A New Visual Modeling Tool to Describe
Municipal Geomatics Resources

Many municipalities have conducted geomatics development projects to improve their day-to-day management of municipal infrastructures. However, it seems difficult for managers to maintain an accurate overview of all municipal aspects related to geomatics resources. A lack of overview regarding these re­sources contributes to the difficulty for municipal managers to develop and maintain a consistent and efficient geomatics patrimony in their municipality. We think that a better understanding of a municipal geomatics context would lead to a more effective use of geomatics resources, and finally to more efficient municipal management. This aticle presents a new kind of visual modeling tool that may be used to describe all of the different and interrelated aspects of municipal geomatics resources.

Claude Caron, Ph.D., Charles Boulay, M.Sc., and Stéphane Roche, Ph.D.
During the last two de­cades, many municipalities have conducted geomatics development projects to improve their day-to-day management of municipal infrastructures. However, studies have shown that real benefits of the implementation of geomatics technologies are not always present. In fact, some studies have demonstrated that the development of geomatics technologies in municipalities often follows a “chaotic” and technology-driven pathway (Caron 1997). Such a situation re­sults in geomatics solutions that seem “disconnected” from the strategic objectives and basic aims of the municipality concerned (Roche 2000). In fact, it is difficult for managers in large municipalities to remain focused on a clear means-ends relationship regarding geomatics solutions and “business” objectives. We think that this is caused by the difficulty for managers to maintain an accurate overview of all municipal aspects related to geomatics resources: strategic objectives, conflicts and al­li­ances, budgets, formal responsibilities and tasks, informal leaders, internal power struggles, data management procedures, appropriate hardware and software, up-to-date database structures, optimal geospatial data sources, laws, geo-information sharing and networks, resistance to change, multiple norms and rules, etc. In fact, a lack of global view contributes to the difficulty for municipal managers to develop and maintain a consistent and efficient geomatics patrimony in their municipality.
Based on these observations, this article pre­sents a more complete type of geo­spatial modeling tool than is currently employed that des­cribes all of the different aspects of municipal geomatics resources in an integrated manner. Following a systemic ap­proach, we present the influence of four fundamental and related as­pects of municipal geo­spatial re­sources: or­gan­izational, human, informational (including geo­matics technologies) and contextual aspects. We posit the hypothesis that a better understanding of a municipal geomatics context would lead to a more effective use of geomatics resources, and finally to more efficient municipal management. Based on this hypothesis, and in order to formally account for these multiple but related aspects, we explain how these thematic elements can be integrated into a visual descriptive tool.
In this article, we describe this visual tool that is currently at the design stage. We briefly present its underlying principles, the integrated models, its user interface and an example of its navigational possibilities. Since we have performed an initial test with a first prototype to formally describe a real municipal context, we discuss the results of this first test. Finally, current research activities conducted at Laval University and related to the development of this new descriptive tool are presented.

Management of Municipal Geomatics Resources
In large municipalities, the investment in geomatics information technology (GIT) may be important. This technology is useful to support planning, management and decision making activities. Therefore, it is crucial to manage GIT efficiently and to optimize its utilization for real organizational benefits. In order to reach this goal, it is important to maintain a global perspective and description of these important geospatial resources.
However, most of the geomatics resources available are unknown by managers and users, and then they are not much used. Moreover, in some extreme situations, some sectors of an organization produce the same sets of data for their own use by using similar GIT, without knowing that these resources already exist in other parts of the organization (Larrivée et al. 1991). Such situations stress the need to better understand current geomatics resources in an organization, in order to improve their management, their maintenance and their utility.
Some techniques and tools from the field of information technology have been adapted and significantly improved to take into account specificities of the geomatics field (Pouliot et al. 1997). However, and most of the time, the methodological focus has remained on data structures, technologies and operational processes.
We think that the description of a municipal geomatics context implies to take into consideration different aspects strongly interrelated, in­ter­nal as much as external to the organization. Therefore, in order to deal with the intrinsic complexity of an organizational and geospatial context, this study uses a systemic approach. By following a systemic approach we want to provide more complete description and a deeper understanding of a geomatics organizational context.

