Institutional Working Group

1
Institutional Working Group
2
Strengths

• Government mandate and inherent authority (3
  points)
• Public trust ability to certify data content
• Permanence of agency long-term institutional
  support (1 point)
• Stability of funding (to a point some
  variability)
• Ability to attract attention and additional
  support ? leads to collaboration (3 points)
• Other governments academic institutions
  industry
• Typically easier access to base data
• Enable public participation in decision making
• Marine sector representation in govt policy
  national priority (1 point)
• Academic institutions have some particular
  strengths
• Research ability to leverage additional funds (5
  points)
• Heritage of stewardship with libraries
• Access to educational discounts for software and
  IT
• Tradition of philanthropy to support academic
  priorities
• Educational training opportunities internships
  fellowships

3
Weaknesses

• Volatile nature of funding and all associated
  impacts (7 points)
• Staff turnover and losing expertise on project
• Inability to fund maintenance of projects (always
  needing to move to next new funded activity)
• Some funding agencies have limited budget cycles
  and typically will not commit to long-term
  partnerships (makes maintenance difficult)
• Vulnerability to political trends and changes in
  priorities
• Pace of change e.g. inability to keep current
  with technology changes
• Tendency toward conservatism unwillingness to
  take risks
• Data licensing, access limitations, and desire to
  recoup costs (4 points)
• Competing for eyeballs (institutions typically
  not great at marketing and building awareness)
• Mine tendency to want to control all aspects
  of a project and not partner (silos stovepipes)

4
Opportunities

• Engage science journalists and educators
  marketing and outreach
• Education is a whole new market curriculum
  development
• Collaboration expertise from others whove done
  it before (1 point)
• Demonstrate added value of atlases exploit
  opportunities to highlight best practices
  increase efficiencies and save
• Visibility of certain partners (universities) can
  help market and build credibility for projects
• Movement to E-GOV and knowledge-based economy
  (Digital Atlas geospatial underpinnings for all
  government activities)
• Delivering on govt policy (e.g. implement ICZM
  mandate) (12 points)
• Open data licenses could lead to new products
  economic development
• Leveraging data acquisition (e.g. opportunities
  to pull resources to get more or better datasets)
  (4 points)
• Reduce duplication (e.g. share code) (2 points)

5
Threats

• Changing policy drivers
• Perception of too many databases and mapping
  applications
• Competition with private sector
• Credibility poor quality data undocumented
  changes to data no metadata poor models and DSS
  (3 points)
• Over or poor marketing user expectations not
  met (under promise, then over deliver)
• Challenges of collaboration partner doesnt
  deliver up to specifications partner seeks
  divorce

6
Summary

• O Delivering on govt policy (e.g. implement
  ICZM mandate) (12 pts)
• W Volatile nature of funding and all associated
  impacts (7 pts)
• S Research ability to leverage additional
  funds (5 pts)
• O Leveraging data acquisition (4 pts)
• W Data licensing, access limitations, and
  desire to recoup costs (4 pts)
• S Government mandate and inherent authority (3
  pts)
• S Ability to attract attention and additional
  support ? leads to collaboration (3 pts)
• T Credibility poor quality data undocumented
  changes to data etc. (3 pts)
• O Reduce duplication (e.g. share code) (2 pts)
• S Permanence of agency long-term institutional
  support (1 pt)
• S Marine sector representation in govt policy
  national priority (1 pt)
• O Collaboration expertise from others whove
  done it before (1 pt)