secondly, Scalable Vector Graphic (SVG) and Extensible Mark-up Language 3D (X3D) are able to display quality vector and raster data (in two to three dimensions) and also reduces image size(Green et al., 2002). Finally, GML is a newly developed data transfer which has provided an efficient way of distributing vector data using web feature servers instead of traditional CD-ROMS or transferring large files over the Internet.(Hansen, 2001).



2.4 Institutional Issues

“Institutions are considered the rules of the game in a society or humanly devised constraints that shape human interaction” (North, 1992). It includes policies and legislative tools that provide a structured way of interacting within the society.

2.4.1 Policies and Legislative issues

Policies and legislations are regulatory instruments used to steer and control the implementation of government objectives. Regulatory instruments such as pricing and access, security and privacy are important in the development of a national clearinghouse(Groot et al., 2000). In the United States an open access policy approach is adopted which has the advantage of encouraging value added product creation while in Europe the model is cost recovery and not as transparent. There is a need to formalize and harmonize access policies to foster collaboration among the European countries and encourage more GI commercial activities(Loenen et al., 2004). Although legislation differs per country specific legal issues affecting GI activities seem consistent among most countries. In Europe a number of legal and economic issues has been outlined as affecting SDI development including (a) rules and laws regarding access to government data, (b) copyright, database protection and intellectual property rights, (c) liability and (d) privacy protection. The United States is considered quite advanced in comparison to Europe with formal policies and laws such as Freedom of information act, no government copyright or database right and pricing restricted to cost of dissemination restriction(Loenen et al., 2004).

2.5 GI Stakeholders

Stakeholders include all actors or groups who affect, and/or are affected by, the policies, decisions, and actions of a project(Groenendijk, 2001). In national clearinghouse development these may include GIS organizations at local, regional and national levels, government organizations, private sector value added GI providers, NGO’s, international multi-lateral and bilateral agencies who provide funding for planning, development and resource management projects, and the business community that may indirectly use GIS data for commercial purposes(Nebert, 2001). There are also internal stakeholders who are typically involved in the daily operation of the clearinghouse.

2.6 Management Issues

A very important aspect of national project development is proper organization. It requires awareness of the overall situation; proper strategic planning clearly defined roles and responsibilities before, during and after the implementation.



2.6.1 Organizational Consideration

The management of clearinghouse involves definition of roles and responsibilities to ensure proper organization. Organization of a clearinghouse also includes the daily operation, assessment and management of required resources. Fig 2.3 describes typical roles and responsibilities of internal and external stakeholders including Clearinghouse Contributor/ Metadata Provider, Administrator and Manager (Nebert, 2001).

Figure 2.3 Interaction of stakeholders with Clearinghouse (Activity Diagram(Nebert, 2001)

2.6.2 Corporate Culture

Adoption and use of new GIS technology will vary with social conditions and circumstances. Culture is of particular relevance as it acts as the ‘hidden agenda’ behind the responses of society to the incoming technology(Man et al., 2002).Culture impacts the project development and is closely linked to the needs and culture of stakeholder organizations. Countries may have a combination of factors and it must be clearly understood by the responsible parties when developing clearinghouses. One of the most dangerous obstacles to implementing a NGDC is organizational barriers(Kibblewhite, 2000). Organizational barriers, cultures of "turf" protection and different mindsets can so easily undermine the best collaborative intentions.

2.6.3 Implementation Models

There are three basic models for implementation of clearinghouse service at the organizational level as indicated by (Nebert, 2001). 1. Consortium Approach where clearinghouse services is at a separate location and

shared by multiple organizations with a common discipline or geographic context. This model is most practical where technical and organizational constraints exist. It also encourages collaboration among participants in building collective metadata resource base across the organizations involved.

2. Corporate Approach where an organization hosting the clearinghouse service receives and evaluates metadata for quality, publication, style and content. It allows personnel and networking resources to be focused on developing the single clearinghouse service and computer within that one organization. The model is suitable for organizations with policies restricting public access to computers for security purposes.



3. Workgroup Approach where clearinghouse service is established at each organization where the data is collected, documented, managed and served. The persons involved in the data collection are responsible for the clearinghouse service, allowing the data and metadata to be highly synchronized leading to possible integration of metadata and databases. This however means limited coordination and therefore the roles at the local level must require high technical expertise.

2.6.4 Funding and Revenue Models

Consistent funding is considered to be critical to successful sustenance and maintenance of clearinghouse developments(Crompvoets et al., 2003). According to some, “funding models for SDI funding in developing countries must be creative and modeled based on tried and proven funding mechanisms”(Giff et al., 2003). A number of options falling in three main categories; government oriented, private sector oriented and alternative are indicated in figure 2.3. Several options can be combined including pooling of funds, non-monetary funds, public private partnership, government/donor partnership, and alternative funds.

Figure 2.4 Funding Pool for SDI Implementation in Emerging Nations (Giff et al., 2003)

Moreover there is a lot to learn from e-commerce revenue models. Revenue models can provide secure means of generating sufficient funds to maintain the NGDC. Several types of revenue models exist; membership fees, subscription, auctions, reverse bidding and pay per transaction. Revenue models are also influenced by the type of business models such as business-to-business (B2B) or business to customers (B2C) and in the case of NGDC government to government (G2G) or government to public (G2P). Clearinghouse services from private sector tend to be B2C(Vries, 2004).

2.7 International Review

2.7.1 NGDC Global Survey

Since 1994, 67 countries have implemented national clearinghouses on the web and there are still 13 that have projects towards future implementation. According to (Crompvoets et al., 2003) there has been an increase in the number of national clearinghouses implemented around the world but a general decline in management, use and financial



sustenance. Several characteristics were used to evaluate the clearinghouses including ease of measurement, objective character and clear presentation of history, access network, people (suppliers, coordination, users), data, policy and standards of the national clearinghouse environment. Listed below are a number of conclusions from the survey.

• The majority of national clearinghouses have adopted a centralized architecture, which proves more tedious to maintenance.

• Clearinghouses with web mapping facilities tend to attract more visitors. However not many have incorporated this in clearinghouse services.

• Majority of implementations are coordinated by public sector agencies. Only Netherlands and Dominica are coordinated by private sector.

• In general update frequency is low as a result of decline in clearinghouse management interest.

• The level of access does not improve after implementation. Also the number datasets does not increase for the majority of cases. Access is limited to metadata, resulting in further disinterest of many users.

• The stability of funding has a positive impact on people’s use and management and to the quantity of the data of the national clearinghouses. However most clearinghouses lack continuous funding.

2.7.2 International Case Review

Developed countries have employed different strategies in implementing national clearinghouses. This is evident by organizational approach, the management, the funding model and the architecture design. These three cases were reviewed based on the following

• The role of the private sector involvement in the Netherlands

• The role of political support and organizational networking in The United

• The development of inter-jurisdictional networks in Australia

2.7.2.1 The Netherlands NGDC

Organization The National Clearinghouse for Geoinformation (NCGI) in The Netherlands provides information about public and private geospatial data. NCGI was originally established in 1998 by RAVI (the Dutch geospatial data council) and developed by Geodan IT BV (a private sector GI company). It is now coordinated by the NCGI foundation, which consists of an executive board of founding members with a managing director. The membership broadly represents government agencies on national, regional and local levels and includes RAVI, which represents the political, international, and user board (Beltman, 1998). Management and Funding NCGI has several objectives in providing access to geospatial data through metadata services. These include

1. Improve the quality of decision-making and the exploitation of existing datasets, 2. Encourage the development of new information services 3. Reduce costs for data development and catalyse the coordination of GI

organizations. NCGI initially provided metadata services free of charge to the public, being fully funded by founding members, RAVI and the Ministry of Housing Spatial Planning and Environment until 2000.This funding was mainly for implementation and would not sufficiently cover



operational costs. Therefore the NCGI foundation developed a strategy relying heavily on financially contributions of GI suppliers to sustain the NCGI. The strategy would be successfully executed provided that there were at least 200 GI suppliers contributing 2000 ECU. However much of the GI suppliers shifted their focus from external issues (such as clearinghouse development) to internal organizational issues and by 2001 only 13 providers with a total of 500 datasets existed(Crommert, 2003). A new management strategy was developed which involved negotiating with private sector GI providers to adopt the NCGI as a business initiative. Geodan IT BV, one of the major private sector GI providers in the Netherlands adopted the NCGI technical operations on the agreement that NCGI foundation would facilitate the provision of GI projects. A percentage of revenue earnings from these projects would be pumped into the sustenance of the NCGI. Currently, Geodan IT BV provides consultancy services ensuring that NCGI functionalities are according to specifications of OGC. The Foundation is still the custodian and regulates the general activities of data accessibility and use. Technical Design NCGI was originally a centralized metadata system storing and managing metadata in a single location with links to GI providers through a simple user interface. However management became very difficult and GI providers found it more practical to develop and manage their metadata. This lead to the initiation of a pilot project in 2000 to redesign the NCGI(Crommert, 2003). The pilot focused on four main areas: desired technology, organizational involvement, integration with other regional and international clearinghouses and adoption of standards. The result was a decentralized system where metadata and geospatial data are maintained at the GI suppliers websites all linked to NCGI website. This provides the GI supplier with the ability to supply metadata, data as well as services.

2.7.2.2 The United States of America NGDC

Organization In 1994 the government issued an Executive Order (12906) mandating federal agencies to document and post the descriptions of geospatial data in electronic form so as to make it available across the Internet (FGDC, 2003).The clearinghouse and other spatial data activities are coordinated and organized by The Federal Geographic Data Committee ("FGDC"). FGDC was established by the Office of Management and Budget as an interagency committee and constitutes members of various government agencies on policy level. FGDC organizational structure comprises a steering committee, a coordination group, sub committees and workgroups. In implementing the national clearinghouse, FGDC sought to involve stakeholders from state, local, tribal government as well as academia, private sector and professional organizations(FGDC, 2003). Management and Funding The NGDC was developed through supporting political and institutional framework. The Circular A-16 developed in the Office of Management and Budget outlines the roles and responsibilities of agencies in developing the NSDI(US OMB, 2002). This stresses the importance of strategies, standardization, partnership, and the use of contracts to undertake data dissemination activities. The NGDC was initially funded by the Department of Interior under the executive order. This funding covered the cost of the initial prototype testing: standards development, and monitoring of the performance of the Clearinghouse. Since the initial implementation a series of funding programs have been administered by FGDC. These include the NSDI Cooperative Agreements Program (CAP), the Framework



Demonstration Projects Program, the Community Demonstration Projects, and the Community-Federal Information Partnerships proposal(FGDC, 2003). Through this cooperation FGDC was able to sponsor several local and international (both private and public sector) implementation projects. The benefits of these programs include the successful physical implementation of local clearinghouses and improved technical capacity. This has also substantially increased the awareness towards NSDI development nationally and internationally. Technical Design The NGDC is a distributed discovery mechanism for digital geospatial data. It provides access to clearinghouses through a server called the gateway, which connects to a registry of clearinghouse servers(Nebert, 2001). Metadata is collected in a standard format to facilitate query and consistent presentation across multiple participating sites. Clearinghouse uses readily available Web technology for the client side and uses the ANSI standard Z39.50 for the query, search, and presentation of search results to the Web client (FGDC, 2003).

2.7.2.3 Australia NGDC

Organization The national clearinghouse initiative in Australia is an environment that facilitates access to data, products and services. It incorporates discovery, transfer and access facilities; legal arrangements; coordination and management functions; the spatial information commercial market place in which data is value-added and integrated to produce products, services and solutions. Ideally, the Australian Spatial Data Clearinghouse includes: multi-jurisdictional data and products (formed by joining jurisdiction datasets to produce extended regional or national coverage); links to clearinghouse initiatives in the States, Territories and the Commonwealth; government agencies and private sector businesses that form the spatial information market place (Holland, 2002). ANZLIC is the national coordinating body for geoinformation activities and comprises representatives from the eight jurisdiction the Australian Commonwealth and the New Zealand Government. Each jurisdiction has a spatial information coordinating body which executes specific tasks as outlined by its work plan. ANZLIC has two standing committees (SDI and Industry Development) comprising broad public and private sector membership. (Williamson et al., 2003) and several workgroups such as the Metadata Working Group originally responsible for the clearinhouse development. Management and Funding ANZLIC’s 5 year strategic plan includes the development of a national clearinghouse as one of its goals(Holland, 2002). Although several jurisdictional and private nodes exist there is not a current national solution for clearinghouse services. The development of the national clearinghouse is currently being undertaken at the federal level through the metadata workgroup. One notable management strategy is the assessment of the current status of the Austalia Spatial Data Directory (ASDD); its use and the quality of its records. The audit proved that though the quality is of high standards it is not being optimally used and insufficient resources have been allocated to its maintenance.The private sector also has limited involvement in its maintenance. Recommendations towards improved use was accepted by the juridictions resulting in review and updating of the nodes. Consequently a workshop was organized to develop the concept of a national clearinghouse model and as



a result ANZLIC has established a Technical Working Group to design the national clearinghouse(Williamson et al., 2003). General Design The ASDD was established in 1998. ASDD is a distributed network of clearinghouses managed by Geoscience Australia while the individual nodes are implemented by state jurisdictions, government agencies and commercial organizations. Currently, the ASDD is the main source of data discovery through its metadata (over 30,000 entries held in 24 nodes). The technology being used for the ASDD is the Z39.50 search and retrieval protocol which when combined with the WWW provides a simple method of searching, discovering and retrieving geospatial data(ASDI,2003). The user interface incorporates different views based on discipline or application.



Table 2.1Comparative Summary of Cases reviewed

Characteristics Netherlands USA Australia and New Zealand

NGDC Initiation 1998 1994 1998

Organization/ Council

RAVI, Geodan IT BV, Executive board for NCGI foundation

FGDC, Steering committee, Coordinating group, Staff and Sub committees

ANZLIC, Public Sector Mapping Agencies, Australia Spatial Information Business Assoc, Spatial Science Coalition. The Spatial Information Industry Action Agenda

Funding /Revenue

Geodan and NGDC founding members Metadata free, pay for geo-data (pay per search)

Cooperative Agreements Program (CAP), Organizational Partnerships, Data free of charge

(For future National clearinghouse)

Fundamental datasets free of charge online, no

restrictions on commercial value

adding although each transaction will be

subject to licensing out of conditions for transfer

Responsibility To manage and maintain the NCGI and to ensure that quality is upheld by all GI providers.

Develop procedures and assist in the implementation of a distributed discovery mechanism for digital geospatial data.

ANZLIC responsible for developing national clearinghouse and guidelines for standards and technical issues

Standards adopted

OGC catalog service 1.0, CEN TC287 Corba implementation ISO 19115 OGC WRS 0.0.6(developing)

FGDC- Spatial Data Transfer (SDTS) Standard, ANSI NIST ISO USGS/FGDC Content Standard

Access standards- GDA94, ISO 19100 series Geographic information), ISO 23950 (Information Retrieval - Z39.50), most OpenGIS standards Exchange standards - (GML), Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG), Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) also known as URLs

Technology Mapswing Component Library, GeoKey meta info system

Z39.50 server, metadata software; Isite, metalite

Z39.50 search and retrieval protocol

General Architecture

Decentralized- providers maintain their own datasets and metadata

Decentralized by level in public sector

Decentralized by jurisdiction, no national clearinghouse currently exists

Number of Nodes

15 308 (globally) 24



2.8 Lessons From Clearinghouse Development

The status of clearinghouse development has indicated a number of useful lessons that can provide guidelines to future implementation as brought out the international assessment as well as the focused review of the USA, The Netherlands and Australia. The following points were extracted.

• Increasing roles and responsibilities of the stakeholders before, during and after implementation as in the case of United States’ collaborative projects and capacity building. A good network should be established among the organizations involved in clearinghouse development.

• Direct support from decision makers and the various political bodies in the form of policies and laws to promote awareness and encourage collaboration among organizations are necessary for successful implementation. Representatives from senior management and government positions are important support for development.

• An understanding of the user needs is necessary during the early stages to define the purpose of the clearinghouse. Thus technical implementation should involve the creation of user friendly, service driven and informative interfaces to attract the users

• Inclusion of the private sector as in the case of the Netherlands has a number of advantages to the parties however it sometimes causes uncertainty from data suppliers. They can play a greater role in the provision of value added services and technology support.

• Continued project funding is a requirement not only during physical implementation but also after. An appropriate funding model must be employed to motivate NGDC managers, data suppliers and users.

• Clearinghouse projects require strategic planning with goals and objectives for the future maintenance to adequately measure the impact of the implementation on the specific user groups.

• Implementation must consider the dynamism of technology, which affects the needs of users. The IT infrastructure and configuration of the clearinghouse must be flexible and upgradeable according to the constantly changing market needs.

2.9 General ICT and Clearinghouse Activities in Jamaica

2.9.1 Network Readiness and ICT Penetration

Network readiness is defined as “the degree to which a community is prepared to participate in the Networked World” (Kirkman et al, 2002). The Networked Readiness Index marks an important step forward by distinguishing enabling factors for network usability (see appendix b). According Network Readiness report 2002, Jamaica ranks 56th out of 75 countries the General Network Index. When compared with other countries as shown in table 4.1 specifically Trinidad and Tobago in the Caribbean and Honduras in Central America, Jamaica’s occupies a mid position indicating it is on average with ICT penetration. However when compared with the United States there is apparently a large gap as a result of the differences between less developed and more developed countries.



Country General

Network Index Network Use Network

Enabling Factors Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Jamaica 3.29 56 2.66 64 3.92 50 Trinidad and Tobago 3.52 46 3.04 49 4.01 47 Honduras 2.64 72 2.22 72 3.06 71 United States 6.05 1 6.07 2 6.03 2

Table 2.2 Network Readiness Index- Extraction and comparison (2002)

2.9.2 Clearinghouse Activities in Jamaica

The term “clearinghouse” in Jamaica is considered as a centre whether physical or virtual where information can be collected and distributed. It contains a catalogue service that allows the searching by key words or by reference and is synonymous to the functioning of public libraries where information is made publicly available. There are several small-scale systems, which collect and disseminate information within organizations and to the public. A summary of what exists in Jamaica is indicated in table 2.3.

Table 2.3 Classification of Clearinghouse in Jamaica The most significant evidence of clearinghouse development in Jamaica is the Caribbean Environmental Program Network (CEPNET). CEPNET is a project-based initiative managed and funded by United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) and Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) and launched in 1996(UNEP CEP, 1999). CEP was very active in the management of marine and coastal geospatial data dissemination in the Caribbean region during the early years of its implementation(St. Pierre, 2001). It was responsible for the development of a clearinghouse node located on FGDC server. There are now plans to redesign CEPNET according to the Global Program of Action (GPA) on marine pollution in collaboration with its coordinating office UNEP-GPA in The Hague. Initially, CEPNET employed a technology-oriented strategy to implement an application specific clearinghouse. Several unperceived constraints were observed limiting its overall impact. An analysis of the project during and after implementation concluded the following.

• Being a regional project the establishment of partnerships should have been less dependent on the institutional framework of a single country.

• There was no follow up programme after implementation.

• There was an obvious lack of management of the website.

Type of Operation Description Locally funded public sector

♦ Enviro-NET Jamaica-National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA)

♦ Agricultural data- Ministry of Agriculture ♦ Technical Information Centre-Bureau of Standards Clearing

House for Environmental Management Systems Information in Jamaica

Int’l funded public sector

♦ Clearinghouse on Health Sector Reform in Latin America and the Caribbean

♦ Jamaica Clearinghouse Mechanism (CHM) CEPNET-Caribbean Environmental Program NET

Commercial public sector

♦ eLandjamaica-National Land Agency (NLA)



• There was also no new activities developed to exchange knowledge and experiences with participating countries(St. Pierre, 2001).

2.9.3 Observations

• Currently one organization, NLA provides restricted geospatial information over the Internet through a commercial service, which is managed internationally.

• The concept of disseminating geospatial data on the web is still very new in Jamaica and therefore what is provided on websites are limited to static maps of basic geospatial information.

• Non-conventional sectors such as tourist board are becoming more GIS oriented to incorporate interactive mapping as a part of Internet service delivery to customers.

2.10 Conclusion

This chapter addressed technical, institutional and management considerations for developing national clearinghouse development. The technical issues mentioned represent the general aspects and is by no means exhaustive. Specific issues mentioned included the interaction of the components of clearinghouse such as user interface and servers, the technologies such as Internet GIS, XML, GML and technical standards. The role of institutional issues was later discussed such as legislative and policy requirements. The management issues included the organizational consideration for clearinghouse implementation, stakeholders, culture, implementation models and funding models. The chapter then examined the status of clearinghouses internationally with specific reference to three cases; The Netherlands, The USA and Australia and described the current management strategies in order to extract specific lessons for future development and maintenance. Finally the chapter looked at the local scene to generally define and describe existing clearinghouse activities in Jamaica.


Chapter 3. Status of GI Data Exchange in Jamaica (Field Study) 25

3 Status of GI Exchange in Jamaica (Field Study)

3.1 Introduction

The previous chapter assessed the general requirements for clearinghouse development as well as the current situation of clearinghouses internationally. This chapter attempts to answer question 3 by describing the current situation of GI data provision, exchange and use among the GI users and providers in Jamaica. It is based on the data collected in the field through interaction with the different stakeholders within the GI community. Field study will aid in answering the questions of what is a suitable model for Jamaica, how should the process of implementation be and when will this be feasible.

