Appendix B
COMMITTEE’S SURVEY AND INTERVIEWS CONCERNING USER REQUIREMENTS AND SATISFACTION

When the committee decided to divide some of the data gathering tasks between two subgroups, subgroup A1 on user requirements attempted to develop data to reinforce and expand personal and professional experiences with the USGS user satisfaction by sampling typical USGS map/data users in five general categories. These categories included (1) large-scale users (utilities, municipalities, local governments); (2) state government users; (3) commercial users (publishers of maps and digital data); (4) users of spatial data who do not use USGS products to meet their needs; and (5) other users including recreational, planning, and environmental users. All of the interviews (primarily by telephone) were conducted using a questionnaire developed by the subgroup. This questionnaire follows. The results of this survey are integrated into the committee’s analyses in the report; detailed analysis and records of the interviews are on file with the Mapping Science Committee.

  1. Introduce oneself as a Mapping Science Committee member; explain purpose of interview, i.e., we’re trying to find out if users of USGS information are satisfied, how much information they use from the USGS, etc.

  2. Determine that interviewee does, in fact, use USGS maps or digital data; if not, what maps or data are they using?

1  

Subgroup A consisted of Barbara B.Petchenik (subgroup leader), John Antenucci, John Bossler, Henry Perez, and Thomas Wilbanks.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 68
Spatial Data Needs: The Future of the National Mapping Program Appendix B COMMITTEE’S SURVEY AND INTERVIEWS CONCERNING USER REQUIREMENTS AND SATISFACTION When the committee decided to divide some of the data gathering tasks between two subgroups, subgroup A1 on user requirements attempted to develop data to reinforce and expand personal and professional experiences with the USGS user satisfaction by sampling typical USGS map/data users in five general categories. These categories included (1) large-scale users (utilities, municipalities, local governments); (2) state government users; (3) commercial users (publishers of maps and digital data); (4) users of spatial data who do not use USGS products to meet their needs; and (5) other users including recreational, planning, and environmental users. All of the interviews (primarily by telephone) were conducted using a questionnaire developed by the subgroup. This questionnaire follows. The results of this survey are integrated into the committee’s analyses in the report; detailed analysis and records of the interviews are on file with the Mapping Science Committee. Introduce oneself as a Mapping Science Committee member; explain purpose of interview, i.e., we’re trying to find out if users of USGS information are satisfied, how much information they use from the USGS, etc. Determine that interviewee does, in fact, use USGS maps or digital data; if not, what maps or data are they using? 1   Subgroup A consisted of Barbara B.Petchenik (subgroup leader), John Antenucci, John Bossler, Henry Perez, and Thomas Wilbanks.

OCR for page 68
Spatial Data Needs: The Future of the National Mapping Program Purposes for which they use USGS maps/data; where they get it, specifically what do they buy, how much ($/quantities), how often. If it were not available, what could or would be substituted? What are the strong points of current USGS products? Weak points? Are the users of USGS information changing? Do they expect spatial digital data usage changes in the 1- to 10-year period? Try to assess evolving digital data needs, in particular, any plans for using the 1:100,000 TIGER files, creating their own digital data files, etc.? Are there products user would like to have from the USGS? What about willingness to pay? Explore how user feels about what federal mapping role should be; in particular, what about the USGS role? Explore how user feels about the USGS as service organization (not just supplier of hard-copy products or digital files). ORGANIZATIONS SAMPLED Municipal Governments and Public and Private Utilities (John C.Antenucci, interviewer) Alabama Power Company Albuquerque (NM), City of Ann Arbor (MI), City of Austin (TX), City of Baltimore (MD), City of, Public Works Department Boston (MA), City of Carolina Power & Light Company Charlotte (VA), City of City Public Service, San Antonio Columbus (OH), City of Deerfield Beach, City of Denver Water Department Dupage County Assessor Erie & Niagara Counties Regional Planning Board Florida Power & Light Company Greenville (NC), City of GTE of Illinois Houston (TX), City of Indianapolis (IN), City of Iowa Public Service Company Jefferson County, Colorado Johnson City

OCR for page 68
Spatial Data Needs: The Future of the National Mapping Program Kentucky Utilities Company Knoxville (TN), City of/Knox County Lassen County Little Rock (AR), City of Little Rock Wastewater Utility Long Beach (CA), City of Los Alamos City Utilities Los Angeles Department of Water & Power Louisville/Jefferson County Municipal Sewer District Mesa (AZ), City of Metropolitan Utility District, Connecticut Miami (FL), City of Michigan Consolidated Gas Company Milwaukee (WI), City of Nashville (TN), City of Nashua, City of New Braunfels Utilities Northeast Illinois Planning Commission Northeast Utilities Oklahoma City Oklahoma Natural Gas Company Orlando Utilities Commission Pasadena Water & Power Department Peoples Natural Gas, Pittsburgh Pittsburgh (PA), City of, Urban Redevelopment Authority Phoenix (AZ), City of Pinellas PK Water/Utility District Portland General Electric Company Public Works Agency Puget Sound Power & Light Company Savannah Electric & Power South Carolina Water Resources Commission Southern California Edison Company Southern California Gas Company Southern Company Services St. Petersburg (FL), City of Suffolk County Real Property Wisconsin Gas Company Ventura (CA), City of State Governmental Agencies (John D.Bossler, interviewer) Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality and Engineering (2 interviews) Massachusetts Environmental Management Department (Division of Hazardous Wastes) Massachusetts Department of Transportation Ohio Department of Natural Resources (Soil and Water Conservation)

OCR for page 68
Spatial Data Needs: The Future of the National Mapping Program Ohio Department of Transportation (Bureau of Aerial Engineering) Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Planning Coordination Office) South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (Soils and Hazardous Waste Office) South Carolina Department of Transportation South Carolina Land Resources Commission South Carolina Geodetic Survey and Geologic Survey Commercial Users (Henry J.Perez, interviewer) American Automobile Association, Falls Church, Virginia Champion Map Company, Daytona Beach, Florida General Drafting Company, Convent Station, New Jersey H.M.Gousha, Comfort, Texas International Aerial Mapping Company, San Antonio, Texas Tobin Aerial Surveys, San Antonio, Texas Miscellaneous Organizations (Thomas J.Wilbanks, interviewer) Argonne National Laboratory Batelle Bechtel Dames & Moore Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Martin Marietta Meridian Corporation National Rural Electric Cooperative Association Oak Ridge Associated Universities Oak Ridge National Laboratory RCG/Hagler-Bailly, Inc. Resources for the Future Science Applications, Inc. Sierra Club World Resources Institute