BUSINESS MODELS FOR IMPLEMENTING GEOSPATIAL TECHNOLOGIES IN TRANSPORTATION DECISION-MAKING

< Oklahoma Case Study    |    Activities Critical to Success and Recommendations >
< TABLE OF CONTENTS

VIII. COMPARISON OF CASE STUDIES


In this section, case-study states' business models for geospatial technology implementation are compared with regard to five major dimensions: early history, organizational structure, enterprise applications, data development, and funding.

Early history. This category varies from state to state. While some states could attribute at least some of the success of the DOT's geospatial activities to the championing efforts of a specific individual, others indicated that the role of geospatial technologies followed a more natural evolution over a long period of time.

In Oklahoma, a combination of the short- and long-term paths to implementation occurred. There, geospatial applications were initially created to address the specific and individual needs of small, discrete projects. Later, OKDOT, having identified a need to improve the HPMS submittal process, initiated a pilot program to test the ability of a GIS to carry out HPMS tasks. The pilot demonstrated that what had previously taken a team of four to six people several months to complete could be accomplished by one person in roughly two weeks — powerful evidence for executive decision-makers.

Regardless of how geospatial technologies have evolved and been "sold" at state DOTs, most of those interviewed mentioned that, when developing applications, it is critical to understand the business needs the applications are intended to meet. By demonstrating a business case for geospatial technologies, long-term support that can contribute to sustained growth is fostered.

Organizational structure. There was little consistency among state DOTs in this category. The teams responsible for using and managing geospatial technologies at the North Carolina and Georgia DOTs are located within the IT division. At the Arizona and Oklahoma DOTs, GIS units are positioned in planning divisions. Montana DOT organizes its GIS activities across both divisions, while Delaware DOT has GIS staff spread throughout the department.

In DOTs where GIS specialists are employed in more than one division and thus perform different work functions, frequent communication and coordination among divisions occurs. At Montana DOT, for example, a GIS Steering Committee was created to enhance coordination regarding geospatial activities between its Information Services Division and its Rail, Transit and Planning Division. At Delaware DOT, daily discussions among the various divisions' GIS staffs help to ensure a balanced approach to meeting the Department's geospatial business needs.

Geospatial technology use: eEnterprise applications. Two of the six interviewed state DOTs (Delaware DOT and Oklahoma DOT) have implemented an enterprise-wide GIS, while Georgia DOT is the process of building one. These three DOTs have experienced an increase in general GIS knowledge and expertise throughout their entire organizations. These states have also been readily able to demonstrate how geospatial technologies can support and improve transportation decision-making across divisional boundaries. Since enterprise systems reduce the need for single-client software (only a computer with an Internet connection is required) and associated training, long-term cost savings are anticipated. In states with no enterprise-wide system, there is movement toward creating new online mapping tools or enhancing existing ones.

Data development. There are differences in the way that each state DOT first developed the spatial data. Arizona, North Carolina, and Oklahoma DOTs developed their data in-house by digitizing maps that they were already making. At Arizona DOT, many groups within the agency contributed spatial data; information was also gathered from local jurisdictions when possible. NCDOT centralized data creation in its Data and Statistics Bureau. In contrast, Georgia DOT began its use of spatial data with a commercially purchased database; later, it partnered with a major university and used student interns to perform the initial digitization of its own maps.

Funding. Most DOT's indicated that securing funding was key to successfully implementing geospatial technologies. However, most DOTs did not cite budget constraints as limiting the advancement of their geospatial programs.

FHWA's SPR funds finance the geospatial activities of each of the DOTs that were interviewed.21 Some states may supplement these federal dollars with funding from state-level sources; for example, North Carolina DOT receives funding from its Information Technology Fund. Several DOTs noted that funding is sometimes more readily available for and distributed to planning divisions than it is to IT divisions. In both cases, however, staff must diligently sell the intangible and tangible benefits of a robust GIS to upper management so that funding decisions continue to include provision for geospatial data and applications. To ensure that this happens, Oklahoma DOT has made an effort to explicitly account for the return on investment in geospatial technologies (see case study). Similarly, Montana DOT is including measures in its GIS Strategic Plan for assessing the benefits and costs of GIS applications across divisional boundaries.


Reference

  1. Funding for Delaware DOT was unspecified. (back)

< Oklahoma Case Study    |    TABLE OF CONTENTS    |    Activities Critical to Success and Recommendations >