3.2 Area of Field Study

The field study was conducted in Kingston, Jamaica. Jamaica is the largest English speaking Caribbean island and is playing a vital role in the regions development economically, socially and academically. Kingston, the capital city has the highest concentration of activities both commercially and socially. It is located south east of the island and is the smallest of 14 parishes in size. Majority of the central and head offices of both private and public sector organizations are located in Kingston. This provided the advantage of easy access to the various organizations involved in the study.

3.3 Objective of Field Study

The objective of the field study was to collect data and references to answer the following questions.

� Who are the providers and users of Geoinformation? � What are their current strengths and weaknesses in relation to GI development? � What methods are used in acquiring and exchanging information? � What institutional and technical challenges are being experienced? � What the stakeholders require from a clearinghouse?

3.4 Methodology

There are two main blocks that define the method employed during fieldwork as shown in figure 3.1. The first block represents the framework for the data that was to be collected. By using the research questions and the fieldwork objective, the type of data to be collected was assessed being primary and secondary data. Primary data collection is considered to be first hand information about the current situation being investigated. It includes three tools; questionnaire surveys, a workshop and several interviews. Questionnaires can be considered an inexpensive means of obtaining information in a relatively short period. A workshop is suitable for familiarization with stakeholders and to sensitize them through knowledge exchange and discussions. In this study it was also useful to foster focused group evaluation of the clearinghouse prototype. The methodology also includes the preparation process, which incorporated consultation with the experts and authorities in Jamaica. This contributed to the design of questionnaire and the organization and planning



of the one-day workshop and also for the type of questions that were to be answered from the survey.

Figure3.1 Field Work Methodology

3.4.1 Pitfalls And Problems

• Most of the users were also providers of some form of GI. Differentiating them proved very difficult when distributing questionnaires for the survey

• It was a hectic period for some organizations being interviewed resulting in re-scheduling or canceling of a few key persons to be interviewed

• A national holiday resulted in the loss of a few valuable work days further limiting the time for data collection

• Limited access to some internal documents, which were considered confidential and could not be used for the research

3.5 Stakeholder Identification

Literature review provided an indication of the general categories in which the stakeholders were to be defined. A brain storming exercise was conducted which incorporated as many organizations based on background knowledge of the study area. This list was tabulated with contact information and later refined through confirmation with the local authorities. The categories identified were generally classified as users and providers but further included public and private sectors, NGOs, academia, decision makers and legislators. The following represents the framework for identifying stakeholders.

• Free from bias or exclusion yet targeting existing and potential GI users and providers

• Organizations whose mandate includes the manipulation of geoinformation

• Organizations that are indirect (secondary) users of geoinformation

• Organizations involved in policy and legislation The stakeholders that were identified represented those who would receive questionnaires and invitation to attend the workshop as well as those to be interviewed.



3.6 Primary Data Collection

3.6.1 Survey: Questionnaire Design And Development

The main purpose of the questionnaires was to assess the status of geographic data exchange among the GI organizations and to determine the requirements for future implementation. The surveys sought to examine the institutional and technical issues relating to GIS and assess the level of NSDI awareness.

3.6.1.1 Structure And Distribution Of Questionnaire

Two questionnaires were designed and issued under two broad stratifications, that of user and provider. Each questionnaire was subdivided into two sections, institutional and technical. The questions were composed such that the expected answers could be easily derived. The type of questions was mainly “multiple choice” for ease of completion. Other question types included short explanation and filling in tabular information (See appendix a for sample questionnaire). The questionnaires were designed using other sample questionnaires such as The USGS Standards Survey and The URISA Survey Of Public Agency GIS Product/ Service Distribution And Cost Recovery. A package was prepared consisting of the questionnaires, the invitation and schedule of the workshop and sent digitally to the National GIS Coordinator who emailed and delivered them manually to as many contacts as possible. The contact list also included members of LICJ and the Land Surveyors Association of Jamaica (LSAJ). Forty questionnaires were distributed two weeks before the workshop. In most instances both types of questionnaires were sent to a GIS representative within an organization. The target members were mid- management with GI experience, directors and decision makers.

3.6.2 NSDI One Day Workshop

The Workshop entitled – “NSDI facilitating geospatial data sharing among users and providers” began at 9am on October 10,2003 with 40 participants registered from 23 organizations. Three presentations were given, the first on international clearinghouse activities and the second on local NSDI initiatives and the third on organizational GI strategies to improve service delivery. Several activities were conducted including,

• External environmental analysis- to provide detail on the technical, organizational and institutional strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats related to GIS use in the organizations. This was done by the five GI sectors.

• An exploration of the GI market- aimed at reviewing existing applications and exploring potential uses of GI within the organizations.

• Evaluation of the user interface design- the pages were introduced in an open forum and comments were taken as to preferences, areas that needed clarification and factors that would affect its use. The suggestions were to be used in the final phase of the design.

• Evaluating existing clearinghouses. An evaluation form was provided which gave the participant the opportunity to analyze local websites and international ones. This was the least participated because of interest of time.



3.6.3 Interviews

Interviews were useful in obtaining background information as well as clarifying a number of issues in the questionnaires. A total of 20 persons were interviewed from 15 organizations. Typical issues discussed during interviews were; strategic alignment of technology and organization, customer orientation, role in GI development in Jamaica, problems experienced with exchanging or obtaining information, type of projects and the levels of collaboration, integration of GI and its impact on business processes, perspectives on implementing NGDC. The interviews confirmed the status of private and public sector GI activities.

3.7 Secondary Data Collection

Secondary data are background information in the form of reports, legislations, evidences that can be used to substantiate conclusions to make them as objective as possible. A summary of the types of data collected is listed below.

• Policy documents

• Questionnaires

• Pamphlets

• Internal Policies

• Metadata documentation

• Internationally Funded Project Reports

• Excerpts of Statistical Reports

• Legislative Acts

• Sample questionnaire towards GIS implementation in local offices

3.8 Validation of Field Data Collected

A large quantity of information was collected during the field exercise pertaining to the survey conducted and the NSDI one-day workshop. The interviews and other background documents represented at least 35% of the information collected. The quality of the field data was evaluated for completeness, accuracy and reliability.

3.8.1 Completeness of Results

Approximately 80% of the target group responded from each sector at local and national levels providing a satisfactory overview of the stakeholders. Unanswered questions were clarified through telephonic and personal interviews. However a few cases existed where information was unavailable to answer particular questions.

3.8.2 Accuracy of Results

The data collected are considered accurate because they compare well with background information. Trends detected among the responses along with reference material confirmed specific issues that were being investigated. For instance the evaluation of framework datasets used in Jamaica fits well with the seven core datasets identified by FGDC.



3.8.3 Reliability of Results

The data is considered to be reliable on the basis that the respondents are conversant and knowledgeable about the issues raised during the workshop and the survey. They also represent key persons within the GI organization, GIS committees and GI societies.

3.9 Survey Results

A total of 40 questionnaires were issued and 30 were received representing a 75% return rate. The responses were received from the main sectors of the GI community. It also represents stakeholders having varied levels of influence or stake in GI activities and who extensively use geographic information or develop geospatial datasets. In addition stakeholder organizations mandated to integrate GI data in their business processes are included.

3.9.1 Summary of Technological / Technical Issues

The status of each organization’s technical and technological capacity was investigated. A summary is presented below.

I. GIS daily use among users The use of GIS among users was less than 5 hours per day for more than 50% of the respondents and most of the information received was in graphical forms as shown in fig 3.2.

Figure 3.2 Time spent per day using GI by users

II. Data Exchange

Data exchange was assessed on the 6 most common modes of exchange. These were CD Rom, diskette, Internet, hard drive, Intranet and email. The users and providers were evaluated separately. However both responses indicated CD Rom is the most frequently used mode of exchange as shown in figure 3.3. The least frequent mode of exchange among providers was Internet and in the case of users diskette and intranet were equally low.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

No.s

<5hrs >5hrs 5hrs

time

Time spent per day using GI



02468

10121416

No.s

cdha

rddr

ivedis

kette

intra

net

email

Type

Mode of Exchange by users

Series102468

1012

No.s

CDHar

ddriv

eDisk

ette

Inter

net

EmailInt

rane

t

Mode

Mode and Frequency of data exchange

high

medium

low

Figure 3.3 Mode and frequency of data exchange among users and providers

III. Barriers to Exchange

A number of technical issues relating to difficulties in exchanging information were assessed among the GI providers. The highest barrier to data exchange was indicated as a lack of metadata as shown in figure 3.4.

01234567

No.s Responses

Inco

mpa

tibilit

yIn

terp

reta

tion

Form

at

Ref

eren

ce fr

ame

Qua

lity

Met

adat

aEx

chan

gePo

licie

sR

eluc

tanc

eO

ther

Type

Barriers to exchange -GI providers

Barriers

Figure 3.4 Technical Barriers to GI data exchange

IV. GI Technology

GI technology is translated to mean the type of software being utilized among the GI community. The GIS software package most commonly used among the users and providers are ArcView and AutoCAD, which is followed by ArcGIS while the least used software, is Idrisi as indicated in figure 3.5.



0

4

8

12

16

20

No.s

ArcGISArcview

PCArcInfoMapInfoIdrisi

Ilwis

ERDAS

AutoCAD

PCI Geomatics

Software

GI software Use

User

Provider

Figure 3.5 Type of GI software technologies currently used

V. Network Infrastructure

The majority of organizations interviewed are equipped with Local Area Network (LAN) however 49% of them are not linked externally. Only 13% are linked to a Wide Area Network (WAN) and again 13% do not have a LAN.

VI. Data Acquisition And Management Data acquisition methods in office include digitizing while in the field the use of GPS is 90% among the GI providers. However management of data is quite inconsistent with 30% having metadata and update frequency generally done when necessary. Framework datasets are maintained by a number of providers. The dataset mostly updated is the roads network whether for main, parochial or in the metropolitan region. Land registration and building dataset are maintained but only by a few organizations. Metadata is maintained by 30% of the data providers. However it is not systematic, standardized or comprehensive. Fig 3.6 indicates the frequency of GI maintenance by the data providers.

Figure 3.6 Frequency of Data Maintenance

3.9.2 Summary Of Institutional And Management Issues

The institutional issues were likewise assessed and the main results are presented below. I. Classification of Stakeholder Organizations

The government sector is the largest group of users and providers being more than 50%. The academia and statutory groups have the least GI representatives as shown in Figure 3.7.

Frequency of Data M aintenance

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Daily Weekly Monthly Yearly Other

sequence and f requency

frequency



GI Sectors

3%24%

14%42%

17% Security

Utility

Land Mgmt

Land &Enviro

Demography

02468

101214

No.s

Acade

miaGov

Semigo

v

Private

Statuto

ry

Type

Classification of Organizations

User

Provider

Figure 3.7 Respondents by stakeholder grouping

There are five major GI sector groups in Jamaica. These are utility, security, land management, land & environment and demography as indicated in figure 3.8. It was found that most of the representatives were from the land & environment sector because it included several local offices. The survey was conducted at national and local levels most offices being at national level.

Figure 3.8 Responses by GI Sector

II. Skilled Personnel The respondents’ type and level of GI related expertise was summarized. Most of the respondents have high skills in GIS however Internet GIS concepts are least known. Other expertise included Geography, Land surveying, Geodesy, Photogrammetry/Remote Sensing, Computer Science and Engineering. The percentage of respondents with different qualification at certificate, diploma and postgraduate were also summarized. The postgraduate level qualification was highest being 44%.

III. Revenue And Funding Models The respondents were asked to indicate which funding and revenue models would be most suitable for the development of the clearinghouse. For the revenue model 40% indicated found most suitable to the respondents was the membership fee while advertising was least favored. On the other hand the most appropriate funding model was pooling of funds together while the funding by the government (public) was the least appropriate.



Funding Model

0123456789

PPP

Poolin

g of F

unds

Externa

l Fun

ding

Cost s

harin

g

Revolv

ingPub

lic

Int'l L

oan

Funding Model

01234567

N o.s

Type

Revenue M odel

Revenue M odel

Figure 3.9 Most favoured (a) Revenue model and (b) Funding Model for NGDC

IV. NSDI Awareness There are 8 initiatives currently being undertaken or to be undertaken in the near future by the Geospatial Data Management (GDM). Knowledge of these initiatives was used as a basis to assess the NSDI awareness among the stakeholders. The large scale IKONOS mapping project initiative was the most well known as indicated by 75% of the respondents. The establishment of the GIS center and the clearinghouse development were the least known among the respondents as shown in figure 3.10.

1. Collaboration with GI organizations in private and public sector

2. Establishment of GIS Center 3. Development of a Clearinghouse for

geographic data 4. Establishing a GPS Network 5. Training of Government staff in GIS 6. Large-scale digital map creation

using IKONOS 7. Digital Cadastral Index Map creation 8. GIS in Schools

Figure 3.10 Awareness of NSDI initiatives

V. Online GI Service Support The GI providers indicated their support for a future online GI service support. Most of the respondents indicated their willingness to conform to open standards in support of online services as indicated in figure 3.11.

Figure 3.11 Level of support by GI organizations for future online service

0

5

10

15

20

No.s

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Type

NSDI Initiative

NSDI Initiative

01020304050607080

Responses (%)

Interactive web

Publish Metadata

Invest NGDC

StandardsTraining

Type

Online GI Support(%)

Support(%)



3.9.3 Summary of Workshop Results

3.9.3.1 Internal And External Environment Scanning

The internal and environmental scanning exercise was done according to the five GI sectors. Organizations highlighted a number of existing strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats the main conclusions from this exercise are indicated below. (See also appendix)

I. Strengths a. Available technical resources b. Management support c. Capacity building at various levels (institutional and academic) d. Partnerships and collaboration for projects

II. Weaknesses a. Limited sharing of geospatial data due to uncertainty b. Lack of funding resources to maintain technical capacity c. Too many organizational levels leading to bureaucracy d. Outdated laws and limited policies to support data sharing

III. Opportunities a. New Laws being enacted to support e-commerce and access to information b. Opening the market to international investors can allow more IT penetration

IV. Threats a. Security of data b. Staff attrition c. Lack of funding d. Data out-datedness

3.9.3.2 GI Applications within the various organizations

The table below provides details of the type of applications being used within the various organizations.

ACADEMIA/ RESEARCH UTILITIES

LAND AND ENVIRONMENT

LAND MANAGE-MENT SECURITY

DEMOGRAPHY

• Facility management

• Tracking potential and past students

• Student accommodation service using GIS

• Resource management

• Alien Species analysis

• Modelling traffic route

• Asset management

• Thematic Mapping and analysis

• Tracking application status

• Field data collection

• Digital Mapping of Cadastral Boundaries

• Commercial data dissemination service

• Crime analysis

• Event Monitoring

• Traffic report

• Disease /outbreak analysis

• Statistical mapping

• Crime report

Table3.1 GI Applications within various sectors

3.9.3.3 Results of User Interface Evaluation

The following represents the comments on the initial design

• Search criteria should be more comprehensive. Specifically the thematic search should incorporate more data themes and should be orderly.

• An interactive map must be included for easy area selection



• Organizational search must be more stratified at different levels to avoid confusion. For example the land environment organizations function at different levels.

• Services must be specific to different GI sectors currently too general

• Policies should be clearly defined

• Commercial activities should be properly regulated and free from bias

• Interface technical design must be consistent

• Logos and symbols must be used on permission

3.9.4 Interview Results

The interviews represent a mixture of ideas and opinions of what the perception of a NGDC is to be and the expected benefits. In summary the following points were observed.

• Several isolated and ad-hoc GI projects are being undertaken with limited guidance within some organizations while other organizations are outsourcing GIS development to private sector companies

• Some private sector agencies do not perceive high returns on investment in a clearinghouse for their business as they already have a broad client base

• High costs associated with buying GI data for mission specific projects have lead to duplication of basic framework data

• A strategy to assess user needs for a Enterprise GIS by questionnaire within one government sector is currently being developed and issued at local level

• Progress is being made towards the implementation of an automated workflow process for tracking planning applications, which will later incorporate online GI processes

• There is a indirect GI network among various organizations as a result of associations, committees and university alumni which fosters sharing of GI information and collaboration

• There is a concern for the protection of valuable and sensitive datasets which hinders exchange

• The process of obtaining GI is considered to be very delayed making users unsatisfied

3.10 Summary Of Results

The results were to assess the status of GI use and exchange within Jamaica. The results indicate GIS technology is being used extensively within the individual organizations. On the other hand there is a lack of metadata, which makes the discovery, and exchange of geospatial data very difficult. The data collected in the field exercise is sufficient to extract and analyse the stakeholders and determine what are their requirements for the future clearinghouse service. Given the time constraints and scope of this research the results are able to meet the requirements of the research.

3.10.1 Technical advances

• Satisfactory level penetration of Geo-ICT (GIS software and network within organizations along with high levels of internet access).

• High level of capacity building in Geo-ICT taking place at all levels (secondary, tertiary, organizational).



• Ongoing NSDI related projects (Ikonos Mapping, Cadastral Index, Virtual Reference System network, (LAMP) Projects.

3.10.2 Institutional advances

• Organizations awareness of NSDI

• Evidences of indirect or direct sharing relationships, collaboration and partnerships

• On going meetings and action plans for achieving outstanding initiatives

• Organizations management realizing the need for GI policy and some legislations are being upgraded

• GI providers realize the need for clearinghouse and will invest in the future

3.10.3 Current Challenges in establishing NSDI

• Poor data and metadata management practices

• Lack of GI policies to encourage sharing and exchange

• Lack of skilled GIS expertise though lot of capacity building and head knowledge

• Insufficient Political support

• Lack of funding models and continuous financing

3.11 Conclusion

This chapter provided a description of the extent to which users and providers are exchanging geo information in Jamaica based on field study. The fieldwork exercise followed a structured methodology in the collection of information regarding institutional and technical issues affecting GI data exchange in Jamaica. It utilized three main techniques (workshop, questionnaires and interviews) to gather information in a limited time. The workshop was mainly useful in facilitating the evaluation of the web user interface. Questionnaires issued prior to fieldwork were collected during the workshop and during interviews. The questionnaires provided a speedy way of collecting large quantities of information and were structured to address specific issues. The interviews conducted were useful in clarifying unanswered issues as well as obtaining background information from stakeholder organizations. There were a few challenges faced during field exercise including cancellation of interviews, holidays shortening the data collection time, difficulties in reaching specific personnel and reluctance to provide certain “sensitive” internal documentation). Overall, the fieldwork provided sufficient information about the current situation as well as specifically about the stakeholders.


Chapter 4. GI Environment and the Stakeholders 37

4 GI Environment and the Stakeholders

4.1 Introduction

The previous chapter provided a summary of primary and secondary data collected regarding GI data exchange among users and providers in Jamaica. This chapter will attempt to answer research question 4 and 5 by firstly analysing the current technological, institutional and managerial setting in Jamaica to assess its readiness for a geospatial data clearinghouse. It will then analyse the stakeholders and assess their level of contribution as well as the level of impact the future implementation will have on them. The stakeholders’ analysis utilizes a technique of interest vs. power matrix to assess their influence as well as dependency vs. capacity matrix to assess their ability to adapt and contribute to the future development. The chapter also will extract and present the institutional, technical and data requirements based on observations from field study data.

4.2 Technological Setting

ICT is developing rapidly in Jamaica in four main areas; ICT policy, level of ICT access, extent of ICT education and finally general ICT penetration on society are four areas discussed.

4.2.1 ICT Policy

Since the introduction of the Telecommunications Act in 2000, several policies towards networking the country have been developed.

�� Establishment of the Office of Utilities Regulation �� Removal of all trade tariffs on ICT equipment �� Development of a 5-year strategic plan outlining the vision for ICT use in Jamaica �� E-Commerce Policy detailing plans to introduce digital signature and privacy laws,

laws on computer misuse and laws for consumer protection. This may have a positive impact on clearinghouse development, as increasing options for Internet services can reduce the cost of implementation and maintenance. It will also encourage open access policies inviting more participation of GI users providers and value added service providers(Kariyawasam, 2002).

4.2.2 Network Access

Access to telecommunications infrastructure is generally good in most urban areas with a national tele-density of 23%. With mobile technology increasing at a rapid rate the level of land line installations have reduced. Internet access is becoming more open to the general public as the level of licensed Internet Service Providers (ISP) have substantially increased from 2 in 1999 to 22 in 2003. The increased level of licensed ISP has encouraged much competition and thus reducing the price of Internet services making it more accessible to the society(Kariyawasam, 2002). In addition results of field study indicate an increasing level of access to network facilities within GI organizations. This is another positive impact for the development of clearinghouse as organizations become familiar with the



convenience of exchanging across the Internet they will more readily recognize the benefits of a clearinghouse and encourage its use in the future.

