See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/337915931

GIS PROJECT MANAGEMENT APPROACH FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF GIS FOR

PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS

Research · December 2019

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14791.04000

CITATION READS
1 2,926

1 author:

Joshua C Jones
Northwest Missouri State University
1 PUBLICATION   1 CITATION   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

GIS Implementation for Planning View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Joshua C Jones on 13 December 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 GIS PROJECT MANAGEMENT APPROACH
FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF GIS FOR PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS

A RESEARCH PAPER PRESENTED TO

THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE

By
JOSHUA JONES

NORTHWEST MISSOURI STATE UNIVERSITY

MARYVILLE, MISSOURI
DECEMBER, 2019
Table of Contents

Abstract 3
Why GIS for Planning Organizations? 3
- What Does Planning Development Do? 4
- How Does GIS Complete These Processes? 4
- Empowering Staff with GIS 5
- Is GIS Right for Our Organization? 5
- GIS for Improvement of Public or Customer Relationships 6
GIS and Planning 7
- GIS at the Center of Planning 7
- Expanding Organizational Abilities with GIS 8
- Efficiency Improvements through GIS: Review of a Case Study 9
- Capturing New Ways to Collect Data 12
Accommodation of a Growing GIS 13
- Existing Data and Systems 14
- GIS Selection 15
- Limitations of GIS Solutions 17
Implementation of a GIS for Planning Organizations 18
- GIS Implementation Failure 19
- Review and Analysis of GIS Implementation Failure Case Studies 20
GIS Implementations and the Impact on Staffing 26
- Training Needs Assessment 26
Products and Solutions of GIS for Planning and Development 27
Risk of GIS Implementation 28
- Opposition of a GIS Centric Approach to Planning 28
Implementation Approach 29
Conclusion 30
References 32

Jones 2
ABSTRACT

The purpose of this paper is to assess the project management approach of a GIS implementation

as a central function for a planning organization. This assessment reviews how GIS improves the

quality of planning functions and gives insight to the structure of a successful GIS

implementation by analyzing and drawing conclusions from previous case studies of related

implementations. This paper does not claim to provide the one correct structure of a GIS

implementation for a planning organization nor proposes that one exists. Instead, topics that

should be addressed during an implementation are discussed and examples of use are included.

Why GIS for Planning Organizations?

Planning and development services are well established in municipalities and many private

organizations. Planning processes vary from one organization to the next, and these processes are

ever changing. There may be many different arguments for the best way to do planning, but of

those, integration and use of GIS in an organization is becoming the most common answer. Yeh

(2008) says that “GIS is just one of the formalised computer-based information systems capable

of integrating data from various sources to provide the information necessary for effective

decision-making in urban planning.” Yeh also outlines reasons why this is becoming the norm.

Those reasons are all related to the costs of computer systems decreasing and the efficiency of

their use increasing. One of the main functions performed by planning departments is the

determination and classification of land suitability for different uses. With the use of map

overlays provided in GIS systems, land suitability analysis becomes faster, more reliable, and

Jones 3
more accurate than previous methods. These reasons provide quick insight into the initial reason

why all planning departments look toward GIS as a solution for planning.

What Does Planning Development Do?

The definition and goals of planning vary greatly across the world. There are countless factors

that contribute to different missions and visions of organizations. The Boston Planning &

Development Agency (2019) describes planning as “the process of creating long-term visions for

places and communities as small as an intersection and as large as a region. Planning takes

advantage of, and seeks to influence, the social, economic, physical, and natural factors affecting

a community”. When approaching the implementation of a GIS with project management, the

factors above must be addressed by how the system can provide functions that will increase and

improve related processes. The specifics of how they are addressed are dependent on the

processes of the organization. The desired processes and goals are what should be used to guide

an effective approach and implementation of a GIS for an organization.

How Does GIS Complete these Processes?

Before discussing the best approach to implement a GIS for a planning department, it is best to

provide examples of functions GIS can complete for a planning department. GIS is used for

urban planning, effective growth management, land use planning, revitalization efforts,

development efforts, mapping and quantitation of demographics, management of utility

infrastructure, law and code enforcement process improvements, and much more (Esri 2011).

Jones 4
Empowering Staff with GIS

GIS has a tremendous impact on those who work for a planning organization as well. These tools

empower an employee to explore their professional interests and gain insight to share with their

peers and superiors. It opens doors to progress for individuals and companies. One major goal of

a GIS implementation should be to train GIS staff so that the organization can immediately reap

the benefits of GIS. Training at individual position level is the best approach to ensuring all

product functions are absorbed by a client. Fleming (2006) acknowledged the importance of

well-qualified staff for the GIS at the Yuma Proving Ground (YPG) in the following statement,

“The success of YPG’s EGIS implementation depends to a large extent on the commitment,

technical ability, and enthusiasm of those who manage and administer the system throughout the

long, iterative process of successful technology implementation. GIS technology users at YPG

can be conceptualized as belonging to three distinct categories—Data Managers, Data Producers,

and Data Users.”

