URISA GIS Capability Maturity Model

2,156 views
2,049 views

Published on

Presentation to the 2011 North Carolina GIS Conference

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,156
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
552
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
69
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

URISA GIS Capability Maturity Model

  1. 1. URISA Local Agency GIS Capability Maturity Model 2011 North Carolina GIS Conference February 17, 2011 Greg Babinski, GISP URISA President-Elect Finance & Marketing Manager King County GIS Center Seattle, 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 discussionURISA Local Agency GIS Capability Maturity Model
  2. 2. Why Develop a GISCMM? 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 URISA Local Agency GIS Capability Maturity Model 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 Agency GIS Capability Maturity Model
  3. 3. Why Develop a GISCMM?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 URISA Local Agency GIS Capability Maturity ModelWhy Develop a GISCMM? 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 URISA Local Agency GIS Capability Maturity Model
  4. 4. 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 providersURISA Local Agency GIS Capability Maturity ModelWhy Develop a GISCMM?When is GIS Development Complete? 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 focusURISA Local Agency GIS Capability Maturity Model
  5. 5. 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 Agency GIS Capability Maturity ModelWhat is a Capability Maturity Model? 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.URISA Local Agency GIS Capability Maturity Model
  6. 6. Why Develop a GISCMM?To provide a means for any municipal GIS operation to gauge itsmaturity 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 Agency GIS Capability Maturity ModelWhy 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 CardURISA Local Agency GIS Capability Maturity Model
  7. 7. 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 Agency GIS Capability Maturity ModelProposed 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 abilityURISA Local Agency GIS Capability Maturity Model
  8. 8. 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 idealURISA Local Agency GIS Capability Maturity ModelProposed URISA GIS Capability Maturity ModelURISA Local Agency GIS Capability Maturity Model
  9. 9. Proposed URISA GIS Capability Maturity ModelEnabling Capability Components: URISA Local Agency GIS Capability Maturity ModelProposed URISA GIS Capability Maturity Model Enabling Capability Assessment Scale: URISA Local Agency GIS Capability Maturity Model
  10. 10. Proposed URISA GIS Capability Maturity ModelExecution Ability Components: URISA Local Agency GIS Capability Maturity ModelProposed URISA GIS Capability Maturity ModelExecution Ability Assessment Scale: URISA Local Agency GIS Capability Maturity Model
  11. 11. 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 Agency GIS Capability Maturity Model 2009 GIS CMM SurveyInfrastructure Results:Cites ranged from 0.43 to 0.89Counties ranged from 0.27 to 1.00 URISA Local Agency GIS Capability Maturity Model
  12. 12. 2009 GIS CMM SurveyInfrastructure Results:Cites ranged from 0.43 to 0.89Counties ranged from 0.27 to 1.00 URISA Local Agency GIS Capability Maturity Model 2009 GIS CMM SurveyResults Compared to Individual Agencies URISA Local Agency GIS Capability Maturity Model
  13. 13. 2009 GIS CMM SurveyProcess Ability Results:Cites range from 1.00 to 3.93Counties range from 1.00 to 4.57 URISA Local Agency GIS Capability Maturity Model 2009 GIS CMM SurveyProcess Ability Results:Cites range from 1.00 to 3.93Counties range from 1.00 to 4.57 URISA Local Agency GIS Capability Maturity Model
  14. 14. 2009 GIS CMM SurveyResults Compared to Individual Agencies URISA Local Agency GIS Capability Maturity Model 2010 GIS CMM Update URISA Local Agency GIS Capability Maturity Model
  15. 15. 2010 GIS CMM UpdateURISA Local Agency GIS Capability Maturity ModelURISA Municipal GISCMM CritiqueEnabling Capability Components
  16. 16. URISA Municipal GISCMM CritiqueEnabling Capability ComponentsURISA Municipal GISCMM CritiqueEnabling Capability Components
