you can’t manage what you don’t measure urisa’s proposed municipal gis capability maturity...

You Can’t Manage What you Don’t Measure URISA’s Proposed Municipal GIS Capability Maturity Model

2011 Annual URISA/AAUG Luncheon

February 23, 2011

Greg Babinski, GISP URISA President-Elect

Finance & Marketing Manager King County GIS Center Seattle, WA

URISA’s Pacific Northwest Education Center

www.kingcounty.gov/gis/training

www.urisa.org/workshops

http://www.kingcounty.gov/gis/training

http://www.urisa.org/workshops

URISA’s Pacific Northwest Education Center

Greg Babinski, GISP

KCGIS Center Responsibilities:

• KCGIS Center Budget Development & Financial Management

• Manage King County GIS Center Marketing

• Project Management & GIS Consulting

Education & Certification:

• BA Geography, Wayne State University, 1971

• MA Geography, Wayne State University, 1977

• GIS Certified Professional, 2004

Work Experience:

• KCGIS Center Finance & Marketing Manager, 2002 - present

• KCGIS Manager, 1998 – 2001

• GIS Mapping Supervisor, East Bay Municipal Utility District, 1989-1998

• Design Supervisor, Johnson-Loft Engineers, 1985 – 1989

• Design Supervisor, Sohio Prudhoe Bay Project, 1978 – 1985

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?

URISA Local Agency GIS Capability Maturity Model


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



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

When is GIS Development Complete?


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



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) Model

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


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 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 (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



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


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

Portfolio

Peer Review

Certification

Institutionalization

Add Benchmarking Metrics

Online Version

Variable Weighting

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

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 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

Hilary Perkins

Twyla McDermott

David DiBiase


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











Greg Babinski, GISP, King County GIS Center, Seattle, WA [email protected] 206-263-3753

Winter 2011 ArcNews Article: http://www.esri.com/news/arcnews/winter1011articles/urisa-proposes.html Access this presentation on www.Slideshare.net at: http://www.slideshare.net/gbabinski/urisa-gis-capability-maturity-model Or search ‘Greg Babinski’ King County GIS Center/URISA Pacific Northwest Education Center www.kingcounty.gov/gis/training


Further Information

mailto:[email protected]

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



http://www.slideshare.net/

http://www.slideshare.net/gbabinski/urisa-gis-capability-maturity-model









http://www.kingcounty.gov/gis/training

you can’t manage what you don’t measure urisa’s proposed municipal gis capability maturity...

Leadership & Management