Is GIS Right for Our Organization?

Though GIS is a common and effective solution to process improvement, it is not always the

only answer as there could be other problems that need addressed within an organization. It is

important to identify and address all issues in the project management approach. This task can be

completed methodically. Outlined in A Business Process Improvement Method is the “Lean

method” that contains seven phases of steps, tools, and principles for implementing process

Jones 5
improvement. (Lahboube, et al. 2018) This creates a systematic approach to the review of current

procedures in an organization and can quickly identify deficiencies or areas with improvement

needed. Using a tool like this can provide insight to the effectiveness of a GIS being

implemented.

GIS for Improvement of Public or Customer Relationships

Aside from the improvement of internal processes, GIS implementations can greatly improve

public and customer relationships. A GIS implementation should be conducive to relationship

improvement with external contacts. This is seen on many levels and consists of providing more

data to citizens about the city or information to developers where it would be otherwise difficult

to receive. GIS tools commonly provide these items if an organization chooses to do so. In

addition, GIS functions can be leveraged in efforts to work with the public for the benefit of both

the organization and the customer. In Cuttack, India, government leaders approached local

settlements identified as “slums” with a mapping team in order to collaborate with the residents

for the purpose of understanding the area, so that improvement efforts could be made to better

the quality of life for those residents (Livengood and Kunte 2012). Efforts included conducting

an information survey with members of each settlement and boundary mapping with GPS.

Though this project was still in the works when the article was written in 2012, significant

progress had been made to this point. In the Cuttack area, 340 settlements had been visited with

some survey information collected. Of these 340 settlements, 316 had been mapped, and 272 of

those had been completely mapped with boundaries. This project echoes the idea that GIS can be

used to enhance coordination and improvement efforts of an organization and the public.

Jones 6
GIS and Planning

Planning departments have long been tasked with responsibility of making decisions based on

their ability to interpret spatial problems that consist of layers of information that are interrelated.

Visualizing and comprehending this spatial area, along with the many relational data layers, is

nearly impossible without computer assistance. Dating back to the 1960s this was understood,

and computer automation efforts were made to improve planning processes and outputs. Though

computer system abilities were an early obstacle, these were eventually overcome. Lee (1990)

explained that the design of data structures and subsequent logical querying process created

limitations to GIS for the purpose of providing planning functions. Since then, a much better

understanding of GIS and their databases has been gained. The database design process included

in a GIS implementation is critical for achieving full functionality for data management and

retrieval. The types of data managed by a planning department are interrelated and need to be

structured as such in a GIS database implementation.

GIS at the Center of Planning

Currently, any government of considerable size is leveraging GIS products in some capacity.

This can be for their own purpose or for the purpose of providing information to the public. In

some cases, third party companies are contracted to create, manage, and deliver GIS products for

a government. However, many other governments have realized the power of GIS and have

invested in building their own solution. In many ways, it has become a centerpiece to the

Jones 7
progress and success of government planning. This concept is echoed in a publication about

smart cities and technology advancement from the International City/County Management

Association (ICMA) stating, “Enormous technological changes in the last few years alone have

made GIS platforms and their related solutions indispensable in producing changes in the quality

of life in communities around the world” (ICMA 2018). With GIS receiving attention at this

level it becomes clear that municipalities should learn and adopt these systems and technologies

as they seek to improve processes.

Expanding Organizational Abilities with GIS

When an organization adopts GIS as a center resource for its function, it unlocks many

subsequent capabilities that expand the organization’s reach and impact. This is due to

continuous efforts made by GIS software and program developers who aim to create

interoperability between GIS software systems and data with many other application platforms.

Geertman and Stillwell (2000) saw the importance of interoperability years ago and that it would

help to create a fast lane for an end goal of mass spatial data generation, sharing, and availability.

They wrote that “increasingly the global domination of PC and workstation markets by

Microsoft via Windows 2000 (formerly NT5) will trivialise many of these interoperability issues

by having a global de facto standard. This, combined with exponential growth of Java, will

ensure that soon hardware and platform dependency will become purely a historical artefact”

(Geertman and Stillwell 2000). When considering process improvement, it is critical to look at

how product implementation will grow in the future so that the organizational processes can

grow with it. The suggested GIS solution for a planning department should aim to invest in the

Jones 8
solution that will provide the most extensive function and growth capabilities. Interoperability is

of utmost importance to ensure the ability of the organization to collaborate effectively with

others. Product selection should weigh this factor heavily in the decision process.

