Spatial information sharing for better regional decision ...25… · Spatial information sharing...
242
Spatial information sharing for better regional decision making Tamara R. Weyman Doctor of Philosophy University of Western Sydney 2007
Transcript of Spatial information sharing for better regional decision ...25… · Spatial information sharing...
Spatial information sharing for better regional
decision making
Tamara R. Weyman
Doctor of Philosophy
University of Western Sydney
2007
Acknowledgements
There are a number of people and institutions that I would like to acknowledge for
their assistance throughout my research process. Firstly, my family for their love and
support during my PhD and especially my mother (Ruth Weyman) who proof read
my thesis numerous times. The University of Western Sydney for the APA
scholarship and the top-up stipend, this allowed me to focus completely on the
research study. A special thanks to the 24 interview participants and respective
councils for their time, participation and contributions to my research. Significant
acknowledgement to my supervisors - Dr. Frank Kelleher, Prof. Kevin Sproats, Dr.
M. Cristina Martinez-Fernandez and Dr. Zorica Nedovic-Budic for their supervision,
feedback and advice. Jon Harris from Infomaster for his generosity in allowing
GWSspatial to be installed onto a University laptop for my demonstrations and
Ricko Yiu for his time and expertise in loading GWSspatial onto the laptop twice.
Malcolm Ryan from Hawkesbury City Council for his time educating me in the
functions of GWSspatial and Garry McCully for giving his time to participate in the
pilot for the interview series. Special thanks to my editors - Mitchel Lewis, Joycelyn
Applebee and Frank Kelleher who professionally edited my thesis chapters and
Claire Aitchson, who conducted the ‘Thesis Writing Circles Workshop’, whose
advice assisted greatly in my thesis write-up. Burhan Amiji for his PC advice and
assistance while I was experiencing laptop problems during the final six months of
my PhD which allowed me to continue with my thesis writing.
Finally, I would like to dedicate this thesis to my late grandmother (Dorothy Munro)
who passed away during my project, her interest in geography and photography
greatly influenced my educational direction, she would have been especially proud of
my achievements.
Statement of authenticity
The work presented in this thesis is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, original
except as acknowledged in the text. I hereby declare that I have not submitted this
material, either in full or in part, for a degree at this or any other institution.
……………………………..
(Tamara R. Weyman)
i
Table of contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS I
LIST OF TABLES VII
LIST OF FIGURES IX
ABBREVIATIONS XI
ABSTRACT XIII
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. BACKGROUND 1
1.2. STUDY AREA 2
1.3. DEFINING THE CONTEXT AND CONCEPT 4
1.4. RESEARCH PROBLEM AND SIGNIFICANCE 7
1.5. METHODOLOGY AND SCOPE 8
1.6. THESIS STRUCTURE 10
2. LITERATURE REVIEW 12
2.1. INTRODUCTION 12
2.2. LOCAL GOVERNMENT ROLE IN GOVERNANCE 12
2.3. THE IMPORTANCE OF INFORMATION 15
2.4. GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS FOR DECISION SUPPORT 16
2.5. DATA SHARING CHALLENGES 18
2.6. INFORMATION DISSEMINATION TECHNOLOGY - THE INTERNET AS A MEDIUM FOR
DATA SHARING 22
2.7. EMERGENCE OF INTERNET-BASED GIS TECHNOLOGY 23
2.8. COMBINING INTERNET-GIS TECHNOLOGY WITH THE DECISION MAKING SPHERE –
OPPORTUNITIES FOR POLICY DIALOGUE 24
2.9. REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN OSP IN A LOCAL GOVERNMENT
SETTING TO SUPPORT POLICY DIALOGUE WITHIN BASSOLÉ’S FRAMEWORK 32
ii
2.9.1. COLLABORATORS 32
2.9.2. COLLABORATION – FORMING PARTNERSHIPS 33
2.9.3. FUNCTIONAL OSP REQUIREMENTS 34
2.9.4. FACTORS THAT COULD ASSIST OR HINDER THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN OSP 41
2.10. CONCLUSION 43
3. RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES 46
3.1. INTRODUCTION 46
3.2. METHOD CHOICE 46
3.3. DATA COLLECTION AND DESIGN 49
3.4. FIELD WORK 51
3.4.1. FIRST INTERVIEW 52
3.4.2. SECOND INTERVIEW AND DEMONSTRATION 55
3.5. DATA ANALYSIS 57
3.6. METHODOLOGY LIMITATIONS 59
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION I: EXAMINATION OF CURRENT LOCAL
GOVERNMENT DECISION AND LAND POLICY MAKING ENVIRONMENT 61
4.1. INTRODUCTION 61
4.2. THE CURRENT POLICY FRAMEWORK WITHIN THE SAMPLE LOCAL GOVERNMENT
COUNCILS 61
4.3. PROFESSIONAL DYNAMICS: INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL RELATIONSHIPS 69
4.3.1. INTERNAL RELATIONSHIPS 70
4.3.2. EXTERNAL RELATIONSHIPS 73
4.4. CONCLUSION 81
5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION II: THE RELATIONSHIP OF
TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION AND POLICY DIALOGUE 83
5.1. INTRODUCTION 83
5.2. INSTITUTIONAL LEARNING: THE APPLICATION AND USE OF SI 83
5.2.1. GIT EXPERIENCE OF THE PROFESSIONAL STAFF INTERVIEWED 83
5.2.2. EFFICIENCY OF COUNCIL’S SPATIAL INNOVATION AND OWN GIS UNIT 86
iii
5.3. TECHNOLOGICAL SPATIAL INNOVATION AS A SUPPORTING TOOL FOR POLICY
DIALOGUE WITHIN THE SAMPLE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COUNCILS 90
5.3.1. SHARING OF SI AND KNOWLEDGE CONTROL 91
5.3.2. SI ACCESS AND INTEGRATION 93
5.3.3. SI MODELLING AND ANALYSIS 95
5.3.4. INFORMED DIALOGUE AND DECISION MAKING 96
5.4. CHALLENGES FOR AN OSP INNOVATION AS A SUPPORTING TOOL FOR POLICY
DIALOGUE 99
5.4.1. KNOWLEDGE CONTROL 99
5.4.2. INNOVATION ACCEPTANCE AND CAPACITY FOR INNOVATION 100
5.5. INFORMING THE AF – BRINGING THE PIECES TOGETHER 103
5.6. CONCLUSION 110
6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION III: LAND POLICY CASE STUDIES
SCENARIOS 113
6.1. INTRODUCTION 113
6.2. CASE STUDIES 114
6.2.1. PITT TOWN DEVELOPMENT (PTD) 114
6.2.2. BUSHFIRE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT (BEM) 117
6.2.3. THE SYDNEY METROPOLITAN STRATEGY (SMS) – REGIONAL
MANAGEMENT/PLANNING 120
6.3. THE CASE FOR AN OSP AS A POTENTIAL SPATIAL TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION
TO SUPPORT POLICY DIALOGUE 123
6.3.1. SI SHARING AND KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT 124
6.3.2. ACCESSIBILITY AND INTEGRATION OF INFORMATION 127
6.3.3. QUERIES, MODELLING AND ANALYSIS 131
6.3.4. INFORM DIALOGUE AND DECISIONS 133
6.4. CONCLUSION 137
7. CONCLUSION 138
7.1. INTRODUCTION 138
7.2. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE AF MODEL – CHAPTER SUMMARIES 139
iv
7.2.1. SI SIGNIFICANCE WITHIN LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND OSP ESTABLISHMENT
FRAMEWORK (CHAPTER 2) 139
7.2.2. INSTITUTIONAL SI FRAMEWORK – CHALLENGES FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT POLICY
MAKING (CHAPTER 4) 139
7.2.3. THE RELATIONSHIP OF TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION AND POLICY DIALOGUE
(CHAPTER 5) 140
7.2.4. OSP SUPPORTING LAND MANAGEMENT POLICY FRAMEWORK – CASE STUDY
SCENARIOS (CHAPTER 6) 141
7.3. THE KEY APPLICATIONS AND CATALYSTS TO IMPROVE POLICY DIALOGUE IN
LOCAL GOVERNMENT 143
7.3.1. THE IMPORTANCE OF THE FOUR KEY APPLICATIONS 143
7.3.2. THE FUNCTIONALITY OF THE FOUR KEY APPLICATIONS 146
7.3.3. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FOUR KEY APPLICATIONS TO POLICY DIALOGUE 148
7.4. FURTHER RESEARCH 150
8. REFERENCES 152
APPENDIX A: DECISION PROCESS FOR GIS DIFFUSION IN A GOVERNMENT
ORGANISATION 161
APPENDIX B: PHASES FOR GIS IMPLEMENTATION 162
APPENDIX C: BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF DISTRIBUTED GIS 164
APPENDIX D: DATA SHARING ISSUES 161
APPENDIX E: MEASURING CAPACITY 167
APPENDIX F: EXAMPLES OF OSPS IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT AUSTRALIA 168
APPENDIX G: PARTNERSHIPS 170
APPENDIX H: INFORMATION AND FUNCTION NEEDS 171
APPENDIX I: TECHNICAL CAPACITY 172
v
APPENDIX J: BUSINESS PLAN 173
APPENDIX K: MULTI-PARTICIPANT ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE 174
APPENDIX L: SUMMARY OF QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE GIS
RESEARCH 175
APPENDIX M: INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR THE FIRST INTERVIEWS 176
APPENDIX N: INFORMATION STATEMENT AND CONSENT FORM 195
APPENDIX O: INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR THE SECOND INTERVIEWS 197
APPENDIX P: COMPARISON BETWEEN NVIVO AND NUD*IST 6 (N6) 208
APPENDIX Q: MAJOR TEXT ANALYSIS PACKAGES AND PROGRAMS 210
APPENDIX R: NUD*IST RESEARCH PROCESS 211
APPENDIX S: FIRST INTERVIEWS CONCEPT MAP 213
APPENDIX T: SECOND INTERVIEWS CONCEPT MAP 214
APPENDIX U: CONTRIBUTIONS TO POLICY DEVELOPMENT 215
APPENDIX V: GOVERNANCE 216
APPENDIX W: VALIDATION OF 1ST INTERVIEW RESULTS 217
APPENDIX X: LOCAL GOVERNMENT USE OF SPATIAL SYSTEMS 218
APPENDIX Y: SPATIAL SYSTEM BUDGET COMPARISON 219
APPENDIX Z: OTHER FACTORS HINDERING INNOVATION CAPACITY 220
APPENDIX AA: RECOMMENDED OSP CLIENT INTERFACE LAYOUT 221
vi
APPENDIX AB: COMMON CAPACITY COMPONENTS 222
APPENDIX AC: EXAMPLES OF GIS INVENTORY APPLICATION IN LOCAL
GOVERNMENT 223
APPENDIX AD: EXAMPLES OF GIS POLICY ANALYSIS AND
MANAGEMENT/POLICY APPLICATIONS IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT 224
vii
List of tables
Table 2.1 NSW local government facts and figures ______________________________________ 14
Table 2.2 Organisational and behavioural factors impacting on sharing SI ____________________ 19
Table 2.3 Constraints on data access and sharing________________________________________ 21
Table 2.4 Evolving views of planning and information systems ____________________________ 24
Table 2.5 Distributed GIS/OSP architecture____________________________________________ 27
Table 2.6 The four user levels and functionality requirements______________________________ 35
Table 2.7 Four primary functions - definition and requirements ____________________________ 37
Table 2.8 Intensity scale for inter-organisational relationships in geographic data sharing and
mapping showing collaboration, cooperation, coordination____________________________ 42
Table 2.9 Facilitating conditions for levels and stages of inter-organisational relations __________ 42
Table 3.1 Project data collection methods _____________________________________________ 50
Table 3.2 Profiles of the councils that participated in the project____________________________ 52
Table 3.3 Participation of professionals from each council according to seniority level __________ 54
Table 3.4 Positions and seniority levels of professionals __________________________________ 54
Table 3.5 Professionals’ age category and GIT experience ________________________________ 56
Table 4.1 Adequacy of Internet access by councils ______________________________________ 64
Table 4.2 Adequacy of the intranet network within councils _______________________________ 65
Table 4.3 Common data and information requirements identified by participants_______________ 66
Table 4.4 Constraints utilising data __________________________________________________ 66
Table 4.5 Policy development - facilitating factors and improvement descriptions by participants__ 68
Table 4.6 Internal position level interaction matrix ______________________________________ 70
Table 4.7 Process of communication between council colleagues ___________________________ 71
Table 4.8 Perceived adequacy / issues of external interaction compared with seniority level of
participants _________________________________________________________________ 74
Table 4.9 Participants’ external interactions____________________________________________ 75
Table 4.10 Improving regional policy suggested by participants ____________________________ 77
Table 5.1 Current uses of SI identified by participants____________________________________ 85
Table 5.2 Policy areas for OSP use identified by participants ______________________________ 90
Table 5.3 Purposes for using an OSP identified by participants_____________________________ 97
Table 5.4 Importance levels of an OSP to inform local and regional decision and policy making
identified by participants ______________________________________________________ 98
Table 5.5 Potential concerns in the use of an OSP identified by participants__________________ 102
Table 6.1 Potential portal applications for each of the key elements for the proposed PTD and
subsequent decision support___________________________________________________ 116
Table 6.2 SI requirements and potential portal applications for each of the key elements for bushfire
management policy _________________________________________________________ 119
Table 6.3 Potential portal applications and decision support for the key elements of the SMS ____ 122
viii
Table 6.4 Policy strategies, potential OSP applications and decision support _________________ 124
Table 6.5 Range of GIS uses for decision making ______________________________________ 134
Table 6.6 Key applications and capacity building matrix _________________________________ 135
ix
List of figures
Figure 1.1 Greater Western Sydney region______________________________________________ 3
Figure 1.2 Conceptual framework ____________________________________________________ 5
Figure 2.1 Resistance to technology __________________________________________________ 29
Figure 2.2 MetroGIS multi-participant structure ________________________________________ 40
Figure 2.3 Factors influencing the willingness of organisations to engage in spatial data sharing___ 41
Figure 2.4 An OSP analytical framework (AF) for policy dialogue __________________________ 45
Figure 3.1 Steps in the research process _______________________________________________ 48
Figure 3.2 NUD*IST qualitative analysis research steps undertaken_________________________ 59
Figure 4.1 Generalised council organisational structure___________________________________ 62
Figure 4.2 Graph illustrating desktop and laptop computers utilised by participants at various position
levels _____________________________________________________________________ 63
Figure 4.3 Policy development - facilitating factors and improvements identified by participants __ 67
Figure 4.4 Graph illustrating the regional policy issues identified by participants_______________ 69
Figure 4.5 Internal interaction model _________________________________________________ 70
Figure 4.6 Graph illustrating the internal interaction constraints identified by the participants _____ 72
Figure 4.7 Graph illustrating the purposes for external interactions__________________________ 74
Figure 4.8 Graph illustrating the current information sources identified by participants __________ 78
Figure 4.9 Graph illustrating the benefits of cross-jurisdictional information identified by participants
__________________________________________________________________________ 79
Figure 4.10 Opportunities, constraints and considerations affecting key components of the AF model
- outcomes of the first interview analysis of sample GWS council professionals ___________ 80
Figure 5.1 Graph illustrating participants’ GIT experience compared with their age category _____ 84
Figure 5.2 Graph illustrating participants’ responses regarding adequacy of access to SI _________ 86
Figure 5.3 Graph illustrating the current process used by the participants to obtain SI compared
between councils ____________________________________________________________ 87
Figure 5.4 Graph illustrating OSP opportunities - importance levels identified by participants for the
sharing of SI, regional cooperation and reduced costs ________________________________ 92
Figure 5.5 Graph illustrating the valuable functions of an OSP identified by participants_________ 93
Figure 5.6 Graph illustrating the opportunities of an OSP – importance levels identified by the
participants for reducing time requesting/obtaining SI and public participation in planning___ 94
Figure 5.7 Graph illustrating the importance levels identified by the participants for inventory, policy
analysis, and management/policy making applications of the portal _____________________ 95
Figure 5.8 Graph illustrating the importance levels identified by participants of an OSP as a support
mechanism for improving the effectiveness of decision making ________________________ 98
Figure 5.9 Graph illustrating the participants’ perceptions of an OSP prior to demonstration_____ 101
Figure 5.10 Graph illustrating the importance levels identified by the participants of OSP accuracy 102
x
Figure 5.11 Opportunities, considerations, alterations and requirements of the AF as a result of the
OSP demonstration and subsequent interviews ____________________________________ 104
Figure 5.12 Phases in the top-down and bottom-up approach _____________________________ 106
Figure 5.13 Sample of a regional OSP multi-participant organisational structure ______________ 110
Figure 6.1 Key elements of bushfire emergency management_____________________________ 119
Figure 6.2 Incorporating SMS into the NSW planning system ____________________________ 121
Figure 6.3 Key elements of the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy ____________________________ 121
Figure 6.4 The complexity of data interrelationships between organisations__________________ 125
Figure 6.5 Data interchange relationship through a portal ________________________________ 126
Figure 6.6 Illustration of the overnight update of datasets onto a portal, providing an up-to-date
service for the following day __________________________________________________ 126
Figure 6.7 GWSspatial interface (as an example of an OSP interface) ______________________ 127
Figure 6.8 Illustration showing overlaying and cross-jurisdictional data integration____________ 128
Figure 6.9 The data overlay integration of disparate SI at Pitt Town, utilising GWSspatial ______ 129
Figure 6.10 Bushfire emergency management using data integration with GWSspatial _________ 130
Figure 6.11 GWSspatial map illustrating both overlay and cross-jurisdictional data integration at an
LGA interface _____________________________________________________________ 131
Figure 6.12 GWSspatial general statistics ____________________________________________ 132
Figure 6.13 GWSspatial planning statistics query ______________________________________ 132
Figure 6.14 An example of building a query using GWSspatial ___________________________ 133
Figure 6.15 Decision making time allocation comparison between the current information data
collection and access to an OSP________________________________________________ 134
Figure 6.16 Opportunities, considerations and alternations to the AF _______________________ 136
Figure 7.1 Benefits of the AF for policy dialogue in local government ______________________ 142
Figure 7.2 Simplified model of the AF within the context of the Bassolé et al., (2001) framework 143
Figure 7.3 Four key applications ____________________________________________________ 144
Figure 7.4 Sequential dependence of the four key applications_____________________________ 147
Figure 7.5 Catalysts for policy dialogue within the AF framework _________________________ 149
Figure 7.6 Relationships between the catalysts that trigger technological spatial innovation for data
sharing, access, analysis and informed decision making _____________________________ 150
xi
Abbreviations
Acronyms Full terms ACT Australian Capital Territory
ACTLIC ACT Land Information Centre
AF Analytical Framework
ANZLIC Australian and New Zealand Land Information Council
ANZRSAI Australia and New Zealand Regional Science Association
International Inc.
