Summary of Regional Meetings

In addition to the effectiveness surveys, formal focus meetings have been and will continue to be held across the state. To date, three meetings have been held. The first focus group meeting was held in Fayetteville at the community college on February 15, 1996. There were over 80 participants from the southeastern NCIH region. State Controller Edward Renfrow and other OSC/SIPS staff reported on the status of the NCIH as well as other technology and telecommunications issues and services that are offered by OSC/SIPS. Participants in this meeting received an introduction to the day’s planning process by David Norman, a professional facilitator, who guided the group into a focused discussion of technology and telecommunications needs for their region of the state. The participants were then divided into five affinity groups for brainstorming sessions and consensus of where the state might focus its immediate attention. The results of the small group meetings were captured by computer for presentation to the entire group. The findings of each affinity group were included into a final presentation which served as the product for the work accomplished by those attending the meeting. Locations for the continuation of the focus group meetings are shown in the following map.

Figure 4. Locations of Continuing Focus Meetings

The following comments summarize the feedback received at the first three meetings with local government and community leaders.

Each of these meetings brought together individuals involved with the NCIH to listen to their concerns and needs in order to develop a consensus regarding future direction. The findings from each session are documented in separate reports, and are available from the OSC.

Note:
This report is an interim report, summarizing the findings and recommendations from these three regional meetings, the first of seven meetings across the state. As such, any comments and findings below are in draft form, subject to change and modification, and are not to be excerpted or quoted out of this context. All findings, recommendations, and summarizations are subject to change based on the findings of any future regional meeting.

Commonalties

When the results of the first three regional NCIH planning meetings are revisited, the following generalizations can be drawn (commonalties are presented below in the same format as in the individual reports):

Weaknesses

When asked to delineate any weaknesses with the current situation regarding NCIH and related technologies, participants responded with their impressions of the weaknesses. When these are reviewed for all three meetings, the following patterns emerge. These have no implied or explicit priority; there is no differentiation among opinions, perceptions, and/or facts; and no attempt is made to judge the credibility and/or accurateness of the comments.

Strengths

When asked to comment on existing strengths with the current situation regarding NCIH and related technologies, participants responded with their impressions of the positive characteristics. When these are reviewed for all three meetings, the following patterns emerge. These have no implied or explicit priority; there is no differentiation among opinions, perceptions, and/or facts; and no attempt is made to judge the credibility and/or accurateness of the comments.

Regional Needs

The participants in each of the three regional meetings were asked to present what they knew or perceived to be the major strategic needs in the next two years in their regions. Following is a summarization, by affinity group:

Criminal Justice

Government

Education

Health Care

Economic Development

Recommendations

In an effort to develop a set of recommendations that the OSC could review, the participants were asked to develop answers to two questions:

  1. What specifically can be done by the OSC to assist in dealing with the problems/strategic needs in the region?

  2. If you had access to a limited amount of funds distributed by the General Assembly, how would you spend those funds?

The common responses from the three regional groups are summarized below:

OSC Assistance Needs

Limited Funds/Priorities

Next Steps

After the affinity group efforts, the participants in each of the regional meetings were asked, "What might be done at the regional level to ensure that progress will be made and the NCIH and related technologies will serve your constituents better?" A summary of common comments follows:

Observations

The facilitator of the planning sessions, David Norman of David Norman & Associates, was asked to provide summary observations and perceptions as the findings and recommendations from the sessions. These observations are to be found in each of the individual regional reports. The following observations are based on a review of the first three sessions. These summary observations and perceptions are based only on the first three sessions and are, therefore, limited in scope and subject to modification, amplification, and change based on the results of the remaining four sessions. The summary observations are provided in three areas: (1) the results of the three sessions, (2) the process itself, and (3) other considerations.

The Results of the First Three Sessions

Observation -- Overall, there were many commonalties among the results of the first three planning meetings and, to a certain degree, this was to be expected. Users, and potential users, all face relatively the same constraints and receive the same benefits. The common constraints included, but were not limited to:

The common benefits included:

Observation -- Where there is a regional or local center of influence (such as at Fayetteville Tech or at Beaufort CCC) there is greater use and benefits and, correspondingly, less contentiousness among groups and potential users.

Observation -- The potential of the NCIH to be used as a tool to improve the quality of life in North Carolina seems virtually unlimited. Yet, its constricted access (through limited funding) has hindered its implementation, use, and benefits.

Observation -- There is some concern over the equality/equity issues on sites and funding among the various regions with the more geographically remote areas lacking sites, connections, funding, and, consequently, opportunities.

Observation -- The pilot program has proven that the technology works, but there are still issues to eliminate or improve (such as scheduling, training, financing, equity, and reducing costs among others).

Observation -- Marketing and public relations activities need to be started, with initial emphasis on both elected officials and local media.

The Process Itself

 Observation -- Overall, the process of going into the regions to solicit input and suggestions has proved to be extremely worthwhile. To date, approximately 190 people have participated in the process, offering their thoughts, concerns, and recommendations for improvement. Based on the review of the evaluations completed at the end of each session, there were multiple benefits in having the sessions and seeking input.

Observation -- The positive results of the sessions were:

Observation -- The less positive aspects of the sessions were:

Other Considerations

 Observation -- It seems there is a tremendous cry for some agency (for instance, the OSC) to take the lead role in publicizing and marketing the NCIH, its uses, and its benefits in both the public and private sectors.

Observation -- The regions with a strong local presence are more successful.

Observation -- There are many "believers" out in the regions who want to see the NCIH succeed and expand so that even greater benefits become available to citizens, but they lack any organized effort to get the message across.

Observation -- There is too little recognition of the NCIH which, indirectly, constricts funding as "pressure points" and "high visibility" projects receive a larger portion of limited funds (both from statewide and local elected officials).

Home PageTable of Contents Previous PageNext Page