A Local-State Government Spatial Data Sharing Partnership

A Local-State Spatial Data Sharing Partnership Model to Facilitate SDI Development
The lack of a coordinated communication strategy was identified as a key deficiency of the
PLI project. Even on the PLI licence agreement three different contact points are given
within the one government department. Besides the irregular phone and email contacts,
there does not appear to be any other mechanism for the project group to communicate
with the 125 LGAs in a more coordinated manner.
Reporting and Performance Management
Due to the lack of progress in the early stages of the project, the outputs from the project
have been limited. Limited statistical data on the process of negotiation, signing, data
loading and data quality was available. It is suspected that this is due to the dispersed
nature of the project control and management. However, since the signing of the new data
share agreements in late 2004, progress has improved. In April 2006, 74 of the 125 LGAs
data sets were loaded and validated with 83.6% of addresses effectively matching with the
land parcel database.
Limited information was available on the performance of other aspects of the project. One
area of concern with all of the data sharing partnerships was the time taken for data to be
collected, processed and re-distributed to users such as the emergency service agencies.
Anecdotal evidence indicated that the overall process from the time of submission through
to initial validation, resolving of matching issues and update of the PLI could be as long as
six months. If data is submitted every quarter from LGAs, then this would give a total
time delay of possibly nine months before the PLI is ready for distribution to emergency
services. Apart from their individual feedback on the error matching of their data, limited
indication was provided to local governments on their overall data quality in comparison
with other LGAs.
5.3.5 Governance
The project did not appear to have any mechanisms in place to effectively include the local
government partnership members, other state government agencies or the wider group of
existing and prospective users in the strategic development of the project. The original
PLI agreement and the new data share agreement do define the responsibilities of each
party. However, intellectual property, limitations of use of the data and dispute resolution,
the ability to review issues such as strategic direction, community interests and future
evolution of the PLI are not facilitated through any governance arrangements.
138