A Local-State Government Spatial Data Sharing Partnership

More documents

Recommendations

Info

A Local-State Spatial Data Sharing Partnership Model to Facilitate SDI Development Q7b: In general, have the partnerships or collaboration for sharing of data or resources resulted in: � Greater benefit to the other organisation � Approximately equal benefit to both organisations � Greater benefit to your organisation Q7c: The exchange/sharing of spatial data is necessary for council to meet its business needs � Strongly Disagree � Disagree � Neither � Agree � Strongly Agree Q7d: How do you rate the importance of the following obstacles/barriers to collaborating with state government agencies for data exchange/sharing? Obstacles/Barrier Not important Data sets being exchanged are not of equal value Data standards Lack of trust or goodwill Lack of management or political support Cost/price of data Finding and accessing suitable data Legal liability for Council Copyright restrictions Privacy of data Time and effort required to establish agreements IT communication/ network infrastructure Other please specify …………………………… (1) Limited Importance (2) 268 Moderate Importance (3) Important (4) Very Important (5) Q7e: Rate the following benefits and/or business drivers for your local government in establishing data sharing/exchanging spatial data with other agencies: Benefit/Business Driver Improved quality of data ie data matching and checking Less duplication of effort and resources Cost savings Single authoritative source of data Reduced requests of data by other authorities Improved service to rate payers Better decision making Other please specify …………………… Not important (1) Limited Importance (2) Moderate Importance (3) Important (4) Very Important (5)
269 Appendix 3 - Local Government Questionnaire Q7f: What types of spatial data collaborations has your organisation been involved with state government? (tick all collaborations) � mapping projects � DCDB upgrade project � survey control network project � Valuation update/matching � Street address matching � Others please specify…………………….. Q7g: Your organisation’s technical capacity to implement data exchange and sharing with a state government agency is: � Very poor � Poor � Adequate � Good � Excellent Q7h: What are the most common types of formal agreements entered into when you collaborate with other organisations to share data or resources? � License Agreement � Memorandum of Understanding � Service Level Agreement � Contract � Partnership Agreement � Other………………….. Q7i: What is the most common duration of collaborations with other organisations to share data or resources? � Short term (less than 1 year) � Medium Term ( up to 3 years) � Long term (ongoing) Q7j: A system of equal exchange of useful spatial data is preferable to each organisation charging each other. For example exchanging address data for DCDB. � Strongly Disagree � Disagree � Neither � Agree � Strongly Agree Q7k: Which of the following coordination/exchange models would your council prefer for the exchange of spatial data between state and local government? � Coordination by an individual state government agency through a direct data exchange arrangement or partnership with councils � Coordination, collection and warehousing of council data through your local government association (LGA, MAV etc) and then exchanged with the state government agency � Coordination, collection and warehousing of council data through the Regions of Councils (ROCs) and then exchanged with the state government agency � Coordination by an individual state government agency but collection and warehousing from councils by a private sector company on behalf of the state government Q7l: Are there any departments or areas in your council that you would consider to have consistently good data exchange and collaboration arrangements with state government agencies? ……………………………………………………………………. Other Comments on data sharing/exchange with local government: …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………..
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:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Percent 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Equality in Collaborations Chapter
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
% of LGAs For Each State 60.0% 40.0
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
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:
Page 219 and 220:
7.3 The Data Sharing Partnership Mo
Page 221 and 222:
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: 219 Chapter 7 - Model Development a
Page 239 and 240: 221 Chapter 7 - Model Development a
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 283 and 284: Q4e: The costs to acquire State gov
Page 285: Part 6 - About People 267 Appendix
Page 291 and 292: Appendix4 - Open Ended Questionnair
Page 307 and 308: 54 Provision of Aerial photos at a
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?