If You’re Happy With Your Consultant, and You Know It…Keep ‘Em

 

For many organizations in South Carolina a geographic information system can (still) be viewed as an innovation.  As such, the benefits of GIS are well known and widely accepted. However, exactly how to handle a GIS may not be.

 

What follows are some thoughts and impressions that I have formed after spending a few years working with GIS in the public sector.  I’m glad that Lynn has provided this forum to throw these ideas out there.  They are pretty rough and undeveloped, but I am interested in continuing to work with them, maybe to get at something suitable for further presentation or even publication.  Therefore I would be appreciative of any comment or criticism, particularly from the private side.  If nothing else though, I’m most appreciative of the reader’s attention for a few minutes, as maybe something mentioned here might be able to help with the GIS work currently being done in organizations.

 

Britton[1] finds several difficulties in attempting to implement GIS programs in countries in the Pacific Islands.  These include: technical issues, a lack of infrastructure (physical, educational, and human), and a small user community.  His thesis is that when implementing GIS in these countries, “capacity building”, which includes broader human resource development components, is favorable to the more traditional “technology transfer” approach, which finds a knowledge base transferred from a provider to a recipient.

 

Now, the Pacific Islands are quite a ways away from the ol’ Palmetto State, it doesn’t take a hot-shot GIS specialist to know that.  Further, much of Britton’s discussion, while interesting and informative, is not all that applicable to us (I definitely recommend the article, though - its reference information is included below). However, there are a few salient points.  If we accept the assumption of GIS as an innovation, then some of the issues Britton explores are comparable.  In this space I plan not to delve into all these.  Rather, accepting some of Britton’s findings as consequences of innovation, I’d like to discuss what I think may provide some help when implementing GIS here at home.  An important point is that the so-called “technology transfer” model is most often what is used when organizations are implementing GIS in South Carolina.

 

I know I’m preaching to the choir here, but let me quickly set the scene. In some, maybe many, public sector organizations a GIS is developed something like this…

 

Someone who has some amount of authority sees or hears of GIS – in another organization, at a presentation, through the grapevine, etc. – and thinks, “Wow, we need one of those!”  They start talking to some people at work, and pretty soon the organization sees the benefit of having a GIS.  It is quickly learned that there are many companies out there who would be happy to develop a GIS for the organization. Depending upon the needs of the organization, the GIS effort may be located in one of a variety of places.  Thinking of a city or a county, this may be the tax assessor’s office, the planning department, public safety, engineering, public works, building codes, the zoning administrator’s office, voter’s registration, etc. A GIS can be helpful to the work of all of these, so the program itself could begin in any one, if not a few, of these places.[2] 

 

Wherever it lives, the effort will more than likely require aerial photography to provide the base from which mapping can occur.  This means you will probably interface with the county tax assessor, since that department already has current and historic aerial photos of the jurisdiction.  If backup (as an example) of that photography happens to exist in a digital format, it may be suitable for basemapping.  If not, the jurisdiction will need to be reflown, and the desired scale of the output, and other details, will be prearranged.  The taking of this photography and the subsequent correction of it requires time and money.  From it, however, are produced GIS layers of the cultural and natural features of the jurisdiction (road centerlines, hydrography, building footprints, etc.).  The photography can also be used in conjunction with existing hardcopy maps to produce layers of the various administrative boundaries, including such things as political districts, service areas, and tax parcel lines.  All of this also takes a good bit of time and money.  However, once complete, the organization has some very useful and widely applicable data that can be used in decision-making.

 

To now, the great majority of the technical work has been performed with whomever the organization has contracted with to supply these services.  Many months may pass in the preparation of this data.  If the contract is well-structured, there should be a mechanism for a lot of back-and-forth between the consultant and the organization’s staff concerning quality assurance of the data produced. When the last of the data is turned over, it now becomes the organization’s turn to care for the baby.  Data maintenance is immediately (and continually) required since things are always changing within the jurisdiction.  Indeed, in the time that the data production was going on, new roads and structures have been built, property has changed hands, annexations have taken place, etc.  The most accurate and up to date picture is always what is desired; without it decisions are less relevant.