ASDI Australian Spatial Data Infrastructure
ASP ActiveX Server Pages
BEM Bushfire emergency management
BOM Business object modelling
CCC Collaboration to cooperation to coordination
CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Organisation
DCPs Development control plan
DEP Department of Planning
DIPNR Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources
DoTARS Department of Transport and Regional Services
EP&A Act Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
ESD Ecological Sustainable Development
FGDC Federal Geographic Data Committee
GI Geospatial information
GIS Geographic information system
GIT Geographic information technology
GM General Manager
GMR Greater Metropolitan Region
GML Geographic Markup Language
GPS Global positioning system
GWS Greater Western Sydney
HCC Hawkesbury City Council
HTML Hyper Text Markup Language
HTTP Hyper Text Transfer Protocol
IMROC Inner Metropolitan Regional Organisation of Councils
IS Information systems
IT Information technology
JSP JAVA Server Pages
LEPs Local environmental plans
LES Local Environmental Study
LGA Local Government Areas
LGIP Local Government Incentive Programme
xii
MACROC Macarthur Regional Organisation of Councils
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
NSDI National Spatial Data Infrastructure
NSW New South Wales
NUD*IST Non-numerical data indexing, searching and theorising
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
OSP Online spatial portal
PTD Pitt Town development
REPs Regional environmental plans
RFS Rural Fire Service
RTA Roads Traffic Authority
SDI Spatial data infrastructure
SEPPs State environmental planning policies
SEQ South East Queensland
SI Spatial information
SIH Sydney Information Highway
SISSC Spatial Information Systems Steering Committee
SLIP Shared Land Information Platform
SMS Sydney Metropolitan Strategy
SOAP Simple Object Access Protocol
SQL Standard Query Language
TMAP Transport Management and Accessibility Map
UK United Kingdom
UWS University of Western Sydney
WALIS Western Australia Land Information System
WFS Web Feature Service
WMS Web Map Service
WSDL Web Service Description Language
WSRi Western Sydney Research institute
WSROC Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils
WWW World Wide Web or the Web
XML Extensible Markup Language
XSL XML Style Sheets
xiii
Abstract
The overall aim of this research project was to determine whether a technological
spatial innovation, such as online spatial portal (OSP), would provide an effective
mechanism to support better policy dialogue between the technical capacity and
decision making spheres within and between local government, enabling improved
policy development and application. This was addressed by using a qualitative,
multi-methodological research methodology to examine both current theory and the
practical experiences and opinions of local government professionals.
The literature review focused on the emerging theory field of ‘policy dialogue’ - the
local governance and the importance of spatial information (SI) and geographic
information systems (GIS) for supporting decisions. It is argued that local
government responsibilities extend beyond the local government area (LGA)
boundaries and require sharing of SI between councils to enable regional
consideration for effective local decision making. A number of challenges
negatively affect sharing of SI, which are organisational and behavioural in nature,
rather than technical. It was postulated that an OSP could be an effective mechanism
to allow SI from a variety of organisations to be integrated and analysed by decision
makers from their computer desktops. The analysis of literature provided the
theoretical basis for the development of an analytical framework (AF) model for the
establishment of the technological spatial innovation.
The interview analysis of sample Greater Western Sydney (GWS) council
professionals confirmed the complexity of local government policy. A significant
issue that hindered policy development across the participating local governments
was the occurrence of silo cultures within internal and external relationships between
council officers. This issue required careful consideration within the AF model.
The interview participants however, identified incentives that would encourage
decision makers to participate in regional innovations and thereby manage these silo
cultures.
xiv
The second interview phase with GWS council professionals, followed by a
demonstration of an OSP concept (GWSspatial), identified the applications,
opportunities and challenges for the development and use of a technological spatial
innovation. The key applications identified were - sharing and knowledge
management of SI, immediate online access and integration of local/regional SI, and
analysis opportunities to facilitate purposeful dialogue and informed decision making
by council professionals within a region. These applications, however, encountered
two significant challenges: knowledge control by council’s GIS professionals and
innovation acceptance by decision makers. Management of these challenges is
essential during the initial development stages of a technological spatial innovation,
whereby the collaboration, cooperation and coordination phases of the AF model
were found to be critical. To manage these challenges the AF model required
modification to include a combined top-down and bottom-up approach to engage
representatives from senior, middle and junior management of participating
stakeholders. Regardless of its value of as a technological spatial innovation,
without commitment, support, financial backing and eventual utilisation by
stakeholders (local, state and federal governments) the initiative would ultimately
fail.
Policy framework case studies were conducted at three scales: the Pitt Town
development – at LGA level; Bushfire emergency management – at cross-
jurisdictional level; and the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy - at regional level. The
case studies validated the key applications, revealing that they would assist with
individual, organisational and institutional capacity development to support policy
dialogue. The applications should be promoted as incentives by the innovation
champion and outlined in the business plan of the AF model. The innovation
champion, either an individual or a group/organisation, should drive the
advancement of the OSP concept for widespread acceptance and adoption within the
NSW local government context. Alterations to the AF model were made together
with a recommendation to test the technical capacity of the innovation pilot with land
management scenarios. The catalysts, which trigger the need, acceptance and
commitment of decision makers, thereby supporting the key applications of a
xv
technological spatial innovation include disaster response, critical environment
management challenges and regional land use planning and management.
1
1. Introduction
1.1. Background
The Spatial Information Systems Steering Committee (SISSC) of the University of
Western Sydney (UWS) instigated the original study into Greater Western Sydney
(GWS) spatial information (SI) sharing. The 1997-88 review of spatial data
availability in the GWS region assessed the spatial data requirements of users. The
study revealed that there was a variety of SI available. Costs, licensing restrictions,
intellectual property rights and incompatibility of the variety of processing systems
in use hindered the sharing of this information. The original concept of the steering
committee was to establish a central repository of all SI relevant to GWS. With the
increased capabilities of the Internet, it became evident that providing access through
this medium would be preferable. It was envisaged that the agency responsible for
creating the data would be responsible for updating or certifying its accuracy at the
time of collection (Ronaldson, Kelleher, Ginige, Herborn, Mossfield and Chant,
2000).
To build on the above study, the Hawkesbury City Council (HCC), in collaboration
with UWS successfully applied, in 2000 for a grant administered by the Department
of Transport and Regional Services (DoTARS) through the Local Government
Incentive Programme (LGIP) 2000-01. The project consisted of ten Local
Government Areas (LGAs), of which seven were active participants which faced
immense pressures from the urban periphery in managing their natural and built
environments, community and infrastructure development and delivery of services.
The project focused on how a regional geographic information system (GIS) could
provide access to SI to improve decision making on issues that cross LGA
boundaries. The seven councils, together with state agencies such as the former
Department of Urban Affairs and Planning, the Environmental Protection Authority,
and statutory authorities such as the former Hawkesbury Nepean Catchment
Management Trust, all recognised the urgent need for a regional approach in order to
effectively manage these issues (Hawkesbury City Council, 2000). The study
became known as the Greater Western Sydney Spatial Project or GWSspatial. It
2
aimed to allow councils, utilities, environmental groups, planning organisations and
the community to see and query digital data in the form of layers of SI and associated
textual features as digital maps from a computer terminal or browser (GWSspatial
Steering Committee, 2001). In 2004, the successful completion of the pilot stage of
GWSspatial was a proof of concept, achieving the objectives set out in the original
LGIP application. It then proceeded to a conceptual second stage, focusing on
further development of the technical capacity to accommodate all fourteen GWS
councils, together with all relevant utilities and other suppliers of spatially referenced
data (GWSspatial Steering Committee, 2003). Lack of funding effectively halted the
proof of concept and the development of the second stage.
This thesis continued the research into SI sharing by investigating how an OSP, as an
example of technological spatial innovation, could support local government policy
dialogue and lead to improved decision making at both local and regional levels.
The GWSspatial initiative was a key tool that enabled the demonstration of an OSP
concept to the interviewees and provided an opportunity to explore the theoretical
implications behind the OSP concept.
1.2. Study area
The project focused on the GWS region, which extends from the Olympic site at
Homebush Bay in the east to the Blue Mountains in the west, and from Wiseman’s
Ferry in the north to Bargo in the south (Figure 1.1). The GWS is a significant region
within New South Wales (NSW), Australia because of its diverse natural, heritage,
social and economic environments. The GWS region includes more than half of
Sydney’s land area and is one of the fastest growing regions in the country. The State
Government has implemented specific planning and environmental strategies for the
region and it has recently been a focus area for development of the Sydney
Metropolitan Strategy (Department of Urban Affairs and Planning, 1998, Western
Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils, WSROC Member Councils and Regional
Integrated Monitoring Centre, 2000, Department of Infrastructure Planning and
Natural Resources, in Western Sydney).
3
Figure 1.1 Greater Western Sydney region
(GWSspatial Steering Committee, 2003)
The GWS region includes two significant regional organisations of councils: the
Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (WSROC), and the Macarthur
Regional Organisation of Councils (MACROC). Both provide a representative
advocacy and voice to the State Government to foster regional cooperation on behalf
of local councils (Macarthur Regional Organisation of Councils, 2004, Western
Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils, 2004).
The fourteen councils located within the region, include: Auburn; Bankstown;
Baulkham Hills; Blacktown; Blue Mountains; Camden; Campbelltown; Fairfield;
4
Hawkesbury; Holroyd; Liverpool; Penrith; Parramatta; and Wollondilly. Wide
differences occur between these councils. Parramatta is the cosmopolitan central
business district for Western Sydney, while Hawkesbury and Blue Mountains have
large areas of natural bushland and a small fraction of the Western Sydney population
compared with other councils. Blacktown and Fairfield have the largest populations,
while Parramatta and Holroyd have the highest population density (Western Sydney
Regional Organisation of Councils et al., 2000, Department of Infrastructure Planning
and Natural Resources, in Western Sydney).
Major GWS issues include the planning and management of: population growth; ethic
and cultural diversity; housing; transport and facilities; hazards; environmental and
heritage values; economics; and employment (Van De Weg, 2003, Western Sydney
Regional Organisation of Councils, 2003).
As the GWSspatial study was conducted within this region it provided an ideal basis
for this project to explore the potential for an OSP to improve and inform the processes
of policy development and decision making by local government on a regional and
local basis.
1.3. Defining the context and concept
Local government has a significant role in environmental management through the
planning and development approval processes, operational activities (waste, sewage
and stormwater), policy development and involvement in regional programs. All
councils collect a large body of information in order to (a) manage their own affairs;
and (b) report to the many state and federal government agencies whose work
overlaps with theirs (Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils et al.,
2000). Therefore, information plays an important role in the formation and
implementation of policy. The availability of timely, accurate, and relevant
information may be the difference between a desirable policy outcome and an
undesirable or damaging one (Bassolé, Brunner and Tunstall, 2001). Regions and
natural systems are complex. Poor decisions may significantly affect people and the
environment, as identified by the Healthy Rivers Commission which conducted the
5
inquiry into the Hawkesbury-Nepean River and had identified local government as
one of the authorities for river management (Healthy Rivers Commission, 2003a).
The Commission identified that river management results are variable often because
the focus of some councils is limited locally, spatially or by the nature of specific
projects and problems (Healthy Rivers Commission, 2003b).
SI provides a geographically referenced basis for analysing relevant resource
information. It allows information and subsequent decisions to be interpreted with
respect to the ‘ground’ in real world situations, while graphical representation (eg.
digital maps) aids the communication of these ideas to those responsible for
implementing decisions (Kliskey, 1995). SI provides an effective way of presenting
large amounts of complex information to a wide audience, especially to those with
no experience of GIS or mapping (Appleton, Lovett, Sunnenberg and Dockerty,
2002). This thesis focuses on the benfits and challenges of sharing SI, based on a
conceptual framework reported by Bassolé et al. (2001)
TECHNICAL CAPACITY
SPHERE
GIS Experts
GIS Technology
and Infrastructure
Capacity in use of
GIS Technology
Data Products/
Services
Data Standards/
Protocols
DECISION-MAKING
SPHERE
Policy Makers
and Decision-
Makers
Awareness
Needs
Demand
POLICY DIALOGUE
Geospatial Information Policy
Figure 1.2 Conceptual framework
(Bassolé et al., 2001)
The conceptual framework by Bassolé et al. highlights the need for the technical
capabilities of GIS, such as digital maps and databases and GIS technicians, to
interact in a bi-directional policy dialogue with the decision making sphere, ranging
from General Managers to Planners, within and between organisations. This enables
better utilisation of organisational data and information in the formation and
6
implementation of policies and planning. Alternative and less suitable frameworks
focused on the use of SI and the implementation of GIS within individual
organisations (Appendix A), data sharing between organisations (multi-agency)
(Appendix B) and distributed GIS (Appendix C). Appendix A focused on the
decision making phases for GIS diffusion within an organisation, however did not
consider the importance of the technical capacity to influence policy making.
Appendices B and C focused on the technical requirements and phases to advance
the development and implementation of GIS and the sharing of SI between
organisations. GIS, however, requires more than appropriate equipment, high quality
data and skilled analysts to have a significant impact. As Bassolé et al., (2001)
identified, GIS also requires an active dialogue between scientists, GIS experts,
policymakers and civil society. A bi-directional policy dialogue stimulates the
emergence of demand for GIS analysis, which generates data products and services.
Awareness of novel GIS applications gives rise to new ideas among decision makers,
who identify new needs for GIS analysis, leading to increased demand and the cycle
continues (Bassolé et al., 2001).
