Greg Babinski presented on a study conducted to document the return on investment (ROI) of the King County GIS program. The study found that between 1992-2010, King County GIS generated $775 million in net benefits from increased productivity across county agencies. The study used interviews and surveys of GIS users to compare productivity "with and without" GIS. Future steps include publishing results, refining the methodology, and encouraging more ROI studies to help justify further GIS development.

1. USING ROI METHODOLOGY TO
DOCUMENT THE BENEFITS OF
KING COUNTY GIS
Greg Babinski, MA, GISP
Finance & Marketing Manager
King County GIS Center
Seattle, WA, USA
URISA Past-President
URISA GIS Management Institute Committee Chair
COGO Secretary
Summit At-Large Editor
2013 Washington GIS Conference Co-Chair
Geospatial World Forum
Rotterdam: 12 May 2013

2. Agenda
 GIS ROI Documentation Studies
 2010-2012 Oregon/King County GIS ROI Study
 Results
 Next Steps
 Discussion

3. ROI Estimates & Benefit-Cost Analysis

4.  Common tool for analyzing & configuring
development plans
 Typically result in an estimate or forecast of
business benefits
ROI Estimates & Benefit-Cost Analysis

5. KING COUNTY,
WASHINGTON
 Microsoft
 Gates Foundation
 Boeing
 Paccar
 Nordstrom's
 Amazon
 Starbucks
 Port of Seattle
 Weyerhaeuser
 Univ. of Washington
 Google
 Skype
Population (1,931,000 (14th 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

6. HOW IS GIS USED FOR KING COUNTY BUSINESS?
 Mapping
 Public information delivery
 Growth management & planning
 Property assessment
 Land development permitting
 Site selection
 Simulating environmental conditions
 Emergency response planning
 Crime analysis
 Transportation planning
 Bus & van routing
 Road maintenance management
 Public health service delivery
 Service center location analysis
 E911 operations
 Airport sound abatement
 Boundary management (legislative districts, voter
precincts, tax unit boundaries, etc.)
 And the list goes on…..

7. KCGIS Center & Agency GIS End-Users

8. KCGIS Center Funding Support 35 Agencies

9. King County GIS - Development History:
 Originated with 1992 PlanGraphics study
 1992 Benefit Cost Analysis
 PlanGraphics identified 126 business applications
and a $22 million capital cost estimate
 1992-1994 King County – Seattle Metro merger
 1993 joint King County – Metro GIS scoping plan
– reduced $6.8 million scope approved by King
County Council
 1993-1997 GIS capital project executed
 1997 KCGIS O&M begins
 2002 KCGIS Consolidation implemented

10. King County GIS – 1992 GIS ROI Estimate

11. King County GIS – 1992 GIS ROI Estimate

12. King County GIS - Development History:
 Originated with 1992 PlanGraphics study
 1992 Benefit Cost Analysis
 PlanGraphics identified 126 business applications
and a $22 million capital cost estimate
 1992-1994 King County – Seattle Metro merger
 1993 joint King County – Metro GIS scoping plan
– reduced $6.8 million scope approved by King
County Council
 1993-1997 GIS capital project executed
 1997 KCGIS O&M begins
 2002 KCGIS Consolidation implemented

13. 2004 KCGIS Issue 4 Report:
Reduced budget delivered reduced scope
 Only 15% of 126 applications completed via capital
project
 Significant data deficiencies recognized

14. 2010 KCGIS State of Development:
 500+/- desktop GIS users
 100,000 annual internal web based GIS user sessions
 2.2 million annual external web based GIS user sessions
 50 GIS professionals
 GIS use expanded from 12 to 35 county departments and
offices
 But where are we really on the optimal development of
GIS in King County?
 What was (is) our ROI?

15. GIS ROI Documentation Studies?
 Why are they not required?
 Why are they not performed?

16. GIS ROI Documentation Studies?
Baltimore County, MD

17. GIS ROI Documentation Studies?
Baltimore County, MD

18. Why GIS ROI Documentation Studies?
State of Oregon

19. Why GIS ROI Documentation Studies?
State of Oregon

20. GIS ROI Documentation Study Breakthrough
New Zealand

21. GIS ROI Documentation Study Breakthrough
New Zealand

22. Oregon/KCGIS GIS ROI Study Project
 Conceived during 2009 URISA AC in Anaheim
 Approach finalized during 2009 ULA in Seattle
 State of Oregon & King County joint funding
 KCGIS 2010 Priority Initiative
 Managed by KCGIS Center

23. KCGIS GIS ROI Study
Consultant Team from UW Evans School of Public Affairs:
 Prof. Richard W. Zerbe
 Danielle Fumia & Travis Reynolds
 Pradeep Singh & Tyler Scott

