Geographic Information Management in Local Government - Chapter 6

CHAPTER 6 Approaches to GIS Justification, Selection, and Implementation KEY QUESTIONS AND ISSUES • How do you get GIS “on the starting blocks”? • Why is it important to have a strategy? • How do you make the business case? • What factors should be considered when selecting a GIS for a local authority? Which are the most important and why? • What is the role of cost-benefit analysis in the implementation process? • What are the main ingredients of successful implementation? • Why is a user-centered approach required for successful implementation? What are the training needs? • How important are continuous monitoring and review? • What problems are likely to be faced by organizations implementing GIS? 6.1 HOW DO YOU GET GIS “ON THE STARTING BLOCKS”? In the opening chapter we recognized that many GIS implementations have gone wrong because organizations were not quite sure how they should be used.Therefore, having spent the last three chapters describing the three main elements or legs of GIS, we now focus on how GIS should be justified, selected, and implemented. While we agree with Stephen Gill (1996) that there is no single correct or prescriptive approach to introducing GIS into a local authority, there are some important mes-sages to convey about getting GIS on the starting blocks. Roodzand (2000) notes that “as with all new ideas and the introduction of new technology, it often takes one or two ‘believers’ in the organization to get it going.” These are usually people who combine knowledge of the organization and its processes with an innovative character, a keen interest in modern IT, and an urge to move forward. ©2004 by CRC Press LLC Changing the way that GIM is perceived, particularly at the senior management and the political levels of an authority, is essential if GIS are to play a stronger role in the management of local authorities. To invest in GIS, authorities must have a management culture that is both proactive and change-orientated and regards infor-mation as an important asset. As stated by Gault and Peutherer (1990), “GIS are too simplistically associated with map handling, routine ‘technical’ activities (e.g., engineering, land use plan-ning) and routine land and property management issues. They are not generally seen as broader decision-support which provide a medium for the more efficient integra-tion of disparate data sets or as integral components of strategic planning and management procedures.” These simplistic associations immediately limit many peoples’ perceptions as to whether GIS are relevant to their particular interests. As a result, the subject tends to be approached on the basis of answering the question “What can I use GIS for?” rather than asking the more profound question “What sorts of information systems and analytical procedures do I need to manage my business more effectively and efficiently?” According to Roodzand (2000), “The time spent in creating the right attitude as well as the organization’s commitment, is time well spent, or putting it more bluntly, a must.” In this process the following steps are particularly important: • Getting a “champion” at senior management level to put GIS on the political agenda • Ensuring that end users are on board by selling the project internally • Getting the right people to the right meetings and fine-tuning any presentations to stimulate the desired audience by addressing both operational and management needs • Obtaining a clear picture about the users of spatial information and their requirements • Drawing up an inventory of concrete GIS opportunities to support business processes • Identifying the priority showcase projects for early implementation including those that support today’s burning issues and political hot buttons • Talking business not technology — promoting those opportunities (rather than the new technology) within the organization • Identifying barriers before they are brought up and investing in winning over skeptics • Producing a master plan explaining the overall target, the project’s scope, the proposed steps, and the expected costs and benefits; above all, being realistic — because no one will invest in dreams The process of obtaining the necessary commitment for introducing a system is often influenced by the status and respect that the promoting department or champion possesses within the authority. The project manager is also a key player in guiding the evaluation and selection of GIS technology. This person must have depth of knowledge and breadth of experience, especially in implementation activ-ities. Above all, the project manager must be good at promoting the potential of GIS within the organization. One should not underestimate the challenge that the project could face if it is not sold effectively within the organization at the outset. While each individual will have a different perspective, any GIS development should focus on providing both the viewer and user community with the relevant data for their jobs. ©2004 by CRC Press LLC 6.2 WHY IS IT IMPORTANT TO HAVE A STRATEGY? In the past, too many GIS developments in local government have been either technology-led or narrowly centered on a specific process or task rather than focusing on the business needs of the organization. Unless a GIS project has an agreed upon mission, clear objectives, and defined performance indicators, it is impossible for a local authority to know whether it has been successfully implemented. While truly corporate GIS units are still rare, even departmental GIS can have far-reaching effects on an authority’s structure and culture (Gill, 1996). Whether a top-down or bottom-up approach is adopted depends on the organization’s needs, its existing information systems, and the availability of spatial data. What is appro-priate in one organization may not be in another. It is essential that each authority produce its own strategy to meet its own needs. Any GI strategy must have the following qualities: • It must be business-led, not technology-led, and the focus must be on addressing the needs of the business as a whole, not on what current or even anticipated technology will allow. • It must be policy-led and not process-led, more concerned with why the authority is doing something and its impact than with examining the minutiae of current administrative processes. • It is essential to adopt a corporate approach if a degree of synergy is to be realized that will assist the management of change and increase operational efficiency. • It must be actively endorsed by senior management and politicians and be viewed by them as an integral part of the management process. The Local Government Management Board (LGMB, 1993) usefully distin-guished three aspects of an authority’s information strategy: • The information management (IM) strategy, which sets out the policy and priorities of the organization for the management of information. • The information systems (IS) strategy, which is a long-term IT directional plan. This strategy is business focused and sets out what should be achieved using IT. It is a demand statement and addresses questions about standards, architecture, and risk assessment. It should provide a framework for all new investments and developments, both small-scale/incremental and large-scale/high impact (Gill, 1996). In short, an IS strategy addresses the issue of what information systems are needed to support the business objectives. • The information technology (IT) strategy, which is concerned with the delivery of the technology and provides a framework within which applications can be provided to the end user. This is a supply statement that addresses the question of the technological framework needed to deliver the IS strategy. 