|
|
CENDI PRINCIPALS AND ALTERNATES MEETING |
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Washington, D.C.
October 28, 1999
WELCOME
Kurt Molholm, CENDI Chair, opened the meeting at 9:10 am. Introductions were made. Dr. Robert Shepanek welcomed CENDI to the U.S. EPA and to the National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA).
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION EXCHANGE
Strategic Planning
Bonnie Carroll, CENDI Secretariat
Ms. Carroll introduced the information exchange session on strategic planning. As part of the Annual Planning Meeting, the CENDI members agreed to focus on strategic planning for CENDI, particularly to determine a shared vision of the future and a shared information architecture. In order to prepare for CENDI-specific discussions, the members asked that this session be held on methodologies for strategic planning. Using an input, process, output model, this session provides agency benchmarks for the strategic planning process. The goal is not only to inform each other of differing approaches to strategic planning, but to use the outcome to determine a process whereby CENDI strategic planning can occur.
"Introduction to Strategic Planning: Are We Handling Change? "
Ms. Carroll set the stage by presenting some of the latest thoughts on strategic planning and by describing the previous strategic planning performed by CENDI.
New information technologies are creating shifting paradigms in every business. An example from Competitive Intelligence Review is that of an airline. Direct competitors are other airlines. However, if you look at related businesses, there is competition from rail passenger services and from cruise lines. If the airline is viewed as an overnight cargo carrier, the competition extends to UPS and FedEx. New and innovative competitors include discount airlines and even telecommunications companies. If the company views itself as being in the entertainment business, the "unknown" competitors include other entertainment companies and virtual reality start-ups. In addition to new competition, rapidly advancing technologies have opened new opportunities. Product life cycles are shortening. In 1995, HP reported that the product life cycle from inception to demise was three to five years. In 1999, the life cycle is estimated at 6 -12 months. In 1995, 3M reported that 25 percent of current sales were from products that had been on the market for more than five years. In 1999, the "product churn" has increased with 10 percent of sales coming from new products each year.
The National Performance Review defined strategic planning as a "continuous and systematic process where the guiding members of an organization make decisions about its future, develop the necessary procedures and operations and achieve that future, and determine how success is to be measured." The key points in this definition are "continuous" and "systematic". (Ms. Carroll indicated that she has a copy of the NPR Best Practices in Customer-Driven Strategic Planning from which this quote was taken.)
CENDI has talked about a shared vision several times. Most recently in 1997, a matrix was produced matching agencies with projects in particular areas with those who had concerns/interests in particular areas. However, CENDI has not taken action on its vision.
It should be noted that CENDI's emphasis on strategic planning is not isolated. The Association of Management Consulting Firms found that business strategy is the single most important management issue and will likely remain so for the next five years. However, strategic planning is back with a difference.
The process is being democratized. More input from inside and outside the organization is being sought. This not only promotes broader-based input, but facilitates buy-in and implementation. The strategic planning literature acknowledges that there is a shorter time frame in which strategic planning must occur. Many companies are doing planning that is only two to three years in advance, and they are creating strategic planning processes and document formats that are more conducive to a more easily updated "rolling" plan. It is important to be flexible since most markets and environments are changing very rapidly.
One of the most significant changes in strategic planning is the increased cooperation among organizations that were previously competitors. This has a significant impact on the process as well as the outcome. It is important to look for how to move the environment forward in a collaborative way.
Key ideas and trends from major consultants in strategic planning include:
Co-evolution is an appropriate way to view the CENDI strategic planning process. However, it should also involve other groups such as non-government publishers (both primary and secondary), users, and the library community.
"Inputs to Strategic Planning: NLM"
Dr. Elliot Siegel, National Library of Medicine
Dr. Siegel began his presentation by acknowledging that planning is a very culture-bound process. However, two models have been identified and put into practice at NLM, which may have broad applicability.
The first model is a bottom up model. This is the more traditional model for NLM where external groups such as medical librarians, bioinformaticists, biomedical scientists, members of professional organizations, lay people, academics, and, most recently, consumer health groups are brought together in a series of panels. Twenty to thirty people would be grouped into a topic or stakeholder group panel. The individuals are representing themselves rather than any particular organization or stakeholder group. They are asked to discuss the salient issues and major innovations in technology, medicine, science, etc. that will influence NLM's future. The initial list of issues is prepared by the staff of the NLM Planning Office (under Susan Byer). White papers are written around the issues. During the first meeting of the group, each panel augments the list. Consultants are invited to participate as experts. The strategic directions identified by the panels are collected and reviewed by the Planning Office and the NLM Director prior to presentation to the Board of Regents. Ultimately, the planning process is the responsibility of the Board, and it adopts the final plan for the NLM.
