Paper delivered by Greg Babinski at the 2016 American Society of Public Administration in Seattle, on March 22, 2017.

1. Greg Babinski, MA, GISP
King County GIS Center
Finance & Marketing Manager
URISA Past-President
URISA GIS Management Institute Founding Chair
2016 ASPA Conference
New Traditions in Public Administration
Seattle, Washington
March 22, 2016

2.  Microsoft
 Gates Foundation
 Boeing
 Paccar
 Nordstrom's
 Amazon
 Starbucks
 Port of Seattle
 Weyerhaeuser
 Univ. of
Washington
 Google
 Skype
 Global Innovation
Exchange
Geography has always been a major integrative element in
municipal administration.
- Dr. Costis Toregas, President-Emeritus of the Public Technology Institute, (United Nations Conference on GIS)
Population: 2,044,000 (13th most populous US county)
Area: 2130 square miles (sea level to 8,000’)
39 incorporated cities
Viable agricultural and private forestry areas
Remote wilderness & watershed lands
King County: 13,000 employees & $9 billion biennial budget

3. Typical GIS Business Case
End result is a variety of financial and non-financial benefits.

4. 5
GIS Governance in King County

5. 6
GIS Choice in King County

6. Using GIS to leverage geographic assets:
Regional Transfer of Development Rights
http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/stewardship/sustainable-building/transfer-
development-rights/tdr-map-viewer.aspx
Confronting Climate Change

7. Using GIS to leverage demographic assets:
Veterans’ Levy Services
http://www.kingcounty.gov/operations/DCHS/Services/Levy/LeviStrapMapKC.aspx
Equity and Social Justice

8. Using GIS to leverage financial assets:
Smart Growth
http://www.gfoa.org/sites/default/files/GFR_AUG_13_78.pdf
http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/research/the-fiscal-implications-of-development-
patterns
Best Run Government

9. GIS Performance in King County
End-User Perspective
Professional Analysis
Evidence:
 ROI
 Users
 Professional Assessment

10. AN ANALYSIS OF BENEFITS FROM USE OF
GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS BY
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
-Prof. R. O. Zerbe
http://tinyurl.com/kcgisroi
GIS delivers significant ROI for King
County:
$776 million in net financial benefits
from 1998-2010, and $87-180 million
in 2010 alone.
GIS Performance in King County: ROI

11. GIS Performance in King County: Users
2010: <1,000 GIS Users
2013: 4,600+ GIS Users

12. URISA’s GIS Management Institute
Enhancing GIS Operational Effectiveness & ROI
Babinski’s Theory of GIS Management:
As GIS Operational Maturity Improves, ROI Increases

13. URISA’s GIS Management Institute
Enhancing GIS Operational Effectiveness & ROI
2014 GMI GIS
Metric Survey
found a negative
correlation
between agency
size and GIS
resources with
number of GIS
user support
provided
R=(-)0.2652)

14. URISA’s GIS Management Institute
Assessing KCGIS Against the GMI GIS Assessment Model
GIS Management Institute Assessment Tools:
 GIS Capability Maturity Model
 Geospatial Management Competency Model
 2015 GIS Organizational Metrics Survey
 GIS Glossary
King County GIS Assessment Team:
 George Horning, KCGIS Center Manager
 Dennis Higgins, GIS Client Services Manager
 Gary Hocking, KCIT SDM
 Mike Leathers, GIS Data Coordinator
 Greg Stought, Enterprise Services Manager
 Greg Babinski, Finance & Marketing Manager

15. KCGIS 2015 Self Assessment
Part 1: Organizational Metrics
URISA Conducted a 2015 GIS Metric Survey. KCGIS Self Assessment
compared KCGIS to all counties that participated:
 Found strong correlation between agency population and:
 GIS budget
 GIS staffing
 GIS Data storage
 External performance metrics (number of web application
users)
 Found a weak negative correlation between agency population,
budget, & staffing with:
 Internal performance metrics
 But without KCGIS, correlation would have been even more
negative!

16. KCGIS 2015 Self Assessment
Part 2: GISCMM: Enabling Capability
23 Enabling Capability Components
 Components focus on assets – the thing a GIS buys, develops,
or otherwise acquires
Rating scale:
1.00 Fully implemented
0.80 In progress with full resources available to achieve the
capability
0.60 In progress but with only partial resources available to
achieve the capability
0.40 Planned and with resources available to achieve the
capability
0.20 Planned but with no resources available to achieve the
capability
0.00 This desired, but is not planned

17. KCGIS 2015 Self Assessment
Part 2: GISCMM: Enabling Capability

18. KCGIS 2015 Self Assessment
Part 2A: GISCMM: Enabling Capability (Big Data)

19. KCGIS 2015 Self Assessment
Part 3: GISCMM: Execution Ability (Process Maturity)
22 Execution Ability Components
 Components focus on process maturity.
Rating scale:
Level 1 – Ad hoc (chaotic)
Level 2 – Repeatable
Level 3 – Defined process – the process is written down
(documented)
Level 4 – Managed process – the documented process is
measured when performed and the measurements are
compiled for analysis.
Level 5 – Optimized processes – The defined and managed
process is systematically improved on an on-going basis.

20. KCGIS 2015 Self Assessment
Part 3: GISCMM: Execution Ability (Process Maturity)

21. KCGIS 2015 Self Assessment
Part 4: GMCM: Management Competency
78 Individual Management Competencies
18 Competency Clusters
Rating scale:
Level 5: Advanced Competency (applied theory)
Level 4: Expert Competency (recognized authority)
Level 3: Intermediate Competency (applied theory)
Level 2: Novice Competency (limited experience)
Level 1: Fundamental Awareness Competency (basic
knowledge)

22. KCGIS 2015 Self Assessment
Part 4: GMCM: Management Competency

23. KCGIS 2015 Self Assessment
Key Action Items
 EA5: Application Development or Procurement Methodology (2)
 EA6: Project Management Methodology (2)
 GMCM 7: Team Management (3.33)
 GMCM 12: Strategic Planning and Action (3)
 GMCM 14: Geospatial Project Management (3)

24. Next Steps
Enhancing GIS Operational Effectiveness & ROI
King County GIS Center:
 Participate in URISA GMI GIS Assessment service to acquire peer
agency data for further analysis
 Informs skills assessment
 Informs 2017-2018 budget
 Informs 2017-2018 GIS O&M plan & Future Strategic Planning
Additional Zerbe GIS ROI research: 30+ similar GIS operations:
 Complete GMI GIS Assessment
 GIS ROI analysis against the Zerbe GIS ROI methodology
 Results publically available for research and analysis
 Zerbe team would analyze & report on the causal relationship
between GIS metrics, capability, maturity, performance, and ROI

25. Contact Information
Greg Babinski, MA, GISP
Finance & Marketing Manager
King County GIS Center
201 South Jackson Street
Seattle, WA 98104
P: 206-477-4402
E: greg.babinski@kingcounty.gov
T: @gbabinski
W: www.kingcounty.gov/gis
URISA Past-President
GIS Management Institute Founding Chair
W: www.urisa.org/gmi