24. KCGIS GIS ROI Study
Consultant Team from UW Evans School of Public Affairs:
 Benefit-Cost Analysis Center

25. KCGIS GIS ROI Study
Consultant Team from UW Evans School of Public Affairs:
 Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis

26. KCGIS GIS ROI Study
 May 2010 RFP sent to targeted consultants
 June 2010 consultant selection
 August 2010 contract signed
 July 2010 work began
 September & October 2011 Preliminary Results
Released
 March 2012 Final Report Published

27. KCGIS GIS ROI Study
Scope of Work:
 Literature Review
 Qualitative Interviews (n = 30)
 Quantitative Survey (n = 200)
 Final ROI Report
 Revised Interview/Survey Instruments for future
studies

28. KCGIS GIS ROI Study Results
King County Enterprise GIS
Historical Development and Operational Costs
Year
Capital Costs (based
on allocation table
below) GIS PM Office Costs
KCGIS Center (TRC)
O&M Costs
Agency GIS Unit
Costs
Agency GIS End-User
Staff Costs Annual Total Costs
1991 $ 100,000 $ 104,000 $ 6,000 $ 210,000
1992 $ 100,000 $ 104,000 $ 6,000 $ 210,000
1993 $ 729,667 $ 104,000 $ 6,000 $ 839,667
1994 $ 2,173,667 $ 416,000 $ 400,000 $ 2,989,667
1995 $ 3,756,667 $ 416,000 $ 500,000 $ 4,672,667
1996 $ 2,512,000 $ 1,373,000 $ 600,000 $ 4,485,000
1997 $ 528,000 $ 1,760,000 $ 8,204,352 $ 703,300 $ 11,195,652
1998 $ 98,500 $ 1,477,000 $ 8,204,352 $ 2,003,300 $ 11,783,152
1999 $ 207,833 $ 1,099,000 $ 8,204,352 $ 2,919,800 $ 12,430,985
2000 $ 182,833 $ 1,134,000 $ 8,362,432 $ 2,926,300 $ 12,605,565
2001 $ 182,833 $ 1,077,000 $ 8,362,432 $ 2,926,300 $ 12,548,565
2002 $ 2,430,000 $ 5,675,072 $ 3,153,150 $ 11,258,222
2003 $ 2,777,000 $ 4,483,149 $ 4,961,720 $ 12,221,869
2004 $ 3,082,000 $ 4,479,987 $ 7,323,206 $ 14,885,194
2005 $ 3,148,000 $ 4,641,229 $ 6,865,133 $ 14,654,362
2006 $ 3,470,000 $ 4,584,320 $ 6,702,160 $ 14,756,480
2007 $ 4,058,000 $ 3,944,096 $ 6,869,797 $ 14,871,893
2008 $ 4,107,000 $ 4,339,296 $ 6,892,954 $ 15,339,250
2009 $ 3,884,000 $ 4,315,584 $ 6,578,260 $ 14,777,844
2010 $ 4,269,000 $ 3,975,712 $ 6,396,945 $ 14,641,657
2011 $ 4,400,000 $ 3,517,280 $ 5,921,860 $ 13,839,140
Total: $ 10,572,000 $ 1,144,000 $ 43,545,000 $ 86,793,645 $ 73,162,185 $ 215,216,830

29. Zerbe Methodology:
 ‘With versus without” research design.
 What would have happened if KCGIS applications had not been
implemented and how is King County better off having them?
 Literature review and qualitative interviews will identify key
benefits associated with GIS applications (e.g., increased
productivity).
 Questionnaire will allow assessment of the extent to which these
benefits have been realized across different groups of users of GIS
applications, as opposed to what these users would have done in the
absence of GIS applications.
 By comparing the “with and without” scenarios, we can assess and
monetize the added value of the GIS applications to compare to the
costs of implementation, maintenance, and/or additional training.
KCGIS GIS ROI Study

30. With or without survey methodology:
 How has GIS altered agency output levels?
 Benefits associated with FTE reductions to produce the same (pre-GIS)
level of output
 Benefits associated with enhanced production with the same FTE levels
 Three stage analysis:
 Interview agency heads and key employees to assess the types of
applications and business uses. Interviews were used to build an
employee survey.
 Employees and managers across King County responded to the survey to
record their pre and current (or with vs. without) GIS productivity by
output types.
 Interview and survey results were compiled by output type, agency, and
productivity levels. Results were then monetized.
 Monetized benefits compared to detailed GIS capital O&M,
and end-user costs
KCGIS GIS ROI Study: Methodology

31.  30 Detailed Interviews Completed
 175 Survey Responses (some partial responses)
KCGIS GIS ROI Study: Methodology