The first such bottom-up plan was completed in 1985. This was a long-term plan that has been updated only five times. The problem with the bottom-up approach is that it is a very labor intensive and expensive process. The estimated cost is $100,000 per update. It takes several years to have all the panels meet. However, this approach collects many opinions from the outside and obtains buy-in from the communities. It also limits the input of the staff that may not view change in the same light. The bottom-up plan has resulted in many successful NLM program initiatives, such as the Visible Human and the NCBI (The National Center for Bioinformatics).
More recently, NLM has begun a top-down strategic planning process. This is in response to the need to develop a NIH plan very quickly for Congress. The other model cannot work in the one-year time frame given for this response. In the top-down model, the staff wrote the first draft as a track record, documenting what NLM has accomplished. What has happened from the previous plan? It documents the current program and the program manager's priorities. Two hundred seventy-five constituents were then asked to review and amend this document. One hundred people responded to the call. Most responses were elaborations or additional content, with only a few new directions identified. The comments were taken to the Board and, from this input, the Board arrived at eight priority areas. This plan is scheduled for completion in January. It is possible that the strategic planning process at NLM will switch to this approach, updating this plan rather than the longer-ranged plan. However, this top-down plan tends to lack longer-range vision.
Discussion
Other members of the group acknowledged the need for more short-range planning and the difficulty of establishing visions in this methodology. Mr. Molholm indicated that DISA has 500-day plans.
"The Process: EPA"
Dr. Robert Shepanek, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The basic framework for the EPA process includes identification of strategic pressures, someone to carry out the process, guiding principles to scope the process, high level views from users, documentation of where you are now, a vision of where you are going, and a high level approach to how you are going to get there.
The strategic pressures were identified by a core group of IM/IT professionals, many of whom had significant institutional knowledge. These pressures include evolution in technology, evolution in science, user needs and expectations and Congressional mandates. The technology is expected to change every zero to five years, which impacts the functions, data, information and technology infrastructures. The team developed a framework that resulted in the creation of the Science Information Management Coordination Board (SIMCorB). The Board then identified several guiding principles. The strategic view of the requirements was also documented, requiring input from users and agency archeologists who documented what had been done in the past.
The Science Information Management Coordination Board (SIMCorB) is organized into several key areas. These include Requirements Definition and Planning, Data Administration and Quality Assurance, Systems Engineering and Operations, Advanced Technology Evaluation and Modeling, Science Direction, and Outreach and Liaison.
In order to obtain input from users, it was necessary to identify and prioritize as many of the user groups as possible. It wasn't possible during the actual strategic planning process to gather detailed requirements, so a plan to collect and document the detailed requirements was developed instead. The methods to be used include focus groups and review of prototypes. Dr. Shepanek noted that "wit and creativity" are very important when trying to elicit user input.
The development of guiding principles by the SIMCorB was central to the strategic planning process. One such principle is the 20-year rule, which states that a researcher coming to the system 20 years from now should be able to locate, understand and use the content in the system. This has implications for the creation of metadata and the archiving of information with the need for technology migration.
Several strategic areas were identified B systems, policies, standards, outreach and training. Current projects were evaluated and placed under the goals. EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) was surprised to find the number of projects in which it was involved.
An architectural vision was also developed. It is an object-oriented approach with heavy reliance on metadata. The content of the metadata is critical to both the inclusion of material in the system and its use in the future.
Dr. Shepanek noted that there is no clear break between strategy and operations. The priority projects served as segues between strategy and operations.
Discussion
The group discussed the problem of identifying user groups. There is no "general public" but rather a series of "publics". Mr. Molholm asked if we are focused on agency mission or user influences. This often results in tension. It is necessary to pick target constituencies and prioritize their needs.
Mechanisms for identifying user requirements, particularly for interface design, were discussed. The pros and cons of creating prototypes were acknowledged. In some cases, the users do not know what they want, particularly in the future. International Business Machines (IBM) listened to its customers' requirements and it almost drove them into the ground. Those companies that took the approach of developing what they thought the users would want were more successful. The Office of Research and Development has created an image of the desktop that it believes will be of value to the user. This vision is shared with the users, but prototypes seem to help some users to more easily identify what they like and don't like. The architectural vision is the real challenge and requires the most creativity.
