System Success Factors and the top ten reasons AM/FM/GIS projects falter
Implementation Paralysis
GIS implementation, like any other major information systems implementation project, involves
hundreds of individual, interdependent tasks that can be difficult to manage. Organizations face
a risk of becoming overwhelmed by the magnitude and complexity of the effort, and this can lead
to virtual paralysis of implementation.
- A county-wide GIS project in the Mid-West struggled for over five years after acquiring its
aerial photography because the cooperating organizations could not get a handle on who
should be doing what to implement the system. No single organization had the resources to
do it all, nobody knew whereto begin, and by the time the county’s GIS staff were ready to
develop some applications, the original aerial photography was completely outdated.
The best ways to mitigate this risk are to utilize an automated project management tool and to
hire or designate a full-time GIS Coordinator whose only responsibility is GIS implementation
management. In the case of a cooperative regional effort, it is essential for the all the
organizations to recognize a single regional coordinator. Inter-local agreements or memoranda of
understanding are usually necessary to formalize this recognition.
Some cities have addressed the risk of implementation paralysis by outsourcing GIS
implementation management. The drawback of this approach is that the cities miss the
opportunity to build in-house expertise that will be invaluable for day-to-day system operations
once implementation is complete.
Scope Creep
Since GIS can benefit so many departments and divisions in a local government or utility, and
since an organization can literally identify hundreds of potential GIS applications, there is a
tendency for the scope of GIS projects to creep outward until people are attempting to do too
many things at once.
- A major municipal utility district on the East Coast spent more than six years in the pilot phase
of its GIS project as it added more and more features to its maps and databases. All the while,
end users continued to do things the “old way” while wondering if they would ever see a
working GIS.
- While in the early stages of its AM/FM data conversion effort, a water wholesaler in the United
States became distracted by the possibility of selling its data to other utilities and local
governments. The organization started devoting resources to the capture of data that it did not
need but that it thought would be marketable, and staff that were originally designated to work
on internal AM/FM project were re-assigned to work on the marketing effort. Five years later,
the data conversion project was not yet complete, no applications had been developed, no data
maintenance procedures had been implemented, and nobody had purchased the as yet
unfinished database.
The best way to control scope creep is to clearly define project scope and then maintain a detailed
work plan that ties back to this scope definition. Project management software can be helpful
here.
Sticker Shock
GIS implementation can be very expensive, particularly if an organization has to develop its own
base map and facility maps. Many local governments have discovered that their officials are
unwilling to fund the effort once they see the price tag.
- A regional GIS consortium in the Southwest began making plans for base map development.
Mid-level management understood that this effort would cost over a million dollars and
recognized that this was a reasonable budget for a major GIS data development effort.
However, when city and county officials learned that they were building a “million dollar
map,” they quickly shut down the project.
The best way to avoid this problem is to educate policy makers about potential costs before the
planning project begins and then to involve the policy makers in the development of the
implementation budget and schedule.
Benign Neglect
The implementation of a GIS requires a multi-year commitment of funds. Some cities have run
into trouble when policy makers lose interest in the project and begin shifting funds.
l Enthusiastic about its new GIS project, a county in the Deep South invested half a million
dollars in base map development, hired GIS staff, and purchased hardware and software.
However, other issues took precedence in future years. The county continued to fund the
staff positions, but when it came time to update the base map and re-fly rapidly growing
areas, officials never committed sufficient funds. As a result, the high quality base map they
initially developed became less and less valuable over time. County officials were still in
405?favor of a strong GIS program; they simply did not give it the necessary attention and
resources.
To combat this tendency toward benign neglect, an organization should have a policy maker or
senior executive that serves as the GIS Project Champion. This individual is an official
“cheerleader” for the project, keeps it at the forefront of policy makers’ attention, and maintains
regular communications with GIS staff. The GIS Champion must have the ear of governing
officials and must have a genuine interest in the GIS project. Mid-level managers and technical
staff interested in building any major information system such as AM/FM/GIS should seek a
Project Champion at the outset.
Misuse of Data
Spatial data have properties that many users do not understand. Without a basic understanding of
the fundamentals of topology, cartography, data resolution, and surveying, staff may
unintentionally misuse GIS data. This problem is especially critical in the early phases of
implementation when an organization has not yet institutionalized procedures for using the GIS
data.
- License approval staff in an urban county used to take field measurements to ensure that each
new business license application was in compliance with regulations regarding the proximity
of other establishments. When the county implemented its GIS with a schematic-quality base
map, the licensing staff quit doing the field measurements and began scaling the distances off
the schematic. They did not realize that the data were unsuitable for this task, and this
compromised their ability to fairly administer licensing regulations.
