Giving the power of GIS to field technicians
Are You a Pen or a Mouse?
The procedures to draw a sketch involving a pen-based computer usually require the user to touch the
screen to place a point, and then pick a tool, for example, to place a leak symbol on the map. This process
is the reverse of the field technician’s inclination to want to pick the tool first, and then select the location on
the screen. This can cause a dilemma in that: do you retrain the natural tendencies of the work force, or change the software.
This usability issue is the difference in saying “right at this spot (as you touch the map area), I wish to post a
leak to the map (as you select an icon),” or to say “I wish to post a leak to the map (as you select an icon),
right at this spot (as you touch the map area). This difference was discussed during the analysis and design
stage. The natural tendency of the GM planning staff was to use the select-iconAap-screen method. But not
having much familiarity with pen-based computing, we thought we might be biased toward this method.
Instead, it was decided to develop the application using tap-screenhelect-icon method for most of the
functions. However, in both of our independent field tests, the technicians wanted to use the select-iconhap-screen
procedure.
This usability issue could add some complexity to the application development. The software will have to
be written to disable and enable the natural pen functions as a starting and ending step, for using many of
the features.
In the actual leak repair report in the LSLS leak survey client, the windows make use of radio buttons and
scroll bar menus with pick lists. These windows are relatively easy to use, whether via pen or mouse.
Hardware
Most field applications focus on the hardware. However, with the many choices of hardware and the price-performance
of computers on the decline, we were able to focus on the application functionality.
We tested the application on a color 486 laptop computer using a mouse and a trac-ball, and also on a
ruggedized pen-based 486 computer (monochrome).
While ruggedization is always an issue in a field application, the field GIS Leak Survey computer will be
used primarily inside a vehicle. The nature of the leak survey process, with extensive walking and probing
for leaks, does not lend itself to carrying an additional piece of equipment such as a computer. The field
technicians currently use several electronically sensitive devices in their day-to-day work. As a result they
already have an appreciation that the computer must be treated with the same respect as the other tools that
they rely onto do their job.
Transition Plan
Since the pilot project covered only two work areas, and that by the end of year only 10 technicians out of
67 would have computers implemented in the field, it was decided to use the same method of returning
information from the field that is currently used by the remaining technicians that were faxing-in their
completed forms.
Once the technician using the field GIS Leak Survey system was through with his work for the day, he
would drive to a location with telephone access, and dial-in via modem to send an electronic fax file to the
central file server. By using this method, the main LSLS leak survey application did not have to be modified
to accept the information. The main advantage was that the data was already validated by the client version
of LSLS on the field computer.
Proiect Goals
The goal of the project software was to save the field technicians time by automating their reporting
activities for leak surveys. The two technicians involved in the pilot were very receptive to being placed in a
rapid application development environment and worked around occasional problems with the system. Both
quickly recognized the benefits of using the sofhvare in the field and acknowledged that the system would
save them time as well as produce more accurate reporting.
Conclusions
The pilot project met the main objective of developing an application that would reduce the time spent on
sketching and reporting leaks. Several factors contributed to the success of the pilot project:
- The commitment of the pilot project team members--LSG staff, GIS soflvvarevendor, and field
technicians--to meet the project schedule in spite of “things not always going as planned.”
- Strong management support of the overall AMIFM GIS project at Lone Star Gas.
- Keeping the scope of pilot project small, and completing the project in a short period of time.
- Focusing on the application development, and not the hardware.
- Progressively moving forward with subsequent stages of the testing with only the base functionality
of the application, even though all of the bugs were not worked out.
- Keeping the features of the application to a necessary level, without the bells and whistles.
- Picking the “right people” to test the application in the field, who were willing to work through the
testing-of an imperfect application.
Future Plans
Based on the results of the pilot, Lone Star Gas plans to implement 10 computers with the field GIS Leak
Survey application by the end of 1996. Computers and software for the remaining 57 field technicians are
planned to be implemented by the end of 1997. Also in 1997, pilot projects are envisioned for field GIS
applications to support additional code compliance inspections such as: regulator and relief valves, odorant
test points, emergency valve inspections, patrol zones, and cathodic protection surveys.
