A Local-State Government Spatial Data Sharing Partnership

More documents

Recommendations

Info

A Local-State Spatial Data Sharing Partnership Model to Facilitate SDI Development 5.5.2 Assessment of the Collaboration The three case studies can also be compared across the various dimensions of the collaboration by considering the jurisdictional and institutional environments, the establishment and direction setting stage, partnership operation and maintenance, governance and outcomes. Table 5.2 compares the three cases across each of these areas. Table 5.2 Comparison of the performance of the partnerships Collaborative Stage Victorian PIP Queensland PLI Tasmanian LIST Jurisdictional Environment - Economy - Government Sector - Geography Institutional Environment - Policy - Historical processes - Organisational support - Resourcing Establishment and Direction Setting - Goal setting - Negotiation - Agreements Operation and Maintenance - Project management - Maintenance - Resources - Communication Governance - Governance structures - Reporting and Performance management Outcomes - Data - Relationships - Access mechanisms Economic situation was conducive to collaboration. Strong leadership and access to funding available. Relatively small number of LGAs and small geographical area Policy framework in spatial information was appropriate, Initial up-front funding created buy-in, high level organisational support A clear common goal for the project. Well managed process of negotiation and development of policy and institutional structures. Project management has been good since inception, maintenance infrastructure developed progressively, some resource limitations. Communication with stakeholders and partners has been positive. Early project efforts focussed on negotiation and data exchange. Performance management now part of the process. Improved governance arrangements emerging with the new VSC. Established single mapbase, data used widely through Land Channel, improved quality, good level of intergovernmental relations 150 Economic environment had little positive impact. Weak institutional support and funding base. No strong leadership. Large state and diverse LGAs. Policy framework was not conducive to collaboration, limited high level support or funding Business case for project was debateable for managing department. Goals unclear and policy development worked against agreements. Poor institutional arrangements led to lack of resourcing and project support. Culture of interjurisdictional sharing only emerging. Confused channels of communication. Once the project was handed over to the DNR there appears to have been little performance management or reporting. No governance structure in place involving the stakeholders. Limited outcomes under original agreement but new data share arrangements show promise Economic situation was conducive to collaboration. Strong leadership and access to funding available. Relatively small number of LGAs and small geographical area Strong high level political support and funding, well thought through policy development High level strategy and clear overall goals. Policy and negotiations easier at state level than at local. Agreements very detailed LIST started with strong overall leadership and project support. Project generally well resourced and technology focussed. Issues of local government communication and maintenance now starting to impact. The overall LIST reports to the LICC so some governance arrangements are in place. Performance and reporting is limited. Web portal that is used widely across all sectors in Tasmania, improved intergovernmental relations, improved efficiencies and quality The jurisdictional and institutional environments have contributed to the outcomes of the partnership initiatives in a number of ways. Firstly, the more turbulent situations in Tasmania and Victoria resulted in positive conditions for collaborations to form, whilst the comparatively buoyant Queensland economy did not appear to have any significant influence. Secondly, the policy developments at the institutional levels were shown to be
Chapter 5 – Results of Partnership Case Studies at State Government Level critical for fostering a data sharing environment. Without an equitable policy framework for the pricing and access of spatial information, it is extremely difficult to encourage the sharing of information. The State Government of Tasmania, through its partnerships policy, had a significant influence in bringing local government to the negotiating table. Each of the partnership case studies has reached varying stages of maturity in the collaboration process. The Victorian PIP and the Tasmanian LIST partnerships have been the most comprehensive in their establishment and direction setting phase, with a considered and well researched approach to negotiation and the development of the agreements. The Queensland PLI struggled at this phase, as identified in the earlier comparisons, due to a poor institutional policy framework. All of the states appear to have under estimated the resources required to maintain the ongoing operation and future development of the partnerships. Not surprisingly, communication has emerged as a key ingredient for maintaining an effective partnership. Importantly, good communication is not only required for the exchange of data, but also helps to maintain and support the relationships that have been built by the partnership. The issues of governance and performance management are relatively new areas to many government projects. Projects established during the mid to late 1990s would not have considered performance measures during the project design. However, performance management issues are now impacting on each of these initiatives as they struggle to deal with the operational and maintenance challenges of a mature project. Each jurisdiction is responding differently to these challenges, but all would agree that understanding their performance and articulating that performance to upper management was extremely important. Governance arrangements, particularly in Victoria and Tasmania have identified the need for improved reporting, performance management, greater stakeholder involvement and wider jurisdictional support. 