Established geospatial infrastructure, framework and knowledge base

Need for coordinated response and an

authoritative geospatial information source(s)

Increased desire to use maps and spatial data by state decision makers

Existing investment at risk. Funding for GIS Clearinghouse not certain for FY 2010 (GTA said it will not pay)

GIS Clearinghouse known as state/national resource, established, easy to use, secure

Need current, accurate geospatial INVENTORY (data, stewards, human resources)

GIS can provide Common Operating Picture (COP), quality and services like no other technology

Inaction – not designating a lead entity for GIS standards and policy limits future data sharing and integrity

GISCC – state user community coordinates monthly since 1996

Need definition of roles/responsibilities

Interface (Point-Of-Contact) for Federal Grant funding and interagency cost sharing agreements

Lacking sustainable funding for GIS data maintenance

Collaborative attitude of agencies (GA Utility permitting system, TREX reduce document costs)

Need requirements, standards, policies for processes/businesses to function more seamlessly

Georgia has what it needs to far exceed other states’ geospatial health and effectiveness

Data decay/limited effectiveness - lack of sustained geospatial data maintenance

Can build on success (BLIPP, NAHRGIS, 511)

Need clear, statewide geospatial blueprint to guide investments

Formalizing/improving data feed from local levels  to regional and state levels

Limited archiving of GIS data (Impact on analyses over time)

Strong and mature geospatial operations at several state agencies, RDCs, counties and municipalities

Need geospatial educational tracks for current/future market demand

Ability to spatially-enable existing state databases (Address geofile is needed for Georgia)

Perceived barriers to applying geospatial technologies

Need performance measures, tied to State Strategic Plans, for statewide impact of geospatial activities

GIS and surveyor communities recognize need for improved coordination and standards

Uncoordinated state, county and city activities (ie. e911)

Not all geospatial assets in state are on GIS Clearinghouse; therefore, redundant data get created due to lacking awareness/access to existing data

Enhance existing knowledge base via educational and private partnerships

Technological discrepancies between counties; challenges for those that want to capitalize on this technology

Need statewide software licensing agreements and access to professional services; significant administrative burden to obtain the GIS suite by ESRI which is equivalent to Microsoft for the business world; investment limited to each agency’s budget

Standardized, statewide Geospatial job descriptions/classifications

Grave discrepancies regarding the cost for geospatial data which, when unaffordable, inhibits Economic Development and private sector cooperation with counties (See Appendix X)

70% of Georgia stakeholders need access to data beyond their jurisdictions, but ~30% can’t find it and 11% can’t access it

Significant and increasing geospatial activity at all levels of government

The Georgia state legislature does not fully recognize and understand the state’s assets, programs and supported investments in geospatial technologies

Significant data gaps

76 organizations, responding to an Online Survey, have field agents collecting data in various formats

Highly variable and discrepant data distribution and fee policies exist between Georgia Government organizations (could lead to lawsuits)

Clearinghouse can serve as BC/DR (Business Continuity/Disaster Recovery) resource with more comprehensive data contributions