Bassolé’s framework does not identify mechanisms that the policy dialogue should
entail, and as a result, it needs to be further developed and extended to include an AF
model for the policy dialogue section. It is postulated that an OSP, as an example of
a technological spatial innovation, could be a very effective dialogue mechanism that
would allow SI from a variety of organisations to be integrated and analysed by
decision makers from their computer desktops.
An OSP is a website that provides external access to databases and SI held internally
by an organisation, or a group of organisations (Conolly, 2001). Such a portal could
provide an interactive mechanism/infrastructure to improve regional information
sharing and enhance the quality of regional (inter-organisational) policy making.
However, for an OSP to be developed and maintained, it must have the full
cooperation of the participating organisations. Successful implementation would
depend upon a number of technical and organisational processes. Potential benefits
of a portal would include both technical and socio/political/organisational solutions.
7
This project focused on the interaction between the technical capacity and the
decision making spheres within local government for improved decision making.
Policy dialogue is an emerging theory field as it encompasses a cross-discipline
approach that includes sociology, political science and economics. Within this
project, sociology refers to the study of local government professionals’
responsibilities and use of SI within their work roles in a regional context. Political
science, specifically within local government area, refers to the theory and the
practice of sharing information for informed decision making. Economics refers to
local government decision makers’ and GIS experts’ production, distribution and use
of SI and the role of a technological spatial innovation to facilitate decision making.
1.4. Research problem and significance
The overall aim was to determine whether an OSP, as an example of technological
spatial innovation, would provide an effective mechanism to support policy dialogue
between the technical capacity and decision making spheres within and between
local governments through the development of an AF.
The research question arising from the previously stated aim is - how could an OSP
provide an effective medium to support the policy dialogue between the technical
and decision making spheres within and between local government institutions? This
broad question encompasses a number of subsets, viz.:
• Which elements should be included in an AF developed from the literature
review to model an OSP as a potential tool for policy dialogue and who are
the stakeholders that should be involved?
• What are the policy framework challenges faced by local government
professionals within their respective GWS councils and how do these inform
the AF?
• How could an OSP support land management policy framework? Can the
policy framework case studies (on three scales – local, cross-jurisdictional
and regionally) provide an appropriate insight into this issue and inform the
AF?
8
• What are the applications, opportunities and challenges of an OSP as a means
to support policy dialogue and how does this contribute to the AF?
There is a trend within local government to make SI more accessible (Conolly,
2001). The research significance is that an OSP could provide a tool for this to
occur, thereby assisting with the emerging field of policy dialogue between the
technical capacity and the decision making spheres within and between
organisations. Therefore, the process of dialogue is responsible for the building of
individual, organisational and institutional capacity in the extension of GIS
applications into many local and regional policies and decision making applications.
The interaction between the GIS experts and the user community allows non-experts
to see GIS as a useful tool to meet their needs for data analysis, not just locally but
regionally. GIS experts are able to perceive opportunities to innovate and develop
new applications, thus extending technological innovation (Bassolé et al., 2001).
1.5. Methodology and scope
There has been a considerable growth of interest in Information Systems (IS)
development methodologies and a steady growth of interest in softer methodological
approaches, which are more attuned to the social needs of the organisation than the
technical aspects of IS development (Nedovic-Budic, 2000b).
This project used a multi-methodological approach and case studies, which enabled a
complete research of phenomena and in-depth investigation, to provide a variety of
perspectives. It provided testability and a contextual basis for interpreting and
validating results, as identified by Nedovic-Budic (2000b) and Rowe (2002). Case
study research is an approach that is well suited to IS, since the interests of the study
are mainly focused on organisational issues (Benbasat, Goldstein and Mead, 1987)
and a multi-methodological approach is used where the methods are linked and
sequential (Probert, 2002). The research methods undertaken during this thesis
included collection of documentation, a series of two interviews with professional
staff within sample GWS councils, OSP demonstrations and policy framework case
studies.
9
The research objectives corresponded to the research process outlined above. They
involved:
a. Developing an AF that models OSP establishment as a potential tool to
support policy dialogue in local government.
b. Researching interactions and information requirements of the local
government decision making and technical spheres to provide a context for
the testing of the AF within sample GWS councils.
c. Researching the potential applications of an OSP by means of interviews with
council professionals and three policy framework case studies to provide
validity to the AF.
The thesis examined SI sharing on an inter-organisational basis, identifying the
challenges and opportunities within local government and the relationships between
the decision making processes and the information base diversity of local
government within the region. The study area focused on the GWS region, using
sample councils that represented the operational and environmental areas of
corporate management, GIS/information technology (IT) and information
management, environmental planning, safety, transport planning, environmental
management and assets. These areas of responsibility have the potential to utilise SI
locally and regionally on a daily basis. The professionals who could not respond
positively to SI because they were text based individuals, due to their background
and preferences, were not sourced as it was not in the scope if this thesis.
GWSspatial was used to introduce an OSP concept to the local government
participants interviewed to initiate discussions of SI use within their personal work
roles.
To ascertain the diversity of applications of an OSP as a tool to support policy
dialogue, three policy framework case studies covered three spatial scales: local – a
large development application; cross-jurisdictional - between two LGAs; and
regional planning and management on a regional scale.
10
1.6. Thesis structure
The thesis is organised in eight chapters, this introduction being the first chapter.
Chapter 2 reviews the theory behind the role of local government and the importance
of information and GIS for decision support. The chapter also explores data sharing
challenges, the advantages of the Internet as an information sharing medium and the
emergence of Internet-based GIS technology. The opportunities for an Internet-
based GIS as a tool to support policy dialogue and its establishment within a local
government setting are evaluated for the development of an AF.
Chapter 3 presents the research methods and analytical procedures used. The chapter
examines the method choice, data collection and design, fieldwork, data analysis and
methodology limitations.
Chapter 4 presents the results and discussions from the first stage interviews with
professionals in sample GWS councils thereby contributing to the AF by
investigating the current local government policy and decision making environment.
It examines local government professionals’ work responsibilities, innovation use,
interactions, policy development, and information requirements. The chapter also
explores regional SI needs and demands by professionals and the potential for an
OSP as a tool to support policy dialogue.
Chapter 5 presents the results and discussions from the second stage interviews,
which included a demonstration of an OSP concept, to the same sample GWS
council professionals previously interviewed. It examines local government policy
dialogue, an OSP as a supporting tool for the policy dialogue and the challenges
confronting the establishment of an OSP that require consideration within the AF.
Chapter 6 applies the OSP concept to three policy framework scenarios covering
three scales of decision making and policy dialogue. These include the Pitt Town
development as a local scale example, emergency management between two council
areas at a regional scale and regional planning and management that delves into the
Sydney Metropolitan Strategy at a broad regional scale.
11
Chapter 7 reports the conclusion of the thesis. The development of the AF model
and the catalysts to improve policy dialogue in local government is discussed, along
with the project’s contribution to knowledge and recommendations for further
research.
12
2. Literature Review
2.1. Introduction
The evolution of society is placing immense pressure on those professionals that are
responsible for land management with planners now facing complexity and
interrelationships of issues that go beyond traditional simple town planning
frameworks (Neilson, 2002).
This review of literature focuses on the emerging theory field of policy dialogue,
which is an interdisciplinary area that combines sociology, political science
specifically within local government and economics. The review discusses
governance by local government and its role in land planning; the importance of
information and SI for decision making and policy development; GIS for decision
support; data sharing challenges and the Internet as a medium for information
sharing. The review examines Internet-based GIS as a potential mechanism for
sharing SI between organisations and introduces a framework for policy dialogue
that combines GIS technology and decision making activities within and between
organisations.
2.2. Local government role in governance
Local government has a significant role in governance. Governance refers to the
arrangements that society agrees to set in place between citizens, business and
government to address issues of collective interest, and to solve problems or create
and build on benefits (Neilson, 2002). It is about political decision making,
economic and community planning and the way society builds and maintains
institutional structures (Okoth-Ogendo, 1995), and also refers to the processes and
outcomes (Ting and Williamson, 2000). The instruments of governance include
policy, legislation and regulations, fiscal (taxes and fees/charges), financial
(expenditure), institutional arrangements, asset management, knowledge
management (dissemination of information/knowledge), and advocacy (Neilson,
2002). Good governance is integral to the vision of land administration for
sustainable development.
13
The development of local government in Australia and, more specifically in NSW,
has seen their functions expand significantly since World War II (UTS Centre for
Local Government, 2001). As described in the 2006 Australia State of the
Environment (2006 Australian State of the Environment Committee, 2006) local
government is the most diverse of Australia’s three levels of government. Their
responsible for protecting the environment, planning future landscapes, providing
infrastructure, managing natural resources and conserving or managing cultural
heritage through a variety of mechanisms with many councils working in areas
beyond their statutory requirements such as Local Agenda 21 and Cities for Climate
Protection. Land administration has a significant role in local government in
addressing the tension between the environment and development (Ting and
Williamson, 2000). Other concerns include population pressures from ‘sea change’
and ‘tree change’ movements (2006 Australian State of the Environment Committee,
2006)
There are 152 councils in NSW (Department of Infrastructure Planning and Natural
Resources, 2004a) with town and environmental planning forming a significant
component of local government operations under the Environmental Planning and
Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act). This Act provides for the generation of state
environmental planning policies (SEPPs), regional environmental plans (REPs), local
environmental plans (LEPs), development control plans (DCPs) and section 94
contribution plans (Table 2.1) (Department of Urban Affairs and Planning, 1999).
The complexity of this planning framework has been described by Dore (2001), the
General Manager of Newcastle City Council, as a lengthy planning process, from
developing a strategy through to adoption followed by the complicated development
approvals process. She has also stated that councils are reacting within the
regulatory framework rather than steering towards sustainable planning of their
LGA.
14
Table 2.1 NSW local government facts and figures
Facts and figures
152 NSW councils
5,500 local planning instruments being administered
An average of 300 LEPs are being amended each year, these vary on format and content between
areas
Over 3,100 different zones and 1,700 definition uses in NSW
90 planning instruments and declarations that identify types of development as state significant
3,000 concurrences burden planning instruments, such as development applications that are lodged
with council and need to be referred to another agency
Many development applications may need to obtain development consent and up to 19 additional
approvals and permits under nine pieces of single-use legislation
(Department of Infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources, 2004a)
Since the commencement of this thesis in 2003, the NSW State Government has
undertaken a number of reforms including local government, planning and natural
resource management. These reforms have influenced the role of governance by
local government, through increasing the roles and responsibilities of councils to
focus on regional alliances and partnerships and to consider regional topics and
issues (Department of Infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources, 2004a,
Department of Local Government, 2004b, Department of Infrastructure Planning and
Natural Resources, Local Government Association of NSW and Shires Association
of NSW, in Memorandum of Understanding). These reforms place additional
pressure on councils’ resource capacities.
The dilemma for council professionals is that various regional organisations have
different jurisdictional boundaries that rarely coincide with each other. The
challenge is greater for councils that straddle regional borders because they can find
themselves having to work with more than a dozen regional organisations creating
barriers to effective long-term local-regional partnerships. The problems also include
both the transience of regional bodies and their frequently unclear roles in relation to
local government (Dore and Woodhill, 1999 and Bellamy et al. 2003 cited in 2006
Australian State of the Environment Committee, 2006). This is supported by Shyy,
Stimson, Baum, Davis, Murray and Barker (2001) who note that within Australia, the
development and implementation of regional planning policy requires the
involvement of a wide group of professionals to manage issues at a local and
regional level. Strategic planning and sustainable development is a disciplined effort
to make fundamental decisions shaping the nature and direction of an issue (Kliskey,
15
1995, Ting and Williamson, 2000) and is often made through a complex, politically
charged process involving a number of interests (Nedovic-Budic, 2000a). This
requires a more efficient and productive dialogue between all
stakeholders/colleagues together with the resources to support effective governance
within overall land administration. Information is a tool to support good governance
as well as an outcome of good governance to form the basis for effective land
administration systems of the future (Ting and Williamson, 2000).
2.3. The importance of information
The successful outcome of complex decision making is dependent on ready access to
reliable and up-to-date information and its subsequent manipulation and handling.
Information thereby reduces uncertainty and enhances decision making by assisting
planners to identify, model and analyse situations and issues. The availability of
timely, accurate and relevant information may thus be the difference between a
desirable policy outcome and an undesirable or damaging one (Ting and Williamson,
2000, Bassolé et al., 2001, Australian Local Government Association and Australian
and New Zealand Land Information Council, 2004).
There is an immense amount of data used and generated by local, state and federal
governments and private organisations. It is generally accepted that there is
significant value in storing, sharing, merging and manipulating large-scale databases,
as a utility for examining and modelling regional phenomena and processes
(Meredith, 1995).
From large scale regional planning to understanding local demographics, the spatial
component of information is a key in the decision making process (Estes, Kline,
Scepan and Holland, 2001). Balodis (1986) states that:
“… [one] cannot make a spatial decision without appropriate information.
Statistics, computer-generated models, scientific or technical reports, more often
than not are cumbersome and meaningless to a legislator or a decision maker,
whereas a ‘good’ map like a well-written narrative, should supply the readily
16
understandable spatial information essential to the process of decision making”
(p.17).
Local government is a rich source of SI (McDougall, Rajabifard and Williamson,
2005). A basic rationale for taking a spatial perspective on management strategies
can be readily derived from the overall function of planning (Kliskey, 1995),
especially when approximately 80% of public and private decision making is
spatially related (O'Looney, 2000). SI provides data in a form that is communicable
and applicable to decision making (Kliskey, 1995).
SI, ideally, should be used extensively in local government departments that are
responsible for land use planning, engineering and capital works. With the
increasing responsibilities of local government to plan and implement their programs
in the context of integrated policies such as Ecologically Sustainable Development
(ESD), Catchment Management and Regional Metropolitan Strategies, their decision
making requires access to and integration of a broad range of SI information
(Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment Management Trust, 2001). As noted by Ting and
Williamson (2000), “decisions are usually only as good as the information and
analysis of that information” (p.6), “…….information is power. Spatial information
is an especially powerful tool” (p.11).
2.4. Geographic information systems for decision support
GIS has been applied to urban management within developed countries, and within
Australia it is regarded as a universal management tool for communication and
decision support in a number of policy areas including planning, natural resource
management, inter-agency projects and many more (Ting and Williamson, 2000,
Inner Metropolitan Regional Organisation of Councils, 2001). Yigitcanlar (2006)
survey of Australian councils identified that 89% of planning departments in LGAs
are making use of digital databases and maps, with 81.2% of the responding councils
having a fully operational GIS. GIS allows governments to capture, store, manage,
query and analyse land-related geographically referenced data to solve complex
planning and management problems (Brown, O'Toole and Brudney, 1998, Pullar and
17
McDonald, 1999). Its inherent capability to generate a map through a user query and
to shuffle, merge, and combine information, link with a data manager and with
multiple databases presents a powerful tool for decision and policy makers (Brown et
al., 1998, Pullar and McDonald, 1999). Kliskey (1995) noted that the geographic
referencing of information allows “decisions to be interpreted with respect to the
‘ground’ in real world situations, while graphical representation aids the
communication of these ideas to those responsible for implementing decisions”
(p17).
Widely disseminated, accurate geographic information is imperative to the planning
process (Nedovic-Budic, 2000a). The benefits from GIS technology are not
necessarily better decisions, but an improved process of making decisions, through
the production of new information or by adding value to existing information
(Calkins and Obermeyer 1991) . The capacity of GIS technology to provide the
function to ask ‘what if’ questions has assisted decision makers to think more
creatively, to reconsider existing goals, and to be innovative, which is imperative to
the planning process (O'Looney, 2000).
Budic’s (1994) survey of American local government revealed that the visual
component of GIS aids professional planners in presenting planning related
information, improves communication of information and increases confidence in
analysis. Thereby, professionals use of GIS in solving problems and publishing
solutions (visually), the ability to create simplified displays and representations, is
instrumental in the making of good decisions (Dandekar, 1998 cited in Budic, 1994,
O'Looney, 2000).