Descriptive Framework
In the information technology field as much as in geomatics, in management, etc., several studies have been conducted in order to describe and understand organizations (Ackerman 1996, Campbell & Masser 1995, Doherty & King 1998). These studies concern different aspects of organizations (economical, social, political, technological, etc.). Thus, principally in management, many diagrams, techniques and methods for the description of organizations have been proposed (Mintzberg 1981 & 1999, Morgan 1993, Charbonnel 1990). These works often mention the complexity of organizations and demonstrate that the appropriate description depends on a person’s point of view.
Following an eclectic approach, our theoretical framework is based on literature from different fields (geomatics, management, computer science, psychology, sociology, laws, politics, economics, culture, etc.). Furthermore, many discussions with experts have allowed to validate the relevance of the themes and interrelated models. Finally, from this theoretical and empirical approach, we have created four different themes (Figure 1). The content of these themes aims to be relevant for different organization types (municipalities, governments, forestry companies, environmental agencies, etc.), even if our ex­per­imentation has focused on the muni­cipal context only.
The four themes, complementary but strongly interrelated, are:
-- Informational patrimony: This theme includes several aspects related to the geo-information owned by an organization. It includes spatial and descriptive data and their structures, and geomatics hardware and software specific to an organization.
-- Organization: This theme includes the entire informational patrimony and a part of the human aspects (related to the organization). It also includes the organizational structure, mission, ob­jec­tives processes, activities, tasks, etc.
-- Human: This theme includes human aspects relevant to understand an organization, such as individual personalities, experience, motivations, perceptions, influences, conflicts and alliances. It also includes several factors related to the job such as internal politics, working environment and remuneration.
-- Context: This theme is basically external to the organization. It includes several aspects related to the organization environment: politics, economics, culture, laws, market, social, competition, etc.
Figure 2 shows a diagram of an efficient and a pragmatic framework to develop an integrated visual tool. Charles Boulay, the second author of this article is currently in the process of completing this diagram in the context of his master’s degree in geomatics.

First Prototype and Tests
In order to describe a municipal geomatics context efficiently, we have designed a visual tool that integrates the four different themes already presented. This tool, called GUIDE (Geomatics Utilization Inventory and Design Environment), is designed to allow an easy navigation between interrelated aspects of a municipal geomatics patrimony.
This tool has been developed with a software called “TheBrain,” that allows creating relationships between different concepts (“thoughts”). TheBrain is a program that conveniently manages information associated with these thoughts. It provides a natural way to model the associative powers of the human mind, by creating a structure of thoughts that are linked to other thoughts in a seamless, non-linear and non-hierarchical, visual interface. Therefore, GUIDE results in an effective way to link multiple elements regarding a specific municipal geomatics context.
With the first prototype (GUIDE, v.1.0), we have modeled a real municipal context. A small municipality near Quebec City has been use to perform a preliminary test of this new visual tool. The next figures show a sample se­quence of the navigational power of GUIDE.
First, it is possible to click on a “thought” of the main diagram to see other related thoughts (Figure 3).
For each thought, it is possible to look at some specific information, for example an organizational chart (Figure 4). Then, it is possible to click on a section of the organizational chart in order to have more detailed information (e.g., the Police department).
After that, you may go to the Finance item of the main chart, and consult the sub-item Budget (Figure 5).
Then, it is possible to go back to look at one of the main work processes in the organization (Figure 6). Through the main diagram, it is possible to select a specific process, and to navigate towards the action plan, which may be linked in its turn to specific objectives of the municipality.
From a specific process, for example related to the management of addresses in the municipality, it is possible to see a map showing the concerned territory. In this case, a map is displayed with Geomedia (Intergraph), that is imbedded and fully operational in GUIDE (Figure 7).
Finally, for a particular task of this specific process, it is possible to click and look at the technology that supports this task (Figure 8).

