Form 0920-1154 Key Informant Interview Plan

Attachment 1. Key Informant Interview Plan

Form approved
OMB No: 0920-1154
Expiration Date: 01/31/2020

Key Informant Interview Plan

Technology providers

Rationale: To establish cost estimates for the pilot program, the National Environmental Health Association (NEHA), open data subject matter expert will ask for cost estimates from relevant technology providers. Often these vendors do not publicly list their prices. NEHA will interview three types of technology providers:

• Extraction, Transformation, and Loading (ETL) tool providers – These providers enable a jurisdiction to share its inspection information in a standardized format AND automatically “pull” that information on a schedule. NEHA SME will contact two ETL providers.

• Open data portal providers – NEHA will contract with these providers if a pilot project entity does not currently have an open data portal tool. These open data portal vendors would include those who are currently publishing their client’s aquatic facility inspection data. NEHA SME will contact three companies.

• Leading inspection database providers - These database providers are companies used by large numbers of local environmental health departments to maintain their inspection database technology. For the purposes of identifying our partners, NEHA will speak with these companies to establish cost estimates of “pulling” a jurisdiction’s data out of their database tools. NEHA SME will contact two companies.

Information gathered from vendors about pricing and tools will assist the NEHA/CDC team in the RPF evaluation process and planning the pilot project. Follow up questions for technology providers will vary depending on their tool, their client portfolio, and the type of services they provide clients. Topics the consultant will cover with them include:

• Cost estimates for implementing an open data portal for jurisdictions who DO have machine-readable aquatic inspection data, but DO NOT currently have an open data portal.

• Which aquatic inspection database providers would charge jurisdictions for publishing their inspections in open data.

• Average cost estimates for implementing an ETL process for a jurisdiction’s aquatic facility inspection data.

CDC estimates the average public reporting burden for this collection of information as 60 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data/information sources, gathering and maintaining the data/information needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to: CDC/ATSDR Information Collection Review Office, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS D-74, Atlanta, Georgia 30333; ATTN: PRA (0920-1154)

Questions for technology providers:

• Would it be possible for your clients to export their aquatic facility inspections in a machine-readable format?

• Are there added costs for clients when they ask to make their data available in an open, machine-readable format?

• Do you currently support or partner with an open data portal tool?

• Do your clients own their own data?

  • Do you own the rights to the data your clients input into your database tool?

• Is there someone at your office I can contact if I have additional questions?

Open data and data standards experts

Rationale for European contacts: To understand what other open data standards exist related to recreational water inspections, the NEHA SME proposes interviewing international data standards experts to discover if their teams are already developing aquatic inspection data standards or have produced similar data standards. The NEHA SME will interview from two to three experts; particularly the UK’s former head of data standards and an EU leader on data standards.

Questions for open data and data standards experts in Europe:

• Are there data standards your governing body has developed that includes, or might overlap with an aquatic facility data standard?

  • If no, are there water testing data standards for recreational water in use or development?

• Do you have a “glossary” for schemas that you refer to or commonly use?

• Have you had any challenges (policy, political, or technology), which have delayed or influenced launching a data standard for water or aquatic facility inspections?

• What do you think I should know as I embark on the development of an open data standard for aquatic facility inspection data? (Let key informant lead remainder of conversation, sharing their perspectives and lessons. They may suggest opportunities to collaborate, or they may want to hear how this goes, or that they may have specific advice about a part of the standard or engagement with vendors)

Rational for U.S. open data and data standards: The NEHA SME will identify existing work in the United States so that we can collaborate with and or borrow from the data standard. For instance, there have been recent attempts (not public yet) to create standard terminology for data standards used by any office or agency of the US government. The NEHA SME will contact up to three experts.

Questions for open data standards experts from the USA:

• Are there schematic data standards that we should consider integrating into the data standard we are developing for recreational water inspection data?

• Are there particular tools or processes you would suggest we use as we develop our data standard?

Municipal government information technology administrators

Rationale: Information Technology leads, particularly those who manage a jurisdiction’s inspection database tools, understand the barriers and limitations for sharing aquatic inspection data. The NEHA SME will contact up to ten administrators from major municipalities including at least one major municipality known for its technology skills/tools, but that does not have its aquatic inspection data online and three administrators in rural municipalities.

Questions for municipal government environmental health leaders:

• What tools do you currently use to document, manage, and share your aquatic facility inspection data?

• Can you show me what format or file format you use to store your inspection data? (Follow up questions vary by their response.)

• How frequently are the data updated?

• Have you ever tried to export your inspections into a machine-readable format?

• Do you know of any restrictions your vendor uses when extracting your inspection data into a machine-readable format?

• How many staff hours would it take you to “pull” your inspection data out on a monthly basis?

Environmental health program managers (agency aquatic facility inspection)

Rationale: Environmental health program managers and staff know about the aquatic facility inspection data collected by their program. Staff have direct knowledge of the data, know how often the data collection occurs, and they have knowledge about how their data collection relates to local code. These interviewees also understand the way that their data are reported to the public, possibly in collaboration with a communications team. The NEHA SME will contact up to 20 environmental health program managers.

Questions for environmental health agency managers:

• Are there any legal restrictions for your jurisdiction that affect how you present or share aquatic facility inspection data?

• Can you show me the type of information you collect on inspections?

  • Do you have documentation on the critical violations you include in inspections?

• How have you integrated the MAHC (or not) into your process?

  • If so, can you explain how you are using the MAHC?

• Is there anything I should know as I work on a consistent format for sharing aquatic facility inspection data?

• Has your agency published any information in an open data portal before?

  • If so, Could you show me examples?

  • If so, who in your department assists with your open data projects?

  • If so, do you share all of your aquatic inspection data in your open data portal, or only parts of the data?

• What type of communications support do you have for developing and delivering your agency’s messaging?

• Have you partnered with other agencies or governmental groups and delivered a coordinated, unified message in the past?

3