Geographic Information Management in Local Government - Chapter 3

PART 2 Key Elements of Geographic Information Management ©2004 by CRC Press LLC CHAPTER 3 Organizational Content KEY QUESTIONS AND ISSUES • How important is the organization to the success of GIS? • What are the government’s expectations of local authorities? • What are the main drivers for change in local government? • Who are the main users of GIM in local authorities, and what are their needs? • What are the arguments for a corporate approach? • Where has GIS been used to greatest effect in local government? • What has constrained GIS potential in local government? • What lessons can be learned both from local government and other organizations? • What organizational changes are likely to result from GIS development? 3.1 HOW IMPORTANT IS THE ORGANIZATION TO THE SUCCESS OF GIS? Most definitions of GIS focus on the hardware, software, data, and analytical processes. However, no GIS exists in isolation from its organizational context, and this is a particular aspect of emphasis within this book. There must always be people to plan, implement, and operate the system as well as make decisions based on the output (Heywood, Cornelius, and Carver, 1998). While all U.K. local authorities operate within the same basic legislative framework, each authority is unique with its own agenda and its own way of doing things based on its traditions, culture, style, responsibilities, and external pressures. This emphasizes the importance of looking at the issues from the perspective of how organizations actually operate rather than a hypothetical notion of how they should (Campbell and Masser, 1995). Speaking directly to the reader who is involved in implementing GIS within local government, the essence of a successful GIS is to start by thinking about your own local authorities and their citizens, about their information needs, and how many of these have a spatial dimension. In John England’s words, “Do not think of system, think information” (England, 1995). ©2004 by CRC Press LLC As the limitations of technology recede and geospatial digital data become more widely available, the impact of organizational factors on the success or failure of GIS achieve greater prominence. In fact, Derek Reeve and James Petch (1999) conclude that: Building a successful GIS project depends at least as much upon issues such as marshalling political support within the host organization, clarifying the business objectives which the GIS is expected to achieve, securing project funding, and enlisting the co-operation of end-users, as upon technical issues relating to software, hardware, and networking. Organizations exist because one person cannot do everything. They develop their own cultures and structures, they develop their own ways of doing things, and they contain both formal and informal groupings, often with their own aspirations. The “what’s in it for me” factor can have a powerful influence on the implementation of GIS, especially when the authority’s GIM objectives are not specifically stated. We believe that clarifying the organization’s needs and aspirations are vital to the success of any GIS and must be addressed at the outset. That is why we begin this review of the components of GIM by examining the organizational context. Our thought processes have been influenced by the academic writings of Bob Barr, Michael Batty, Heather Campbell, Ian Heywood, Ian Masser, Derek Petch, James Reeve, Michael Worboys, and others, as well as our practical experiences from within local government. But we start by looking at the expectations of central government. 3.2 WHAT ARE THE GOVERNMENT’S EXPECTATIONS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES? The “e-government strategy” of the U.K. contains an ambitious agenda to achieve the prime minister’s vision of modernized, efficient government alive to the latest developments in technology and to meeting the needs of both citizens and businesses — an agenda that will not be achieved without considerable effort, investment, and cultural change. It fulfils the commitment in the Modernising Government white paper to publish a strategy for information age government and has four guiding principles (Cabinet Office, 2000): • Building services around citizens’ choices (people should be able to interact with government on their own terms) • Making government and its services more accessible (all services that can be electronically delivered should be) • Social inclusion (including a commitment to make it easier for all people to access the Internet, whether individually or through community facilities) • Using information better (recognizing that the government’s knowledge and infor-mation are valuable resources) The government recognizes that implementing the strategy will place significant demands on all public servants to work in new ways and to acquire knowledge about ©2004 by CRC Press LLC the new technology, and will have implications for policy making, service delivery, management, and organizational culture. The publication of the Modern Local Government — In Touch with the People and Local Voices: Modernising Local Government in Wales white papers in 1998 set in train a number of changes to modernize councils in England and Wales. Of particular relevance to the management of GI are: • Improved local services through best value • New models of political management clearly