URISA’s Local Government GIS Capability Maturity Model

URISA’s Local Government GIS Capability Maturity Model

Greg Babinski, MA, GISP

URISA President-Elect

Finance & Marketing Manager King County GIS Center Seattle, WA

URISA Connect

Live Event: August 10, 2011

Why Develop a GISCMM? • Introduction & framing the problem • What is a capability maturity model? • Why develop a GIS CMM?

The Proposed URISA GIS Capability Maturity Model • Enabling capability • Execution ability

GISCMM Description and Critique • Walkthrough • Critique

Feedback, Refining the Model & Next Steps • Portfolio/certification • Peer review • DOLETA GTCM & URISA’s Proposed GMCM • Next steps discussion

Q & A

URISA Local Government GIS Capability Maturity Model

Agenda

The Ubiquitous Municipal GIS

• GIS has become a common component of city & county government

• All large and most medium sized cities & counties have established GIS operations

• Many small sized jurisdictions have a GIS

• 31 of 39 Washington Counties have public web mapping capability implying

GIS operations of some sort

• Dozens of Washington cities

are known to have GIS

operations.

Why Develop a GISCMM?


Variations in Municipal GIS Operations

What causes variation in municipal GIS Operations?

Each municipality is unique

City and county business focus often varies

Population

Nature and level of economic development


Variations in Municipal GIS Operations

What causes variation in municipal GIS Operations?

• GIS development history and funding

• GIS operational budget and staffing

• GIS strategic plan

• Municipality’s institutional expectations

• GIS developmental vision – or lack of vision?

• Lack of focus?

• Other factors?



Managers need to balance long-term vision with

current business needs and operational imperatives.

When is GIS Development Complete?

There are many ways to answer:

• When the GIS capital project was completed?

• When the GIS strategic plan has been completed?

• When a GIS staff is in place?

• When municipal framework and business data has been developed?

• Other indicators? applications, products, users, etc.?

• Each of these indicators focuses internally

• Can we apply an external focus to answer the question?



There are many ways to 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

When is GIS Development Complete?



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

A CMM applies an external focus to assess an organization


What is a Capability Maturity Model?

The typical capability maturity model is an assessment of the subject organization’s maturity level based on the characteristics of the organization’s approach to individual defined processes.




CMM process levels are usually defined as:


Level Process

1 Ad hoc (chaotic) processes - typically in reaction to a need to

get something done.

2 Repeatable processes – typically based on recalling and

repeating how the process was done the last time.

3 Defined process – the process is written down (documented)

and serves to guide consistent performance within the organization.

4 Managed process – the documented process is measured when

performed and the measurements are compiled for analysis. Changing system conditions are managed by adapting the defined process to meet the conditions.

5 Optimized processes – The defined and managed process is

improved on an on-going basis by institutionalized process improvement planning and implementation. Optimization may be tied to quantified performance goals.

To provide a means for any municipal GIS operation to gauge its maturity against a variety of standards and/or measures, including:

A theoretical ideal end state of GIS organizational development

The maturity level of other peer GIS organizations , either individually or in aggregate

The maturity level of the subject organization over time

The maturity level of the organization against an agreed or defined target state (perhaps set by organizational policy, budget limitations, etc.)




To support NSDI metrics development initiative (NGAC

Governance Subcommittee, Metrics White Paper for December 1-2, 2009 NGAC Meeting)

To support NSGIC’s Statewide Geospatial Maturity Assessment (GMA) Model

To support COGO initiative to develop a Geospatial Infrastructure Report Card (Similar to ASCE’s America’s Infrastructure Report Card


GISCMM Precursors

Gaudet, C., Annulis, H., and Carr, J., Workforce Development Models for Geospatial Technology, University of Southern Mississippi, 2001.

Niessinka, F., Clerca, V., Tijdinka, T., and van Vlietb, H., The IT Service Capability Maturity Model, CIBIT Consultants | Educators, 2005

Introducing a Maturity Model for Enterprise GIS. Even Keel Strategies, 2008.

Sonnen, David, Moeller, John, and LeBranche, David, Geospatial Enterprise Integration Maturity Model. Northrup Grumman, June 24, 2009.


Proposed URISA Local Government GIS Capability Maturity Model

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 Local Government GIS Capability Maturity Model assumes two broad areas of GIS operational development:

Enabling capability

Execution ability


Proposed URISA GIS Capability Maturity Model

Enabling Capability (21 components):

Technology

Data

Resources

Infrastructure

GIS professional staff

Execution Ability (14 components):

Ability of the staff to maximize use of available capability

Ability to execute relative to normative ideal




Enabling Capability Components:



Enabling Capability Assessment Scale:



Execution Ability Components:



Execution Ability Assessment Scale:



2009 GIS CMM Survey

State of Washington – August 2009

Based on draft Model

12 Page Survey (4 pages of explanation)

Sent to 25 Counties – 12 responded (48%)

Sent to 38 cities – 19 responded (50%)

Solicited comments and suggestions


Infrastructure Results:

Cites ranged from 0.43 to 0.89

Counties ranged from 0.27 to 1.00

2009 GIS CMM Survey


2009 GIS CMM Survey

Infrastructure Results:

Cites ranged from 0.43 to 0.89

Counties ranged from 0.27 to 1.00


Results Compared to Individual Agencies

2009 GIS CMM Update


Process Ability Results:

Cites range from 1.00 to 3.93

Counties range from 1.00 to 4.57

2009 GIS CMM Survey


2009 GIS CMM Survey

Process Ability Results:

Cites range from 1.00 to 3.93

Counties range from 1.00 to 4.57


2009 GIS CMM Survey

Results Compared to Individual Agencies


2010 GIS CMM Update


URISA Local Government GISCMM Critique

Questions

Suggestions

Discussion

Add benchmarking metrics?

