Maximizing Benefits from Municipal GIS Operations The GIS Management Institute® and the GIS Capability Maturity Model

Maximizing Benefits from Municipal GIS Operations The GIS Management Institute®

and the GIS Capability Maturity Model

South Ural State University Chelyabinsk, Russia 20-21 January 2014

Greg Babinski, MA, GISP URISA Past-President URISA GMI Committee Chair COGO Secretary Finance & Marketing Manager King County GIS Center Seattle, WA USA

Greeting from the Urban and Regional Information Systems Association (URISA)

URISA Board of Directors Officers

President: Allen Ibaugh AICP, GISP - Data Transfer Solutions

President-Elect: Carl Anderson, GISP

- Spatial Focus

Immediate Past President: Al Butler, GISP - City of Ocoee, FL

Treasurer - Doug Adams, GISP -

Baltimore County, MD

Secretary - Danielle Ayan, GISP -

Georgia Tech Research Institute

URISA Board Directors at Large

Jochen Albrecht - Hunter College,

Department of Geography, New York, NY

Tripp Corbin, GISP - eGIS Associates,

Inc., GA

Amy Esnard, GISP - Hood River, OR

Ashley Hitt, GISP - Connected Nation, Louisville, KY

Claudia Paskauskas, GISP -

Altamonte Springs, FL

Cindy Post, University of Alberta,

Edmonton, AB

Teresa Townsend, AICP, - Planning

Communities LLC., NC

Non-Voting Board Member/Chapter Advisory Board Chair:

Cy Smith, GISP, State of Oregon

Executive Director: Wendy Nelson

Greeting from the King County GIS Center Seattle, Washington USA

King County, Washington State USA

q Microsoft

q Gates Foundation

q Boeing

q Paccar

q Nordstrom's

q Amazon

q Starbucks

q Port of Seattle

q Weyerhaeuser

q Univ. of Washington

q Google

q Skype

Population (1,931,000 (14th most populous US county)

Area: 2130 square miles (sea level to 8,000’)

39 incorporated cities

Viable agricultural and private forestry areas

Remote wilderness & watershed lands

The last 50 years have seen a Geospatial Revolution

Developed upon a foundation of geographic theory

Enabled by the development of modern computers and information technology

Built upon digital data with location attributes

Aided by allied geospatial technology

Turned into a viable business support tool by geospatial software

Supported by an emerging geospatial profession

Maximizing Benefits from Municipal GIS Operations The GIS Management Institute® and the GIS Capability Maturity Model

The current state of the Geospatial Revolution

How does geospatial technology aid municipal administration?

What benefits does GIS provide to municipal jurisdictions and to the citizens that they serve?


The next 50 years of the Geospatial Revolution

Geospatial technology will aid municipal administration in new and unanticipated ways.

GIS will continue to provide financial benefits to municipal jurisdictions and to the citizens they serve.

How can we measure the effectiveness of enterprise GIS operations?

What can we as geospatial professionals do to improve the future benefits to society from geospatial technology and municipal GIS operations?


Agenda:

1. Innovative uses of geospatial technology for municipal administration: GIS Effectiveness

2. Understanding the financial benefits of GIS for municipal jurisdictions: Return on Investment (ROI)

3. Measuring the effective of enterprise GIS operations: The URISA GIS Capability Maturity Model (GISCMM)

4. Improving future benefits from geospatial technology: The GIS Management Institute



1. Innovative uses of geospatial technology for municipal administration: GIS Effectiveness Foundations of GIS

Geographic theory:

Cartographic theory

Locational analysis

Urban focus

Modern computers and information technology

Faster and cheaper

Networked computing

Database management systems

The Internet

Nanotechnology



Modern computers and information technology

Faster and cheaper



Digital data with location attributes

80% to 90% of all municipal data has locational identity

Conversion of national census data to digital format

Digital ortho-photography

Satellite imagery and sensed data



Aided by allied geospatial technology:

Computerized land survey systems

Geospatial positioning satellite (GPS) system

Terrestrial spatial data collection systems

Location aware devices



Turned into a viable business support tool by geospatial software



The origins of the Urban and Regional Information Systems Association

The origins of geospatial software for municipal administration: Esri (Environmental Systems Research Institute)



The origins of the Urban and Regional Information Systems Association

Dr. Edgar M. Horwood

Professor of Civil Engineering and Urban Planning

University of Washington School of Engineering

URISA Founder

Professor Horwood’s simple but disruptive question to the U.S. Census Bureau in 1962:

“Can you let me have the 1960 census data for the U.S. on digital tape?’


Edgar Horwood and the birth of URISA:

Working with University of Washington Geography Department – established a short course on data mapping presented in 1962 and 1963

1963 to 1966 Urban Planning Information Systems and Programs Conferences for short course alumni

1963 Conference considered first URISA Annual Conference

In 1966 the Urban and Regional Information Systems Association (URISA) was formally established with Dr. Horwood as first President.