4.2.3 Network Learning

A number of institutions have been equipped with the relevant infrastructure to foster increased computer skills. Computers are available in primary, secondary and tertiary schools with 170 of 250 schools being equipped with computers. At the tertiary level most computer labs are networked and have Internet access. The level of capacity building in ICT is increasing but at slow rate as many teachers and educators are recently trained or gaining computer knowledge and therefore require careful guidance. At the tertiary level at least 250 students are trained in IT and Computer Science(Kariyawasam, 2002). Young professionals will be advanced in innovative Internet service development including the clearinghouse. In addition, the clearinghouse design will need to consider the growing demand for clearinghouse service for research purposes.

4.2.4 ICT in Society

According to a recent ICT survey, there are 150,000 Internet users in Jamaica representing 5% of the total population(Kariyawasam, 2002). The age range of Internet users generally varies between 22 and 45 and the females dominated the males by 5% in the use of Internet. The general public domain is also being furnished with ICT to better serve the society through e-commerce and general Internet access. Through these initiatives the information infrastructure is being established, the clearinghouse being a one of the components.

4.3 Institutional Setting

Jamaica has several laws and policies that regulate the functions of institutions involved in GI exchange. The following section outlines the laws and the supposed impact they have n geoinformation activities.

4.3.1 Laws And Regulations Affecting Geo- Information Exchange

The judiciary system in Jamaica incorporates the Constitution of 1962 and several laws, which are enforced by the Supreme Court. Several of these laws affect the way in which geoinformation can be used in a digital environment or how it will be exchanged across the Internet. These laws are mainly associated with two sectors: the Land and Environment and Commerce, Science and Information Technology. Many of these laws have been in existence before the digital age of IT and GIS and therefore do not make provision for the more modern ways of collecting and transferring digital geospatial information. This has often been cited as an impediment to the certainty of transactions especially among Land surveyors. As a result the Land Surveyors Association of Jamaica (LASJ) has drafted an updated Land Surveyors Act, which includes modernized techniques and equipment used in the collection of land information critical to land management. This act is currently in parliament awaiting approval and will be passed in 2004.



Table 4.1 Laws and Regulations having an impact on GI exchange in Jamaica

The government is the largest provider of geospatial data in Jamaica and all information created by the government is considered state resource. This information is to be made available to other government agencies at recovery cost. However this is not currently stipulated resulting in restricted access to some geospatial data produced and high levels of bureaucratic barriers. Two Acts have a direct impact on GI activities in Jamaica.

♦ The government retains copyright on all data generated by its agencies. However in the current Copyright Act government agencies are considered custodian but do not possess the right to the materials as agents of the Crown. There is no policy to enable value added use of datasets belonging to the government however contractual agreements between government employees and independent contractors and the agency representing the Crown are being considered. Authorization before the use of specific data must be given and is usually a long process.

♦ The recently passed Access to Information Act states; “The public a general right of access to official documents held by public authorities, subject to exemptions which balance that right against the public interest in exempting from disclosure governmental, commercial or personal information of a sensitive nature” (Cooke, 2002).

This provides advancement in support of data access and sharing however as stated it will be subject to the organizations’ perception of what is sensitive information. The Act is not yet enforced, as there is still controversy as to what internal documents are to be made public. It is also possible that the enforcement of this law will not take effect until several years into the future. Therefore even though it is a positive policy initiative it the impact on the geoinformation industry may not be felt until several years in the future.

4.4 Management Setting

The management of GI in Jamaica is closely linked to the government and their relation to the private sector organizations.

Sector Legislation Land And Environment

Titles Act Registration of Titles Act Mining Act of 1947 Lands (including Crown Lands and Land Settlements) Act Land Surveyors' Act 1979 Land Acquisition Act The Town and Country Planning Act, 1974/88 Land Development and Utilisation Act 1996

Commerce, Science and Information Technology

The Copyright Act No. 4, September 1993. The Copyright Amendment Act No. 29, September 1999. Trademarks Act No. 32 of 1999 Access to Information Act, 2002 Telecommunications Act, 2000 The Office of Utilities Regulation 1995



4.4.1 Government Role In GI Provision

The government through the various ministries and public sector agencies play a vital role in the protection, management and proper use of the countries resources; natural and man-made, renewable and non-renewable. Government agencies are currently undergoing a major transformation under the Public Reform Policy with a vision of “Open and Impartial Public Service. Two key objectives identified through this program are directly linked to the provision of geoinformation.

• “To create a social and legal framework in which equity, business (corporate and individual enterprise) can flourish;

• To progress a knowledge society, providing timely and accessible information in support of enhanced service delivery(Cooke, 2002).

A few organizations have upgraded their services to effectively fulfill their mission including the local government agencies, the transport sector and the land agencies. The government’s role also incorporates the formulation of policies that act as tools for implementing mechanisms that will improve access to information within and among organizations. In order to maintain its vision of “good governance” the government is promoting openness and transparency within the various agencies.

4.4.2 Public Private Partnerships

The government has engaged in several large-scale GI projects with the private sector, which encourage further collaborative efforts. These projects tend to incorporate technologies and expertise of the private sector over an extended period and are partially funded by International funding agencies. A contract and terms of reference precedes the execution of the project. Other projects are completely funded by the international organizations and over time the project is handed over to the government. The loan is usually repayable through taxes or tolls as in the case of the Hi way 2000 project.

• Land Administration and Management Program- land regularization project

• eLandjamaica- Cadastral Internet mapping service

• Hi-way 2000- development of north and south coast high way system

• Large Scale Mapping Project- mapping all parcels with IKONOS imagery

• Virtual Reference System- development of GPS stations across the Island

• AMANDA Tracking System- for Urban and Regional Planning

4.5 Stakeholder Analysis

Stakeholder analysis is an instrument for the identification of stakeholders, the assessment of their interests and other relevant attributes, and their relationships(Groenendijk, 2001). An overview of stakeholder analysis reveals various methods to assess stakeholders for project development. One of the more common methods includes evaluation of each stakeholder’s interest: level of influence and the impact of project development. For the purpose of clearinghouse development it is also necessary to assess each stakeholder’s level of interest in geoinformation activities, the influence they possess in legislative and financial matters, their technical capacity and dependency on GI. These parameters have a direct impact on the overall steering and development process and therefore must be closely analyzed. It is important to note that stakeholder analysis is by definition highly subjective and should be crosschecked through feedback sessions and interactions with



stakeholders to establish confidence in the results of the analysis. It is by no means an exclusive or inclusive exercise but acts as a guide to assess the parties involved.

4.5.1 Identification Of Stakeholders

There a several methods that can prove useful in discovering which specific parties have interest on the development of a NGDC. Some of the factors considered include

• Clearly defined project objectives and who will benefit from them

• Awareness of the current situation within the project environment

• The Scope of the clearinghouse in terms of system boundary, which will help to define the purpose, its functions and the beneficiaries of the service.

• Who should be included and on what basis

• The projected future use of the clearinghouse by the various stakeholder groups for value added service delivery indicated in table 4.2.

GIS Application Navigation Geo-marketing Emerging Market Environmental In car Business Sector Wireless Agriculture Telematics Superstores Web technology Telecommunication Fleet Mgmt. Insurance Mobile technology Facility Mgmt. Information System Construction Demography Land Administration

Table 4.2 Examples of current and potential use of geospatial data available through clearinghouse

Two broad categories were identified: the users and providers. Within these two categories were (a) academia, (b) NGOs, (c) legislative organizations, (d) decision makers within public and private sector and (e) funding agencies. The users and providers were further classified according to GI sector. There are 5 sectors producing GI: utility, land and environment, land management, security and demography (see appendix a for list of stakeholders).

4.5.2 Steps In Stakeholder Analysis

Stakeholder analysis involves several steps 1. Analyzing stakeholders interests 2. Articulate each stakeholders’ influence /power on the development and successful

implementation of the NGDC 3. Assess the stakeholders’ position and the impact of the development 4. Detail stakeholders’ capacity to participate in the implementation and future use 5. Determine the stakeholders’ commitment to the project

4.5.2.1 Interest/Power Matrix

Figure 4.1 illustrates the interest vs. power matrix. Each stakeholder is plotted and analyzed based on the grid in which they occur. Each grid states the action that should be taken for the stakeholders. This technique helps determine who will be affected by as well as who will contribute to the future implementation of the NGDC.



� Grid ‘A’ - dependent having high interest in

GI but limited external influence towards development

� Grid ‘B’- definitive and their participation is crucial to the successful implementation of the NGDC.

� Grid ‘C’- dormant and have least impact on the future development of the clearinghouse.

� Grid ‘D’- dominant stakeholders having high power but limited interest.

Figure 4.1 Interest vs. Power Grid Definition Interest To assess each stakeholder’s level of interest the following questions were posed

1. What are the apparent benefits to the stakeholder? 2. What level of participation is the stakeholder having in NSDI initiatives? 3. To what extent are they willing to invest in the future implementation? 4. What GIS applications have been used or developed by the stakeholder? 5. What is the apparent need for NGDC? 6. What are the requirements for GI data?

A table was generated with each question as a column and each stakeholder assessed by the use of weights. The weights were given three values 1 being lowest to 10 being highest. For more critical analysis a Multiplication Factor (MF) was introduced to provide greater emphasis to specific questions deemed more important. The MF used in this case was 2 and this was consistently used for the predefined questions. Power To assess each stakeholder’s level of power the following questions were posed.

1. To what extent is the project implementation dependent on the stakeholders’ participation?

2. What control exists over financial resources? 3. To what extent do they exercise and control legislative issues? 4. What specific GI data do they control? 5. What level of impact do they have over other stakeholders?

The questions were represented as column in a table using similar weighting system however the MF varied between 2 and 3. (See appendix c). Results of Power/Interest Grid As illustrated in figure 4.2, 13% of the stakeholders have high power. Conversely, 56% of the stakeholders have high interest.



Figure 4.2 Results of Interest vs. Power matrix

High Interest-Low Power Stakeholders A total of (14) stakeholders fall within this category. They frequently use GI to accomplish their mission and thus are highly dependent on sharing information with other organizations. Therefore the appropriate action is to collaborate with each other and more powerful stakeholders.

No Stakeholder Remarks

1 National Works Agency (NWA) Executive agency under the Ministry of Transport which uses GIS for road maintenance

4 Forestry Dept. Agency under the Ministry of Agriculture which maps all forest reserves utilizing GIS techniques

5 National Housing Trust (NHT) Housing developer not yet using GIS but is dependent.

6 Jamaica Public Service Co (JPS) Private sector utilizing GIS but development dependent on management level of interests

8 St. Catherine Parish Council

9 St. Thomas Parish Council

Uses GIS but slow development and Needs guidance from ministry level

11 Office of Disaster Preparedness & Emergency Management ODPEM High GIS use for mapping high risk/disaster prone areas

23 Rural Physical Planning Unit (RPPU) GIS used to inventory soil types and agricultural holdings

16 National Environmental Planning Authority (NEPA) Use GIS in environmental impact assessment (EIA) studies and land use studies

18 National Irrigation Commission (NIC) Use GIS to plan irrigation for farm gates across the island

19 Manchester PC Has high interest in using GIS for local level planning

21 Jamaica Urban Transport Company (JUTC) Involved in bus route planning -is realizing the potential of GIS

22 Water Resources Authority (WRA) Uses GIS in water management

26 Mines and Geology Extensive GIS mapping of bauxite and geological sites

28 Ministry of Health (MoH) GIS mapping and analysis of health hazards and affected population

Table 4.3 Stakeholders with high interest but low power



High Interest/High Power A total of (3) stakeholders were within this category. These stakeholders have high involvement in the provision and use of geospatial data as well as well equipped with the right technology. In addition they control sufficient resources and are involved in legislative activities whether development or enforcement. The action necessary for these stakeholders is to have them directly involved in the development and implementation process. They should also play a consultative role in advising the developers as well as other legislative bodies and decision makers about the benefits of GIS investment.


12 National Land Agency (NLA) Produces and uses Maps and IS techniques for service delivery for cadastral and topographic data

14 Ministry of Local Government and Community Development (MLGCD)

GIS on national level of infrastructure management and community development

27 Spatial Innovision Ltd GIS software, mapping and consultancy service provider. Regional provider of ‘defacto standard’ GIS software (ESRI) in Jamaica.

Table 4.4 Stakeholders with high interest and high power

Low Interest/Low Power A total of (11) stakeholders fall within this category. These stakeholders use geospatial data but are not highly dependent on GI to accomplish their mission. They are considered dormant or not as active as those who highly depend on GI. In addition they do not possess the power to push start the implementation process. Thus the action necessary is to encourage them to participate by increasing awareness. Overtime their involvement may increase and thus may contribute to the maintenance of the NGDC after implementation.


2 University of Technology (Land Survey Dept.) Uses GIS as tool for learning, research and land surveying projects

3 University of Technology (Urban Planning Dept.)

GIS used to develop environmental maps sometimes used by public but mainly internal use

7 Environmental Foundation of Jamaica (EFJ) Recognizes the potential but mainly out sources when requests are made (not frequent)

10 National Water Commission Uses GIS to manage and maintain water facility for improved service delivery

13 Urban Development Corporation Newly using GIS to manage urban developments

15 Planning Institute of Jamaica (PIOJ) GIS used as a tool to map demographic and other statistic information

17 Statistical Institute of Jamaica (STATIN) Develops maps using GIS to illustrate statistical summaries

20 Police National Computer Center (PNCC) Uses IS for crime and traffic analysis but not on a large scale

24 Alumni Partners of Jamaica Utilizes GIS for mining ventures and ore body mapping

29 Ministry of Education, Youth and Culture Newly introduced GIS as a tool to plot and plan school locations (need is growing)

30 Institute of Jamaica Recognizes the potential of GIS tenders GIS services

Table 4.5 Stakeholders with low interest and low power

Low Interest/ High Power This category has (1) stakeholder. This stakeholder is considered dominant in that it controls financial resources and has the capacity to integrate technology. It however has low interest, as it is not highly dependent on GI for fulfilling its mission. The strategy therefore is to convince them of the benefits to be obtained from such an investing in clearinghouse development.




25 Cable and Wireless Use of GIS is limited to facility mapping and mobile services. Potential is recognized but not yet priority. Has the ability to establish infrastructure

Table 4.6 Stakeholders with low interest and high power

4.5.2.2 Dependency/Capacity Matrix

Another aspect of stakeholder analysis involves evaluating the extent to which stakeholders can actively participate in the project by assessing the GI needs against the capacity to appropriately use and manipulate GI. In this analysis 2 matrices are designed outlining (a) the risks and (b) the actions as indicated in figures 4.3 and 4.4.

Figure 4.3 Dependency vs. Capacity Matrix (Risk and Action)

In summary the definition of the matrices are indicated in the table 4.7 below.

Grid Risk Action A Unable to efficiently use GI to achieve

mission and business objective Outsourcing some of the more complex GIS processes while gradually adopting GI for small scale projects

B No absolute risk but more independence leading to less collaboration

Maintaining the links within the GI community is very important

C Being left behind by not keeping up with the current trends

Reassess current status and explore options of exploiting GIS

D The existing IT will not be optimally used and thus waste of valuable investments

Exploration of the GIS market would provide options for efficient use

Table 4.7 Summary of Stakeholders’ Dependency vs. Capacity Risk -Action Matrices

The stakeholders’ needs were assessed on the basis of their current use of GI datasets (see appendix c). As in the Power/Interest matrix a weight system was developed. In the first instance a weight was developed during the field survey to assess the level of GI use by stakeholders. In the second instance the weights were totaled and categorized into 3 sections and weights added to each category. This however includes weight values of 1 being lowest and 10 being highest. The stakeholders’ capacity was next evaluated. The following questions were posed and tabulated.

1. To what extent is GIS software being used? 2. What network is currently available? 3. What is the extent of Internet access and use?



4. What level and quantity of trained technical or GIS staff exist? 5. What is the status of hardware for GI manipulation?

Results of Dependency vs. Capacity analysis As indicated in figure 4.5 the stakeholders are distributed evenly across the matrix with 50% having high GI dependency and 43% having high technology capacity.

Figure 4.4 Stakeholders GI needs vs. GI technology Capacity Matrix

High dependency/ Low capacity A total of (6) stakeholders were within this category. These stakeholders are frequent users of GI information but lack the capacity to fully develop GIS within their organizations. This also affects the extent to which they can participate in the development of the clearinghouse. They will therefore need to develop and employ strategies considering outsourcing major GIS projects for example developing and publishing their metadata. However for smaller projects gradual investment is recommended.

No Stakeholder Remarks 5 National Housing trust Has been using AutoCAD and has limited GIS software and expertise

9 St. Thomas Parish Council Various GI data needed on local level planning but needs skilled personnel

10 National Water Commission GI mapping is very frequent but limited workflow process and management

13 Urban Development Corporation Requires GI inputs from various sectors and requires skills and guidance

14 Ministry of Local Government and Community Development

GI requests made to various bodies and acquisition of resources to build capacity is slow

30 Institute of Jamaica High needs are recognized but lack infrastructure and guidance

Table 4.8 Stakeholders with high dependency and low capacity for GI



High dependency/ High capacity A total of (8) stakeholders were within this category. This category represents a position of very low risks and have the potential of becoming market leaders in GI. The recommended action is to increase collaboration and play an integral role in the development of the NGDC by assisting and advising the coordinating team.


1 National Works Agency Road maintenance requires frequent development and use of GI- recent acquisition of GI software, hardware, skilled staff

3 University of Technology (Urban Planning Dept) Has GIS lab and frequently uses various types of GI

4 Forestry Dept Pioneer in use of GIS has good infrastructure and combines GI from various sectors

11 ODPEM Frequent risk management requires use of data and services from main GI providers. Also shares data internally developed

12 National Land Agency Major GI provider but also major user of GI. Internally, infrastructure well developed

16 National Environmental Planning Authority

Major GI provider integrates information from other agencies. Equipped with recent GIS tools and still incorporating Workflow management system

22 Water Resources Authority Utilizes GI and is developing infrastructure to manage GIS

27 Spatial Innovision Ltd Integrates data for various projects and has well established infrastructure and GIS management

Table 4.9 Stakeholders with high dependency and high capacity

Low dependency/ Low capacity There were (9) stakeholders within this category and though they require GI data they do not depend on GI to fulfill their business objectives. They run the risk however of being left behind if they do not begin to employ the current GI technology. The recommended strategy is that they should reassess their current status and explore the GI market more closely to see areas in which they can develop GIS technology.


6 Jamaica Public Service Co Has developed GI and requires GIS for facility management but not yet critical. Comparatively low GIS infrastructure and management

8 St. Catherine PC Need for GI is partly dependent on the projects from national level as well as infrastructure is filtered from Ministry of local Govt.

17 STATIN GI needs are not varied and frequent and the management of GI is limited.

19 Manchester PC Need for GI is partly dependent on the projects from national level as well as infrastructure is filtered from Ministry of local Govt.

20 PNCC Uses GI but not extensively. GI Infrastructure is being developed but proper guidance is limited

21 Jamaica Urban Transport Company Utilizes GIS technology but currently not dependent and requires more development

23 Rural Physical Planning Unit Need for GI has declined although GI data is being maintained, infrastructure has become outdated

28 Ministry of health Only uses GIS for specific projects on as needed basis. Infrastructure is being developed and consultancy services have been procured.

29 Ministry of Education Use is growing but not considered as major need, projects to foster GI use is increasing the awareness and need.

Table 4.10 Stakeholder with high dependency and low capacity

Low dependency/High capacity The stakeholders within this category totaled (6). Analysis of these stakeholders indicates they have invested in high capacity to use Geo-ICT however their requirements for GI are not very extensive. The risk to these stakeholders is that they may not fully exploit the market if the geo-ICT tools are not properly aligned. The action that should be taken is to explore and examine the geo-market more closely to identify ways in which the geo-ICT can be usefully employed.




2 University of Technology (Land Survey Dept)

GIS mainly used for projects within department. Good technical infrastructure is present

15 PIOJ Low requirements on GI however sufficient infrastructure exists to manage and provide GI services

18 National Irrigation Commission GIS is being developed and used extensively 24 Alumni Partners of Jamaica Develops internal GIS applications to analyze mission specific data

25 Cable and Wireless Limited focus on GIS although resources and infrastructure is available

26 Mines and Geology Utilizes and generates mission specific GI data. Has well maintained GI infrastructure

Table 4.11 Stakeholders with low dependency and high capacity

4.6 Summary Of Analysis

The analysis highlighted certain stakeholders who are in significant positions. There were three stakeholders with high interest and power (12, 27 and 14) however only two of those were found to have high dependency and high technology capacity (12 and 27). Stakeholder 14 was found to have high dependency. This is an indication that the power of stakeholder 14 lies with its political and legislative influence. It may use this power effectively to source funds to initiate the project and to speed up the process of policies towards formal GI data exchange. However it may not be able to provide the skills or technical advice required for implementation. There are also other stakeholders that have been identified in other parts of the grid as having potential to contribute to one or more general aspect of the project. There a number of functions and responsibilities for successful implementation as defined below. Recommendations of these roles and responsibilities are defined in table 4.12

1. Providing the political support 2. Able to advise on technical implementation issues 3. Able to develop technological applications to be used during and after

implementation 4. Provide the legislative and regulatory support 5. Provide framework datasets 6. Able to fulfil the skilled personnel and management requirements

#

Stakeholder

1 Political Support

2 Technical

Implementation

3 Application

Development

4 Legislative

Support 5

GI Data

6 Resource

Mgmt.