The information that decision makers take into consideration has a dynamic quality,
which means it is changing continuously in time and space, and therefore the GIS
systems that handle these changes provide a considerable support for the decision
making process (Asproth and Håkansson, 1997). GIS however, can also promote
illusion which refers to inexperienced users believing that all of the data in the GIS is
of equal accuracy (faulty data) and that geographical data has a cause-and-effect
relationship in the real world (faulty assumptions) (O'Looney, 2000)
18
The management of cities within the urban environment does not stop at the
jurisdictional boundary (Fonseca, Egenhofer, Davis and Borges, 2000). Therefore,
the importance of sharing GIS-based information between local and state
governments and other organisations is the belief by planners that the more it is
shared, the more it is used. The application of shared SI provides planners with the
ability to evaluate and address a wide range of issues. This allows a better
information base for management, strategic planning and policy decisions and the
potential to establish better inter-organisational relationships. Sharing SI also
reduces duplication of effort and resources invested in similar databases developed
by a number of different government agencies (Onsrud and Rushton, 1992, Nedovic-
Budic and Pinto, 1999a, Nedovic-Budic and Pinto, 1999b). Dangermond (2002)
provides an example of the benefits in SI sharing – “Local government will be able to
continuously maintain and update its land records and at the same time serve them
into other parts of the organisation, as well as into external organisations. Utility
companies will be able to directly integrate the map and data services published by
local governments as a replacement for their own base maps associated with facility
data. Conversely, utility infrastructure can be served back to local government for
use in permitting and land use planning” (p.56). In America 93% of respondents in
a local government survey indicated a desire to achieve information sharing benefits
as an important goal in their GIS efforts (Brown, 1996). Data sharing however
occurs too infrequently, this impedes the societal use of GIS and hinders
development and utilisation of the technology's full potential (Nedovic-Budic and
Pinto, 1999a).
2.5. Data sharing challenges
Today’s society demands complete access to available information which is often
heterogeneous and disparate (Wache, Vogele, Visser, Stuckenschmidt, Schuster,
Neumann and Hubner, 2001). The sharing of SI between organisations or among
divisions of a single organisation is subject to a number of impediments, these are
institutional, organisational or behavioural in nature rather than technical (Onsrud
and Rushton, 1992). Discussed in section 2.6 the technical capabilities exist to allow
transfer and information sharing through advances in technology in distributed
19
computing. Table 2.2 outlines the organisational and behavioural factors that
influence institutional sharing of spatial data.
Table 2.2 Organisational and behavioural factors impacting on sharing SI
Organisational factors Behavioural factors Bureaucratic practices and standard operating
procedures
Individual differences (perceived differences
between institutions)
Degree of cross-functional cooperation (inter-
department interaction)
Turf battles (information may be seen as a critical
resource and perceived as a source of power)
Organisational structure (can impact on
information flows, the degree of flexibility and
ability or willingness to react in a timely manner
to external demands or requirements)
Opinion leaders or new technology champions
(Individuals within organisations that act as
drivers for change or form cooperation with other
institutions
Corporate culture (attitude or set of belief about
an organisation, it’s identity and purpose
Political environment (the process by which
various parts of the organisations seek to gain and
maintain power, by attempting to acquire scarce
resources needed).
(Onsrud and Rushton, 1992)
Other sharing issues include legal and public policy, these involve the legal system’s
acceptance of GIS data and end products; access rights of citizens to publicly held
information; privacy; confidentiality; liability in the use, sharing, or distributing of
information or analysis results; work production protection (copyright, licensing,
contracts, patents); and security of systems (Onsrud and Rushton, 1992). Kevany
(1995) also identify’s a number issues for data sharing which can be seen in
Appendix D, they can be summarised as issues in: sharing classes, project
environment, need, opportunity, willingness, incentive, impediments, technical
capacity and resources.
There has been a general inability and often unwillingness to share data and
information across organisational boundaries with low levels of coordination
(Warnecke, Beattie, Cheryl, and Lyday, 1998). Nedovic-Budic and Pinto (1999a)
identified a number of factors that affect the effort to coordinate development and the
use of GIS databases between organisations. These include:
• Motivation for sharing - The drivers for organisations to take part in inter-
organisational relationships are cost savings, organisational needs and
20
capabilities (Azad and Wiggins, 1995), creating synergisms (Craig, 1995)
and common goals and professionalism (Obermeyer, 1995).
• Coordination process - Protocols, tasks, and decision mechanisms to promote
actions between organizations (Kumar and Dissel, 1996). The coordination
process deals with diverse organisational functions, tasks, resources, interests
and goals. Success is dependent upon an organisation’s willingness to
negotiate and compromise, contributing to proper communication channels to
facilitate mutual understanding (Nedovic-Budic and Pinto, 1999a).
• Organisational factors - The participating organisations readiness to let go
some autonomy, the extent to which this occurs determines the success in
building relationships (Nedovic-Budic and Pinto, 1999a). Other factors
identified by Cummings (1980 cited in Nedovic-Budic and Pinto, 1999a)
include: stability of the environment; comparability of organisations;
resources; consensus among organisations; dynamics; and organisations
adaptability in the environment. Other factors were discussed in Table 2.2.
Organisations must be prepared to undergo change such as redefinition of
existing tasks and structures and the development of new ones (Azad and
Wiggins, 1995). Common reactions to innovations are institutional inertia
and resistance to change (Nedovic-Budic and Pinto, 1999a)
• Standardisation and interoperability - Standards reduce the impediments to
interoperability which is “the ability to access multiple heterogeneous
geoprocessing environments, either local or remote, by means of a single
unchanging software interface” (Buehler and McKee, 1996 cited in Nedovic-
Budic and Pinto, 1999a p.187). Standards are required in many aspects of
geographic information development, processing and use: data models, geo-
references, categories of spatial data, contents of specific data layers, data
collection procedures, quality of data sources, data accuracy, metadata, output
environments, data transfer and use, access to databases, catalogues of
available data, data formats, and database design (Nedovic-Budic and Pinto,
1999a).
• Cost of coordination - Negotiating the investment in resources (equipment,
software, personnel); and developing and maintaining a common database.
Determining the project costs is sensitive and controversial, it is important to
21
decide participants individual contributions within a GIS partnership and
formalise the price of jointly owned database access (Nedovic-Budic and
Pinto, 1999a)
• Mechanism for GIS sharing - Setting up policies, procedures, and rules to
guide inter-organisational interaction and to structure and integrate
organisational entities, functions, and processes (Nedovic-Budic and Pinto,
1999a).
The SISSC of UWS, under the auspices of the Western Sydney Research Institute
(WSRi), undertook a review of digital spatial data availability in the GWS region in
1997-9. The report gave an extensive list of the constraints on data access and
sharing (Ronaldson et al., 2000) these can be seen in Table 2.3.
Table 2.3 Constraints on data access and sharing
Constraints • Cost is the major fact for all users
• Ownership, intellectual property rights and restrictive licensing on a project by project basis
• Spatial accuracy of the data is often not known
• Limited knowledge of data transfer formats available and incompatibility
• Data made available often not raw, but has been manipulated by the collector/creator
• Some datasets have been compiled by aggregation of local data to regional with no reference to the
source data
• Requirements of community interest groups not known
• Privacy and the difficulties in ensuring confidentiality with sensitive data
• Distinction between desirability of sharing or sell of data is unclear
• Ownership of information derived through the use of government data, accessed under license,
remains with the data owning and license agency, which prohibits on-selling or ex-project
distribution of information (copyright issues)
• The full cost-recovery and profit making policies being applied by government departments
• Lack of knowledge and understanding of the nature, power and value of SI systems
• Lack of knowledge and understanding by decision makers of the technology available and its
application and use
• Legislation does not always eliminate uncertain legal situations
• Communication problems, within and between various agencies
• Incompatibility between system designs
• Business ethic versus the community service capability
• Lack of access to (central) metadata dictionaries/databases.
(Ronaldson et al., 2000)
As development and use of GIS escalates, the demand for public access and sharing
of SI between organisations increases (Shyy et al., 2001), therefore the technology
behind information dissemination becomes critically important.
22
2.6. Information dissemination technology - the internet as a medium for
data sharing
There have been advances in information technology and considerable growth of
distributed computing, which has altered the role of computers and automated
information systems in local government. The integration of Web-based Internet
technologies with computer hardware and software enables users to find information,
regardless of time and location (Safai-Amini, 2000). Vendors are continuing to
develop hardware and software that promote connectivity, speed and standards for
efficient capturing, recording and exchanging of data (Meredith, 1995).
The Internet is an international communications infrastructure initially developed by
the US Department of Defence (Comer 1995). According to Cook and Merriam
(1998) the Internet is the world’s largest computer network, and is a system of
interconnected computers that allows the exchange of information through a number
of interacting components, including electronic mail, newsgroups, and the Web (or
WWW). The Web was developed to allow easy use of the Internet and the use of
textual and graphical information online (Cook and Merriam, 1998). With the
advances in intranet/Internet technologies such as the Web, Java, and distributed
object computing (Hughes, 2000), the Internet is seen both as an information source
and a medium for data sharing (Bouguettaya, Benatallah, Hendra, Ouzzani and
Beard, 2000). The growth of the Internet and the Web is critical as a deployment
platform for spatial applications, replacing client/server as the dominant system
architecture (Hughes, 2000).
Dr. Yigitcanlar’s (2006) study of Australian Local Governments’ practice and
prospects with online planning examined Australian communities and local
government in their adoption of the Internet to assist participatory planning.
Yigitcanlar (2006, p. 7) identified that the “Internet is the main medium of
information exchange for online planning” and within Australia “there has been a
rapid increase in computer and Internet use, not only in homes, but also at the
workplace, schools and other locations” (p. 10). Yigitcanlar (2006) noted that in
most Australian local councils, technical applications such the Internet and GIS are
becoming well established, however in some remote localities the use of these
23
technical applications are more varied. Nevertheless a large number of Australian
councils have the background and infrastructure to establish online planning and
“with the substantial decrease in technology costs and introduction of Internet GIS,
online data and analysis tools are becoming widely accessible to the public” (p.7).
2.7. Emergence of Internet-based GIS technology
The Internet is enhancing the application of GIS technology in three major areas:
GIS data access, SI dissemination, and GIS modelling/processing (Peng and Tsou,
2003), with all GIS vendors offering online web mapping tools (Thoen, 1999).
Internet GIS evolved in the late 1990s, it is a tool that uses the Internet as a medium
to access distributed data and subject it to GIS analysis (Peng, 1999). This provides
a powerful resource for local and regional land management professionals, as well as
for others such as consultants and interested citizens (Shyy et al., 2001) by allowing
previously inaccessible information resources to be made available more widely
(Maguire, 1999).
Peng and Tsou (2003) distinguished between Internet GIS and Web-based GIS as
follows - Internet GIS uses the Internet as the medium to exchange data, perform
GIS analysis, and present results. Web-based GIS uses the Web as the primary
means. However, both Internet GIS and Web-based GIS use the client/server
computing model. Depending on the amount of processes performed on the client
side, the client could be ‘thick’ or ‘thin’. If most of the processing is performed at
the server side, and the client is used to request user input and present output, it is a
thin client. But if most of the processing is performed at the client side, it is a thick
client (Peng and Tsou, 2003). Within Australia 12.1% of local councils are utilising
Internet GIS to make planning information available to the public (Yigitcanlar,
2006). Jere (2005) states that the future of Internet GIS will embrace data
interoperability, access and ease of use, network architecture, standard and advanced
GIS applications and flexibility through customisation, administrative and
deployment tools, and dependability and upgrading of history.
24
2.8. Combining Internet-GIS technology with the decision making sphere –
opportunities for policy dialogue
For Internet-GIS technology to be used for decision making requires participation
mechanisms that enable diverse groups such as GIS technicians, decision makers and
citizens to interact. Klosterman (1997), in describing the evolution of planning and
information systems states that it encompasses a growing demand for interaction
between IT and planning activities, as shown in Table 2.4.
Table 2.4 Evolving views of planning and information systems
The evolution in the way public managers view planning and IT 1960s System Optimisation ‘Planning as applied science’
IT viewed as providing the information needed for a value- and
politically neutral process of ‘rational’ planning.
1970s Politics ‘Planning as politics’ IT seen as inherently political, reinforcing existing structures of
influence, hiding fundamental political choices, and transforming the
policy making process.
1980s Discourse ‘Planning as communication’ IT and the content of planners’ technical analyses seen often as less
important than the ways in which planners transmit this information
to others.
1990s Collective Design ‘Planning as reasoning together’ IT seen as providing the information infrastructure that facilitates
social interaction, interpersonal communication, and debate that
attempts to achieve collective goals and deal with common concerns.
(Klosterman 1997).
Improved access to higher quality information can improve decision making within
and between government and external agencies through regional understanding. The
ability to collect data once and to use it many times avoids the development of
duplicated datasets and reduces data management costs, which provides a cost
effective way of widening access to information resources (Blakemore, 2003 and
Rhind, 1999 cited in Maguire and Longley, 2005).
Councils are knowledge producers and users - they can be described as being part of
the knowledge-based economy. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) recognised knowledge-based economies as those “based on
the production, distribution and use of knowledge and information” (OECD, 1996
cited in Smith, 2002 p.6). Knowledge is generally derived from the understanding
and resolution of problems or ambiguity (Hirsch-Kreinsen, Jacobson, Laestadius and
25
Smith, 2003). GIS in councils encompasses both ‘tacit’ knowledge and ‘embodied’
knowledge. Tacit knowledge refers to known skills, which are instinctive and
unarticulated and are only acquired by having practical experience in GIS.
Embodied knowledge involves knowledge incorporated into the GIS. (Hirsch-
Kreinsen et al., 2003 p.5) Interaction between these two forms of knowledge is
required to promote processes in GIS advancement and organisational innovation.
As introduced in Chapter 1 section 1.3 a project in West Africa (Bassolé et al., 2001)
examined the role of GIS in supporting environmental planning and management by
developing a simple conceptual framework that illustrated the need for a policy
dialogue between two ‘spheres’ – the technical capacity and decision making (Figure
1.2 - Introduction). The technical capacity sphere encompasses the availability and
operational status of several relevant factors including:
• GIS experts
• GIS technology and infrastructure
• Capacity in the use of GIS technology
• Data products/services
• Data standards/protocols
The decision making sphere is composed of non-experts who need data and analyses
to support, enhance, or influence decision making. It encompasses the policy
maker’s and decision maker’s awareness of GIS capability in relation to their needs
and demands. The policy dialogue is the process by which the two spheres, technical
capacity and decision making, interact (Bassolé et al., 2001). Generally however
policy dialogue involves multiple stakeholders engaging in discussions, sharing and
exchanging information and ideas in the belief that they will come to deliberative
decision making and policy change (The EPIQ Technical Advisory Group, 1998,
Voluntary Sector Canada, 2002, Adler and Celico, 2003). The importance of policy
dialogue comes from democracy “through both elected representation in formal
bodies and participation and effective deliberation in informal decision making
mechanism that influence formal processes” (Adler and Celico, 2003) Essentially
policy dialogue requires the following principles (Voluntary Sector Canada, 2002):
26
Respect between organisations and individuals, inclusiveness, accessibility,
transparency, responsibility and accountability. The stages within the policy
development process whereby policy dialogue is integral are: issue identification,
agenda-setting, policy design, implementation, and impact assessment (Voluntary
Sector Canada, 2002). The broad phases identified by Adler and Celico (2003)
include a) issue focusing and convening; b) information exchange and discussion;
and c) solution seeking and consensus building. In essence, policy dialogue is about
building capacity, defined by Chaskin (2001) as “the interaction of human capital,
organizational resources, and social capital … that can be leveraged to solve
collective problems and improve or maintain the being or a given community”. As
Innes and Booher (2003) highlight, central to capacity is learning: learning by
individuals, organisations and institutions. Appendix E outlines other common
aspects. This involves ‘tacit’ and ‘embodied’ knowledge exchange and the
interaction of the human GIS dimension encompassing the capacity for experts who
work with IT and GIS directly, and the non-specialised mainstream staff (generally
decision makers who typically have little exposure or training) in the use of IT or
GIS. The results of the policy dialogue process are improved levels of specialised IT
staff, and an increased capacity of mainstream staff in the effective use of IT (Kim
and Bretschneider, 2004).
