|
Hi Doug -
Thank you for the response. I've read the LoB CONOPS (and FEA Geospatial profile) but haven't dug as deep as you have. You have clearly put a lot of thought into this issue. Your response and suggested plan of action make sense to me.
Perhaps an agenda item on the 3rd of April to directly address the relationship between the LoB and the FEA Geo Profile would be warranted, to help the community understand the context as you see it?
Best regards,
Dan Feinberg
-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Nebert [mailto:ddnebert@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 1:36 PM
To: Feinberg, Daniel, CTR, OSD-ATL
Cc: 'ddnebert@xxxxxxxx'; 'GEA COP WG'; LaBranche, David, CTR, OSD-ATL; Cullis, Brian, Col, OSD-ATL
Subject: Re: [geo-forum] Geospatial Profile Evaluation
Feinberg, Daniel, CTR, OSD-ATL wrote:
> Hi Doug -
>
> My suggestion would be to better understand the linkage and
> relationship
> between the FEA Geospatial Profile and the newly-announced Geospatial
> Line of Business (LoB) being driven by OMB. It is still unclear (to me,
> at least) what the relationship (and potentially, overlap) is between
> these two initiatives.
>
> Our understanding is that FGDC is leading weekly meetings setting a
> strategy to prepare a Geospatial LoB strategy. That strategy, after the
> first LoB meeting last week and the OMB announcement meeting at DoI the
> week before, is still unclear (we had a representative sit in on the
> first Geo LoB meeting last week via telecon).
>
Here's what I understand about the LoB, mostly through the "Concept of
Operations for Line of Business Initiatives," Version 1.0 Office of
E-Gov and IT, OMB, March 2006 (not online yet):
1. The term "Line of Business" as applied in this context is a type of
OMB initiative. It is *not* the same as an FEA Line of Business and is
viewed to be broader than the scope of the BRM, for example. In 2004 OMB
pursued three LoB initiatives to pursue "...opportunities for
integration and consolidation..." for financial management, human
resources management, and grants management. In 2005, and Information
Systems Security LoB initiative was begun. This year, Geospatial is one
of three new LoB initiatives. Of these earlier initiatives, grants
management and information systems security do not appear as LoB in the
FEA BRM. It would be logical that these new LoBs would get introduced
into the standard set of 39+ LoBs in the BRM, but I have not seen this
yet in the official FEA diagrams.
2. These, according to the egov.gov site are considered "Presidential
Initiatives" with a background statement on concepts behind it:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/c-6-lob.html . Each initiative has an
executive sponsor, managing partners, vision and goals. These details
are being developed and vetted, as we speak, by the task force for
Geospatial. So, in essence, this appears to be a next generation of
E-Gov initiatives that touch on the same concepts as previous ones (e.g.
recreation.gov, grants.gov, geodata.gov) -- supporting government to
citizen, govt to business, govt to govt, efficiency and effectiveness.
3. The Lines of Business will reference work-to-date in architecture and
FEA and include advisors to assist in reference to the FEA. They will
not compete with existing FEA activities. They may suggest enhancements
to the FEA reference models. They are intended endorse and strengthen
application of FEA Profiles, where they exist, as well as the broader FEA.
4. LoBs have a lifecycle (or lifespan) that includes phases for:
Analysis (baseline inventory, best practices, performance goals,
culminates in a go/no-go recommendation to OMB Deputy Director for
Management), Definition (business case, solution alternatives, target
architecture, possible RFI), and Action (adoption and maintenance).
My opinion: Looking for common solutions and streamlining across
government makes a lot of sense with payroll, health records, personnel,
IT security services, but it may not be so easy to apply this approach
to the diffuse geospatial application domain. Whereas the Geospatial
Profile was intended to assist agencies in aligning opportunities for
information exchange, it appears that this LoB initiative is seeking
savings through consolidation of a yet-to-be-defined problem space, its
data, capabilities and services.
My understanding:
The FEA and its reference models remain as methodologies to document and
plan business processes in agencies.
FEA Profiles supplement the FEA to promote awareness of cross-cutting
capabilities that may not reside in only one LoB.
LoB Initiatives are topically-focused activities spearheaded by OMB to
force accounting of (the systems and solutions behind) shared business
activities to improve effectiveness and efficiency (consolidate and
coordinate budgets).
I think we should continue to pursue evaluation of the FEA Geospatial
Profile prior to a Version 2.0 release in the fall. The LoB will expect
that the suggestions provided in the Profile are clear and actionable --
so we need to test them in architectural reviews and operational
solutions. The timeframe is right, except that the LoB initiative will
consume many individuals' attention for the next few months. Piloting
will help us, even if performed with a small number of partners.
Doug.
--
Douglas D. Nebert
Geospatial Data Clearinghouse Coordinator, Information Architect
FGDC/GSDI Secretariat Phone: +1 703 648 4151 Fax: +1 703 648-5755
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/geo-forum/
To Post: mailto:geo-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/geo-forum/
Community Portal: http://colab.cim3.net/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/geocop/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?GeoSpatialCommunityofPractice (01)
|