12 National Land Agency � � �

27 Spatial Innovision Ltd. � � �

14 Ministry of Local Government and Community Development � �

25 Cable and Wireless Ltd �

2 University of Technology (Land Survey Dept) �

15 PIOJ �

4 Forestry Dept � � �

11 ODPEM � �

16 National Environmental Planning Authority � �

1 National Works Agency �



#

Stakeholder

1 Political Support

2 Technical

Implementation

3 Application

Development

4 Legislative

Support 5

GI Data

6 Resource

Mgmt.

26 Mines and Geology � �

22 Water Resources Authority � �

Table 4.12 Summary of Stakeholders Analysis

4.7 Stakeholder Requirements

A closer examination of the stakeholders indicates the general requirements for the future service of a clearinghouse. Though this was not directly collected during fieldwork, discussions during workshop and questions from the survey have summarized the requirements from three perspectives: technological/technical, institutional and data requirements.

4.7.1 Technical Requirements

Two perspectives are under consideration: the NGDC management perspective and the users’ and providers’ perspective. The basic requirement is reliable Internet access for both the service providers and the clients. To effectively manage the NGDC, the following requirements will be considered:

• Facilitation of e-commerce activities (online transaction, links to external financial services, authenticated register, etc.)

• Robust security system to prevent virus and hacking of data and private information

• Automated and simultaneous data and metadata update system, including intelligent support for data entry personnel

• Ability to translate and integrate data from classical databases storing archival data within the various sectors to modern harmonized databases. Able to resolve semantic, syntactic and schematic heterogeneity

• Robust, open and scalable configuration The users requirements constitute the needs of regular GI users and providers and non-regular users both locally and internationally. Several requirements are to be considered:

• Based on the workshop, cultural biases influence the response of the users. The users readily respond to a professional authentic website with some level of commercial activities such as advertising.

• Facilitating the different types of users through multiple options for access to services, different modes of payment (revenue models) and authenticated register can serve to encourage users participation.

• Discussions among stakeholders suggest the search interface will require some level of GIS functionality. Innovative decision support system with intelligent services to guide the inexperienced user. Samples of framework data can also be integrated with the results of metadata for more close analysis.

• Users are easily distracted from sites that provide time consuming processes and data transfer. A part of good service provision is through efficient and timely service delivery.



4.7.2 Institutional Requirements

There are several requirements from the institutional perspective that have been identified by the stakeholders.

• During the workshop the security of data was a major concern for the stakeholders. Thus policies towards the protection of digital geospatial data access and use will be requirement to publishing data. Issues such as copyright on digital data will need to be resolved.

• Datasets are being produced and maintained by several GI providers and it is not clear to the users the condition of the data and further who will stand the liability. Therefore some liability clause will be a requirement among users and providers.

• There is wide variation on the pricing of data. Already a pricing policy is being drafted to establish and regulate prices among the public agency GI providers.

• Facilitate an e-commerce environment. The field survey indicated a number of providers and users conducting online transactions and will therefore be a requirement for transaction processing to support GI service provision.

• According to the stakeholders analysis the private sector plays and will play a prominent role in clearinghouse development and therefore specific policies and agreements to facilitate their involvement will be required.

4.7.3 GI Data Requirements

Data type requirements are based on two factors; the frequency of the GI data use and the level of dependency. Some datasets are frequently used but have low priority while some datasets may be rarely used yet have a high priority to the stakeholder(s). It is important therefore to assess each dataset the level of inclusion. For instance, some framework datasets may be used as free samples if a high percentage of the stakeholders have a high priority while application datasets are available based on costs. This will affect the level of use in the future. The principle of weights was also applied to determine the level of priority and frequency of geospatial data use. The weights were then translated into percentage values to provide an accurate comparison. Where datasets have more than 50% in both cases special consideration should be taken on how they will be accessed.

Figure 4.5 Data Requirements

0 20 40 60 80 100

Geodetic Transportation

Topographic MapsParcel Boundary

Land UseCommunities

BuildingsUtility

Geographic NamesAdministrativeHydrographic

Satellite Imagery Economic

DemographicClimatic

GeologicalVegetation

%Priority

%Frequency



In figures 4.6 there is a linear correlation of the percentage priority and frequency of the datasets. Those having more than 50% priority and frequency of use are summarized below.

• Satellite Imagery

• Transportation (road and water)

• Administrative Boundary

• General Cadastral Data

• Topographic maps Data Quality relates to the accuracy, completeness, currency, harmonization, consistency and lineage of datasets. Users’ accuracy requirements depend on their applications however they will expect to have access to positional and thematically accurate data. Non-the less if this is unavailable then they will need to be aware of the implications. Data completeness for graphical and tabular description is also required. Users can be given the option to utilize data at different levels of abstraction if they are willing to pay. General currency of the data will be required. The lineage of the data will be required as requests for older versions are made occasionally. Most users will have their own datasets on which they require overlaying of other datasets on the NGDC site. The datasets will therefore need to be compatible and well harmonized. Proper descriptions of the data (metadata) will need to be maintained according to international standards.

4.8 Conclusion

This chapter’s main purpose was to analyse the current situation as well as the stakeholders in Jamaica. Situation analysis indicates that Jamaica is improving in its use and integration of ICT. However there are many legislations and policies lacking in support of future GI development. The stakeholders analysed in this chapter represents a sample and the method employed was used to determine the status of those involved in the future NGDC development. The key points assessed were that of power, interest, dependency on GI and the capacity to integrate and adopt new GI technology. The results generated were able to give an indication of the stakeholders that may be able to contribute in one or more ways to the future development.


Chapter 5. NGDC Prototype Design and Evaluation 53

5 National Geospatial Data Clearinghouse (NGDC) Prototype Design and Evaluation

5.1 Introduction

The development of a NGDC prototype is a detailed and iterative process, as it requires constant feedback from the users, updating and testing. In this context the term development encompasses design, implementation and testing as the three fundamental stages. This chapter will attempt to answer question 5 by designing conceptual prototype user interface and architecture and testing according to managerial evaluative criteria. The prototype design is a partial objective of the Land Information Component of the LAMP program for the development of a “One-Stop Shop” as introduced in chapter 1. This stage of the research will seek to present three design options and then evaluated them on the basis of resource requirements, processes and overall estimated costs. The user interface design involves three phases: initial design, testing and final design. The aim of the tests is to incorporate the users views as well as expert views. For the purpose of this research more emphasis was placed on “look and feel” testing rather than technical clearinghouse functionality. Before architectural design it is necessary to establish the criteria for the conceptual and physical design. Considerations for these criteria include the requirements, the international trends and the current capacity of the stakeholders. The designs will be developed with these criteria in mind. The first design is a decentralized independent metadata management system with the main emphasis on sector specific user views. The second design is a centralized data warehouse with five data marts which emphasizes an enterprise GIS approach with direct involvement of the private sector value added service providers. The third design is a hybrid system with dependent distributed metadata management and geoprocessing. It emphasizes remote management of clearinghouse node located in different organizations. These designs are then evaluated for resources requirements, type and speed of processes as well as the estimated start-up costs. Recommendations towards the most feasible design are then outlined.

5.2 Definition of Design Criteria

The design criteria include a set of specifications that can be used to guide the physical implementation and evaluate the results according to users expectation. Generally, the users have limited knowledge of technical issues involved in implementing a national clearinghouse, however they recognize the potential uses of the system with the current technology. The following approach is chosen to integrate as far as possible users view with technical, institutional and managerial requirements. The choice for design criteria therefore has elements of international trends and references to literature as well as local considerations.



1. Technical

a. Support different geospatial data formats and utilize open standards for geospatial data and metadata

b. High processing speeds to facilitate large number of highly complex geoprocessing transactions at high speeds

c. Firewall security and appropriate protocols for data and server protection d. Scalable configuration to support multi-agency deployment e. Large storage capacity and to hold significant quantities of geospatial data f. Facilitate speedy and regular metadata creation and update. Capable of notifying all

users when updates are made 2. Institutional and Business

a. Adoption of business models to cater to the needs of data suppliers and users. It will need to readily facilitate the private sector data supplier, the value added service providers and the users

b. Pricing, access and security policies should be established with the intention to encourage data use but also protect sensitive geospatial data against misuse and abuse

c. Support secure e-transactions and provide linkages to external financial institutions and support various options of payment to the customers

d. Support multiple revenue models (advertising, subscription, pay per transaction and membership fees)

e. Customer oriented with intelligent services to advise users such as decision support system

f. Clear instructions on access and ordering for new users 3. Managerial

a. Facilitate systematic inventory of all government owned geospatial data including access privileges to government databases

b. Function as a virtual information center to the GI community to build awareness and encourage use

c. Facilitate private sector by incorporating tools and services as well as technologies from private sector data suppliers and value added service providers

d. Intelligent and automated system to guide the users during data discovery and value added service

e. Integrate and utilize the most appropriate resources to respond effectively to user needs

5.3 The User Interface Design

The user interface is the client-side web interface that becomes available when the user types in the URL or makes a link to the website. Upon selection of services in the clearinghouse a series of processes are triggered and executed on the server side. It can be considered the middleware between the user and the clearinghouse service provider. It is designed using basic encoded html pages and selected software. A scientific approach was used to design the user interface, which can be summarized in three phases: initial design, user testing and final development.



5.3.1 Initial Web Interface Design

A practical but empirical approach was adopted during the initial design. It involved close observation of national and international websites. The following steps describe the process applied in the initial design.

1. Reviewing international clearinghouse websites. In this exercise three websites were used which included Geodata.gov in the United States, Geo-connections, Canada as well as Geosciences, Australia.

a. Geodata.gov and Geo-connections utilized a one-stop shop “portal” concept while Geosciences incorporated different types of user views.

b. All incorporated interactive map functionality, keyword, coordinate search, time stamp and thematic datasets or product to aid in the search of metadata or geospatial data.

c. Metadata could also be updated through an option of registration. The metadata supplier could easily register certain information in a simple registration page, affording them additional privileges. Search results provided a short description of the data and providers. Metadata services included three services: viewing and manipulating results through a GIS interface, reviewing complete metadata fields and links to the suppliers’ websites.

d. Indications of commercial activities were evident but not very prominent on either of the sites.

2. Reviewing local websites. Four types of local sites were reviewed: government websites, local news websites, commercial websites and GI related websites. Observation of layout, appearance, advertising, and the use of colours, logos and other graphic elements were conducted. It was notable that the use of advertising was popular among most websites but less among the government agencies. At least 70% of the sites were well maintained, having recent updates and new information. These tended to be more professional and business oriented in appearance than those not regularly maintained. The GI related websites were mainly government operated and mostly provided internal documents but not much graphical information. Exceptions for those with commercial Internet mapping services such as eLandjamaica.

3. Design and Implementing. Before the process of design it was necessary to assess what resources would be required. These included web design software, GIS software, geospatial data and external web server. The choice of web design software was Macromedia Dreamweaver MX and Fireworks MX software. Macromedia Dreamweaver MX is a professional HTML editor for designing, coding, and developing websites, web pages, and web applications. It provides basic and advanced tools for hand-coding HTML or visually editing pages. Its main advantage is that for novice designers it is easy to learn and no coding is necessary except for advanced designs. Therefore less time was required to design the pages. Fireworks was used predominantly to create and edit graphics such as logos and titles and pictures. A student account was created with one year access to ITC’s Kartoweb server. The GIS package used in this exercise was ArcGIS for the design of an interactive map. It utilized framework data obtained from Jamaica. This map was then exported as an SVG format to be used as an example of an Interactive Mapping Service that can be included on the website. Other tools that could have been useful were ArcIMS or java. However time was required to learn and integrate this option. It was decided that the first option was sufficient for the research.



The diagram below (figure 5.1) summarises the various steps, which were implemented during the entire exercise. However steps 1-6 were accomplished for this research as final implementation in Jamaica is proposed for the future.

Figure 5.1 Steps for User Interface Design, Testing and Implementation

5.3.1.1 Summary of Pages Designed

The website was called Jamaica Geo-portal, a signal to Jamaica’s own web portal for geoinformation data and services. A total of 17 pages were designed however the essential pages were; the electronic front door (home page), search page and publish metadata page.

• The Electronic Front Door (home page) introduced a number of services classified under three main areas; Discover data; publish metadata and services for using data. Several tabs were available to navigate and view the various pages. The front door also provided links to local universities and libraries as a main source of general information.

• The Search Page was designed to enable refined yet comprehensive discovery of data through its existing metadata. It provided basic instructions to perform a data search and integrated the selection criteria such as keyword, time stamp, product specific, thematic dataset and map selection. It also included another option for searching by place name or by X and Y coordinates.

• The Publish Metadata Page was designed for data suppliers to directly update their metadata online. It incorporated a registration for new users with privileges of a secure service through authentic login. The intention was that the suppliers would be able to standardize their metadata registration by using the fields defined in the Jamaica Geo-portal service. The advantages would be fast update and consistency through a standardized metadata system.

Two examples of typical services were integrated; Datum conversion and interactive map query and design. Additional services were to be accessible through registration, which

REVIEW

TESTING

1. International

2. Local

3,6. DESIGN

4. Stakeholder Evaluation

5. Expert Evaluation

7. IMPLEMENTATION



attracted a certain fee. This was partially designed with the login page for different types of users. A graphical summary of essential pages can be reviewed in appendix d.

5.3.2 Testing The User Interface

There are two phases of testing as indicated in figure 5.2. The first phase was evaluation by stakeholders in the field and the second phase was evaluation among experts. The first evaluation concentrated on design features more than functionality. It was to be understood that the aim was basic user requirements as a first step towards future technical implementation. The expert evaluation was to assess what needs to be available to guarantee visitors frequent use and that it conveyed the right message. The evaluation was a guided exercise and was done by 4 researchers. (See appendix d for sample evaluation form)

5.3.2.1 Evaluation of User Interface

The first evaluation was done with a focused group of stakeholders during the workshop exercise. The comments and recommendations in chapter 3 were accepted and improvements made to the interface. A second evaluation was conducted using a structured evaluation form specifically for accuracy and presentation. The final results are indicated below.

Candidate Accuracy% Presentation% Combined % 1 67 88 77.5 2 88 85 86.5 3 93 81 87 4 65 76 70.5

Average% 78.25 82.5

Table 5.1Results of Expert Evaluation

The result of expert evaluation was 80% on average but there is an obvious variation in the values for accuracy. This may have been due to incomplete pages and lack of sufficient information posted on the website. The presentation grading however was more constant indicating a greater appreciation for this aspect of the user interface.

5.4 The NGDC Conceptual Architecture

The conceptual architecture is adopted from the USA “One Stop Shop” concept where users can access geospatial data through metadata and specialized services through a middleware connected to a distributed community of databases as presented in figure 5.3. Prior research has suggested two basic models for clearinghouse architectural design. A distributed set of independent servers but integrated and accessible through a common gateway and a centralized system, which integrates and manages data from various systems and distributes it through a single user interface. In this case three models have been developed. A distributed metadata management, a central data warehouse and a hybrid system with independent geoprocessing services. The options are described in three perspectives; user view, management view and the technical configuration view. The users view considers the type of interface, the ease of access to service, the speed of delivery and the general convenience to users as well a the presentation of search, retrieval and manipulation of geospatial data. The management view considers the daily operation, the



staff requirements, organization issues, funding, and standards requirements. Configuration includes the type of design and the interconnection between the different components.

Figure 5.2 Geospatial One Stop Conceptual Design(FGDC, 2003)

5.4.1 Option 1 – Distributed Metadata Management

User View When the user enters the main web interface referred to as the electronic front door a number of services become available. First time users will have the option to have a guided tour through the services on the general interface while users requesting specific services will be directed to the sector specific web interface. Management View Updates to data and metadata are done independently by each sectors’ Metadata Administrator but monitored by the NGDC Manager who specifies standards and software. The design of the sector-specific interface is also prescribed by the NGDC manager but affords some level of flexibility and independence.

Figure 5.3 Option 1: Decentralized Metadata Management

Each sector is responsible for implementing their GI services as required by users. They can outsource this to private sector developers whether locally or internationally or develop in-house. They can also choose to maintain services from a remote source peradventure



there is 24 hour up to date access to services and metadata. Remote maintenance provides greater security and a lighter client/server system. Business and revenue models generally will be consistent among the various sectors. The most fitting implementation approach discussed in chapter 2 for this design would be the workgroup approach. Technical Configuration This Architecture is a three-tiered distributed system similar to USA and The Netherlands. The gateway (main web interface) is located on a remote server while the metadata is managed from five independent yet interconnected servers considered as registries of the sector organizations GI data holdings as indicated in figure 5.3. These servers also contain the GIS processes along with sharable datasets. Updates of every geospatial data are simultaneously made to the metadata. The databases, processes and software interoperability and based on open standards.

5.4.2 Option 2- Centralized Data Warehouse

Users View This design presents one interface to the users through the electronic front door. The user can view a wide range of services including searching and browsing metadata. As there are less user views search options will include more selection criteria. Users will have the possibility to view the results of a search by a snapshot or an interactive map. The results also include a full description with options for order and delivery. It also incorporates information on recommended use. Other complimentary services such as address location, navigation services and other innovative services are available to occasional GI user and the non-GI users. However for GIS users sample data (starter-kit) together with GIS plug-in programmes should be made available with the ability to perform spatial processes online or offline. These services will be developed and served by the private sector “value-added” GI service providers who can also benefit from advertising through the NGDC. Thus the NGDC would act as a gateway for other GI providers in the wider GI community as can be seen from figure 5.4.

Figure 5.4 Central Metadata Management Management View The NGDC management team will be responsible primarily for coordinating the metadata development, and dissemination. The team will involve members of the national coordinating body, public and private sector. The team will appoint a manager who will coordinate the adoption of standards for data content, data exchange format, metadata



fields and metadata standard within the various organizations. Metadata software should be developed to quickly extract metadata from archival data and simultaneously from newly produced data. This will ensure regular metadata update and storage in sector specific databases. Service development will be based on the business contract outlining (a) conditions of use and integration of data by private sector and (b) conditions for advertising, project development and payment. Finally the NGDC manager will coordinate transaction processing, ordering and delivery of data products and services. The business and revenue models would include a combination of charge per transaction and subscription. The most suitable approach for implementation is the consortium approach as defined in chapter 2. Technical Configuration The design follows an enterprise GIS approach where global metadata and sharable geodata being stored in a centralized data warehouse. The data warehouse will be located on the main server within the GIS service center. The sector specific databases (data marts) are remotely located in the sector specific organizations. The data marts will also be accessible offline at the sector level with detailed metadata and geospatial data. The data warehouse is physically located in the GIS service center and will be accessible by the users online and offline access. The service providers will develop online and customizable geoprocessing services and other applications.

5.4.3 Option 3- Hybrid System: Decentralized Metadata and Geo-processing

User View This option presents five local servers linked to a main server called “The Clearinghouse Service Center” and is a dependent distributed architectural design where metadata search and geo-processing services are conducted at each clearinghouse node. Upon entering the electronic front door of the geospatial data one-stop shop a range of services and information is presented to the user. Upon selection of the specific service the request processor/administrator will analyze and send the request to the appropriate sector node as described in figure 5.5. The request will be processed from the local server and the results packaged and sent to the electronic front door where a brief description of the data is presented to the user. If the user is satisfied and accepts the results a more comprehensive metadata result will be presented along with recommendations on use and information regarding distribution and delivery. It will also incorporate a number of complimentary services for the non-GI users to encourage more visits to the site. Management View The NGDC manager will be responsible for developing metadata content and display standards in all five nodes. The NGDC manager will also be responsible for developing guidelines towards a seamless networked infrastructure to enable the nodes to function as an integrated unit. Each node will be located within the organization designated as the host for the sector and will have a clearinghouse coordinator who will liaise with the NGDC manager to implement the metadata standards and software. The organization will be responsible for the development and management of metadata, the integration of geospatial data and services. The implementation approach in this case would be a type of corporate approach.



Figure 5.5 Decentralized Metadata and Service Design

Technical Configuration Metadata and spatial data are held in the local servers for each sector. Processes are conducted at each node but all are monitored and linked to the main server or the clearinghouse service center where the request is analyzed. Local servers also include a federated database for the geospatial data located in each organization.

5.5 Evaluation of Architectural Designs

Two methods of evaluation are considered. The first is resource allocation and costing and the second is an evaluation of the processes required for daily operation. Resource allocation and costing involves analyzing the cost of hardware, software, infrastructure requirements (network, office space and security features) and personnel using net present values. The second method of evaluation is a comparative analysis of the processing times that will be required for the day-to-day operation of the NGDC based on the configuration of the designs.

