2010
Washington State LeaderPath
June 22, 2010
Brett Anderson, WSDOT
Michelle Blake, WSDOT
Rustynne Dalton, LSC
Jon Pretty, DIS
Aleta Quimby, OFM
APPROACHING GIS
STRATEGICALLY AS A SHARED
SERVICE
Approaching GIS strategically as a statewide Shared Service
Executive Summary
Eighty percent of all data information has a GIS component. The GIS component can be extremely
useful for visual representation of traditional tabular data, analysis, and can also help show geospatialrelationships (i.e., cause and effect).
Washington State agencies have already taken steps to begin offering GIS as a shared service. The
state’s Orthoimagery Portal, created in 2008, is an example of what can be achieved. Ten agencies
pooled resources to create the infrastructure to begin this collaborative effort. Together, these same
agencies continue to fund the annual costs of the Orthoimagery Portal. However, the Orthoimagery
Portal is only a beginning — a tip of the iceberg — to what Washington State could achieve by offering
GIS as a true shared service, utilized and funded by all of Washington State government.
To create a successful implementation of GIS as a shared service requires the establishment of: a
governance structure, a technical infrastructure, and a larger cultural shift regarding the role of GIS in
project development.
The team recommends the creation of a State Geographic Office. This entity is critical to formalizing the
governance of GIS service provision, standards, and providing the foundation necessary to create a
successful service—one that agencies will be able to directly incorporate into their business functions.
An early and essential task for this body is to define software standards. This task will be an opportunity
for the state’s GIS office to show leadership; and by working closely with the agencies, gain buy-in on
the fundamental change of moving toward shared services. By engaging the agencies as the owners of
the change in their business practices, the state’s GIS office will make future implementation of GIS
support tiers possible.
Based on our research, our project team believes a phased approach to the implementation of the
support tiers (targeting the "GIS mature" agencies first) would be successful. Although these agencies
may elect to use additional service tiers, implementation of tier one will offer an immediate gain: the
agencies will see a reduction in their licensing costs due to economies of scale. These savings will
provide tangible motivation when considering tier two and tier three GIS services. Graduated tiers will
allow for varying agency GIS needs, while increasing the availability of GIS on a more economical basis to
a broader audience.
Tier structure
Below are the service tiers our project team is proposing for the phased implementation approach:

Tier one: Enterprise licensing agreement
The most basic and easily achievable efficiency by purchasing software licensing as a single
entity, rather than have each individual agency purchase their own individual licenses.

Tier two: Enterprise licensing agreement and hosted servers
Consolidating servers will reduce agency costs while providing a more efficient use of resources
across all agencies using GIS. Cost savings can also be achieved by centralizing server
maintenance and updates. This allows the server admin staff in customer agencies to do other
tasks, thereby improving agency productivity.
Page 2 of 38
Approaching GIS strategically as a statewide Shared Service

Tier three: Enterprise licensing agreement, hosted servers, direct desktop support, web-based
services, and geoprocessing tools
This level adds direct desktop support — application installation, configuration, and
troubleshooting through a help desk support structure — into the previous savings across Tier
one and Tier two services. Web-based services and geoprocessing tools would also be included
in this service level.
Incorporating existing GIS assets from participating agencies will be easier because they understand and
appreciate the value of GIS information. However, expanding this into a shared service offering for
those agencies not familiar with GIS will require a larger effort.
Particularly in the area of funding, our team’s recommendations for formalizing GIS represent a
significant shift. Funding for the initial setup of GIS services can be easier to find due to available federal
grants, but long-term sustainable funding has been (and continues to be) the challenge.
Data collection is the most costly element in GIS. It is imperative to focus on finding efficiencies in data
collection processes, and in creating a commonly used central data repository. Rather than having
personnel in multiple agencies collect information about the same physical feature, agencies should
coordinate their efforts to allow a single person to collect a larger amount of data when afield. This will
free data collectors from other agencies for work on different projects.
The project team believes that on-going funding for GIS could be accomplished most effectively in three
ways:

Establish parcel taxation fees to provide stable support for shared GIS efforts

Establish an equal percentage contribution to shared GIS efforts from all participating agencies

Leverage individual talent from GIS mature agencies to acquire grant funding, and pool these
grants to fund shared GIS efforts
The team recognizes that these recommendations include both short-term and long-term action items.
However, we believe this plan would solidify support, and create a healthy infrastructure, to efficiently
and effectively provide GIS technology to a wider audience in a consistent manner.
Page 3 of 38
Approaching GIS strategically as a statewide Shared Service
The Challenge
Our LeaderPath team selected the topic of “Approaching Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
strategically as a statewide Shared Service” for a variety of reasons. Some team members had no prior
experience with GIS, while others were interested in the special challenges presented by GIS. Other
team members were simply drawn to the topic of implementing a shared service.
It quickly became very apparent that GIS, in and of itself, is a very broad and complex subject. Given the
limited amount of time for the project, we discussed priorities and a strategy. Our project objectives
included:
● Attaining a high-level understanding of GIS technology
● Reviewing how GIS technology is currently being used within Washington State
government
● Reviewing the current GIS management and governance environment in Washington
State
● Reviewing other state and local government efforts to implement an enterprise-level
GIS solution
● Outlining opportunities for making GIS a shared service
● Offering implementation strategies for GIS as a shared service
What is GIS and why is it Important?
A geographic information system integrates hardware, software, and data for capturing, managing,
analyzing, and displaying all forms of geographically referenced information. GIS merges cartography
and database technology to provide a way to visualize, question, interpret, and understand data. This
allows us to see trends, patterns, and cause-and-effect relationships between data sets.
Approximately 80% of data can be spatially represented and analyzed. Any tabular data that includes
street address, state route milepost, zip code, city name, latitude/longitude, or administrative region
name can be associated to a location on earth.
GIS is commonly used to provide emergency response, asset management, perform community and
land use planning, conduct environmental assessment and monitoring, determine project scoping,
manage fleet vehicles, conduct natural resource management, design intelligent transportation system
functions, and track the provision of goods and services.
While most people associate GIS with maps, a GIS map provides much more than a simple picture of a
geographic location. GIS maps are powerful communication mediums that efficiently provide
information on complex relationships and patterns. GIS also provides:

Analytical capabilities — location, both absolute (positional accuracy) and relative (geometric
relationships to other features), is the common element upon which disparate data from various
sources (and subject areas) can be compared. These relationships are very difficult to discern in
a typical tabular database, but are quickly evident with geospatial analysis. (The example below
depicts the analytical results, of overlaying state routes with elevation and potential flood
scenario data, to identify sections of highway that may need to be closed if the Howard Hanson
Dam fails.)
Page 4 of 38
Approaching GIS strategically as a statewide Shared Service
Example of analytical results related to a potential breach of the Howard Hanson Dam.

Asset management — GIS is also increasingly used as a tool to manage assets and to depict upto-the-moment location of specific activities. GIS is a powerful tool for effective incident
management, emergency response, and dispatch of critical services. (In the example below,
WSDOT Maintenance and Incident Response Trucks can be tracked in near real time, along with
the activities they are performing during winter storms.)
WSDOT’s Winter Operations site allows users to track the activities of WSDOT’s Maintenance Fleet.

