| Titre : |
Assessing spatial data infrastructures |
| Type de document : |
Thèse/HDR |
| Auteurs : |
Lucasz Grus, Auteur |
| Editeur : |
Delft : Netherlands Geodetic Commission NGC |
| Année de publication : |
2010 |
| Collection : |
Netherlands Geodetic Commission Publications on Geodesy, ISSN 0165-1706 num. 76  |
| Importance : |
170 p. |
| Format : |
16 x 24 cm |
| ISBN/ISSN/EAN : |
978-90-6132-320-4 |
| Note générale : |
Bibliographie |
| Langues : |
Anglais (eng) |
| Descripteur : |
[Vedettes matières IGN] Infrastructure de données
[Termes IGN] analyse comparative
[Termes IGN] infrastructure nationale des données localisées
[Termes IGN] qualité des données
[Termes IGN] structure de données localisées
|
| Résumé : |
(Auteur) Over the last two decades many countries throughout the world have taken steps to establish national Spatial Data Infrastructures (SDls). These actions have sought to provide an infrastructure for accessing and sharing spatial data to reduce the duplication of spatial data collection by both users and producers, and enable better utilization of spatial data and associated services. When developing SDI initiatives it is increasingly important to assess their outcomes in order to justify the resources spent on those infrastructures. Many researchers throughout the world have been struggling with the issue of assessing SDls. The task is difficult due to complex, dynamic and constantly evolving nature of SDI.
The main objective of this thesis is to develop a framework for assessing Spatial Data Infrastructures. This main objective is divided into four sub-objectives: 1. to analyse SDI complexity; 2. to develop a SDI assessment framework; 3. to evaluate the developed SDI assessment framework; 4. to expand the developed SDI Assessment Framework by adding an assessment view for a goal-oriented SDI assessment. Each of these sub-objectives are analyzed in chapters 2 -5.
Chapter 2 analyses SDI complexity by determining whether SDls can be viewed as Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS). This was done by analyzing three NSDI case studies and conducting a survey among SDI experts. First, it was determined if CAS features and behaviours could be found in the three analyzed NSDls. The author searched for the following CAS features and behaviours: 1) features: components, complexity, sensitivity to initial conditions, openness, unpredictability and scale independence; 2) behaviours: adaptability, selforganization, non-linear behaviour, feedback loop mechanism. Second, a survey among SDI experts was conducted by asking them to express their strength of support regarding the presence of CAS features and behaviours in general SDI concept. The results reveal that SDls can be viewed as CAS.
Chapter 3 develops a SDI assessment framework. First, the key SDI characteristics that underlie the problems affecting SDI assessment were identified and analyzed. In order to deal with these problems the principles of assessing Complex Adaptive Systems were identified and discussed. The principles of evaluating Complex Adaptive Systems and norms of general evaluation theory were the basis for developing an assessment framework. The principles of assessing CAS, among others, require that the assessment framework is flexible, contains multiple assessment approaches and uses various methods to determine the indicators' values. The result is the Multi-view SDI assessment framework.
Chapter 4 evaluates the Multi-view SDI assessment framework. The evaluation was based on the pilot application of the framework in 21 National SDIs. The evaluation focused on the process of framework application and framework's applicability to assess SDIs. The process of framework application was evaluated against two criteria: 1) NSDI coordinator response time; 2) Completeness of data. The applicability of the framework to assess SDIs was evaluated by sending a questionnaire to 21 NSDI coordinators. The coordinators were asked for the opinion about the applicability of Multi-view SDI assessment framework application results to assess SDIs. The questionnaire was based on meta-evaluation standard criteria for conducting evaluations (Stufflebeam, 1974; The Joint Committee, 1994). The results showed that the framework could be applied to assess 21 NSDIs. The evaluation of the application process revealed that the completeness of assessment data and time needed to measure indicators depends strongly on the assessment methods used. In addition, the results showed that significant part of the measurements contained missing values. Finally it was demonstrated that the users tend to agree with the general applicability of the Multi-view SDI assessment framework to assess SDIs.
Chapter 5 expands the developed SDI Assessment Framework by adding an assessment view for a goal-oriented SDI assessment. The conceptual foundation of the developed assessment view was a goal-attainment assessment model presented by Hansen (2005). The model seeks to answer the question: to what degree has the goals been realized? The model derives the assessment criteria from goals. To develop a goal-oriented assessment view the author used the Multi-view SDI assessment framework. The developed assessment view was tested by applying it to measure the goals' realization of the Dutch SDI. In addition, the potential users of the goal-oriented assessment view evaluated it. The main result of this chapter is the view for assessing the extent to which SDIs realize their goals. The implementation of the proposed view in the Dutch SDI case demonstrates its potential application. In addition, the evaluation of the proposed view conducted among the potential users confirms its usability and generic character. It is also argued that the precision of definition of SDI goals determines how easy the correct assessment indicators can be found.
Chapter 6 discusses the results of the thesis, presents author's reflections on the main results, and suggests recommendations for the future research. In order to better assess SDIs researchers should look for theories, which could explain and help to understand SDI mechanisms and laws. The results show that viewing SDI as CAS is beneficial for better understanding of SDI assessment principles. As a result, the Multi-view SDI assessment framework is proposed. However, due to the practical reasons it is hypothesized that a fully comprehensive SDI assessment might never be achieved. The reflections on the thesis results lead to several conclusions. Firstly, viewing SDI as CAS, apart from helping to assess SDIs, has also a potential to significantly improve the conceptualization of SDI. Secondly, the proposed Multi-view SDI assessment framework demonstrates the potential value for SDI assessment users acting on all SDI organizational levels. Thirdly, the experience of developing an assessment framework for SDI may also be used in evaluation discipline to further analyze and propose solutions for assessing complex phenomena. Fourthly, the proposed framework has also potential to contribute to an emerging trend of the inter- and transdisciplinary approaches to researching and assessing SDIs. The following recommendations for the future research are made: 1) Analyze the roles that CAS features and behaviours play in SDIs; 2) Focus on developing operational SDI assessment approaches suited to specific user's needs; 3) Analyze the users and their requirements of SDI assessment; 4) Analyze the use of SDI assessment results. |
| Note de contenu : |
1. General Introduction
2. Spatial Data Infrastructures as Complex Adaptive Systems
3. Multi-view SDI Assessment Framework
4. Evaluation of the Multi-view SDI Assessment Framework
5. An assessment view to evaluate whether Spatial Data Infrastructures meet their goals
6. General Discussion 123 References
Appendices |
| Numéro de notice : |
10446 |
| Affiliation des auteurs : |
non IGN |
| Thématique : |
GEOMATIQUE |
| Nature : |
Thèse étrangère |
| DOI : |
sans |
| En ligne : |
https://www.ncgeo.nl/downloads/76Grus.pdf |
| Format de la ressource électronique : |
URL |
| Permalink : |
https://documentation.ensg.eu/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=62445 |
|  |
Assessing spatial data infrastructures (2010)
