A Successful Pictometry Implementation Story - 2016Oct
GEOALBERTA 2011 - GIS Portal Implementation
1. GIS EVOLUTION – From Drafting to Dreaming
PLAN VS REALITY:
A Case Study in GIS Portal Implementation
2. 2011 Conference
For Review…
• Requirements Analysis process
• RFP process
• Contract
• Post-Contract
• Beta-Testing
• Training
• General Rollout
• Lessons Learned
3. 2011 Conference
The Project Team
• Contract Administrator: GIS Coordinator
• Project Lead: Corporate GIS Analyst
• Base Server Setup: I.T. Systems Analyst
• ArcGIS Server Install/Config: I.T.
Database Adminstrator
• Geocortex Install: I.T. Database
Administrator
4. 2011 Conference
Project Team Realities
• Minimal I.T. involvement – kept to base server
and software setup, configuration & install
• 2 Corporate GIS Staff – complete with 1-year
mat leave
• Corporate GIS also responsible for operational
GIS support for 19 business areas
5. 2011 Conference
Project Leadership
• Original Project Lead went on maternity leave
– Meant a delay of 3 months before work was
restarted
– Meant starting from scratch for system knowledge
– New Project Lead had no training
• Project Lead transferred to the GIS Coordinator
• Decision made to make permanent the GIS
Coordinator as Project Lead in order to provide
stability
6. 2011 Conference
I.T. Involvement
• Setup of the virtual server
• Configuration design for ArcGIS Server
• Install ArcGIS Server
• Install Geocortex Essentials + custom code
• Required: training in GIS and web mapping
needs (sent them to San Diego)
• NO in house programming resources!
7. 2011 Conference
The Original “Plan”
• Internal requirements analysis & research
• RFP and contract award
• 3-month build by contractor
• 2 months to tweak and develop training plan
• Begin department by department rollout at
month 13
• Year 2: Gather user feedback and do
enhancements
8. 2011 Conference
Requirements Analysis
• Done in house by both the GIS Coordinator
and the Corporate GIS Analyst
• Used available experience and knowledge
• Targeted a generic municipal GIS portal design
• Evaluated various sites on the internet
• Cherry-picked out desired features and
functions
9. 2011 Conference
Scoping Document
• A sample survey of other organization’s sites
• Compiled a document of likes and dislikes
• Included:
– Site description, layout and design
– Available functionality
– Available content (e.g. data layers)
– Cartography
– What we liked
– What we didn’t like
11. 2011 Conference
Requirements Analysis
• The process followed was efficient
• No clients were interviewed
– Existing knowledge of city business processes
– Existing knowledge of GIS portals
– Existing knowledge of available technology
• Did not require the assistance of an outside
party
12. 2011 Conference
Why Didn’t We Interview Clients?
• Our clients told us they didn’t know what to
ask for
• We knew better than our clients how a typical
GIS Portal looked and functioned
• We had a good knowledge base of all of the
target business areas
• We already had their buy-in
13. 2011 Conference
RFP Process: RFP Contents
• Company experience requirements
• Tightly written Schedule A
– Very detailed functional requirements
– Detailed non-functional requirements
• Training and Tech Support
requirements
• Multiple measurements for evaluation
• Request for itemized cost in the bid
15. 2011 Conference
RFP Process – RFP Release
• Targeted release
– Vendors with technical depth
– Vendors with previous ArcGIS Server experience
– Vendors with proven track record
– Preferably western Canada location
• Targeted a small number of known vendors
16. 2011 Conference
RFP Evaluation
• Demonstrated experience: firm and team
members
• Understanding of scope of work
• Specification compliance
• Proposed solution; quality; completeness;
technology; flexibility
• Workplan and schedule
• Cost; acquisition and maintenance
• References
17. 2011 Conference
RFP Results
• 3 submissions from 4 target companies
• A $100,000 spread in proposed cost
• Variety of proposed solutions:
– 1 custom build
– 1 ArcGIS Server COTS solution
– 1 non-ArcGIS Server COTS solution
19. 2011 Conference
Contract Process
• ArcGIS Server was installed in house by
St Albert I.T. staff
• Geocortex Essentials was installed by St Albert
I.T. staff with advice from Latitude
Geographics
• Custom code written by Latitude
• Initial site designed and configured by
Latitude
• Involved a minimal level of training
20. 2011 Conference
Notes About the Contract Process
• Good project management in general by
contractor
• At times the process was painful for both
• Revolving door for technical support
• Resulted in revised processes
• Certain parts were painful
– Map design
– Error resolving
Note to
self…
21. 2011 Conference
Notes About the Contract Process
• Some delay on the part of St Albert in getting
information to the contractor
• Took approximately 4 months to resolve all of
the errors
• Difficult to differentiate source of errors:
ArcGIS Server vs Geocortex Essentials vs
custom code
22. 2011 Conference
Post-Contract: Site Rebuild
• No work for the first PC 4 months
• Month PC 5: began complete rebuilt of site
from scratch using the original site as a
template
– To understand how to use the software
– Complete technical documentation on how to
built the site
– An opportunity to revise and improve the design
of the site
• Took 3 months
23. 2011 Conference
Post-Contract: Site Rebuild
Wrote technical build documentation in house
• Better understanding of how the site works
• Disaster recovery
• Less reliance on contractor to make changes
• Better able to do in house enhancements