Better decisions, justifications, and accountability — GIS also allows for more informed policy,
project, and funding decisions. The ability to relate disparate subjects together allows new ways
to prioritize funding and analyze potential outcomes, as well as evaluating the effectiveness of
current policies and projects.
Page 5 of 38
Approaching GIS strategically as a statewide Shared Service
Example from Washington’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act site, Recovery.wa.gov. This site
allows the public to learn more about American Recovery and Reinvestment Act projects in their
community. These projects provide jobs and lay the groundwork for long-term economic growth.
GIS is being used by the Washington State Broadband Mapping and Planning Program to show multiple
layers of information such as: availability of broadband service by speed, availability of broadband
Page 6 of 38
Approaching GIS strategically as a statewide Shared Service
service by technology type, locations of community anchor institutions, advertised broadband download
speeds, population density, median household income, education level, and land-use type.
Websites like Zillow.com, web-based applications such as Google Earth, and dashboard navigation
systems like NavStar and TomTom have made the public quite aware of GIS. Thanks to GIS, the public
can now examine potential neighborhoods prior to purchasing a new home, evaluate potential vacation
spots before making reservations, and find step-by-step driving directions before starting their car.
Business uses for GIS include: marketing, real-estate site analysis, and determining delivery routes or
service areas. The availability of geographic information systems data and services results in better
analysis; and thus, can be a contributing factor in attracting new businesses to a specific location. Since
most geographic information systems data is created by government entities, state government is in a
unique position to provide desired information to its constituency, influence growth, and communicate
needs.
Websites like Zillow.com are frequently used by the public to evaluate potential neighborhoods before
purchasing a new home and relocating.
How does a GIS service differ from a traditional IT service?
A GIS service is basically a specific type of IT service, and is subject to the same benefits and challenges,
with some important differences:

Level of organizational integration with IT — GIS services rely on IT infrastructure, but tend to be
developed outside of the traditional IT realm. Typically, GIS is developed within the business
units of organizations. However, as the use of GIS technology increases, GIS and IT are
converging and GIS is becoming a mainstream tool. For example: Open GIS Standards have
been developed, which has led to competitive open source GIS offerings and schema
translators. Tools like Google Maps and Google Earth are cementing the public’s demand for
geospatial information.
Page 7 of 38
Approaching GIS strategically as a statewide Shared Service

Level of Information Stewardship — geographic information is very similar to financial
information in its stewardship structure. Both are specialized disciplines, where data usage and
presentation are rules-based. These rules are centuries old, and there are legal ramifications to
misrepresenting data and results. The backends of these systems live in the IT world; but, their
implementation and use are controlled and filtered based on established professional practices
and procedures.

Cost of data — GIS data tends to be more costly to develop and maintain than traditional IT
data. In fact, data creation and maintenance consumes 80% of the cost to provide GIS services.
This statistic is not unique to Washington State.
Why is GIS data so costly?
Collection Methodologies
To have effective and useful GIS data, you need to have a 100% sample of your area of interest.
Methods of data collection include:

Onsite collection using GPS and/or surveying methodologies – this kind of data collection
requires trained staff. The data collection is time consuming, and travel is often required.

Photogrammetric and remote sensing methodologies – creation of orthophotography and
remote sensing products (like LiDAR) is highly specialized work. It is quite expensive, especially
if higher positional accuracy is required. Digitizing features from orthophotography provides a
means to collect information without traveling to the actual location, but the features and
attributes that can be discerned from an overhead view are limited. Digitization from
orthophotography still requires time and diligence to collect all features present.

Data acquisition from county and local governments – local agencies produce high quality data,
but data is not consistent between the different local entities. Therefore, data from these
sources requires additional processing to make it useful across jurisdictional boundaries. Data
schemas from the source agencies often change without warning, which affects any automated
processes and queries built to transform the data. Data acquisition will likely involve a Data
Sharing Agreement, may require a purchase from the county or government agency, and will
require extra server space for local data storage and backups.

Data acquisition from private companies – acquiring data from a private company requires a
data sharing agreement, in addition to purchase and maintenance fees. The data is often
tailored to specific uses that best meet the needs of the company providing the data, and it may
not meet agency needs. Data from private sources may also be subject to non-disclosure
agreements; and therefore, cannot be shared in a collaborative manner.
Positional Accuracy Requirements
As the need for positional accuracy increases, so does the cost. State agencies often differ on their
requirements for positional accuracy. For example: The general location of a feature may work well for
natural resource agencies, but this level of accuracy may not meet the needs of utility and
transportation departments. Even within the same agency, positional accuracy requirement needs
differ from project to project. For example: GIS data for design-level work demands higher accuracy
than GIS data for planning-level work. (Design-level work is used when something will actually be
constructed – like a road, building stormwater system, etc. — while planning-level data is often more
Page 8 of 38
Approaching GIS strategically as a statewide Shared Service
general and used to get an overall idea of what is occurring in an area prior to performing more specific
work.)
Relative Accuracy Requirements
For accurate display and analytical results, data will often need to be vertically integrated with other
data layers. For example: U.S. Census data often uses the center of roadways as a boundary feature
between sampling areas. These sampling areas are also used to determine Washington State’s
Legislative and Congressional District boundaries. It would be ideal for such boundaries to overlay the
road network in those instances. If they overlay, we can reliably answer common Legislative questions:

What transportation projects are within my district?

Does this project span multiple districts, and if so which ones?

How many miles of this project are in my district, and how does this compare as a percentage to
the total project?
Relative Accuracy Requirements are derived from business requirements. Standards must exist and
stakeholders must agree to the requirements. Stakeholders must also agree to the processes and
procedures used to implement the relative accuracy requirements.
Refresh Rate Requirements
There is a direct relationship between the update frequency of data and its cost: the more timely the
data, the greater the cost. State agencies often differ on their requirements for how often data needs
to be refreshed. Even within the same agency, time sensitivity requirement needs differ between
projects.
Documentation Requirements
Documentation based on federal/international standards is required, and is absolutely essential to help
ensure that data is properly used. The level of documentation for GIS is far more detailed than typical IT
metadata.
Washington State’s Shared Services Initiative
On February 10, 2009, Governor Gregoire directed state agencies to “provide full assistance and support
in the development and implementation of a shared services model.” The Governor believed that by
combining efforts, agencies could reduce cost; and even more importantly, achieve efficiencies that
would enable agencies to focus on their core missions.
For the purposes of this project, we will use the definition of “shared services,” as described in The
Shared Services Model report, dated October 15, 2009:
The concentration of state and other related resources performing like activities,
currently spread across the organization, to service multiple partners at lower cost
and with higher service levels. The purpose is to optimize the value of IT and
business services to front office and back office staff resulting in improved service to
the people of Washington.
In the public and private sectors, shared services have shown savings and improvements for both
productivity and service quality. Ideally, Washington State will benefit from pursuing such opportunities
as well.
Page 9 of 38
Approaching GIS strategically as a statewide Shared Service
A significant amount of groundwork is necessary to change shared services from theory into practice.
CIOs from multiple state agencies are working to create business cases that help identify areas that
could benefit from a shared service approach. At this time, the primary focus areas are database
servers, email, and desktop support services.
Some shared service work has already been done on an enterprise application level. For example:
Department of Health has created a street address correction application. State agencies can save time
and money by using this application, rather than creating a new application in-house. (The application
used as an example has exposed other issues that need to be factored in when considering applications
as shared services, including application updates.)
Writers on the topic of shared services note that establishing a governance model is critical to ensuring
success. In order to gain governance agreement and cooperation, agencies must be confident that their
business needs will be met in the new structure. Without this cooperation, agencies will simply
conclude that their needs are unique and opt to continue “silo-like” approaches to hardware or software
infrastructure.
Overview of the current state of GIS in Washington
Washington State has a long history of GIS use and GIS coordination. The natural resource agencies
were the first to make extensive use of GIS in Washington State government. In the early 1980s, they
created a coordination group to facilitate activities. Today, the following groups help to oversee,
coordinate, and facilitate the state’s investment in GIS technology:

The ISB (Information Services Board) is a legislatively created, 15‐member board that develops
information technology (IT) policies, oversees executive agencies’ IT projects, and acts as the
agencies’ IT investment delegating authority. (http://isb.wa.gov/default.aspx)

The GIT (Geographic Information Technology) Committee is an ISB sub-committee devoted to
providing executive leadership to promote and coordinate the enterprise implementation of GIS
for statewide and inter-jurisdictional integration and participation.
(http://isb.wa.gov/committees/git/Default.aspx ) GIT membership includes those state agencies
with the most extensive GIS implementations: Department of Ecology, Department of Fish and
Wildlife, Department of Health, Department of Natural Resources, Military Department, Office
of Financial Management, Department of Revenue, and the Department of Transportation.

