A Local-State Government Spatial Data Sharing Partnership

A Local-State Spatial Data Sharing Partnership Model to Facilitate SDI Development
Table 5.3 Contribution of partnerships to SDI development
SDI Component Victoria PIP Queensland PLI Tasmania LIST
Data
- appropriateness
- shared value
- quality
- reliability
- timeliness
People
- partnership managers
- partnership operations
- users and resellers
Institutional
framework
- co-ordination bodies
- policies
- legislation
- communication
Standards
- national standards
- data models
- metadata
- transfer standards
Technology
- level of technology
- access networks
- maintenance/update
The PIP data has
become essentail to both
partners. Quality of data
is satisfactory and
improving. Timeliness
and reliability are ongoing
issues.
Overall good leadership
and a high level of
management of the
partnership. Process is
under-resourced in a
number of components.
User and reseller base
growing.
Policy development
preceded main initiative.
Generally strong upper
level support from state
co-ordination body. High
level of partner
communication.
Key data set of address
is built to comply with
new national address
standard. Metadata
development ongoing.
Transfer standards more
complex due to eight
different vendors.
New data model required
to deliver improved
efficiencies.
Data is delivered and
accessed through Land
Channel portal.
Automation of update and
maintenance has become
critical.
152
The PLI data has not
reached maturity or
achieved recognition of
value. Quality is
generally poor although
improving in recent times.
Issues of reliability and
timeliness.
Limited overall leadership
and support, lacks project
management and is
under resourced. Limited
supply chain
development or cross
agency usage.
Initially developed under
state coordination body
(QSIIC). Policy
development focussed on
cost recovery initially until
2004 data share policy.
Poor institutional support
and partner
communication.
PLI initially built with the
older address standard.
Metadata is limited.
Transfer standards are
slowly being addressed.
Data has not made its
way to the state SDI as
such. No public access
available to mapping or
address data.
Maintenance process and
model must be updated.
Overall quality of data is
good but further
improvements required.
Shared value of data is
recognised. Timeliness
and reliability satisfactory
and integrated into state
SDI.
High level government
sponsorship, strong
project leadership and
management, larger and
diverse user base,
operations are well
coordinated and
resourced.
Good coordination and
management through
LICC. Policy
development appropriate
but may require
modification. No
legislative framework.
Communication levels
appear satisfactory.
Data models and
standards for the
exchange and
maintenance were
developed as part of the
agreement. Strong
emphasis of metadata,
linkage to LIST and end
users.
Data is delivered through
the LIST for both public
and commercial access.
Technology is highly
developed and provides a
good model for future
developments.
Although the overall data quality from the data sharing initiative is high, further
improvements are required to ensure a high level of business and user confidence. In
particular, under-resourcing of the data maintenance process is now having an adverse
impact on the project. Apart from the under-resourcing, the data maintenance, institutional
framework and the overall partnership management appears sound.
The application of standards and recognition of metadata at both state and local
government level has been successfully developed from an initial low base. The delivery
of PIP data over the Land Channel portal is clear evidence of the partnership’s contribution
to the State SDI. The PIP data sets in the form of the digital mapbase and street address
are critical to delivery of the State’s spatial information via this portal. As identified in the