Efficiency Improvements through GIS: Review of a Case Study

It has already been stated that GIS can increase the efficiency of process for an organization. As

an example of GIS increasing efficiency, let us look at a study done by Dodson and Associates,

Inc., to evaluate previous conventional methods (current at the time of) versus new GIS data

analysis methods to complete the process of floodplain determinations (Dodson and Li 1999).

The review breaks the floodplain mapping processes into three logical categories of data

collection and preparation, model creation and execution, and floodplain mapping. Efficiency

and accuracy of each of the two methods are compared for each of the phases. Table 1 shows the

data provided in the study (Dodson and Li 1999). Figure 1 shows my visual analysis of the study,

quantifying the time savings of the GIS method.

Jones 9
 Table 1: Comparison of Time per Task for Conventional vs. GIS Floodplain Mapping (Dodson

and Li 1999)

Method Conventional Time (min.) GIS Time (min.)

Data collection
Planning field survey for Planning field survey for channel
and
channel data data
preparation 0 0
Obtain overbank data
Obtain terrain data
from topographic maps 120 10
Organize and merge
Merge terrain data with survey
surveyed channel data
data and create TIN in GIS
with overbank data to
StreamPro
create full cross sections. 120 30
Prepare base map and Draw cross sections, flow paths
measure reach lengths 30 and bank lines 45
Process and export data for
HEC-RAS 5
Sub Total 270 90
Model set up
Input data to HEC-RAS Input data to HEC-RAS
and execution 75 5
Complete the HEC-RAS 30 Complete the HEC-RAS 30
Execute model, evaluate Execute model, evaluate results,
results, and fine tune the and fine tune the model as
model as necessary 30 necessary 30
Export floodplain data for GIS
StreamPro 5
Sub Total 135 70
Import floodplain data to
Floodplain Map floodplain manually StreamPro and process to
mapping 30 obtain floodplain 5
Digitize floodplain to
Import floodplain into CAD and
produce the final
fine tune the floodplain
floodplain map 30 30
Sub Total 60 35
Total 465 195

It is quickly evident that the GIS method not only decreased the total time significantly but did

so per task making every part of the process much faster.

Jones 10
 Figure 1: Floodplain Mapping Methods: Conventional vs. GIS

This graph gives the time totals broken down by phase and task for each method. The total time

saved per task is apparent. The largest time savings is found in the data collection and

preparation phase, where the GIS method takes approximately 33% of the time the conventional

method takes. In the modeling phase the conventional method is just shy of twice the time for

completion compared to the GIS method (135 min. compared to 70 min.). Lastly, the mapping

phase sees the least difference in time savings where GIS methods complete the process 25

minutes faster. It would be necessary to pay close attention to accuracy of outputs at this phase to

verify that accuracy of the outputs from the GIS method is equal to or exceeds the accuracy of

conventional methods. A total of 4.5 hours was saved with the GIS method as opposed to the

conventional method. This is an extreme amount, as several projects to complete with the new

Jones 11
method would result in exponential time savings and progress. GIS processing methods

evidently improves efficiency of process. It is always the responsibility of the data handler to

ensure proper accuracy, but with much review there is a GIS process that can provide useful

results for most planning processes.

Capturing New Ways to Collect Data

Improvements in analyzing data were shown in the previous example. Additionally, the process

of collecting data has improved. A proper introduction of GIS to a planning department should

address methods utilized to gather data more effectively. In traditional settings, there are

technical GIS professionals that collect and manipulate data for the purpose of processing and

providing results. With a change in approach, the data gathered for the purpose of analyzing and

packaging for statistical results can be improved on by leveraging GIS tools like Esri’s

Survey123 for ArcGIS to collect user submitted data or by application submission or resident

interviews that may contain more insight of the data being analyzed. This concept is captured by

Talen (2000), who coins an approach called “Bottom-Up GIS” in which data used to drive

decisions of local planning authorities is gathered from local resident input, in hopes to capture a

true representation of the residents’ perspectives. This is a more democratic data use and less

authoritative in the sense that one technical professional is not providing an assumed complete

knowledge to the public, but first is receiving input and potentially unknown information. Talen

(2000) presents a case study in Dallas, Texas, where The Dallas Plan, a private planning

enterprise, worked with graduate students of the University of Texas at Dallas who participated

in two separate conference events that invited residents to come and provide insight and

Jones 12
information about the Trinity River Corridor and the Cadillac Heights neighborhood in the same

region. The ultimate result is that this process can “strengthen and deepen communication about

neighborhood issues” (Talen 2000). This method is very empowering to all involved and aligns

with the goal to connect with the community that many local government planning departments

have.

