GIS is a mature technology that is well understood by GIS practitioners, but, paradoxically, many utilities struggle to implement an enterprise-wide GIS. Instead, they rely on workflow and build applications with little regard for data-sharing among users and standardization.
Through the appropriate use of geospatial or related technologies, a utility can build an end-to-end, return-on-investment (ROI) driven enterprise GIS strategy that improves operational effectiveness, safety, and environmental and financial performance across a number of business processes.
Through the appropriate use of geospatial or related technologies, a utility can build an end-to-end, return-on-investment (ROI) driven enterprise GIS strategy that improves operational effectiveness, safety, and environmental and financial performance across a number of business processes.
Traditionally, utilities have engaged GIS vendors or consultants to undertake “needs analysis” that were meant to identify opportunities within the business where GIS technology could help drive down cost, as well as improve efficiencies. In many cases, however, these studies were carried out using a bottom-up approach that focused on the technology (features, functionality) rather than on the business outcome. They resulted in application focused approaches that neither broke down organizational barriers nor bought any tangible benefits in their work flow. Unfortunately, they often hampered the operations that utilities practiced for years without improving the bottom line. Result was that these utility co.s were disappointed after some time without any ROI justification. Most of the utility co.s have realised by now that GIS is a wasteful expenditure with no justification for RoI. Its time to correct the client expectations and contain the hype created by sales and marketing persons that GIS is the answer to their all kinds of problems. GIS is nothing more than a location based "Asset Management System" that can be integrated with some other non-GIS applications. Most of the co.s fail to do that and they end up with CAD++ with all the expensive sw's instead of a real enterprise GIS due to lack of vision and expertise at right level.
A common misconception exists about business case development being a means to an end (to obtain budget). However, developing a business case in isolation of the business is a recipe for disaster and that is the reason for many co. feeling the burden of carrying GIS. Without a proper road map sometimes they move in the wrong direction without prioritizing their needs and thus waste of time, effort and money. Although funding could be obtained by building a business case with assumptions and unchecked facts, the subsequent delivery of the expected benefit almost always fails to meet expectations. As a result, subsequent results for funding may be met with skepticism, delay and a lack of commitment or buy-in. If GIS is not improving the efficiency of your orgnisation then you are running with horse on your back and definately you can not go long like this. Need is to have relook at your plans and also at those who are responsible for execution as they may not be knowing what they are doing due to lack of clarity about the technology and the business needs.
A common misconception exists about business case development being a means to an end (to obtain budget). However, developing a business case in isolation of the business is a recipe for disaster and that is the reason for many co. feeling the burden of carrying GIS. Without a proper road map sometimes they move in the wrong direction without prioritizing their needs and thus waste of time, effort and money. Although funding could be obtained by building a business case with assumptions and unchecked facts, the subsequent delivery of the expected benefit almost always fails to meet expectations. As a result, subsequent results for funding may be met with skepticism, delay and a lack of commitment or buy-in. If GIS is not improving the efficiency of your orgnisation then you are running with horse on your back and definately you can not go long like this. Need is to have relook at your plans and also at those who are responsible for execution as they may not be knowing what they are doing due to lack of clarity about the technology and the business needs.
A better approach exists, an approach that must be business-led (not technology-led); benefits-focused (not functionality or application focused); highly-participative (top-down) backed by a strong technical team; and must use proven ROI methods for quantifying and proving the value of the investment. On the spot brain storming sessions should not be used to resolve the important issues and fix the business needs due to the obvious differences in the understanding of GIS, perceptions of problems resulting in impractical expectations from these projects. The outcome of the approach that follows these principles should provide a powerful and robust business case that is supported by senior stakeholders, quantifies the required investment (human, capital and operational), defines the benefits delivery roadmap and delivers realistic ROI justification.
No comments:
Post a Comment