WAGIC (Washington Geographic Information Council) is the statewide multi-jurisdictional
technical GIS advisory group composed of federal, state, tribal, local agencies, and private
industry. State agency GIS managers who participate in WAGIC serve as staff to the ISB
Committee on Geographic Information Technology. (http://wagic.wa.gov/ )

The Washington Framework Management Group (a WAGIC subgroup) is devoted to creating,
maintaining, and making available commonly used data sets for use by all state agencies. The
framework will eventually include digital orthoimagery, elevation, transportation, hydrography,
governmental units, and cadastral data. (http://wagic.wa.gov/Framework/Default.htm )
Page 10 of 38
Approaching GIS strategically as a statewide Shared Service
A review of IT Portfolios belonging to the GIT agencies, reveals that they all support and manage their
own GIS infrastructure, including: servers, software, desktop installations, software extensions, and
data resources. ESRI software is the primary GIS software used. A handful of GIS staff within each
agency provide core IT support. A greater number of GIS staff exist within the business units of each
agency to provide data stewardship, analysis, and cartographic services specific to each unit’s needs.
The Departments of Ecology, Fish and Wildlife, and Natural Resources will be coordinating “cost
effective strategies for managing state natural resource mapping data and services” due to Executive
Order 09-07 – Washington’s Natural Resources Reform Initiative. Part of this endeavor includes a
consolidation of the agencies’ GIS resources.
Some smaller agencies have also made investments in GIS. For example: the Washington State
Legislature recently spent approximately $50,000 to purchase software and servers, and spends $14,000
per year in GIS licensing maintenance costs.
Increased demand for GIS information in state government
Washington State government has seen a marked increase in GIS use over the last decade. For example:
over the last seven years, the use of GIS at WSDOT has increased by 810%. Over the last nine years,
WSDOT’s average annual expenditures on GIS software products increased by 18% per year. WSDOT
now spends approximately $170,000 in licensing maintenance fees each year, and directly serves GIS
software to over 1200 employees.
Page 11 of 38
Approaching GIS strategically as a statewide Shared Service
Growth of GIS use, based on licensing figures at WSDOT
Washington State’s Framework Data Sets
The Framework Management Group first met in 1996 to promote and coordinate, the development and
use of, a common data store for frequently used spatial data themes, such as: geodetic control (survey
monument), digital orthoimagery, elevation, transportation, hydrography, governmental units and
cadastral (ownership) data. The goals of developing and using framework data sets are: to reduce
expenditures for data collection and maintenance, to reduce duplications of effort, and to provide
consistency between organizations’ cartographic and analytical results.
Page 12 of 38
Approaching GIS strategically as a statewide Shared Service
Information Services Board (ISB)
Information technology policy making board
Geographic Information Technology Committee (GIT)
Recommend GIS policy and standards for state adoption
Executive sponsor of framework efforts
Washington Geographic Information Council (WAGIC)
Working groups develop and recommend to the GIT standards and policy
Support the eight framework data themes
Geodetic
Control
Governmental
Units
Hydrography
Framework
Functions







Data Development and Integration
Data Access
Data Management
Data Stewardship
Coordination
Executive Guidance
Monitoring and Response
Cadastral
Orthoimagery
Elevation
Transportation
Geographic
Names
Business Plan
Elements
 Project Name






Time Frame
Geographic Extent
Project Description
Project Goals
Sponsor
Governance





Operations
Marketing
Cooperation
Change Factors
Budget
Washington Framework Data Sets – Management, Functions, and Business Plan Elements, from
Geographic Information Systems Strategic Plan: Mapping Washington’s Future, 2010 -2014
At this time, the Orthoimagery and Geodetic Control Framework data themes are fully implemented,
while the Transportation Framework is nearing completion. The Hydrography and Cadastral Framework
projects are currently underway, and the Governmental Units and Elevation data theme projects have
not yet begun.
Existing GIS Shared Services - Descriptions and Current Implementation Levels
Washington’s GIS Community is ahead of their IT counterparts in the creation and implementation of
shared services. Thus far, three are available for use:

The Washington Orthoimagery Data Portal is a shared service (hosted through DIS by several
Washington State agencies) as part of the Framework Group’s plan to deliver digital
orthoimagery. Previously, such imagery was repetitively stored, and provided for use, by
multiple agencies. Hosting the Orthoimagery Portal, in terms of hardware and software,
currently costs $160,000 per year (approximately $20,000 per year, per server). This cost is split
between the ten state agency members. Governance documents have been created to define
roles and responsibilities, and these documents can serve as templates for use by future
services. Currently 63 orthophotos are available for use. Some of these photos are also
available in different projections. Smaller agencies had no means of storing and accessing such
imagery on a statewide basis prior to the Washington State Imagery Portal.
Page 13 of 38
Approaching GIS strategically as a statewide Shared Service
Orthoimagery Operations
Governance Diagram
Co-stewards

Work with Orthoimagery Steering
Committee to develop data
recommendations for ISB/GIT
consideration
Orthoimagery Partners

Multi-jurisdictional consortium that
funds orthoimagery data acquisition
Orthoimage Co-stewards
Department of
Transportation
Department of
Natural Resources
Local
Represent
Stakeholder Needs
State
Program
Orthoimagery Steering Committee

Provides input and helps develop
Ortho data recommendations
Executive
Sponsors
Orthoimagery
Steering
Committee
Portal
Stewards
Individual
Agencies
Represents
Stakeholder
Needs
ISB/GIT Committee

Stewards and executive decision makers for Portal

Provides strategic direction and leadership

Considers recommendations from:

Stewards and Portal Operations Team
Other
Federal
Portal Operations
Team
Portal Operations
Steering Committee
Exec. Sponsor
Portal
Orthoimage
Partners
Representatives
Tribes
ISB/GIT
Executive
Committee
Orthoimage
Storage and Access
Mechanism
University
Portal
Operation Support
Portal Steering Committee

Responsible for operating portal at direction of ISB/GIT

Makes operating change recommendations to ISB/GIT
(GIT)
Governance Flow Diagram for the Washington Orthoimagery Data Portal from
(http://isb.wa.gov/committees/git/govdocs.aspx )
Page 14 of 38
Approaching GIS strategically as a statewide Shared Service
The Washington State Orthoimage Portal website allows customers to browse and download
orthoimagery for their areas of interest. The data is also available for ArcGIS customers as an Image
Server Service.

The Shared Services Pilot Projects – Washington Location Finder Geoprocessing Service and
Address Correction and Geocoding Service allow customers to check street addresses, and find
locations based on street address. These services cost a total of $250,000 to create, and are
hosted and maintained in a cloud environment. Both are fledgling products and are not
currently supported at a level sufficient to ensure availability needs. The implementations do
not include failover capabilities, or support for 24/7 needs. Potential demand for these services
is unknown at this time. If the services are made publically available, the demand could be quite
large. (https://test-fortress.wa.gov/doh/gis/apps/geocoder/service.asmx?op=GetGeocode and
https://test-fortress.wa.gov/doh/addresscorrection/service.asmx?op=Getstandardizedaddress )
Ideal goals for the future state of GIS in Washington
The Geographic Information Systems Strategic Plan: Mapping Washington’s Future, 2010 -2014 details
the Washington State GIS Community’s goals for the future:

Vision: Utilize geospatial technology to facilitate decision‐making to benefit Washington
State citizens.

Mission: Work in partnership with public and private sector statewide to provide accurate,
consistent, accessible, and comprehensive GIS resources for decision makers and the public.

Strategic Goals: The overarching strategy encompasses the following concepts in an effort
to fulfill the mission and vision of this Plan: 1) Promote data development, sharing and
access through the development of common standards and guidelines; 2) Facilitate
coordination and communication; and 3) Promote the value of GIS in decision‐making.
Page 15 of 38
Approaching GIS strategically as a statewide Shared Service
Many of these ideals were incorporated into the Conceptual Enterprise Architecture solution approved
by the GIT in 2006:
Current strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats regarding GIS Shared Services in
Washington State
Strengths
Weaknesses

Washington’s GIS community is very
collaborative in nature. A number of
coordinated efforts have been initiated on a
voluntary basis. Data sharing between entities
is currently common practice.

An organizational structure is in place to
support the coordinated efforts needed to
oversee GIS Shared Services in the state.

Several of the larger state agencies have
mature GIS programs, including trained staff,
established funding strategies, and
infrastructure.

The demand for GIS is growing and recognized.

The current economic situation has created an
opportunity for shared service offerings and
consolidation of similar functions. Support for

Current funding mechanisms for GIS focus on
implementation, but not long-term
maintenance. Initial project funding often
comes through various grants. Maintenance
funding, if any, is often only applicable through
a biennium.

The framework data sets that exist in
Washington have not been designed to work
together. This has caused state agencies to
store revised versions of framework data sets
for their own use.

Additional staffing and resources are needed
at the statewide level to oversee coordination
activities and establish governance standards.

It is difficult to discern the number of GISrelated positions in Washington State
Page 16 of 38
Approaching GIS strategically as a statewide Shared Service
these activities is very widespread among all
levels of state government.
government. GIS position-classifications do
not exist, and GIS support is often scattered
throughout an agency. GIS is often not
centralized as part of an agency’s IT
department.