 

The organization must commit resources – staff, infrastructure, and ultimately more funds – to maintain this investment; this GIS thing.  Now the real implementation starts.  This is obviously a critical time in the life of the project.  Good pre-planning will shine here if the transition of the GIS from consultant to client is smooth.  Sometimes, however, this is a time when things can be hectic and confusing for the recipient of the GIS.  Why?

 

What I have noticed here are a couple of key things. By addressing these issues ahead of time, I think that the organization can put itself in a better position of dealing with the innovation that is GIS. 

 

Key Thing #1

Again depending on where within the organization the GIS lives, one or a few staff members from that department may suddenly become the “GIS people.”   That person or persons may be comfortable with this or they may not; they may be equipped for this or they may not.  People may remember one morning a long time ago when they came in to work and their beloved greenscreen terminal was gone!  In its place was a big, ugly box with a funny little clicker attached.  It ran strange and new programs that few had seen before.  Having a GIS foist upon you is similar to changing from terminal computing to using a desktop microcomputer. It’s a new technology; a new way of doing things; an innovation.  Is the organization ready for this change?  And not just in terms of the technical skills required to maintain and operate it, but also in terms of the organizational adjustments that may have to be made.  The new “GIS guy” or “GIS people” may already have responsibilities if they are allocated from someplace or something else within the organization. Will they keep performing these responsibilities? Or will they be dedicated solely to the GIS?  Will they in effect do two jobs?  Will their positions be reclassified? (This is the more important-sounding way of saying “Am I gonna get more MONEY?”) Maybe someone with specific skill in GIS should be hired from outside the organization.  This means coming up with new salary and benefits lines in the organization’s budget.  Is this possible, especially with the way public agency budgets are right now? Be aware that while the economy is definitely cooler than it was a few years ago, GIS professionals can still command a pretty good salary.  The organization must not only attract but also retain such an individual, if they choose to hire from outside.  With the high demand for people with GIS skills, it can sometimes be a real challenge for organizations to get and keep such personnel.[3]

 

Key Thing #2

A typical GIS shop in our state might be composed of anywhere from one to upwards of five or six people, possibly with varying degrees of GIS experience.  Organizations are usually quite good about providing training, and with the technology ever-changing, training is necessary even for the more experienced GIS user.  There are plenty of opportunities to acquire training in GIS, but here’s something to note – if the trainee does not come back to work with the opportunity to immediately apply what he/she has learned, the training is wasted because the new knowledge rapidly begins to fade.  I think it’s really important to strategically time GIS training exercises.  Furthermore, regardless of what the staff’s experience level is, or whether or not they are receiving training, there is work to be done, always.  Like we said, the geography of the jurisdiction is changing.  If it weren’t, there would be little need for a GIS.  What needs to be kept in mind is that if staff is unable to cope with the workload, for whatever reason, things can get behind.  We should be aware of the fact that it is rather difficult to effectively put into practice something that is totally new.  Operating a GIS can be rather difficult itself, anyway. A department can sometimes find itself in a big hole, quickly and at no particular fault of its own, if pre-planning and organizational steps have been incomplete or overlooked.

 

************************************************************************************************************ 

 

We have all seen the kinds of situations described above, in parts or in total, happen in our organizations.  They are not new.  So what to do?

 

In watching these things, I’ve become pretty sure that the technology exists to implement steps in the process that may help avoid, or at least minimize, big bumps in the road.  Some places are probably already doing things similar to what I foresee.  If so, we need to find them and/or they need to make themselves known. These things are by no means a panacea, nor are they especially abstract or enigmatic.  Nor is this a complete list.  But if nothing else maybe they will just inspire thought. Ok, so here’s the stuff I’ve really wanted to talk about all along…

 

First, organizations can be strategic by noting which staff members are enthusiastic about or interested in GIS and which aren’t, and exploiting this avenue.  Those who want to use GIS can play key roles in the implementation of the GIS.  Their facility with and comprehension of GIS, that is their capacity, can be built over time by interacting with the contractor regarding all facets of data production and maintenance.  Then they can receive well-timed training.  Staff that does not participate actively in the implementation of the GIS still plays a vital role in the success of the program by generation of hardcopy support and backup documentation, QA’ing the resulting digital output, and etc.  People become most engaged in learning when they are interested in the subject matter. Dealing with the contractor, interested staff begins to pick up on GIS techniques.  Training – especially if provided by the contractor – can be strategically inserted and well worth the time. 