URISA and the development of geospatial technology:

URISA short course 1963 graduate Howard Fischer assumed the challenge to develop an improved card mapping system

Fischer developed SYMAP for automated chloropleth and contour mapping

In 1965 Fischer established the Harvard Computer Graphics Laboratory where he released computer mapping source code

Jack Dangermond developed ArcInfo from the Harvard R&D program, leading to the development of Esri



The origins of geospatial software for municipal administration: Esri (Environmental Systems Research Institute)

Jack Dangermond was an early member of URISA

In 1969 Dangermond was awarded a Master of Arts Degree in Landscape Architecture from Harvard University

Dangermond conducted research into the geographic aspects of municipal administration



At Harvard, Dangermond identified 32 geographic functions of municipal operations

1. Acquire and dispose of property

2. Process and issue permits

3. Perform inspections

4. Issue work orders

5. Issue licenses

6. Conduct street naming

7. Manage mailing lists

8. Review and approve site plans

9. Review and approve subdivisions

10. Perform street addressing

11. Perform event recording

12. Dispatch vehicles

13. Perform vehicle routing

14. Conduct traffic analysis

15. Allocate human resources

16. Site facilities

17. Conduct area districting

18. Manage and survey facilities

19. Manage inventories

20. Manage resources

21. Administer zoning bylaws

22. Prepare official and secondary plans

23. Conduct engineering design

24. Conduct drafting

25. Maintain topographic data base

26. Manage drawings

27. Disseminate public information

28. Conduct development tracking

29. Respond to public enquiries

30. Conduct title searches

31. Bill and collect taxes and fees

32. Manage data bases and systems


Foundations of GIS

Dangermond identified 32 geographic functions of municipal operations

Obtained access to geospatial software code while working at Harvard’s Laboratory for Computer Graphics and Spatial Analysis

Founded Esri and developed ArcInfo GIS software to aid each of the 32 geographic-based municipal functions


Jack Dangermond develops ArcGIS and Esri


Jack Dangermond develops ArcGIS and Esri



Esri ArcGIS software supports geographic functions of municipal operations

Esri now has at least 30% share of the global GIS software market.



Supported by an emerging geospatial profession

A recent Esri publication identified ‘20 Essential Skills for GIS’



1. Create Reference Maps:

Layers

Symbols

Labels

Layouts

Example shows King County and City of Seattle Sewer outfall locations



2. Create Well Designed Map Layouts:

Map Container

Map content

Marginalia

Example shows King County GIS standard map template



3. Project Multiple Data Sources Correctly:

Shape

Area

Direction

Distance

Example shows variations in jurisdiction area calculations based on projection chosen.


1. Innovative uses of geospatial technology for municipal administration: GIS Effectiveness 4. Prepare Data

for GIS

Example shows hand held field data collection device.


1. Innovative uses of geospatial technology for municipal administration: GIS Effectiveness 5. Manage

Attribute Tables:

Qualitative Attributes

Quantitative Attributes

Example shows consolidated King County primary and secondary schools database



6. Join Data to Maps:

Transit routes

Real time bus arrival

Example shows real-time King County Metro bus routing and arrival data



7. Create Thematic Maps:

Example shows King County ‘Equity and Social Justice’ Motor Vehicle Accident Rate by Health Planning Area



8. Create Categorical Maps:

Example shows King County Noxious weeds locations


1. Innovative uses of geospatial technology for municipal administration: GIS Effectiveness 9. Import

GPS Data to Maps:

Example shows King County GIS Center staff member collecting recreational trail data


1. Innovative uses of geospatial technology for municipal administration: GIS Effectiveness 10. Create

Address Maps:

Examples show:

Library Patrons (based on patron data)

Transit Car Park Lot Users (based on vehicle registration data)



11. Edit Boundaries:

Example shows King County Land Acquisition planning map



12. Join Boundaries:

Example shows watershed stream catchment boundary consolidation for environmental policy analysis



13. Join Aerial Photography:

Example shows King County Urban forestry planning map with aerial imagery overlay



14. Digitize Paper Maps:

Examples show maps digitized in 2013 to plan new tunnel under the city of Seattle



15. Query Attributes:

Example shows a multi-jurisdictional municipal GIS application for commercial and industrial property sale and lease



16. Query Locations:

Example shows a traffic and road closure application within flood-prone areas of King County



17. Create Reports:

Example shows King County’s internal Real Estate Portfolio System reporting capability (Note absence of map view)



18. Create Buffers:

Identify Features

Create Mailing Lists

This capability from the King County GIS public web site



19. Publish Maps:

Example shows bus route maps published from GIS data



20. Create Geodatabases:

Example shows geodatabase developed and maintained for a suburban jurisdiction by the King County GIS Center



21. Port Maps to Multiple Platforms:

Develop GIS applications for mobile devices first!



22. Create 3D Images or Video:

Example from King County GIS Center Watershed pollution remediation planning program.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeVsZ0nda68#t=11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeVsZ0nda68#t=11



Summary Comments: For 50 years geospatial technology has steadily advanced in

capability Geospatial technology is cheaper to acquire and easier to

use than ever New applications for GIS are developed and proven

continuously Once the domain of GIS professionals, increasingly

geospatial technology is being used by the common man.



Questions and Discussion?



For all of its benefits, geospatial technology is expensive to develop, implement, operate and maintain. Society allocates finite financial resources for municipal administration. How does GIS justify a share of those financial resources?



King County GIS Organizational Structure, supports 35 county departments and offices, plus outside customers



King County GIS Center has 28 professional staff and a budget of over $5 million per year.



