A Local-State Government Spatial Data Sharing Partnership

More documents

Recommendations

Info

A Local-State Spatial Data Sharing Partnership Model to Facilitate SDI Development Institutional Environment Evaluation The cumulative impacts of the institutional environments of both state and local level in Victoria (5+ and 6+) and Tasmania (6+ and 3+) were identified as being more conducive to establishing partnerships (see Table 7.2). Specifically, leadership at the state government level and the subsequent development of policies which encouraged the sharing of information were considered to be critical. Through leadership, the partnership projects emerged with a clear vision for the future and shared goals. In Queensland, the data sharing program suffered from the lack of an identifiable leader or clear goals. Support for the project has waned and has resulted in poor funding and limited project progress. One of the important findings identified during the research was the trend for policy developments at a state government level to flow through to the lower jurisdictional level. Although the data from the local government surveys was not conclusive, evidence indicates that local governments with a limited capacity to develop their own policies, will tend to copy or adapt existing state policy on pricing and access to data. This trend is also visible at the national and state levels of government with the adoption of national government policies by state agencies, particularly if they are seen as positive initiatives. The correlation between the state and local policies was evident in each of the three case studies, but perhaps most pronounced in Queensland where a more restrictive policy stance on data access and pricing by the state government was mimicked by a number of LGAs. Greater accountability of government organisations has resulted in the introduction of business management principles, including a focus on service delivery and core business responsibilities. These trends are not only evident in Australia, but can be seen globally as privatisation of government infrastructure and entities is undertaken to improve efficiency, save costs or to generate income. Collaborative initiatives undertaken by both state and local agencies must now show that these initiatives are a core component of their agency’s business and also justify their development. Therefore, the alignment of business processes is not only a strong driver of partnership formation, but also a necessary ongoing requirement for success. The evidence suggests that the relatively poor alignment of business processes in Queensland has contributed to the mediocre performance of that partnership. 7.4.3 Assessment of the Collaborative Process Component The results of the assessment of the collaborative process are shown in Table 7.3. In the sub-component of partnership management, the Victorian PIP partnership was identified as 212
213 Chapter 7 – Model Development and Discussion having the highest positive contribution. It had the highest number of staff associated with the management of the project and multiple communication strategies for managing the partnership. The PIP had a defined stakeholder manager whose specific task was to manage the partnership operations. In both Queensland and Tasmania, this sub-component was identified as an area for possible improvement. The partnership strategy and formulation sub-component had a very positive impact on the partnership outcome in both Tasmania and Victoria. Both states had put in place the building blocks for a successful partnership strategy and had clear goals and strong leadership. The Queensland partnership has struggled from the outset from a lack of funding, poor goal alignment and limited leadership. For the data exchange and maintenance sub-component, each of the state case studies was assessed as contributing positively to the initiative. However, this partnership component across all three states has significant potential for improvement through better use of technology and greater system interoperability. With respect to the business rules and responsibilities sub-component, all three state initiatives had attempted to define the roles and responsibilities of each partner, primarily through the partnership agreement. Overall, each state has made a positive contribution to the partnership outcomes in this area, although improvements could be made in communication protocols and exchange standards. The components of governance and performance monitoring are highlighted as areas which are not well evidenced in the Tasmanian or Queensland partnership arrangements. The Victorian PIP has only begun to address the performance issues in recent years and the review of the project in 2005 has confirmed that the importance of this sub-component to sustain the initiative. It is therefore not surprising that most of the state government agencies are currently reviewing their partnerships to improve some of these components. Tasmania was judged to be the most advanced with respect to governance arrangements, whilst Victoria has made significant progress in recent years.
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:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
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 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Data Exchange Process Chapter 5 - R
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
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 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
6.1 Introduction Chapter 6 - Result
Page 179 and 180: Chapter 6 - Results of Partnership
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 219 and 220: 7.3 The Data Sharing Partnership Mo
Page 225 and 226: Partnership Management Partnership
Page 227 and 228: Performance Monitoring 209 Chapter
Page 229: 211 Chapter 7 - Model Development a
Page 233 and 234: 7.4.4 Assessment of the Outcome Com
Page 235 and 236: SDI Component - Standards Access Ne
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:
263 Appendix 3 - Local Government Q
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?