I’ve Looked at GIS From Both Sides Now

I’ve Looked at GIS From Both Sides Now

William P. Herdegen III, P.E.
System Development Integration
180 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1500
Chicago, IL 60601

It’s not often one gets an opportunity to experience evaluating solutions from both sides of the table, first as a user and then as a provider. I’ve had the opportunity to visit and talk with a number of municipal and investor owned utilities about GIS and it was clear that my experiences were very much the same as what everyone else was experiencing, such as organizational silos, the pressure to make changes and tight budget constraints. I also learned that sometimes people from the outside have a much broader knowledge of what’s going on in an organization than some people on the inside. I’d like to share with you today some observations and thoughts prompted by the insights gained by this experience. Specifically, how do we reconcile the incentives of the user and the provider of GIS services and where are we headed in the future?

The four phases of a project; needs analysis/needs realization, justification, approval process and implementation all contain critical areas of focus. Let’s look at each of these areas a little closer.

Needs Assessment/Needs Realization
I’ve termed this heading this way for a reason. In typical consultant jargon, the first step is always to do a needs assessment. This normally assumes that you have an issue you are trying to resolve or a new goal you are trying to achieve. I submit that in the rapidly changing technology environment we are in, people are so focused on providing operational excellence and better customer service that there is a growing gap between what they need and their knowledge of what is out there to help them. In the fast paced life of most utilities these days as they struggle with deregulation and mergers, they don’t feel they can stop and get educated on what they could be doing. What’s more, the overall game plan has changed so much that it’s hard to tell what decisions may support the overall IT strategy for a company. In my previous position, the dramatic increase in expectation levels from the customers and governmental bodies prompted me to make decisions to address the immediate issues at hand. Based on that I outfitted all construction trucks with AVLS and cellular phones. Did it help from an operating point of view? Definitely! Were my decisions in keeping with an overall strategy for collecting and utilizing information? At the time, I had no clue. As I’ve talked to a number of folks in the industry, I’ve come to realize that the gap between the operating people and the overall IT strategy is still huge.

Those of us that have had an opportunity to look at the bigger picture of the fully integrated utility can see the tremendous value to an organization of being able to leverage their GIS with other critical systems. After all, 80% of utility data is spatially oriented. And yet, if you ask a cross section of people within a utility what GIS is, you will most likely be greeted with a couple of stares and the reply that it must be something like a new line of athletic shoes. The complaints you hear from people in many organizations is the fact that they can’t get information they need to do their jobs more effectively. The call centers would love to know when fieldwork will be completed so they can answer customers’ questions. Dispatchers would love to have maps that are always current, and so forth. If everyone in the organization is interested in spatial data, why is it that some engineers and the operating people are the only ones that are familiar with it? The customer care organization, among others, needs to be educated on GIS and the value it can bring to them. That’s why I’ve said this part of the process is more of a needs realization. Champions internal to the utility and providers of GIS services should look at expanding their education/communication efforts to include all departments that can benefit from better managing spatial data. When you have a meeting of the minds with the value of wider integration, it makes the next step of justification much easier.

Justification
In the old days (the mid 1980s), when we began to computerize a lot of our clerical activities and reports, justification was pretty simple. The cost savings of going from a manual task to an automated task easily justified the project. I managed a department during this time that was dedicated to the effort of leveraging the computer as a tool to improve reporting capability. This was also the time when you were really special if you were the first one in the department to get a PC. Previously, if you had anything, it was a dumb terminal. At he end of the 80s and the beginning of the 90s, we started looking at applications that were more than just the automating of manual tasks. GIS, or AM/FM as it was called back then, was one of these. There was now an opportunity for a bigger win. Not only was there an opportunity to utilize the computer as a tool, but there was an opportunity to do things dramatically different.

This opportunity didn’t come without a larger price tag. Justifications became more difficult since cost savings alone weren’t enough to offset the upfront costs of installing the new application. Many utilities began to recognize the benefit that GIS would offer them, but they were hard pressed to provide an economic business case to move forward on it. At the time, utilities were pushing to cut costs in their attempts to be competitive in the looming discussions of deregulation that were on the horizon. Those that had champions, with the vision to see the long-term benefits of GIS, moved forward with their plans even if they couldn’t cost justify it in the conventional method. Even today, many projects are approved using the cost savings approach or are pushed because an executive wants it to happen. For those of you that may be skeptical, even today, many utilities are lamenting the fact that they can’t move forward on automated meter reading (AMR) because they can’t find the cost savings to justify it. They compare the millions of dollars for infrastructure installation and the cost of changing out old meters with the current cost of about 60-70 cents to read a meter manually.

