Upload
greg-babinski
View
166
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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?
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
URISA Local Government GIS Capability Maturity Model
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?
URISA Local Government GIS Capability Maturity Model
Why Develop a GISCMM?
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?
URISA Local Government GIS Capability Maturity Model
Why Develop a GISCMM?
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?
URISA Local Government GIS Capability Maturity Model
Why Develop a GISCMM?
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
URISA Local Government GIS Capability Maturity Model
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.
URISA Local Government GIS Capability Maturity Model
What is a Capability Maturity Model?
What is a Capability Maturity Model?
CMM process levels are usually defined as:
URISA Local Government GIS Capability Maturity Model
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.)
URISA Local Government GIS Capability Maturity Model
Why Develop a GISCMM?
Why Develop a GISCMM?
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
URISA Local Government GIS Capability Maturity Model
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.
URISA Local Government GIS Capability Maturity Model
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
URISA Local Government GIS Capability Maturity Model
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
URISA Local Government GIS Capability Maturity Model
Enabling Capability Components:
Proposed URISA GIS Capability Maturity Model
URISA Local Government GIS Capability Maturity Model
Enabling Capability Assessment Scale:
Proposed URISA GIS Capability Maturity Model
URISA Local Government GIS Capability Maturity Model
Execution Ability Components:
Proposed URISA GIS Capability Maturity Model
URISA Local Government GIS Capability Maturity Model
Execution Ability Assessment Scale:
Proposed URISA GIS Capability Maturity Model
URISA Local Government GIS Capability Maturity Model
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
URISA Local Government GIS Capability Maturity Model
Infrastructure Results:
Cites ranged from 0.43 to 0.89
Counties ranged from 0.27 to 1.00
2009 GIS CMM Survey
URISA Local Government GIS Capability Maturity Model
2009 GIS CMM Survey
Infrastructure Results:
Cites ranged from 0.43 to 0.89
Counties ranged from 0.27 to 1.00
URISA Local Government GIS Capability Maturity Model
Results Compared to Individual Agencies
2009 GIS CMM Update
URISA Local Government GIS Capability Maturity Model
Process Ability Results:
Cites range from 1.00 to 3.93
Counties range from 1.00 to 4.57
2009 GIS CMM Survey
URISA Local Government GIS Capability Maturity Model
2009 GIS CMM Survey
Process Ability Results:
Cites range from 1.00 to 3.93
Counties range from 1.00 to 4.57
URISA Local Government GIS Capability Maturity Model
2009 GIS CMM Survey
Results Compared to Individual Agencies
URISA Local Government GIS Capability Maturity Model
URISA Local Government GISCMM Critique
Questions
Suggestions
Discussion
Add benchmarking metrics?
Online version?
What else is missing from the model?
URISA Local Government GIS Capability Maturity Model
Portfolio
Peer Review
Certification
Institutionalization
Other ideas
Refining the URISA Local Government GIS Capability Maturity Model & Next Steps
URISA Local Government GIS Capability Maturity Model
Portfolio
Ensures more rigorous self assessment
Promotes best practices
Supports peer review
Enhances credibility of results
Refining the URISA Local Government GIS Capability Maturity Model & Next Steps
URISA Local Government GIS Capability Maturity Model
Peer Review
Normalizes results
Enhances credibility of rating
URISA Local Government GIS Capability Maturity Model
Refining the URISA Local Government GIS Capability Maturity Model & Next Steps
Certification & Institutionalization
Enhance credibility of results
Promote sound professional practices
Similar to ISO 9000 and CMMI certification
Refining the URISA Local Government GIS Capability Maturity Model & Next Steps
URISA Local Government GIS Capability Maturity Model
Certification & Institutionalization
Green Building Council LEED Certification model?
Refining the URISA Local Government GIS Capability Maturity Model & Next Steps
URISA Local Government GIS Capability Maturity 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
Refining the URISA Local Government GIS Capability Maturity Model & Next Steps
URISA Local Government GIS Capability Maturity Model
Refining the URISA Local Government GIS Capability Maturity Model & Next Steps
Link to ROI
URISA Local Government GIS Capability Maturity Model
Refining the URISA Local Government GIS Capability Maturity Model & Next Steps
URISA Local Government GIS Capability Maturity Model
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
Refining the URISA Local Government GIS Capability Maturity Model & Next Steps
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
URISA Local Government GIS Capability Maturity Model
Refining the URISA Local Government GIS Capability Maturity Model & Next Steps
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
Refining the URISA Local Government GIS Capability Maturity Model & Next Steps
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.
URISA Local Government GIS Capability Maturity Model
Refining the URISA Local Government GIS Capability Maturity Model & Next Steps
Other ideas?
Open Discussion
Continue the discussion via the URISA work group
URISA Local Government GIS Capability Maturity Model
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
URISA Local Government GIS Capability Maturity Model
References
URISA Local Government GIS Capability Maturity Model
Winter 2011 ArcNews Article: 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
URISA Local Government GIS Capability Maturity Model
Contact Information
Greg Babinski, GISP, King County GIS Center, Seattle, WA
[email protected] 206-263-3753
URISA Local Government GIS Capability Maturity Model