Accommodation of a Growing GIS

To completely capture the needs of a planning organization when implementing a GIS solution, a

project plan must address all current and future data needs. This includes review of current data

the department holds and gathering a list of data desired or needed. The data handled by a

planning department is extensive and can be difficult to capture in its entirety for the

implementation of a GIS. Because of this, the best approach with a GIS implementation plan

should include functions that allow the organization to introduce new data types. The introduced

data should be able to leverage existing tools of the GIS such as predesigned analysis functions,

data querying methods, data relational methods with preexisting data, and data management

abilities. The range of information that is useful to a planning organization is spread wide enough

that all data may not be related. Examples of data of interest include legal property information,

development activity, emergency management data, hydrography and topography data, law and

code enforcement activity information, utility infrastructure, local resident utility account

information, and much more.

Jones 13
Existing Data and Systems

When discussing the data that is utilized by a planning department, one factor that can determine

the effort required of a GIS implementation is the existing format of the data that will be

managed with the new solution. These findings will have a dramatic impact on the time and cost

associated with the implementation. For example, a planning department may receive building

plans during a permit application in a paper form which would require much more manipulation

to extract attribute information and spatial data to log into a systems database. Without proper

knowledge of existing processes and selection of a proper solution a GIS implementation could

feel like a duplication. Al-Balqa’ Applied University developed their own GIS specifically for

the purpose of data management and the planning process of the University. Implementation

included constructing the database, designing system architecture of the GIS, identification of

data types (spatial, tabular, and image), and finally the implementation of the system. Figure 2

(Saleh and Sadoun 2005) shares this concept diagram of the architecture.

Jones 14
 Figure 2: Al-Balqa’ Applied University GIS System Architecture (Saleh and Sadoun 2005)

This figure appears basic but coupled with the knowledge of the data to be used and conversion

of this data, a successful GIS was implemented. The University understood the needs of the new

system and the existing environment, making it possible to quantify the work included in the

conversion and implementation. This is an important piece to any successful GIS.

GIS Selection

Processes and procedures in a planning organization vary by task type. Because of this, multiple

applications and programs are usually needed to provide integrated functions for these

interrelated tasks. Without a GIS this most likely includes the use of Microsoft’s Office Suite,

other document-based programs, and a ton of scanning and printing of paper. With a GIS this can

include server-based applications, desktop client applications, and web-based applications. Often

Jones 15
an underlying Object Database Management System (ODBMS) or Relational Database

Management System (RDBMS) is utilized to build these applications and create interoperability

between systems and their processes. There are many products available to service these varying

needs. They range from older proven systems to newer prototype software, open source free

products, and off-the-shelf commercialized systems (Geertman and Stillwell 2000). This makes

the process a multi criteria decision making problem (MCDM) Eldrandaly (2007) states in an

article where he creates a hypothetical case study to apply a systematic selection process of a

GIS. The author also suggests the use of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). This is because

it considers the multi-dimensional factors included in the problem a GIS is solving, such as the

importance of the criterion being addressed relative to one another. Figure 3 is from the article,

showing the hierarchy of elements in the selection process and how they are related. This

diagram helps implement the “decomposition” principle of AHP. Next, utilizing pair-wise

comparisons gathered from a table of project elements ranked with values on a scale, the relative

importance of the elements is entered into a reciprocal square matrix to reveal relative weight of

each element or decision. A consistency index provides a measure of reliability of the elements

in the square matrix that provided these weighted values. The use of these tools results in values

of overall importance for ranking of each software and concludes the process with the

“comparative judgments” and “synthesis of priorities” principles.

Jones 16
 Figure 3: Hierarchy of GIS Software Selection Decision (Eldrandaly 2007)

This process introduces a mathematically calculated consideration of importance for each factor

in a proposed solution. The increased awareness of the goodness-of-fit that this provides gives

the decision-makers a significant risk reduction in software selection. It is wise for any

organization undergoing a GIS implementation to consider a selection method such as this.

Limitations of GIS Solutions

While GIS solutions can improve all processes mentioned, this does not come without some

limitations of the system. It is important to discover and define these limitations prior to

implementation, so that it is not mistaken as a failure. Another factor to consider is that much of

the data utilized within a system include a spatial component. This will introduce the opportunity

for spatial analysis to gain further insight about the data. Without proper understanding or

Jones 17
training of the staff, a GIS may be used to perform a function that creates an inaccurate product

delivered to others for decision making. After defining the tasks and processes of the

organization, a GIS implementation project plan should include a list of limitations of the

product being presented. Fotheringham and Rogerson (1993) identify eight problems related to

spatial analysis with GIS systems. These problems include modifiable areal units, boundaries,

spatial interpolation, sampling procedures, autocorrelation, goodness-of-fit modelling, context-

dependent results, and aggregate versus disaggregate models. While many of the problems have

since been addressed by developers and products offered today, some of the analysis methods

may still face issues. Any function provided to address a process related to one of these items

needs to consider accuracy and limitation, with provided explanation.

