Building a G.I.S - a fist full of dollars,or,a few dollars more
Recognizing the need for GIS (“The Good”):
By the early 1990’s, some senior staff and management at the district was
convinced that LVMWD needed to implement a GIS program. They had learned
enough about GIS technology to be convinced that it would provide a significantly
better tool than existing methods and procedures for performing many of the
tasks that were central to the utility’s effective business. Key elements were
master planning, demand analyses, facility operations, and customer service. As
noted above, the district’s geography and method of operations places a
significant importance on pumping, distribution, storage, and pressure regulation
to serve its water customers. To effectively manage this type of operation, there
was a significant need to have current, accurate information available to analyze
data with a geographic reference to optimize operations and service. Included
were overall facilities management, system operations, mapping and real estate
interests, and information management and integration between diverse sources
of data, and emergency response management, to name a few.
Further, the district did not have in-house capability to perform hydraulic
modeling for its water systems and relied on consulting engineering support for
that planning function. Operations and planning staff were constantly struggling
with ways to present their modeling results to managers and the Board of
Directors. Further, the hydraulic model being utilized was “static” in nature and
could not adequately address dynamics of changing operational scenarios.
There were other limitations to the water demand analysis regarding the inability
of the system to relate changes in land uses with resulting water demands. Also,
there was no easy means or method for overlaying the pipeline system on a base
map to illustrate how various changes in parameters would affect the water
distribution system.
At that same time, the district was just coming out of an extended drought period
and it was apparent tools were needed to support aggressive water conservation
programs they were mandated to perform within their region. They needed
better means to analyze and thematically map trends and variations in water
consumption within its 30,000 parcels. In addition, district staff needed relatively
detailed land use information with which to analyze, design and plot individual
irrigation plans for the many large land holdings that exist with the district’s
service area. Periods of drought are common to the Southern California region
and Drought Management Plans are quite important in managing the scarce
resource of water. The GIS was recognized as a significant analytical and
quantitative tool in that effort.
Finally, senior staff realized that taking steps to integrate the district’s many
diverse sources of information would pay dividends in allowing staff to work more
efficiently. Using GIS technology would allow staff to catch up with backlogged
work and, most importantly, to maintain the district’s high standards of customer
service by allowing quick access to accurate and reliable facility infrastructure
information in response to customer calls.
Beginning the GIS Implementation (more of “The Good”):
In 1994 the district entered into a contract with a consulting firm to conduct a GIS
Needs and Feasibility Study. The consultant first determined the nature and
extent of the district’s information systems architecture (a Windows based
system with PC’s networked on a WindowsNT system). Numerous interviews
were conducted with staff members to determine their respective management
information needs, potential uses for GIS technology, and to determine a relative
sense of priority of various GIS applications that may be developed. The
consultant also conducted an extensive inventory of databases already
maintained by the district staff (the kind of data, format of the data, software
used, current uses of the data, frequency of updates, and the like). This
inventory of data assets represented potential links for the GIS to use so that
data was not being duplicated unnecessarily and that regular updates did occur.
The results of this inventory caused the district to standardize its data formatting
so that everything would be maintained and available in a Windows compatible
format, such as Excel or Access, and that the data would be maintained in a
unique location of responsibility to ensure integrity.
The Feasibility Study report was presented and adopted by the district Board of
Directors in 1995. The study concluded that a GIS was not only feasible but was
necessary for integration of numerous data sources, proper facilities
management, providing numerous mapping outputs, and relating spatial data to
real world questions and inquiries for management attention and decision. The
study also laid out an implementation strategy and timeframe of accomplishment,
cost parameters and assumptions, and a priority order of high, medium, and low
GIS applications.
Bump in the road (“The Bad”)
As with many projects that are large, complex, and implemented only after a
significant investment in time and money, there are always delays that occur. It
may be fear of the unknown, other priorities taking precedence, or simply
unwillingness to make the investment without fully understanding the potential
results or outcome. In any event, the GIS implementation plan was put on “Hold”
for two years awaiting available funding and other resource commitments.
This delay, however, did not mean there was no action on planning for the GIS
implementation. Rather, the hiatus afforded staff an excellent opportunity to
revisit the overall GIS implementation plan and more fully understand the steps
needed to win support and commitment to the GIS. Staff was able to review and
understand more of the state of the overall GIS industry and where it was
headed, develop the strategy of how to proceed with subsequent steps, garner
support from other staff and the Board of Directors, and refine budget estimates.
In general, the GIS implementation involved numerous strategies and decisions:
- Development or acquisition, of base map information (parcel specific with
roads and other details relevant to utility operations);
- Refinement of a scope of work and the decision to use consultant services to
develop a detailed GIS implementation plan. This included an RFP and
related evaluation criteria for the GIS software platform, development of a
data conversion RFP, implementation of high priority GIS applications, and
other support services to the district staff;
- Refinement of the priorities of GIS applications to be implemented. This was
done in consultation with other district operations and customer service staff;
- Integration of Master Planning efforts of demand analysis and facility
requirements into GIS data base information;
- Training and exposure to GIS potentials by market research and discussion
with other users of GIS, especially in the water and wastewater industry. This
was done to glean the best of the “lessons learned” by others and blend
them into our thinking so that we didn’t make the same errors or mistakes
they did;
- Recognition that internal databases needed to be consistent and accessible
to the GIS when needed. This effort was undertaken with the Information
Systems (IS) and Operations groups;
- Analysis and cataloging of record drawings of water and sewer systems to
develop an inventory and record of each into an MS Access data base for
easy reference and retrieval; and,
- Based on the previous Feasibility Study, develop a detailed cost estimate and
plan for GIS implementation.
Despite the two-year gap in “measurable” progress, there was higher level of
confidence and understanding by staff in where the GIS program was going and
how it was going to get there successfully. This planning phase proved to be
very valuable in later implementation phases.