5.5.3 Contribution to SDI Development It is also useful to examine the contribution of each of the three cases across the dimensions of the SDI framework. This comparison is useful in identifying the strengths and weakness of each of the data sharing partnerships and their ability to contribute to the state SDI initiatives and development. As can be seen from Table 5.3, the performance of the Victorian PIP across the five dimensions of SDI identifies that the PIP partnership is contributing positively to the State’s SDI development strategy. 151
Page 1:
A Local-State Government Spatial Da
Page 5 and 6:
Abstract In the past decade efforts
Page 7 and 8:
Acknowledgements Completion of a Ph
Page 9 and 10:
Table of Contents DECLARATION .....
Page 11 and 12:
APPENDIX 5 - INTER-STATE DIFFERENCE
Page 13 and 14:
FIGURE 6.7 USE OF WEB MAPPING .....
Page 15 and 16:
List of Acronyms ACT AUSTRALIAN CAP
Page 17 and 18:
Operational Definitions The followi
Page 19 and 20:
1 Chapter 1 Introduction Chapter 1
Page 21 and 22:
1.1 Background to Research 3 Chapte
Page 23 and 24:
5 Chapter 1 - Introduction is havin
Page 25 and 26:
7 Chapter 1 - Introduction enforcem
Page 27 and 28:
9 Chapter 1 - Introduction The rese
Page 29 and 30:
11 Chapter 1 - Introduction organis
Page 31 and 32:
13 Chapter 1 - Introduction three c
Page 33 and 34:
15 Chapter 2 - Spatial Data and SDI
Page 35 and 36:
2.1 Introduction 17 Chapter 2 - Spa
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
2.2.6 Property Information as a Fun
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Chapter 3 - Collaboration, Partners
Page 75 and 76:
3.1 Introduction Chapter 3 - Collab
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Dimensions Actors Lower ranking mem
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
91 Chapter 4 - Research Design and
Page 111 and 112:
4.1 Introduction 93 Chapter 4 - Res
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118: 99 Chapter 4 - Research Design and
Page 133 and 134: Chapter 5 - Results of Partnership
Page 135 and 136: 5.1 Introduction Chapter 5 - Result
Page 137 and 138: Employees '000s 500.0 450.0 400.0 3
Page 143 and 144: Data Exchange Process Chapter 5 - R
Page 157 and 158: 5.3.6 Key Outcomes Chapter 5 - Resu
Page 159 and 160: Employees '000s 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0
Page 167: Chapter 5 - Results of Partnership
Page 177 and 178: 6.1 Introduction Chapter 6 - Result
Page 187 and 188: Percent 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.
Page 195 and 196: Equality in Collaborations Chapter
Page 199 and 200: % of LGAs For Each State 60.0% 40.0
Page 213 and 214: 195 Chapter 7 - Model Development a
Page 215 and 216: 7.1 Introduction 197 Chapter 7 - Mo
Page 217 and 218: 199 Chapter 7 - Model Development a
Page 219 and 220:
7.3 The Data Sharing Partnership Mo
Page 221 and 222:
203 Chapter 7 - Model Development a
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Partnership Management Partnership
Page 227 and 228:
Performance Monitoring 209 Chapter
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
7.4.4 Assessment of the Outcome Com
Page 235 and 236:
SDI Component - Standards Access Ne
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
223 Conclusions and Implications 8
Page 243 and 244:
8.1 Introduction 225 Conclusions an
Page 245 and 246:
227 Conclusions and Implications 8.
Page 247 and 248:
229 Conclusions and Implications ca
Page 249 and 250:
231 Conclusions and Implications pa
Page 251 and 252:
References 233 References Reference
Page 253 and 254:
235 References Cameron, D 2001, 'Th
Page 255 and 256:
237 References Department of Foreig
Page 257 and 258:
239 References Hesse, WJ & Williams
Page 259 and 260:
241 References Masser, I 2002, Repo
Page 261 and 262:
243 References Onsrud, HJ & Rushton
Page 263 and 264:
Tashakkori, A & Teddlie, C (eds) 20
Page 265 and 266:
247 References
Page 267 and 268:
Appendix 1 - Publications Relating
Page 269 and 270:
Appendix 1 - Publications Relating
Page 271 and 272:
Appendix 2 - Semi Structured Interv
Page 273 and 274:
Appendix 2 - Semi Structured Interv
Page 275 and 276:
Appendix 3 257 Appendix 3 - Local G
Page 277 and 278:
259 Appendix 3 - Local Government Q
Page 279 and 280:
Part 1 - Your Organisation 261 Appe
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Q4e: The costs to acquire State gov
Page 285 and 286:
Part 6 - About People 267 Appendix
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291 and 292:
Appendix4 - Open Ended Questionnair
Page 293 and 294:
Page 295 and 296:
Page 297 and 298:
Page 299 and 300:
Page 301 and 302:
Page 303 and 304:
Page 305 and 306:
Page 307 and 308:
54 Provision of Aerial photos at a
Page 309 and 310:
Page 311 and 312:
APPENDIX 5 293 Appendix 5 - Inter-S
Page 313 and 314:
ANOVA ANALYSIS 295 Appendix 5 - Int
Page 315 and 316:
297 Appendix 5 - Inter-State Differ
Page 317 and 318:
Kruskal Wallis Test Statistics(a,b)
Page 319 and 320:
APPENDIX 6 FACTOR ANALYSIS 301 Appe
Page 321 and 322:
Communalities 303 Appendix 6 - Fact
Page 323 and 324:
305 Component Matrix(a) Component A
Page 325 and 326:
APPENDIX 7 307 Appendix 7 - Correla
Page 327 and 328:
Size_Index Org_support Ext_access_p
Page 329 and 330:
APPENDIX 8 311 Appendix 8 - Multipl
Page 331 and 332:
Variables Entered/Removed(b) Model
show all

A Local-State Government Spatial Data Sharing Partnership

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?