Implementation of a GIS for Planning Organizations

A GIS implementation will look differently for each organization it is being introduced to. The

implementation will depend ultimately on the needs of the organization. However, many articles

identify important factors of a successful GIS which are outlined by Ramasubramanian (1999)

defining implementation of GIS as “a process through which communities of users within an

organisational setting become aware of, adopt, and use GIS.” This applies to most

implementations. However, this definition focuses more on an organization adjusting its

practices and processes to use a GIS and does not leave the idea that a GIS can be implemented

to fit an organization. The author continues identifying many noted issues during GIS

implementations that are not from technical constraints. These include resource constraints, lack

of trained staff, current organizational culture, and relational issues in the higher level of the

Jones 18
organization. It is important that all related parties are on board, cooperative, and communicated

with, starting from the conception of the idea for implementing a GIS.

GIS Implementation Failure

There is always a risk of project implementation failure of a GIS. All topics discussed thus far

are important to ensuring an implementation does not fail. Efforts made to prevent project failure

are just as important as those made to ensure success. A look at four case studies of information

systems (IS) related project failures was done to review and analyze reasons for failure.

Categories were established for failure factors in the case studies. The first case study contains a

“High Performance Equation” created by Schermerhorn (1984 cited Birks et al. 2003) that

consists of three variables to evaluate success which are ability, effort, and support. This

analysis adopts these categories and defines them as follows. Ability is a category that includes

the client or project team’s technical abilities or knowledge related to systems needs and systems

used to complete the project. Also, ability to adjust to and overcome unforeseen obstacles during

a project is included in this category. Effort is related to the amount of involvement the allocated

resources give to the project, not only completing their own responsibilities but continuing

communication with other team members for proper status tracking. Support is a broader

category that includes the failures related to decisions or lack thereof from management

personnel on both the client and project sides. These are great foundational categories to evaluate

an IS project success or failure. One alteration is made to include a category titled “vision”

which is intended to capture the success or failure of the client and project team’s ability to

communicate needs, goals, and truly understand what the product needs to be in order to satisfy

Jones 19
the operation. If a GIS implementation fails, it is typically for more reasons than one. All

identified failures were categorized, and the final values were a percentage of the project failure

assigned to the category.

Review and Analysis of GIS Implementation Failure Case Studies

Birks et al. (2003) included a case study of the GIS implementation failure that the retailer,

NOWAY, experienced. Complications during the project were categorized into failure categories

of the High-Performance Equation. After review, these named failures were re-categorized into

the altered evaluation method previously defined. Table 2 and Figure 4 show these categorized

project failures.

Table 2: Totals of NOWAY Failures by Category

Vision Ability Effort Support Total

NOWAY 0 1 1 2 4

Jones 20
 NOWAY GIS Project

Ability, 25%
Support, 50%
Effort, 25%

Ability Effort Support

Figure 4: Percent Reasons for GIS Failure by Category

Upon review, for this project support functions of either the client side or the project team

contributed to fifty percent of the reason for failure. An equal number of incidents of inadequate

ability and effort are noted as well. According to Birks et al. (2003), there were no noted issues

of the project team capturing the vision of the client. In fact, the article only discusses failures of

the client side.

The second case study is a self-review by the owner of WebMapSolutions and a GIS they

attempted to implement for an unnamed client. Sheehan (2015) stated that this project was

approached in the same manner as were many previously successfully completed projects, using

a four-step process of planning, data, platform, maps and apps. Table 3 and Figure 5 show the

findings and shortcomings this project faced.

Jones 21
 Table 3: Quantity of Failures by Category

Vision Ability Effort Support Total

WebMapSolutions 2 1 0 1 4

WebMapSolutions

Support, 25%
Vision, 50%
Ability, 25%

Vision Ability Effort Support

Figure 5: Percent of Failures by Category

In this project, the vision concept posed the biggest issue leading to project failure. Sheehan

noted that both the inability of the client to translate their needs to the project team and the

project team’s inability to ask the questions in a form that would retrieve the answers they

needed led to a lack of vision for the project.

The third case study includes a review of an information system titled e-Government that was

being implemented for a local government in Egypt. Elkadi (2013) used multiple review methods

to categorize the success and failures of this implementation, which included Information,

Technology, Process, Objectives, Staffing/Skills, Management/Structures, Other Resources

Jones 22
(ITPOSMO) model and Information Systems Success Model (ISSM). The perceived results have

been re-categorized into four logical categories in Table 4 and Figure 6.