Online version?

What else is missing from the model?


Portfolio

Peer Review

Certification

Institutionalization

Other ideas

Refining the URISA Local Government GIS Capability Maturity Model & Next Steps


Portfolio

Ensures more rigorous self assessment

Promotes best practices

Supports peer review

Enhances credibility of results



Peer Review

Normalizes results

Enhances credibility of rating



Certification & Institutionalization

Enhance credibility of results

Promote sound professional practices

Similar to ISO 9000 and CMMI certification



Certification & Institutionalization

Green Building Council LEED Certification model?



Pilot Application of the model across counties in Georgia

Translation of the model into Mandarin Chinese by the Taiwan GIS Center & Taiwan GIS Society

Presentation in Washington, D.C. to NGAC on 9/22/10 and request report back on future development

2011 FGDC CAP Grant Proposal




Link to ROI




DOLETA GTCM

Missing Tier 9

Management Competency Model:

• Staffing • Informing • Delegating • Networking • Monitoring Work • Entrepreneurship • Supporting Others • Motivating & Inspiring • Developing & Mentoring • Strategic Planning/Action • Preparing & Evaluating Budgets • Clarifying Roles & Objectives • Managing Conflict & Team Building • Developing an Organizational Vision • Monitoring & Controlling Resources


GISCMM – GMCM Daylong Work Session at 2011 Washington GIS Conference:

Refined GISCMM

Developed first draft URISA Geospatial Management Competency Model (GMCM)

URISA-USDOLETA Day-long GMCM Work Session at 2011 GIS-Pro in Indianapolis:

Work to be based on draft URISA GMCM & standard DOLETA management competency model template

International panel will refine & validate the GMCM approach



GIS-Pro 2011 GMCM Task Force:

• Tom Conry, Fairfax County, VA, GIS Manager

• Pete Croswell, GIS Consultant and Author

• David DiBiase, Penn State & ESRI, GIS Educator

• David DiSera, CTO, EMA Inc.

• Dianne Haley, Alberta Energy Resources Board, GIS Manager

• Patrick Kennelly, Long Island University

• Nick Lawrence, Queensland (Australia) Roads Dept GIS Coordinator

• Twyla McDermott, City of Charlotte, NC, Technology Planning Manager

• Bob Ryan, URS Corporation, Project Manager

• Rebecca Somers, GIS Consultant, Educator, and Author

• Bruce Stauffer, GeographicIT, GIS Project Manager

• Dr. Chi-hong Sun, Taiwan GIS Center, Chairman & General Manager

• Greg Babinski, King County GIS Center, Finance & Marketing Manager


What is the link between the GISCMM & the GMCM?

Standards

Best Practices

Benchmarking

The URISA Board of Directors has authorized a work group

to explore certifying GIS operations and GIS managers.



Other ideas?

Open Discussion

Continue the discussion via the URISA work group


Acknowledgements

Reviewers:

• Danielle Ayan, GISP, State of Georgia

• Lisa Castle, King County GIS Center

• Richard Gelb, King County DNRP

• George Horning, King County GIS Center

• Mike Leathers, King County GIS Center

Washington State City & County GIS Managers

2010 GIS-Pro Workshop Participants

2011 Washington GIS Conference GISCMM/GMCM Panel Participants

URISA GISCMM Advisors:

• Hilary Perkins

• Twyla McDermott

• David DiBiase


References


Winter 2011 ArcNews Article: http://www.esri.com/news/arcnews/winter1011articles/urisa-proposes.html

http://www.esri.com/news/arcnews/winter1011articles/urisa-proposes.html



References

Capability Maturity Model, Wikepedia Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_Maturity_Model Accessed 8/3/2009).

Selena Rezvani, M.S.W., An Introduction to Organizational Maturity Assessment: Measuring Organizational Capabilities, International Public Management Association Assessment Council, ND.

Jerry Simonoff, Director, IT Investment & Enterprise Solutions, Improving IT investment Management in the Commonwealth, Virginia Information Technology Agency, 2008.

Curtis, B., Hefley, W. E., and Miller, S. A.; People Capability Maturity Model (P-CMM), Software Engineering Institute, 2001.

Niessinka, F., Clerca, V., Tijdinka, T., and van Vlietb, H., The IT Service Capability Maturity Model, CIBIT Consultants | Educators, 2005

Ford-Bey, M., PA Consulting Group, Proving the Business Benefits of GeoWeb Initiatives: An ROI-Driven Approach, GeoWeb Conference, 2008.

Niessink, F. and van Vliet, H., Towards Mature IT Services, Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, ND.

Gaudet, C., Annulis, H., and Carr, J., Workforce Development Models for Geospatial Technology, University of Southern Mississippi, 2001.

Sonnen, David, Moeller, John, and LeBranche, David, Geospatial Enterprise Integration Maturity Model. Northrup Grumman, June 24, 2009.

NGAC Governance Subcommittee: Metrics White Paper for December 1-2, 2009 NGAC Meeting, accessed at: http://www.fgdc.gov/ngac/meetings/december-2009/governance-subcommittee-nsdi-metrics-paper.pdf


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_Maturity_Model

http://www.fgdc.gov/ngac/meetings/december-2009/governance-subcommittee-nsdi-metrics-paper.pdf











Contact Information

Greg Babinski, GISP, King County GIS Center, Seattle, WA

[email protected] 206-263-3753


Leadership & Management

URISA’s Local Government GIS Capability Maturity Model