Overview of Design

The word design can be used as both a noun and a verb. As a verb, "to design" refers to the process of originating and developing a plan for a product, structure, system, or component. As a noun, "a design" is used for either the final plan or the result of implementing that plan. Here's the bottom line; there’s probably no one definition everyone will agree on since design can be:

• A discipline that explores the dialogue between products, people, and contexts.
• A process that defines a solution to help people achieve their goals.
• An artifact produced as the result of solution definition.

Implementing a spatial system will result in modifications to existing roles and responsibilities; it may require a modification of responsibilities within the organization, resulting in a new organizational philosophy, new lines of communication, and a realignment of the business process. Before initiating an implementation you need to understand the existing organizational framework, how it operates and how this new technology will change the structure. You will also need to create a governance framework under which the impacts of change can be managed within the existing Information Technology architecture. When viewed in a positive light, the design process is an opportunity to tune-up virtually every job and function performed within an enterprise and deliver the following benefits:

• Improved operations. One of the basic precepts of efficiency is managing the process, not the function. When this holistic approach is applied, the entire process—rather than individual functionality—is analyzed. This results in improved operational efficiency.
• Integration of functions. Integrating essential functions streamlines the whole process and has the potential to improve the organization's ability to accomplish essential tasks. Integration of functions encourages cross talk and helps to identify and correct deficiencies prior to funds investment.
• Improved effectiveness. An integrated process provides management the opportunity to view and analyze multiple data sets and to base decisions on the most accurate information available.
• Improved communication. Organizational communications are improved by allowing stakeholders to synthesize and summarize data in an easily understood form (e.g., maps).
• Consistent information. Redundant information is reduced, resulting in more consistent information for decision makers.
• Reduced costs. One-time data entry, multiple access to the data reduces the cost of data maintenance. Better decisions based on accurate information reduce the costs. Data sharing facilitates efficient use of limited resources.
• Continuity of information. An integrated process preserves the integrity of data even when key personnel rotate.

Despite the power of spatial technology, the success or failure depends almost entirely on the designers of the system. This was not necessarily appreciated when GISs first came on the scene and many of these systems failed. Some did not work at all as analytical tools; others produced faulty results. Still others tended to stop functioning altogether. These systems did not survive because the designers:

• Failed to use a tractable design methodology. Failure to use a design methodology leads to the omission of crucial steps.
• Failed to plan. Spending time on designing a GIS is frequently viewed as inefficient use of time and efforts. As such, organizations do not engage in a formal planning process. Instead they bypass the process of establishing the high-level conceptual issues, and jump directly to construction.
• Failed to breed an enterprise perspective. People support actions that they find rational based on their immediate circumstances and needs. These may not necessarily be the broader objectives of the organization. The complexity of GIS, combined with its broad organizational scope causes such parochial views and creates inefficiencies.
• Lacked a common vision and goals. There is a tendency to move straight to tangible hardware and software details without connecting the outcome of the effort to a shared organizational vision. Thus, poor or nonexistent project vision will result in poor goal definition.
• Had poorly defined requirements. The delivered GIS should be a reflection of the system functionality requirements. If the requirements are poorly defined, the system will not meet the organization's needs.
• Failed to anticipate the complexity. Development efforts should be begun with the understanding that they will be completed in an established period of time in order to meet a need.
• Lacked deliverables. Tangible results early in a project are essential. Results foster support, morale, and interest.
• Were isolation. The design process should be an effort of the entire organization, from the managers to the users. Each level provides valuable and crucial insights, of which only members of that level are aware. Omitting prospective users from the design process results in a lack of ownership.
• Had poor communications. GIS projects require sound communication since such efforts involve individuals with differing backgrounds and perspectives, from executives to managers to end users. In an enterprise environment, each party has a role in the design process and the effort must be coordinated among the different parties so that all are moving toward a common goal.
• Lacked of knowledge. GIS has complex underlying technical and conceptual elements not common to other information system technologies. This complexity is usually underestimated and the costs and benefits not well understood.
• Failed to account for organizational dynamics. Regardless of how well a GIS is technically designed and the program managed, problems will still occur due to organizational issues that are not obvious at the outset. These dynamics include resistance to change within the organization and power struggles. These are always more difficult to solve than technical issues.

It should be clear that when we talk about spatial systems or GIS design, we are not necessarily talking about the actual software design, although this is an important part of the process. When implementing spatial systems across an organization's enterprise, designers will have critical non-technical, as well as some technical issues to consider. The key to addressing the non-technical issues is governance, and the key to effective governance is appropriate control. Project governance is also key to aligning spatial technology resources to business goals and providing value. Governance is needed that will not hinder project delivery while addressing the architecture requirements across the enterprise. Organizations that do not implement effective governance will be unable to achieve architecture integration and will have no effective means to manage business goals.