Originated with 1992 PlanGraphics study and Strategic Plan

1992 Benefit Cost Analysis

PlanGraphics identified 126 business applications and a $22 million capital cost estimate

1992-1994 King County – Seattle Metro merger

1993 joint King County – Metro GIS scoping plan – reduced $6.8 million scope approved by King County Council

1993-1997 GIS capital project executed

1997 KCGIS O&M begins

2002 KCGIS Consolidation implemented

King County GIS - Development History:



1992 Return on Investment study predicted recovery of development and operations costs in 7 year After 10 years, a 1.00:1.49 return on investment for a total net return of $11 million



Originated with 1992 PlanGraphics study

1992 Benefit Cost Analysis

PlanGraphics identified 126 business applications and a $22 million capital cost estimate

1992-1994 King County – Seattle Metro merger

1993 joint King County – Metro GIS scoping plan – reduced $6.8 million scope approved by King County Council

1993-1997 GIS capital project executed

1997 KCGIS O&M begins

2002 KCGIS Consolidation implemented



2010 King County GIS State of Development:

500+/- desktop GIS users

100,000 annual internal web based GIS user sessions

2.2 million annual external web based GIS user sessions

50 GIS professionals

GIS use expanded from 12 to 35 county departments and offices

But where are we really on the optimal development of GIS in King County?

What was (is) our ROI?



GIS ROI Documentation Studies?

Why are they not required?

Why are they not performed?



GIS ROI Documentation Studies? Baltimore County, MD 168% return on investment reported by GIS and IT staff



Why GIS ROI Documentation Studies? State of Oregon



Why GIS ROI Documentation Studies? State of Oregon

Return on investment deemed not credible because developed by a GIS consulting company.



GIS ROI Documentation Study Breakthrough New Zealand: ACIL Tasman Consulting Economists



GIS ROI Documentation Study: New Zealand 2008: $1.164 billion (0.65% of gross domestic product) added to the economy.



King County GIS GIS ROI Study Project

Could we determine the historical ROI from a local government agency?

Conceived during 2009 URISA Annual Conference in Anaheim

Approach finalized during 2009 ULA in Seattle

State of Oregon & King County joint funding

KCGIS 2010 Priority Initiative

Managed by KCGIS Center



KCGIS GIS ROI Study Consultant Team from UW Evans School of Public Affairs, Benefit-Cost

Analysis Center:

Prof. Richard W. Zerbe

Danielle Fumia & Travis Reynolds

Pradeep Singh & Tyler Scott



KCGIS GIS ROI Study

Consultant Team from University of Washington Evans School of Public Affairs:

Benefit-Cost Analysis Center



KCGIS GIS ROI Study

Scope of Work:

Literature Review

Qualitative Interviews (n = 30)

Quantitative Survey (n = 200)

Final ROI Report

Revised Interview/Survey Instruments for future studies



KCGIS GIS ROI Study Results

From 1991-2011 KCGIS costs: $11 million for

development $44 million for

central GIS costs $86 million for

agency GIS costs $73 million for end-

user GIS costs



Zerbe Methodology:

‘With versus without” research design.

What would have happened if KCGIS applications had not been implemented and how is King County better off having them?

Literature review and qualitative interviews will identify key benefits associated with GIS applications (e.g., increased productivity).

Questionnaire will allow assessment of the extent to which these benefits have been realized across different groups of users of GIS applications, as opposed to what these users would have done in the absence of GIS applications.

By comparing the “with and without” scenarios, we can assess and monetize the added value of the GIS applications to compare to the costs of implementation, maintenance, and/or additional training.

KCGIS GIS ROI Study



With or without survey methodology:

How has GIS altered agency output levels?

Benefits associated with FTE reductions to produce the same (pre-GIS) level of output

Benefits associated with enhanced production with the same FTE levels

Three stage analysis:

Interview agency heads and key employees to assess the types of applications and business uses. Interviews were used to build an employee survey.

Employees and managers across King County responded to the survey to record their pre and current (or with vs. without) GIS productivity by output types.

Interview and survey results were compiled by output type, agency, and productivity levels. Results were then monetized.

Monetized benefits compared to detailed GIS capital O&M, and end-user costs

KCGIS GIS ROI Study: Methodology



30 Detailed Interviews Completed

175 Survey Responses (some partial responses)

KCGIS GIS ROI Study: Methodology



PERTINENT SURVEY QUESTIONS Please estimate the number of each output you currently produce (in 2010), being clear about the time frame (per day, per year, etc.). Also state the total number of outputs from your agency (if known), and the number of employees and full-time employees (FTEs) currently working on producing this output. If you answered that you did not produce a given output in the previous section, you may skip the personal production questions.

How many units of this output do you personally produce? Choose # of units:

How many units of this output do you personally produce Per Unit of Time:

What percent of your time do you spend producing each output now? (%)

What percent of your time do you spend producing each output now: Per Unit of Time:

Number of Employees in your workgroup (including you) currently producing this output:

Total FTEs in your workgroup (including you) currently producing this output:



PERTINENT SURVEY QUESTIONS

Again, the outputs commonly produced by your agency are listed below in the first column. If you were not present when the output was produced without GIS, please answer No to the first question but provide your best estimate for the remaining questions.

For each output, please indicate how having GIS has impacted labor productivity for you personally and for your agency overall.

Did you personally produce this output without GIS?

How many units of this output did you personally produce prior to GIS? Choose # of units:

How many units of this output did you personally produce Per Unit of Time prior to GIS:?What percent of your time did you spend producing each output prior to GIS?

What percent of your time did you spend producing each output Prior to GIS: Per Unit of Time:

Number of Employees in your workgroup (including you) producing this output prior to GIS?

Total FTEs in your workgroup (including you) producing this output prior to GIS?






