EPA’s Mobile Access Review Committee
Mobile Gov Experiences are agency stories about creating anytime, anywhere, any device government services and info. This entry is a story shared by the Environmental Protection Agency.
The Enivronmental Protection Agency’s Mobile Access Review Committee (MARC) is a committee that evaluates external (public-facing) mobile app and mobile Web concepts prior to any development. MARC serves as point-of-contact for mobile project owners throughout the Agency and maintains mobile product requirements based on the latest technology, EPA requirements, and best practices.
Why We Did It
The goal of MARC is to ensure quality and reduce redundancy in the rapidly growing field of mobile app development. The fast pace of mobile technology demands a cross-organizational body that can catalog mobile products, encourage information sharing, and streamline agency efforts in this space.
What We Did
EPA brought together representative from the Office of External Affairs and Environmental Education (OEAEE), the Office of Environmental Information (OEI), the Office of General Counsel (OGC), the OEI Lead-Region, and one program office on a rotating basis. The Committee is charged with reviewing mobile concepts based on criteria critical to mobile app development in the public sector. All native external (public-facing) mobile app concepts must be approved by the Committee before programs may begin development. Mobile Web app and mobile website concepts have a lesser standard of review, but must also be approved by MARC prior to development.
How It Works
EPA’s MARC has been successful in educating EPA mobile innovators about what needs to be considered when developing mobile products. EPA’s guide on the difference between mobile apps and websites outlines various program and technical considerations for mobile product development. The MARC evaluation process is guided by the Mobile App Evaluation Guidance Document (MS Word, 95 KB, 9 pgs), which provides detailed guidance for evaluating mobile app concepts based on critical criteria. The process is transparent and submitters are provided detailed explanations for the Committee’s decisions. Concepts that are not approved can be modified and resubmitted.
