Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
GIS EVOLUTION – From Drafting to Dreaming
PLAN VS REALITY:A Case Study in GIS Portal
Implementation
2011 Conference
For Review…• Requirements Analysis process• RFP process• Contract• Post-Contract• Beta-Testing• Training• General Rollout• Lessons Learned
2011 Conference
The Project Team
• Contract Administrator: GIS Coordinator• Project Lead: Corporate GIS Analyst• Base Server Setup: I.T. Systems Analyst• ArcGIS Server Install/Config: I.T.
Database Adminstrator• Geocortex Install: I.T. Database
Administrator
2011 Conference
Project Team Realities
• Minimal I.T. involvement – kept to base server and software setup, configuration & install
• 2 Corporate GIS Staff – complete with 1-year mat leave
• Corporate GIS also responsible for operational GIS support for 19 business areas
2011 Conference
Project Leadership
• Original Project Lead went on maternity leave– Meant a delay of 3 months before work was
restarted– Meant starting from scratch for system knowledge– New Project Lead had no training
• Project Lead transferred to the GIS Coordinator• Decision made to make permanent the GIS
Coordinator as Project Lead in order to provide stability
2011 Conference
I.T. Involvement
• Setup of the virtual server• Configuration design for ArcGIS Server• Install ArcGIS Server• Install Geocortex Essentials + custom code• Required: training in GIS and web mapping
needs (sent them to San Diego)• NO in house programming resources!
2011 Conference
The Original “Plan”
• Internal requirements analysis & research• RFP and contract award• 3-month build by contractor• 2 months to tweak and develop training plan• Begin department by department rollout at
month 13• Year 2: Gather user feedback and do
enhancements
2011 Conference
Requirements Analysis• Done in house by both the GIS Coordinator
and the Corporate GIS Analyst• Used available experience and knowledge• Targeted a generic municipal GIS portal design• Evaluated various sites on the internet• Cherry-picked out desired features and
functions
2011 Conference
Scoping Document• A sample survey of other organization’s sites• Compiled a document of likes and dislikes• Included:– Site description, layout and design– Available functionality– Available content (e.g. data layers)– Cartography– What we liked– What we didn’t like
2011 Conference
LIKECarto-graphy
LIKEAutomatic
display
LIKEHaving
available list
DISLIKEToolbar location
DISLIKEButton icons
LIKEInfo area
design
2011 Conference
Requirements Analysis
• The process followed was efficient• No clients were interviewed– Existing knowledge of city business processes– Existing knowledge of GIS portals– Existing knowledge of available technology
• Did not require the assistance of an outside party
2011 Conference
Why Didn’t We Interview Clients?
• Our clients told us they didn’t know what to ask for
• We knew better than our clients how a typical GIS Portal looked and functioned
• We had a good knowledge base of all of the target business areas
• We already had their buy-in
2011 Conference
RFP Process: RFP Contents
• Company experience requirements• Tightly written Schedule A– Very detailed functional requirements– Detailed non-functional requirements
• Training and Tech Support requirements
• Multiple measurements for evaluation• Request for itemized cost in the bid
2011 Conference
Sample Requirements
2011 Conference
RFP Process – RFP Release
• Targeted release– Vendors with technical depth– Vendors with previous ArcGIS Server experience– Vendors with proven track record– Preferably western Canada location
• Targeted a small number of known vendors
2011 Conference
RFP Evaluation• Demonstrated experience: firm and team
members• Understanding of scope of work• Specification compliance• Proposed solution; quality; completeness;
technology; flexibility• Workplan and schedule• Cost; acquisition and maintenance• References
2011 Conference
RFP Results
• 3 submissions from 4 target companies• A $100,000 spread in proposed cost• Variety of proposed solutions:– 1 custom build– 1 ArcGIS Server COTS solution– 1 non-ArcGIS Server COTS solution
2011 Conference
Contract Award
• The ArcGIS Server-based COTS solution: Geocortex Essentials
• Fixed price contract
2011 Conference
Contract Process• ArcGIS Server was installed in house by
St Albert I.T. staff• Geocortex Essentials was installed by St Albert
I.T. staff with advice from Latitude Geographics• Custom code written by Latitude• Initial site designed and configured by Latitude• Involved a minimal level of training
2011 Conference
Notes About the Contract Process• Good project management in general by
contractor• At times the process was painful for both• Revolving door for technical support• Resulted in revised processes• Certain parts were painful– Map design– Error resolving
Note to self…
2011 Conference
Notes About the Contract Process
• Some delay on the part of St Albert in getting information to the contractor
• Took approximately 4 months to resolve all of the errors
• Difficult to differentiate source of errors: ArcGIS Server vs Geocortex Essentials vs custom code
2011 Conference
Post-Contract: Site Rebuild• No work for the first PC 4 months• Month PC 5: began complete rebuilt of site
from scratch using the original site as a template– To understand how to use the software– Complete technical documentation on how to
built the site– An opportunity to revise and improve the design
of the site• Took 3 months
2011 Conference
Post-Contract: Site Rebuild
Wrote technical build documentation in house• Better understanding of how the site works• Disaster recovery• Less reliance on contractor to make changes• Better able to do in house enhancements• Saved $$ on having the contractor do it• Did not have confidence in the contractor’s ability to
do it to expected specifications