“The most conservative estimate presented finds that the use of GIS has produced approximately

$775 million in net benefits over the eighteen year period from 1992 to 2010….

Thus a reasonable estimate of total gains is between $180 million and $87 million in 2010.”





Theoretical basis for cost and benefit calculations



Questions & Answers:

At what stage is KCGIS in the total potential business use of GIS?

Are the KCGIS results ‘good’?

How do we know?

Do we need similar studies of other large counties?

Proposed single ‘latitudinal’ study of 15-20 mid-sized cities in Washington, Oregon & British Columbia

Are government agency officials not now compelled to pursue full GIS development?

KCGIS GIS ROI Study



Acknowledgements for King County GIS ROI Study:

State of Oregon GIS and Cy Smith, Oregon GIO

KCGIS Technical Committee

Richard O. Zerbe & UW GIS ROI Study Team

KCGIS Center Interview team:

George Horning, Manager

Greg Stought, Enterprise Services Manager

Dennis Higgins, GISP, Client Services Manager

Debbie Bull, GIS DBA

Greg Babinski, GISP, Finance & Marketing Manager

Questions, Comments & Discussion

Learn More: • ArcNews: Summer 2012: http://www.esri.com/news/arcnews/summer12articles/king-

county-documents-roi-of-gis.html • Access full report on King County web site: www.kingcounty.gov/gis

http://www.esri.com/news/arcnews/summer12articles/king-county-documents-roi-of-gis.html











http://www.kingcounty.gov/gis



King County, WA – GIS ROI Study http://www.kingcounty.gov/operations/GIS/News.aspx

Spatial Information in the New Zealand Economy

http://www.geospatial.govt.nz/productivityreport

Review of the Value of Spatial Information in Australia

The Value of Spatial Information for Tasmania

http://www.aciltasman.com.au

The Value of Danish Address Data

http://www.adresseinfo.dk/Portals/2/Benefit/Value_Assessment_Danish_Address_Data_UK_2010-07-07b.pdf

Iowa Geospatial Infrastructure

http://www.iowagic.org/igi/documents

Geographic Information & Technology Association (GITA). 2007. Building a Business Case for Geospatial Technology: A Practitioner’s Guide to Financial and Strategic Analysis.

Other GIS ROI literature:

http://www.kingcounty.gov/operations/GIS/News.aspx

http://www.geospatial.govt.nz/productivityreport

http://www.aciltasman.com.au/







http://www.iowagic.org/igi/documents




Agenda:







Day 2 topics: What is a capability maturity model?

Origins of the GIS Capability Maturity Model

URISA Steps in and Babinski’s Theory of GIS Management

The URISA Geospatial Management Competency Model

Development of the revised, peer-reviewed URISA GIS Capability Maturity Model

The URISA GIS Capability Maturity Model – Step by Step

The pivotal role of the GIS CMM in the GIS Management Institute®

The role of the GIS Management Institute® in enhancing sustainable Enterprise GIS

The role of the GIS Management Institute® in developing professional GIS managers

The GIS Management Institute® - next steps


What is a Capability Maturity Model? A tool to assess an organization’s ability to accomplish a

defined task or set of tasks

Originated with the Software Engineering Institute

Objective evaluation of software contractors

SEI published Managing the Software Process 1989

SEI CMM is process focused

Other applications of the capability maturity model concept:

System engineering

Project management

Risk management

Information technology service providers


Why is thinking about capability & process maturity important?


Why is thinking about capability & process maturity important?


The Capability Maturity Model Institute

The Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute (SEI) is a federally funded research and development center headquartered on the campus of Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States. SEI also has offices in Arlington, Virginia, and Frankfurt, Germany. The SEI operates with major funding from the U.S. Department of Defense. The SEI also works closely with industry and academia through research collaborations.



What causes variation in enterprise GIS Operations?

Each agency is unique

City, county, or agency business focus often varies

Population

Nature and level of economic development

Level of development resources provided?

Variations in our ability to use GIS resources?

Forgetting where we are in the development cycle?

But GIS operations with similar resources get different results! Why?



When is our GIS Development done?

There are many ways we might answer:

With an external focus?

Best practices

Benchmarking

With a theoretical focus?

Ideal design

Academic state of the art

With a capability focus?

With a maturity level focus?

2009 Academic Exercise:

Maturity for the proposed model indicates progression of an

organization towards GIS capability that maximizes:

Potential for the use of state of the art GIS technology

Commonly recognized quality data

Organizational best practices appropriate for municipal business use

The Municipal GIS Capability Maturity Model assumes two broad areas of GIS operational development:

Enabling capability

Execution ability





Enabling Capability Components:

What we buy or acquire for our GIS operation…



Execution Ability Components:

How we utilize what we have acquired for our GIS



Very Simple Questionnaire

Note enabling capability rating scale based on NSGIC GMA



Very Simple Questionnaire

Note execution ability rating scale based on SEI CMM



2009 State of Washington Survey Results Presented at URISA Annual Conference:



2009 State of Washington Survey Results Presented at URISA Annual Conference:


URISA Steps In and Adopts the GIS Capability Maturity Model


URISA Steps In

2010 ArcNews Article in URISA GIS Management Column

Babinski’s Theory of GIS Management: As GIS Operational Maturity Improves, ROI Increases


URISA Steps In

2010: David DiBiase Proposes that URISA develop the

Geospatial Management Competency Model (Tier 9 of the USDOLETA Geospatial Technology Competency Model)

2011: DiBiase, Babinski & Kennelly form URISA GMCM Committee

2011: Babinski convenes GIS Managers Task Force at Washington GIS Conference to:

Create GMCM ‘Strawman’ Draft

Review and revise the GIS Capability Maturity Model

2011: At GIS-Pro in Indianapolis, GMCM Committee revises Strawman Draft and by early 2012 Publishes GMCM for peer-review.