• Saved $$ on having the contractor do it
• Did not have confidence in the contractor’s ability to
do it to expected specifications
24. 2011 Conference
Post-Contract: Site Rebuild
• Improved the cartography
• Tweaked the scale dependencies
• Tuned and indexed the data
• Revised the report templates
• Revised the map templates
• Revised available tools
• Moved a lot of configuration to the default
(base) site
26. 2011 Conference
Post-Contract: User Manual
• User manual written in house by Project Lead
• Revised after the post-contract site revision
• A detailed walkthrough:
– Site layout
– Toolbars
– Individual tools
– Reports
– Map templates
– Frequently Asked Questions
27. 2011 Conference
Post-Contract: Beta Testing
• Searched for initial beta bunny at PC
month 3
• Had difficulties finding someone interested
who also had the time and need to use it
• Went through a few before landing on one
• Used their feedback and questions to
guide the User Manual FAQ and site
revision
28. 2011 Conference
Post-Contract: Beta Testing
• Began full beta testing at month PC 13
• One-on-one training sessions for 3 months
• Cross section of organization
• Total ~ 21 beta testers
• Made some small changes based on feedback
• Did not use a formal reporting system
• Just wanted them to use the system
• Had a few testers that received no training at all
29. 2011 Conference
Post-Contract: Monitoring Usage
• We required a way to monitor usage of the
system as training was rolled out
• Useful for seeing the uptake from users
• Also used for site and system performance
monitoring
• Provides a useful snapshot across time
• Using Geocortex Optimizer
31. 2011 Conference
Post-Contract: Beta-Training
• Targeted month PC 17
• Wanted to test training method on a beta-
group
• Targeted single small department
• Took 2 months to get a workable 2-hr time
slot – month PC 19
• Targeted a second department – still took 2
months to get a scheduled time slot
32. 2011 Conference
Post-Contract: Beta-Training
• Worked in terms of demonstrating that the
training method worked
• Confirmed that training was possible without
a computer room (although not the best
situation)
• Illustrated the difficulty in trying to do a
department-by-department rollout – think
herding cats!
33. 2011 Conference
Post-Contract: General Training
• Used training method solidified in beta-training
sessions
• Targeted examples to attendees’ work functions
• Engaged HR to:
– Facilitate course advertising
– Take care of course registration
– Help with general room setup
– Do general introductions
– Facilitate course feedback
34. 2011 Conference
Post-Contract: General Training
• Sessions were 2 hours
• 5 general sessions of 6 – 13 people
• Many additional one-on-one sessions for
people with difficult schedules
• A good cross section of City staff
• Intended to place trained users around the
org. to assist with helping non-trained users
35. 2011 Conference
Comment on Training
• St Albert does not have a computer training
classroom
• Setting up a temporary classroom requires
many laptops and a lot of I.T. time
• We have sought to reduce the workload on I.T.
as much as possible
• An on-computer session would need to be
least 4 – 8 hours
36. 2011 Conference
Managing Expectations
• Ability to complete the project
• How difficult/easy problems are to solve
• Rollout schedule
• Release expectations
• Functional expectations
• Data expectations
• General limited site vs the flexibility of
desktop mapping software
37. 2011 Conference
General Rollout – pending
• Site access via staff Intranet portal
• Make User Manual available for download
• Staff awareness
• Pushing through the firewall for controlled
external access
40. 2011 Conference
Resource Realities
• Staff turnover
• High non-project workload
• Expectations for the
timely completion
of other work
• It’s a priority, but…
41. 2011 Conference
20-20 Hindsight: What Worked
• Internal requirements analysis
• Very detailed RFP Schedule A
• Targeted RFP release
• Fixed-price contract
• COTS solution
• Internal documentation
• Internal training
• Having contractor do initial configuration
• Post-contract debriefing with contractor
42. 2011 Conference
20-20 Hindsight: What Was Difficult
• Finding beta-testers
• Project staff turnover – internal and
contractor
• Project status tracking
• Contractor documentation
• Timeline prediction
• Balancing demands of other
work
43. 2011 Conference
20-20 Hindsight: What Didn’t Work
• Contractor-designed map services
• Installing software and custom code at the
same time
• Revolving contractor technical resources
• Department-by-department rollout
44. 2011 Conference
Where Are We Now?
• Over 80 people trained
• On budget
• 2+ years behind schedule for complete rollout
• Just completed an upgrade of both ArcGIS
Server and Geocortex Essentials
• In the middle of general release
• Researching the move from a .NET platform to
Flex or Silverlight
45. 2011 Conference
Where Are We Now?
• A single internal site
– A mash of 5 separate uncached map services
– Slower, but more flexible for the users
• Planning for an ‘Express’ cached site
– Fast drawing speed
– Less flexibility of displayed data layers
• Need to look at performance tuning
• Looking at options for external map delivery
46. 2011 Conference
A Note About Building Cached Sites
• Research before you start building
• Cached site planning must be done as part of
the design process
– It will affect how you design your map services
– It will affect your scale dependencies
– It may be driven by the use of external data
services such as Google or Bing
– It may affect your symbology, labeling and
annotation