Bassolé’s conceptual framework however, does not elaborate on a potential
mechanism or tool to support policy dialogue between the technical capabilities of
GIS and the decision making sphere. A technological spatial innovation such as an
OSP that incorporates Internet-GIS based technology could provide the inter-
organisational and technical innovation tool to support policy dialogue.
The combination of the Internet and GIS is making SI more accessible, but as
Conolly (2001) states, it is the Web portals that are making it practical. In the late
1990s, the Geospatial Information (GI) industry introduced portals as entry points to
the spatial data infrastructure (SDI) initiatives. There has been an attention shift,
specifically in the last six years, within the GI industry and GIS community, from
capturing and creating data to more efficient ways to share, distribute and use it
(Foust, Tang and Selwood, 2005, Tait, 2005). GIS appearances on the Web range
27
between references to GIS use and simple demonstrations, to the more highly
developed online GIS applications and decision support systems (Carver and
Peckham, 1999). An OSP is defined by Tait (2005) as “a website that presents an
entry point to geographic content on the Web”. The GIS technology is the basis for
the implementations (Table 2.5).
Table 2.5 Distributed GIS/OSP architecture
Components Elements Environments Functions Web Site HTML, HTTP, XSL,
XML, JSP, ASP
Search, Map Viewer,
Publish, Administrate
Web portal
Web Controls Java Beans, .NET Query, Gazetteer,
Mapping, Edit,
Geocoding
Web Services Geographic Web
Services
XML, SOAP, WSDL,
WMS, WFS, GML
Query, Map
render/feature,
Transaction, Geocode
DBMS Data Management
Geographic and
Tabular Data
SQL Raster, Vector, Tabular
Components: identifies the three major components in a distributed GIS/OSP architecture.
Elements: defines the functional elements of each component in a distributed GIS/OSP architecture.
Environments: refers to the information technology standards used to implement each element of the
architecture - Hyper Text Markup Language (HTML), Hyper Text Transfer Protocol (HTTP),
extensible Markup Language (XML), XML Style Sheets (XSL), JAVA Server Pages (JSP), ActiveX
Server Pages (ASP), .NET – Microsoft’s web services technology, Simple Object Access Protocol
(SOAP), Web Services Description Language (WSDL), Web Map Service (WMS), Web Feature
Service, (WFS), Geographic Markup Language (GML), Standard Query Language (SQL).
Functions: identifies the specific capabilities implemented in each element of the architecture.
(Tait, 2005)
Many OSPs provide map visualisation tools that permit integration of live map
services from multiple remote service providers. Depending on the type of portal,
such mapping clients range from those providing a relatively simple pan, zoom and
identify functionality to highly customised mapping interfaces that permit focus,
query and analysis (Foust et al., 2005). The demand for OSPs is driven by the need
to reduce duplication and increase the consistency of data within disparate
organisations that rely on the same information and to increase public access to
information (Conolly, 2001).
Australian councils are starting to present SI across the Internet for public access
through portals (Appendix F). Examples include:
28
• Pittwater Council, NSW - www.pittwaterlga.com.au
• The City of Sydney, NSW -
www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/AboutSydney/Maps.asp
• The City of Swan, WA - www.swan.wa.gov.au
• Caloundra City Council – http://maproom.caloundra.qld.gov.au
• Mackay City Council – http://www.mimapsmackay.com.au
• Blue Mountains City Council – http://www.bmcc.nsw.gov.au
• Darebin Council in Victoria - http://gis.darebin.org/
There are limited examples of regional OSPs, with some that have ‘come and gone’,
such as the Sydney Information Highway (SIH) developed by Commonwealth
Scientific and Industrial Organisation (CSIRO) on behalf of the Inner Metropolitan
Regional Organisation of Councils (IMROC). The SIH covered Sydney’s Parramatta
Road corridor, involving eleven local councils and four state agencies (Blunt, 2001)
but folded because of a lack of support and money. GWSspatial, as discussed in
Chapter 1, was an example of a regional interactive portal that involved fourteen
GWS councils (Blunt, 2001), the initiative concluded its successful pilot stage in
2004, however failed because of the lack of State Government support. Recently
Iplan, (http://www.iplan.nsw.gov.au/index.jsp), established by the Department of
Planning (DEP) formerly the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural
Resources (DIPNR), has provided the user options to access planning information
and services by geographic area, or by planning related issues, or by searching
individual LGAs. The Department of Lands (NSW) developed ‘GeoSpatial Portal’
(http://maps.nsw.gov.au), which provides the user with access to topographic maps,
limited cadastre and imagery online. Both of these examples have limited
functionality and interactivity. In Western Australia a new initiative called SLIP
(Shared Land Information Platform) driven by the Department of Land Information
is currently under development (pilot stage). SLIP plans to use a portal concept with
the ability to view and access land information datasets in a seamless cross-
government manner and has been endorsed by the WA government since November
2004. The Western Australia Land Information System (WALIS) and SLIP will be
closely aligned. Currently the SLIP trial Web Map Service (WMS) is only accessed
using an installed GIS application and using a link URL to run WMS ‘Get
29
Capabilities’ operation (Government of Western Australia, 2006). These new
initiatives illustrate the importance placed by state agencies on the value of SI for
government activities.
Overseas, SI is being accessed through the Internet via websites, such as ‘Geospatial
One-Stop’ (www.geodata.gov), EU INSPIRE (http://eu-geoportal.jrc.it),
MAPQUEST (www.mapquest.com), National Geographic Map Machine
(www.nationalgeographic.com/maps/), Google Maps (http://maps.google.com),
MAGIC in the United Kingdom (UK) (www.MAGIC.gov.uk), GI Gateway,
Planning Portal in the UK (www.gigateway.org.uk) and in Germany
(www.wegweiserdemographie.de/). All these examples vary in functionality and
interactivity.
Resistance to technology however, occurs on three levels – IT professionals,
mainstream staff and senior management. This stems from the organisational staff
being unfamiliar with the technology and feeling threatened by its adoption (Figure
2.1) (Allen, Juillet, Miles, Paquet, Roy and Wilkins, 2004). Harris (2002) identified
that the real problem with OSPs is obtaining the data in the first place, and achieving
support from the organisations that hold the data. He noted that all such problems
are insignificant if there is the political will to create the data, or to integrate it. The
GWSspatial experience had support at the technical levels but this was not always
matched by an appropriate level of support from senior management in the
participating organisations (Kelleher and Sproats, 2004 pers. comm.).
Figure 2.1 Resistance to technology
(Allen et al., 2004 adopted from Heeks and Davies, 1999)
30
Spatial portal initiatives that involve a large number of organisations increase the
potential for incompatibility of data and systems as well as duplication between
separate initiatives. Jere, (2005) stated that differences in data models and
technology, limitations of hardware and network infrastructure to support transfer
and sharing, and the lack of common coding or transfer protocols prevents initiatives
from realising their full potential. Semantic differences such as how soil type classes
are defined, or the way an algorithm models a particular process, present the greatest
barrier to interoperability. Furthermore, portals require reliable Internet access with
a reasonably high bandwidth (Maguire and Longley, 2005).
It should be noted that OSPs are not the overall solution for government issues (Tait,
2005) such as policy dialogue. They provide a tool to assist and enhance government
operations. However, issues with security (Baker et al., 2004 cited in Maguire and
Longley, 2005), and privacy will become even more relevant when there is greater
access to information and government activities are opened up to wider scrutiny
(Maguire and Longley, 2005).
OSPs provide the opportunity to expand the user community by providing a user
friendly interface, with the ability to combine text and spatial search functions and
the capacity to view and work with the resources. Portal design and development
can also strengthen links with the geospatial community through collaboration, and
provide a forum for information exchange and discussion that is not restricted by
distance (Maguire and Longley, 2005).
Weyman (2004) identified three contemporary examples of policy areas at various
scales as potential applications of an OSP and will be further discussed in Chapter 5.
These include: the Pitt Town development – retention of agriculture; bushfire
emergency management; and regional management – the Sydney Metropolitan
Strategy. All three examples require the use of SI by decision makers, shared
information between organisations and purposeful dialogue between stakeholders to
support decisions. Potential roles of an OSP to support these policy areas include:
• Sharing SI/intelligence between decision makers;
31
• Blurring administrative boundaries through regional information;
• Searching by various parameters (queries);
• Seeking and over-laying SI (maps and analysis);
• Modelling and analysis of cumulative impacts;
• Facilitating management of knowledge in a single repository;
• Informing and communicating decisions through visualisation;
• Raising the profile of SI use in decision and policy making; and
• Informing dialogue between councils, residents, government departments and
utilities – thereby promoting deliberative democracy.
An OSP demands strategies which are directed to change organisational and personal
structures together with the usual methods of utilising technologies (Hirsch-Kreinsen
et al., 2003). A portal would not only promote innovation technically, but potentially
organisationally. The challenge in innovations as identified by Hirsch-Kriensen et
al., (2003) is to “incorporate more indirect forms of coordination alongside the
conventional forms of hierarchical control and coordination with organisations.
This increases the importance of the employee’s commitment, motivation and
initiative, … the participative use of information technologies, the greater
importance of organisational culture and the increased impact of inter-
organisational production networks” (p.3).
The establishment of technology innovations is often very slow because of two
elementary factors (Iversen, Orstavik and Smith, 1998):
• No component of technical hardware stands alone: they are invariably part of
an intricate technical and production system, which incorporates a multitude
of functions and actions.
• Relationships between technology and society: Society has a problem
adapting to new technology. Technology does not exist independently of
society, it always prevails within an economic and social structure.
Instigation of technology within certain organisational structures of particular
organisations and the general social context therein defines the economic
situation, the legal framework, the technical criteria, the provision of
32
technical and scientific skills, and the social and cultural standards of the
work situation. The use of technology very often involves change and
adjustment within the work system.
2.9. Requirements for the establishment of an OSP in a local government
setting to support policy dialogue within Bassolé’s framework
McDougall et al., (2005) highlighted that the collaboration for sharing SI is more
than the traditional cooperation or coordination approaches, it requires the
establishment of well organised and resourced formal arrangements. The
requirements to establish an OSP within a local government setting would be to:
• Identify the potential collaborators and the processes by which they would
come together;
• Determine the features required to set up a functional OSP; and
• Ascertain the factors that either assist or hinder the development and effective
use of an OSP within local government.
2.9.1. Collaborators
When identifying potential collaborators it is important to understand the
communication systems involved within the organisations. Rogers and Agarwala-
Rogers (1976 cited in Chan and Williamson, 1999) noted that an organisation such as
local government is a structured system of professionals who work to achieve
outcomes through a hierarchy of position levels. This structure imposes formal and
informal communication patterns throughout the organisation. As Warnest,
McDougall, Rajabifard and Williamson (2003) identified collaboration is a complex
set of formal and informal relationships, which are dynamic and difficult to classify
without a unified approach to their understanding.
The formal setting is defined by goals, agreed roles, authority structure, rules and
regulations (Rogers, 1983). Before any change is accepted, official approval must be
obtained through this formal setting (Chan and Williamson, 1999), which gains in
33
complexity when it covers a multi-organisational situation. The establishment of an
OSP within the formal setting would involve collaborators from the higher levels of
stakeholder authority, for example the federal government department level
(DoTARS and Geoscience Australia), the state government department/agencies
(Department of Lands, Department of Planning and other SI users), other
organisations (WSROC, MACROC and Australian and New Zealand Land
Information Council (ANZLIC)) and the local government executive management
(General Manager, Directors, and Councillors).
The informal setting refers to casual relationships amongst professionals within the
organisations (Rogers, 1983). These professionals have diverse opinions and values,
conflicting priorities and goals resulting in competition for resources (Hardy, 1993
cited in Chan and Williamson, 1999). The informal setting encompasses
stakeholders who have various levels of experience with the use of SI, including
councils’ junior management (Planners, Officers, Supervisors, and Coordinators),
middle management (Departmental Managers) and GIS unit personnel.
2.9.2. Collaboration – forming partnerships
To bring the collaborators together requires the formation of partnerships.
Partnerships are defined by Brown, et al. (1998) as “interorganizational cooperative
ventures among agencies within one government or across jurisdictions with the aim
of adopting and implementing a new technology”. Partnerships promote innovation
by fostering cooperation, encouraging practices that provide for smooth operations
and mediating, and resolving conflicts and disputes between participants.
Partnerships also directly benefit the organisations involved through the sharing of
data/resources, technology, expertise, facilities and the costs related to the innovation
(Federal Geographic Data Committee, 1997).
It is crucial to the success of an OSP that its proponents work in conjunction with the
overall policies of federal and state governments on technology diffusion (Kim and
Bretschneider, 2004). For example, the Australian SDI (ASDI), which is a national
initiative to provide better access to SI for all Australians. This would enhance the
34
prospects of support from senior executives in federal and state SI management
agencies.
2.9.3. Functional OSP requirements
The functional requirements of an OSP include its information content and its
operational, business and technical contexts, which stem from the Federal
Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) National SDI (NSDI) framework.
Information content refers to the data elements, including the SI themes used by the
majority of organisations. Identifying shared data is essential to obtain multi-
organisational cooperation and support. Data sharing does not happen unless it is
underpinned by a business need, which was one of the key activities explored during
the MetroGIS project (GeoData Alliance, 2001). Government officers (local, state
and federal), elected representatives, community and businesses have common
information interests relating to land and development (Inner Metropolitan Regional
Organisation of Councils, 2001). Identifying their information needs would be
achieved by Creating a data inventory of participants’ GIS datasets and exploring
their regional information requirements. This was undertaken during the initial
stages of the GWSspatial project and was also one of the major accomplishments of
the New York State GIS Data Sharing Cooperative (GeoData Alliance, 2001).
Business object modelling (BOM) is another activity employed to gain stakeholder
input regarding common organisational information needs, as undertaken at the
conception of the MetroGIS project (Gelbmann, 1997, Johnson and Arbeit, 2002).
BOM is an additional and comprehensive step that should be incorporated into a
regional OSP initiative. The BOM process focuses on the information needs of
organisations to achieve business goals rather than data. Therefore, development of
information statements such as ‘what do I need to know about how a property can be
developed?’ can assist in identifying data needs. Business goals may entail several
data needs. The BOM in the MetroGIS project resulted in the identification of
thirteen critically important common information needs.
35
Accumulating user requirements and understanding users’ needs would identify the
functional needs of a portal. There are two types of requirements: functional
requirements, that carry out the specific tasks to meet users’ demands; and non-
functional requirements, that make up the core application (such as security, zoom,
pan, identify) (Marshall, 2003). An OSP has potentially four user levels, all of which
have different functional requirements (Inner Metropolitan Regional Organisation of
Councils, 2001), Table 2.6 lists these four levels and their corresponding system
functionality requirements.
Table 2.6 The four user levels and functionality requirements
Users System functionality Casual users:
General public, council and
government staff, planning
consultants, the education sector and
community groups.
Access through a standard Internet browser;
Display and query of SI and attribute data;
Thematic control (turning themes/layers on/off);
Basic GIS interface (pan, zoom, identifier);
Data download; and
Email data custodians and/or councils to provide feedback.
High level users:
Have a good understanding of spatial
data and may have previous
experience with GIS and other spatial
systems. Ability to carry out low-level
analysis/manipulation.
Require functionality outlined above (casual users) as well
as:
• Ability to download data to a local machine to manipulate
and print;
• Ability to carry-out low level GIS analysis (such as
proximity, thematic mapping); and
• Ability to save the results of the low level analysis.
Data custodians:
They typically require access to
editing features for the data for which
they are custodian.
Require access to editing features;
Ability to incorporate user input into data (editing of data);
and
Ability to return data changes to source (remote update of
data).
System staff:
IT support staff, system
administrators, data custodians, this
group should primarily be interested in
ensuring the system works, both from
a system point of view and from a data
point of view.
System administration tools, including security and access
controls;
Ability to control the datasets that are to be accessible in the
system;
Ability to monitor usage rates and capacity; and
Training in the system.
(Inner Metropolitan Regional Organisation of Councils, 2001)
There are nine primary OSP functions relevant for data sharing and portal
functionality, seven of which were identified by the Federal Geographic Data
Committee (1997) within the NSDI framework:
• Data development, maintenance and integration;
• Data access;
• Data management;
36
• GIS functionality;
• Coordination;
• Executive guidance;
• Resource management;
• Training, education and outreach campaigns; and
• Monitoring and response.
