Breaking Through the Personal/Personnel Issues

In years past, Geographic Information Systems implementation has been mostly about technology. It seems that we have always been chasing the newest software technology with the newest hardware technology. Trying to squeeze more and more performance out of quickly outdated hardware while impatiently waiting for the next version of our software that will always be the version that will solve all our problems. Meanwhile, we have been making bold promises to our users and our management. But, have we delivered what we promised? And, how do our users feel about this technology?

Why are we doing this?
Many of us have been on the GIS road for a long time. Some of us have even migrated from one GIS platform to another and a few more than once! It is easy to forget why we are doing this. It is easy to overlook the user until we finally deliver our applications and find that our user doesn’t use them.

If you originally got funding for a GIS project, you got that funding for one of two reasons. One reason that people implement GIS technology is to help their associates do their jobs better. Perhaps, someone in senior management went to a conference and saw that other utilities were using GIS, and felt like this was something that needed to be done under the guise of preparing for “competition”. These are the kind of GIS projects that have little expectations in terms of increased productivity and decreased costs. They often have annual budgets that get replenished each year with little thought to ever actually completing the project. These projects just become part of the general Information System overhead. If you have this kind of project, the key to success is to repeatedly ask your users what they want and, regardless of cost, deliver it to them. Sounds simple doesn’t it? Well, it can be difficult to accomplish what all your users want, but, with the user as the driver, there is strong enough technology out there to be able to have a successful GIS implementation.

The other reason to implement GIS, and the reason that most utilities have undertaken this task, is to save money. GIS is seen as an investment and the savings as a return on that investment. A side benefit, but usually not measured in “hard” dollars, is improved customer service. Customer service, measured by surveys and polls, can be difficult to tag to GIS, so the utility is largely left with a perception of improvement, rather than clear analytical data, so it is the dollar savings that can be measured and assessed.

Savings?
The savings fall into 2 categories. The first is reduction of capital and maintenance expenditures in construction that can be generated by more efficient engineering designs. In this case, GIS tools allow for improved job designs that shave equipment and labor from jobs that couldn’t be obtained without such tools. An example of this kind of application is the electrical underground subdivision design packages. These tools allow for several scenarios to be designed within the same time frame that only one design could be formulated without them. Multiple design scenarios allow for the most costeffective jobs to be constructed in the field.

The second type of savings, and, by far, the most common type of savings promised by GIS implementers, is in productivity. Improved productivity means savings. Doesn’t it? Well, no, not necessarily. If you are presently getting all your work done with your existing work force, then improved productivity means that you can get that same amount of work done with fewer people. So, to realize the savings from improved productivity, you have to eliminate jobs. With their jobs being eliminated, how do you think the users will receive GIS?