The degree to which current and historic processes should be evaluated and documented during the strategic planning process was discussed. Dr. Shepanek cautioned that looking at the current situation should not be allowed to take too many resources away from strategic thinking.
"Outputs and Results: DTIC"
(Kurt Molholm, Defense Technical Information Center)
The problem in strategic planning is to keep it "strategic". In 1984, DTIC produced its first plan B DTIC 2000. While there have been some changes, many of the things that were identified in the plan have, in fact, been done, and many elements of the information environment of Y2K were predicted correctly. In 1997, DTIC produced a follow-up plan B Strategic 2002. (Mr. Molholm indicated that a few copies of the plan are available to CENDI members upon request.) The strategic goals in DTIC's 1997-2001 Strategic Plan represent result areas which are key to accomplishing DTIC's mission and delivering value-added products and services to its customers. Each goal/result area, in turn, consists of core processes and is impacted by critical success factors. The Strategic Plans reflect DTIC's values of customer focus, leadership and vision, dependability and positive work ethics, security and protection of information, and the exploitation of training, teamwork, and technology to achieve continuous improvement.
The DTIC process for strategic outputs and results begins with the development of the Strategic Plan. In the DTIC process, there are tools to support the development and communication of the plan. The ADMIN system of the DTIC intranet makes the strategic plan available to all DTIC staff, along with other business-related documents and tools. The collaboratorium is not only used to develop the plan, but to comment on all the elements cited in the plan. This comment process is open to anyone in the organization. Another way of collecting relevant information is through the DTIC Suggestion Box that is reviewed by Mr. Molholm.
The output from the planning process is a published plan with the following outline:
DTIC Strategic Plan
Foreword
Goal 1: Understand Our Customer
Goal 2: .........
Goal 6: Promote Excellence in our Human Resources
The basis for each goal is described along with the metrics to measure performance, the strategic objective being met by the goal, and significant actions to be undertaken.
The strategic goals identified by DTIC represent key areas in which mission critical results are needed. The format is specifically geared to use with GPRA (Government Performance and Responsibility Act) reporting. Once the Strategic Plan has been agreed to, it is turned into a Performance Plan that includes the mission and vision statements carried forward from the Strategic Plan. Performance measures are defined by describing the data to be collected and the computations to be performed on them. DTIC has successfully met GPRA Level II requirements.
The outline for the DTIC Performance Plan is as follows:
Executive Summary
Foreword
Introduction
Strategic Planning
Mission Statements
DoD
DTIC
Concept of Operations
Vision Statements
Corporate Goals
Critical Enablers
Budget Relationships
Strategic Goals, Performance Measure and Performance Goals
Conclusion
The Quarterly Performance Report is based on the Strategic Plan and the Performance Plan. Under each goal, the objectives are listed. The performance measurement(s) for each objective is listed followed by the previous fiscal year's achievement and this years target. The percentage of completion is presented by quarter. DTIC's management information system needs to be modified to collect relevant information more efficiently.
The Program Management Report is a breakdown of the Strategic Plan with the dollars attached. The operational and development dollars have been used in the past to justify budget submissions. While it is impossible to draw a direct correlation, DTIC was successful in obtaining increased funding for its Information Analysis Centers (an increase from $4.5M to $12M) when the justification was presented linked to specific strategic goals and measures. DTIC’s project management system makes visible a corporate view of existing and proposed projects from concept to accomplishment.
Discussion
Ms. Carroll asked if the various processes and reports are actually integrated in the DTIC system. Mr. Molholm indicated that while this is desirable, it is not the case. The links between the Performance Plan and the Management Report and the Strategic Plan are done manually by embedding the goal and objective numbers in the reports.
The members discussed the final output and distribution of strategic plans. Four agencies produce strategic plans as published documents with external distribution. DTIC produces a glossy version that is distributed to over 1000 customers. DOE's strategic plan was distributed broadly to get buy-in from the national laboratories and constituents. NAIC provides its plan to all resource managers within the intelligence community and to partners. It is also provided as part of all tours and briefings and is considered to be a marketing and educational tool. Ms. Carroll asked if anyone has received comments based on distribution of the plan. She suggested that a response card might be included in the strategic plan so that readers could submit feedback.