URISA Develops the Geospatial Management Competency Model for the U.S. Department of Labor

Final Peer-Reviewed URISA GMCM: Published in June 2012 Adopted by USDOLETA August 2012 18 Competency Clusters 74 individual competencies


The ‘Ah-ha!’ moment (Part 1):

GIS operational process maturity (aka the GIS Capability Maturity Model)

and…

GIS management capability (aka the Geospatial Management Competency Model)

Can both best be defined against…

A body of geospatial management best practices and standards, or the GIS Management Body of Knowledge


The ‘Ah-ha!’ moment (Part 2):

No one has ever defined

geospatial management best practices and standards


URISA Steps In

2010: David DiBiase Proposes that URISA develop the

Geospatial Management Competency Model (Tier 9 of the USDOLETA Geospatial Technology Competency Model)

2011: DiBiase, Babinski & Kennelly form URISA GMCM Committee

2011: Babinski convenes GIS Managers Task Force at Washington GIS Conference to:

Create GMCM ‘Strawman’ Draft

Review and revise the GIS Capability Maturity Model

2011: At GIS-Pro in Indianapolis, GMCM Committee revises Strawman Draft and by early 2012 Publishes GMCM for peer-review.


Developing the revised, peer-reviewed URISA GIS Capability Maturity Model

2011 Washington State GIS Managers Task Force



2012 – 2013 GMI Committee: Incorporated 2011 GIS Managers Task Force Recommendations Correlated 74 GMCM competencies Prompted for assessing ‘Characteristics’ via questions



2013 Peer-Review Cycle: 6-weeks for public review via online questionnaire Adequate high-quality responses Responses consolidated by Hilary Perkins and Greg Babinski Greg Babinski drafted initial recommendations to address/resolve

comments Final 10-day GMI Committee review & comment cycle



2013 Peer-Review Cycle:

Enabling Capability (EC) Component EC1. Framework GIS Data EC2. Framework GIS Data Maintenance EC3. Business GIS Data EC4. Business GIS Data Maintenance EC5. GIS Data Coordination EC6. Metadata EC7. Spatial Data Warehouse EC8. Architectural Design EC9. Technical Infrastructure EC10. Replacement Plan EC11. GIS Software Maintenance EC12. Data back-up and security EC13. GIS Application Portfolio EC14. GIS Application Portfolio Management EC15. GIS Application Portfolio O&M EC16. Professional GIS Management EC17. Professional GIS Operations Staff EC18. GIS Staff Training and Professional Development EC19. GIS Governance Structure EC20. GIS is Linked to Agency Strategic Goals EC21. GIS Budget EC22. GIS Funding EC23. GIS Financial Plan

Execution Ability (EA) Component EA1. New Client Services Evaluation and Development EA2. User Support, Help Desk, and End-User Training EA3. Service Delivery Tracking and Oversight EA4. Service Quality Assurance EA5. Application Development or Procurement Methodology EA6. Project Management Methodology EA7. Quality Assurance and Quality Control EA8. GIS System Management EA9. Process Event Management EA10. Contract and Supplier Management EA11. Regional Collaboration EA12. Staff Development EA13. Operation Performance Management EA14. Individual GIS Staff Performance Management EA15. Client Satisfaction Monitoring and Assurance EA16. Resource Allocation Management EA17. GIS data sharing EA18. GIS Software License Sharing EA19. GIS data inter-operability EA20. Legal and policy affairs management EA21. Balancing minimal privacy with maximum data usage EA22. Service to the community and to the profession



2013 Peer-Review Cycle: Final revised draft based on 10-day GMI Committee review &

comment cycle GMI Committee consensus approval of final September 2013 draft at

its 9/4/2013 meeting with recommendation that the URISA BOD endorse/formally adopt the URISA GIS Capability Maturity Model.

URISA Board action at its 9/15/2013 meeting: URISA GIS Capability Maturity Model Adopted


Enabling Capability Components

For each question in the ‘Enabling Capability’ section, read the brief description.

Check the implementation category

[ ] 1.00 Fully implemented

[ ] 0.80 In progress with full resources available to achieve the capability

[ ] 0.60 In progress but with only partial resources available to achieve the

capability

[ ] 0.40 Planned and with resources available to achieve the capability

[ ] 0.20 Planned but with no resources available to achieve the capability

[ ] 0.00 This desired, but is not planned

[ ] Not Applicable (This is a non-numeric response that requires an explanation

of why this component should not be considered in assessing the operation.)




EC1. Framework GIS Data

Complete assessment for each data layer:

a. Geodetic Control

b. Cadastral

c. Orthoimagery

d. Elevation

e. Hydrography

f. Administrative Units

g. Transportation

Does the agency have access to adequate framework GIS data to meet its business needs? For the GISCMM, framework data corresponds to jurisdiction-wide common base layers as defined by the agency to meet its business needs.

For reference, refer to the NSDI framework data layers (see http://www.fgdc.gov/framework/).