Table 4: Totals of Project Failures by Category

Vision Ability Effort Support Total

EGYPT e- 1 2 0 2 5
government

EGYPT e-government Project Failures

Vision, 20%

Support, 40%

Ability, 40%

Vision Ability Support

Figure 6: Percent Project Failures by Category

The results of this case study are slightly different than what has been presented so far. There are

more noted obstacles with the technical ability of the staff receiving the product that ultimately

contributed to its failure. Elkadi (2013) noted the product was delivered and operating

successfully, and down the road the programs saw degradation by mismanagement of staff.

Again, the support category played a large part in project failure.

Jones 23
The final case study reviewed was an information systems product delivered to London’s

Ambulance Services, with the intent to improve their computer aided dispatch program (Beynon-

Davies 2019). The impact of this failure was severe as it related to emergency response services,

and the noted failures are greater in number and diversity than the previous case studies. Table 5

and Figure 7 show the results of the review.

Table 5: Totals for Project Failure by Category

Vision Ability Effort Support Total

London CAD 2 2 1 4 9
Project

London CAD Project

Vision, 22%

Support, 44%

Ability, 22%

Effort,
11%

Vision Ability Effort Support

Figure 7: Percent Project Failures by Category

The project has more noted incidents of failure, but it could be argued that this is a much larger

project than those previously reviewed. Beynon-Davies (2019) points out the size of the

operation by stating, “It must be understood that LAS is unlike any other ambulance service in

the UK. The service receives ten times as many emergency calls as any other ambulance service

Jones 24
in the country. The organisation covers a geographical area of just over 600 square miles and

handles emergencies for an area with a resident population of 6.8 million people.” For the

purpose of this study, it is important to note that again, support is found to be the category

containing most incidents contributing to failure. This leads to the review of all the case studies

and causes of failure for the projects. Table 6 and Figure 8 show the totals of all the findings in

these case studies.

Table 6: Total of Failures for all Case Studies by Category

Vision Ability Effort Support Total

Totals 5 6 2 9 22

Totals by Category for All Case Studies

Vision, 23%
Support, 41%

Ability, 27%

Effort, 9%

Vision Ability Effort Support

Figure 8: Percent Totals by Category for the 4 Case Studies

The conclusion of this research is that in the four case studies reviewed, the support category was

the leading cause of all types of failures seen in the IS project implementations. This echoes a

previously mentioned concept about the importance that all parties and staff involved in a GIS

implementation are aware and active in the project from the point of its conception.

Jones 25
GIS Implementations and the Impact on Staffing

The process of identifying staffing needs for a new GIS is another critical component to a

successful implementation. The product being delivered can determine the implication of staffing

adjustments necessary to effectively use the new system. This boils down to how customized the

product is for the client versus a demand for more training to complete new processes, or even a

need for new staff with specialized expertise to help support the new system. Reviewing existing

staff and their roles against new processes will provide insight to new staffing needs. For

example, a GIS may be designed to enter existing data in a now digital format. This will directly

affect the individual who was previously collecting this information in one of two ways. Either

they will receive training to accommodate the need to complete the new process, or their

responsibility will be delegated to another staff. If the implemented GIS affects a staff member in

the latter mentioned fashion on many occasions, then an evaluation for need of the position

would be necessary. Consequently, the new tools can warrant a need for a staff position with

related expertise or additional staff to handle the anticipated volume of work associated with the

new processes.

Training Needs Assessment

After processes are defined and the GIS is delivered, an extensive training plan for the staff is

required to successfully implement a GIS project. A schedule of the training including topics

covered and training sessions per staff function should be included for all processes the GIS will

Jones 26
perform for the organization. Each user needs to understand what the system does, why, and

how, for them to effectively use the GIS. If this is not completed during training the result could

be staff losing confidence in the GIS and returning to previous methods used to complete their

work. At that point, the project could accurately be labelled a failure. On the positive side, the

more exposure and use the GIS gets in an organization, the more likely current staff members

can complete tasks that would normally be handled by GIS staff (Somers 2001). Somers says

that although there are some tasks that may require a professional, GIS is a tool that anyone can

learn to use. This should be understood by all employees throughout the implementation and

especially during the training. The effectiveness of the tools can directly impact the effectiveness

of an organization attempting to adopt it.

Products and Solutions of GIS for Planning and Development

Previously we discussed a method to select GIS software using some comparative analysis. The

selection of a GIS product or products can be an undertaking that requires extensive research.

When making this decision, it is necessary to have the needs and funding of the organization

clearly defined. The list of companies that provide GIS software is too expansive to be covered.

