| GISdevelopment.net ---> GITA 2000 ---> Leveraging Web-Based Technologies |
GeoStrategist™ : Organized business planning for the GIS program manager
Linda Gerull1 & Donald B. Hansen2
1Pierce County, Washington
615 S. 9th St, Suite 300, Tacoma, WA 98405
lgerull@co.pierce.wa.us
2Plains Regal Consulting
480 E. Stirrup Trail, Monument, CO 80132
dhansen@prcgis.com
Linda Gerull1 & Donald B. Hansen2
1Pierce County, Washington
615 S. 9th St, Suite 300, Tacoma, WA 98405
lgerull@co.pierce.wa.us
2Plains Regal Consulting
480 E. Stirrup Trail, Monument, CO 80132
dhansen@prcgis.com
GIS program managers are challenged with achieving projected benefits of GIS while ensuring the
effectiveness of the corporate GIS program. While such challenges are common to mainstream
Information Technology (IT) organizations, mature GIS programs are often additionally subject to a
perception that the “GIS project” will reach conclusion and that GIS-related costs will recede. When those
costs actually begin to creep upwards in response to corresponding demands from users, corporate
executives are more likely to focus attention on what they might consider “overhead” expenses, which are
usually fair game for reductions when economic resources are tight. (Umbaugh, 1999)
IT organizations in general are experiencing increasing scrutiny from corporate executives. Technology
advancements are more directly linking IT benefits to performance of the enterprise as a whole. This
trend is expected to continue into the foreseeable future and will result in increased expectations for the
return on their IT investments and more demanding metrics proving IT’s contribution to the enterprise.
(Gartner Group, 1999)
GIS managers (and CIOs in general) are now expected to more closely control costs, more fairly allocate resources and costs to client departments, better understand business unit applications, support the evolving coexistence of centralized and decentralized modes of operation, and develop/maintain more sophisticated service agreements. At the same time they must continue their efforts to improve return on investment through expanded deployment, technological innovation, create vision of future, and manage implementation of enterprisewide architectures.
Distance between business units and the IT department, inadequate planning, and barriers to integration contribute to unrealized management expectations (Osterle, 1993). GIS is in a unique position to unite disparate business disciplines through its potential for impacting processes and intra-organizational mechanisms. GIS programs must, however, overcome a number of barriers that can limit the perceived acceptance and usefulness of the technology.
In spite of a widely deployed (350+ users) and award winning GIS (ESRI 1999 International Internet Mapping Application, NACo 1999Achievement Award, NACIO 1999 Meritorious Award, Council for Urban Economic Development 1999 Promotional Gold Award, URISA 1998 Exemplary Systems in Government, et.al.), Pierce County, Washington Geographic Information Services (PCGIS) continues to expend significant effort justifying budget requests and departmental charges. They have taken an innovative and effective approach to this challenge by implementing an intranet-based application for the proactive management and communication of their GIS business plan. GeoStrategist™ has been implemented as a repository for business plan details and as a mechanism for communicating the plan to executives and users alike.
Overview of GEOSTRATEGIST™
GeoStrategist™ was originally conceived simply as a method for producing an electronic strategic report, but quickly evolved into a more comprehensive tool for continuous maintenance of a “living” strategic and tactical plan. GeoStrategist™ was designed to provide two-way intranet-based communications between executive management, GIS user departments, and the “centralized” GIS department. Strategic data is maintained within a relational ODBC data source, which is updateable through web forms. GeoStrategist™ is integrated with additional data sources, such as timesheet accounting databases and corporate goals databases.
GeoStrategist™ is organized into six major components as illustrated by the site map shown in Figure 1. Each component can be accessed through the site map or through the primary user interface.
Situational Analysis
Before a roadmap for future evolution can be created, it is important to evaluate the current environment. The first major component of the GeoStrategist™ database developed was a situational analysis presented in terms of accomplishment of previously defined goals, and known challenges to be overcome. In previous planning exercises Pierce County had defined 17 program goals, ranging from creation of a standard desktop user interface to be made available to all County staff to development of a GIS storefront. The situational analysis describes in detail the status of accomplishment for each of these goals. The County also identified opportunities for improvement of their GIS program, as well as barriers to be overcome. Additionally, this section documents the latest updates and clarifications to the GIS department’s business-driven vision for the future.