See also EC2, below)

EC2. Framework GIS Data Maintenance


a. Geodetic Control

b. Cadastral

c. Orthoimagery

d. Elevation

e. Hydrography

f. Administrative Units

g. Transportation

Are data stewards defined for each framework GIS data layer and the data is maintained (kept up to date) to meet business needs?

Refer to EC6 for description of the ideal data environment.

There could very likely be multiple stewards

The Enterprise GIS responsibility is that there are no gaps in coverage

In performing the assessment, every framework component should be covered

http://www.fgdc.gov/framework/



EC3. Business GIS Data


a. Example: situs address

b. Name:

c. Name:

d. Name:

e. Name:

Does the agency have access to adequate business data (non-framework GIS data) to meet its business needs?

Need for data based on agency business needs, therefore this data will vary from agency to agency; specific business data layers will not be comparable from agency to agency

Agency completing the assessment should name at least 5 but no more than 10 business data types. These business data layers should also be assessed under EC4, below.

EC4. Business GIS Data Maintenance


a. Example: situs address

b. Name:

c. Name:

d. Name:

e. Name:

Does the agency have data stewards defined for each business GIS data layer and is the data is maintained (kept up to date) to meet business needs?

Also refer to EC3 above for business Refer to EC7 below, for ideal data environment



EC5. GIS Data Coordination Is there an enterprise GIS data coordination function and/or committee to rationalize framework and business GIS data development, access, and maintenance?

This could be a function of a GIO (chief geographic information officer), a governance function, or an enterprise GIS office function, depending on desired level of formality or institutionalization.

EC6. Metadata

Is metadata available and maintained for all framework and business data layers?

Is there a rationale for accepting any data without metadata?



EC7. Spatial Data Warehouse

Is an enterprise spatial data infrastructure in place that includes a centralized production database environment available for GIS data stewards to compile the official version of framework and business spatial data?

Is a separate spatial data warehouse available for GIS users to access and download the official published version of the data for GIS applications?

Is there a consistent data structure and are there consistent practices for effective data maintenance, posting and processing?

Is the enterprise GIS the authoritative source of spatial data for the organization?

EC8. Architectural Design

Does an architectural design exist that defines the current state and planned future development of the technical infrastructure? Does the architectural design guide the investment in GIS technical infrastructure?

Does the GIS Architectural design support the business architecture and all business activities, per the Zachman Framework (or similar)?

Does it align with agency IT standards and architecture?

Does the agency analyze architectural gaps and drive IT standards and architectural design criteria?

Note that architectural design(8) and Technical infrastructure (9) are interrelated



EC9. Technical Infrastructure

Is there technical infrastructure in place to maintain and operate the GIS and to meet the agency business needs?

Meeting agency business needs should be defined against agreed performance criteria. Technical infrastructure includes hardware (servers, storage, desktops, input and output peripherals), network components, operating system, and GIS software.

Note that architectural design(8) and Technical infrastructure (9) are interrelated

EC10. Replacement Plan Is there a plan in place and implemented to replace technical infrastructure components (hardware, network components, current imagery, and other procured data) that have a defined ‘end of useful life?



EC11. GIS Software Maintenance

Is GIS software available and adequate to meet agency business needs and is it under maintenance to ensure long term support and development?

If open-source’ GIS software is used, is alternate support and development capability available and are the real costs of operation and maintenance accounted for?

EC12. Data back-up and security

Is a computer back-up system in place to ensure the security of GIS data and applications?

Is the backup system is tested periodically by tests to restore sample data?

Is system security in place to control internal and external access to GIS data and applications as appropriate?

Is a GIS data archiving and preservation program in place?

EC13. GIS Application Portfolio If required to meet the needs of agency GIS users/clients, is a

portfolio of custom or off-the-shelf GIS or GIS enabled applications available?



EC14. GIS Application Portfolio Management

Is the agency’s GIS application portfolio managed to a common design and development framework?

EC15. GIS Application Portfolio O&M

Is the agency’s GIS application portfolio kept viable via ongoing support and application maintenance?

EC16. Professional GIS Management

Is the agency GIS managed by a qualified manager with appropriate education, experience, and credentials?

EC17. Professional GIS Operations Staff

Is the agency GIS operated and maintained by an adequate staff with appropriate professional qualifications?

For purposes of the GISCMM, adequate operational staffing is defined as meeting the ‘roles’ defined by the Geospatial Technology Competency Model – see: http://www.careeronestop.org/CompetencyModel/pyramid.aspx?GEO=Y.

EC18. GIS Staff Training and Professional Development

Do the agency GIS manager and other professional staff have access to on-going training to maintain and develop their technical and operational knowledge, skills, and abilities?

http://www.careeronestop.org/CompetencyModel/pyramid.aspx?GEO=Y

http://www.careeronestop.org/CompetencyModel/pyramid.aspx?GEO=Y



EC19. GIS Governance Structure

Does the agency have a formal GIS governance structure that links the GIS operation both to users and to key decision makers?

For some agencies (very small or with well-oiled enterprise GIS) a formal committee structure may not be required. A formal committee is a traditional practice, but in everyday practice, many agencies proceed without such a formal committee structure.

Does the agency’s governance address:

Long-range planning

Stakeholder satisfaction

Ability for business stakeholders to leverage initiatives

EC20. GIS is Linked to Agency Strategic Goals

Does the GIS as it exists have a defined responsibility and a clearly defined role in supporting the strategic goals of the agency?



EC21. GIS Budget Does the GIS operation develop a comprehensive budget that includes (at a minimum) labor, hardware, software, data, consulting, and training costs?