5.5.1 Resources Allocation and Costs

A critical component of evaluation is the type and quantity of resources that will be required for implementation. In a regular networked environment there are basic requirements for hardware (including network) and software as outlined in appendix e. However specific quantities and types of resources differ per design option. An estimation of these requirement are indicated in table 5.2



Option Requirements

Distributed Metadata Management And Geo-services

Centralized Data Warehouse

Decentralized Geo-processor

Configuration Scalable Configuration - 6 web Servers - 5 Data Servers

(50GB) - 1GB Internet Speed - LAN Networking

Enterprise GIS - 1 Web Server - 1 Main Data Server

(50TB) - 5 Local Data Server

(50GB) - 1Gb Internet speed - WAN /LAN Cable

Networking

Remote Metadata and Geoprocessing - 1 Web Server - 5 Local Data Servers

(<50GB) - Fibre Optics

networking

Specific Software Online geoprocessing and analysis software

ArcSDE for relational database design

Remote data transfer standard software (XML/GML)

Personnel - 1 NGDC Coordinator - 5 NGDC Managers - 5 Metadata

Administrator - 1 Business Analyst - Software Engineer

team (4) - 5 Web Designers

- NGDC Management Team (4)

- 1 NGDC Manager - 2 Metadata Administrator - 1 Business Analyst - Software Engineer team

(2) - 1Web Designer

- 3 NGDC Managers - 5 Metadata

Admin(s). - 1 Business Analyst - 1 Software Engineer

team - 1 Web Designer

Table 5.2Specific Resource Requirements

� A distributed independent system will have more requirements for servers and personnel as each unit would manage and operate independently however it does not require WAN connections.

� A centralized system requires larger capacity servers and WAN connections however quantity of personnel and number of hardware is comparatively less. Data server will require terabyte storage (Green et al, 2002).

� The hybrid system will require additional personnel to centrally manage and at the same time operate from a decentralized position. It will also require very high speeds (possibly fiber optic) for large data transfer across a WAN. Hardware requirements will be similar to the first option.

Costing Summary The cost evaluation involves assessment of the initial cost of resources according to categories previously discussed. It estimates the cost of maintenance with specific reference to the ITC’s It department. In project implementation and operation personnel costs usually account for the largest percentage of the overall costs. Salary determination varies per region and country however in this case reference is made to the Full Time Equivalent (FTE) salary system used in the Netherlands can provide an estimation of annual personnel costs. Using ITC IT department the following conclusions were made.

� ITC’s IT Department comprises 19 full time staff. There are several functions that each person should typically execute which is equivalent to a certain FTE. However all the functions combined is a total of 17.6 FTE. This is equivalent to �800,000 or US$1000928.

� 1 FTE per annum is US$56,870. However depending on the job title and the number of tasks, the salary will vary being higher in most cases. Each task usually requires less than 1FTE but when totalled for each position this can increase to more than 2



FTE. In any organizational structure salary brackets vary per job title and as shown in table 5.3 the base salaries are presented.

Role FTE Base Salary/Annum Management (excluding benefits) 1.05 60000 Administrators 0.70 39809 Software Engineer/Analyst 0.50 28435 Analyst 0.30 17061 Designer 0.22 12511.4 Secretary/Clerk 0.14 8530.5

Table 5.3 Determination of Base Salaries

Determination of the correct salary for each role defined included;(a) developing a set of daily operational tasks and assigning FTE values to them (b) finding the sum for each role defined and (c) multiplying the FTE and the base salary. The results are indicated in table 5.4.For details see appendix E.

Role FTE Salary/Annum NGDC Manager (including benefits) 1.07 94200.00 System Administrator 2.34 93153.06 Metadata Administrator 0.38 54936.42 Software Engineer 1.84 52320.40 Software Analyst 1.2 20473.20 Web Designer 1.74 19792.15 GIS Analyst 2.64 41970.06 Business Analyst 2.93 49988.73 Secretary 2.52 21496.86 Data Entry Clerk 1.38 11772.09

Table 5.4 FTE and Salaries of Roles defined for clearinghouse

The personnel cost analysis was compared with a recent salary survey of IT/GIS professionals conducted by URISA with average salaries values being approximately 25% higher than the values determined in this research. This can be associated with the higher cost and standard of living in the United States compared to that of Jamaica. The results of the cost analysis are indicated in table 5.5 and represent the start up costs of the different options. The details of the resource costs are also indicated in appendix E. The cost analysis was based on recommendations obtained from experts on appropriate models and the maintenance service charge associated with them. Several of the prices quoted were obtained from Internet references. The cost represent the Net present Value (NPV) and excludes factors of inflation and value added taxation.

Resources Option 1(US$) Option 2 (US$) Option 3 (US$) Hardware 81369.25 26741 63869 Network 14706.3 15168.66 20706 Software 84400 89000 74000 Personnel 767619.1 573447.3 682650 Maintenance 42000 19300 36000 Total 990094.6 723657 877226

Table 5.5 Comparative Summary Of Start Up Costs For Implementation



5.5.2 Evaluation Of Process Time For Each Option

The efficiency of the system in prompt service delivery will depend extensively on the network configuration and the technology used. Transfer speed is affected by the type of network technology as well as the number of requests of large files. As such processing time, map development and service delivery will have variations. Table 5.2 outlines the estimated processing times for each process. The process evaluation was based on observation of existing clearinghouses such as Geoscience Australia and USGS. One of the observations from the Geoscience Australia website was the product delivery time. It offers offline delivery of its products within In addition experts suggest that distance plays a key role in data transfer therefore the closer the data is to the source the faster it will be transferred coupled with the medium of transfer such as fibre optics, modems or ADSL.

Ordering & Delivery Time

Processes Option

Automated Metadata Update (Qty)

Metadata Search Response Time (sec)

Online GIS Processing Time (sec)

Online Mapping (sec) Online in

(Min) Offline (Days)

Data Down-load Time (Min.)

Distributed Metadata Management

150 4-10 30 7-10 10-20 2-4 2-6

Centralized Data Warehouse

170 3-5 20 5-10 5-20 1 2-5

Decentralized/Dependent

200 13 30 10-12 12-30 1-2 3-8

Table 5.6 Comparative Analysis of Processes

5.6 Recommendations – Option 2

It was concluded that the most suitable conceptual architectural design for future NGDC implementation in Jamaica was option 2- Centralized Data Warehouse. This was based on the following reasons

• The resources and cost analysis found that this design was most appropriate as it required are less complex and less in quantity

• The average process time is lower than the others because it integrates data from a single location. This also provides the user with fast connection and download of the data.

• There is direct involvement of the private sector at two different stages. They have the role of consultant in directing the implementation process and the role of value added service provider after implementation.

• The enterprise wide implementation is a step towards building a physical infrastructure to support the NSDI development in Jamaica. This will facilitate more networking of organizations.

• The data warehouse concept coincides with LICJ’s objective of inventorying all geospatial information owned by the government within each sector. This will serve to facilitate simple and fast discovery, use and manipulation of GI in the future.



5.7 Conclusion

This chapter presented the conceptual design of the future NGDC. The development of the three options was based on the criteria definition. The criteria defined were determined by integrating the user requirements with local knowledge and references to international trends and existing literature. Three conceptual designs were developed and evaluated for resource requirements, estimated costs and processes. The first design was a decentralized independent metadata management and geo-processing service with specific web interface for each sector. The main advantage was that it is user centred design. The second design was a centralized enterprise GIS approach built on enterprise GIS concepts with access to global metadata and sharable geospatial data from five data marts. It integrates the private sector value added service providers throughout the implementation and continued operation through partnerships thereby including a broad participation of stakeholders. The third option was a distributed dependent metadata and geo-processing service where services are published from a single user interface. The method of evaluation used was resource costing and process analysis. The case of ITC’s IT department was used as a reference for determining hardware, software and personnel costs along with Internet references. The results of the evaluation indicated the most suitable option to be the centralized enterprise wide approach. It was recommended based its overall costs as well as the fact that it supports the development of a physical networked infrastructure to support collaboration among the GI sectors. Although a centralized approach has been considered cumbersome and unsuccessful internationally it is the most practical approach for Jamaica since the majority of GI providers are government and require integration of information to fulfill the mandates. The physical implementation process also has a long-term benefit for all the GI organizations because it will be a major step in establishing the information infrastructure for future emerging GI services.


Chapter 6. Implementation Guidelines 67

6 Implementation Guidelines

6.1 Introduction

The previous chapter evaluated different design options and recommended that a centralized data warehouse approach be adopted for a number of reasons. This chapter will attempt to answer the research question 7 by outlining the phases in implementing the centralized model with emphasis on the policies and goals required. Three phases are outlined including environmental scanning and user requirement, strategic planning, marketing and awareness strategy, funding and implementation test and deployment. Specific recommendations are discussed regarding policy issues followed by an outline of the goals and the success indicators.

6.2 Phased Implementation Process

Large-scale project implementation is often done in phases. This is a fundamental aspect of project management and as indicated by experts several factors need to be considered before beginning IT related projects. The first factor is what is the current status of resources? Initially resources can be used from other agencies/ departments instead of acquiring a large quantity of hardware and software. The second is if the funds are already procured, what is the current arrangement for disseminating these funds? It is often done in phases where the outputs and achievements of specific goals and objectives are reported during the life of the project. The third factor is who will be involved at what stages? It is recommended that a representative stakeholder who is aware of the expected outcome be at every stage of implementation. In addition personnel need to be trained at various stages. Two preliminary phases are firstly described: environmental scanning and user requirement and development of a strategic planning. This is followed by three phases; (1) development of a funding strategy (2) physical implementation, testing and deployment and (3) marketing and public awareness. It is recommended that the implementation be flexible and open as to easily accommodate regional developments in the future since GIS are tending towards global GDI.

6.2.1 Sub phase A: Environmental Scanning and User Requirement

Environmental scanning examines both the internal organizations and the external environment of potential users. Internally, each organization will be analysed based on their current strengths and weaknesses regarding their network and general IT capacity as well as existing software, hardware and level of technical skills that could support the physical implementation of a wide area network. Externally includes surveying and analysing the target market. A comprehensive market survey can be a practical approach to determine who requires the service and their level of demand. The survey if properly designed has the potential to extract frequency and priority of different GI services and geospatial data as well as what percentage of the population will require these when the NGDC becomes operational.



6.2.2 Sub Phase B: Development of Strategic Plan

Strategic planning outlines long-term goals and indicates specific strategies and success indicators. The steps involved in strategic planning include the following

Figure 6.1 Steps in Strategic Planning

NGDC Goals and Success Indicators The strategic plan should incorporate the following success indicators to evaluate for the achievement of their goals. Long Term Goals Success Indicators 1. To provide discovery,

access and delivery of digital geospatial data in a seamless networked environment

• The existence of a comprehensive database with up to date, complete geospatial data

• All government owned geospatial datasets properly described and inventoried

• Integration of datasets from various sources • Users able to download and process data at any time

2. To provide value added services to the public online and offline

• Increased GIS applications developed and accessible on the internet

• E-commerce activities • Statistics suggesting increased use of GIS services

over set period 3. To provide an

infrastructure upon which increased geospatial related services can be developed

• A reliable, robust Wide Area Network • Fast and reliable Internet speed • Low computer virus outbreaks and reports of data

hacking • Increased access to organizations’ network

4. To increase the use and awareness of geospatial data among and within existing and potential stakeholders

• An increase in the non conventional applications of GIS

• Increase in the use of GIS at the undergraduate level • The increase application of GIS for decision support • The increased number of stakeholders

Table 6.1Goals and Success Indicators A practical approach to developing a strategy is through a committed effort of stakeholder representatives. The plan will formulate strategies to meet long term and short-term targets for implementation and maintenance of the newly developed system. Strategic plans usually take into consideration a number of factors such as funding and resource availability and

The Vision The Mission

Goals and Objectives

Strategy

Formulation

Define Alternatives

Performance Measures

Situation Analysis Environmental Scanning

Implement Strategy Monitor, Evaluate and Update Strategic Plan

Formulate Success



will be developed accordingly. Strategies are to be followed later by operational work plans to be executed by sub committees. It is recommended that the coordinator of these sub committees be integrally involved at every stage of project implementation.

6.2.3 Phase 1: Development and Implementation of a Funding Strategy

In chapter 2, funding strategies for NSDI in developing countries was introduced. A combination of these funding models can be implemented in the NGDC development at different stages. A funding strategy involves firstly developing a budget based on the hardware, software, network and human resources required for initial implementation. Implementation costs may range from an estimated US$1-1.5million however maintenance costs may be higher overtime. This should be compared with the projected returns on investment received from revenue earnings. To initially fund the project the following strategies can be employed.

1. Procurement of 50% of the budget from donor/government agreements. Funding of this kind may require certain conditions before cash in hand and therefore proper checks and balances must be kept and presented at regular intervals to the donor agency.

2. Partnerships with private sector agencies (PPP) who have access to equipment, software and hardware as well a technical expertise in basic and advanced IT/GIS development can provide a percentage of resources required for implementation. This may account for 40% of the costs. The conditions of agreement are to be clearly outlined to the parties involved. It may mean that the private sector agencies are given certain access privileges and right of use to geospatial data.

3. The development of a donor fund from stakeholder organizations is able to contribute at least 10% of the funds required for the initial implementation. However this fund can be more oriented towards continued maintenance. It should therefore be a decision amongst the stakeholders on what basis the contribution should be whether based on size, expected benefit from the NGDC or flat rate for all. This will also have implications on access rights and privileges.

To maintain the NGDC after implementation the following revenue model is recommended. Develop a price list according to the pricing and access policy outlining the various products to be offered. To attract a number of web clients, services may be offered free of charge for the first 6 months of the launch of the service with downloadable freeware and data. This will also serve as an evaluative period where users will be able to give feedback on the service. After the six months, the service will publish the prices and offer three types of payment; pay per transaction, subscription and membership. According to the survey results, membership fees are most appropriate for the local stakeholders. Therefore an option must be developed that stakeholders can pay an annual membership fee. If they are a contributor to the pooling fund then they are will be given discounts to most services. It is recommended that whilst metadata search is free a recovery cost should be applied to additional services such as datum transformation, spatial analysis, advanced geoprocessing, etc.

6.2.4 Phase 2: Physical Implementation, Testing and Deployment

The process of physical implementation maybe subject to a number of factors. The decision to procure and implement software, hardware and network equipment is to be based on following factors



• The current status of the existing networked and physical infrastructure externally and internally

• The existing labour force, what training will be required and what new personnel will be hired. It is however important that selected competent personnel from the first phase be a part of the implementation

• The suitability of the physical location, its proximity to services and to the target market and to other members of the wide area network as this would translate into other costs

• The reliability of the power service as this will determine the robustness of hardware • The local defacto standards for IT software and equipment to ensure interoperability

An appropriate strategy towards resource acquisition, implementation and operation of different aspects of the system should be adopted. It is quite likely that project funding will be in stages. Therefore all hardware/ software would not be acquired at once. Instead a step-by-step approach will be employed and at every stage the system will be tested and become operational.

1. Establishment of internal network (LAN) and connections to an external network infrastructure (WAN, Internet). A local networking service provider will give advice on what is required for the development of the internal network infrastructure. Considerations for LAN development include the layout of the current physical infrastructure where LAN is to be established, the type of data transfer expected and the speed to determine the cabling and connection possibilities to external networks. A thorough investigation of the external physical infrastructure for wide area network is also necessary. The utility company is able to advise on the factors to consider and the process of establishment. Fibre optic cables are a primary requirement for WAN however where no cabling system currently exists the option of wireless technology maybe considered. Wireless technology is relatively new but is being adopted by several industries and would have long-term benefits. Unfortunately the speed of wireless technology is comparatively slow and may prove unsuitable for GI data transfer. The Internet service must also be from a reliable source and be able to serve large datasets. Internet speed should be at least 1Gb and able to transfer sizes of greater than 1GB. Connections to the outside world require the installation of a firewall whether hardware and software and virus scanning to detect and prevent the intrusion of viruses.

2. Establishment of the Data, Metadata and Geoprocessing servers. The conceptual,

logical and physical design of databases will be developed simultaneously with the implementation of the servers. Geospatial data will be migrated from heterogeneous environments into standardized local databases connected to a data warehouse (data server). Servers, workstation and software will be acquired and installed based on specifications in chapter 5. A back up system will also be established to protect the data on a regular basis. This may be a long-term process and a pilot of one sector should be developed and used as a benchmark.

3. Implementation of the Internet based services such as Web server; E-commerce

server, IMS server and web user interface. To launch an Internet service requires a very reliable and robust security system to protect the data and private information from hackers and virus intrusion. Authentication software is to be installed to provide



different levels of access rights to geospatial data and other sensitive information. Transaction processing software also is required to process online commercial activities. All these components should be tested internally before the service is launched.

4. The launching of the service is a critical stage in the project life cycle. It is reiterative

as the testing and correction process in continuous. The service need not be complete before launching and should facilitate as much criticism as possible. The internal testing would have been complete but many bugs may appear when introduced to the outside environment. The launching will include the following stages. � Official launch with public promotion � Six months evaluation and free trial service � Improving of service based on evaluation � Continuous marketing and service delivery

6.2.5 Phase 3: Marketing and Public Awareness

The NGDC development must be promoted so as to sensitise the stakeholders before the service becomes operational. Several options of marketing are to be employed as indicated below. 1. Capacity Building: short training courses are regularly conducted within the various

ministries, organizations and tertiary institutions in Jamaica. This medium can be used to introduce concepts of clearinghouse and its component as well as the benefits from investment to members of the GI community.

2. Promotion; Jamaica has a number of public media forums that can target a wide audience fro example the Jamaica Information service. This medium can be used to detail the range of GIS initiatives currently underway.

3. Monthly Meetings: GIS meetings are held quite frequently and should facilitate discussions on the developments of NGDC. Those present at the meetings should be encouraged to relay the plans and benefits to the decision makers within the organization.

4. Conferences: this forum is an effective means of promoting to an international market, which will have a positive ripple effect. International funding agencies, Private sector GI developers, NGOs are usually present. The establishment of long-term relationships can lead to financial and technical support for future implementation.

5. Sector Agency Advertisement; the nature of the project involves several organizations that have websites which can be used s a promotion tool. The GIS coordinating body can liase with these organizations as to what information can be made available in these advertisements.

These recommendations require proper coordination by dedicated person. The option of hiring the services of a marketing consultant or full time agent will need to be investigated if such expertise is unavailable in-house.

6.3 Policy and Legislative Requirements

Effective implementation and use will require a number of supporting policies to facilitate geoinformation exchange. The following policies should be established.



• Pricing, Distribution and Access Policy; member of LICJ will be responsible to formulate this policy. A draft is currently being prepared however a committee representing the major stakeholder groups within the public and private sectors should be formed.

• Copyright And Digital Geospatial Data Protection; Stakeholders having high legislative power and high interest are able to contribute to the establishment of a copyright protection for digital data. On the other extreme the current copyright on government assets restrict the open access necessary to facilitate sharing therefore it is recommended that the current copyright law be reviewed in tandem with the digital data copyright law.

• Information Security Policy; Privacy, of sensitive geospatial data and Security of online transaction is critical requirement prior to implementation. The constitution has established privacy of information however instruments to enforce these laws will be required. LICJ should formulate an information security policy, which will require each stakeholder organization to develop and maintain security standards. This policy should include specifications and recommendations towards establishing a common standard among the organizations.

• E-Commerce Guidelines; Another issue outside the organization is the security of transactions. Guidelines must be developed that users can confidently conduct transaction. Jamaica is already advancing with e-commerce activities so the NGDC will be developed when the e-society is already sensitised. Considerations should be towards establishing a set of consumer friendly indicators to ensure organizations within the public and private sector encourage e-commerce.

• Geospatial Standards; should be developed and adopted to ensure data developed can be used and exchanged among stakeholder organizations in a seamless environment.

6.4 Conclusion

This chapter outlined the specific considerations required for successful implementation, management and use. Effective implementation of a national clearinghouse requires coordination and proper planning. According to experts implementation is usually executed in a number phases based on consideration for several factors. The phases are two folds; preliminary phases of environmental analysis and strategic planning and three phases including (1) funding strategy, (2) physical implementation and (3) marketing. These should be considered throughout. This phased approach is according to an estimated four-year implementation process with a cost of approximately US$2-3.5million. Implementation should consider for future regional initiative must be considered to facilitate access to information within the region. The recommendations for institutional requirements are then outlined.


Chapter 7. Conclusions and Recommendations 73

7 Conclusions and Recommendations

7.1 Conclusions

The main objective of this research was to develop strategies towards the effective implementation and future use of a National Geospatial Data Clearinghouse in Jamaica. The following represents the main findings of the research. 1. There are several technical, institutional and management considerations for

implementing a clearinghouse. Technical considerations include; (a) the components such as the user interface, the metadata, the data and the servers, (b) the configuration of these components, which depends on a combination of factors; (c) the client-server technology (d) Internet GIS and (e) new emerging technology standards such as XML, GML, Java and SVG. Institutional considerations include the policies and legislative requirements such as privacy policy, pricing and access and intellectual property rights affecting GI activities. Management considerations included organization, culture, funding and stakeholders involved in geospatial clearinghouse development and use. The recommendations obtained are applicable to SDI development in developing regions based on case studies.

2. There is a notable decline in the use, content and management of clearinghouses

internationally. Lessons were drawn from three international cases about the management aspect of clearinghouse development. In the Netherlands the clearinghouse has experienced a number of changes including the involvement of the private sector. This current strategy provides advantages of increased potentials to improve services but conversely the disadvantage of suppliers having reservations and uncertainty about unfair competition. The Netherlands has however advanced with the adoption of OpenGIS standards for data transfer and metadata standards. In the USA the clearinghouse development was a successful NSDI initiative as a result of the political support, which provided the institutional framework, needed to involve stakeholders at all levels. In Australia a five-year strategy has been developed to improve the use of clearinghouse based on the result of an audit conducted to assess the functionality and use of the clearinghouse. They have redefined the concept of clearinghouse by introducing a service-oriented approach to user satisfaction. These three cases provide lessons that can be used as benchmarks for Jamaica’s NGDC development.