Operational context refers to the portal’s operational environment regarding
accessibility and ease of use, determination of the coverage (region), integration of
data both horizontally and vertically and updating/maintaining the data in a manner
that conforms to the FGDC framework (Federal Geographic Data Committee, 1997).
The operational context also includes the human related factors of managing the
development and implementation of the innovation. Essential to this component is
the process of identifying information needs and functions as previously examined,
the formation of partnerships discussed in 2.9.2 and the development of the technical
capacity for data sharing, as will be outlined in the technical context below.
The technical context refers to the actual technology involved in the data-sharing
component (infrastructure/mechanism) of the portal, managing interoperability issues
of various organisations that use many GIS formats and the functionality of the
system (Federal Geographic Data Committee, 1997). The development design of the
technical capacity of a portal should allow easy data contribution by custodians and
information use by stakeholders. Custodians should be able to incorporate data
updates without disturbing their organisation’s information. Therefore, during the
development of the technical capacity for data sharing, serious consideration of the
OSP primary functions would be necessary as outlined in Table 2.7 (on the next
page).
37
Table 2.7 Four primary functions - definition and requirements
Function Definition Requires Data development, maintenance, and integration
Activities that create and update
data. Involves generating original
data and revisions, merging spatial
and attribute data from different
sources, documenting the data
(creating metadata) and
evaluating/integrating the data.
Integration - Horizontal integration (among
jurisdictions) and vertical integration (among
themes) provides the consistency desired by
users.
Maintenance – the continuing need to maintain
the currency of the spatial and attribute data.
Other activities include: improving positional
accuracy of the data, increasing the data
density and adding aliases for attribute data.
Data access Enables participants to view and
obtain the data, providing access to
data and metadata, processing data
requests and charges, determining
and providing needed data
distribution formats and reporting
and acting on users’ concerns.
Access through a standard internet browser
and data download to a local machine to
manipulate and print for casual and high level
users.
Marketing data access, creating awareness of
data availability.
Data management
Ensures the continued viability of
the data: maintaining data;
ensuring data integrity and
security; developing and evolving
data definitions, designs, and
models; developing and evolving
other technical specifications; and
providing for data archive, backup,
retrieval and disaster recovery.
Ability to incorporate user input into data
(editing) for data custodians.
Ability to return data changes to source
(remote update of data) for data custodians.
System administration tools (security and
access control) for system staff.
Ability to control which data sets are
accessible through the system by system staff
GIS Functionality
To provide the GIS functionality to
the portal.
Display and query spatial and attribute data.
Thematic control (turning themes/layers
on/off).
Basic GIS interface (Pan, zoom, etc).
Ability to do low level GIS analysis
(proximity, thematic mapping).
Ability to save the results of the low level
analysis.
(Federal Geographic Data Committee, 1997, Inner Metropolitan Regional Organisation of Councils,
2001)
Incorporated within the four primary functions, are the following essential
interlinked components:
• Current digital resources – Identify the varying GIS systems and information
held within each participating organisation, to assist in interoperability issues
and for the development of the spatial data model (Federal Geographic Data
Committee, 1997).
• Interoperability - According to Albrecht (1999), in order to accomplish
interoperability, data standard specifications and operational standards are
required. Standards make it possible for the user to identify required sets of
data. From a technical point, standards are rules about naming and coding
38
practices. Aybet (1997) stated that interoperability and open geospatial
processing are generally based on three premises:
o The software is based on the object-oriented technology;
o The computing platforms are organised on a client-server architecture;
and
o The geo-processing is performed as distributed computing.
• Tools and technology - There have been technological advances in data
sharing tools and technology (Burrough, 1997, NASA, 2000, Ziliaskopoulos
and Waller, 2000), these include standards, metadata for interoperability,
storage and retrieval of large datasets, accessibility/networking and
interactive 3D visualisation (Adam and Gangopadhyay, 1997, Getis, 1999,
NASA, 2000, Ziliaskopoulos and Waller, 2000, Peng and Tsou, 2003).
• Applications - Applications include decision support, resource management,
and problem solving (NASA, 2000). Peng (2001) identified four general
application groups: data sharing and dissemination; simple spatial data search
and queries; online data processing; and location-based services.
Applications entail the GIS functionality of the portal such as pan, zoom and
identify functions and the more complicated processes of queries.
The business context is based on the overall goal of the innovation. Associated with
this context is the essential process of developing a business plan and the formation
of a multi-participant organisational structure. Issues that require management
include: fees or charges for data that may be applicable to certain groups of users
(businesses and general public) to enable the portal system to become self sustaining
over time; data access, which incorporates an organisations’ practices and
arrangements that may restrict data sharing and availability; and the organisation’s
capacity to provide timely updates and quality standards (Federal Geographic Data
Committee, 1997).
Business plan/case development is an essential component to foster cooperation of
stakeholders and to facilitate building the business context of an innovation. This is
supported by the Federal Geographic Data Committee (1997) within the NSDI
framework; the GeoData Alliance (2001) within a data sharing partnership; and
39
IMROC (2001) within the former SIH project. The Federal Geographic Data
Committee (1997) stated that a good business plan assists in:
• Evaluating costs and benefits;
• Establishing goals and plans;
• Determining the resources required;
• Planning the activities and time frame;
• Convincing senior management of the incentives for proceeding with the
innovation; and
• Improving innovation success.
Business plans should be updated annually and as new issues emerge strategies
require updating as was the case within the MetroGIS business plans (Richardson
Richter & Associates Inc, 2002).
A multi-participant organisational structure defines the authority, roles and
responsibilities, obligations, rights, procedures and chain of command, information
flow, data and analysis (Sloan and DiSera, 1994, Kumar and van Dissel, 1996).
Structure also reduces ambiguity by formalising procedures, process and content of
the interaction. It requires a statement of expectations which takes the form of clear
written agreements, such as a memorandum of understanding (MOU), to bind the
alliance for a specific period of time and provide the rules and procedures which
refer to control over the degree to which activities are undertaken (Sloan and DiSera,
1994, Obermeyer, 1995, Galbraith and Nathanson, 1978 cited in Pinto and Onsrud,
1995, Nedovic-Budic and Pinto, 1999a). A multi-participant organisational structure
requires focused management by participating stakeholders (Sloan and DiSera, 1994)
and usually originates in three forms, these include (Federal Geographic Data
Committee, 1997):
• State-based coordination – involving state agencies, federal agencies, local
governments and other organisations offering long-term arrangements.
• Regional consortium – involving local and regional stakeholders offering
long-term arrangements.
40
• Special projects – involving specific agencies within the various levels of
government and private organisations. These structures are often short-term
arrangements.
A regional OSP multi-participant organisational structure would likely take the form
of either a state based or regional consortium. A state based consortium would most
likely achieve state and federal support and funding. The creation of an overarching
coordinating body and sub-committee provides a hierarchical communication chain
and a process on which to base a regional OSP. However, as identified by Ventura
(1995), the effectiveness of such bodies depends on underlying institutional,
organisational and behavioural factors operating both during and after formation, as
well as the stakeholders’ explicit mandate and authority. An example of a multi-
participant organisational structure is the MetroGIS initiative which consists of three
levels: 1) policy board which provides the policy directions for the innovation; 2)
coordinating committee which recommends the course of action to the policy board
concerning design, implementation and operation of the innovation; and 3) technical
advisory team responsible for recommending technical strategies, framing policy
needs relating to data access, data content and standards for consideration by the
coordinating committee (Figure 2.2) (GeoData Alliance, 2001).
Figure 2.2 MetroGIS multi-participant structure
(Sourced: GeoData Alliance, 2001)
41
2.9.4. Factors that could assist or hinder the establishment of an OSP
SI sharing would largely depend on inter-organisational dynamics, either to help
deliver it’s potential efficiency gains or to leave behind dissatisfied participants, who
paid inadequate attention to their inter-organisational dynamics (Azad and Wiggins,
1995). The various factors affecting the willingness of organisations to engage in
spatial data sharing (Figure 2.3) such as attitude, social pressure and perceived
behavioural control illustrates the difficulty to initiate the coordination activity
(Montalvo de, 2000).
The two significant issues that hinder inter-organisational efforts to develop joint
GIS and to share SI include: i) the coordination process, which refers to difficulties
caused by the unwillingness or inability of stakeholders to satisfy concerns regarding
responsibilities, equity and fairness; and ii) the integration process. The overall
success of an OSP is dependent upon each organisation’s implementation capacity
and management within this business context (Nedovic-Budic and Pinto, 2000).
Figure 2.3 Factors influencing the willingness of organisations to engage in spatial data sharing
(Sourced: Montalvo de, 2000)
42
Organisational cooperation is usually the first stage to develop significant
organisational relations and is interpreted as professionals working together to
achieve a specific task, which generally includes: collaboration, cooperation,
coordination, and integration (Pinto and Onsrud, 1995, McDougall et al., 2005). The
process of inter-organisational relations should move from collaboration to
cooperation to coordination (CCC), Table 2.8 shows the intensity scale of this
process. Table 2.9 lists the facilitating conditions for the levels and stages of inter-
organisational relations, which include problem setting; direction-setting; and
structuring (Azad and Wiggins, 1995).
Table 2.8 Intensity scale for inter-organisational relationships in geographic data sharing and
mapping showing collaboration, cooperation, coordination
Least intensive
1 2 3 4 5 Most intensive
Most
autonomous
Personal
meetings
Resource
transfers
Board
membership
Joint
programs
Written
contracts
Least
autonomous
Most
autonomous
Collaboration Cooperation Coordination Least
autonomous
(Azad and Wiggins, 1995)
Table 2.9 Facilitating conditions for levels and stages of inter-organisational relations
Collaboration Cooperation Coordination Problem-Setting Direction-Setting Structuring
Recognition of inter-dependence;
Identification of a requisite number of
stakeholders;
Perception of legitimacy among
stakeholders;
Legitimate/skilled convener;
Positive beliefs about outcomes; and
Shares access power.
Coincidence of values; and
Dispersion of power among
stakeholders.
High degree of ongoing
dependence;
External mandates;
Redistribution of power; and
Influencing the contextual
environment.
(Azad and Wiggins, 1995)
Essential to CCC is the leadership of one or more champions to act as innovators and
caretakers over the long term, initially to promote and push the initiative, focusing on
areas to unite stakeholders and gain a positive outcome and achieve the project
objectives. The champion(s) should have a high level of authority in order to make
and implement decisions and to take professional and personal responsibility for the
success (or failure) of the project (Obermeyer, 1995). Freeland and Burgess (2001)
stated that the mechanism for cooperation is not as important as the spirit which
drives it. Many different formal and informal mechanisms are possible, but
43
whichever method is used, the participants must be willing to work together to
achieve outcomes.
Coordination is generally more formal than cooperation and involves protocols, tasks
and decision mechanisms designed to achieve concerted action between
interdependent units. The coordination process requires continuous discussion and
agreement over the joint activities. The success of inter-organisational coordination
depends on the participants’ willingness to negotiate and compromise. The
coordination process established between participating organisations would be
facilitated by good quality relationships based on trust (Nedovic-Budic and Pinto,
1999a, McDougall et al., 2005). According to McDougall et al., (2005)
collaboration could be seen as an extension and inclusion of both cooperation and
coordination.
2.10. Conclusion
The complex systems of local government operations have significantly changed to
incorporate strategic planning which requires consideration of local and regional
information and communication between institutions. Information and especially SI
is therefore necessary to make informed decisions. GIS are increasingly being
utilised for decision support as a form of visual information and analysis. In order to
incorporate local and regional information in decision support requires the sharing of
information, more specifically SI, which is hindered by organisational challenges
rather than technological. Importantly there have been advances in technological
information dissemination through distributed computing and the utilisation of the
Internet as medium for data sharing. The Bassolé project introduced a conceptual
framework whereby the technical capacity and the decision making spheres interact
as a policy dialogue, however, it does not elaborate upon possibilities for a
mechanism/infrastructure that the policy dialogue could encompass. The emergence
of Internet-GIS technology, and OSPs as an innovation for decision makers could
provide a potential tool to promote SI sharing and to alleviate the pressure on local
resources. An OSP could assist policy dialogue within and between organisations
and therefore inform decisions through better regional understanding, more cost-
44
effectively and efficiently than appears possible at present. IT and GIS innovation
within local government is a complicated process, and when this is on an inter-
organisational base this complexity escalates dramatically.
The basis for the development of the AF for policy dialogue within Bassolé’s
framework, as illustrated in Figure 2.4, was the literature analysis. The model
incorporates the functional requirements, the key tasks to be undertaken and the
process of inter-organisational relations - CCC. The complexity of the model is in
the detail: Appendices G to K illustrates the specific aspects in the formation of
partnerships, identification of information needs and functions, development of the
technical capacity, business plan development, and the formation of a multi-
participant organisational structure.
The framework illustrated in Figure 2.4 requires verification in the context of the
local government environment. There is also a definite need to understand how an
OSP as a potential GIS technology innovation promotes data sharing by its use as a
support tool for policy dialogue within and between institutions and the local
government decision making sphere.
45
Figure 2.4 An OSP analytical framework (AF) for policy dialogue
46
3. Research methods and procedures
3.1. Introduction
An OSP, as an example of a technological spatial innovation, was identified as a
potential medium to support policy dialogue and improve decision making within
local government. The development of an AF modelled the key components for OSP
establishment. In order to research policy dialogue between the GIS technical
capacity and the decision making spheres of land management professionals the
thesis focused on the use of IS in local government. This incorporated the technical
and the organisational aspects of councils and specifically their GIS environment.
This chapter discusses the choice of an in-depth qualitative multi-methodological
approach which included data collection and design using documentation and
interviews together with demonstrations of an OSP, data analysis using NUD*IST 6,
and outlines the methodological limitations encountered.
3.2. Method choice
The IS field is in a constant state of innovation and technological change, with
researchers finding themselves trailing behind the professionals in proposing changes
or in evaluating methods (Benbasat et al., 1987). With this constant state of change,
IS researchers in the 1980s shifted from technological to managerial and
organisational questions, with more interest in ‘how context and innovations interact’
(Benbasat et al., 1987, Myers, 1997, Nedovic-Budic, 2000b, Loucopoulos and
Karakosta, (1995) cited in Probert, 2002). There is agreement among GIS
implementation researchers that context is relevant for understanding the process of
GIS introduction and use, which is in turn related to the success of GIS development
(Budic, 1993, Campbell, 1994, Worrall, 1994, Azard, 1998, Dickinson and Calkins,
1998 cited in Nedovic-Budic, 2000b). The reason for this shift stems from
dissatisfaction with the type of research information provided by quantitative
techniques (Benbasat et al., 1987), as they do not account for the cultural
environment or the social interactions when trying to understand how IS fits and
functions in an organisational setting (Kapan and Duchon, 1998 cited in Nedovic-
Budic, 2000b).
47
To explain the outcomes of IS use, it is considered to be important to interpret the
social meanings of IT in an organisational context (Nedovic-Budic, 2000b). As a
result there has been a considerable interest in IS development methodologies and a
steady growth in softer methodological approaches, which are more adapted to the
social needs of the organisation than the technical aspects of IS development
(Probert, 2002). Nedovic-Budic (2000b) summarised previous research on GIS
diffusion, implementation and evaluation identifying quantitative, qualitative and
mixed method approaches (Appendix L), with the qualitative approach aimed
predominantly at the discovery level of research which is the intent of this thesis.
It is for these reasons that this project focused on social interactions based on the use
of GIS and the potential benefits from an OSP and therefore undertook a qualitative
approach along with case studies. Case studies are well suited to IS research, since
the interests of the study are mainly focused on organisational issues. There are three
reasons why case study research is a viable IS strategy (Benbasat et al., 1987):
• The researcher can study IS in a natural setting, learn about the state of the
art, and generate theories from practice;
• The case study method allows the researcher to answer ‘how’ and why’
questions, that is, to understand the nature and complexity of the processes
taking place; and
• A case study approach is an appropriate way to research an area where few
previous studies have been carried out.