What people are beginning to learn is that it is not just about cost savings. Granted, it is good when you can get them. But, more importantly, it is the recognition of the value of data and information that truly makes the justification for these systems. For meter reading, it is the value of interval data and the value of the portal to the customer for other services that is the true value. In GIS, it is not just a better mapping application. The value is in the fact that spatial data is needed and used by nearly every department in the utility.

You may feel that this is obvious. However, look at how computer applications were implemented in most companies. A particular department discovered it had a need and set about the task of implementing a solution. Most of the computer systems installed in the last 15 years have been done independently of what was needed by other departments in the organization. All that mattered was who controlled the budget dollars. It has only been a recent revelation that there is a big benefit to have these different systems talk to each other and be able to share data. Maybe it’s been out of necessity because of budget cuts, but finally we are looking at how we can leverage the cost of new systems to benefit multiple departments. Granted that there have been numerous improvements in technology to assist in this effort, but, leveraging GIS with other applications such as AMR, CIS, WMS and OMS to name a few has really accelerated the pace of GIS in our industry. Do not infer that this new enlightenment comes without significant hurdles. Even the most visionary of leaders can have trouble seeing the future on occasion.

Consider the following quote:

“The phonograph…is not of any commercial value.”
Thomas Alva Edison Inventor of the phonograph, c 1880
With the vision in place and a justification in hand, the next step is the approval process, which has a number of issues to address.

Approval Process
Getting approval for most of these high cost new systems is a major uphill battle. Even the most enlightened executive has reservations about embarking on multi-million dollar applications, especially if they were like me and had been burned in the past. Early implementations were fluid, so to speak. You didn’t quite know what to expect and the implementation did not neatly fit into the project management models we had been using for building substations or large electrical rehabilitation work orders. The difference was that on facilities projects, you could define the scope of the project more succinctly and it made it easier to manage. Computer applications were notorious for constantly changing scope and overruns on schedule and budget.

As a line manager, the key factors you focus on are the scope, schedule and budget. It is in the best interest of both the user and the provider to accurately define the scope of work to be done. This is the single factor most often cited for cost overruns and customer dissatisfaction. Once the scope is defined, diligence in sticking to the scope and resisting changes is a must. I know a multi-million dollar project that changed scope so often that the project was never completed. My background is engineering and I can vouch for the fact that if you let an engineer have a free hand, he will constantly tweak the project in search of perfection. We used to use a guiding principle that said if it’s acceptable to get the job done, don’t keep tweaking it.

While the schedule is also important, most people tend to focus on the budget. It’s a given that money is usually tight and adherence to budget is critical. The more important issue with regard to budget is who is funding the project. The old adage of he who controls the budget, controls the project is true, no matter what you may hear to the contrary. Navigating the field of people that will claim ownership of a project can be difficult and confusing at times. I’d like to spend some time discussing decision makers because I have seen suppliers lose sales because they weren’t dealing with the right decision maker.

Most large utilities and municipalities are complex. By that, I mean that multiple people within the organization make most big decisions. You normally can’t go to a single key decision maker, like you can in a small company and close a business transaction. Understanding the role that each of these decision makers play is crucial to the success of a new sale. I’m not just talking to the external supplier that is trying to sell a software product or service. I have seen many occasions where an internal manager tried to “sell” an idea or new process change that went nowhere. It wasn’t because the idea didn’t have merit, but rather, that the proposer didn’t involve the right decision makers. Getting the right people on board is critical to success, and yet I have not seen many that have this concept mastered. I’d like to talk a little about the types of people that may be part of the decision making process.

Many projects today emerge from the line organizations out of the necessity for improved processes and cost reduction. As I’ve said earlier, the managers in these departments tend to be more focused on operational concerns than the specifics of what GIS can do for them. They are interested in a solution to their problem. The discussion with these managers must revolve around what your solution will do for them, not in how slick the application is and what extras it has to offer. This manager will most likely leave the technical discussions to a project team assigned to implement the solution. Many salespeople will skip this manager and concentrate on the technical people since they are in a better position to know what your product can do. The old adage of following the money (or budget) is important here, but should not be used as the only thing to focus on. This manager is a key decision maker because he has the power of go or no-go for the project. He may also need to get the approval of the business unit head or the CFO before he can proceed. If any of these top executives become a champion for your project, you are in good shape because they can steer the decision process to a quick decision. In many cases, though, the task of keeping the project moving forward is delegated to a subordinate.