2011 Conference
Post-Contract: Site Rebuild• Improved the cartography• Tweaked the scale dependencies• Tuned and indexed the data• Revised the report templates• Revised the map templates• Revised available tools• Moved a lot of configuration to the default
(base) site
2011 Conference
2011 Conference
Post-Contract: User Manual• User manual written in house by Project Lead• Revised after the post-contract site revision• A detailed walkthrough:– Site layout– Toolbars– Individual tools– Reports– Map templates– Frequently Asked Questions
2011 Conference
Post-Contract: Beta Testing• Searched for initial beta bunny at PC
month 3• Had difficulties finding someone interested
who also had the time and need to use it• Went through a few before landing on one• Used their feedback and questions to
guide the User Manual FAQ and site revision
2011 Conference
Post-Contract: Beta Testing• Began full beta testing at month PC 13• One-on-one training sessions for 3 months• Cross section of organization• Total ~ 21 beta testers• Made some small changes based on feedback• Did not use a formal reporting system• Just wanted them to use the system • Had a few testers that received no training at all
2011 Conference
Post-Contract: Monitoring Usage
• We required a way to monitor usage of the system as training was rolled out
• Useful for seeing the uptake from users• Also used for site and system performance
monitoring• Provides a useful snapshot across time• Using Geocortex Optimizer
2011 Conference
Monitoring With Optimizer
2011 Conference
Post-Contract: Beta-Training
• Targeted month PC 17• Wanted to test training method on a beta-
group• Targeted single small department• Took 2 months to get a workable 2-hr time slot
– month PC 19• Targeted a second department – still took 2
months to get a scheduled time slot
2011 Conference
Post-Contract: Beta-Training• Worked in terms of demonstrating that the
training method worked• Confirmed that training was possible without
a computer room (although not the best situation)
• Illustrated the difficulty in trying to do a department-by-department rollout – think herding cats!
2011 Conference
Post-Contract: General Training• Used training method solidified in beta-training
sessions• Targeted examples to attendees’ work functions• Engaged HR to:– Facilitate course advertising– Take care of course registration– Help with general room setup– Do general introductions– Facilitate course feedback
2011 Conference
Post-Contract: General Training
• Sessions were 2 hours• 5 general sessions of 6 – 13 people• Many additional one-on-one sessions for
people with difficult schedules• A good cross section of City staff• Intended to place trained users around the
org. to assist with helping non-trained users
2011 Conference
Comment on Training• St Albert does not have a computer training
classroom• Setting up a temporary classroom requires
many laptops and a lot of I.T. time• We have sought to reduce the workload on I.T.
as much as possible• An on-computer session would need to be
least 4 – 8 hours
2011 Conference
Managing Expectations• Ability to complete the project• How difficult/easy problems are to solve• Rollout schedule• Release expectations• Functional expectations• Data expectations• General limited site vs the flexibility of
desktop mapping software
2011 Conference
General Rollout – pending
• Site access via staff Intranet portal• Make User Manual available for download• Staff awareness• Pushing through the firewall for controlled
external access
2011 Conference
Original Timeline
• Original timeline: Scoping to implementation in 13 months
2011 Conference
Revised Timeline• Contract completion – 7 months behind
schedule – mostly error fixes and final sign-off• Project Lead transition – +4 months (e.g. nothing)
• Site rebuild – +4 months• Nothing…nothing…nothing… - +5ish months
• Beta-testing – +3 months• Nothing…nothing…nothing… - +2 months
• Beta-training – +1 month• Training – +4 months
2011 Conference
Resource Realities
• Staff turnover• High non-project workload• Expectations for the timely completion of other work• It’s a priority, but…
2011 Conference
20-20 Hindsight: What Worked• Internal requirements analysis• Very detailed RFP Schedule A• Targeted RFP release• Fixed-price contract• COTS solution• Internal documentation• Internal training• Having contractor do initial configuration• Post-contract debriefing with contractor
2011 Conference
20-20 Hindsight: What Was Difficult• Finding beta-testers• Project staff turnover – internal and contractor• Project status tracking• Contractor documentation• Timeline prediction• Balancing demands of other work
2011 Conference
20-20 Hindsight: What Didn’t Work
• Contractor-designed map services• Installing software and custom code at the
same time• Revolving contractor technical resources• Department-by-department rollout
2011 Conference
Where Are We Now?
• Over 80 people trained• On budget• 2+ years behind schedule for complete rollout• Just completed an upgrade of both ArcGIS
Server and Geocortex Essentials• In the middle of general release• Researching the move from a .NET platform to
Flex or Silverlight
2011 Conference
Where Are We Now?
• A single internal site– A mash of 5 separate uncached map services– Slower, but more flexible for the users
• Planning for an ‘Express’ cached site– Fast drawing speed– Less flexibility of displayed data layers
• Need to look at performance tuning• Looking at options for external map delivery
2011 Conference
A Note About Building Cached Sites• Research before you start building• Cached site planning must be done as part of
the design process– It will affect how you design your map services– It will affect your scale dependencies– It may be driven by the use of external data
services such as Google or Bing– It may affect your symbology, labeling and
annotation