Case study research is an ideal methodology when a holistic, in-depth investigation is
needed (Feagin, Orum and Sjoberg, 1991 cited in Tellis, 1997) and is one of the most
common ways to conduct qualitative research (Stake, 2000). The case study
approach is a methodology that is recognised by the GIS research community as an
appropriate technique when studying issues related to diffusion of GIS technology.
It is also suitable where limited knowledge and experience exists, and builds on
previous research on the implementation of GIS technology (Benbasat et al., 1987,
Tellis, 1997, Nedovic-Budic, 2000b).
48
The multi-methodological approach, as undertaken by Rowe (2002), whereby the
methods are linked and sequential was chosen for this project. The project used an
in-depth qualitative multi-methodological case study approach that enabled a more
complete research process. The methods undertaken during the research process as
illustrated in Figure 3.1 were:
• Step one: Collection and analysis of archival data and documentation
informing the development of the AF.
• Step two: Results of the analysis form the design of the subsequent first
interview phase.
• Step three: Outcomes from the first interview phase form the design of the
subsequent second interview and demonstration stage.
• Step four: Outcomes derived from the second interviews form the subsequent
policy scenario case studies.
• Step five: Key findings from the above steps form the progression of the
thesis and further develop and validate the AF for OSP development to
support policy dialogue.
Figure 3.1 Steps in the research process
49
The basis for conducting a series of two interviews with the same participants was to:
1) Ascertain the challenges faced by local government professionals’ within policy
dialogue; and 2) Identify current SI use and determine the opportunities and
challenges of an OSP to support policy dialogue. Two interview sessions were
necessary for a number of reasons including: a) The results from the first interviews
assisted in the development of questions for the second interview phase; b)
Participants’ time was a necessary consideration and due to the in-depth nature of the
interview schedules it was decided to separate the interviews by 12 months; and c)
The second interviews required a separate session to organise the resources necessary
to incorporate a demonstration of an OSP.
3.3. Data collection and design
There are various techniques for collecting empirical data and evidence (Tellis,
1997), ranging from documentation, archival documents, physical evidence,
observations, and interviews with a question format that is either structured,
unstructured or a mixture of both.
This project used documentary materials and interviews, which are ‘what’s typically
used’, in case study research (Benbasat et al., 1987) and is tabled in relation to each
research objective as listed in Table 3.1. The interviews were independent and
personal, non-threatening and identity-coded, enabling the participants to feel
comfortable answering questions. The interview process was ratified under the
Ethics regulations of the University of Western Sydney.
As documented by Kvale (1996), the interview process in this project comprised
seven stages:
• Thematising – Conceptual clarification and a theoretical analysis (literature
review) and the formulation of the research questions.
• Designing – Overall planning and preparing the methodological procedures
for obtaining the intended knowledge and taking into consideration the
ethical issues of the study.
50
• Interviewing – Conducting interviews based on an interview guide.
• Transcribing – Preparing the interview material for analysis.
• Analysing – The purpose of the investigation and the appropriate methods of
analysis.
• Verifying – Ascertaining the reliability (consistency of the results), and
validity of the interview findings.
• Reporting – Communicating the findings.
Table 3.1 Project data collection methods
Objective Data Collection Method Purpose
(a)
Literature
Review
Documentation - journal articles,
research papers, studies, reports, books
and Internet information.
Gain knowledge of Local government
governance, information importance - SI, GIS,
information technology, Internet, policy
dialogue.
Inform development of the AF.
Develop the first series of interview questions
and provide the background to the study and
policy areas.
(b)
Results and
Discussion I -
GWS local
government
policy dialogue
and SI use.
Interviews of sample GWS Council
professionals in various positions and
seniority levels. Mixture of structured
and semi-structured questions.
Obtain an overall picture and critique of land
management policy environment to test the
AF.
Determine work responsibilities, technology,
interactions, policy development, data and
information requirements, spatial and regional
information needs and demands.
Key findings form the development of the
second phase interviews and demonstrations.
Results and
Discussion II -
OSP as a support
tool for policy
dialogue
Documentation of technical innovation
experiences, GIS experts and decision
makers in local government. Key
findings from first interviews form the
development of second phase interview
schedule (mixture of structured and semi-
structured questions) and the
demonstration (GWSspatial as an
example of an OSP concept) during the
second interview stage.
Confirm the potential OSP applications
identified by the policy scenario case studies.
Identify inhibiting issues of OSP as a tool to
support policy dialogue.
Key findings inform and verify the AF.
(c)
Results and
Discussion III -
Three policy
scenarios
examining
potential OSP at
various scales
Key findings from the second stage
interview provide contexts for the policy
scenario case studies. Documentation
from state agencies and Internet
information.
Identify potential applications of an OSP as a
support tool for policy dialogue within three
policy areas at three scales: local, cross–
jurisdictional and regional.
The three case studies are contemporary issues
facing GWS councils that require policy
dialogue and the use of SI to inform decision
making.
Analytical
framework
Key findings from the first and second
interviews and OSP demonstration, and
policy scenario case studies.
Validate and inform the AF that models the
key areas for management for OSP to support
policy dialogue based on the conceptual
framework outlined by Bassolé et al., (2001).
51
3.4. Field Work
The fieldwork was comprised of a series of two interviews with sample GWS council
professionals and the demonstration given during the second interview process. Two
interviews were conducted for the following reasons:
1. Time allowance – Incorporating the two interviews (including the
demonstration) would have been too long for the participants work schedule.
2. At the time of the first interview it was planned to have GWSspatial
operational on the Internet to provide an online demonstration of an OSP
concept at the second interview.
It was important to identify the variance between councils across the region in terms
of area, population, population density, population growth, environment, GIS, and
staff numbers (referring to the size of the council) to obtain an overall picture and
critique of local government within the GWS region and the differences in the use of
IT and SI within work roles. Of the fourteen councils within the GWS region, eight
were contacted, with six willing to participate in the project. These councils satisfied
the diversity requirements (Table 3.2 on next page), and a coded letter protected each
council’s identity.
The areas of responsibility (positions) chosen for the interviews from each council
were identified as policy sectors having potential use of SI and a responsibility to
consider issues that extend beyond their LGA boundary, including:
• Corporate management – especially General Manager (GM)
• Environmental planning
• Environmental management
• Transport planning
• GIS/IT management
• Community safety
52
Table 3.2 Profiles of the councils that participated in the project
Council Coded
Aust. Class. code
Pop. Area (sq km)
Pop. density (pop/area)
Pop. growth
(%)
No. of equiv. full time staff
Enviro. GIS
E 12UFL 77,353 1,431.60 54.03 0.52 494 Natural /
urban
MapInfo
G 13UFV 150,489 312.2 482.03 0.25 617 Urban
fringe
Genamap
I 11UFM 63,294 2,775.70 22.8 1.09 330 Rural
urban
fringe
ESRI
J 4UDL 89,928 40.3 2,231.46 1.29 369 Urban MapInfo
L 5UDV 148,086 61.00 2,427.64 0.58 658 Urban Infomaster
M 13UFV 178,193 404.8 440.20 0.97 909 Urban
rural
fringe
Infomaster
U – Urban
D – Metropolitan Developed (part of an urban centre >1,000,000 and population density >600
persons per sq km)
F – Fringe (a developing LGA on the margin of a developed or regional urban centre)
M – Medium (30,001 – 70,000 population)
L – Large (70,001 – 120,000 population)
V – Very large (>120,000 population)
(Department of Local Government, 2004a)
Each professional’s position and seniority was taken into consideration as it could
influence interaction, SI use, policy dialogue, and potential use of an OSP. Forty-
eight professionals were sought to participate in a series of two interviews and a
demonstration of an OSP. This number was considered to be satisfactory for a
vertical in-depth examination which emphasised quality of interview rather than
quantity (Kvale, 1996).
A pilot interview with a former GM of a GWS council evaluated the proposed
questions, assessed the length of time taken for an interview, subsequent
transcription and qualitative analysis. The successful pilot revealed a need for
revision and clarification of some questions. Transcribing took longer than expected.
3.4.1. First interview
The aim of the schedule for the first interview phase was to gain an overall picture of
local government and its interactions within the GWS region (Appendix M). From
each interviewee the information sought included:
53
• Base data (Gender, age category, educational qualification, roles and
responsibilities, work activities, experience with geographic information
technology (GIT)).
• Technology use (internet, intranet, dedicated work computer).
• Work interactions (internal staff, external colleagues).
• Policy and decision making responsibilities (the role of the interviewee).
• Data/information uses (forms of data, SI, data sources, constraints,
adequacies, data needs externally).
UWS Ethics granted approval to conduct an interview with each council staff
member who accepted the invitation to participate. The recruitment procedure
undertaken, as advised by the UWS Ethics Committee, was to mail an ‘Information
Package’ to the sample councils selected. Each package contained: a) an information
statement outlining the project summary and a request for staff participation in a
series of two interviews and b) a consent form to be signed by the staff member who
accepted, with his/her contact details (Appendix N: Information statement and
consent form). The intention was that the GM of each council received six copies of
the 'Information Package' together with a request that they be distributed among the
relevant professional staff. Unfortunately, as will be elaborated upon in section 3.6
‘Methodology Limitations’ the information packages did not reach the GM’s office
or secretary, they were intercepted by the Council’s mailroom and in many
incidences they were not distributed. After numerous phone calls to GM’s secretaries
and in some cases re-mailing of information packages acceptances were received
from twenty-two staff members across six councils (Table 3.3 on next page). The
professionals’ response rate (45.8%), considering the recruitment procedure, was a
good representation based on the planned vertical in-depth examination of the
interviewees. The six councils that agreed to participate were a good representative
example of the fourteen councils within the GWS region.
The interviews, arranged by phone and/or email determined the date, time and work
location suitable for each respondent. Each interview was coded to protect the
participant's identity. The duration of the interviews ranged from 45 minutes to an
hour. Each interview was recorded and notes taken.
54
Table 3.3 Participation of professionals from each council according to seniority level
Council coded
Level 2 (GM) Level 3 (Directors)
Level 4 (Dept.
Managers)
Level 5 (Coordinators / Supervisors)
Level 6 Officers / Planners
Total No.
E 1 - - - 1 2
G - - 3 - - 3
I - 2 1 1 1 5
J - - 1 - 1 2
L - 1 2 1 - 4
M - - 2 3 1 6
Of the twenty-two interviews conducted, fourteen were male and eight were female
respondents. Table 3.3 outlines the representation of seniority levels of the
interviewees from each participating council. Table 3.4 outlines the interviewees’
positions and seniority levels by gender. Examination of local government
organisational structures of individual councils determined the seniority levels of the
participants by identifying common levels across the GWS region. It was decided not
to interview elected members of council, as the outcomes may have been unduly
influenced by their political agendas. Local Government decision making is based
on a hierarchical foundation, essentially the Councillors are advised by the Council
staff (either the GM or Directors) as to the most appropriate decision and/or action to
be taken. The GM/Directors are informed by their departmental Managers and they
are informed by their departmental Coordinators, Senior Planners and Officers. The
concern about interviewing elected members was that their responses would have
been politically motivated to highlight their political agendas rather than the practical
applications, purposes, strengths and weaknesses of an OSP concept.
Table 3.4 Positions and seniority levels of professionals
Positions No. Seniority levels Male Female Corporate management 2 Level 2 (General Manager) 1 -
Environmental planning 8 Level 3 (Directors) 2 1
Environment management 3 Level 4 (Managers) 7 2
GIS/IT 4 Level 5 (Coordinators/Supervisors) 3 2
Transport planning 2 Level 6 (Planners/Officers 1 3
Information management 1
Community safety 1
Assets 1
55
3.4.2. Second interview and demonstration
Key findings from the first interviews, combined with experiences from the technical
innovation projects and the literature on GIS and decision making in local
government informed the development of the second interview schedule. The
following themes were investigated (Appendix O: Interview schedule for the second
interview):
• Validation of key findings from the first interviews;
• The use of and access to SI by interviewees;
• GIS service delivery contract protocols, if appropriate;
• Professionals’ knowledge of a technological spatial innovation prior to the
demonstration of the OSP concept;
• Professionals’ reactions to the demonstration and their concept of an OSP
(benefits and constraints);
• Effects an OSP might have on work related internal and external dialogue;
• Benefits/constraints of an OSP to increase the use of SI in decision making
and policy development processes;
• Benefits of an OSP on local and regional decision making and policy
development;
• Levels of importance:
o OSP applications – Inventory, policy analysis, management/policy
making (O'Looney, 2000);
o Operational effectiveness - accessibility, accuracy, availability, visual
display, layering, useability, functions, interactivity, realism
(O'Looney, 2000) and experiences from technological innovation
projects;
o Decision making effectiveness – Communication, confidence,
identification, explicitness, and time (O'Looney, 2000);
o Basis for OSP use – exploration, confirmation, synthesis and
presentation (O'Looney, 2000);
o Concerns - Faulty data, faulty assumptions (O'Looney, 2000),
liability and barriers to accessibility (experiences from GWSspatial
project);
56
o Opportunities – public participation, reduced time obtaining
information, reduced costs, information sharing, promoting
cooperation, informing local and regional decision and policy making
(these were general objectives of the GWSspatial project);
• Improvements to the OSP concept and to applications for SI in professionals’
work roles.
Although it was the intention to re-interview the same GWS council staff as
previously, three participants had either left their organisation or retired. In these
cases, it was decided to interview their replacements, who agreed and signed the
consent forms for the interview/demonstration, which was to take place at a date and
time of their convenience. The interviews/demonstrations were organised by
emailing the participants requesting a date and time suitable for their availability.
Twenty-four interviews were undertaken including two extra interviews, which
occurred at councils ‘E’ and ‘L’. This meant there was an extra professional within
the environmental planning and environment management departments, both of
whom were coordinators.
The professionals’ age categories ranged from 20 to 59 (see Table 3.5). The division
of gender was seventeen male and seven female and their GIT experience was mostly
low (no GIT experience or very little use of SI) or medium (limited knowledge of
GIS with occasional use of SI) see Table 3.5.
Table 3.5 Professionals’ age category and GIT experience
Age categories No. GIT Experience Male Female 20-29 2 Low 8 2
30-39 6 Medium 6 4
40-49 9 High 3 1
50-59 7
The demonstration of an OSP was based on the pilot stage of the GWSspatial project,
which had successfully demonstrated the proof of concept that it was possible to
share incompatible data through an OSP (GWSspatial Steering Committee, 2003).
There were three reasons for the demonstration:
57
1. To introduce the OSP concept to local government professionals;
2. To promote interest in the OSP concept and its possible applications and
potential benefits.
3. To seek information regarding the participants’ perceived concerns and their
suggested improvements.
The demonstration was designed to show portal utilisation on three scales: local -
new land release development (Pitt Town, Hawkesbury City); cross-jurisdictional -
bushfire emergency management; and GWS regional management. The
demonstration utilised Microsoft PowerPoint software, because at the time
GWSspatial was not in operation on the Internet and was too large to operate
successfully on a laptop. The slides created made the OSP concept appear to be
operational, taking the professionals through each step of its functionality, and
highlighting the application of specific tools.
3.5. Data analysis
Interview data was analysed using the qualitative analysis software program
NUD*IST 6 (Non-numerical Data Indexing, Searching, and Theorising), which is a
code-based theory building program based on a code-and-retrieve model (Weitzman,
2000). NUD*IST was widely recognised as a valid qualitative software program
within publications such as:
• Denzin and Lincoln, 2000, ‘Handbook Qualitative Research’ chapter 30
Software and Qualitative Research, Weitzman, by Sage Publications;
• Hay, 2000, ‘Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography, chapter 8
Computers, Qualitative Data and Geographic Research, Peace, by Oxford
University Press;
• Burns, 2000, ‘Introduction to Research Methods’, by Longman;
• Gahan and Hannibal, 1998, ‘Doing Qualitative Research Using QSR
NUD*IST’, by Sage publications; and
• Richards and Richards, 1991, ‘The NUDIST Qualitative Data Analysis
System’, Qualitative Sociology, Vol 14, No. 4.
58
At the time of the research analysis NUD*IST 6 and NVIVO 2 were the two
recommended qualitative analysis software programs by the University of Western
Sydney, see Appendix P for a comparison, other programs are listed in Appendix Q.