Another fairly recent player in the decision making process is the Supply (Purchasing) organization. In recent years, the term alliance has been used and abused as companies strive to reduce costs and add value. In some companies, a line manager may ask the supply chain manager to bring a supplier or an alliance partner to the table that can address the problem at hand. If you are not on the radar screen of the supply folks, it may be difficult to be part of the short list to be reviewed. In many cases, the supply organization cannot make the final decision, but they can limit the contenders to be considered.

The IT organization is also a decision maker in that they are often a major influencer in the final decision. They may even control the budget for the project. In most cases, though, the line organization has budget responsibility for the project and has the accountability for management of the project. Similar to the supply organization, the key players in IT are in a position to bring vendors to the table. They are also in the position of passing judgment on the technical merits of your products and services. One group that is almost always overlooked are the departments that are stakeholders but don’t have budget accountability for the project. When we look at the implementation of a significant application such as GIS, there are many departments that can benefit from the data and information. As I discussed earlier, the benefits derived from implementing GIS in multiple departments will be needed to justify the types of expenditures that you will incur from a large project. Too often, these other departments are excluded from the evaluation and implementation of large systems. Typically, these departments cannot veto a project, but their support could help to move the project forward.

The last group I would like to discuss is the user groups. These are the people that directly benefit from the use of a new system. These groups are usually made up of technical and process people that understand the work flow and understand what the application needs to do to improve work performance. It is critical that they understand what it is that your product can do and be comfortable recommending your solution. They can influence a positive buy decision, but more importantly, can cast a veto on your solution. These are the people you will be spending a lot of time with during the evaluation phase as well as the implementation phase of a project. It is important to establish a strong relationship that will allow the honest and objective flow of ideas between the two companies. I’ve seen where this has been done well and I’ve winced at projects where there was a huge disconnect between the two sides.

The bottom line of this discussion is that while there are a few key decision makers that have the power to commission and fund a project, there are many influencers that can affect a yes vote or can cast a no vote for your solution. Knowing each of these types of decision makers and being able to navigate through them is the challenge. You must know who the players are and what role they play in the ultimate decision. This goes for the internal folks as well. Knowing who can help you as well as who can hurt you is critical if your project is to be a success. Let’s say you’ve successfully navigated the shark-invested waters and have the green light to proceed on your project. What I’d like to discuss now are key areas that tend to be underestimated or glossed over in the implementation.

Implementation Issues
I’ve known a lot of departments and a lot of companies that are great with respect to developing goals and plans. There are few, however, that were truly successful in fully implementing the plan. There are a number of key issues that are critical to the success of a project. Many would argue that having a committed sponsor and having the pick of the best people for the team is all-important. I wouldn’t disagree that these and others are important. In my experience, though, I have found three areas that contribute more to success than others. They are Process Reengineering, Change Management and Communications.

How many of you would paint your house by just slapping a new coat of paint on it without scrapping away the loose paint and priming the bare wood first? It only makes common sense, right? And yet, I have seen many cases where departments slap a new application in place without taking the time to scrape away any of the old debris. If you are going to spend a lot of money on a new system and tie up your best people for a significant amount of time, why not take advantage of the opportunity to improve the underlying processes?

It is common these days for a project team to be put together to look at how to best implement new applications like GIS. It normally consists of people from engineering, construction and operations. Because all of us have dealt with the agony of customized products at one point or another, we tend to instruct these project teams that we intend to use the new product out-of-the-box to avoid the maintenance issues of a customized product. The team then sets about to make the processes fit the application. My concern is that the teams spend so much time trying to fit the process to the application that they forgot the original tenet that gave rise to the project in the first place. That is, what can we do to dramatically improve the way we serve our customers and reduce our costs in the process? You need to be able to step back from the work and continue to ask the question: are we making things better? It’s hard to see that when you are mired in the details of the implementation.

One suggestion I will make is to include other stakeholder departments on the team. I don’t mean inviting them to be casual observers. They should be key participants and, in some cases, it may be beneficial to make them the project lead. It allows them to remain objective in the direction the team takes. I said earlier that it might require that you demonstrate the benefits to multiple organizations in order to get the project justified to move forward. Why then do we limit participation on these teams to the ones under the budget owner’s control? This is a hard concept for many of the managers out there. You are held accountable for delivering the project on time and on budget. To insure success, the logical approach is to make sure you control all of the variables. We need to get past this line of thinking.