3. GI data exchange in Jamaica is relatively high and mainly informal with obvious efforts

towards collaboration especially for undertaking large-scale projects. There is also a growing awareness of NSDI initiatives among the various stakeholders. Concerning technical issues, observations indicate a high penetration of geo-ICT (network, software and hardware, skilled personnel) among the stakeholder organizations. Several stakeholders indicated this as a current strength. However on the organizational side there is still limited policies and legislation to support digital exchange. This uncertainty leaves many organizations reluctant to share information. Within organizations the support mechanism is increasing however externally the limitations exist with lack of sound up-to-date policies. There is a growing improvement in the communication links



between stakeholders through the Land Information Council. Several collaborative projects have been executed through public private partnerships and have been considered a success.

4. Jamaica has seen a rapid increase in network penetration through mobile phone

providers and Internet providers. These facilities are now more accessible than ever before, as competition has lowered prices. Increase in IT education and policy is an indication of increased awareness and Internet activities such as e-commerce. Several organizations have implemented networks and allow open access to the Internet. A few of these are GI related organizations. This is an indication of IT readiness for a clearinghouse. On the other hand the institutional setting in Jamaica indicates several laws that are currently hindering the use and manipulation of GI. The current Access to Information Act 2002 has the potential to positively impact GI exchange however enforcement will be after a few years. Organizational issues indicate public reform policies to improve government services with the integration of Internet services as well as increasing e-commercial activities.

5. The majority of stakeholders are public sector agencies at local and national levels.

There are a few NGO’s and private sector organizations that are involved in geospatial data manipulation and development. The assessment of Stakeholders’ level of interest/power and dependency/capacity is essential to determine the extent of involvement in the implementation process, the roles and responsibilities they will have after implementation and the long term benefits they will accrue from such an initiative. Stakeholder analysis indicated only 10% of respondents have a high interest and power while 23% have a high dependency and high capacity. The use of stakeholder analysis also provided a set of risks and actions for each stakeholder in relation to the project. The results of the stakeholder analysis indicated the level of involvement the stakeholders should have in the future implementation process. Stakeholders were selected from the high interest, power and capacity categories based on their potential to participate or contribute to the implementation and management of the future NGDC.

6. The NGDC prototype design involved reviewing institutional, GI and functional

requirements as a first stage to outlining the design criteria. Three conceptual design options were presented with reference to the cases reviewed and the ideas gathered in the field; a distributed independent metadata management, centralized data warehouse and a distributed dependent metadata and geoprocessing. The models were tested for suitability from a management perspective. It consisted evaluation of the resources, estimated cost of hardware and software, network infrastructure and personnel and the number of processes involved in each design. The most suitable option was the centralized data warehouse for a combination of reasons. It was firstly the least cost option that also involved the private sector before, during and after implementation. It also facilitated the development of the national network on which other services could be easily developed and managed.

7. For future implementation a phased approach has been recommended. The phased

approach included two preliminary phases followed by three phases. The preliminary phases were (a) environmental scanning and (b) strategic planning. The other phases were (1) Funding strategy, (2) Implementation, testing and deployment and (3)



Marketing and awareness. A set of legislative requirements is recommended to improve the current environment for data exchange and access.

7.2 Recommendations

The recommendations are detailed in two main categories, future research and issues to be further investigated for this research.

7.2.1 For Future Research

�� There is need to assess the condition of the geospatial datasets existing in Jamaica before the clearinghouse can be implemented. A methodology can be developed to inventory these datasets and determine what framework datasets need to be available through the NGDC. This methodology can also include guidelines on acquisition, database integration and future discovery in an efficient manner.

�� There is need to develop local standards for creating and presenting metadata. This can be based on existing international standards or open standards. These standards would specify the required metadata categories and the fields to be included.

�� It is necessary to design and develop an automated metadata updating system for the proper management and maintenance of the NGDC in Jamaica. Consultation with methods employed my other developing countries such as India and Ethiopia can provide useful lessons in this area.

�� A strategic plan will be required for the implementation in the future. Strategic planning tools should be investigated and where appropriate integrated in formulation of goals, strategies and targets.

7.2.2 Other Recommendations

�� The design of the user interface should be further developed and tested for functionality. This will require the use of sample datasets from the locality and connection to a web server.

�� A more detailed analysis of the impacts of legislations on clearinghouse development should be further investigated to fully assess the current institutional setting. Conversely it is necessary to assess the future impact of the clearinghouse on legislation.

�� A detailed physical prototype design should be presented in order to test the feasibility of the enterprise GIS data warehouse model.

�� The fieldwork exercise was by no means exhaustive and for further research more comprehensively data collected.

�� Details of existing web services should have been closely monitored on the technical and organizational level to understand their functionality

�� Documentation on past project implementation could have been very useful to provide a reference to resources, costs and management issues.


International Institute for Geoinformation Sciences and Earth Observation 77

References ANZLIC (2001) Core Metadata elements for geographic data ANZLIC (2003) Standards and Protocol ANZLIC http://www.anzlic.org.au/infrastructure_standards.html#international Balek, M. (1997). Development of a prototype for geographic data sharing in a distributed heterogeneous environment ITC, Enschede Beltman, R. (1998) ESMI Panel workshop Buehler, K. (2003) OpenGIS Reference Model Clinton, B. (1994). The Executive Order. 12906. 77: 17671-17674. Cooke, H. (2002). Access to Information Act. 21-2002: 17. Crommert, P. v. d. (2003) NCGI, National Clearinghouse Geo-Information of the Netherlands‘From Clearinghouse to GeoSpatial Data Infrastructure’: Crompvoets, J. and Bregt, A. (2002). World Status Of National Spatial Data Clearinghouses. URISA. Crompvoets, J., Bregt, A., Rajabifard, A. and Williamson, I. (2003). Assessing the worldwide development of national spatial data clearinghouse. Science Direct. daCosta, J. (2002) Integrating Land Issues Into The Broader Development Agenda Pachuca daCosta, J. (2003) Land Policy Administration and Management; A Jamaica Case Study Kingston FGDC (2003) Executive Order 12906/13286 http://www.fgdc.gov/publications/documents/geninfo/execord.html FGDC (2003) FGDC Organization FGDC http://www.fgdc.gov/fgdc/fgdc.html FGDC (2003) Geospatial One-Stop Project Overview: Power point presentation, FGDC (2003) What are the framework data themes? FGDC http://www.fgdc.gov/framework/faqframe.html#themes FGDC, U. (2003) Clearinghouses in Europe and Africa FGDC http://www.fgdc.gov/clearinghouse/participation/eurafrica.html Giff, G. and Coleman, D. (2003). Funding Models for SDIs: Are they Applicable in Emerging Nations? 9th EC GI & GIS Workshop, ESDI Serving the User,, A Coruña, Spain,. GoJ (2003) Fiscal Year 2003 Kingston Green, D. and Bossomaier, T. (2002). Online GIS and spatial metadata. New York, Taylor and Francis.ISBN 0 748 40954-8 Groenendijk, L. (2001) Stakeholder Analysis ITC, Enschede



Groot, R. and Mclaughlin, J. (2000). Geospatial Data Infrastructure, concepts, cases and good practice. New York, Oxford University Press.ISBN 0-19-823381-7 Hansen, H. S. (2001). Geography Mark-up Language- the foundation of geospatial Interoperability? Nordic GIS Conference, Helsinki. Holland, P. (2002) The Australian SDI Clearinghouse: Darussalum Hyman, G., Perea, C., Rey, D. and Lance, K. (2002) Survey of the Development of National Spatial Infrastructures in Latin America and the caribbean CIAT, IGAC, USGS, Kariyawasam, R. (2002) Readiness for the Networked World: Jamaica Assessment The Berkman Center for Internet & Society Research Publication, Kibblewhite, A. (2000). Effectiveness: the next frontier in New Zealand. International Public Management Journal 3(1): 79-91. Lemmens, R. (2003) Discovering Spatial Data: Enschede Lemmens, R. (2003) GDI architecture and technology Infrastructure: Lecture Notes, Enschede Lewis, L.-K. (2000) Web-based Geoinformation supply system for the clients of the Survey Department in Jamaica ITC, Enschede Loenen, B. v. and Kok, B. C. (2004). Spatial data infrastructure and policy development in Europe and the United States. Delft, Delft University Press.90-407-2467-9 Man, E. d., Toorn, W. H. v. d. and Willem, H. (2002). Culture and the adoption and use of GIS within organisations. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 4(1): 51-63. Man-Ho, J. (2000). The implementation of a clearinghouse user interface on the Internet ITC, Enschede Molina, X. (2003). Conceptual Design of the Ecuadorian geospatial data clearinghouse ITC, Enschede Nebert, D., Ed. (2001). Developing Spatial Data Infrastructure: The SDI Cookbook. North, D. (1992). Transaction costs, institutions and economic performance. San Francisco, ICS Press.ISBN HB846.3.N67 Patterson, P. J. (1994). Green Paper #4/94 Towards a Land Policy for Jamaica. Plewe, B. (1997). GIS Online information, retrieval, mapping and the Internet. Santa Fe, Onword Press USA.ISBN 1-56690-137-5 Radwan, M., Bish, Y., Friha, N., Diza, O. and Pandya, J. (1997). Guidelines for the development of a geospatial clearinghouse in heteregeneous environment. Geographical Information, Austria Centre, Vienna, IOS Press. Rajabifard, A., Feeney, M.-E. F. and Williamson, I. P. (2002). Future directions for SDI development. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 4(1): 11-22. Sorensen, M. (2000). Institutional Linkages for National and Regional GIS – Management Issues, Opportunities and Challenges.



St. Pierre, L. (2001). CEPNET, a Facilitator in the Improved Management of Environmental Information for the Caribbean: Lessons Learned from GIS Capacity Building and Future orientations. URISA Caribbean, Montego Bay, Jamaica, URISA. STATIN (2003) Population Census STATIN http://www.statinja.com/census.html The Clearing House Service Company (2003) History of The Clearing House The Clearing House Service Company http://www.nych.org/history.htm UNEP CEP (1999) Information Systems for the Management of Marine and Coastal Resources http://www.cep.unep.org/programmes/cepnet/cepnet.html US OMB (2002) Circular A-16 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) van Lonen, B. and Kok, B. C. (2004). Spatial data inrastructure and policy development in Europe and the United States. Delft, Delft University Press.90-407-2467-9 Vries, W. d. (2004) Examples of Clearinghouses: Lecture Notes, Enschede Williamson, I., Rajabifard, A. and Feeny, M. E. (2003). Developing spatial data infrastructure from concept to reality. New York, Publisher Taylor and Franscis.0 415 30265-X Yanying, X. (1996). Conceptual design of the Chinese national geospatial data clearing house prototype ITC, Enschede



Bibliography

Clearinghouse Technologies Abel, D. J., et al. (1998). "An exploration of GIS architectures for Internet environments." Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 22(1): 7-23. Aimin, G. (1998). “A client - server clearinghouse architecture with spatial data downloading capability”. Enschede, ITC: 127. Anthony M. (2001) "Serving geospatial data through the clearinghouse and Open GIS policy" URISA Caribbean 52 Anthony, M. L., et al. (1998). "The Inter-American Geospatial Data Network: Developing a Western Hemisphere geospatial data clearinghouse." IAHS-AISH Publication(253): 231-235. Balek, M. (1997). “Development of a prototype for geographic data sharing in a distributed heterogeneous environment.” Enschede, ITC: 58. Brandt, C. A., et al. (2002). "Metadata-driven creation of data marts from an EAV-modeled clinical research database." International Journal of Medical Informatics 65(3): 225-241. Christian, E. (2001). "A metadata initiative for global information discovery." Government Information Quarterly 18(3): 209-221. Crommert, P. v. d. (2003). “NCGI, National Clearinghouse Geo-Information of the Netherlands From Clearinghouse to GeoSpatial Data Infrastructure” Crompvoets, J., et al. (2002). "World Status Of National Spatial Data Clearinghouses." URISA. Crompvoets, J., et al. (2003). "Assessing the worldwide development of national spatial data clearinghouse." Science Direct. Crompvoets, J., et al. (2003). “Impact Assessment of ISPIRE EU-Geoportal” Sophia. CTG.GIS-003 (1995). “The New York State Spatial Data Clearinghouse Technical Report”. Albany, Center for Technology in Government University at Albany / SUNY: 21. Friha, N. (1996).”Guidelines for the development of a Geographic Information Infrastructure in Tunisia (Implementation of the clearinghouse concept)”. Enschede, ITC: 154. FGDC (2003). “What does it mean to be an NSDI Clearinghouse Node?” FGDC. 2003. http://www.fgdc.gov/clearinghouse/clearinghouse.html FGDC, U. (2003). “Clearinghouses in Europe and Africa”, FGDC. 2003.



Gould, M., et al. (2000). “Evolution from Regional Metadata Services to Automated Geographic Data” Green, D., et al. (2002). “Online GIS and spatial metadata”. New York, Taylor and Francis. Jacob, G. G. K., et al. (1999). "Development of a new rapid prototyping interface." Computers in Industry 39(1): 61-70. Kopp, P. (2002). “CNES Clearinghouse Prototype Description”. Kuuipo, A., et al. (2002). "Humane" Interfaces to Improve the Usability of Data Clearinghouses. Geographic Information Science, Boulder, CO, USA, Springer-Verlag Heidelberg. Lewis, L.-K. (2000). “Web-based Geoinformation supply system for the clients of the Survey Department in Jamaica”. Enschede ITC: 83. Man-Ho, J. (2000). “The implementation of a clearinghouse user interface on the Internet”. Enschede, ITC: 121. Matin, M. A. (1996). “Development of a prototype for object identification of heterogeneous FGIS”. Enschede, ITC: 95. Meeks, W. L., et al. "Geospatial information utility: an estimation of the relevance of geospatial information to users." Decision Support Systems In Press, Corrected Proof. Moen, W. E. (2001). "The metadata approach to accessing government information." Government Information Quarterly 18(3): 155-165. Molina, X. (2003). Conceptual Design of the Ecuadorian geospatial data clearinghouse. Department of Urban and Regional Planning and Geo-information Management Enschede, ITC: 77. Nardelli, E., et al. (2000). "An efficient spatial access method for spatial images containing multiple non-overlapping features." Information Systems 25(8): 553-568. NHD (2000). The Jamaica Biodiversity Clearing-house Mechanism, Natural History Division of the Institute of Jamaica. 2003. NHD (2003). IABIN Invasive Species Information Network - Jamaica (I3N - JA). 2003. NYC (2003). The New York Clearinghouse. 2003. Pacific Meridian Resources (2000). South Sierra Geographic Information Cooperative(SSGIC) Geo-Spatial Data Clearinghouse Systems Design Workshop Summary Report. Colorado: 23.



Plewe, B. (1997). GIS Online information, retrieval, mapping and the Internet, Onword Press USA. Pundt, H., et al. (2002). "Domain ontologies for data sharing-an example from environmental monitoring using field GIS." Computers & Geosciences 28(1): 95-102. Radwan, M., et al. (1997). Guidelines for the development of a geospatial clearinghouse in heteregeneous environment. Geographical Information, Austria Centre, Vienna, IOS Press. Rweyemamu, A., et al. (1997). The concept of clearinghouse for data sharing: specific reference to the ministry of lands housing and urban development MLHUD and Ministry of local government MLG in Tanzania. Enschede, ITC: 89. Simco, G. (2003). "Internet Distributed Storage Infrastructure." The Internet and Higher Education 6(1): 91-95. Theseira, M. (2002). "Using Internet GIS technology for sharing health and health related data for the West Midlands Region." Health & Place 8(1): 37-46. Tulloch, D. L., et al. (2000). "A progress report on a U.S. National Survey of Geospatial Framework Data." Journal of Government Information 27(3): 13. Vassiliadis, P., et al. (2001). "Data warehouse process management." Information Systems 26(3): 205-236. West, J., Lawrence A., et al. (2002). "Metadata as a knowledge management tool: supporting intelligent agent and end user access to spatial data." Decision Support Systems 32(3): 247-264. Wu, T., et al. (2003). "An interface for the data exchange between CAS and CAD/CAM systems." International Congress Series 1256: 703-709. Yanying, X. (1996). Conceptual design of the Chinese national geospatial data clearing house prototype. Department of Urban and Regional Planning and Geo-information Management. Enschede, ITC: 109.

SDI Allen, R. S. (1995). "An overview of the Federal Geographic Data Committee, National Spatial Data Infrastructure, National Geospatial Data Clearinghouse, and the Digital Geospatial Metadata Standard: what will it mean for tomorrow's libraries?" Bulletin - Special Libraries Association, Geography & Map Division 180: 2-28. Brox, C., et al. (2002). "Toward a geospatial data infrastructure for Northrhine-Westphalia." Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 26(1): 19-37. Buogo, A., et al. (1995). "Spatial information systems and information integration." Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 19(3): 161-170. Groot, R., et al. (2000). Geospatial Data Infrastructure, concepts, cases and good practice. New York, Oxford University Press.



Hyman, G., et al. (2002). Survey of the Development of National Spatial Infrastructures in Latin America and the Caribbean, CIAT, IGAC, USGS. Johnson, J. P. (1995). "Case studies of dissemination policy in local government GIS agencies." Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 19(5-6): 373-389. Klosterman, R. E. (1995). "The appropriateness of geographic information systems for regional planning in the developing world." Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 19(1): 1-13. Lemmens, R. (2003). GDI architecture and technology Infrastructure. Enschede. Li, J. (1999). A method of establishing framework data in national geospatial data infrastructure of China. Department of Urban and Regional Planning and Geo-information Management Enschede, ITC: 79. Masser, I. (2001). Regional SDI's: the European experience. Apeldorn. Nebert, D., Ed. (2001). The Spatial Data Infrastructure Cookbook. Nebert, D. (2003). Metadata and Geospatial Services. Nedovic-Budic, Z., et al. (2003). "Are SDIs serving the needs of local planning? Case study of Victoria, Australia and Illinois, USA." Computers, Environment and Urban Systems In Press, Corrected Proof. Nedovic-Budic, Z., et al. (2001). "Organizational (soft) GIS interoperability: lessons from the U.S." International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 3(3): 290-298. Phillips, A., et al. (1999). "Spatial data infrastructure concepts." Australian Surveyor 44(1): 20-28. Rajabifard, A., et al. (2002). "Future directions for SDI development." International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 4(1): 11-22. Rao, M., et al. (2002). "National spatial data infrastructure - coming together of GIS and EO in India." Acta Astronautica 51(1-9): 527-535. Reeve, D., et al. (1999). GIS Organizations and People -A socio-technical Approach. London, Taylor and Francis. Smits, P. (2002). INSPIRE -Infrastructure for Spatial Information In Europe Architecture and Standards Working Group. Dublin. Streit, U., et al. (2002). Cross-border infrastructure for Dutch-German geoservices Mission Statement & State of Project.



Turkstra, J., et al. (2003). "Local spatial data infrastructure, Trujillo-Peru." Habitat International In Press, Corrected Proof. UNEP CEP (1999). Information Systems for the Management of Marine and Coastal Resources. 2003. UNEP-IDB (1997). Project For Strengthening The Capabilities For Managing Coastal And Marine Environmental Resources In The Wider Caribbean Region. 2003. Williamson, I., et al. (2001). Land Administration And Spatial Data Infrastructures -Trends And Developments. The 42nd Australian Surveyor's Congress- 2001 A Spatial Odyssey, Brisbane Australia. Williamson, I., et al. (2003). Developing spatial data infrastructure from concept to reality. New York, Publisher Taylor and Francis.

Policy and Legislation (2002). Access to Information Act. ANZLIC (2001). Proposed Coordination Arrangements for the Implementation of the Commonwealth Policy on Spatial Data Access and Pricing. ANZLIC (2003). SPATIAL DATA INFRASTRUCTURE for AUSTRALIA and NEW ZEALAND. Beltman, R. (1998). ESMI Panel workshop: 24. Bishop, I. D., et al. (2000). "Spatial data infrastructures for cities in developing countries: Lessons from the Bangkok experience." Cities 17(2): 85-96. Brown, F. "Institutional Framework For Policy, Regulation and Competition in Jamaica's Telecommunications Sector." Clinton, B. (1994). The Executive Order. 12906. 77: 17671-17674. Craglia, M., et al. (1997). "A European policy framework for geographic information." Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 21(6): 393-406. daCosta, J. (2002). Integrating Land Issues Into The Broader Development Agenda. Pachuca,: 28. daCosta, J. (2003). Land Policy Administration and Management; A Jamaica Case Study. Kingston: 53. Evans, J. (1994). "Sharing spatial environmental information across agencies, regions and scales: issues and solutions." Environmental information management and analysis, Published by Taylor & Francis, Editors Michener W.K. and et al.: 203-219. Felleman, J. (1990). "There's a GIS in your future." Government Information Quarterly 7(3): 261-267.



