some level of investment already exists in electronic data processing
some experience w/ database management & mapping systems . . .
some combination of mainframes, workstations, Pcs
GIS technology moving into an environment w/ its own institutional structures
departments, areas of responsibility
as an integrating technology more organizational changes required
cooperation, breaking down of barriers, etc. may have been arguments FOR GIS in the first place
organizational change is often DIFFICULT to achieve and can lead to FAILURE of a GIS project
organizational & institutional issues more often reasons for failure rather than technical issues
growth divided into a number of stages
most prominent model proposed by R. L. Nolan in 1973
use for low profile tasks within a major user department
desire to use inactive resources completely
efforts to centralize computing & control
formal systems development policies introduced
rate of increase in cost slows
greater maturity in mgmt. of computing
computing seen as an organization-wide resource
application development continues in a controlled way
GIS will be managed by data processing dept. as a service
probably run on that dept.s server or mainframe
this model fits AM/FM & Land Information System applications best
notion of adding geographical access to existing administrative database
thus implementation really begins at Stage 2 of Nolans model (contagion)
if acquisition successful, use and costs will grow rapidly, leading to control in Stage 3
model assumes GIS will NOT require large supporting infrastructure
unlike central data processing facility w/staff of operators, programmers, consultants, etc.
few systems progress beyond Stage 2 - process of contagion still underway, GIS is still new
stage 2 is slow with GIS b/c of need to educate/train users in new approach
support by mgmt. may evaporate before honeymoon is over! No Stage 3 or 4
this will change rapidly over next few years
resistance to change has always been a problem in technological innovation
stage 1 requires a missionary within an existing department
stage 2 requires commitment of top mgmt., similar commitment of individuals w/in departments
despite economic, operational, even political advantages of GIS, the technology is new and outside the experience of many senior managers
ample evidence of past failure of GIS projects
initial missionary is an obvious scapegoat for failure
Chrisman (1988) documents the role of various leaders in the early technical development of GIS
similar roles within organizations will likely never be documented!
perhaps they will ignore managerial issues
planning teams often forced to deal with short-term issues
perhaps no time to address longer-term management issues
a formerly stable workforce may be disrupted
e.g., some jobs may disappear!
or some jobs may be redefined, e.g., drafting staff reassigned to digitizing
e.g., former keyboard operators may now need to do database query operations
drafting staff may need computing skills
people comfortable in their roles will not seek change
e.g., people must be persuaded of benefits of change through education/training
departments that are expected to interact and exchange data must be willing to do so!
adequate for early phases of acquisition but must be replaced by a group with a more well-defined decision-making responsibility
usually painful to give a single dept. authority (funds must be reassigned to that dept.)
but this usually assures a higher rate of success
consulting is then mandated from related user departments through committees
typically made on technical grounds
then modified to meet pressing political, organizational issues
a system manager responsible for day-to-day operation, staffing, financing, meeting of user requests
planning team may NOT recognize necessity of these positions
staff for data input, report production
personnel dept. will be unfamiliar w/nature of positions, qualifications, SALARIES
management must take a more active role than just providing money & resources
support implementation of multi-disciplinary GIS teams
help to develop organizational strategies for crossing internal political boundaries
support interagency agreements to assist in data sharing & data acquisition
staff and management must be kept current in the technology and applications
project staff must continue to promote the benefits of GIS, even after it has been adopted
ensures continued financial & political support
projects should be of high quality and value
high profile projects often gain public support
project must be seen to be responsive to users needs
continue to explore ways to make GIS quick and efficient to use
carefully developed implementation plans
plans for checking on progress
both necessary to ensure controlled management and continued support
follow-up plans must assess progress
need check points for assessing this. . .
perhaps study of costs and benefits
Chrisman, N.R., 1988. "The risks of software innovation: a case study of the Harvard lab," The American Cartographer 15:291-300.
Croswell, P., 1991. "Obstacles to GIS implementation and guidelines to increase the opportunity for success," Journal of the Urban and Regional Information Systems Association, 3(1):43-56.
Foley, M.E., 1988. "Beyond the bits, bytes and black boxes: institutional issues in successful LIS/GIS management," Proceedings, GIS/LIS 88, ASPRS/ACSM, Falls Church, VA, pp. 608- 617.
Forrest, E., G.E. Montgomery, G.M. Juhl, 1990. Intelligent Infrastructure Workbook: A Management-Level Primer on GIS, A-E-C Automation Newsletter, PO BOX 18418, Fountain Hills, AZ 85269-8418. Describes issues in developing management support during project planning and suggests strategies for successful adoption of a project.
Johansen, E., 1990. "City's GIS tracks the California oil spill," GIS World 3(2):34-7.
King, J.L. and K.L. Kraemer, 1985. The Dynamics of Computing, Columbia University Press, New York. Presents a model of adoption of computing within urban governments, and results of testing the model on two samples of cities. Includes discussion of adoption factors and the Nolan stage model.
Kuhn, T.S., 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Nolan, R.L., 1973. "Managing the computer resource: a stage hypothesis," Communications of the ACM 16:339-405.
Rhind, D.W., 1988. "Personality as a factor in the development of a discipline: the example of computer- assisted cartography," The American Cartographer 15:277- 90.
http://dusk.geo.orst.edu/buffgis/imp.html