6.3 HOW DO YOU MAKE THE BUSINESS CASE? If senior managers and politicians are persuaded to further investigate the oppor-tunities offered by GIS, then the next step is to appoint a GIS project group or ©2004 by CRC Press LLC working party to carry out an initial assessment and build the business case. This will enable judgments to be made about the required level of investment and the expected benefits. The elements of the GIS business case are in general similar to those of many information and communication technology (ICT) projects. They answer: • What is it about? (purpose of the project, description of functionality of application) • What are the costs? (people, data, and software) • What is the financial impact? (decrease of costs, increase in income, and improve-ment of the marketing position) • How long will it take to develop the system? • How long will it have to last to gain advantage? • What is required to make any of the advantages a permanent advantage? (Gelder-mans and Hoogenboom, 2001) These six issues help managers and politicians to make an educated decision on the viability of the GIS initiative. While the key to a successful business case lies in being brutally realistic about short-term costs (Autodesk, 2000), it also helps to put short-term investment into perspective with the long-term benefits. In fact a key element of the GIS business case is the expected life-cycle description of the project. Although frequently left out of the equation, both implementation and maintenance must also be part of the business case. Indeed, any benefit from GIS will evaporate over time if not upgraded periodically. While there many similarities with other ICT projects, there are a number of distinguishing features of GIS that make it difficult to calculate the effort required to realize its full potential. These include: • Geographic data often involve much larger data capture and conversion costs, and these are frequently underestimated. • The effect of GIS can be so large that the wishes of users (and consequently the functionality of the system) change each time a new part of the system is delivered, so a stepped (or iterative) approach is best. • Many GIS applications contain functionality that is rarely used, either because there is no real need for it or because it is too complicated to operate; this can add significantly to the costs, so sorting out the desired functionality from the rest is critical. • In successful GIS implementations, users have found a multiplicity of ways to increase benefits and thus shorten the payback period. Derek Reeve and James Petch (1999) subdivide the wide range of activities involved in drawing up the business case into two broad activities: (1) scanning the external environment and (2) internal investigations. They caution that “a danger to be avoided is to focus too quickly upon issues solely within the organization.” We agree that much can be learned from the successes (or failures) of other organizations and from contacts with potential hardware, software, and data suppliers. Scanning the external environment can both shorten development times and help avoid repeat-ing costly mistakes. ©2004 by CRC Press LLC Immediate Quantifiable Qualitative Elusive DIRECTLY TECHNOLOGY RELATED EFFECTS ON PUBLIC DEPARTMENTAL EFFECTIVENESS RESOURCE EFFECTS -IMPROVED MAPPING -ACCURACY AND CURRENCY -ACCESS TO INFORMATION -REDUCED DUPLICATION -IMPROVED COMMUNICATION -EFFICIENCY -SAVINGS OR EXTRA CAPACITY -REDUCED STORAGE COSTS -RESPONSIVENESS -INCOME -RISK/LIABILITY REDUCTION -MANAGEMENT OF ASSETS -QUALITY OF DECISIONS -MONITORING -IMAGE -COMPETITIVENESS -COORDINATION -SERVICE DELIVERY -IMPROVED QUALITY OF LIFE FOR PUBLIC, WORKFORCE, AND VISITORS Figure 6.1 The flow-through of benefits from GIS and IT. Although scanning the external environment will provide a context for the project team’s work, Reeve and Petch (1999) emphasize that establishing the internal case for GIS should be the major emphasis of the business case. They believe that this internal investigation should comprise three parts: (1) a user-needs study; (2) a cost-benefit analysis; and (3) a risk analysis. We have already drawn attention to the critical importance of user requirements analysis in the preparation of the business plan. Indeed, the Geographic Information Steering Group (GISG) of the LGMB (1993) believed the need to determine GIS user requirements to be the most important step in the whole GIS project evaluation life cycle. The task should lead to an understanding of what information is being used, who is using it, and how it is being used. Ideally, it should be conducted from a corporate perspective, and the use of consultants’ skills to complement in-house resources can be most valuable at this stage. The flow-through of benefits from GIS and IT is illustrated in Figure 6.1. Many authors advise that a full cost-benefit analysis should be undertaken as part of building the business case. While it is clearly important to produce a balance sheet of expected costs and anticipated benefits at this stage, we believe that a full cost-benefit assessment cannot be undertaken until after the system has been imple-mented. Although reasonable estimates can be made of procurement, startup, data capture, and maintenance costs, there is a tendency to make overambitious assump-tions about potential benefits. We look at the role of the cost-benefit analysis in more detail in Section 6.5. Experience with developing GIS leads us to the conclusion that they often do not turn out as planned. Therefore, assessing the risk of failure is an important part of building the business case. Reeve and Petch (1999) recommend using a structured approach to identifying those sources of risk by following the advice of McFarlan (1981) and dividing them into three groups: ©2004 by CRC Press LLC ... - tailieumienphi.vn