Frank, S. M., et al. (1995). FRAMEWORK DATA SETS FOR THE NSDI. Maine/Orono,California at Santa Barbara, (1) - University of Maine/Orono (2) - University of California at Santa Barbara. GoJ (2002). PUBLIC SECTOR MODERNISATION Government of Jamaica. (2003). VISION AND STRATEGY 2010. Kingston: 54. GoJ (2003). Fiscal Year 2003. Kingston. Kimball, L., et al. (1991). "The eighth session of the Preparatory Commission for the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea : Kingston, Jamaica, 5-30 March 1990 and New York, USA, 13-31 August 1990." Marine Policy 15(3): 220-223. LICJ (2003). LAND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, LICJ. 2003. Loenen, B. v. (2003). The Impact of Access Policies on the Development of a National GDI. Loenen, B. v., et al. (2004). Spatial data infrastructure and policy development in Europe and the United States. Delft, Delft University Press. Madon, S., et al. (1997). "Managing natural resources using GIS: Experiences in India." Information & Management 32(1): 45-53. Patterson, P. J. (1994). Green Paper #4/94 Towards a Land Policy for Jamaica. Robbin, A. (2001). "The loss of personal privacy and its consequences for social research." Journal of Government Information 28(5): 493-527. Saxby, S. (2002). "EDITORIAL: PRIVACY AND DATA SHARING: THE WAY FORWARD FOR PUBLIC SERVICES?" Computer Law & Security Report 18(3): 154. Siegel, S. R., et al. (1991). "UNDP coordination of disaster and development planning." Land Use Policy 8(4): 297-309.

Standards Albrecht, J. (1999). "Geospatial information standards. A comparative study of approaches in the standardization of geospatial information." Computers & Geosciences 25(1): 9-24. ANZLIC (2001). Core Metadata elements for geographic data: 93. ANZLIC (2004). "Standards and Protocol." http://www.anzlic.org.au/infrastructure_standards.html#international Burgess, C. G., et al. (1993). "Spatial data exchange standards: Springboard to the future or fetter to the past?" Computers & Geosciences 19(1): 89-93. Interoperability Hubs. GISciences, Castellón, Spain, Department of Informatic Systems and Languages (LSI), Universitat Jaume I.



Government of India (2003). NSDi Metadata Standards (with Design of Prototype NSDI Metadata). Bangalore, Government of India department of Space Indian Space Research Organization: 45-46. Guptill, S. C. (1994). "Spatial data standards and information policy." Government Information Quarterly 11(4): 387-401. Hadzilakos, T., et al. (2000). "Interoperability and definition of a national standard for geospatial data: the case of the Hellenic Cadastre." International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 2(2): 120-128. Hansen, H. S. (2001). Geography Mark-up Language- the foundation of geospatial Interoperability? Nordic GIS Conference, Helsinki. Kuhn, W., et al. (2000). Reference model 3.0 Draft Geospatial Data Infrastructure (GDI) Northrhine-Westfalia. Ma, S., et al. (2001). "Methodology for an implementation of the STEP standard: a Java prototype." Advances in Engineering Software 32(1): 15-19. OGC (2003). OpenGIS Reference Model: 87. Prins, M. (2003). Is GML only for Internet GIS? United Nations (1998). GIS Standards and standardization: Handbook. Bangkok, Regional Applications Program (RESAP).

Data Exchange and the Web Technologies Alesheikh, A., et al. (2002). "Internet Dissemination of Iranian Roads Information Web-GIS Development Strategy." GIM International: 12-15. Badard, T., et al. (2001). "Using XML for the exchange of updating information between geographical information systems." Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 25(1): 17-31. Bosques, W., et al. (1997). "A spatial data retrieval and image processing expert system for the world wide web." Computers & Industrial Engineering 33(1-2): 433-436. Hootsmans, R. M., et al. (2000). "Topographic mapping organisations and the World Wide Web: New presentation options." Kartografisch Tijdschrift 26(1): 59- 62. Hunt, R. (1998). "Internet--services, facilities, protocols and architecture." Computer Communications 20(16): 1397-1411. Lang, K., et al. (2000). "XML, metadata and efficient knowledge discovery." Knowledge-Based Systems 13(5): 321-331.



Pfeifer, J., et al. (1989). "Data exchange formats for testing." Micro-processing and Microprogramming 27(1-5): 687-693. Yen, D. C., et al. (2002). "The impact and implementation of XML on business-to-business commerce." Computer Standards & Interfaces 24(4): 347-362. Yoo, S. B., et al. (2002). "Web-based knowledge management for sharing product data in virtual enterprises." International Journal of Production Economics 75(1-2): 173-183. Zhang, Y. P., et al. (2000). "An Internet based STEP data exchange framework for virtual enterprises." Computers in Industry 41(1): 51-63.

Management Budic, Z. D., et al. (1994). "Implementation and management effectiveness in adoption of GIS technology in local governments." Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 18(5): 285-304. Burn, J. M., et al. (2000). "A comparison of the views of business and IT management on success factors for strategic alignment." Information & Management 37(4): 197-216. ECA (2003). Chapter Three: Geospatial Data Needs Assessment. The SDI handbook for Africa. Adis Ababa: 21. Elias, A., et al. (2000). Stakeholder Analysis for Systems Thinking and Modeling. ORSNZ 2000, Wellington, New Zealand. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, Pitman. Giff, G., et al. (2003). Funding Models for SDIs: Are they Applicable in Emerging Nations? 9th EC GI & GIS Workshop, ESDI Serving the User,, A Coruña, Spain,. Godinez, G. E. Y. (2001). "Maximize data sharing, minimize duplication. Development of a Cadastral infrastructure in Guatemala." GIM International 15(8): 56-59. Groenendijk, L. (2001). Stakeholder Analysis. Enschede, ITC: 19. Groot, R. (2001). "Reform of government and the future performance of national surveys." Computer Environment and Urban Systems 25: 267-387. Jonker, J., et al. (2002). "Stakeholder Excellence? Framing the evolution and complexity of a stakeholder perspective of the firm." Wiley InterScience 9(23). Kariyawasam, R. (2002). Readiness for the Networked World: Jamaica Assessment, The Berkman Center for Internet & Society Research Publication: 8,14,17, 18.



Kibblewhite, A. (2000). "Effectiveness: the next frontier in New Zealand." International Public Management Journal 3(1): 79-91. Man, E. d., et al. (2002). "Culture and the adoption and use of GIS within organizations." International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 4(1): 51-63. North, D. (1992). Transaction costs, Institutions and economic performance. San Francisco, ICS Press. Ren, L. (2000). The Stakeholder Approach to the Chinese SOEs: A Financing Perspective. Department of Technology & Organization Faculty of Technology & Management. Enschede, University of Twente: 3-4. Sharp, H., et al. (1999). Stakeholder Identification in the Requirements Engineering Process. 10th International Workshop on Database & Expert Systems Applications, Florence, Italy, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. Sorensen, M. (2000). Institutional Linkages for National and Regional GIS - Management Issues, Opportunities and Challenges.



Appendix A Fieldwork Supplements A1. Questionnaires with Cover letter

�� To :

Attn :

Organization:

Telefax :

From : Kizuwanda Reece

Department: PGM / GIM

E-mail : [email protected]

Phone : 053-4874444 Telefax: 053-4874400

Our ref : 2003/K/F/ Date : 12 September 2003

Dear Sir/ Madam

Re: Questionnaire: Assessment Of The Status Of Data Exchange In Jamaica- GI Providers’ Perspective My name is Kizuwanda Reece and I am currently a student at ITC, the Netherlands pursuing a Masters of Science in Geo-information Management and conducting a research entitled “Defining an effective methodology for geospatial data clearinghouse development in Jamaica. GIS technology is increasingly affecting how we collect, process, manipulate, and integrate geographical information (GI) in Jamaica. Collaboration between various organizations who produce and use geographic information becomes more important as the potential benefits from data sharing and exchange are being realized. Through the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) Initiatives spearheaded by Land Information Council of Jamaica (LICJ), GI stakeholders are encouraged to be more active participants in successfully implementing the technical components of this infrastructure, which includes the development of a national geospatial data clearinghouse service. This questionnaire is a joint effort between the ITC and LICJ and is designed to gather relevant information regarding the geoinformation provision within GI related organizations by examining the institutional and technical issues relating to data sharing. The results of this questionnaire will not only contribute to this research but will provide useful information to the Coordinating body (LICJ) as to the way forward in implementing the NSDI for Jamaica. With this, an invitation is extended to participate in a one day workshop entitled “NSDI –facilitating geospatial data sharing among users and providers” on October 10, 2003 from 9am to 3pm. A formal invitation will be provided very soon from The National GIS Coordinator –Cecille Blake. The questionnaire enclosed contains a total of 30 questions which we kindly request you to fill out carefully and upon completion provide the same to the NSDI workshop at October10, 2003 or contact below on or before this date to arrange collection. The results will be made available upon your request.

Hengelosestraat 99 P.O. Box 6 7500 AA Enschede The Netherlands Phone: +31 (0)53 487 44 44



Thank you for your kind cooperation

or

. Please provide your contact details

Yours Respectfully, Kizuwanda Reece (Ms.) Seen and agreed by Walter T. de Vries (Supervisor) [email protected]

Primary Contact Name: ……………………………………………………………………………………………… Organization: ……………………………………………………………………………………… Email: ……………………………………………………………………………………………… Tel#: ……………………….

Cecille Blake Tel: 920-9117, 920-8210

Fax 929-7349 Email: [email protected]

Kizuwanda Reece Email: [email protected]

or [email protected]



Questionnaires –Assessing the Status of Data Exchange among GI organizations in Jamaica INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES Organizational 1. Which of the following best describes your Organization? Tick the most appropriate.

��Government ��Semi-government ��Local authority ��Academia ��Private ��NGO ��Other (Please specify)………………………………………………………….

2. At what level does your organization function? �� International ��Regional ��National ��Provincial ��Local

3. What is the core GI activity of the organization? ��Topographic Map Production ��GI Data Collection, processing and analysis ��Geodetic Network ��Road Network ��Thematic Map production and analysis…………………………….. ��Utility (water, electricity, telephone, drainage, waste management) ��GI training/ education ��Land Surveying ��Environmental analysis ��Disaster management ��Engineering surveys ��Social /demographic data provision or analysis ��Security ��Other……………………………………………………………….

4. Please indicate what is the expertise of the GI staff members?

Postgraduate Diploma Certificate Land Surveying Geography/Geology GIS Cartography Geodesy Urban, Regional, Physical Planning Photogrammetry Marketing Computer Science Engineering Internet GIS Other………………

Access and Funding 5. Which of the following best describes access to geospatial data through your organization?

��Restricted to internal use ��Restricted to government organization ��Unrestricted to all users (government and others)

6. Where there is open access, what access policy is applied?

��Free ��Charged



If free, are there any conditions? If yes, please state on what grounds ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… If charged what is the pricing policy?

��Cost Recovery ��Market Value ��Reproductive Cost ��Other

7. Where access is provided, please indicate the frequency of the mode of distribution?

Mode High Medium Low

Hard copy

Floppy

CD ROM

Email

Internet

Intranet

Other

8. What are the current fees or prices for your GI products and services? Briefly state how they are determined?

Product/Service Price AD Determination Standard Maps

Custom Maps

Custom GIS Services

GIS, CAD tabular Data

Web based services

Other………………

9. What specific funding model would you find most suitable for future national online service provision? Choose

the most suitable. ��Pooling of funds among GI organizations (users and providers) ��Obtaining external funds from international sources through the government (grants) ��Cost Sharing by individual GI organizations �� International Loan repayable with interest ��Revolving Funds ��Public Private Partnerships ��Public Funding ��Other (Please specify) ………………………………………………………………………….

10. What revenue model would you adopt to maintain a national online service?

��Yearly/ monthly subscription ��Membership fees ��Charge per transaction ��Advertising of other companies’ product and services ��Other (Please specify) ………………………………………………………………………….



Business and Geomarketing 11. What specific GI- based products and services (digital or analogue) do you provide to your customers? Standard map

��Topographic ��Cadastral ��Thematic ��Zonal Maps ��Other (Please specify)…………………………………………………………..

Customized map ��Location Specific ��Layer Specific �� Integrated with tabular information ��Other (Please specify)…………………………………………………………..

Geo-processing services �� Image processing and analysis ��GIS spatial analysis ��Statistical analysis ��Other (Please specify)…………………………………………………………..

Online GIS services ��Map querying �� Interactive map ��Viewing and publishing ��Other (Please specify)…………………………………………………………..

GIS sales, training and consultancy ��Software training ��Software sales ��Other (Please specify)…………………………………………………………..

Other Product and Service provided (Please specify)

��………………………………………… ��………………………………………… ��…………………………………………

12. How do your customers access your services? �� Internet ��Telephone ��Email ��Office Visit ��Appointment ��Service Delivered ��Other (Please specify)…………………..

13. Which advertising medium is most often used/ or most effective within your organization?

��Public Media (The daily newspaper, television, radio) ��The Internet (websites) ��Billboards ��Through conference and seminars ��Focused group discussions among users and clients ��Other (Please specify)…………………………….

14. Have you engaged in partnerships or collaboration with other organizations for GI service provision or for

development of any new products? Briefly explain ………………………………………………………………………………………………..………………………………………………………………………………………………..………………………………………………………………………………………………..……………………………………………………………………………………… …..………………………………………………………………………………………………..………………………………………………………………………………………



TECHNICAL ISSUES Data Acquisition Techniques 15. What formats do you collect and maintain your datasets?

��Analogue only ��Digital only ��Analog and digital

16. If data collection includes digital please state the data format/s?

��ASCII ��Shapefile ��DXF ��Mapinfo ��Other (Please specify)…………………………………………………….

17. What techniques are adopted within the organization for digital geospatial data collection methods? Explain briefly.

In the field ��GPS techniques ��Total Station ��Other (Please specify) ………………………………………………………………………………………………..………………………………………………………………………………………………..………………………………………………………………………………………………..……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

In office ��Digitizing (Heads up/ Desktop) ��Scanning ��Other (Please specify) ………………………………………………………………………………………………..………………………………………………………………………………………………..………………………………………………………………………………………………..……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Data Management 18. Please state how often the following datasets are maintained (updated)?

Daily Weekly Monthly Yearly Road Network Cadastral boundary Demographic Data Buildings Land Register Land values Telecom Network Water Utility Network Electricity Network Flood Zone Disaster Data Environmental Data Coastal Data Other (Please specify)

…………………………………. 19. On what medium is the data stored?

��Paper ��CD Rom ��Computer hard drive ��Central Server

20. What inventory systems are used to catalog data? ��Physical filing cabinet ��Digital folders ��RDBMS

21. Do you have metadata for existing datasets? (Please state yes/no)………….



22. (a) If yes, what specific details are included? Tick where appropriate Identification Data Quality Spatial Data Organization ��Citation ��Attribute Accuracy ��Direct Spatial Reference (point,

vector raster) ��Description ��Logical Consistency Report �� Indirect Spatial Reference

(address, location) ��Time Period of Content ��Completeness Report ��Status ��Positional Accuracy ��Spatial Domain ��Keywords ��Access Constraints ��Use Constraints ��Lineage Information

Spatial reference Attribute Distribution ��Horizontal Coordinate

System ��Detailed ��Contact

��Vertical Coordinate System ��Overview ��Ref# of the data ��Map projection ��Liability ��Order process

(b) How often is the metadata updated? ��Monthly ��Yearly ��Otherwise (Please specify)…………………………………………….. 23. Have you adopted any of the following standards? If yes please check where appropriate. ISO (TC211) OGC

Data standards Data quality Metadata Data exchange

GIS Infrastructure 24. What GIS components do you currently use?

Quantity Internal External Desktop Computers

IBM UNIX DOS Macintosh Windows Linux Other (Please specify)…………………..

GIS Software

PC Arc Info ArcView ArcGIS MapInfo Idrisi GRASS Geomedia SmallWorld

Other (Please specify)…………………... Database

Access ORACLE ArcSDE SQLServer



Informix Other (Please specify)……………………

Imaging Software

ERDAS ILWIS Other (Please specify)……………………

25. Does your organization have a well-maintained intranet facility? Please state whether it is linked to a wider network or any other organization.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Data Exchange 26. What has been the major barrier to exchanging geospatial information with other GI service providers?

�� Incompatible software platform ��Different interpretation of datasets ��Different format of datasets ��Different reference frame (coordinate system-projection and datum) ��Different output quality �� Insufficient knowledge of who owns what data and the status of the data �� Insufficient knowledge of how to exchange geospatial data ��Unclear or non existing pricing, copyright and privacy policies ��Reluctance to share due to unforeseen benefits or risks ��Other (Please specify)……………………………………………

27. Is there a well maintained website for your organization, who is responsible and how often is it updated?

………………………………………………………………………………………………..………………………………………………………………………………………………..………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………………………………………………………

28. What specific GIS related services are published there?

��…………………………………………………………………………… ��…………………..………………………………………………………… ��……………………………………..……………………………………… ��………………………………………………………..…………………… ��……………………………………………………………………………… ��……………………………………………………………………..………

29. To what extent would you support online data processing and service delivery? Check if you agree.

��Develop interactive web-interface for customers ��Publish your metadata online and your services in a local registry �� Invest in the development of a national geographic one-stop web portal (clearinghouse)

��Conform or adopt international standards for data exchange ��Train staff in regular maintaining metadata

30. What specific geoinformation do you integrate from other organizations, Please indicate in what form? ��……………………………………………………….. ��……………………………………………………….. ��……………………………………………………….. ��……………………………………………………….. ��……………………………………………………….. ��………………………………………………………..

Once again thank you for your kind cooperation in completing this questionnaire. For further clarification please contact: Kizuwanda Reece



[email protected]



Questionnaire: Assessment Of The Status Of Data Exchange- GI Users’ Perspective Institutional Issues

1. Type of Organization. (Kindly check the appropriate one) ��Government ��Semi-government ��Private ��NGO ��Academic �� International ��Other (Please specify)…………………………………………………………………….

2. What is the main activity of your organization? (Kindly check the appropriate one) ��Education ��Health ��Law enforcement ��Utilities ��Tourism ��Land and environment ��Agriculture ��Research ��Mining ��Other (Please specify)…………………………………………………………………….

3. For what specific functions do you require the use of geospatial information?

��Verify locations ��Verify land boundaries ��Draft statistical reports ��Delivery of goods ��Generate service for customers ��Conduct analysis ��Route Planning ��Other (Please specify)…………………………………………………………………….

2. What is the percentage of staff using geographic information to perform their function? ��Less than 2% ��Less than 10% ��More than 10% ��At most 50%

3. What expertise do you require to manipulate geospatial information?

��Technicians ��Diploma graduates ��Post graduate ��Professional/ Expert

Other (Please specify)……………………………………………………………………. 4. Which organizations regularly provide you with information, state whether there is a formal agreement

(Memorandum of Understanding or License Agreement)?

Name of Organizations Contact Person Formal Agreement

Yes

No

5. How do you interact with your data provider?

��Telephone ��Personal contact



��Email ��Website (http) ��Other (Please specify)…………………………………………………………………….

GIS Use

6. In what forms and quantity do you receive geographically related information from these organizations? Digital Hardcopy Qty

Reports Graphical data Spreadsheet (tabular) Other (Please specify)………………………

7. Which problems do you experience regarding geospatial data provision?

Never 1-10times Always

Delayed delivery Incomplete information Physical Proximity Inaccurate information Poor customer service Outdated Information Unfit for use Other………………………………..

8. What is the average delivery time for receiving GI data from provider? < Day <Week <Month <1/2Year Standards Maps Custom maps GIS analysis Geodetic point details Thematic maps Demographic Data Other………………………

9. How much time is spent per day manipulating geographic information? ��<5hrs ��5hrs ��>5hrs

10. Kindly tick where applicable, to provide an overview of what GI datasets are required and used.

11. Which GIS data types have you used? ��Raster images ��Scanned maps ��Vector data with tables ��Other (Please specify)…………………

12. What is the status of GIS software use in your organization? Demonstrated Has been used Is used

ArcGIS ArcView MapInfo AutoCAD Other (Please specify)…………………

Network Use 13. What is the most commonly used for information exchange both internally and externally? Please tick the

most appropriate option. ��Diskette ��CD ROM ��Email ��Ftp ��Tape ��Hard drive ��Other (Please specify)………………….

14. Which level of staff members has access to the Internet within your organization? Tick where appropriate ��Management ��GIS/IT Specific departments



��Supervisors ��Administrative ��All staff

15. Does your organization have a well-maintained intranet facility? Please state whether it is linked to a

wider network or any other organization. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

16. Which activities are supported by the Internet/Intranet facility and how?

��Advertising…………………………………………….. �� Internal Communication…………………………………. ��Sales& Marketing………………………………………... ��Management……………………………………………… ��Administration…………………………………………… ��Accounting………………………………………………. ��Production and service delivery………………………… ��Other……………………………………………………..

17. Do you conduct online transactions (e-commerce)? Please state the purpose and the frequency Frequency/ month >10times >20

<50times ��E-banking ��Online purchasing ��Online sales ��Online service request ��Online catalogue service ��Other (Please specify)………………….

