Issue link: https://resources.esri.ca/i/1313392
56 | GEOSPATIAL STRATEGY ESSENTIALS FOR MANAGERS MATTHEW LEWIN Initiative teams were temporary groups formed from a collaboration of the three working groups to explore new concepts. These teams were typically a mix of business and technical subject matter experts. Steering committee-level decision making was assigned to a strategic advisory committee. This group was made up of managers from the geospatial and IT teams and senior business stakeholders and was responsible for governance priorities relating to the Geospatial Strategy, Stakeholder Management, Organization Structure and Procurement (see the previous chapter). Additionally, the strategic advisory committee approved (or rejected) recommendations provided by the technology, data and operations working groups. Beyond approvals, this committee was also responsible for addressing escalation matters, establishing veto rights and creating the governance charter, terms of reference and operating procedures. Above the strategic advisory committee was the city's IT review board. The board provided formal approval of matters involving operational and capital funding. The CIO, as chair of the IT review board, was familiar with the board and how it functioned. She knew it was important that reporting and recommendations provided by the geospatial governance team aligned with and were consistent with the board's approval mechanisms. Geo does not exist in isolation from the rest of the city's IT investment, thus it was critical that geospatial governance aligned with ITs direction and practices. To accommodate this, the CIO mandated that the timing and formats of submission provided by the geospatial governance team were in lockstep with the IT review board. Defining the Governance Processes With the decision structure defined, the city had a good handle on the static side of governance. It now needed to define the dynamic side. This involved defining, in detail, the processes owned and executed by the strategic advisory committee and the various working groups. The CIO and her team took a structured and systematic approach. For each of the eight priority governance concerns (see Chapter 9), the team defined a key set of elements required to effectively govern that area. Combined, these elements form a governance process. There was one governance process for each governance concern. The elements include: • Objective: A description of the intention and goal of the governance process. • Controls: The policies, documents and artifacts to be produced by the governance process. • Decision rights: The Responsible Accountable Consulted Informed (RACI) matrix for key activities or decisions defined in the process. The groups and individuals identified in the RACI are the committees and working groups identified in the decision structure. • Decisions: Key decisions required during the planning, implementation or monitoring of the process. • Inputs: Resources needed for decision making. This includes compliance specifications, corporate strategies and legal and regulatory frameworks. • Activities: Key tasks or actions to be taken during planning, implementation or monitoring of the process. • Measures: The performance metrics used to monitor progress and effectiveness of the process. Defining each governance process to this level of detail brought clarity to the responsibilities