For instance, I would make someone in the customer care area a key team member. After all, the work we do is supposed to be “customer oriented”. The information in your GIS is as important, or more important, to the people that have to talk to the customer on a daily basis. The process reengineering we do should be on a higher plane that takes into account these other stakeholder departments. The integration with other key systems gives us the bigger win. For those of you in operations that may be grumbling a little about having to include the customer care folks, turnaround is fair game. Many utilities are looking at AMR now. I recommend that utilities don’t put a meter-reading manager in the role of project manager for this venture. The true value in AMR is in the value of interval data and the value of this portal to the customer for other revenue producing service offerings. An operations person may provide a more objective viewpoint that keeps the bigger picture in mind as you implement the system.

For many, what I’ve just discussed may be blasphemous. That feeds right in to the next area of concern for insuring a successful implementation—Change Management. The single factor that destroys a successful implementation more often than not is the resistance of people to accept the necessary changes. Change management gets a lot of discussion in most companies. We throw the term around and assume that by talking about change it will magically happen. We guarantee it by giving people key chains and hats that will remind them of the change and how great it is. I believe we focus on change as a concept unto itself instead of understanding that change is the result of modifying our behaviors. Let me explain further.

I was trained as an internal consultant in change management for my previous employer. Many of our managers prided themselves on being leaders of change, including myself. One of the simplest exercises I used to do with the change management classes I worked with involved connecting all the dots shown with only 4 straight lines and not picking up the pencil from the paper as you draw the lines. It was amazing how many of the people could not figure it out the first time they looked at it. (Try it; the answer is at the end of my paper).

These were not stupid people; in fact I submit they are some of the most intelligent people I’ve known. I never said you couldn’t draw outside of the box. Subconsciously, our brains put limits on our options. The point is that our minds tend to look at things and process things according to the way we have been trained or based on our past experiences. So even though we consider ourselves to be open mined and proponents of change, our brain subconsciously tries to operate in the mode that is more comfortable for us. Our comfort is in the familiarity with our proven experiences. This simple exercise was eye opening for many people and helped them to realize that resistance to change is very powerful and not always overt. By understanding this and focusing on things that help to modify behaviors, we can begin to achieve the results we are looking for.

I’ve known people that wanted to play their cards close to the vest as the saying goes. If they had a great idea, they would work on it secretively and roll it out with much fanfare when it was a finished product. They didn’t want anyone to “scoop” their idea. In today’s environment, where it is increasingly important to share information, integration is a must. Like many of the ideas I discussed so far, integration doesn’t just happen and it is not a simple task. There is a certain art to integration to make sure it is done right and yields the desired results. One of the ways to insure the bigger win I talked about is through communication. In real estate, they say the three important factors are location, location and location. For a successful implementation, the three important factors are communication, communication and communication.

In most instances, communication is really a data dump. Information is put out through as many media as possible. There are hats, special newsletters, closed circuit TV announcements and announcements at departmental meetings. I’m sure you can list a number of other vehicles as well. In my estimation, these are one way information downloads. To me, communication is the two-way flow of information or a dialogue, if you will. Think about the blank stares you get from departments that aren’t involved in the GIS project. You ask yourself, “How can they not know what GIS is after all of the information we’ve given them?”. The answer lies in the fact that there was no connection for them. Think about all the information we are bombarded with each day and think about how much of it we take in and retain. What is different? The difference is what we think is in it for us or how it affects us personally.

There may be some of you that think that GIS is a technical tool and it doesn’t relate to the CEO or the clerk in the mailroom. Do you think these same people can explain what RAM is? How about a discussion on which browser they are using and how fast their modem is? How many talk about the site they used to buy goods and services on the Internet at home last weekend? How did these technical tools become part of the lexicon of technical and non-technical people? It was based on what was in it for them and the experiences they gained through two-way communication. GIS has application and value to 99% of the people in your organization. The other 1% are probably sleeping. There is no reason why anyone you ask in the organization can’t relate to how GIS helps him or her do their job better. Doing their job better means better serving their customers. If you aren’t at that point yet, there are still opportunities to be gained and more growth for the people that sell GIS goods and services.

Summary
The biggest challenges for GIS and any other project that is undertaken is not the technical issues of whether and how the product will fulfill your needs. It is in how well you navigate and manage the non-technical aspects of the project. Identifying all of the stakeholders and decision-makers and educating them on the opportunities is a must do task. Understanding the key factors of scope, schedule and budget and how to help clients meet these factors will gauge the success of your project. Effectively addressing process reengineering, change management and communications will yield the desired results of the implementation. Good luck in your current and future efforts!

Answer to dots exercise: