|
Topic 8 – What to Consider When
Scoping GIS |
Beyond Mapping book |
Both Dreams and Nightmares Are Born of Frustration — discusses the limitations of traditional
cost/benefit analysis in evaluating the adoption of a radically new technology
like GIS
GIS Is Never Having to Say You’re Sorry — discusses
the human and organizational considerations in adopting GIS technology
A
Tailored Plan and Curriculum Cure GIS Training Woes — describes
and discusses the importance of effective education and training needed for
successful GIS adoption
Note: The processing
and figures discussed in this topic were derived using MapCalcTM
software. See www.innovativegis.com
to download a free MapCalc Learner version with tutorial materials for classroom
and self-learning map analysis concepts and procedures.
<Click here>
right-click to download a printer-friendly version of this topic (.pdf).
(Back to the Table of Contents)
______________________________
Both Dreams and Nightmares Are
Born of Frustration
(GIS World, May 1992)
The
dream is that GIS can do anything... the reality is that it isn't easy. With increasing fervor, technologists and
users alike define and redefine the "unlimited" potential of GIS
technology. These dreams are, at least
in part, an expression of our hopes, as well as our science. When considering if GIS is for you, often
you're biggest challenge is to carefully separate what you hear into two
distinct piles-- the quixotic dream and the pragmatic reality.
Your
first step in this process is establishing "where you are coming
from." GIS means different things
to different people. At least four
distinct perspectives flavor both our expectations and our realities--
economic, organizational, visionary and emotional. The economic perspective is usually based on
labor and time-savings considerations.
Standard cost/benefit analysis is particularly appropriate in distilling
the dreams from reality. A careful audit
of your organization's current mapping and spatial data handling procedures
establishes a reference to estimate the savings in moving "from pen to
plotter and from file drawer to keyboard."
If the savings are greater than the expenditures, you are economically
irrational (foolish) if you don't implement GIS immediately.
There,
that's easy. There is nothing to
it. Just call in the accountants and
they will identify the numbers to plug into the Cost/Benefit equation. The reality is that even a strictly economic
perspective is not that easy. The
comfortable feeling of quantifying the evaluation process is quickly lost to
the pliable nature of the "yardsticks" used to measure the costs and
benefits.
The
time-span used in the analysis is critical.
If it is too short, the stream of benefits is artificially
truncated. The high front-end costs,
combined with the confusion and frustration of implementing a new system, will
far outweigh the benefits. It's like a
bare-knuckle battle between Sylvester Stallone and a tiger cub. If it is delayed a few years, the outcome
will likely be different. If you had
used a two-week cost recovery period for word processing, would you have ever
dropped your pencil?
So
what time period should be used? That's
a judgment call-- your judgment call.
Like lying with statistics, you can choose the time period that insures
the answer you want. In general, a longterm position favors the adoption of GIS.
Just
as important (and "mushy") is how you identify and quantify the
variables of the cost/benefit equation.
Four cost considerations quickly surface-- hardware/software, data base development/administration,
training and application models. The
hardware figures are the easiest to quantify through a litany of parameters
including MegaHertz, GigaBytes,
RAM, SIMMs, MIPS (DIPs, DRIPS and SLIPS).
The software specifications are a bit more difficult, yet factors, such
as, point-in-polygon, buffering, coordinate accuracy, and transfer formats can
be used.
Although
relatively easy to quantify, these figures are fleeting and set you up for a
bad case of "buyer's remorse."
About the time you finally push through your procurement and take first
delivery, your system is out of date.
It's like that pocket calculator.
Within a couple of months, the same expenditure gets you five more keys
at half the price. The difficulty in
nailing down the hardware/software cost component isn't in the definitions; it
is keeping your footing in the quicksand of technology. Like shooting ducks, you had better have a
good lead on your target. For large,
bureaucratic organizations, it may be prudent to just set a budgetary figure
for the "best available technology" and postpone the specifications
to the moment of purchase. That may seem
preposterous, but it may be more realistic.
Data
base development, maintenance and management are not only larger expenses than
hardware and software, but it is even more tricky and slippery to
estimate. Rarely does a simple inventory
of your current map and file cabinets multiplied times an estimate of encoding
costs produce an acceptable cost figure.
The differences between the digital and paper map make it too tricky for
such a mechanical approach. It's prudent
to launch an Information Needs Assessment (INA) to determine data base
contents, structure, policy and costs (a later issue will focus on this
process).
Even
if you do get a good handle on the data base, you must develop,
you're not out of the woods yet. How you
obtain these data is slippery turf.
Manual encoding, scanning or purchasing are your basic options. Not so long ago, in-house, manual encoding
was your only option. More recently the
scales have been tipping toward scanning and purchasing, as a room full of
digitizer folks is a major cost and distraction from normal business
activities. Also, many of the maps you
might encode have time-bombs ticking within them. For example, if you encode (in-house or
contract) a soils map, it will become invalid once the Soil Conservation
Service's "authoritative" version is released. Its back to shooting ducks, you had better
get your data requirements in line and lead them, or you will just be pumping
pellets into the air.
The
costs of training your people to use GIS can easily outstrip the combined costs
of hardware/software and data base development.
Early successes in using GIS were often more a function of the zealots
using it than the technology itself.
Like The Little Train That Could, GIS could do a lot. The pitfalls that accompany any new
technology are overcome by innovative "work-a-rounds" of committed
users. In a wholesale adoption, however,
the user community is expanded to "I don't think I can" and "I
am damned if I will" outlooks.
One
reaction to this reality is to form a GIS division. On the surface it is a plausible
alternative. All you have to do is train
a small cadre of experts. There, that's
both efficient and effective. But it
rarely works for two reasons.
First,
the GIS product produced is just that-- a GIS product, not the direct
expression of the final user. In the
late 1970's I had an opportunity to observe a large timber company's
centralized implementation of GIS. Most
of the field personnel merely dismissed the "computer jerk's" forest
management maps handed to them through the glass windows of the computer
center. "What do they know about
the @#*^! forest anyway?", was the
rallying cry. If the maps were used at
all, they became the center of attention for the short period it took to locate
that "one" forest stand in the middle of a lake. This meant wasted effort on both the GIS and
user sides, a situation that could be helped with sufficient investment in
training.
If
costs of training are identified at all, they are usually associated with
vocational instruction on system operations.
But GIS is a challenging new way of thinking, as well as a new sequence
of buttons to push. The mechanics of
translating what you currently do with maps into a GIS is straight
forward. In fact, colorful icons and
mouse clicking can make it almost fun.
However, most of the potential GIS applications within and organization
are yet to be discovered.
The
development of application models is the other reason for failure of a
centralized approach. How the new
technology leads to new ways of doing things is the least understood cost (and
benefit) of GIS technology. It's like
your son or daughter dumping the tin of tinker toys on the floor. The mechanics of how the pieces fit together
is fairly simple. What ought to be built
with the individual pieces is the difficult part. The tinker toy makers (vis. GIS
experts) can supply some ideas, but they certainly do not cover all of the
possibilities. Vocational training
develops an awareness of the GIS "owner's manual" description of the
pieces and parts, but beware "some assembly is required" before you
are up and running.
The
creative assembly is entirely up to your people. If you ignore or skimp on training and
application model development, you will incur opportunity costs at the
minimum. More likely, you will generate
a backlash of confusion and apprehension that quickly outweighs the set
benefits you identify. A couple of
strategically placed anti-GIS terrorists will wreak havoc with the even your
best laid plans.
A
strict economic perspective is the first step in scoping GIS technology. Identification (and ultimately quantification)
of the costs and benefits sets the stage.
However, organizational, visionary and emotional perspectives are needed
to complete the picture-- whether a dream or a nightmare. That gives us something to discuss in the
next issue.
_____________________
As with all Beyond Mapping articles, allow me to apologize in advance for the "poetic license" invoked in this terse treatment of a complex subject. Readers interested in more information on "scoping" GIS should begin with a paper by Robert J. Lima of the Boshe Institute in the Conference Proceedings of URISA '91, Vol 2:8-13, Urban and Regional Information Systems Association (URISA), 900 Second Street, NE, Suite 304, Washington, DC, USA 20002 (phone, 202-289-1685).
GIS Is Never Having to Say You’re
Sorry
(GIS
World, June 1992)
The
previous section began the discussion of the broad considerations in
implementing a GIS with economic cost/benefit analysis. This is where most organizations begin their
first step of what seems to be a thousand mile journey to GIS
implementation. At first glance the
seductive appearance of a rigorous, quantitative analysis is quickly lost to
the pliable nature of the "yardsticks" used to measure the costs and
benefits. At best, a cost/benefit
analysis sets the stage for further investigation into the full impact of
implementing a GIS. Even the most
favorable C/B ratio should be further scrutinized in terms of the organizational
and human impacts of GIS. Whether real
or imagined, the perceived threats of GIS technology form the actual mine field
that you must traverse.
The
organizational structure (both formal and informal) is an important concern, as
it is the direct expression of the "corporate character"-- the most
basic element of any organization. If
extensive individual latitude and autonomy best describes the current
character, GIS will likely have a rocky-road to implementation. Within this environment, data often are
viewed as the medium of exchange for power brokers at all levels. Simply stated, "if
you must pass through me to get to important data in my map cabinets and file
drawers, then I am as important as the data I keep." However, if GIS places my data in some
central repository accessible to all by a single mouse click, my corporate
worth has been severely devalued. The
result, as viewed by some, is an electronic end-run around the current data
gatekeepers and a direct assault on the existing organizational structure. It may be a benefit to the organization to
have a corporate data base, but to many it represents a personal loss of
influence. If your implementation plan
ignores this reality, you'll be sorry.
Another
concern which may run amuck with the corporate character is the imposition of
data standards. In many organizations,
mapping standards are either non-existent, or merely address geographic
registration and data exchange formats.
But this is just the tip of the chilling iceberg of standards. The ability to export a map from one GIS
package and swallow it in another is basic and rapidly becoming a
non-issue. Likewise, the ability to
convert projections, rectify and register maps is commonplace (although not
necessarily easy). The confusion and
frustration isn't in the locational (where) set of standards, but in the
informational (what) set.
A
corporate data base consists of three levels of maps based on their degree of
abstraction-- base, derived and interpreted.
Base maps are usually physical data we collect, such as roads, water and
ownership boundaries. They have minimal
abstraction, and as much as possible, represent a scale model with all of the
detail of a flatten model train set.
Definitions and procedures for mapping most these data are in place— but
not all.
Consider
a map of cover type. Is
Forest/Non-Forest a sufficient standard?
Or should the Forest class be further divided into Conifer and
Deciduous? And the Conifer, in turn,
subdivided into Pine, Fir and Hemlock?
What about age and stocking classes?
Should you identify a lone pine tree in the middle of a meadow as a
Conifer Stand? Two, three, four, five
trees-- what does it take to form a forest stand? Ask a forester, ecologist and recreation
scientist and you'll get at least three different responses. Or maybe four or five
different responses depending on how they decipher different applications. You'll be sorry if you don't tackle these
questions before you implement GIS.
For
example, a wildfire had the audacity to burn across the boundary of two
National Forests. Maps of cover type
were encoded for both Forests, but they couldn't be edge-matched. One Forest had six classes of age and
stocking for Douglas Fir, the other had eight. The GIS was able to account for locational
adjustments during encoding, but not the differences in informational
content. A common classification
standard for cover type had to be established and encoded. The struggle for whose classification scheme
was the best eclipsed the mundane tasks of reconstruction and encoding a
compatible cover type map. The
challenges to human and organizational interests run much deeper than those
encountered at the digitizing tablet.
Vested
interests in the definitions of map categories go beyond base data. Derived maps, such as slope, visual exposure
and proximity to roads, are physical things.
However, the data are too difficult to collect, so we use the computer
to calculate them. Even something as
simple as slope calculation has several algorithms, each with its pros and
cons. For something as complex as visual
exposure, there is a quagmire of assumptions, approaches and procedures. Which will you entrench in your system? Rest assured that the choice won't be by
consensus, nor the dissenting voices reserved.
Even
more volatile are the assumptions embedded in interpreted maps. These data are the most abstract, as they are
conceptual renderings of expert opinion.
Taunts of "my elk habitat model is better than yours"
reverberate through the halls whenever two wildlife ecologists are cornered in
the same room. It is naive to assume
that elk models will edge-match across two forests, much less an entire
region. And certainly not match across
the paradigm chasm of two experts.
So
whose derived and interpreted maps capture the standards in the corporate data
base? The question of standards runs a
lot deeper than just geographic registration and encoding effort. It involves organizational and individual
perceptions, reputations and vested interests.
You'll be sorry if your implementation plan ignores these elements. Sure, they will get sorted out later— after
you and the GIS system fail.
A
GIS implementation strategy has to go beyond simply scoping system design to
nurturing a receptive environment. This
passes the baton from the system engineers and GIS specialists to the
sociologists and human relation professionals.
As continually reminded in this column (possibly to the point of being
shrill) GIS is not just automating what you do, but changing how you do
things. Sensitivity to the full impact
of these changes, human as well as procedural, is paramount.
Table 1. Institutional and
Individual Threats and responses.
|
THE THREAT OF GIS |
|
INSTITUTIONAL
THREATS -
Organizational -- "There's
only one problem having all this sophisticated equipment... we don't have
anyone sophisticated enough to use it" (Beetle Bailey) -
Status Quo -- "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" -
Overload – “Torture numbers
and they will tell you anything" -
Stifling --
"Imagination is more important than information" (Einstein) -
Awareness -- "Technobabble... that seemingly endless drone masking what
would otherwise be a clear understanding of a new technology's concepts and
use" PERSONAL
THREATS -
Intimidation -- "It's like
new math, I'm just too old" -
Power -- "Experience used to be worth
something, now you just dazzle them with color" -
Dependence -- "Middle
management is an endangered species... they are information brokers hooked to
the computer jerk down the hall" |
|
COPING WITH GIS THREATS CHOICES
-- "Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't" Fight It
— Ignore It
— Face It |
|
INSTITUTIONAL
RESPONSE -
Grassroots Support -- "They
don't know what they are doing" -
Understanding -- "You know, this
GIS stuff isn't so bad after all" -
Proof-of-Concept -- "Oh, now I
see, I could use something like that" -
Commitment -- "What do you
mean, learn it in my spare time" -
Tough Love -- "Like it or
not, unless you have retired, your job has evolved for the better" PERSONAL
RESPONSE -
Lingo -- "Sticks and stones my break
my bones, but arcane terminology will never hurt me" -
Continuing Education -- "The era of
the four-year smart pill is over" -
Leadership -- "If the
boss can handle this stuff, then I guess anybody can" -
Long Haul -- "Like other
new technologies, GIS is something that is best understood backwards... but
must be learned forwards" |
Table
1 outlines some of the threats and responses which need to be addressed. The outline is designed to stimulate discussion
in a workshop setting, but hopefully they will trip some thoughts in your
mind. As you look over the outline, try
some "free associations" with the points. Conjure up some of your own threats and
possible coping responses. It is a lot
of fun at the workshops and sparks a broader perspective on GIS
implementation. At minimum, the exercise
should encourage you to go beyond a focus on the mechanics of GIS technology to
its institutional and human implications... if you don't, you'll be sorry.
_____________________
As with all Beyond Mapping articles, allow me to apologize in advance for the "poetic license" invoked in this terse treatment of a complex subject. Readers interested in more information on the human impacts of GIS should consult "The Threat of GIS," by Dennison Parker and Evan Valchos in the 1989 GIS/LIS conference proceedings. A reprint is available from GIS World.
A Tailored Plan and Curriculum
Cure GIS Training Woes
(GIS
World, August 1992)
…why waste time
learning when ignorance is instantaneous (Calvin &
Hobbs)
The
last couple of sections have encouraged you to go beyond a focus on the
mechanics of GIS to its institutional and human implications. Like most new technologies, the technical
aspects of GIS are the easiest part.
It's the non-technical implications and impacts that ultimately
determine success or failure. These have
little to do with bits, bytes, buffers and even bucks (US$'s). It's a corporate "warm-fuzzy"
feeling about GIS.
So
how does one insure such acceptance?
Let's start with the easier question... how do you insure failure? That's simple. Just deliver crates of computers and masses
of shrink-wrapped manuals. Within hours,
anti-GIS terrorists will have torched all the managerial offices and be moving
toward the Board Room. Defensive
positions, such as, "we're doing it for you" and "try it, you'll
like it" will crumble like papier-mâché bunkers. General rebellion and anarchy will sap any
remaining vestiges of the "corporate good idea." An emotional and intellectual wasteland will
lie at the feet of the sterile grey boxes and brightly colored CRTs.
Like
the "Christmas Future" vision in Dickens’s novel, A Christmas
Carol, there is an alternative. It's
a commitment to education. Without it,
ignorance prevails, confusion is rampant and negative rumors abound. However, at least as much effort is involved
in planning and implementing an effective educational program, as in the
scoping of hardware and software requirements.
Matching instructional approach with the various skills required is
similar to matching the appropriate platform and functionality to the
information needs of an organization.
But
why not leave training to the universities?
It's their job isn't it? Two
major points come to mind. First, most
universities have tightly defined programs for traditional degree-seeking
students. It is hard enough to get a GIS
course into a recognized major, let alone canonized as a new program of
study. However, even if the academic
tanker was turned overnight, you can't wait until the GIS matriculates rise to
top decision-making positions. Technology
moves faster than scholarly debate or openings in your organization. You're left with the non-traditional
student-- your current employees with all of the warts and scars left from
their last brush with the "four-year" smart pill. A snarly bunch, but they're the key to the success
or failure of GIS in your organization.
The
first consideration in GIS training is recognition that there is both a formal
and informal process. Attention to the
informal process must be made throughout the implementation of GIS by nurturing
"in-house zealots." In the
early stages, these individuals not only provide over-the-shoulder instruction,
but legitimize the technology. They
enthusiastically demonstrate that "one-of-us" can use the damn
thing. Your challenge is to create
situations that quickly identify these individuals. Undertaking a couple pilot projects, early in
the GIS scoping process, is a good strategy.
However, be certain that the volunteers can focus their full attention
on the project, receive ample support and are given complete freedom in their
approach. A good rule of thumb is
"If you can't afford this involvement, the chances are you can't afford
the technology." Another good rule
is "One in-house GIS zealot is worth a dozen out-house specialists."
The
nucleus of zealots provides leadership and credibility, but is inefficient in
conveying basic procedures and concepts to the masses. This is where formal training comes in. Three instructional approaches are involved--
awareness, vocational and educational.
General awareness instruction provides a non-technical overview of GIS's
capabilities and limitations. It
counters GIS ignorance, but stops far short of a working knowledge of the
field.
It
is imperative that all personnel participate in this training phase--
from clerical to technical to professional to managerial. Ideally, the presentation is made in mixed
audiences and discussion is encouraged.
It is not so much a tutorage, as it is a forum. Sure some basic concepts and terminology slip
in, but mostly the gathering introduces GIS and sets the stage for its
implementation. The mixed audience
provides recognition of in-house zealots and reinforces management's
commitment. The absence of GIS experts
and/or top management is dysfunctional as it makes the meeting merely
perfunctory.
Vocational
instruction develops operating skills in the procedures and practices of a
specific system. It is designed to show
you how to use the system.