"Case Study of a Strategic Objective: Digital Preservation"
Pamela Q. J. Andre, National Agricultural Library [NAL]
Ms. Andre described a particular strategic direction B that of digital archiving. In 1995, the NAL Strategic Plan was completed. Three key result areas with underlying goal statements were identified. This less formal approach has proven to be very flexible. New objectives and requested budgets can be added each year. The impetus for digital preservation as a strategic goal came from the user community.
In March 1997, a national conference, "USDA Digital Publications: Creating a Preservation Action Plan," was convened by NAL, the Economic Research Service, Government Printing Office (GPO), Cornell University, with the Farm Foundation. It included participation by responsible parties, key federal and other stakeholders, and various interested parties. The conference identified major elements and requirements for a digital publications preservation plan. The results of this conference were used to develop a framework document, Framework for the Preservation of and Permanent Public Access to USDA Digital Publications (http://preserve.nal.usda.gov:8300/npp/frameprt.html).
The framework document specifically defined the scope of digital publications as "a data or information product prepared by the USDA in digital form intended to be disseminated to the public." Therefore, the scope does not include USDA's government records. The framework document established a Steering Committee to lead this effort and identified the key task groups to be formed. The framework document was completed and released in the Fall of 1997. In late 1997, the Chief Information Officer (CIO) endorsed the framework document and charged the NAL with leading the USDA activities in this area.
Based on the framework document, a Steering Committee was created with representation from the USDA mission areas, federal stakeholders, the agricultural research community, agribusiness, the research library community, and the United States Agricultural Information Network. The Steering Committee is organized into a series of task groups B inventory and life cycle management, technical requirements, and user access and retrieval.
During the first year, the Steering Committee met four times. Much of this time was spent getting organized and educated on the issues. A series of experts in the field gave presentations to the group. Gail Hodge reported on the preliminary findings of the ICSTI/CENDI-sponsored Digital Electronic Archiving report. The group also identified a series of issues including metadata, migration of technology over time, education of USDA researchers, and resource and cost considerations. The Steering Committee is currently focusing on education and outreach to achieve organizational buy-in, the development of an inventory of digital publications, and recommendations for best practices.
A test inventory of digital publications is currently being conducted. The actual inventory will take place next year. A department-wide metadata conference is scheduled for mid-November. There is no additional money to support these efforts, so the group is working on the internal commitment of the individuals involved.
Discussion
The group discussed the tension between records management and libraries. The libraries tend to take the approach of "what is the most that can be kept?" The records managers tend to look at "what is the least that can be kept?"
Francis Buckley, Superintendent of Documents, announced that a group of representatives from the national libraries and several agencies are meeting on digital archiving. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) is also participating. The emphasis is on the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) collection of digital material. The goal is to develop a process for providing the information in electronic form rather than print. NARA is also participating. A very preliminary meeting has been held. They plan to expand the group to move toward more concrete projects and programs. Mr. Smith and Ms. Andre indicated that there is also an effort underway at the international level. As national libraries, they recently received a request for an interview from Patrick Villa, a consultant to the British Library.
"Demonstration of EPA's Environmental Information Management System (EIMS)"
Dr. Robert Shepanek, Dr. Jeff Frithsen, Cheryl Itkin
The ORD Environmental Information Management System (EIMS) (www.epa.gov/eims) is a tool for finding, evaluating and accessing ORD and EPA data, information and tools. Many of the problems to be addressed by the EPA and its partners require background information in a variety of formats, including documents and data. They also require various tools such as models and statistical, geographic, and visualization tools. However, it is often difficult to locate this information. EIMS= goal is to make this information and its use more accessible.
EIMS is a system to capture, manage and distribute documents, data, information and tools collected and used by the EPA and its regional and state partners. Via the Web, metadata and data are accessed. Access restrictions can be set by the originator and are particularly important for "works in progress". In general, it is a system to facilitate environmental assessment activities conducted by the EPA.
The EIMS is central to the life cycle management of information as envisioned by the SIMCorB and the strategic planning process. Metadata and data can be submitted by anyone, including the general public. ORD believes that there is no such thing as bad data but, rather, bad metadata that does not properly describe the limitations and appropriate uses for the data that is included in the collection. The system is open but has security levels to protect intellectual property rights. The system allows metadata creators to add an availability field to restrict information. The database enforces the policies established by the principal investigators and their managers in order to protect both the metadata record and the object itself.