Instead, researching products that provide the required capabilities needed by the organization

should guide a selection. The Department of Homeland Security (2013) published a document of

different GIS software types gathered with the help from Esri’s GIS Dictionary. This list

includes add-ons/extensions, computer aided design, desktop mapping, global positioning

systems, image processing, internet mapping, mobile GIS, photogrammetry, routing/delivery,

spatial database, and web services (Department of Homeland Security 2013). After conducting a

Jones 27
user and GIS needs assessment, the product selection process should include a review of these

GIS software types and identify if there is a need for each. Once this identification is made,

evaluation for goodness of fit can be made based on what the product offers. Often, multiple

products with interoperability of these capabilities are needed to fulfill the needs of the

organization.

Risk of GIS Implementation

Analyzing the risk of a GIS implementation should be done at the beginning of the GIS project

management plan. The translation of GIS functions to performance of processes needed by an

organization is a common obstacle that poses risk of project failure. Somers (1998) explicitly

identified risk assessment as a vital component to GIS implementation success. She explained

that “Many GIS implementers are frustrated by what they see as inexplicable or illogical

resistance to GIS. They make various assumptions about the source of the problems and the

possible solutions” (Somers 1998). Understanding these challenges prior to implementation will

help guide mitigation efforts toward areas of risk that may impact successful implementation of

the solution.

Opposition of a GIS Centric Approach to Planning

Accepting and attempting to combat risk of implementing GIS as a solution, especially for

planning organizations, comes with a need to understand consequences of a GIS centric solution

for the organization. There are inherent assumptions of the abilities a GIS can perform that may

Jones 28
leave questions and concerns of the quality of product produced by the new GIS. Ceccato and

Snickars (2000) note these issues and state, “GIS technology and its applications have been easy

targets for many ethical critics during the past few years. Critics have associated GIS-related

techniques with information abuse, control, exploitation, unsavoury use, and elitist practices.”

Sharing this concern with an organization implementing GIS for the planning process is

important. This will prepare them to analyze and address similar concerns regarding how GIS

will complete the functions of their organization. Addressing these concerns relies on the staff’s

understanding of GIS for their processes and their effort ensuring the objectivity and accuracy of

their products used.

Implementation Approach

Implementing a GIS can be done many ways, which means there are multiple approaches to an

implementation. This is especially true regarding companies and services available to an

organization. These options include consultants that guide the process, companies that will

generate and maintain a GIS, and the option to implement one’s own GIS with internal

resources. The method chosen will have specific consequences that dictate the outcomes of the

implementation along with the associated cost and risk of the process.

There may be similarities between the option of hiring a consultant to assist in the

implementation and hiring a company to complete the implementation with continued support

for the GIS. Yet, there is great potential for difference of cost and associated internal resources

required to complete the project. For example, a consultant that helps with collection and

Jones 29
formatting of data may suggest products and solutions to fit the organization but may have less

understanding of the organization’s needs and processes, which could result in higher risk. If a

company is hired to handle the entire process from a needs assessment to the continued support

of the GIS, there is much less risk involved if the company is contractually obligated to provide a

working GIS that fully meets the client’s needs. However, hiring a consultant will be much

cheaper than hiring a company for the entire process, but is an option if budget is an obstacle. If

process improvement is of dire need for an organization but budget is not available, an approach

can be taken to implement a GIS internally. However, unless staff are provided with sufficient

training in all aspects of the implementation, this option may compromise the potential of the

product and result in what most would consider a failed implementation due to many of the

obstacles previously mentioned in this article. Understanding the different approaches to a GIS

implementation is necessary for the strategic method a company will use. This decision is made

even before a project plan for the GIS implementation exists.

Conclusion

GIS is becoming more involved in the process of planning as advancements in technology

become more available at an even lower cost. The interest and subsequent integration of this

technology with planning organizations is mostly inevitable. Being aware of this should turn

leaders and decision makers of these organizations to the goal of gaining insight on the proper

methods of a GIS implementation for their organization. GIS can be placed as a centerpiece of a

planning department, improving efficiency and ability. Yet, before the technology can be

effectively implemented and leveraged, alignment of vision and staff are critical to the success of

Jones 30
the mission. These items of vision, staff, and technology overarch the finer categories discussed

in this paper and aim to prepare for addressing and completing essential tasks included in a

project management plan for the implementation of a GIS.