GIS “Best Practices”
One method for measuring performance of an IT organization is through evaluation of industry best practices and benchmarking the current environment. An extensive best practices analysis was conducted and incorporated into GeoStrategist™. This analysis consists of four major elements: (1) detailed surveys of peer GIS organizations; (2) a “state-of-the-art” technology reference”; (3) a benchmarking exercise which rated Pierce County against its peers and the currently available technology; and (4) sets of recommended actions that the county can draw on when developing their long-term strategic and tactical plans.
Telephone interviews were conducted with over 20 public sector GIS organizations across the country. The organizations were selected on the basis of their program’s level of maturity and their GIS platform (in this case, ESRI product based). The topics discussed with the GIS managers ranged from overall metrics of their programs (numbers of users, extent of data development, staffing levels, etc.) to funding methodologies and their visions for the future.
For each of the topics addressed in the surveys, benchmarks were established based on the state of the art of GIS/IT technology. These benchmarks are set for organizations positioned on the technology curve for a moderately-aggressive approach to technology assimilation. Subsequently, the last step in the process was to rate both the peer organizations and Pierce County against these technology benchmarks. GeoStrategist™ documents the raw survey response data, the benchmark ratings, and detailed comparisons of the participating organizations with the goal of helping Pierce County management recognize trends and build a roadmap for the future. Best practices survey topics were classified into six categories:
GeoStrategist™ documents a database of department-specific development efforts. Historical data documents project descriptions, status of completion, as well as detailed accounting of levels of effort charged against projects through integration with timesheet accounting databases. Additionally, extensive interviews with each department user group resulted in sets of new requirements which are maintained with a priority ranking for allocation of resources. “Projects” may consist of any combination of data or functionality development, training requirements, or deployment expansion requests. GeoStrategist™ allows for departments to update their project list and modify priorities as their requirements evolve. GeoStrategist™ also incorporates a set of suggestions/recommendations that the GIS department offers for consideration by each user group. Forms are used to facilitate on-going entry of new project requests directly by user departments.
Countywide Action Plans
The details of best practices benchmarking and departmental action plans were used to formulate new “corporate” GIS goals and action plans. These plans address issues and requirements that cross the full corporate GIS user base. GeoStrategist™ allows the user to view the relationships between goals, their origin from best practices analysis, and the specific projects that have been defined to address the new requirements. As with departmental projects, GeoStrategist™ users can also review project priorities as well as the specific work efforts being expended towards completion through integration to time sheet accounting.
Budgeting
The budgeting component of GeoStrategist™ summarizes GIS department cost characteristics and includes historical cost information as well as future cost projections. Costs are categorized into departmental staff salaries and training costs, hardware and software expenditures, external data and application development services, and corporate overhead charges. Revenues achieved through licensing of data and applications are also documented and projected. Additional views correlate costs per GIS user and provide comparisons to peer jurisdictions.
A recent addition to GeoStrategist™ is implementation of cost allocation modeling and service level accounting. User departments which are required to help fund the GIS program are interested in how they can work to control the costs that impact their funding levels. At Pierce County this objective will be accomplished through service level contracting which will define in detail what services and costs can be expected by each department.
Executive Summary
The Executive Summary component of GeoStrategist™ is intended to provide short synopses of the complete site suitable for managers interested in an overview of the issues confronting the enterprise. The same topics are addressed in summary form and include links to the main component pages.
Conclusions
GeoStrategist™ has helped Pierce County relate GIS program objectives to enterprise-wide goals, describe progress on development efforts, and has created a framework for prioritizing and communicating ongoing GIS development. The County has found that continuous maintenance of a business plan, containing supporting data to communicates evolving program maintenance and growth, helps convince executive management of the value of their GIS investment. The concepts embodied in GeoStrategist™ will help the County address the need for increasing sophistication in the management aspects of their GIS program as well as IT program in general.
References
GIS managers (and CIOs in general) are now expected to more closely control costs, more fairly allocate resources and costs to client departments, better understand business unit applications, support the evolving coexistence of centralized and decentralized modes of operation, and develop/maintain more sophisticated service agreements. At the same time they must continue their efforts to improve return on investment through expanded deployment, technological innovation, create vision of future, and manage implementation of enterprisewide architectures.