Conclusion
This article has presented an over­view of the theoretical and pragmatic framework at the basis of a new visual and descriptive tool called GUIDE. We have also presented a sample used case of the new tool. The first prototype of this tool has been use in a real municipal context, in order to test the relevance of such an application. This test has shown that it is possible to model an organizational (municipal) context efficiently.
However, we have found that it is important to use this kind of tool with an appropriate level of details. In fact, if too many details are used to describe the organization, it may become a very long modeling process. Furthermore, it may become painful and anti-productive to keep all this information up-to-date.
Other research activities should be conducted to improve and complete the current application:

-- Integrating complementary aspects in the framework (cultural, social and political aspects, laws, etc.);

-- Using GUIDE in different organization sizes (municipalities);
-- Creating different “kits” or levels of detail that may be suitable for different needs (management of municipal geomatics resources, geomatics de­vel­opment projects, etc.);
-- Testing the application in different organization types (forestry, agriculture, environment, engineering, etc.), in order to ensure a generic modeling tool.
In the light of our short experience with GUIDE, we believe that it may have a good potential of commercialization. It is our wish that research projects like this one, integrating theoretical and prac­tical aspects, lead to efficient and use­ful tools for the geomatics community.

About the Authors
Claude Caron is professor in geomatics (GIS) at the University of Sherbrooke. His current research interest is to study the implementation process of geo­matics technologies in organizations, in order to improve business benefits for different types of organizations, through the development of new types of design and visual tools.
Charles Boulay is a GIS arch­itect for CGI in Quebec City.
Stéphane Roche is currently As­sociate Professor in the Geography Department of the University of Angers. His current research interest is to study the process of LIS/GIS design and implementation, the social and organizational issues of the diffusion of GeoInformation Technologies.

References
Ackerman, M.S. (1996), “Definitional and contextual issues in organizational and group memories,” Information Technology & People, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 10-24.
Caron, C. (1997), Cadre descriptif des projets d’implantation de technologies géomatiques dans les organisations, Thèse de Ph.D., Département des sciences géomatiques, Faculté de foresterie et de géomatique, Université Laval, Québec.
Campbell, H. and Masser, I. (1995), GIS and Organizations—How effective are GIS in practice, Taylor and Francis (Eds).
Charbonnel, G., Calmes, F. and Dumas, P. (1990), La méthode OSSAD, Tome I et II: Guide pratique, Les éditions d’Organisation, Paris.
Doherty, N.F. and King, M. (1998), “The importance of organisational issues in systems development,” Information Technology & People, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 104-123.
Larrivée, S., Bédard, Y. and Labbé G. (1991), “Réalisation de l’inventaire des données cartographiques de la ville de Sherbrooke”, Comptes rendus du colloque Géomatique III, ACSGC, Montréal, 14 et 15 nov., pp. 13-32.
Mintzberg, H. (1981), The structuring of organizations—A synthesis of the research, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. (Ed): Prentice-Hall.
Mintzberg, H. and Van der Heyden, L. (1999), “Organigraphs: Drawing how companies really Work,” Harvard Business Review, Vol. 77 No. 5, pp. 87-94.
Morgan, G. (1993), Imaginization - The art of creative management, Sage (Ed.).
Pouliot, J., N. Rognon, Y. Bédard & F. Golay, 1997. “De la sélection à la mise en œuvre d’outils de conception pour les SIRS.” Revue internationale de géomatique, Hermès, Paris, vol.7, no.3, pp.259-277.
Roche, S. (2000), Les enjeux sociaux des systémes d’information géographique —Le Cas de la France et du Québec, L’Harmattan (Ed.).
Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I. and Booch, G. (1998), The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual, Booch Jac­obson Rumbaugh (Eds.), 550 p.

Back