URISA’s Local Government GIS Capability Maturity Model

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.

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

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.

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?

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?

 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
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.

CMM process levels are usually defined as:
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.)

 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

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.

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

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

Enabling Capability
Components:

Enabling Capability Assessment Scale:

Execution Ability
Components:

Execution Ability Assessment Scale:

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

Infrastructure
Results:
Cites ranged
from 0.43 to
0.89
Counties
ranged from
0.27 to 1.00
2009 GIS CMM Survey

2009 GIS CMM Survey
Infrastructure
Results:
Cites ranged
from 0.43 to
0.89
Counties
ranged from
0.27 to 1.00

Results Compared to Individual Agencies
2009 GIS CMM Update

Process
Ability
Results:
Cites range
from 1.00 to
3.93
Counties range
from 1.00 to
4.57
2009 GIS CMM Survey

2009 GIS CMM Survey
Process
Ability
Results:
Cites range
from 1.00 to
3.93
Counties range
from 1.00 to
4.57

2009 GIS CMM Survey
Results Compared to Individual Agencies

2010 GIS CMM Update

URISA Local Government GISCMM Critique
 Questions
 Suggestions
 Discussion
 Add benchmarking metrics?
 Online version?
 What else is missing from the model?

 Portfolio
 Peer Review
 Certification
 Institutionalization
 Other ideas
Refining the URISA Local Government GIS
Capability Maturity Model & Next Steps

 Portfolio
 Ensures more rigorous self assessment
 Promotes best practices
 Supports peer review
 Enhances credibility of results

 Peer Review
 Normalizes results
 Enhances credibility of rating

 Certification & Institutionalization
 Enhance credibility of results
 Promote sound professional practices
 Similar to ISO 9000 and CMMI certification

 Certification & Institutionalization
 Green Building Council LEED Certification 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

 Link to ROI

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

 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

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

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.

 Other ideas?
 Open Discussion
 Continue the discussion via the URISA work group

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

References
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

Contact Information
Greg Babinski, GISP, King County GIS Center, Seattle, WA
Greg.babinski@kingcounty.gov
206-263-3753

URISA’s Local Government GIS Capability Maturity Model

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to URISA’s Local Government GIS Capability Maturity Model

More from Greg Babinski

Recently uploaded

URISA’s Local Government GIS Capability Maturity Model