Distance between business units and the IT department, inadequate planning, and barriers to integration contribute to unrealized management expectations (Osterle, 1993). GIS is in a unique position to unite disparate business disciplines through its potential for impacting processes and intra-organizational mechanisms. GIS programs must, however, overcome a number of barriers that can limit the perceived acceptance and usefulness of the technology.
In spite of a widely deployed (350+ users) and award winning GIS (ESRI 1999 International Internet Mapping Application, NACo 1999Achievement Award, NACIO 1999 Meritorious Award, Council for Urban Economic Development 1999 Promotional Gold Award, URISA 1998 Exemplary Systems in Government, et.al.), Pierce County, Washington Geographic Information Services (PCGIS) continues to expend significant effort justifying budget requests and departmental charges. They have taken an innovative and effective approach to this challenge by implementing an intranet-based application for the proactive management and communication of their GIS business plan. GeoStrategist™ has been implemented as a repository for business plan details and as a mechanism for communicating the plan to executives and users alike.
Overview of GEOSTRATEGIST™
GeoStrategist™ was originally conceived simply as a method for producing an electronic strategic report, but quickly evolved into a more comprehensive tool for continuous maintenance of a “living” strategic and tactical plan. GeoStrategist™ was designed to provide two-way intranet-based communications between executive management, GIS user departments, and the “centralized” GIS department. Strategic data is maintained within a relational ODBC data source, which is updateable through web forms. GeoStrategist™ is integrated with additional data sources, such as timesheet accounting databases and corporate goals databases.
GeoStrategist™ is organized into six major components as illustrated by the site map shown in Figure 1. Each component can be accessed through the site map or through the primary user interface.
Situational Analysis
Before a roadmap for future evolution can be created, it is important to evaluate the current environment. The first major component of the GeoStrategist™ database developed was a situational analysis presented in terms of accomplishment of previously defined goals, and known challenges to be overcome. In previous planning exercises Pierce County had defined 17 program goals, ranging from creation of a standard desktop user interface to be made available to all County staff to development of a GIS storefront. The situational analysis describes in detail the status of accomplishment for each of these goals. The County also identified opportunities for improvement of their GIS program, as well as barriers to be overcome. Additionally, this section documents the latest updates and clarifications to the GIS department’s business-driven vision for the future.
GIS “Best Practices”
One method for measuring performance of an IT organization is through evaluation of industry best practices and benchmarking the current environment. An extensive best practices analysis was conducted and incorporated into GeoStrategist™. This analysis consists of four major elements: (1) detailed surveys of peer GIS organizations; (2) a “state-of-the-art” technology reference”; (3) a benchmarking exercise which rated Pierce County against its peers and the currently available technology; and (4) sets of recommended actions that the county can draw on when developing their long-term strategic and tactical plans.
Telephone interviews were conducted with over 20 public sector GIS organizations across the country. The organizations were selected on the basis of their program’s level of maturity and their GIS platform (in this case, ESRI product based). The topics discussed with the GIS managers ranged from overall metrics of their programs (numbers of users, extent of data development, staffing levels, etc.) to funding methodologies and their visions for the future.
For each of the topics addressed in the surveys, benchmarks were established based on the state of the art of GIS/IT technology. These benchmarks are set for organizations positioned on the technology curve for a moderately-aggressive approach to technology assimilation. Subsequently, the last step in the process was to rate both the peer organizations and Pierce County against these technology benchmarks. GeoStrategist™ documents the raw survey response data, the benchmark ratings, and detailed comparisons of the participating organizations with the goal of helping Pierce County management recognize trends and build a roadmap for the future. Best practices survey topics were classified into six categories:
- Administration
The organizational structure of GIS programs has evolved as completely as information systems technology itself. Early GIS programs often originated in, and were self-contained within individual departments (often a planning or engineering department) with “mapping” or “computer-aided drafting” responsibilities. As other departments saw opportunities to share in the benefits provided by GIS, the technology gained acceptance across the enterprise and the organizational structures were revised to ensure that the jurisdiction was maximizing benefits through a more centralized, all-purpose service organization. The continuing evolution of centralized/decentralized/out-sourced approaches to GIS organizations, including budget levels and funding strategies, and executive oversight is addressed as a part of this topic.
