URISA GIS Capability Maturity Model

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 discussion

URISA Local Agency GIS Capability Maturity Model

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



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


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 providers



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 focus



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 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.



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 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 ability



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


2009 GIS CMM Survey

Infrastructure
Results:
Cites ranged
from 0.43 to
0.89

Counties
ranged from
0.27 to 1.00


2009 GIS CMM Survey

Infrastructure
Results:
Cites ranged
from 0.43 to
0.89

Counties
ranged from
0.27 to 1.00


2009 GIS CMM Survey

Results Compared to Individual Agencies


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

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


2010 GIS CMM Update


URISA Municipal GISCMM Critique
Enabling Capability Components

Execution Ability Components




Questions
Suggestions
Discussion
Add benchmarking metrics?
Online version?
What else is missing from the model?


Refining the URISA Municipal GIS
Capability Maturity Model & Next Steps

Portfolio
Peer Review
Certification
Institutionalization
Other ideas



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
Possible URISA-USDOLETA Daylong GMCM Work Session at
2011 GIS-Pro in Indianapolis



Other ideas?
Open Discussion


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

Hilary Perkins
Twyla McDermott
David DiBiase


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

Winter 2011 ArcNews Article:
http://www.esri.com/news/arcnews/winter1011articles/urisa-proposes.html


URISA GIS Capability Maturity Model

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (8)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (7)

Similar to URISA GIS Capability Maturity Model

Similar to URISA GIS Capability Maturity Model (20)

More from Greg Babinski

More from Greg Babinski (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

URISA GIS Capability Maturity Model