  17. 17. URISA Municipal GISCMM CritiqueEnabling Capability ComponentsURISA Municipal GISCMM CritiqueEnabling Capability Components
  18. 18. URISA Municipal GISCMM CritiqueEnabling Capability ComponentsURISA Municipal GISCMM CritiqueEnabling Capability Components
  19. 19. URISA Municipal GISCMM CritiqueEnabling Capability ComponentsURISA Municipal GISCMM CritiqueEnabling Capability Components
  20. 20. URISA Municipal GISCMM CritiqueEnabling Capability ComponentsURISA Municipal GISCMM CritiqueEnabling Capability Components
  21. 21. URISA Municipal GISCMM CritiqueExecution Ability ComponentsURISA Municipal GISCMM CritiqueExecution Ability Components
  22. 22. URISA Municipal GISCMM CritiqueExecution Ability ComponentsURISA Municipal GISCMM CritiqueExecution Ability Components
  23. 23. URISA Municipal GISCMM CritiqueExecution Ability ComponentsURISA Municipal GISCMM CritiqueExecution Ability Components
  24. 24. URISA Municipal GISCMM CritiqueExecution Ability ComponentsURISA Municipal GISCMM Critique Questions Suggestions Discussion Add benchmarking metrics? Online version? What else is missing from the model?URISA Local Agency GIS Capability Maturity Model
  25. 25. Refining the URISA Municipal GISCapability Maturity Model & Next Steps Portfolio Peer Review Certification Institutionalization Other ideasURISA Local Agency GIS Capability Maturity ModelRefining the URISA Municipal GISCapability Maturity Model & Next Steps Portfolio Ensures more rigorous self assessment Promotes best practices Supports peer review Enhances credibility of resultsURISA Local Agency GIS Capability Maturity Model
  26. 26. Refining the URISA Municipal GISCapability Maturity Model & Next Steps Peer Review Normalizes results Enhances credibility of ratingURISA Local Agency GIS Capability Maturity ModelRefining the URISA Municipal GISCapability Maturity Model & Next Steps Certification & Institutionalization Enhance credibility of results Promote sound professional practices Similar to ISO 9000 and CMMI certificationURISA Local Agency GIS Capability Maturity Model
  27. 27. Refining the URISA Municipal GISCapability Maturity Model & Next Steps Certification & Institutionalization Green Building Council LEED Certification model?URISA Local Agency GIS Capability Maturity ModelRefining the URISA Municipal GISCapability Maturity Model & Next Steps 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 ProposalURISA Local Agency GIS Capability Maturity Model
  28. 28. Refining the URISA Municipal GISCapability Maturity Model & Next Steps Link to ROIURISA Local Agency GIS Capability Maturity ModelRefining the URISA Municipal GISCapability Maturity Model & Next StepsURISA Local Agency GIS Capability Maturity Model
  29. 29. Refining the URISA Municipal GIS Capability Maturity Model & Next Steps DOLETA GTCM Missing Tier 9 ManagementCompetency 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 URISA Local Agency GIS Capability Maturity Model Refining the URISA Municipal GIS Capability Maturity Model & Next Steps GISCMM – GMCM Daylong Work Session at 2011 Washington GIS Conference Possible URISA-USDOLETA Daylong GMCM Work Session at 2011 GIS-Pro in Indianapolis URISA Local Agency GIS Capability Maturity Model
  30. 30. Refining the URISA Municipal GISCapability Maturity Model & Next Steps Other ideas? Open DiscussionURISA Local Agency GIS Capability Maturity ModelAcknowledgements 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 DiBiaseURISA Local Agency GIS Capability Maturity Model
  31. 31. ReferencesCapability 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 Managementin the Commonwealth, Virginia Information Technology Agency, 2008.Curtis, B., Hefley, W. E., and Miller, S. A.; People Capability Maturity Model (P-CMM), SoftwareEngineering Institute, 2001.Niessinka, F., Clerca, V., Tijdinka, T., and van Vlietb, H., The IT Service Capability Maturity Model,CIBIT Consultants | Educators, 2005Ford-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 ComputerScience, 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.pdfURISA Local Agency GIS Capability Maturity Model Contact Information Greg Babinski, GISP, King County GIS Center, Seattle, WA Greg.babinski@kingcounty.gov 206-263-3753 Winter 2011 ArcNews Article: http://www.esri.com/news/arcnews/winter1011articles/urisa-proposes.htmlURISA Local Agency GIS Capability Maturity Model

×