It is difficult to assess the cost of GIS in our
current statewide accounting system. Often,
GIS costs are not identified in IT project
reporting.

Most GIS funding mechanisms penalize the
service provider or those who are early
adopters.

State agencies may be reluctant to consolidate
or contribute resources, especially if they are
currently able to meet agency needs.

Decision makers do not understand the full
value of GIS. This lack of understanding has
undermined the adoption of the technology as
an essential component of IT projects.
Opportunities

Threats
The current economic situation is encouraging
all agencies “to make do with less.” This trend
has brought greater support for reducing
redundancy, taking advantage of partnership
opportunities, finding innovative solutions,
and exploring options to enhance long term
viability.

Environmental regulations are driving a need
for consistent spatial information for permit
approval and to report on compliance
activities.

Federal agencies are requiring more spatial
reporting on activities, often as a deliverable
and contingency associated with the receipt of
federal funding.

Private companies depend on spatial data
produced by governmental entities to provide
consumers with information (i.e., navigational
data, commerce information, school district
information, health department information,
environmental information affecting site
planning and building developments).
Potential partnership opportunities exist that

Products like Google Earth have given GIS
mainstream exposure. However, these
products have also given the impression that
GIS is free. This causes the public to believe
that all GIS services should be free.

Implementation of GIS services and data
collection has protracted cost requirements,
when compared to traditional IT systems.
Decision makers need to be educated as to the
return on investment that GIS services can
provide.

State agencies vary in their spatial positional
and relative accuracy requirements. Finding
common ground may prove difficult, or may
result in some agencies’ inability to fully
participate in the use of shared services, and
the need for some agencies to create and
support revised versions of data and services.

Delaying establishment of a centralized GIS
office to handle coordination efforts, including
the development of standards and processes,
will cause individual agencies to seek their
own solutions and implementations that may
Page 17 of 38
Approaching GIS strategically as a statewide Shared Service
could provide private funding.

The provision of shared services helps provide
smaller agencies with access to GIS
technology.

Political leaders can employ GIS technology to
assist with communicating accomplishments
within districts, regions, counties, cities, and
statewide.

Activities are underway to create and use
standard framework datasets.

Activities are underway to create and use
Shared Services.

GIS efforts provide a powerful visual
illustration which can be leveraged to show
the importance of GIS, and educate decisionmakers on potential uses of GIS.

The establishment of a GIS Shared Service
provides customers with consistent,
repeatable results. It would also reduce
duplicative efforts and expenditures among
state agencies.

Central access to spatial data is needed and
desired. (Cited from Geographic Information
Systems Strategic Plan: Mapping
Washington’s Future, 2010 -2014, Appendix B Stakeholder Outreach: Synthesis of Findings).

Access to improved spatial data can expedite
tax collection by identifying unreported
property improvements and land use changes.
not be in keeping with an overall, long term
approach.

Legal issues can impede the sharing of data
and services. For instance, purchased data
and data provided by other entities may have
legal stipulations regarding use and
redistribution. Washington currently has
liberal public disclosure laws, but these laws
can change if political views shift.

Political and economic pressures can alter
priorities and stakeholder commitment.
Strategic approach to our LeaderPath Capstone project
Our following recommendations on GIS service implementation strategies are based on:
o
Interviews with Washington State GIS leaders
o
Research of Washington State agencies’ GIS implementations
o
Research of other states’ GIS implementations

Enterprise GIS for municipal governments

Kansas

Maryland

North Carolina
Page 18 of 38
Approaching GIS strategically as a statewide Shared Service
o
o

Oregon

Vermont

Virginia
Research of successful county GIS implementations

King County, WA

Pierce County, WA
Research of trade journals, blogs, websites, and conference presentations
Based on our research, the project team will describe GIS shared service opportunities, service provision
options, governance requirements, and cost/funding options. From this information (and the identified
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats), we believe implementation will require selecting a
provisioning level, support tier, and funding mechanisms within the parameters of the governance
structure.
Opportunities for making GIS a shared service
Provisioning commonly used data
Shared data services provide substantial savings for agencies that have been maintaining their own
versions of data. Shared data services also provide new opportunities for smaller agencies to utilize
geospatial technology. All agencies will benefit from using a common source for display and analysis.
This will provide consistent and transparent results.
Washington Transportation Framework’s Return on Investment Study shows the benefits of creating
and using a shared data resource – not just for state agencies, but also for local jurisdictions.
Page 19 of 38
Approaching GIS strategically as a statewide Shared Service
A single data repository and point of access, with sufficient capacity and redundancy to accommodate
current and expected agency and public access requirements, would provide several benefits:

Reduced data collection costs — currently, multiple natural resource agencies are each sending a
staff member to collect GIS data for the same geographic areas. By having a commonly used data
set, one staff member could collect data for multiple agencies from the same geographic area. Data
collection costs (i.e., travel costs and per diems) could potentially be cut by two-thirds.

Increased productivity — each natural resource agency sacrifices efficiency and productivity when
multiple staff members are deployed to the field to collect data for the same geographic region.
This is experienced as an opportunity cost – i.e., reduced output due to allocation of time spent
outside the office collecting data. If one staff member can be sent to collect the data that is
commonly shared between three natural resource agencies, the total output of the three staff
members is increased by two-thirds without any increase in labor costs.

Reduced hardware costs – a single data repository that is shared by all state agencies could be
housed on a consolidated number of servers, instead of each state agency storing their copy of the
data set on a server that may be underutilized. This approach could also save costs on licenses fees
for the different servers since fewer licenses would be needed to host the same amount of data.