- Data Development
The mature jurisdictions that were interviewed had already completed development of some of the most important and costly data layers typically included in GIS databases. This topic focuses on the issues relating to on-going maintenance and improvement of those extensive databases. The issues addressed included positional accuracy, corporate database integration, and development/maintenance strategies.
- Applications
Substantial advances in software development technologies are significantly impacting GIS programs. The products being offered by GIS vendors are providing numerous opportunities for GIS organizations to provide new functionality to users and improve on existing functionality. This topic addresses issues related to (evolution, migration), standard desktop packages, and internet computing.
- Infrastructure Support
This topic addresses issues related to the hardware and software infrastructure needed to support the GIS program. While participants in the interviews generally indicated very favorable computing and network environments, recent developments in the ESRI product lines are causing jurisdictions to closely evaluate their strategic directions in terms of supporting internet applications, desktop applications, and multiple platforms. Technological changes are also affecting jurisdictions’ policies towards staffing and training.
- Customer Service
The Customer Service portion of GeoStrategist™ provides a view of how jurisdictions approach aspects of overall user base service issues such as training, help desk support, and timely communications about the GIS program.
- Regionalization
Regionalization is defined in GeoStrategist™ as the dissemination of GIS technology throughout the regional community of spatial data users. A number of jurisdictions have established extensive regionalization programs with the intent of realizing revenues to supplement GIS operational funding, or more simply provide opportunities to the community to realize benefits from their county’s investment. Sharing and licensing of data and applications with community organizations and private sector firms, as well as GIS consulting and service offerings are addressed here.
GeoStrategist™ documents a database of department-specific development efforts. Historical data documents project descriptions, status of completion, as well as detailed accounting of levels of effort charged against projects through integration with timesheet accounting databases. Additionally, extensive interviews with each department user group resulted in sets of new requirements which are maintained with a priority ranking for allocation of resources. “Projects” may consist of any combination of data or functionality development, training requirements, or deployment expansion requests. GeoStrategist™ allows for departments to update their project list and modify priorities as their requirements evolve. GeoStrategist™ also incorporates a set of suggestions/recommendations that the GIS department offers for consideration by each user group. Forms are used to facilitate on-going entry of new project requests directly by user departments.
Countywide Action Plans
The details of best practices benchmarking and departmental action plans were used to formulate new “corporate” GIS goals and action plans. These plans address issues and requirements that cross the full corporate GIS user base. GeoStrategist™ allows the user to view the relationships between goals, their origin from best practices analysis, and the specific projects that have been defined to address the new requirements. As with departmental projects, GeoStrategist™ users can also review project priorities as well as the specific work efforts being expended towards completion through integration to time sheet accounting.
Budgeting
The budgeting component of GeoStrategist™ summarizes GIS department cost characteristics and includes historical cost information as well as future cost projections. Costs are categorized into departmental staff salaries and training costs, hardware and software expenditures, external data and application development services, and corporate overhead charges. Revenues achieved through licensing of data and applications are also documented and projected. Additional views correlate costs per GIS user and provide comparisons to peer jurisdictions.
A recent addition to GeoStrategist™ is implementation of cost allocation modeling and service level accounting. User departments which are required to help fund the GIS program are interested in how they can work to control the costs that impact their funding levels. At Pierce County this objective will be accomplished through service level contracting which will define in detail what services and costs can be expected by each department.
Executive Summary
The Executive Summary component of GeoStrategist™ is intended to provide short synopses of the complete site suitable for managers interested in an overview of the issues confronting the enterprise. The same topics are addressed in summary form and include links to the main component pages.
Conclusions
GeoStrategist™ has helped Pierce County relate GIS program objectives to enterprise-wide goals, describe progress on development efforts, and has created a framework for prioritizing and communicating ongoing GIS development. The County has found that continuous maintenance of a business plan, containing supporting data to communicates evolving program maintenance and growth, helps convince executive management of the value of their GIS investment. The concepts embodied in GeoStrategist™ will help the County address the need for increasing sophistication in the management aspects of their GIS program as well as IT program in general.
References
- Gartner Group, 1999. Gartner Interactive, various articles.
- Osterle, H., 1993. Total Information Systems Management.
- Umbaugh, R. 1988. Handbook of MIS Management.