| Date post: | 16-Jan-2017 |
| Category: |
Leadership & Management |
| Upload: | greg-babinski |
| View: | 99 times |
| Download: | 1 times |
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
Microsoft
Gates Foundation
Boeing
Paccar
Nordstrom's
Amazon
Starbucks
Port of Seattle
Weyerhaeuser
Univ. of Washington
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
Typical GIS Business Case
End result is a variety of financial and non-financial benefits.
5
www.metrokc.gov/gis
GIS Governance in King County
6
www.metrokc.gov/gis
GIS Choice in King County
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
Using GIS to leverage demographic assets:
Veterans’ Levy Services
http://www.kingcounty.gov/operations/DCHS/Services/Levy/LeviStrapMapKC.aspx
Equity and Social Justice
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
www.metrokc.gov/gis
GIS Performance in King County
End-User Perspective
Professional Analysis
Evidence:
ROI
Users
Professional Assessment
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
GIS Performance in King County: Users
2010: <1,000 GIS Users 2013: 4,600+ GIS Users
URISA’s GIS Management Institute Enhancing GIS Operational Effectiveness & ROI
Babinski’s Theory of GIS Management:
As GIS Operational Maturity Improves, ROI Increases
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)
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
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!
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
KCGIS 2015 Self Assessment Part 2: GISCMM: Enabling Capability
KCGIS 2015 Self Assessment
Part 2A: GISCMM: Enabling Capability (Big Data)
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.
KCGIS 2015 Self Assessment Part 3: GISCMM: Execution Ability (Process Maturity)
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)
KCGIS 2015 Self Assessment Part 4: GMCM: Management Competency
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)
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
Contact Information
Greg Babinski, MA, GISP
Finance & Marketing Manager
King County GIS Center
201 South Jackson Street
Seattle, WA 98104
P: 206-477-4402
T: @gbabinski
W: www.kingcounty.gov/gis
URISA Past-President
GIS Management Institute Founding Chair
W: www.urisa.org/gmi