Reduced cost to maintain data – because data sets are currently stored in multiple agencies,
multiple personnel are editing the same data sets on multiple occasions. For example: There are
three different state agencies currently storing their own copies of the hydrography data layer. Each
agency must edit the data to correct geometry inaccuracies. Instead of these edits occurring once,
and the corrected data being shared, each agency is performing their own edits. Between the
Department of Ecology and the Department of Natural Resources, the agencies spent a minimum of
$130,000 on data edits that were duplicated last year alone.
Another example of potential cost avoidance is the editing of data for incorporated cities. Currently
DOT, OFM, and ECY are all storing and editing their own copies of this data. Conservative estimates
suggest that $90,000 is spent each year editing the same data by the three different agencies.
Page 20 of 38
Approaching GIS strategically as a statewide Shared Service
Provisioning commonly used map services
A map service provides commonly requested information in an attractive, cartographic product. Users
can access information, and have it displayed relative to common base map information (i.e., traditional
map information such as rivers, roads, jurisdictional boundaries, and major points of interest). Often
times, these services provide more detailed information as the customer zooms into locations. Map
services are typically implemented as part of data and geoprocessing services to enhance information
delivery.
VesselWatch allows the public to view the location of Washington State Ferries relative to waterways,
transportation routes, and points of interest.
Provisioning commonly used geoprocessing tools
What is a geoprocessing tool?
From ESRI: The fundamental purpose of geoprocessing is to allow you to automate your GIS
tasks. Almost all uses of GIS involve the repetition of work, and this creates the need for
methods to automate, document, and share multiple-step procedures known as workflows.
Geoprocessing supports the automation of workflows by providing a rich set of tools and a
mechanism to combine a series of tools in a sequence of operations using models and scripts.
Geoprocessing services allow customers to retrieve information derived from spatial data sets. Street
address locators and navigational information are examples of geoprocessing services familiar to the
general public. Geoprocessing services can also provide data for other IT systems, and in noncartographic reporting formats. Some geoprocessing tools can be quite complex, involving a number of
data sets and spatial operations.
Page 21 of 38
Approaching GIS strategically as a statewide Shared Service
The Enterprise Location Class provides a means of entering a state route and milepost value in order to
find the associated longitude and latitude value for the location.
Provisioning commonly used geoprocessing tools increases productivity by re-using previously written
automated workflows to achieve the completion of standard tasks in less time. In short, it increases
efficiency and productivity through standardization and reduction of duplicative efforts across the many
state agencies using GIS.
Shared expertise
Expertise, such as training, legal, and cartographic services can also be provided in a consolidated,
shared fashion. Aside from cost savings and a reduction in the duplication of effort, enhanced
consistency is also a benefit among participants.
Provisioning of small agency support
By provisioning shared GIS services for small agencies, cost savings are achieved by eliminating the
duplication of redundant spending on hardware, software, licensing, and FTE costs.
First year costs for GIS startup
(from GIS Data Consolidation and Shared Services Decision Package for 2011-2013 Biennium):
GIS Development Environment
Item
Cost
Hardware - server for application and service testing
$6,000
ESRI EDN Developers License Software
$1,500
Standard SQL server software
$10,000
Subtotal
$17,500
Page 22 of 38
Approaching GIS strategically as a statewide Shared Service
GIS Production Environment
Item
Cost
GIS production application, web services, and database server
hardware
$20,000
ESRI ArcGIS Server Enterprise Software
$40,000
ESRI ArcGIS standard enterprise software
$20,000
Standard SQL server enterprise software
$21,000
Subtotal
$101,000
Server hosting costs
$20,000
Staff equipment (computer)
$10,000
Data collection hardware
$5000
Subtotal
$35,000
Grand total
$153,500
Please note: The grand total above does not include any FTE costs for the production of GIS products. This is a
large investment for a single small agency to make. GIS investments are better spent if the costs and benefits can
be spread across multiple small agencies; rather than individual small agencies trying to provide GIS for themselves.
Establishment of a State GIS Office
By establishing a state GIS office, benefits of coordinated training, data sharing, shared geoprocessing
tools, shared legal disclaimers for commonly used data; and common data, cartographic, and
geoprocessing standards are achieved.
According to GIS Data Consolidation and Shared Services Decision Package for 2011-2013 Biennium,
benefits of a state GIS office also include:
o
Reduced GIS software and infrastructure costs for all stage agencies by having central entity
capable of negotiating enterprise license agreements with GIS vendors.
o
Reduced GIS software/hardware costs by providing a shared infrastructure (i.e., data storage,
and backup, servers, software, network hosting costs, etc.)
o
Elimination of redundant data storage costs
o
Reduced GIS staff costs associated with developing GIS services and applications
o
Reduction in the number of errors caused by inconsistent regulatory GIS data
o
Reduced GIS staff costs associated with creating and maintaining framework datasets
o
Reduced GIS staff costs associated with administering infrastructure
o
Reduced GIS database administration staff costs
o
Higher quality GIS services and products for use by state government and the citizens of
Washington
Page 23 of 38
Approaching GIS strategically as a statewide Shared Service
However, until this option is implemented, or a return on investment study is conducted, a fully
accurate assessment of savings and benefits is not possible.
Benefits of Consolidation - GIS consolidation within the Department of Ecology (circa 1998)
In 1991-1992, the Department of Ecology had twenty-two ARC/INFO licenses, eight plotters and
digitizers, and nine servers for GIS. In 1996, the Department of Ecology consolidated all GIS
infrastructure and licenses using six paid FTEs (and two FTEs without funding) when all Ecology offices
were relocated from twenty-two separate locations into one building.
The result of the consolidation saved costs on maintenance, licensing, hardware, software, and paper.
By 1998, Department of Ecology had reduced the total number of plotters down to four machines,
servers were reduced by two-thirds, and the number of support FTEs were reduced by one-third.
Licensing costs were reduced by $50, 000.
Dept of Ecology GIS
Consolidation
1996 Data (pre-consolidation)
1998 (post consolidation)
Plotters and digitizers
16 devices
8 devices
Servers
9 devices
3 devices
Support FTEs
6
4
Licensing costs
$198,000
$148,000
Governance
Providing shared GIS services will require extensive collaboration between participating agencies to
manage common infrastructure and agree upon standardized data stewardship roles. The Washington
Geographic Information Council (WAGIC) performed an online survey that included 59 respondents,
with forty-six percent identifying their organizations as a state agency. Several challenges were
identified by the survey and organized into themes. Below are some of the themes and associated
concerns surrounding governance identified by:
Coordination and partnership opportunities
 Many respondents focused on better GIS coordination within their organizations. They
were also concerned with fragmentation of GIS data and processes.
Data sharing
 There is a need to know what data is currently available in order to minimize duplication.
For any particular subject matter, it is a necessity to have a data steward who is responsible
for data maintenance and updates.
 Natural resource agencies are currently duplicating efforts to host GIS hardware and
software resources.
Data quality and standards
 Data stewardship (maintaining data layers and consistently updating documentation) was
frequently cited as a challenge.
 There is a lack of “official” and authoritative versions of data sets that are shared among
state agencies and updated on a regular basis.
Page 24 of 38
Approaching GIS strategically as a statewide Shared Service
Other considerations
 There are fragmented resources (i.e., people, hardware, and software), a lack of
focus/direction, and a lack of recognition/understanding by decision makers and the general
public of the true value of GIS.
Existing GIS governance entities
Two coordination bodies currently exist for Washington State GIS services. The Washington Geographic
Information Council (WAGIC) was established in 1994 facilitating the use and development geospatial
information between agencies through personal working relationships. The Geographic Information
Technology (GIT) Committee is a sub-committee for the Information Services Board (ISB).GIT serves as
the de facto coordinator for GIS in state government.
Due to the growth of demand for GIS, WAGIC believes these two bodies are no longer sufficient. In
Geographic Information Systems Strategic Plan: Mapping Washington’s Future, 2010 – 2014 and
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Business Plan: Washington Enterprise GIS Program Shared Access
to Geospatial Services documents (both produced by WAGIC), shared service elements were outlined
that could be implemented to address GIS governance:
1. Formalize GIS data stewardship
Seven primary framework data layers are defined, each with a designated data steward for
the corresponding enterprise level GIS data sets. Each data service that will be consuming
the data will also have a steward.
2. Provide shared GIS infrastructure
Shared infrastructure will help reduce storage costs and provide a single point of data
discovery for stakeholders and their applications.
3. Expand Washington State GIS Program Office
This office would be responsible for managing the shared infrastructure, coordinating
software purchases, managing business agreements between stakeholders, coordinating
data acquisition, and would also serve as the central point of contact for external
stakeholders.
Shared service governance model
A high-level model for shared services has been developed by a large group of state agency Chief
Information Officers (CIOs). It is documented in the Washington State Shared Services Model. The
model outlines a governance structure consisting of three major bodies:
1. Governing board
2. Advisory committee
3. User committee
The governing board — consisting of a representative from the Governor’s office, a member of the
Office of Financial Management, an elected official, two consumer agency directors, and the director of
the Department of Information Services — provide strategy, funding, and leadership to achieve
targeted benefits for shared services.
The advisory committee would address service level agreements, ensure the business need for agencies
is being met, provide guidance on policies, and approve pricing. Managers from both consumer and
provider agencies of the GIS shared service would be members of the committee.
Page 25 of 38
Approaching GIS strategically as a statewide Shared Service
The user committee would serve a more hands-on role by providing feedback on the operation of the
service, suggesting improvements, overseeing performance monitoring, and acting as the front-line
representatives for consumers of the service. The committee would be composed of mainly employees
from GIS consumer and provider agencies. Potential consumers of shared GIS services are
recommended to participate on the committee.
Data stewardship governance
Processes and procedures need to manage and oversee server acquisition and use, software licensing,
business analysis, metrics, and service availability needs. However, processes and procedures also need
to be in place for data. [For instance, the Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO)
spent $250,000 over a three year period on a website to collect publicly-entered GIS data. This effort
did not include any data oversight or validation. Ultimately, the results were not reliable and therefore
unusable.] Data stewardship roles and responsibilities of member organizations must be defined, along
with business needs and requirements that drive the design and content of the underlying data,
including:
o
Desired horizontal positional accuracy
o
Desired relative positional accuracy
o
Connectivity/flow determination
o
Depiction – point, line, polygon
o
Desired attribution
o
Data refresh rate
o
Desired level of performance and availability
Over time, business needs and requirements may change. Often these changes are introduced by
external forces, such as federal requirements or new legislation. Effective governance strategies need
to account for potential changes in business requirements, and how such future changes will be
evaluated and implemented.
In some cases, agencies will have vastly different business requirements for the same data theme. The
governance structure is responsible for facilitating the best implementation, in order to meet the needs
of the most participants, at the least cost. In some cases, it may prove necessary to maintain two
versions of the same subject area theme, with the intent that each be used for different purposes.
Conflict resolution planning will help define a structured approach to dealing with issues that might arise
between member organizations.
Rules regarding data sharing, and legalities of use, must also be established. Public disclosure laws, and
