You are on page 1of 5

Computer-generated data is a potent political tool in its power to influence.

Policy makers and the public generally consider computer-generated information to be more accurate, credible and objective simply because it was computer-generated. The technical language surrounding the preparation, use and evaluation of computerized data tends to be neutral, expressing no particular value or political bias. This tends to bias the listener to view the computer-generated data as more authoritative than comparable information generated in a non-computerized manner. Of course there are also those who distrust information if it is computer-generated. Computers and associated analytical techniques are often assumed to be unbiased and objective tools in the hands of neutral, unbiased, non-political technical experts. In fact computerized data and analysis techniques are subject to the same types of political bias and inaccuracies as other data. The bias enters in the selection of the data to be included, the analytical methods to be used and the way the results are presented. These choices are inherently political because they influence the analysis of the results, the perception of issues and the range of potential solutions. An astute use of computers can effectively hide political choices beneath a cloak of mystifying technical analyses (Klosterman 1987). The mere conversion of information to digital form can have dramatic implications. Property information that is publicly available in the form of hand written entries can be used in an entirely different way than the same data in digital form. Behrens (1985) cites several examples. One became a 1973 New Hampshire Supreme Court ruling that a university economics professor had the right to acquire a computer tape of property record information for 35.000 properties in the city. The data were to be used in a tax study. The city argued that providing the data would constitute an invasion of privacy for every citizen on the file. The court ruled that the information could not be regarded as confidential because it could be acquired by a visual inspection of the property. Yet the digital data could be used to generate information about individuals that would be impractical to determine otherwise. Finding the names of the one hundred largest property holders would be impractical using a manual search. By computer the analysis is fast, simple and inexpensive. The introduction of a GIS will change the existing management information systems. In most cases by the time an organization considers a GIS, it already has some form of computerbased information system in place. The system may not adequately handle spatial information

but it does support some operational needs. The existing system is also the one with which personnel are familiar and it probably reflects the structure, values and management philosophy of the organization. Unless the existing system is totally inadequate, the introduction of a GIS must be integrated with the existing information system. Some functions that are duplicated will eventually be relegated to one system or the other. However it is important to coordinate the integration process so that the operation of the organization during the transition is not jeopardized. The introduction of new technology will change an organization in ways that cannot be entirely predicted. Attention is usually focused on the desired changes and their ramifications but there will be numerous subtle but significant organizational changes as well. For example if additional staff are hired to operate the GIS equipment, their salaries may be significantly higher than the managers under whom they will work. These types of changes are stressors within the organization that can easily result in non-cooperation. Similarly, jealousies and rivalries can develop between departments in an organization when responsibility for collecting and maintaining data is "rationalized" and one department loses control over "its" data. Stresses such as these will occur at a time when the organization is already stressed. The organization often does not have sufficient staff to cope with the extra work of introducing a GIS. There is typically insufficient skill in handling the new technology, less than optimal funding and what funding is provided may be planned for too short a duration. In addition, the GIS is often being implemented in response to external pressures for improved information services at a lower cost. The organizations may be as large as a national agency or one person in a rural community. The specific considerations that become critical will differ, but the range of issues faced by each are basically the same. The list of issues that have been identified in the literature and discussed among practitioners is long indeed. Aside from the impracticality of recounting the causes of past successes and failures, such a list would probably not be very useful. Instead, this chapter presents a framework for implementation. GIS implementation is considered here as the entire technology transfer process from when an organization becomes aware of GIS technology through to when it adopts it. "Adoption" is used here to mean that an organization has incorporated a GIS into its operations and regularly uses it where appropriate in its day-to-day activities. Implementation can be seen as a six phase process:

1. Awareness: People within the organization become aware of GIS technology and the potential benefits to their organization. Potential uses and users of the GIS are postulated. 2. Development of System Requirements: The idea that a GIS could benefit the organization is formally acknowledged and a more systematic and formal process is instituted to collect information about the technology and to identify potential users and their needs. A formal needs analysis is often done at this stage. 3. System Evaluation: Alternative systems are proposed and evaluated. The evaluation process takes into account the needs analysis of the previous phase. At the end of this phase, a formal decision must be made whether or not to proceed with acquisition of a GIS. 4. Development of an Implementation Plan: Having made the decision to proceed with acquisition of a system a plan is developed to acquire the necessary equipment and staff, make organizational changes and fund the process. The plan may be a formally accepted document or a more or less informal series of actions. 5. System Acquisition and Start-Up: The system is purchased, installed, staff are trained, creation of the data base is begun and operating procedures begin to be established. Creation of the data base is usually the most expensive part of the implementation process. Considerable attention is needed to establish appropriate data quality controls to ensure that the data entered meet the required standards and that suitable updating procedures are implemented to maintain the currency and integrity of the data base. 6. Operational Phase: By this stage the initial automation of the data base is complete and operating procedures have been developed to maintain the data base and provide the information services that the organization requires. In this phase procedures are developed to maintain the GIS facility and upgrade services so that the GIS continues to support the changing information needs of the organization. Operational issues concerning the responsibilities of the GIS facility to provide needed services and to guarantee performance standards become more prominent. The issues that arise at each of these stages have both a technical and organizational component. The remainder of the chapter discusses each of these phases, the issues that are addressed and some of the lessons that have been learned.

PHASE 1: AWARENESS Information about new technology can enter an organization at several levels. Ideally, new ideas would be examined in the same way regardless of the messenger. In fact. new ideas are treated differently when presented by senior management or junior staff. New ideas, such as GIS have to be "sold" within an organization. The selling may be from the bottom up, from the top down or from an independent third party.

APPROACHES TO INTRODUCING THE NEW TECHNOLOGY Top-Down. Top-down promotion occurs when ideas for doing things differently are pushed from the management level to the production level. The advantage is that the power to provide funding and organizational support either resides at this management level or is more readily obtained by this level. The management level may also be capable of taking a broader view of potential benefits a view that spans different types of applications. For example a GIS may be seen as a means to organize all the spatial data of a municipality, not just the land records. Diverse departments could be beneficiaries. The system could be used by police and fire services for emergency dispatching by public works for facility maintenance, by the school board for bus route allocation and so on. The disadvantage of the top down approach is that the management level may not be fully aware of how information actually enters and is processed by the organization. They may not be technically competent to evaluate the feasibility of actually obtaining the benefits promoted for a GIS. As a result, their proposals may lead to inflated expectations that are easily dismissed. There is also the problem of resistance from staff. Changing the organization will require the retraining of some staff and perhaps the elimination of some traditional jobs. For example, weather forecasting once depended on large numbers of technicians to draft maps. Now most of this work has been automated. Bottom-Up, Bottom-up promotion occurs when those doing the work become aware of improvements that could be made to the current procedures. The individuals at this level in the organization are probably the most capable of recognizing the limitations of the current system and most keenly aware of the bottlenecks that might be removed through the introduction of a GIS. This approach is usually easier to implement because it has the support of the working level. One of the difficulties with bottom-up promotion is the way that management justifies expenditures for a GIS. It is rare that

solid cost-benefit cases can be made for computer systems whether they be as complex as a GIS or as commonplace as the office word processing system. When examined in detail, cost-benefit justifications tend to include some quantification of benefits, but still are more or less a leap-of-faith. Many of the changes will be nontangibles, such as conditions of work, speed of access to information and improved levels of service. Often the decision may be stalled until the need to adopt the new technology becomes "common knowledge". Once the need to automate spatial data has been discussed frequently enough andaat high enough levels it becomes accepted as the status quo. The need to justify automation then ceases to be the issue and attention focusses on the mechanics of implementation.

You might also like