32. PERTINENT SURVEY QUESTIONS
Please estimate the number of each output you currently produce (in 2010), being clear
about the time frame (per day, per year, etc.). Also state the total number of outputs
from your agency (if known), and the number of employees and full-time employees
(FTEs) currently working on producing this output.
If you answered that you did not produce a given output in the previous section, you may
skip the personal production questions.
 How many units of this output do you personally produce? Choose # of units:
 How many units of this output do you personally produce Per Unit of Time:
 What percent of your time do you spend producing each output now? (%)
 What percent of your time do you spend producing each output now: Per Unit of
Time:
 Number of Employees in your workgroup (including you) currently producing this
output:
 Total FTEs in your workgroup (including you) currently producing this output:
KCGIS GIS ROI Study: Methodology

33. PERTINENT SURVEY QUESTIONS
Again, the outputs commonly produced by your agency are listed below in the first
column. If you were not present when the output was produced without GIS,
please answer No to the first question but provide your best estimate for the
remaining questions.
For each output, please indicate how having GIS has impacted labor productivity
for you personally and for your agency overall.
 Did you personally produce this output without GIS?
 How many units of this output did you personally produce prior to GIS? Choose
# of units:
 How many units of this output did you personally produce Per Unit of Time prior
to GIS:?What percent of your time did you spend producing each output prior to
GIS?
 What percent of your time did you spend producing each output Prior to GIS:
Per Unit of Time:
 Number of Employees in your workgroup (including you) producing this output
prior to GIS?
 Total FTEs in your workgroup (including you) producing this output prior to
GIS?
KCGIS GIS ROI Study: Methodology

34. KCGIS GIS ROI Study Results

35. “The most conservative estimate presented
finds that the use of GIS has produced
approximately $775 million in net benefits
over the eighteen year period from 1992 to
2010….
Thus a reasonable estimate of total gains is
between $180 million and $87 million in
2010.”
KCGIS GIS ROI Study Results

36. Theoretical basis for cost and benefit calculations
KCGIS GIS ROI Study Results

37. KCGIS GIS ROI Study Results

38. Future Steps:
 Article in ICMA ESRI Press Book on GIS for Elected Officials
 Likely articles by Dr. Zerbe & colleagues in GFR, URISA Journal
 Analyze detailed department results
 Analyze detailed benefits by output type
 Analyze detailed benefits by productivity type
 Tell our bosses - great interest within KC government
 Compare with Twin Cities/Metro GIS Parcel Data ROI study
 Compliment & Inform Multnomah County ROI study
 URISA ROI Workshop development
 Refine methodology (internal application ROI methodology)
 Encourage/support more studies (City of Portland proposed)
 URISA to help UW commercialize the GIS ROI methodology
 Component Service of URISA’s new GIS Management Institute
KCGIS GIS ROI Study

39. Questions & Answers:
 At what stage is KCGIS in the total potential business use of GIS?
 Are the KCGIS results ‘good’?
 How do we know?
 Do we need similar studies of other large counties?
 Proposed single ‘latitudinal’ study of 12-15 mid-sized cities in
Washington, Oregon & British Columbia
 Are government agency officials not now compelled to pursue
full GIS development?
KCGIS GIS ROI Study

40. URISA’s GIS Management Institute
How will the GMI Operate?
GMBOK:
GIS
Management
Body of
Knowledge
Municipal GIS
Operations
GCMM
Accreditation
GCMM: GIS
Capability
Maturity
Model
URISA
Education
ULA & UMA
GIS
Management
Educational
Program
Accreditation
GISCI
GIS
Managers
Certification
Component
GMCM:
Geospatial
Management
Competency
Model
Future:
ROI Services
Other
Accreditation
Benchmarking

41. URISA’s GIS Management Institute
Who will use the GMI, and why?
Babinski’s Theory of GIS Management:
As GIS Operational Maturity Improves, ROI Increases

42. Acknowledgement:
 State of Oregon GIS and Cy Smith, Oregon GIO
 KCGIS Technical Committee
 Richard O. Zerbe & UW GIS ROI Study Team
 KCGIS Center Interview team:
 George Horning, Manager
 Greg Stought, Enterprise Services Manager
 Dennis Higgins, GISP, Client Services Manager
 Debbie Bull, GIS DBA
 Greg Babinski, GISP, Finance & Marketing Manager
Questions, Comments & Discussion
Learn More:
• ArcNews: Summer 2012:
http://www.esri.com/news/arcnews/summer12articles/king-county-documents-
roi-of-gis.html
• Access full report on King County web site: www.kingcounty.gov/gis

43. ROI Estimates & Benefit-Cost Analysis

44. Greg Babinski, MA, GISP
URISA Past-President
URISA GIS Management Institute Committee Chair
COGO Secretary
SUMMIT At-large Editor
Finance & Marketing Manager
King County GIS Center
201 South Jackson Street, Suite 706
Seattle, WA 98104
206-263-3753
greg.babinski@kingcounty.gov
www.kingcounty.gov/gis