individual contract agreements, may stipulate appropriate forms of data use and methods of crediting
data contributors. Data exempt from public disclosure laws will require strict security, especially in a
shared environment.
Provisioning shared GIS services
The Department of Information Services (DIS) provides a range of IT services to state agencies. In order
to approach GIS as an enterprise service, varying agency needs must be recognized. For example: GIS
needs of larger agencies — such as Department of Transportation (DOT), Natural Resources (DNR), and
Ecology — are far different than those of smaller agencies.
Page 26 of 38
Approaching GIS strategically as a statewide Shared Service
Assessing GIS maturity
The first step in selecting a service level implementation is to establish the requesting agency's GIS
maturity. For the purpose of this project, "GIS maturity" is a descriptor of the agency's experience with
GIS software and hardware infrastructure; data collection, analysis, and maintenance; as well as
analytical needs. It would be possible to have an inverse relationship between a higher maturity rating
and the support tier.
Tier structure
The approach used by DIS to providing server services results in a good structural example for GIS
service administration. The graduated tiers will allow for the varying agency GIS needs, while increasing
the availability on a more economical basis to a broader audience.
Tier one: Enterprise licensing agreement
The most basic and easily achievable efficiency that can be gained by approaching GIS as a shared
service is to contract for software licensing as a single entity, rather than have each agency contract for
their agency’s individual licensing.
Complexity is expensive. Therefore, a primary tenet of shared services is limited options, without
sacrificing the system’s usability or performance. The GIS administrative body will need to work
diligently to gain consensus among the agencies in this regard. This task will be particularly challenging,
given the many lures of open source products.
For many years, the market leader in GIS software has been ESRI. Yet, open source products are being
considered as viable alternatives for many reasons; not the least of which is financial. It will be
important for the GIS administrative body to build a consensus. This is pivotal for economies of scale
and supportability.
This tier could be attractive to agencies that have existing GIS departments with established processes
which are adverse to change. Another viable customer base would be agencies that are primarily
consumers of data from other agencies, who only perform analysis.
Tier two: Enterprise licensing agreement and hosted servers
The second tier of GIS implementation is software licensing and hosted servers. In addition to the cost
savings that are achieved from licensing, consolidating servers will reduce agency costs while providing a
more efficient use of resources across all agencies using GIS.
A secondary cost savings can be achieved by centralizing server maintenance and updates. The server
admin staff in customer agencies would be freed up for other tasks, thereby improving agency
productivity.
Tier three: Enterprise licensing agreement, hosted servers, direct desktop support, web-based services,
and geoprocessing tools
The final tier of the implementation strategy is a full-service approach that adds direct desktop support.
In addition to the previous tiers, this level would assist in application installation, configuration, and
troubleshooting through a help desk support structure.
Financial considerations
Cost model
Page 27 of 38
Approaching GIS strategically as a statewide Shared Service
When considering a cost and pricing model for shared GIS services, it is extremely important to
understanding the varying needs of each agency. The size of the agency, along with the type and
amount of data it collects or uses, must be taken into consideration when determining the type of cost
model to use. Currently, tracking actual GIS costs in the statewide accounting system is difficult, if not
impossible. GIS costs are often not specified in IT project reporting, or in agency budgets.
The research and analysis that has been done by other groups concerning financial considerations, such
as cost and pricing models, has been well thought out and does not need to be covered by this project.
This information is available in documents such as the Washington State Shared Services Model (October
15, 2009), as well as in the final Geographic Information Systems Strategic Plan: Mapping Washington’s
Future, 2010-2014 (Final March 25, 2010).
Since the funding structure and charge back methodology for central service agencies are currently
undergoing analysis, we have focused on providing options for the funding of a shared GIS service.
Funding
Sufficient funding must be provided to cover shared GIS service development and maintenance in a fair
manner, while keeping costs low enough to compete with external free-ware such as Google Earth.
The funding strategy of a shared GIS service is one of the most critical decisions to be made. With that
in mind, here is a list of possible solutions:
Options
Pros
Parcel Tax/Transfer
Recording Fees allocate revenues
from specific taxes
and fees for services
that rely on the
collection and
maintenance of
accurate locationbased information.
There is a universal need for emergency and
utility services. This method assures that the
cost is spread to all taxpayers equally. This
method of funding has been used
successfully by other states and county GIS
departments.
For example:
 Chester County, PA, instituted a $ 5 perparcel property transfer fee to create a
"Uniform Parcel Identifier" which became
the foundation of the County's GIS
basemap and its emergency dispatch
system. The fee is but a tiny part of a
typical property owner's transfer costs,
and has not engendered any political
opposition. It raised $696,000 for GIS
operations in 2002.
 California's "Sec. 818" program allows
county governments to allocate property
tax and recording fees to the
"modernization of land records." San
Mateo County's Assessor saw this as an
opportunity to develop a consistent,
countywide GIS-based parcel map to
make tax assessment more efficient.
Page 28 of 38
Cons
Raising taxes or fees
during an economic
downturn is a very
political issue.
Approaching GIS strategically as a statewide Shared Service
These funds (approximately $800,000
over three years) substantially financed
development of the county's GIS.
Building permit
application
fees/document
recording fees
There is a universal need for emergency and
utility services with new construction. This
method of funding has been used
successfully by other states and county GIS
departments.
Raising taxes or fees
during an economic
downturn is a very
political issue. This could
also further complicate
and impede the permit
For example:
process. Fluctuating
 The 1999 Oregon Legislature provided
market conditions would
funding for ORMAP (the Oregon Map)
make this an unsteady
through a document-recording fee
source of funding, which
collected by the counties. This money was
could make annual
put into the ORMAP fund, separate from
budgets difficult.
the state general fund, to be used only for
the development of the Oregon Map. The
ORMAP project developed a statewide
property tax parcel base map that is
digital, publicly accessible, and continually
maintained. This move from paper to
computer-based mapping helps improve
the administration of the property tax
system.
IP address usage
tracking and billing
This is a common practice for usage tracking
in IT systems.
Tracking agency usage
for mobile users is
difficult. Accurate
statistics would require
additional billing
functionality be included
in the application, and
create additional costs of
GIS (in the form of billing
support personnel).
Agency contribution
based on budget
percentage allocate a portion of
each department's
operating budget to
support GIS
services.
Agencies allot a portion of their budget
toward the shared GIS service. King County
GIS utilizes this method of funding.
This may not reflect
actual usage. Some
agencies may pay for
more GIS than they
receive.
For example:
 On December 13, 2001, the King County
Council approved ordinance 2001-0555
(enactment 14270) creating the King
County Geographic Information Systems
Fund. The King County Geographic
Information Systems Fund operates under
the name King County GIS Center (KCGIS
Page 29 of 38
The existing budget
system also does not
encourage collaborative
or large projects, since
the funding typically
needs to be secured as
Approaching GIS strategically as a statewide Shared Service
Center). King County Code gives internal
service funds full financial and operational
responsibility to provide designated
services. Agencies receiving services, or
benefiting from internal service fund
activities, are required to budget for
internal service fund costs.
 Ventura County, CA, has implemented an
"Internal Service Fund" practice, in which
each of the county's 32 agencies pay for a
negotiated level of GIS services based on
their perceived benefit to the agency. The
Geographic Information Officer meets
regularly with department managers to
assess their satisfaction and need for
basemap updates, technical support,
applications, map production projects,
and web-based services to support their
duties and functions. The department
managers have been willing to pay the GIS
department for the perceived value from
these services, which now accounts for
80% of the costs of the county's GIS
operation (roughly $800,000).
B&O Taxes
Encourage more
Public /Private
Partnerships
part of a single agency
budget request. As such,
most agency leaders are
unwilling to request
funding for large
projects since it may be
perceived as a significant
funding increase for
their organization.
The budget cycle does
not provide guaranteed
funding certainty on
projects that span
multiple fiscal years.
Businesses benefit from knowing what
services and clientele are available in the
areas where they wish to establish
sites/locations. Many make use of GIS
services today to analyze this information.
Raising taxes or fees
during an economic
downturn is a very
political issue.
Maintain base information needed by
businesses in a format that is friendly for
their needs. This information would allow
them to learn about current services
provided and available market opportunities.
In return, businesses can lobby for funding
GIS Shared Services. Information about
available land, buildings, zoning,
transportation, environmental conditions,
support facilities, ownership, and property
value is critical to attract economic
development investment.
Marketing to the
business community
would be challenging.
Business priorities
change frequently.
These changes could
affect what information
needs to be collected for
GIS services, and
whether the company
will continue in their
participation.
Businesses are already
struggling with rising
costs and shrinking
revenues.
It can be difficult for
Page 30 of 38
Approaching GIS strategically as a statewide Shared Service
state agencies to partner
with local entities
because of a lack of
common understanding
of issues, project timing,
project needs, and
overall project
communication.
Combine federal
grant monies to
help fund the
creation of shared
services - utilize the
knowledge each
agency has in
gaining grants in
their areas of
expertise.
These grants typically provide a way to
acquire the start-up costs to build GIS
infrastructure.
Increased tax
revenue collection
because of better
tax assessment
information due to
GIS data - GIS data
and geoprocessing
enable the precise
determination of
location boundaries
(i.e., special districts,
city, and county
boundaries) for
facilities — such as
cell phone towers,
point-of-sale
businesses, and
property parcels.
Most jurisdictions
have complex and
frequently changing
boundary lines.
Each jurisdictional
boundary may have
a different tax rate.
GIS-based analysis
Property would be assessed the correct tax
percentage or fee. This would not be the
same as raising taxes per se, but rather
collecting the correct tax amount on a parcel
of land because of better data through GIS.
There is still need to find
a funding source for
maintenance and
operations after the
grant period ends.
Grants may also be
restrictive in how the
money is spent (i.e.,
maintenance and
operations are usually
costs not covered in
grant awards).
For example:
 Orange County, FL, increased revenues
from cellular telephone franchise fees by
using GIS to determine which cell towers
were in their tax jurisdiction. The postal
address put some towers in other
counties. They now collect an additional $
650,000, every year because of GIS
analysis.
 Los Angeles County, CA, recovered $3
million in sales tax revenue after geoanalyzing the location of point-of-sale
businesses which were mis-located by
their postal address. By performing the
geo-analysis in-house, they saved an
additional $375,000 per year that had
gone to external data analysis services.
 Orange County, FL, used GIS to identify
properties with certain characteristics and
Page 31 of 38
To keep up the correct
amount of tax
assessment, there would
be an increased need to
maintain current GIS
data.
Approaching GIS strategically as a statewide Shared Service
can determine
location much more
accurately than
postal address. This
more precise
information has
resulted in
significant revenue
increases (e.g.,
forest taxes vs.
highest and best use
tax).
proximity to Disneyworld, which resulted
in an increase in $700,000 in resort tax
revenues. (The taxes were collected from
condominium owners who were renting
their units informally for tourist
accommodations without paying the
required tax.) The resort tax revenues
continue to increase every year due to the
GIS analysis.
Here is an example of King County’s GIS (KCGIS) Center Funding, Rate Setting & Billing Methodology:
The KCGIS Center segments its operations into three ‘business lines’:

Enterprise GIS Operations

GIS Client Services

Matrix GIS Staffing Services
Each of these business lines uses common GIS services and resources. Each business line
supports a logical cost allocation methodology to help GIS users understand the basis for
individual GIS charges.
To ensure that customers fully fund appropriate costs, and to ensure the fair allocation of costs
for shared services, a detailed budget/rate development spreadsheet is used to account for all
planned costs, and to determine a rate that will recover sufficient revenue within each business
area.
Project Recommendations
As previously noted, 80% of all data information has a GIS component that can be used in analysis and
visual representation. However, at this time, some people may regard GIS as an addendum—a bonus
element, if you will, that is the last added feature and the first item eliminated when resources are tight.
Further complicating issues, those who do appreciate the benefits of GIS may not have the finances or
knowledge necessary to implement it. Therefore, a successful implementation of GIS as a shared service
requires establishment of a governance structure, a technical infrastructure, and a larger cultural shift
regarding the role of GIS in project development.
The team recommends the creation of a State Geographic Office. This is critical to formalizing the
governance of GIS service provision, standards, and providing the foundation necessary to create a
successful service—one that agencies will be able to directly incorporate into their business functions.
Without this solid governance, the state runs the risk of agencies deeming GIS shared services
inadequate for their business purposes. Additional risks include the agencies pursuing other ways to
accomplish work, thereby continuing to duplicate efforts, create silos of GIS activity, lose cost-saving
benefits, and erode interest in pursuing shared GIS services.
Page 32 of 38
Approaching GIS strategically as a statewide Shared Service
An early and essential task for this body is to define software standards. This task will be an opportunity
for the state’s GIS office to show leadership, and by working closely with the agencies, gain buy-in on
the fundamental change of moving to shared services. By engaging the agencies as the owners of the
change, the state’s GIS office will make future implementation of the support tiers possible.
Given the team’s research, we believe that a phased approach to the implementation of the support
tiers (targeting the "GIS mature" agencies first) would be more successful. Although they ultimately may
elect to use another service tier, a quick implementation of tier one will offer an important immediate
gain. The agencies will see a reduction in their licensing costs due to economies of scale. These savings
will provide a tangible motivation to consider tier two and tier three GIS support structures. While we
believe that incorporating existing GIS assets from agencies will be easier because they understand and
appreciate the value of GIS information, expanding this into a shared service offering will require a
larger effort.
Aside from the governance structure, the mature GIS agencies must be actively involved in order to
bring this to fruition. These agencies must have an active voice in software standards development,
server discussions, and policy decisions. Furthermore, the expertise of the GIS mature trained staff
should be drawn on to identify funding mechanisms and infrastructure that can be leveraged. Their
involvement from the onset can help garner agency director-level support for GIS shared services.
These leaders can provide extra voices to help educate decision makers on the value of GIS shared
services.
Costs and funding
In the field of GIS, the most costly element is data collection. Some people may feel that buying the
data makes the most sense in this economic climate. However, recent examples suggest otherwise.
[California contracted with a private vendor to provide road information for the entire state. The state
then developed systems around this vendor data product, only to find that their contract with the
private vendor prohibited them from providing their Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS)
data to the Federal Highway Administration. HPMS reporting is a mandatory federal requirement to
receive federal funding for transportation projects. California is now seeking alternate solutions to meet
their business needs.] The team feels that it makes more sense to focus on finding efficiencies in the
data collection process, and in creating a common, central data repository. Rather than have personnel
in multiple agencies collect information about the same item, they should coordinate their efforts so a
single person collects a larger amount of information when they go. This will free other data collectors
for different projects.
The team’s recommendations for formalizing GIS represent a significant shift, particularly in the area of
funding. Although funding for the initial setup of GIS services can be easier to find due to available
federal grants, long-term sustainable funding has been (and continues to be) the challenge.
One funding mechanism that has been suggested is to sell the GIS data. Based on our research, we
found that this option has not worked as well as expected by those states, counties, and agencies that
have tried. Legally the data is public information; therefore charging the public for it is not viable. Bruce
Joffe had this to say in his article 10 Ways to Support GIS Without Selling Data: “Few have made money.
None have raised significant revenues compared with their costs to maintain their GIS and geodata
assets. Some have lost money.”
In terms of on-going funding, the team believes that funding could be accomplished most effectively in
three ways:

Establish parcel taxation fees to provide stable support for shared GIS efforts
Page 33 of 38
Approaching GIS strategically as a statewide Shared Service

Establish an equal percentage contribution to shared GIS efforts by all participating agencies

Leverage individual talent from GIS mature agencies to acquire grant funding, and pool these
grants to fund shared GIS efforts
In addition to these methods of securing funding, the team believes it is important to the growth of GIS
as a shared service to market its benefits to a wider audience. Currently, a significant portion of GIS
work has focused on physical and administrative features. In order to advance GIS with a full range of
stakeholders, the team recommends broadening the scope to include generalized socio-economic
information with physical feature information and boundary data (e.g., legislative, school district, city,
county, etc.). By including this data, the benefit of GIS could be shown to a full range of stakeholders
who could be influenced to agree that investments in GIS are warranted. These examples could also
convince stakeholders to support a policy change that requires a GIS component in all projects.
Ultimately, for GIS to be successful as a shared service, the team believes that GIS must be recognized
and implemented as a key component of all major projects. All new applications and project
development efforts should be required to address GIS use, or specifically identify why GIS is not
applicable in their activity. The collection of GIS data, analysis, reporting; long-term storage and
maintenance of the data; and funding should be explicitly addressed into project designs.
The team recognizes that these recommendations include both short-term and long-term action items.
However, we believe this plan would solidify support and a healthy infrastructure to efficiently and
effectively provide GIS technology to a wider audience in a consistent manner with reliable and
repeatable results.
LeaderPath Project Lessons Learned
Most of us have been on teams before and are familiar with the normal stages that teams go through:
1)forming, 2)storming, 3) settling down and truly becoming a team, otherwise known as norming. Our
LeaderPath team was no exception to this team building process. Combining five individuals with
varying skills, abilities, and backgrounds to accomplish a single goal in a short amount of time was not
done without a few lessons learned along the way.
Key take-a-ways taught in the LeaderPath class about building effective teams were:

Select individuals with complementary strengths – This was a key point repeatedly mentioned in
the LeaderPath course. However, the way the Capstone project teams were formed was
diametrically opposed to the teachings of the course. Instead of finding out the strengths of the
people in the room, the project teams were formed in a completely random manner. Therefore, we
had to spend time — time which could have been used on project work —to identify and inventory
the individual strengths of the team members.