Jones 31
References

Beynon-Davies, P., 2019. Information Systems 'Failure': The Case of the London Ambulance
Service's Computer Aided Dispatch Project. Research Gate. [online] Available from:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0864/875123944c40e9563f590db7992931378e58.pdf
[Accessed June 2019].
Birks, D., Nasirin, S., and Zailani, S.H.M., 2003. Factors Influencing GIS Project
Implementation Failure in the UK Retailing Industry. International Journal of Information
Management, 23(1), 73–82.
Boston Planning & Development Agency, 2019. Planning [online] Available from:
www.bostonplans.org/planning/what-is-planning [Accessed June 2019].
Ceccato, V. and Snickars, F., 2000. Adapting GIS Technology to the Needs of Local Planning.
Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 27 (6) 923–937.

Department of Homeland Security. 2013. Geographic Information System Software Selection

Guide. [online] Available from: www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/GIS-SG_0713-
508.pdf. [Accessed June 2019].
Dodson, R. and Li, X., 1999. The Accuracy and Efficiency of GIS-Based Floodplain
Determinations. [online] Available from:
proceedings.esri.com/library/userconf/proc99/proceed/papers/pap809/p809.htm. [Accessed June
2019].
Eldrandaly, K., 2007. GIS software selection: a multi-criteria decision making approach,
Applied GIS [online], 3(5). Available from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228926854_GIS_software_selection_A_multi_criteria
_decision_making_approach [Accessed 4 November 2019].
Elkadi, H., 2013. Success and Failure Factors for e-Government Projects: A Case from Egypt.
Egyptian Informatics Journal, Elsevier [online]. Available from:
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1110866513000236. [Accessed June 2019].
Esri, 2011. GIS for Urban and Regional Planning. GIS Best Practices [online], Available from:
www.esri.com/library/bestpractices/urban-regional-planning.pdf [Accessed 28 June 2019].
Fleming, S., 2006. Assessment of the Enterprise Geographic Information System (EGIS) at
Yuma Proving Ground (YPG).[online] Available from:
westpoint.edu/sites/default/files/pdfs/Academics/Center for Environmental and Geographic
Sciences/YPG_GIS_Assessment_Fleming_2006_0.pdf. [Accessed June 2019].

Fotheringham, S. and Rogerson, P., 1993. GIS and Spatial Analytical Problems. International
Journal of Geographical Information Systems 7(1), 3–19.
Geertman, S. and Stillwell, J., 2000 Geoinformation, Geotechnology and Geoplanning in the
1990s. [online] Available from: eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/5027/1/00-1.pdf. [Accessed June 2019].

ICMA, 2018. A Guide For Smart Communities: Using GIS Technology for Local Government
Management. Icma.org [online] Available from:
https://icma.org/documents/guide-smart-communities-using-gis-technology-local-government-
management. [Accessed June 2019].

Jones 32
 Lahboube, F., Souissi, N., and Younes, T., 2018. A Business Process Improvement Method
[online] Available from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329281689_A_Business_Process_Improvement_Meth
od. [Accessed December 2019].
Lee, Y., 1990. Geographic Information Systems for Urban Applications: Problems and
Solutions. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 17 (4), 463–473.
Livengood, A. and Kunte, K., 2012. Enabling Participatory Planning with GIS: A Case Study of
Settlement Mapping in Cuttack, India. Environment & Urbanization [online] 24 (1). Available
from:
journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0956247811434360 [Accessed June 2019].
Ramasubramanian, L., 1999. GIS Implementation in Developing Countries: Learning from
Organisational Theory and Reflective Practice. Transactions in GIS, 3(4), 359–380.
Saleh, B. and Sadoun, B., 2005. Design and Implementation of a GIS System for Planning.
International Journal on Digital Libraries, 6 (2), 210–218.
Sheehan, M., 2015. What We Learned from a Failed ArcGIS Implementation. [online] GISCafe
Blogs. Available from: www10.giscafe.com/blogs/mobilegis/2015/06/18/what-we-learned-
from-a-failed-arcgis-implementation/. [Accessed June 2019].
Somers, R., 1998. Developing GIS Management Strategies for an Organization. Journal of
Housing Research [online] 9 (1). Available from:
pdfs.semanticscholar.org/fca3/5ea1efd0047bc174b7dde677e5ba7815f80b.pdf. [Access June
2019].
Somers, R., 2001. Quick Guide to GIS Implementation and Management [online]. Quick Study:
URISA. Available from:
http://edi_mp.staff.gunadarma.ac.id/Downloads/files/35184/Materi+8_Perancangan+%26+Impl
ementasi.pdf [Accessed 5 November 2019].
Talen, E., 2000. Bottom-Up GIS. Journal of the American Planning Association, 66 (3), 279–
294.

Yeh, A., 2008. GIS as a Planning Support System for the Planning of Harmonious Cities.
United Nations Human Settlements Programme [online]. Available from:
https://issuu.com/unhabitat/docs/2576_alt [Accessed June 2019.

Jones 33

View publication stats