1 / 10

Geospatial Interoperability Standards: A Return-on-Investment Case Study

This confidential document presents a study on the benefits of using Geospatial Interoperable Open Interface Standards. It compares two programs - one implementing standards and one not - and highlights the cost-effectiveness and risk reduction achieved with standards. The study also provides recommendations for government involvement.

paulm
Download Presentation

Geospatial Interoperability Standards: A Return-on-Investment Case Study

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Study Results Geospatial Interoperability Standards: A Return-on-Investment Case Study Federal Geographic Data Committee, Coordination Group Meeting Washington, DC 7 June 2005 This document is confidential and is intended solely for the use and information of the client to whom it is addressed.

  2. Table Of Contents Task & Hypotheses Project Method Project Execution Project Results Recommendations

  3. Task and Supporting Hypotheses… • The Task: • Conduct a study to articulate the benefits for using Geospatial Interoperable (GI) Open Interface Standards. Focus on systems currently implementing ISO, FGDC and OGC standards/specifications. • Period of Performance: Six months from the effective date of the contract. • Compare and contrast two programs, -one utilizing, and one not utilizing voluntary, consensus-based interface standards for a 5 year lifecycle. • The hypotheses: • Geospatial technologies allow for the re-use of data by other systems and hence foster an economy of scale. “Create once, use many.” • In order to share geospatial data, systems need to be interoperable. • Voluntary, consensus-based standards foster the efficient and cost-effective sharing of geospatial data between heterogeneous platforms.

  4. Objective comparison starts with project selection… • Project selections involved the following considerations: • Developed criteria to insure comparable projects were selected. • Reviewed 20+ possible candidate projects. • Selected mature projects in an operations and maintenance mode • Nationwide in scope • Significant reliance on Internet

  5. The measurement framework is established using the Value Measuring Methodology… • The VMM has a four-step process: • Step 1: Develop an independent and objective decision framework • Value and Risk Structure • Cost Structure • Risk Profile • Step 2: Analyze the alternatives • Two case studies provided alternatives for this study • Step 3: Pull the Information Together • Step 4: Communicate And Document • Final report and recommendations • Objectives: To define a value frame work based up the five value factors: • Direct User, Social, Financial, Operational/Foundational, and Strategic/Political

  6. Project results indicate that standards reduce risk and lower costs… • Of the projects considered for this study, the project that adopted and implemented geospatial interoperability standards had a risk-adjusted Return on Investment (ROI) of119.0% • A $1.00 invested in open standards-based projects nets a $1.19 in savings in Operations and Maintenance compared to projects not based on open standards. • This ROI is a Savings to Investment ratio over the 5 year project life cycle. • Resulted in savings of 26.2% compared to project not implementing standards • Standards lower transaction costs over the five year life cycle of the project • Projects implementing standards have higher implementation costs, but lower operations and maintenance (O&M) costs • Adjusting the costs for risk increases project cost 24.6% overall for standards-based projects. • Adjusting the costs for risk increases project cost 56.6% overall for projects not implementing standards.

  7. Estimated total spending shows how costs are distributed across project lifecycle… • Initial costs for the standards-based project were higher • Total costs for standards-based project dropped in the third year, reflecting lower costs for maintenance and operations

  8. Other key findings have implications for project management… • Standards-based projects have higher costs for system planning and development • Standards-based projects take longer to plan and implement • Proprietary solutions are often more expedient in the shortest run • Standards-based projects have lower long-term maintenance and operations costs • Maintenance and operations costs far exceeded other costs for the case not implementing standards. • Majority of costs for Case Study 2 were M&O costs (89%). • This category is exposed to the greatest risk over time due to lack of extensibility and flexibility. • Standards-based projects lower risk by building in extensibility and flexibility that contributes to organizational resilience. • NOTE: It can be anticipated for future projects utilizing open standards that planning costs will be significantly reduced once open standards and specs have been adopted.

  9. The government has clear roles to enable, enfranchise, and educate the larger geospatial community… • The government and standards development organizations, should take active measures to increase the rate of participation in standards activities by a greater cross-section of geospatial agencies, particularly at a sub-federal level. • Many local, state, and regional governments have moved to develop their own standards that deal mostly with the content or exchange of digital geospatial data. • Important building blocks for national standards • Need for education and outreach at sub-federal to build constituency • The government should work with standards development organizations to increase efforts to educate the community about the practice of creating standards profiles • Speed adoption and uptake of standards • Increase capacity to respond to national needs (e.g. building the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI), homeland security, natural disasters, etc.)

  10. Specific areas where the government can act to improve the geospatial standards development process… • The GIRM is another example of Federal Partners technical leadership, which has practical applications that benefit the direct user • A useful reference, the GIRM makes the arcane specifications intelligible by contextualizing them and making them accessible to a wider group of users • The GIRM as a meta-model has potentially broad application • Dearth of materials, particularly at the tribal, state, local level , i.e. grassroots • FGDC Geospatial Applications & Interoperability (GAI) Working Group should continue to revise and update the GIRM regularly to incorporate the latest updates in the developments in geospatial standards and specifications • NASA should continue to revise and update the GIRM regularly to ensure that it stays in step with the developments in geospatial standards and specifications • The scope of the GIRM should be expanded to reach a wider constituency, such as tribal, state, and local users and managers of geospatial information • Federal Partners should continue to facilitate and to sponsor standards development. • Software interface specifications • Geospatial data models, content, and exchange standards • Cultivate new markets for Federal geospatial data

More Related