Recognize that none of us is perfect – Robert Jeffers said “Everyone is stupid in something.”
Although this is true, the reverse of this statement is true as well. We learned that each of us was
talented in our own areas. It was during the “norming” part of the team building process that we
transitioned into a functioning team, giving distinct roles to the various team members that drew on
their individual strengths.

Enforce accountability in a positive way - As our team met to discuss the project and the
deliverables, we each volunteered for action items where we had knowledge, talent, motivation,
and the ability to deliver. Meeting dates were set and used to review the progress made on the
Page 34 of 38
Approaching GIS strategically as a statewide Shared Service
action items. These meetings offered help and encouragement from the other team members to
ensure deliverables were met.

Foster mutual trust/honesty – Understanding the different personality types and learning styles of
the team members leads to a moment of clarity for everyone involved. When the realization is
made that others process information in a different manner to reach the same conclusions, mutual
trust and honesty can be achieved. When Myers-Briggs Sensors and Perceivers are matched with
Intuitors and Judgers, grappling with the different personality types can lead to some frustration
among team members. These frustrations can be amplified by the ambiguity of the Capstone
project.

Build individual and team self-confidence – As the team’s project work progressed, so did our trust
and confidence in each other’s abilities. The mutual trust from the team members helped boost our
own self-confidence as well.
Being drawn into various projects in the workplace is not an uncommon occurrence. We will have the
experiences from this project to help us work within our own personality type, as well as in assisting us
to understand that other team members may have differing needs and values.
References
Personal interviews with:
Tonia Elliott, Washington Department of Revenue
David Jennings, Washington State Department of Health
Joy Paulus, Washington State GIS Coordinator
Vikki Smith, Washington Department of Revenue
Cathy Walker, Washington State Emergency Management Division
What is GIS?
(http://www.gis.com/content/what-gis)
An introduction to GIS: linking maps to databases, Carl Franklin and Paula Hane
Database. 15 (2) April, 1992, 17-22)
10 Ways to Support GIS Without Selling Data, Bruce Joffe, ODC project organizer, GIS
Consultants
(http://www.opendataconsortium.org/documents/10Ways2SupportGIS-3.pdf)
70th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--1999 Regular Session Enrolled House Bill 2139
(http://www.leg.state.or.us/99reg/measures/hb2100.dir/hb2139.en.html)
2006 GIT Enterprise Architecture Initiative, WAGIC
(http://wagic.wa.gov/GITEA/GITEA%20Conceptual%20Architecture.htm )
About NC OneMap (http://www.nconemap.com )
Enterprise GIS for Municipal Government, An ESRI ® White Paper • July 2003
(emailed to team)
Page 35 of 38
Approaching GIS strategically as a statewide Shared Service
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. EO – 00 – 02, OREGON GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION COUNCIL
(http://www.oregon.gov/DAS/EISPD/GEO/ogic/docs/eo00_02.pdf)
Executive Order 09-07 – Washington’s Natural Resources Reform Initiative
(http://www.governor.wa.gov/execorders/eo_09-07.pdf )
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Business Plan: Washington Enterprise GIS Program and
Shared Access to Geospatial Services, May 27, 2010, Washington State Geographic Information
Council (WAGIC)
Geographic Information Systems Strategic Plan: Mapping Washington’s Future, 2010 -2014,
Washington Geographic Information Council
(http://wagic.wa.gov/2009GISPlanning/GIS_strat_plan_final_2010.pdf)
Geographic Information Systems Strategic Plan: Mapping Washington’s Future, 2010 -2014,
Appendix B - Stakeholder Outreach: Synthesis of Findings, Washington Geographic
Information Council
(http://wagic.wa.gov/2009GISPlanning/GIS_strat_plan_final_appB_2010.pdf)
GIS as an enterprise municipal system.(geographic information system) , Greg Babinski,
February, 2009 – from Entrepreneur
(http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/194463377_2.html)
GIS Data Consolidation and Shared Services Decision Package for 2011-2013 Biennium
The GIS Data Sales Dilemma - Finding a Middle Ground, based on an article by Bruce Joffe
entitled "To Sell or Not to Sell: GIS's Budgetary Dilemma", published in GeoInfo Systems,
September 1995
(http://www.opendataconsortium.org/article_gis_data_sales_dilemma.htm)
GIS Strategic Plan – Using Geographic Knowledge to Create a Better Virginia, prepared by
Virginia Geographic Information Network
(http://www.vita.virginia.gov/uploadedFiles/ISP/VGIN__Board/2010/VGIN%2020102015%20GIS%20Strategic%20Plan_Final.pdf )
InCLUDE Data Exchange (presentation), Julia Harrell, North Carolina DENR GIS Coordinator
(emailed to team)
Information Overview of GIS at Ecology, March 1998 (PowerPoint)
INNOVATIVE GIS BUSINESS STRATEGIES TO “DO MORE WITH LESS”, Linda Gerull, Pierce
County, Washington - from GITA Proceedings, 2004
(http://www.gisdevelopment.net/proceedings/gita/2004/papers/090.pdf)
KCGIS Center Finances, 2008 Funding, Rate Setting, and Billing
(http://www.kingcounty.gov/operations/GIS/About/Finances.aspx)
Kentucky.gov Commonwealth Office of Technology Governance Statutes
(http://technology.ky.gov/gis/Pages/Governance.aspx )
Page 36 of 38
Approaching GIS strategically as a statewide Shared Service
Powering Up Your Enterprise GIS, Linda Gerull, Pierce County, Washington – from Government
Matters, ESRI, Winter 2005
(http://www.esri.com/library/reprints/pdfs/govmatters-powering-up.pdf)
State Geographic Information/Consolidation Implementation Plan, As Directed by Session Law
2008-0107, Section 6.1 – December 2008, prepared by North Carolina State Chief Information
Officer, Geographic Information Coordinating Council and the Office of State Budget and
Management
(http://www.nconemap.com/Portals/7/documents/GIS_Study_Implementation_Plan_FINAL.pdf
)
State of Kansas Data Access and Support Center, Fiscal Year 2006 Report
(http://www.kansasgis.org/docs/uploaded/43annual_report.pdf )
State of Kansas Geographic Information Systems Strategic Plan, May 2008
(http://www.da.ks.gov/kito/gis/docs/KS_StrategicPlan_Final_v4.2.pdf )
Statewide GIS Coordination in Maryland, Building an Effective Statewide Spatial Data
Infrastructure, Strategic Plan – March 2007, prepared by the Strategic Planning Committee for
Statewide GIS Coordination (emailed to group)
Vermont GIS 2009: The Yearly Status Report, January 2009, prepared by Vermont Center for
Geographic Information, Inc.
(http://www.vcgi.org/about_vcgi/documents/VCGI_AnnRpt_2009.pdf )
Washington State Agencies’ 2009 IT Portfolio Reports, from the Washington Department of
Information Services:
Department of Ecology
Department of Fish and Wildlife
Department of Health
Department of Natural Resources
Department of Revenue
Department of Transportation
Military Department
Office of Financial Management
Washington State Shared Services Model, October 15, 2009
(http://ittransformation.wa.gov/sharedServices/WA_shared_services_model.pdf )
WA-Trans ROI – Justifying a State-wide Enterprise Transportation Data Set (presentation),
Tami Griffin, Washington State Department of Transportation
(http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/mapsdata/transframework/project_presentations/WATrans%20ROI%20NSGICFinal.pdf)
Welcome to the Oregon MAP
(http://www.ormap.com/)
Page 37 of 38
Approaching GIS strategically as a statewide Shared Service
WSDOT GIS Funding Options, January 26, 2010, Richard C. Daniels, GISP - GIS Product Support,
Office of Information Technology (emailed to team)
Page 38 of 38