1. PROJECT OVERVIEW
Why don't more public agencies share geographic information? Such sharing would seem especially fruitful in environmental management, where decision variables often cut across activity sectors, jurisdictions, and geographic regions, linked by physical pathways, adjacency, or other spatial relationships. Further, the expansion of the Internet and increasingly advanced network software ought to make information sharing especially feasible, convenient, and powerful.
Yet it is rare to see environmental managers meaningfully sharing geographic information across organizational boundaries. The reasons for this are part technical (e.g. the fitness for use of remote data), and part organizational (e.g. adjusting to use outside information sources), The reasons are often tied to the nature of geographic information: complex in structure and interpretation, rich in meaningful inter-relationships, and difficult to understand or use without specially-designed tools. These aspects sharply distinguish geographic information from traditional alphanumeric data.
This project is a case study of loosely-coupled "coalitions" of environmental agencies that are building "sharing infrastructures" to interchange geographic data and make meaningful use of it. The study searches for impacts of shared geographic information, and compares the intent, design, and architecture of several "sharing infrastructures." Data collection is through interviews and reviews of documents, digital datasets, and installed systems. The first goal is to document modes of information sharing among environmental managers, and (where such sharing is not taking place) to identify the key difficulties encountered. The second goal is to determine how infrastructure choices have led to the impacts described, and how they address the difficulties encountered.
Findings from each case, and from comparing across cases, will help to (i) focus technical solutions to geographic information sharing, including the National Spatial Data Infrastructure, (ii) evaluate present-day networks for geographic information sharing, and (iii) highlight effective growth paths for information-based collaboration.
2. PROJECT DESIGN
This project is a case study of four "coalitions" of U.S. federal and state agencies that are building "sharing infrastructures," systems to share geographic information among themselves to improve their joint effectiveness. This section presents (i) assessment criteria for information sharing, (ii) an overview of the cases, and (iii) methods for case-specific and cross-case analysis.
a. Assessment criteria
Cases will be assessed and compared in terms of (i) the impacts of sharing on the work of environmental managers, and (ii) the quantity and (iii) quality of information sharing attained by each "sharing infrastructure."
i. Impacts of information sharing on work
This study emphasizes information sharing that leads to either changed tasks (jobs performed that would have been unfeasible without the infrastructure) or changed processes (jobs performed differently thanks to the infrastructure).
ii. Quantity of information sharing
The flow of information between coalition members is measured in bytes, files (externally-produced vs. total used), and the proportion of tasks dependent on outside data (vs. the total in use).
iii. Quality of information sharing
This criterion combines aspects of the data delivered (the user's viewpoint) with aspects of the infrastructure itself (the architect's viewpoint).
From the user's viewpoint, concurrence measures how up-to-date the information is; that is, its update frequency vs. the change frequency of the phenomenon it represents. Timeliness measures the time required for access vs. the time constraints of the user's task. Third, encapsulation defines whether users receive data in a usable form, or must interpret streams of bytes themselves.
From the architect's viewpoint, reciprocal sharing lets participants both send and receive information. Flexibility to grow and change the sharing infrastructure is also important. Third, non-intrusiveness describes how little the sharing disrupts each organization's internal procedures.
These criteria are used to characterize a sharing infrastructure and its relation to user impacts. They also guide the choice of cases for study.
b. Overview of cases
Study sites were chosen according to (i) the quality of their information-sharing and (ii) four scope criteria, as follows.
First, to focus on task-related sharing, this study emphasizes non-supplier organizations (excluding those whose main function is to provide data to others).
Second, the emphasis is on cases where an "infrastructure" of some kind (though not necessarily a physical network) is being established to enable systematic, planned information sharing.
Third, the study emphasizes loosely-coupled coalitions, excluding strong "umbrella" agencies which can decree uniform standards and procedures.
Fourth, the study stresses coalitions motivated by a clearly identified shared natural resource. This provides a "superordinate goal" which ought to minimize the effect of organizational resistance to change (see ¦2.d above).
In choosing non-supplier, loosely-coupled participants that are building an infrastructure to manage a shared natural resource, the intent is to highlight cases where the sharing seems likely to grow in size and in impact on tasks and processes, without significant organizational overhead.
Based on these criteria, initial research has identified four cases:
i. Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment
Sponsored by three U.S. states and two Canadian provinces, the Council seeks to foster collaboration and coordination in protecting fisheries and coastal resources off the New England and Canadian Maritime coasts. Thus far, most participants have been slow to adopt network connectivity, but a few "pioneers" are using Internet tools to find and retrieve data across the region.
ii. Great Lakes Information Network
The Great Lakes Commission is leading this effort to enhance communication and coordination among the U. S. states, Canadian provinces, and Federal authorities concerned with protecting the shores and waters of the Great Lakes. Information sharing is via the Internet, with a highly decentralized data architecture based on Gopher, World Wide Web, and ftp servers throughout the region.
iii. Gulf of Mexico Program
This program, involving the EPA, 5 U. S. states, and several state universities, aims at protecting water quality and fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico. Information sharing is via directories and clearinghouses of environmental information, using simple Internet tools.
iv. Northwest Environmental Database / Coordinated Information System
For several years, the Bonneville Power Administration has collaborated with the four Northwest states and several Indian tribes and Federal agencies on the Northwest Environmental Database and Coordinated Information System, used to manage fisheries, wildlife, rivers, and forest resources, and to plan hydropower development in the Columbia River Basin. Information comes from many widely distributed sources and is shared without a network, through coordinators who reflect back changes in each state's information to other coalition members.
c. Case-specific and cross-case analysis
The project asks four central questions of each case:
1. What task-related sharing of geographic information occurs across organizational boundaries?
2. What difficulties prevent this sharing?
3. What kinds of "sharing infrastructures" are being developed, and what sharing quality and quantity do they offer?
4. How does their design provide the sharing found in 1, and address the difficulties found in 2?
These lead to a case-by case summary, as well as a cross-case comparison.