This mean either a separate GIS budget or embedded budget components that the GIS manager has input on and can base planning and programs upon as the budget is expended.

EC22. GIS Funding Does the GIS organization have adequate funding for (at a minimum) labor, hardware, software, data, consulting, and training costs?

EC23. GIS Financial Plan Does the GIS organization have a financial plan that includes a funding model (where the money is coming from) and that also projects future episodic costs for equipment, imagery, and other data replacement?



Execution Ability Components

For each question in the ‘Execution Ability’ section, read the brief question and description. Check the implementation category that best describes your agency’s current status. Feel free to include any clarifying comments or questions.

[ ] Level Five: Optimized processes

[ ] Level Four: Managed and measured processes

[ ] Level Three: Defined processes

[ ] Level Two: Repeatable processes

[ ] Level One: Ad-hoc processes



EA1. New Client Services Evaluation and Development

How does the GIS operation evaluate new agency business needs for GIS services and develop plans to respond to new client service requests?

This component should include a timeline/turn-around response focus.

Are new services evaluated against the agency strategic plan?

Are new services evaluated against ROI criteria…does it make financial sense?

Level 5 – optimized process – requires looking at existing services also and evaluating them to provide optimized services.

EA2. User Support, Help Desk, and End-User Training

How does the GIS operation support end users, including user guides, help documentation, training, and ad-hoc help-desk and/or on-site support?

This component should include a timeline/turn-around response focus

This should include a ‘train-the-trainer program.



EA3. Service Delivery Tracking and Oversight

How does the GIS unit monitor and evaluate client service delivery?

EA4. Service Quality Assurance

How does the GIS operation ensure the quality of services provided to clients?

This should also recognize the quality that can be provided may be dependent upon the time available to meet the client’s needs

EA5. Application Development or Procurement Methodology

How does the GIS operation develop custom GIS applications?

Do GIS applications align with and support business needs?

How does the GIS Operation preform requirements development and development execution strategy, including build vs. buy decision?

How does the GIS Operation manage GIS application development when in-house programming is not included within the GIS operation?

This should also recognize the quality that can be provided may be dependent upon the time available to meet the client’s needs



EA6. Project Management Methodology

How does the GIS operation manage projects for which it is responsible?

Projects could be either executed in-house or by an outside contractor.

EA7. Quality Assurance and Quality Control

How does the GIS operation assure a reasonable and appropriate level of quality for projects and for ongoing GIS system operation, to meet defined business needs?

System operations include database maintenance and spatial data warehouse processes.

Data is a key enterprise GIS component for effective QA/QC.

Perhaps there are several processes against which this maturity component should be applied.

EA8. GIS System Management

How does the GIS operation manage the core GIS systems that it is responsible for?

GIS system management includes system administration, database administration, network administration, system security, data backup, security, and restore processes, etc.

If these functions are managed within the GIS Operation, there should be defined procedures/best practices. But if the functions are provided outside the GIS operation, these procedures and best practices should form the basis for well-defined service level agreements.



EA9. Process Event Management

How does the GIS operation manage GIS system process events?

Typical process events include planned hardware and software upgrades, unplanned hardware failure and data loss and restore events.

This should include well defined change management best practices, for both routine/batch processes, and for significant system upgrades/modifications.

EA10. Contract and Supplier Management

How does the GIS operation manage its purchasing and contracting processes to ensure the best value for the supplies and services that it acquires?

EA11. Regional Collaboration How does the GIS operation manage regional collaboration to ensure that opportunities to share in the development and operation of data, infrastructure, and applications are pursued, and that the agency’s GIS is leveraged to benefit other potential local partners?



EA12. Staff Development How does the GIS operation manage the process of hiring and developing its staff to ensure that individual staff member skills are developed appropriate to current and emerging technical and business needs?

How does the GIS operation ensure that its staff resources meet its operational requirements for individual GIS competencies, including back-up and succession planning?

A best practice would include a well-defined and effective performance management and appraisal system.

A key objective would be minimizing risk to the organization, while enhancing staff effectiveness and productivity.

EA13. Operation Performance Management

How does the GIS operation manage performance of its operations as a whole?

This is the single key indicator of organizational process maturity and execution ability? Perhaps an organization’s rating in this area would serve as a ceiling for its overall rating.



EA14. Individual GIS Staff Performance Management

How does the GIS operation manage individual employee staff performance?

EA15. Client Satisfaction Monitoring and Assurance

How does the GIS operation monitor, assess, and assure the satisfaction of its clients?

Ideally, clients should be surveyed to indicate their satisfaction with individual projects and with the enterprise GIS operation as a whole.

EA16.

Resource Allocation Management

How does the GIS optimize use of its operational staff and of other resources at its disposal, both to minimize costs and to achieve maximum overall effectiveness for the enterprise?

This should include a global correlation between an organization’s resources and the services that it provides, both internal and external.



EA17. GIS data sharing Is GIS data sharable and is it shared? How does the GIS operation leverage shared and sharable GIS data to maintain effectiveness and minimize cost and redundant functions?

EA18. GIS Software License Sharing

Are GIS software licenses sharable and are they shared?

How does the GIS operation leverage shared and sharable GIS software to maintain effectiveness and minimize cost and redundant services?

EA19. GIS data inter-operability

Are agency framework and business geospatial data sources capable of being integrated and accessed in a technically appropriate and efficient manner?