Dr. Frithsen demonstrated the EIMS in the context of an assessment scenario. An organization has been asked to complete a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) assessment on bodies of water in a particular geographic region. TMDLs require background information in order not to redo work that has previously been done. It is difficult to find the data and the tools. When identified, it is important to evaluate the way the tool works, the applicability of the data, etc. With EIMS, general searches can be made by information type (project description, data, tool), by subject (including place name), and by EIMS partner name. Only a portion of the elements in the metadata record is displayed to help the user determine if it is worthwhile to pursue any of these resources. Since the metadata record includes a large number of data elements, only those of relevance at any particular time are displayed to the user. Categories of metadata elements, such as contact information and methods, are presented in the left tool bar. The formats are brief and guide the user through the discovery and evaluation process.
The architecture of the EIMS includes project descriptions, data sets, progress reports, published reports, and more. Project descriptions are shared by the Management Information System (OMIS) to reduce effort on the part of the investigator who must enter information for both scientific and administrative purposes. The relational nature of the architecture (based on Oracle) allows EPA to tie versions of input to models and to the results of running the model. Each object has its own metadata, but metadata records, and, therefore, objects, can be related to each other. This facilitates life cycle management because the relations between the information objects and all the related objects can be archived as a group. This makes records management part of the business cycle, and, thus, not as problematic.
EIMS is being considered as an integral part of the environmental data registry for all of EPA. EIMS will soon become the EPA node of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI); it will also be part of the National Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII). EIMS hosts data from other partners. There are informal rules for what partners need to do to participate. It is currently discussing a joint e-print server with DOE.
Ms. Itkin followed the demonstration with a brief discussion and demonstration of future enhancements to EIMS. ORD is teaming with OIRM on software to graphically map metadata both for searching and metadata creation. They will be reusing code that OIRM has already developed. Ms. Itkin also demonstrated a geospatially-enabled version of EIMS that will take the results of a search and plot it on a map, with appropriate plotting of key place names and feature types. This functionality is provided by linking EPA's Enviromapper product directly to the results of the EIMS search. The Geographic Area metadata category will not only show the text and the bounding coordinates, but will visually describe by displaying a map.
Discussion
There was a general discussion about data quality issues related to non-professional metadata creation. Dr. Frithsen noted that there is concern that inappropriate records and objects will be submitted to the system. Therefore, a data librarian has been designated to review the incoming metadata and objects for appropriateness. A similar position is required for each partner collection. There have been discussions about whether the name "data librarian" is the most appropriate. The qualifications are still somewhat in flux, but there is a need for some level of technical expertise as well as basic understanding of appropriate resources and cataloging.
"Revision of the NISO Technical Report Standard"
Pat Harris, Executive Director, National Information Standards Organization
The NISO standard for Scientific and Technical Reports - Elements, Organization and Design (Z39.18) is up for its five-year review. The current version was published in 1995. This is the most used of the NISO standards, with over 10,000 print copies having been distributed since 1974 when the first version was issued. It is widely used in government and industry, both in the U.S. and worldwide. It is a basic style guide for scientific and technical reports that grew out of the COSATI (Federal Council for Science and Technology, Committee on Scientific and Technical Information) Guidelines. The standard has grown from under 10 pages to 40.
The main emphasis in this particular review will be to determine what is the Z39.18's place in a more electronic world. A key issue to be addressed is the use of Z39.18 as a tool for knowledge management.
DTIC is taking the lead on the Z39.18 review team. An invitational meeting of approximately 60-70 people is scheduled for March 23, 2000, at DTIC Headquarters. The purpose of the workshop is to take stock of what issues should be addressed in the revision. It will also identify key people and organizations to support the completion of the revision.
Ms. Harris indicated that CENDI is a key participant in this process because the CENDI agencies represent the key users and beneficiaries of the standard. CENDI can be involved in a number of different ways. It can be a workshop sponsor, sharing both expense and credit. CENDI agency staffs can attend the workshop. CENDI members can also help to spread the word about the workshop and become part of the revision process. Agencies who are interested in being involved should communicate with Gretchen Schlag (gschlag@dtic.mil) at DTIC or with Pat Harris (pharris@niso.org) at NISO.
Discussion
Ms. Franco indicated that she has already sent a message to the Cataloging Working Group members advising them of the workshop.