separating the councils’ executive and representative roles • A new power of well-being that allows councils to find innovative ways to meet their areas’ social, economic, and environmental needs • The ability to prepare community strategies (DETR, 1998) A new duty of best value was introduced by the Local Government Act 1999, requiring all councils to fully appreciate the clients’ needs and involve them in the democratic processes governing service delivery. This was followed by the Local Government Act 2000, requiring all councils to adopt new arrangements for making decisions, giving them new powers to promote community well-being, and enabling them to work in partnership with the business and voluntary sectors to develop visions for their communities. Underpinning each of these tasks is the need to assemble and share vast quantities of GI. The Information Age Government: Targets for Local Government white paper recognized that local authorities were at very different levels of development in their approaches to electronic service delivery. Therefore, they encouraged author-ities to set their own targets in relation to best value performance indicators, stressing the importance of joined-up seamless services (DETR, 2000). The white paper emphasized that nationally coordinated projects like the National Land and Property Gazetter and the National Land Information Service, were needed to develop the underlying infrastructure necessary for councils to provide joined-up service delivery. The U.K. government’s vision for the e-citizen is the ability to access online government services 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The prime minister has issued a challenging target proposing that all dealings of the public with local government should be capable of electronic delivery by 2005. The e-government vision requires a massive change of culture on the part of local government, though doubts have been expressed about whether the 2005 target is realistic and practical without substantial extra funding (Adnitt, 2000). 3.3 WHAT ARE THE MAIN DRIVERS FOR CHANGE IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT? In addition to the government’s expectations, there are a number of drivers for changing GIM in local government. These arise from both internal and external sources. ©2004 by CRC Press LLC The internal drivers include: • The increasingly commercial and business-like approach of local authorities, includ-ing the emergence of more effective and coordinated “top-down executive leader-ship” with clear mission statements, corporate plans, and service delivery plans • Better integration of corporate information avoiding data duplication and fragmen-tation as well as exploiting the data riches buried in the coffers of local authorities • The desire to achieve efficiency savings by reducing the costs of data collection and the costs of maintaining up-to-date records • The enthusiasm and commitment of champions and change agents — both staff and, less frequently, politicians • More effective (and comprehensive) presentation of information to decision mak-ers, including the improved ability to simulate the impact of policy choices, to decide priorities, and to monitor outcomes • The desire to make GI more accessible to citizens The external drivers include: • The rapid growth of the Internet and the increased availability of digital data • Low-cost hardware and user-friendly software with much improved performance • The emergence of standards for data capture, manipulation, and exchange, includ-ing the National Transfer Format (NTF) now published as BS7567, and BS7666 • More demanding electorate, growing public expectations, and increasing spatial awareness • New momentum in the regional and environmental agendas • Increasing need for collaboration and information sharing between local govern-ment and other organizations on spatial issues, such as crime and disorder, street works, the provision of welfare services, and the handling of emergencies As with all new technology, it often takes one or two champions in the organi-zation to get GIS going. These champions can be politicians as well as officers and are usually people who combine a knowledge of the organization and its processes with an innovative character, a keen interest in modern information technology, and an urge to move forward. In contrast to the more conservative members of the authority, they generally form a small minority. However, the key to their success lies in spreading their enthusiasm and commitment to other colleagues. 3.4 WHO ARE THE MAIN USERS OF GIM IN LOCAL AUTHORITIES, AND WHAT ARE THEIR NEEDS? GIM embodies a vast array of perceptions and a wide range of users each with their own needs. Several writers have used different user classifications, but we find Jan Roodzand’s most helpful in a local government context. He divides users into three broad groups: viewers: those who view the information on an ad hoc basis; users: those who need access to the data for day-to-day activities; and doers: those who have strong skills in GIS and data management (Roodzand, 2000). Similar classifications are used by Intergraph (Wild, 1997, and Hoogenraad, 2000) and others. The first group, the viewers, is by far the largest, and they use the results of geographic analysis for a variety of often unspecified reasons. Most of the time this ©2004 by CRC Press LLC ... - tailieumienphi.vn