Why do dick and jane learn differently?- Challenges in implementing today's GIS/IT systems
Stan Weber, in his paper The Last Frontier for GIS Data, speaks about of the ultimate GIS
end user and the promise of this century. This can also apply to all of our IT systems.
“It has been the promise on the lips of GIS project teams since the technology made
inroads into the corporation--the seductive tease that the reduction or elimination of paper
maps and records for the field personnel was “just around the corner.” The reduction of
countless man-hours typically wasted either trying to either locate facilities or make
changes to their characteristics would be the great “shot-in-the-arm” for that overburdened
business case. Those entities that gritted their teeth and began scaling that mountain of
dollars known as data conversion, could look forward to the day somewhere in the future
when digital information would be in the hands of Jack Construction and Jill Fieldperson.
As we enter the new century of 2000 and look forward to the future, we find the GIS
landscape teeming with technological advances, which have the potential to finally tame
that “last frontier.” A seemingly impenetrable wall, which for so long remained
paperbound, is now tumbling.”
Along with the promise of geospatial information and technology reaching the targeted Dick
and Jane end user comes the challenge of additional, more human, issues around change
management, quality of entered data and ability to grasp and adapt to new work processes.
Weber also points out that one-size does not necessarily fit all when we compare “office”
personnel to “field” personnel.
“There are a lot of time and resources tied up in teaching Jack and Jill how to
use Windows 2000 and GIS applications on a laptop computer, for example, as opposed to
having them use tools that are just “tap-and-click” or “speak-and-say”.
A careful examination of the type of business processes will most likely result in different
tools, so we can’t be too quick to use a “one size fits all” approach. Job design and
scheduling may require a vastly different tool than that needed for a technician who does
drive-by inspection.
The focus must be on the long-term goal of getting the field personnel to take “ownership”
in the data that resides in the corporate databases. For too long, a wall of distrust has
impeded efficiency due to fact that the people who update the records are not the same
people who use those records in the field. The sooner an organization can use mobile
computing technology which allow the field technicians to alter and update the corporate
records, the sooner the wall of distrust will begin to crumble.”
Resistance … Is It Always a Bad Thing?
Daniel Pagan, from Manila Electric talks in his paper, Managing Change In A Business
Environment, about the benefits of resistance.
During our implementation as we are adjusting to the planned change, people became
discouraged because of the problems that developed. The project was subjected to
criticism, attacks and even failure, because it appears to be not working. So what we did
was to stop for a while, look back and re-examine the change proposals. We then revised
the implementation procedure making sure that they are appropriate and then use the
system for its intended purpose.
This is one benefit we got from employee resistance wherein it served as a check and
balance of the proper implementation of the project, and resulted into benefits on the
company’s interests. It also shows that that reasonable employee resistance causes
management to screen its proposed changes more carefully, and it discouraged careless
project implementation.
The kind of resistance that we got helped us identify specific problem areas; thus we can
take corrective measures before serious problem occurs. It also serves as a guide so that
implementers do a better job of communicating a change that would lead to a better
acceptance in the long run.”
Weber in his 2001 paper, Getting Difficult People to Successfully Deploy Difficult
Technology, states:
“Organizations deploying successful technology implementations have usually learned
from previous failures or by trail and error. Assessing the ability to change is equally as
important as the need for change, and many organizations fail on this key point.
An often-overlooked item is the present state of the organization in light of its ability to
change and handle new or revised work processes. All too often the management of an
organization will approve a thorough and detailed business case for a large technology or
system implementation project, without taking the required time to assess the “readiness
level” of the employees with regard to their ability to change.
How many efforts in the past could have been successful if the implementation plan was
altered or phased-in to take into account the “organizational readiness for change” of its
users? I would submit to the reader that many (not all) system implementations
catalogued as “failures” in the past, were due to the organization’s failure to take the
necessary steps to understanding their people and the amount of change they could absorb.
In my experience, the success or failure of technology/system implementations has not
been as dependent upon the technology or system itself as it has been on the people
developing and implementing the solution. An organization certainly would not choose to
implement technology if it did not believe it would work. So therefore, the success or
failure lies chiefly in how well the solution has been communicated to the eventual users,
how well the solution replaces the existing business processes, how well the users have
been prepared and trained, and how well the promised benefits are actually measured and
realized.”
How do companies handle GIS/IT training
Noted below are some quotes from a request for input from GITA’s geoXchange. In many
cases you will note great sage advice for all of us to gain from. Keep in mind we in business
are still learning how to incorporate difference in learning preferences, the practicality of how
to individualize training within tight budget constraints, timing issues in a deregulated world,
etc. What follows are three company’s viewpoints:
“I have found a consistent problem with training plans within our company. When a new
system is introduced and training is provided to users prior to them ever playing with the
system, the retention rate from that training is very low. Until people get behind the wheel
they don’t even know what questions to ask. We have been most successful when we
provided minimal initial training, then let people use the system for a month or two, and
then brought them in for more formal training. They then know what you are talking
about and come to the training with questions from actual experience.”
“We have noticed that there are often two categories of students / users. I had someone
come to me and complain about one individual who was providing them some GIS
training and they praised another trainer. Both trainers were very competent with regards
to their knowledge and understanding of our GIS. The difference turned out to be that one
taught all the different ways that a user could perform a given function. He thought that
by doing so he was making the user aware of all the options so the user could choose the
method that worked best for his situation. The other trainer kept it very simple and only
taught the user one way to perform each function. This particular user was overwhelmed
by options and needed simply to be shown one way to perform his job within GIS. Other
users however want to know all their options so they can play around and settle on a
method that works best for them. Bottom line is to know your audience. Start basic and
abbreviated and then later provide more in-depth training to those who want or need it.”
