Breaking Through the Personal/Personnel Issues
Charles L. Rogers
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of quickly outdated hardware while impatiently waiting for the next version of our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?Manager - Geographic Information Systems and Drafting South Carolina Electric and Gas 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? Cost Efficient Designs? With the possibility of more efficient, more cost effective designs it should be easy to get the savings promised by GIS project managers. Shouldn’t it? First, we should consider the user. The public utility field was long thought to be a job that would be held until retirement, a job for life. New designers, still learning, had to spend hours and hours, learning their craft from older, more experienced professionals, who had, in turn learned from their predecessors. In this hierarchical system, the harder work was born by the younger designers and the older designer often became “consultants”, managing several designers, answering questions, providing experience-based help. Younger designers looked forward to, one day, being that “expert” designer that everyone went to with questions and was always admired as knowing everything about the job. Well, we are going to change all that. First, in order to do the job now, everyone is going to have to learn to use a new tool. Maybe it will even be the first real encounter with the computer for some of the users. It will quickly become apparent that the older users are having more trouble learning the application than the younger users. These “kids” cut their teeth on computers and, as complicated as the application may be to use, are much more adept at this tool than their mentors. We have reversed the pecking order. And we have stolen from our most experienced users that one thing that they prize most – their experience! Left alone, these savvy, experienced older users will have little good to say about the new technology. They will patiently search out any little bug, any small flaw in the software and use it as an excuse for avoiding it. And there will be bugs, plenty of them, in any new customized application. But, instead of having these bugs reported to the GIS team and corrected, these bugs will be exploited by recalcitrant users. They will communicate them through their own chain of command to, potentially, sympathetic senior management, who have been burned by new software technology before. These experienced users will also work hard to discourage their younger, less experienced users from trying to work through all the adjustment problems. The Users If we understand what can happen, though, we can try to circumvent some of the foreseeable problems before we roll out our application. If we truly value these older, more experienced users, and we should, we will need to start their preparation far in advance of the full rollout. After we identify them, we need to schedule them for any necessary basic computer training – Windows, word processing, spreadsheet, etc. and maybe even typing training may be necessary for them to even begin to use the new tools. Further, we need some of our oldest, most experience users to be on our user steering committee. These users will have access to the software before and during development, so they will have input into the areas that can be influenced, and fewer surprises in the areas that can’t. This will be difficult on the users and the developers. It would be far easier to get a few of the young, more computer-adept users on the steering committee. But, it will be worth it. By listening to the experienced users, we can improve the product that we are delivering. Having some influence and knowledge of the upcoming product will help increase buyin by our users. And, they can have a chance to keep their role as mentors and advisors to the rest of the community when the application is rolled out. Measuring the Benefits But, even so, we still don’t have savings, do we? To get savings we do need to get buying from our users, but we need more. First we need to measure. Then track. Then reward our users based on their efficient use of the software. In the design enhancement software arena, there are 2 basic indicators of performance – quality and quantity. In our earlier example of an underground electrical subdivision design tool, first we need to establish a benchmark for our users prior to using the tool. What is the present volume of work being done by each designer, perhaps measured in customers or dollars or both, and what is the per customer cost of each job? Then, after time has passed for users to learn the new tool, we need to compare the before and after and see if we are getting any benefits. Lastly, and most importantly, we have to reward our users for those things that we have deemed worthy of tracking and measuring. Set up a bonus system for “above the bar” performance. If we have all the tools in place and don’t link our associate’s performance appraisal to their use of the application, they will concentrate their efforts where they are rewarded, and sometimes that is merely how long they have warmed their chair. Users performing below expectations should be given more training. And, if necessary, more training. If they cannot meet minimal expectations after that, there should be a clear expectation on the part of the users and management of what will happen next. The Secret With all that has been written above, there is one more element that a successful GIS implementation must have. That element is senior management support. The senior management team will drive support to middle management, then to front line management and, finally, to the end user of the software. Without that support, no GIS project can be fully successful or produce all of the potential benefits. Because the secret of successful GIS implementation is that the organization must evolve its processes and procedures, its design and construction methods, and, possibly the composition of the organization itself. Perhaps this new technology will allow a centralization of a previously distributed function to be able to reach it’s full potential. Or, perhaps a workflow for new service to customers needs to be completely reinvented using the new tools to get the full benefits of GIS. As previously stated, the company’s performance evaluation and salary actions need to be lined up, not with the use of the software, but the benefits that are to be derived from the software. To realign the organization effectively, senior management must first believe in the goals of the GIS. Secondly, they must believe that GIS can accomplish those goals. Lastly, they must stay the course and support the GIS project when the users fight it and even when the technology itself seems to fight it’s own implementation. Cutting edge technology has cutting edge problems. That’s when it is important to have all levels of an organization involved in the GIS project. Otherwise trying to implement this technology, with all the foibles of user resistance, hardware performance, software bugs, and delayed releases of essential core technology can be akin to pushing a rope. With all that said, it is a wonder that any project is successful. But, some projects are successful. It is hard and sometimes frustrating, but, rewarding in the end. Oh, and don’t forget – have fun along the way! | ||
| © GISdevelopment.net. All rights reserved. |