urisa gis capability maturity model

URISA Local Agency GIS Capability Maturity Model

2011 North Carolina GIS ConferenceFebruary 17, 2011

Greg Babinski, GISPURISA President-ElectFinance & Marketing ManagerKing County GIS CenterSeattle, WA

Agenda


Why Develop a GCMM? • 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 Group Critique• Walkthrough• Critique

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

The Ubiquitous Municipal GIS

GIS has become a common component of city & county governmentAll large and most medium sized cities & counties have established GIS operationsMany small sized jurisdictions have a GIS31 of 39 Washington Counties have public web mapping capability implying GIS operations of some sortDozens 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 uniqueCity and county business focus often variesPopulationNature and level of economic development



Variations in Municipal GIS Operations

What causes variation in municipal GIS Operations?GIS development history and fundingGIS operational budget and staffingGIS strategic planMunicipality’s institutional expectationsGIS 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


What is a Capability Maturity Model?

A tool to assess an organization’s ability to accomplish a defined task or set of tasksOriginated with the Software Engineering Institute

Objective evaluation of software contractorsSEI published Managing the Software Process 1989SEI CMM is process focused

Other applications of the capability maturity model concept:System engineeringProject managementRisk managementInformation technology service providers



There are many ways to answer:With an external focus:

Best practicesBenchmarking

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?



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

get something done.

Level 2 – Repeatable processes – typically based on recalling and repeating how the process was done the last time.

Level 3 – Defined process – the process is written down (documented) and serves to guide consistent performance within the organization.

Level 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.

Level 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) ModelTo 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 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 technologyCommonly recognized quality dataOrganizational best practices appropriate for municipal business use

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

Enabling capabilityExecution ability



Enabling Capability (21 components):TechnologyDataResourcesInfrastructureGIS professional staff

Execution Ability (14 components):Ability of the staff to maximize use of available capabilityAbility 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 2009Based 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 Survey

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



2010 GIS CMM Update

URISA Municipal GISCMM CritiqueEnabling Capability Components

URISA Municipal GISCMM CritiqueExecution Ability Components



URISA Municipal 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 Municipal 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

Possible URISA-USDOLETA Daylong GMCM Work Session at 2011 GIS-Pro in Indianapolis



Other ideas?

Open Discussion


Acknowledgements

Reviewers:Danielle Ayan, GISP, State of GeorgiaLisa Castle, King County GIS CenterRichard Gelb, King County DNRPGeorge Horning, King County GIS CenterMike Leathers, King County GIS Center

Washington State City & County GIS Managers2010 GIS-Pro Workshop Participants

Hilary PerkinsTwyla McDermottDavid DiBiase


References

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

Selena Rezvani, M.S.W., An Introduction to Organizational Maturity Assessment: MeasuringOrganizational 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


Contact InformationGreg Babinski, GISP, King County GIS Center, Seattle, [email protected]

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