National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) Awareness

18. Which of the following NSDI initiatives are you aware of? ��Collaboration with GI organizations in private and public sector ��Establishment of GIS Center ��Development of a Clearinghouse for geographic data ��Establishing a GPS Network ��Training of Government staff in GIS ��Large scale digital map creation using IKONOS ��Digital Cadastral Index Map creation ��GIS in Schools

19. What role is your organization playing in any of these initiatives? Briefly explain ��Coordinate…………………………………………………………………………. ��Facilitate…………………………………………………………………………… ��Participate………………………………………………………………………….. ��Support…………………………………………………………………………….. ��Observe……………………………………………………………………………. ��Other (Please specify)………………………………………………………………………..

20. What specific conference or other National or regional GIS related activities did you participate in since

the last 5 years? ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

21. What is your usual level of interaction with the Land Information council? Choose the most appropriate

��Attend LICJ monthly meeting ��Interact with the National GIS coordinator ��Keep up to date with LICJ news and happenings



��No interaction ��Other (Please specify)………………………………………………………………………..

Once again I would like to thank you for completing this questionnaire and for further clarification please contact: Kizuwanda Reece [email protected]



A2. Workshop Exercises Local and International Clearinghouse Evaluation form

Section 1:General Please indicate on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), your response to the statements below. Accuracy: ��

The sources for any factual information is clearly listed and can be verified in another source

The information is free from grammatical, spelling, and typographical errors

The responsible person is clearly indicated The sources of information are clearly labeled Authority: The authors are known The authors have expertise in the area (the qualification of the author known)

The material sources and references are furnished The author can be contacted easily Expression of responsibility or liability Objectivity: The information is provided as a public service It presents pure facts and not opinionated Currency: The site has been updated recently. Frequency of planned updates and revisions is stated The site has the date of last revision posted. The date of initial page-posting is indicated Coverage: There is a clear indication that the page has been completed, and is not still under construction

The information is irrelevant to the topic It provides adequate information on the topic it presents Access: You can connect quickly to the page The page loads quickly

Presentation: ��

The site has a consistent look – design, font, background, color � � � � �

Graphics, animations, videos and sounds make an important contribution – each serving a purpose

� � � � �

Every page has an appropriate title � � � � �

Pages have only one or two fonts � � � � �

Instructions 1. Choose one local and one international site 2. Click on the world map the continent in which you would like to view the clearinghouse 3. Select from the list, one specific clearinghouse site you would like to evaluate 4. Fill out the evaluation form below.

Note: The duration of this exercise is an estimated 15 minutes.



Each page uses a limited number of colors, especially for text � � � � �

Type colors/styles and text-to-background contrast have been selected for good readability

� � � � �

The pages are simply and attractively designed � � � � �

Navigation: Pages load quickly � � � � �

Pages have simple, consistent navigation scheme to let users get to desired places quickly and easily

The first page indicates clearly how the site is organized and how to get to items of interest

Links are easy to identify Are there links from each page to all the other major sections? The links work well The internal links are placed at the same place all through the web site Graphics and sounds are clearly identified Each supporting page has a link back to the home page

Section 2: Type of electronic front door An electronic front door is an Internet portal or a web where information and services are made available to a target group or even to a wide and undefined group. What stage of development is the website? ♦ Well developed ♦ In development ♦ Prototype Please answer yes or no to the questions below. State reasons where applicable

1. Are there other international languages supported? _______________ 2. Are there links to other web references? ______________ 3. Does the site present Legal conditions (copyright, liability, disclaimers)? ______________ 4. Is there a Pricing Policy available? ______________ 5. Is the user restricted in terms of access to information?______________ 6. Is there indication of metadata standards being used?_________________ 7. Does the site include a comprehensive query and search possibility?_____________

Please indicate any additional comments and impression you have of this site that has not been mentioned.

Grading Section 1 Excellent: 130-180 Good: 70-130 Poor: 40-70 Section 2 Good: 5-8 Yes’ Poor: 5-8 No’s



A.3 Workshop Exercise:Environmental Scanning Provided in the table below is a list of what are the current competencies (strengths) that support your business objectives as well as the current problems (weaknesses) that hinder the progress of these objectives.

Technical (e.g. data, software, hardware, processes, skilled technical staff etc.)

Organizational (e.g. type of management, structure, administrative, financial, capacity building etc.)

Institutional (e.g. policies, guidelines, laws etc.)

S

T

R

E

N

G

T

H

S

W

E

A

K

N

E

S

S

E

S

Section1: Organizational Status



Detail below what you perceive to be opportunities and threats that affect or will affect the current status of GIS use, customer service, operational performance of your organizations. (For example government implementing an act or policy stating access to information should be open to the public how would you appropriate this given the above strengths and weaknesses and how can these result in immediate and strategic actions!).

Opportunity Immediate Action Strategic/ Long-term Action

Threat

Section2: Environmental Analysis



GIS is not only includes software and expertise to develop maps but also includes the provision of services that combine technology and techniques to solve everyday problems. GIS is applicable at all levels, which can be packaged to suit the needs of the everyday users. These users are unaware and unconcerned about the intricate details such as tools, standards and procedures used to provide the service they need. It is therefore imperative that the potentials be explored and appropriately analyzed given the current situation in Jamaica. Though the concepts of GIS a still fairly new in our local environment the vision is towards an infrastructure similar to the road infrastructure wherein a public good be free interruptions and be able to take the users from point a to b and having the right signposts to guide the users. Below is a table with the various applications think of how your organization would need to incorporate at least 1 of these applications and discuss among the group. Then outline what you think would be the requirements to have this specific service provided. ♦ Location Based Services ♦ Risk Assessment ♦ Environmental Analysis ♦ Mobile Mapping ♦ Crime Analysis

Activity 3: Exploration of the Existing and Potential Geo-Market



A:4 List Of Stakeholder Organizations included in the Field Survey # Stakeholder Organization A B1 B2 C D E 1 National Works Agency X 2 University of Technology (Built Environment Dept) X 3 University of technology (Urban and Regional Planning Dept) X 4 Forestry Dept X X 5 National Housing Trust X 6 Jamaica Public Service Co X X 7 *Environmental Foundation of Jamaica X 8 St. Catherine PC X 9 St. Thomas PC X 10 National Water Commission X 11 Office of Disaster Preparedness & Emergency Management X X 12 National Land Agency X 13 Urban Development Corporation X 14 Ministry of Local Government X X X X 15 Planning Institute of Jamaica (PIOJ) X 16 National Environment and Planning Authority X X 17 Statistical Institute of Jamaica X X 18 National Irrigation commission X X 19 Manchester PC X 20 Police National Computer Center X X 21 Jamaica Urban Transport company X 22 Water Resources Authority X X 23 Rural Physical Planning Unit X 24 Alumni Partners of Jamaica X X 25 Cable and Wireless X X 26 Mines and geology X X 27 Spatial Innovision X X 28 Ministry of health X X 29 Ministry of Education X 30 Institute of Jamaica X

*This organization does not use GIS in house but outsource to other organizations

A- Providers B1- Direct users B2- Indirect users C- Developers D- Legislators E- Decision makers



A.3 Results of Environmental Scan Sector Strength Weakness Opportunity Threat Academia • Up-to-date hardware

• GIS newly implemented but rapid development

• Eagerness of research students to adopt GIS

• Positive report from organizations, where students are employed

• GIS in schools education program • Management support and faculty

coordination • Integration of GIS is school

curriculum at tertiary level • Training of secondary school

teachers

• Slow software upgrade process

• Lack of proper data integration

• Lack of consistent staff training

• Slow GIS funding process • Limited GIS specialist • Lack of GI Policies • Lack of protection laws

• Further educational development due to GIS literate graduates

• Student and staff participating in projects organized by wider community mentoring programme

• Publish students GIS projects on web

• Security of data • Regular versioning of

software • Integrate more short

courses

Sector Strength Weakness Opportunity Threat Transport, Utility and Security

• Recently acquired GIS Software,

hardware and network • Skilled Technical staff • Management vision • Organizational network

• Lack of GIS staff • Limited hardware and

software • Data unconverted • Lack of work processes • Limited funds • Management focus

changes frequently • GIS Management skills

limited • No GIS Policy • Concerns about sharing

data

• Access to information • Management willing

to invest in staff training

• Dissatisfied customers • Staff attrition • No funding



Sector Strength Weakness Opportunity Threat Land and Disaster Management

• Skilled technical staff, hardware, network, training

• Capacity building, management support

• Clear guidelines, internal policies to support GIS

• Mission includes- A basic infrastructure on which to build a modern spatial information system designed to support sustainable development

Data outdated, • Lack of software • Client lacking hardware, • Poorly defined processes • Financial, • Lack of communication

among the merged organizations,

• Slow Transition process • Workflow problems for

project implementation • National Laws outdated

Policies hamper the development of mapping project

• Laws to support online transaction

• Government catching up with technology advancement

• More ICT penetration at all levels

• Brain Drain • Data out-datedness • High software costs • Clients require more

intelligent and complex results

Land and Environment

• Available data, software and hardware, international standards being adopted

• Skilled staff, detailed database, willingness to learn, LAN

• Partnerships and collaborations with agencies, no internal communication barriers, smooth flow of funds

• GIS training and IT development • Committees to guide GIS

development • Guidelines and internal policies

support GIS • Updating of supporting laws

• Lack of up to date data, data maintenance inconsistent

• Outdated software and hardware

• GI agency reluctance to share

• Bureaucracy • Complex management

structure • Administrative problems • Financial constraints • Deficiency in laws and

acts, conflicting policies • Slow data exchange

• Ikonos Mapping project provide transparency and data can support GI analysis

• Security of information shared

• Risk of abuse



Appendix B Network Readiness Index Structure of Network Readiness Index (Harvard University, 2002)



Appendix C Stakeholder Analysis Power/Interest Power/Interest Weight High-10 Medium-5 Low-1 Power Table Structure

Stakeholder

Project Implementation Dependency

Control Financial Resources

Control Legislative Issues

Control specific GI required

Level of Impact on other stakeholder

Total Weight

a*2 b*3 d*2 Interest Table Structure

Stakeholder organization Apparent Benefits

NSDI Participation

Willingness to invest

Geo-Applications

Apparent Need for CH

GI Data Needs

Total Weight

a*2 c*2 e*2 f*2 Techno-capacity/Dependency NB. The bold areas represent the field headings used and the weights are listed below Techno-capacity Weight GI Dependency Weight Software Used 1-low (<20) Current GIS Package-10-very high 2-medium (20-35) GIS-5-high 3-high (>35) Autocad-3-medium Analogue-1-low

Network Availability WAN 10-very high Well maintained LAN 5-high Poor LAN-3-medium no LAN-1-low Internet Access Full access-10-very high Restricted Access-5-high Very Limited access-3-medium No internet-1-low Trained Staff GIS experts-10-very high Trained GIS-5-high Trained technical-3-medium No GIS/technical-1-low Hardware New hardware-10-very high Sufficient-5-high Old Hardware-3-medium Require Hardware-1-low



Interactive Map service using SVG Data Transformation Service

Metadata Registration Authenticated Access to Services

Appendix D User Interface Web Design Sample Pages

D1. URL -http://kartoweb.itc.nl/jageoportal/

Home Page Design Search Page Design



D2. Sample Expert Evaluation Form Clearinghouse User Interface Evaluation form This evaluation is designed to obtain feedback on the look and feel of this website from an expert perspective. There are two sections and a final area for comments. Read the instructions and rate the different comments provided below

Section 1:General Please indicate on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), your response to the statements below.

Accuracy ��

�� Y

�� Y

�� Y

�� Y

�� Y

�� Y

�� Y

�� Y

�� Y

�� Y

�� Y

�� Y

�� !� Y

��"�� Y

�� Y

�� Y

#�� Y

�� Y

Section 2

��

�� $�� #

%�� $� ��

�� # �

�� # �

&�� # � �

�� # �

�� ' �� "��"��

(�� # �

Instructions 1. Click on the URL provided http://kartoweb.itc.nl/jageoportal/default.htm 2. Fill out the evaluation form below and save and resend to [email protected]. You

may also print and send it in analog form. Note: The duration of this exercise is an estimated 20 minutes.



��

(��

�� # �

&�� # �

&��

�� Y

�� )��

�� Y

*�� Y

+�� ,�� - Y

�� Y

�� Y

%�� Y

�� Y

Is there an indication of commercial activities on this site? (Y/N)____Yes______ Does the search provide sufficient options? Y/N)__Y________ Does it provide useful information? Y/N)_____Y_____ The services provided are relevant? Y/N)____Y______



Appendix E General Resource Requirement For NGDC Implementation

E1. Hardware And Software Requirements Data Server Metadata/

Geoprocessing Server

Application/File Server

Web/ IMS Server

Transaction/ Authentication Server

Function Stores geospatial data

Stores, manages and disseminate metadata

Serves applications and files to workstations

Provides internet service and online mapping services

Processes transactions and controls access

Model Dell PowerEdgeTM 2650

Dell PowerEdgeTM 3250

Dell PrecisionTM 450



Processor 2 Intel Xeon processors up to 3.2GHz

2 Intel Itanium 2 at up to 1.5GHz

Intel® XeonTM processors up to 3.20GHz w/1MB L3 cache (Dual Capable) 533MHz front side bus

Intel® XeonTM processors up to 3.20GHz with 1MB L3 cache (Dual Capable) 533MHz front side bus

Intel® Celeron® processors up to 2.60GHz

RAM 12GB DDR SDRAM

16GB DDR266 ECC SDRAM (operating at DDR200)

4GB dual-channel DDR 266MHz SDRAM memory

4GB dual-channel DDR 266MHz SDRAM memory

2GB DDR266 SDRAM

Storage 730GB storage 292GB storage 438GB2 (3x146) 584GB 40GB

Software ArcGIS, ArcSDE, Oracle 9i, XML Spy,

ArcGIS, ERDAS, ArcCatalog Microsoft Office

ArcGIS, ERDAS, ArcCatalog Microsoft Office

ArcIMS, Macromedia Dreamweaver, Apache

Payment online, ikey, RSA security

http://www1.us.dell.com/content/products/compare.aspx/rack_optimized?c=us&cs=555&l=en&s=biz http://www.paymentonline.com/ http://www.flicks.com/ http://www.rainbow.com/products/ikey/index.asp http://www.rsasecurity.com/products/exec_overview.html#auth E.2ITC’s IT Department Organizational Structure-Benchmark For Determining Personnel Requirements

http://cwis.itc.nl/support/it/cai/information/itcnetwork.aspx http://cwis.itc.nl/support/it/default.aspx



E4. Roles And Responsibilities For NGDC Operation

Role

Responsibilities

Functional Time Equivalent (FTE)

NGDC Manager

System Administrator

Metadata Administrator

Software Analyst

Software Engineer

Web Designer

GIS Analyst

Business Analyst Secretary

Data Entry Clerk

Asset/Resource Management 0.27 �� Develop and Implement Standards 0.54 �� Liaise with external bodies (donors, private sector) 0.21 �� Coordination geodata integration 0.67 Manage Geodatabase 0.35 �� Application development 0.91 �� IT support 0.39 �� Web development 0.25 �� Web update 0.29 �� Metadata development 0.38 �� Accounting 0.52 �� Financial Management 0.14 �� Manage transaction process 0.14 �� Marketing 0.26 �� Manage Other DB 0.23 Manage Internet 0.27 �� Manage Network 0.31 �� Manage Servers 0.24 �� Manage Workstations 0.26 �� Security Management 0.10 �� Data update 1 �� Printer management 0.05 �� Customer Service 1.2 �� Office Management 0.4 �� Total FTE 15.14 1.07 2.34 0.38 1.20 1.84 1.74 2.46 2.93 2.52 1.38



E5. Cost Evaluation for Design Options

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

Hardware Cost US$ Hardware

Cost US$ Hardware

Cost US$

6 Web/ IMS Server @3500 21000 1 Web/IMS Server 3500 1 Web/IMS Server 3500

5 local data and metadata [email protected] each 37369.25

1 Data Warehouse Server (dual processor, storage capacity TB) 14041

5 database Servers @7473.85 each 37369

5 Geoprocessing Servers@ $4600 each 23000 2 Geoprocessing Server 9200

5 Geoprocessing and Metadata Servers@$4600 23000

Subtotals 81369.25 Subtotals 26741 Subtotals 63869 Network Infrastructure Network Infrastructure Network Infrastructure

Switches 3438.96 Switches 3438.96 Switches 3439

12 [email protected] each 462.36 24 [email protected] each 924.72 12 [email protected] each 462.36

I Gb Internet connection 2000 I Gb Internet connection 2000 I Gb Internet connection 8000

Routers 160 Routers 160 Routers 160

Firewall 8500 Firewall 8500 Firewall 8500

Uninterruptible Power Supply 144.98



Subtotals 14706.3 15168.66 20706 Software Software Software Metadata software 200 Metadata Software 200 Metadata software 200 Web server software 4000 Web server Software 4000 Web server Software 4000 Web Design software 4500 Web Design Software 4500 Web Design Software 4500 Database 5000 ArcSDE 10000 Database 5000 6 ArcGIS Software (10200/per license) 61200 6 ArcGIS group license 61200 5 ArcGIS 51000 ArcIMS 7500 ArcIMS 7500 ArcIMS 7500 Programming software 1000 Programming software 1000 Programming software 1000 Web Application Developer 1000 Conversion tool 800 Conversion tool 800 Subtotals 84400 Subtotals 89000 Subtotals 74000 Personnel Personnel Personnel

1 NGDC Coordinator 70000 NGDC Management team (4) 256800 3 NGDC Managers 192600

2 NGDC Managers@64200 128400 1 NGDC Manager 64200 5 Metadata Admin(s). 274682 5 Metadata Admin. 274682.4 2 Metadata Admin. 109872.8 1 Business Analyst 49989

1 Business Analyst 49988.73 1 Business Analyst 49988.73 Software Engineer team (4) 145587

Software Engineer Team (4) 145587.2

Software Engineer team (2) 72793.6 1 Web Designer 19792

5 Web Designers 98960.76 1Web Designer 19792.15 Subtotals 767619.1 Subtotals 573447.3 Subtotals 682650 Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance Server 38000 Server 10800 Server 27000 Network 4000 Network 8500 Network 9000 Subtotals 42000 Subtotals 19300 Subtotals 36000 Total 990094.6 723657 877226



E6. URISA 2003 Salary Survey for IT/GIS Professionals (pg 5) Average salary by Job Title

TITLE 2003 Annual Salary (USD)

Director of Information Systems/Chief Information Officer 85,156 Director of GIS/GI Officer 72,741 Consultant 71,280 IT/IS Manager 64,390 Educator 61,286 GIS Manager 59,895 IT/IS System Software Analyst/Programmer 53,421 IT/IS Coordinator 50,556 GIS Coordinator 50,181 GIS Specialist 46,581 GIS Data Analyst 43,070 Trainer 40,556 IT/IS Technician 40,417 IT/IS Data Analyst 39,375 GIS Technician 33,604

NB. Salaries vary based on employer type, region, profession and GIS experience.

E7. References Resources and Costs

Accessed January 27, 2004 ITC Network Department http://cwis.itc.nl/support/it/cai/information/firewall.aspx http://cwis.itc.nl/support/it/cai/information/itcnetwork.aspx http://cwis.itc.nl/support/it/cai/information/gigabitinternet.aspx Data Server http://att.dealtime.com/xPF-Compaq_ProLiant_8000_303800_001 Web Server http://www.dealtime.co.uk/xPF-Sun_Cobalt_RaQ_550_Web_server_CBT_R5EH02VIM http://hardware.kelkoo.nl/b/a/sbs/nl/computer/keyword/proliant_DL360/category/Server/manufacturer/COMPAQ/111801.html Switches http://www.digiconcepts.com/hewlettpackard_networkswitches_37.htm Router http://hardwarecentral.dealtime.com/xPP-Routers~KW-ROUTER~kworg-router~linkin_id-3012706~DMT-5~VK- Full time Network Rates http://www.guam.net/rates/ Firewall Software http://shop.bizrate.com/buy/superfind.xpml?cat_id=1&keyword=firewall+software&lp=1&mkt_id=11539748&rf=ggl&url_id=484079 ESRI Software Quotes Local Dealer Prices- Spatial Innovision Ltd.



Web Server Software http://hardwarecentral.dealtime.com/xPP-Servers~KW-WEB_SERVER~kworg-Web_server~linkin_id-3012706~DMT-5~VK- Web Design Software http://shop.macromedia.com/dr/sat3/ec_MAIN.Entry10?pn=1&sp=10023&v1=590886&DSP=&CUR=840&PGRP=0&CACHE_ID=0 Programming Software http://store.yahoo.com/go2pcparts/visbas60ae.html Metadata Software http://www.fgdc.gov/metadata/toollist/metatools797.html Web Application Server Software http://shop.macromedia.com/dr/sat3/ec_MAIN.Entry17c?CID=0&PN=5&SP=10007&SID=46165&PID=576067&DSP=&CUR=840&PGRP=0&CACHE_ID=0

Defining and Evaluating The Criteria For Effective ...Thesis submitted to the International...

Documents

Transcript of Defining and Evaluating The Criteria For Effective ...Thesis submitted to the International...