 

Second, instead of a complete handoff of the completed GIS dataset from contractor to client – where the organization has to take on all the work, fully and immediately, and the contractor collects his check and moves on to the next client – what if the contractor simply continued to do data maintenance?  This could happen under another contract or an extension of the original.  Places I have worked usually used a routine whereby digital data was compared to existing hardcopy documents and then approved by the staff – we mentioned this QA arrangement above. The process is iterative if problems are found.  Why not just continue this routine?  There are all kinds of new and effective ways that GIS interfaces with the internet.  It seems that the necessary information could be passed back and forth between both parties via the internet, or in a more traditional way.  What this can do is buy time for the organization. It lets existing staff build its GIS capacity rather than having the technology abruptly and maybe uncomfortably transferred to it.  Under this regime, the organization doesn’t have to hire new staff that may depart sooner than later because of a larger salary available elsewhere.  Nor is present staff forced to be retrained to do in a totally different way the job they’ve been doing for years. The upshot is that money is saved.  If the cost of continuing the contract is less than the cost of a new hire, unhappy workers, or underutilized/unfulfilled training sessions, then the organization is better off. 

 

Finally, can the necessary pieces of information needed in the data maintenance process, and ultimately the jurisdiction’s updated geography, be posted to a website?  IMS is the name of the ESRI product that we all know can handle (at least in part) such a task.  It seems to me that present-day GIS data development projects should necessarily include IMS (or similar) site development.  Everything is going in that direction, and once you have all your data you are probably going to want to, or have to, put it online anyway.  The website can be not just a tool in the decision-making process, but also a tool in the data maintenance process, as well.  Other tools in the maintenance process should be your fax machine, scanner, email, CD-ROMs, and mailing tubes.  These get needed information back and forth from organization to consultant and back again.  The IMS site could be managed and hosted by the consultant, and transferred to the organization, if that is what’s desired, at a later date.  Those interested in GIS in the organization – the “capacity builders” – can be intermediary in this website process, as well. Things can be adequately secured with passwords or otherwise – don’t worry.  I’m convinced this is not that big of a deal.  People are doing this or something like it. 

 

************************************************************************************************************

 

Overall, private firms may be better equipped to do GIS work than public organizations.  They are after all the agent of transfer of GIS technology; they have the knowledge base already.   Their GIS skills, experience, and infrastructure are, by definition, superior to their client’s.  Private firms may fare better at hiring and retaining the best talent as they can typically offer larger salaries.  If we accept all this as fact, then let’s utilize it fully.  The point is that rather than taking a bigger bite than can be chewed, when an organization implements a GIS it can put things in place to build capacity internally by allowing traditional routines to continue, and innovation to come in more gradually.  Mappers can keep mapping, those who are interested in GIS can be the conduit between the hardcopy world and the consultant’s digital realm.  The data can then be monitored, but also used, by the appropriate people, if not everyone. Eventually, the contract can be restructured so that the organization takes on more or all responsibility, since they have built up the capacity to do so.  Finally, the organization may have avoided costly investment in an employee that is lured away by a higher paying private job.  To follow up on Britton, organizations may be better served by using the carrot rather than the stick in implementing GIS

 

I’ve been away from the game for a couple of years, so maybe this model is what everyone uses now.  Or maybe something better.  Either way GIS, while 30 years old, is (still) an innovation.  Implementing one, big or small, is a major investment, sometimes in unaccountable ways.  To be sure then, there’s no reason not to become as educated as possible about GIS and its ever-changing technology before putting one in place[4]. 

 

I’m interested to know what you think.