Educational instruction, on the other hand, develops spatial reasoning skills
through understanding of basic concepts and theory. It is designed to show you why you
might want to use the system. Think of
it this way-- awareness instruction is similar to a newspaper article;
vocational instruction is similar to a manual; and educational instruction is
similar to a textbook. Each approach or
item is directed to a different audience, presents different material and
produces different "products."
An inappropriate match either bores or overwhelms the audience, with
either case rendering your training a waste of time and money.
Enough of the academic hyperbole …what's the
reality?
The reality is that most implementation plans focus on vocational
training alone (if at all). Remember when
your organization implemented word processing?
Did you receive instruction, or just left to your own devices? How did you do? How would you do it differently? GIS is like word processing-- only
different. Compared to manual techniques
both are faster, easier and can quickly generate more piles of paper than wall
space and surface area of furniture combined.
But is it better? Probably not,
until you use a new technology in new ways.
That's the big difference-- GIS presents an entirely new way of doing
things. In addition to the mechanics
of how to work the thing, new analytic concepts and spatial reasoning skills
must be developed.
The
balance between vocational and educational approaches depends on which skills
are addressed. Four distinct GIS skill
levels can be identified—
-
Database Development Technician-- encodes and
maintains the spatial and attribute databases.
-
Data Center Manager-- coordinates data integration, information flow and
maintains the system.
-
Application Specialist-- facilitates the development of
application-specific models.
-
General User-- uses GIS in both routine activities and
decision-making.
Note
that the first three roles are in support of the User and his/her ability to do
their job. That's not a moot point. Without frequent reality checks, any new
technology can take on a life of its own.
Also, the listing is ordered in terms of the GIS technical knowledge
required (from most to least). In
general, more technical/vocational training is needed at the top of the list. The balance shifts to more
conceptual/educational training at the bottom.
So what? At a minimum, you're put
on alert that one "comprehensive" short course may not be sufficient
for all GIS skill levels.
So
what's the appropriate balance? As usual, "it depends"... mostly on your information
needs (i.e., the User). If
routine mapping and data base management demands dominate system use, then
training is best focused on the top of the list. Training in the proper care and feeding of
the database is paramount. The
Specialist and User interests will revolve around GUI interfaces that make
access and retrieval a "piece-of-cake." The bulk of Automated
Mapping and Facilities Management (AM-FM) applications fall into this group.
However,
if your GIS needs lean more toward Decision Support Systems (DSS), then your
training requirements are significantly altered and move toward a more
conceptual/educational focus. In this
environment, GIS is less a tool to extend the hand, than and a medium to extend
the mind. Creative uses, such as spatial
modeling, require both a proficiency in system operation and a thorough
understanding of system functionality.
Effective dialogue between the application Specialist and the general
User is rooted in a common understanding of GIS capabilities and limitations in
expressing spatial relationships. Even
memorization of the "User's Manual" won't cover these bases. An organizational commitment to education
will.
Ignorance
is instantaneous and a lot cheaper... but is it really? This discussion should have dispelled the
notion of GIS training through "immaculate conception." If your personnel struggled with word
processing, choked on spreadsheets and gagged on data base management, expect
to be in intensive care with a massive head wound with GIS. Preventive medicine, in the form a tailored
training plan and curriculum is advised.
At least as much thought (and ultimately, direct investment) should go
into training as in the scoping of the hardware/software and database requirements.
Also,
this and past discussions should have brought you (and me) to the realization
that the mechanics of GIS are a lot easier to wrestle than the amorphous hulk
of its institutional and human implications.
Next issue we will get back to the basics-- analytics.
_____________________
As with all Beyond Mapping articles, allow me to apologize in advance for the "poetic license" invoked in this terse treatment of a complex subject. Readers interested in more information on technology's broader impacts should consult "Communication of Innovation," by Rogers and Schoemaker, 1971, Free Press, New York. Information on a National Curriculum for GIS may be obtained from the National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (NCGIA), University of California, Santa Barbara, California, phone (805) 893-8224.
_______________________________________