EA20. Legal and policy affairs management

Are the GIS organization’s activities conducted to comply with appropriate legal and policy guidelines and requirements?

Does the GIS organization promote appropriate changes to the legal and policy framework to support effective enterprise GIS operations?

EA21. Balancing minimal privacy with maximum data usage

Does the GIS operation adhere to open data sharing principles to the maximum potential while minimizing administrative hurdles and roadblocks?

Does the GIS operation apply the maximum care to ensure the security of the minimum domain of restricted confidential data?

EA22. Service to the community and to the profession

Does the GIS operation support the GIS Certification Institute‘s and the URISA GIS Code of Ethics ‘Contributions to the Profession’ guidelines?

Does the GIS operation support and encourage efforts by its staff members for appropriate professional outreach, educational, and community service activities related to GIS?






URISA GIS Management Institute®

GMI Goal:

The GIS Management Institute® helps organizations identify and implement enterprise GIS management practice improvements.

GIS managers, anywhere in the world, will increase return on investment and maximize the effective use of GIS for their enterprise business goals with GMI products and services.

URISA Received GIS Management Institute Charter from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in 2013.




Business Need:

GIS professionals and practitioners invest considerable time and money for their initial education and continual training, yet recognized professional practice standards and guidelines are lacking in the GIS profession.

Public agencies and private entities have invested very large sums of money to develop and operate their enterprise GIS and program specific GIS operations, yet best-practices and investment validation for GIS operations are both lacking.

Worldwide, most GIS managers, professionals, and practitioners continue to deliver value to society through the work that they do.

But there remains a need for an environment where best practices and professional standards can be developed, validated, and promoted to maximize the value and effectiveness of GIS operations.

These are the needs that the GIS Management Institute® will meet.




GMI Core Products and Services:

The GIS Management Institute® already has two key products that are central to its core strategy:

• The Geospatial Management Competency Model (GMCM) for mangers

• The GIS Capability Maturity Model. (GISCMM) for GIS organizations

The GIS Management Body of Knowledge (GMBOK) will be a third key product of the GMI. The GMBOK is intended to be a GMI product that generates substantial revenue.





The GISCMM and the GMBOK will also be used to develop an on-line subscription based organizational assessment and accreditation service for enterprise GIS operations anywhere in the world. This will be the primary revenue generating GMI service.

Subscribers to the service will populate the GMI database with metrics on their own GIS configuration, maturity assessment, and performance metrics.

Their subscription will then provide them access to the GMI database to analyze the effectiveness of individual GIS management best practices and to compare their GIS operations against peer agencies worldwide.





The GISCMM, GMCM, and the GMBOK will also be used to develop a revenue-generating, subscription-based GIS educational program accreditation service.

The GMCM and the GMBOK will be used in cooperation with GISCI, to develop a revenue generating GIS Management Certification Program.




GMI Core Strategy:

The GMI core strategy is to help those who deploy, operate, and manage GIS organizations enhance their personal competency, and improve the effectiveness and ROI from their investment in GIS.

The GMI will mobilize volunteer GIS professionals (to be called GMI Associates) to create the GMBOK, comprised of individual GIS Best Practices.

The GMBOK will be developed by starting with frameworks that have already been developed by URISA, such as the GMCM and the GISCMM.

Topics for individual GIS Management Best Practices will be developed from the 23 capability and 22 maturity components of the GISCMM.

Each topic will include a narrative of the best practice, a policy template, recommended metrics, a description of required professional competencies to support the best practice, and recommended learning objectives to inform the development of a curriculum to teach the best practice.



GIS Management Institute®

Conceptual Diagram



GIS Management Institute®

Conceptual Diagram



GIS Management

Institute® Operational

Diagram


Submit completed GISCMM self assessments to GMI

Annual GMI Report on the state of Enterprise GIS

New URISA GMI Service: Enterprise GIS Assessment/Accreditation:

Online survey instrument

Self assessment with validation mechanisms

Compilation of bench marking metrics

Evaluation against GISCMM

Manager assessment against GMCM

Feedback report with benchmark analysis and development recommendations

GMIcmm Maturity Level Accreditation



Enhancing sustainable Enterprise GIS





Enterprise GIS Capability Assessment Report Template




Enterprise GIS Maturity Assessment Report Template


Enhancing professionalism for GIS managers

The competency of the GIS manager is one of the key success factors for an effective enterprise GIS


Enhancing professionalism for GIS managers

Assessing the competency of a GIS manager against the Geospatial Management Competency Model



GISCMM Development Contributors:


Contributors:


The GIS Capability Maturity Model and the GIS Management Institute®

Attendee Discussion and Feedback Do you have any:

Questions?

Suggestions?

Criticisms?

Ideas for using the GISCMM of the GIS Management Institute?

Other comments?


Greg Babinski, MA, GISP

URISA Past-President URISA GMI Committee Chair COGO Secretary W: www.urisa.org/main/gis-management-institute/ Finance & Marketing Manager

King County GIS Center 201 South Jackson Street MS: KSC-IT-0706 Seattle, WA 98104 USA P: 206-477-4402 F: 206-263-3145 E: [email protected] T: @gbabinski W: www.kingcounty.gov/gis

http://www.urisa.org/main/gis-management-institute/





mailto:[email protected]

http://www.kingcounty.gov/gis

Leadership & Management

Maximizing Benefits from Municipal GIS Operations The GIS Management Institute® and the GIS Capability Maturity Model