The cases will build on each other according to literal replication, in which similar findings are expected to reinforce the logic derived from earlier ones - with two likely exceptions. (i) the Pacific Northwest case may provide theoretical replication, with different outcomes expected in the absence of a data network. (ii) Also, the cases range in longevity from a few months to over a decade: the comparisons may suggest fruitful growth paths over time.
3. RELATED WORK
This work draws on research in interoperable database systems, geographic information standards, networked information technology, and organizational behavior. It also supports the design and deployment of tools for geographic information sharing.
a. Interoperable database systems
Information-sharing infrastructures may achieve three kinds of connectivity between data storage and retrieval systems (Wang and Madnick, 1989). First, data networks provide physical connectivity - communication between computers. Second, sharing information requires some degree of logical connectivity - reconciling data structures and query procedures between source and receiver, often through schema integration (Batini et al., 1986; Nyerges, 1989). Third, semantic connectivity bridges differences in data definitions and relationships (Siegel and Madnick, 1991).
Interoperable database systems, recently the focus of intense research (Litwin et al., 1990; Sheth and Larson, 1990; Templeton et al., 1987; Hsu et al., 1991), offer some connectivity at all three levels. Data repositories (Jones, 1992) extend data dictionaries (Narayan, 1988) to form "enterprise models" (Sen and Kirschberg, 1987) which can enable logical and semantic connectivity. Some geographic extensions to data dictionaries (Marble, 1991) and repositories (Robinson and Sani, 1993) do exist; but most work on interoperability has been with alphanumeric data. Multidimensional data structures and relationships may present quite different interoperability issues. Still, interoperability concepts provide useful "yardsticks" for measuring the quality of geographic information sharing (Mackay and Robinson, 1992).
b. Geographic information standards
Traditional standards (National Mapping Standards, Spatial Data Transfer Standard) are a valuable lingua franca for sharing geographic information. Yet sharing is often needed between loosely-coupled, autonomous organizations with different, yet established formats, procedures, or quality requirements. This requirement is addressed by newer, flexible standards based on metadata (structured data descriptions) and queries (data retrieval requests). These standards define the interaction with information resources, leaving the data itself unchanged. Noteworthy efforts include the Federal standard for spatial metadata (FGDC, 1994) and (ii) Open Geodata Interoperability Services (Gardels, 1994). The practicality of these newer standards, and their tradeoffs vis-ˆ-vis simpler, more intrusive standards, remain to be determined.
c. Networked information technology
Several tools have been developed to locate, filter, retrieve, and use information on the Internet: Wide Area Information Servers (Kahle, 1991), Gopher, the World Wide Web (Schwartz et al., 1992), Archie (Emtage and Deutsch, 1992), the file transfer protocol (ftp), and the Network File System (NFS). Frank (1994) reviews Internet cataloging tools and their role in the National Spatial Data Infrastructure. Advanced Internet-based systems under development include several networked spatial-data browsers (Walker et al., 1992; Vrana, 1992; Evans et al., 1992; Menke et al., 1991) and directories in the U. S. Geological Survey (Holm and Scholz, 1992) and the National Aeronautic and Space Administration (Thieman, 1992).
d. Organizational behavior
Finally, the greater obstacles to information sharing often seem to be behavioral, rather than technical in nature (Croswell, 1989). Research to date suggests that geographic information sharing is difficult when organizations make quick technical choices to support limited internal purposes (Craig, 1995), rely on inadequately trained staff (August, 1991), or set inappropriate prices (Rhind, 1992) or legal restrictions (Epstein, 1995). Conversely, geographic information sharing may be facilitated by negotiation (Obermeyer, 1995), shared "superordinate" goals (Pinto and Onsrud, 1995), a "killer application" (Brodie, 1993), cost recovery (Taupier, 1995), and copyrights (Carter, 1992).
Organizational factors, though difficult to change per se, can be affected by a changed technological mix (Evans and Ferreira, 1995). This motivates an in-depth study of tasks, processes, and difficulties when devising solutions for geographic information sharing.
4. OUTCOMES & SIGNIFICANCE
a. Focus for prototype development
Case study findings will provide an empirical basis for choosing and combining technological solutions. For instance, fully interoperable solutions may be less practical than a limited set of techniques (enterprise models, query languages) which could grow over time. The study also offers important lessons about geographic information standards and the effects of choosing particular kinds of standardization.
b. Assessment of network technology
Another outcome is an assessment of how networks are having an impact, and what might be done to increase their effectiveness. This may be helpful in growing the National Spatial Data Infrastructure, and determining how to adapt Internet tools to it.
c. Technological growth paths and effective organizational strategies
Two final outcomes: (i) organizational settings and (ii) technological phase-in strategies that have overcome organizational barriers. Specific examples of these will provide guidance beyond technology choices, needed to address institutional contexts and to reshape organizations for information-based collaboration.
Bibliography - Interview outline - John Evans' home page
HTMLized on May 16, 1996