Since 2003, NVIVO 7 has superseded NUD*IST 6 which is no longer available.
The aim of this research project was to understand the experiences and opinions of
council professional staff by identifying various categories and concepts that
emerged from the transcriptions of their interviews. It was for these reasons
NUD*IST was chosen as it had the ability to:
• Store and manage each transcribed interview within it’s document system;
• Conduct tree-structured indexing:
o a) Base data;
o b) Initial coding of categories; and
o c) Sub-coding and in-vivo coding with a tool to produce memos on
code, theory and operational notes.
• Analyse using Boolean combination and Matrices
The research process undertaken using NUD*IST can be seen in Figure 3.2 and a
detailed explanation in Appendix R. From the analysis, models emerged of
significant themes, processes, concepts, issues and interactions, the concept maps of
the first and second interviews illustrated in Appendix S and T.
59
Figure 3.2 NUD*IST qualitative analysis research steps undertaken
3.6. Methodology limitations
A few methodology limitations were experienced and identified throughout the
research process such as recruitment procedure, developing expertise in the use of
NUD*IST, and IT issues that resulted in time constraints preventing triangulation of
the research process. These limitations are discussed followed by an explanation of
how they were resolved.
1. The recruitment procedure was not ideal to encourage professional council
staff participation, as the information packages posted to councils were lost in
the mail sorting room. A number of phone calls were made to locate the
information packages and to ensure that they were distributed to the correct
professional staff, however this had mixed success (the result being lower
than expected participant numbers) 22 out of the requested 48. A lesson
learned from this experience was that the professional staff should have been
contacted prior to the information packages being posted, to introduce the
project requirements and obtain their individual work mailing addresses.
This would have partly resolved the problem and could have resulted in a
higher participation rate.
60
2. Weitzman (2000) states that there is a concern that the ease with which
software programs such as NUD*IST can search key words and ‘auto-
coding’ may encourage researchers to take shortcuts. Checking coded
passages to validate the transcripts against the “key word” searched or
“matrix” developed solved this issue.
3. Although it was the intention of the GWSspatial Steering Committee to have
GWSspatial functioning in 2004 after its successful pilot in 2003, it was no
longer operational on the Internet. This hindered the research process
because broad surveys of OSP use by professional council staff throughout
the GWS region were unable to be conducted. The survey results would have
correlated with the interview analysis. As a result, it was not possible to
perform the triangulation process, as envisage at the beginning of the research
project. This was overcome by conducting a series of two in-depth qualitative
interviews and analysis with key findings from the first interview phase being
validated during the second interview process.
61
4. Results and Discussion I: Examination of current local
government decision and land policy making
environment
4.1. Introduction
This chapter provides an overview and critique of the land management policy
framework within the sample local governments in the GWS region providing
contributed knowledge for inclusion in the AF. From NUD*IST analysis of
participant responses to in-depth interviews (conducted with council professionals at
various levels of employment responsibility and position) key outcomes are
presented which formed the basis for a paper presented at the Australia and New
Zealand Regional Science Association International Inc. (ANZRSAI) 2005 Annual
Conference 1. The fundamental areas of critique are:
• The current policy framework within the local government councils sampled;
and
• Professional dynamics: internal and external relationships.
4.2. The current policy framework within the sample local government councils
The local government policy framework represents the current environment in which
council professionals work to develop policies and make decisions. An examination
of local government organisational structures revealed that they vary from council to
council across GWS. However, Figure 4.1 illustrates the general levels of the
council structure.
1 Weyman, T., 2004. Policy-Technology Dialogue: Is an Online Spatial Portal a Useful Mechanism for Regional Policy
Development? In: Hodgkinson, A., The Australian and New Zealand Regional Science Association International Inc. 28th Annual
Conference, Wollongong, Australia. School of Economics and Information Systems, University of Wollongong. 249-266.
and published in the refereed section of the conference proceedings.
62
Figure 4.1 Generalised council organisational structure
The structure in Figure 4.1 forms the basis for communication links within councils,
between the numerous levels and internal departments, with each having a diversity
of work responsibilities. Consideration of council structure is necessary within the
AF as levels 1-3 form the ultimate decision making component to be involved in
regional innovations and levels 4-6 as the potential users of innovation technology.
As noted by Rashid (1999) “Councils are no longer mere agencies for the provision
of local services. They are part of the democratic infrastructure of society and as
elected representative bodies they make critical choices, not only about the nature
and level of local services, but also about the revitalization of their areas on behalf
of the communities they represent” (p.1). The following responsibilities identified
from the interview analysis reflect the complexities of local government services:
• Environmental/strategic planning;
• Environmental management/health/protection;
• Flood management;
• Waste collection services;
• Animal control;
• Project/place management;
• Transport/traffic management;
• Community safety;
• Infrastructure/asset management;
• IT/GIS administration; and
• Corporate governance.
63
The participants interviewed identified these examples and therefore other work
responsibilities existed that were not explored in this research. The work activities
investigated included preparation and development of policies (including plans,
reports and strategies), information research and dialogue, both internal and external,
within and between organisations and the public in liaison/coordination/partnership.
NUD*IST qualitative analysis revealed that while the majority of participants use
desktop computers there is a trend occurring in the hierarchy of councils (Directors,
Department Managers and some Supervisors) (Figure 4.2) to change to laptops to
facilitate field work, council meetings, seminars and after hours operation. The
participants who have laptop computers may access their work emails after hours,
but not the council’s internal systems. Work completed overnight is immediately
updated on the council’s mainframe as soon as the participant logs-in. The change to
laptop computers offers an opportunity for technological innovation use by council
staff in the field, meetings and after hours.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
No.o
f part
icip
ants
Position level desktop and laptop computers utilised
Desktop Computer 1 2 2 4 3
Laptop 0 2 6 2 0
Both 0 1 0 0 0
Level 2 (1) Level 3 (3) Level 4 (8) Level 5 (6) Level 6 (3)
Figure 4.2 Graph illustrating desktop and laptop computers utilised by participants at various position levels
64
The participants interviewed all had Internet access, which is a technical requirement
within the AF, however, the controls in place for Internet use could limit effective
innovation use - these include:
1. Access requires authorisation from the Department Manager. Staff must have a
relevant need for access;
2. Access to certain sites is restricted or time limited (Web Nanny). This causes
issues for researching purposes, and/or time taken to obtain authorisation to lift
restrictions;
3. Councils have strict firewall setups to limit viruses.
The majority of participants interviewed were satisfied with the current Internet
access (Table 4.1), with only a few having negative comments regarding speed,
frustration finding information, networking and firewall restrictions. As the reliance
on, and usage of, the Internet increases, the speed of access and downloading
capabilities will become a significant issue, especially in the fringe councils that do
not have high-speed cable access. High Internet speed is a prerequisite for efficient
online innovation use and could be a potential limitation for fringe councils thereby
requiring consideration during development of the technical capacity for data sharing
within the AF.
Table 4.1 Adequacy of Internet access by councils
Council Good/adequate Appropriate for needs Do not know Issues E (2) 2 - - -
G (3) 1 2 - 1
I (5) 2 1 1 1
J (2) 2 - - -
L (4) 4 - - 1
M (6) 5 1 - 1
(Note - three participants who stated it was good or appropriate also raised some concerns)
At the time of the first interviews in 2003, all but one council (‘M’) had an intranet
network, which is an active site that council professionals rely on for information
dissemination on a daily basis. It should be noted that two participants from council
‘M’ had limited knowledge of what an intranet entailed, confusing it with the
Internet or referring to it as the ‘email and diary system’. The remaining three
65
council ‘M’ participants noted that an intranet is essential and that they are in the
process of implementing one. The limitations experienced by these participants
centred on the lack of a central place for information and data dissemination, which
placed a high reliance on internal email to share information and on hardcopy
documentation.
Only half the participants interviewed had intranet access and were generally
satisfied with their network and 31.2% stated that it was appropriate for work needs
(Table 4.2). However, 75% of the participants also identified issues and areas for
intranet improvement such as usability and functionality, information currency,
speed, and downtime. Participants’ frustrations with information disseminating
technology could hinder innovation acceptance and this would require discussion
during partnership formation together with identification of information and
functional needs within the AF.
Table 4.2 Adequacy of the intranet network within councils
Council Good/adequate Appropriate for needs Issues E (2) 1 1 2
G (3) 1 1 3
I (5) 3 2 2
J (2) - 1 2
L (4) 3 - 3
M (6) - - -
(Note - nine participants who stated it was good or appropriate also raise issues)
There was a diversity of internal and external information required for work roles
identified by the NUD*IST analysis with the most common datasets listed in Table
4.3. The majority of the information listed in this Table is required on a regional
scale. It is apparent that immediate access to regional information be available to
assist professionals in providing a regional perspective when making local decisions.
The data listed in Table 4.3 is spatially related therefore escalating the need for
timely, accurate local and regional SI access in order that professionals may gain a
regional perspective and contribute to better and more informed decision making as
supported by Rashid (1999).
66
Table 4.3 Common data and information requirements identified by participants
Common data and information requirements Flood Catchment Facilities
Vegetation Contours Performance Indicators
Housing/development/buildings Demographics – census Cadastre
Traffic/transport Storm water Aerial Photography
Assets Utility information Economic data
Roads Land use Rivers/Creeks
Biodiversity Threatened Species Schools
LEP/zonings Bushfire Hazards Regional Indicators
Participants identified several constraints utilising data, as outlined in Table 4.4,
which cause frustration, hinder policy development and delay policy outcomes.
These constraints provide an incentive for participants to become involved in
partnerships and support the need for new regional technologies for spatial analysis
to be accessible by council professionals.
Table 4.4 Constraints utilising data
Data Requesting GIS unit to obtain SI;
Difficulty in obtaining data internally - other departments not sharing information;
Data cost and licensing fee issues;
Data accuracy and currency (not-up-to-date such as demographics and flooding);
Duplication of data either internally or externally;
Copyright issues with data purchased from Land Property Information;
Need for third party agreements to share data;
Data not integrated, having to go to different places to obtain information;
Time required to obtain permission to use information;
Information is received in different formats - hardcopy and electronic files).
Corporate GIS/Section
Issues with the GIS software such as legend and scale;
Compatibility with other GIS;
Information not loaded into GIS and time required to do so;
Slow and inconvenient/frustrating to access SI – SI request must be made through the GIS unit;
The GIS unit poorly resourced with one or two staff maintaining the system, loading information, and
producing maps upon requests;
Independent GIS within different departments not linked to the corporate GIS, causing duplication of
data and lack of integration of information;
The viewing product (Intranet) does not allow analysis and interpretation of information;
Officers not obtaining access to the GIS, and not enough GIS licences for the mapping system; and
Lack of awareness by GIS professional of the needs/demands of other departments within council.
Individual/Corporate Issues
Lack of knowledge and skills of how to access and manipulate/utilise data in their work roles;
Lack of awareness of what tools and information are available to assist in work roles;
Lack of awareness of what data/information is loaded onto the GIS;
Privacy versus freedom of information;
Obtaining permission to use information; and
Council departments lack of awareness of the potential importance of SI utilisation.
67
The contributions to policy development, as identified by those interviewed, are
outlined Appendix U. Generally Department Managers are primarily responsible for
policy development within their own departments together with assistance from the
Department’s Coordinators/Supervisors, Planners and Officers. Professionals in
these positions should have representation in the AF partnerships for potential
innovation use.
The participants were contradictory when identifying facilitating factors for local
policy development and factors that were in need of improvement (Figure 4.3 and
Table 4.5). It was apparent that participants were functioning within their council’s
current operating environment (communications and working relationships;
information and resources; and Council and politics) however, they were aware that
policy development could be undertaken more efficiently and effectively. New
technologies for spatial analysis could provide a possible mechanism to implement
the improvements outlined in Table 4.5.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
No
. o
f P
art
icip
an
ts
Communication/Working
relationships
Information/Resources Council/Politics
Faciliating factors/improvements for policy
development
Both Facilitating Improvements
Figure 4.3 Policy development - facilitating factors and improvements identified by participants
(Note - some participants identified more than one factor)
68
Table 4.5 Policy development - facilitating factors and improvement descriptions by participants
Facilitating factors Improvements Communication
/ working
relationships
Between departmental colleagues,
notifying other internal departments,
the community and the Council.
The ability to involve all council
professionals at all levels of the
organisation, gaining respect and
confidence and promoting open
communication.
Team working - drawing upon other
colleagues to provide information,
guidance and expertise in policy
formulation and implementation.
Improving communication, cooperation
and relationship difficulties within
councils and with external
organisations.
Participants stated that there is also a
need to break down individual and
departmental silos and create more
awareness of what other departments
are doing.
Create clear communication processes
with the elected Council based upon
facts.
Information /
resources
General information and SI available
through the GIS unit.
The council having one GIS interface,
centralised disparate information across
the organisation, and developing SI
layers as requested.
The staff complement – skill,
continuity and an expert resource base
to draw upon. As stated by ITP1
“whether they be as simple as just a
document, to a mapping system, it is a
whole range of tools to help you to
make decisions”.
Consolidation of off-line (stand alone)
GIS systems into one corporate GIS,
therefore pulling resources together and
avoiding duplication. The consolidation
would assist information access and
support policy development.
A more advanced collection system is
required to hasten the process of
information availability.
Provision of GIS access in meeting
rooms to promote planners’
understanding of spatial landscape
constraints during policy formulation
Council /
politics
Professionals’ ability to work within
the political framework of the elected
Council’s decisions.
Professionals’ understanding of the
contemporary politics surrounding
policy, the need for interaction between
the community and Councillors, having
access to elected members and
community.
Council professionals also need to be
aware of elections and the major
contemporary issues facing the LGA.
Councillors having an open mind in
relation to policies and not being
influenced by minority groups and
political agendas.
There is a tendency for the Council
Executive (General Manager and
Directors) to be driven by political
imperatives and being reactive instead
of proactive, which is detrimental to
sustainable policy making.
The NUD*IST qualitative analysis of participant responses revealed that it was “not
their job” (council professionals) to consider matters beyond their LGA boundary.
This attitude could hinder innovation use and participation in the AF partnerships.
Incentives for decision makers’ participation require promotion by an innovation
champion within the AF. The participants also identified a number of issues
associated with regional policy considerations (Figure 4.4), and will be elaborated
upon in section 4.3.2, including: council isolation, lack of coordination/cooperation
between organisations, competing interests, lack of regional resources and
information.
69
0 2 4 6 8 10
No. of participants
Coordination/cooperation
Councils in isolation
Competing interests
Resources/information
No issues
Regional policy development issues
Figure 4.4 Graph illustrating the regional policy issues identified by participants
(Note - Some participants identified more than one issue)
The regional policy issues identified in Figure 4.4 expose the failure of councils’
corporate structures to accomplish regional policy dialogue and the issue that elected
councillors only have to report to their constituencies as per elections. This parochial
approach by councils hinders professionals’ ability to consider and incorporate
regional planning interests within their decision making processes. The current
policy frameworks within local councils appear too rigid to promote cross-boundary
collaboration in land planning and decision making. Currently technology is
unavailable to local government professionals to assist in regional dialogue and
policy management. Local government of the 21st century are required to make
strategic choices about investment in information and communication technology to
assist in their roles to “become high performing, modern authorities” (Rashid, 1999
p.23). An alternative to promote regional collaboration could be the use by
professionals of new technological innovations to reduce regional policy issues by
supporting policy dialogue between organisations.
4.3. Professional dynamics: internal and external relationships
Analysis of professional dynamics within internal and external relationships revealed
that the current organisational structures are a barrier to collaboration with several
professionals and departments working in a silo culture. A silo culture refers to
individuals not interacting with other colleagues and councils operating in isolation
of the surrounding region.
70
4.3.1. Internal Relationships
Key interactions between staff were predominantly one position level up or down
from the respective officer (Table 4.6). Figure 4.5 illustrates that most interactions
occur between Managers, their staff and other departmental Managers who are
primarily responsible for policy development. As departmental Managers are the
communication core of the council, it would be essential for their representatives to
be included within the partnerships in the AF. 86.3% of participants thought internal
interaction was adequate while 31.8% had issues with fluctuating contact and the
lack of time to initiate interaction (four participants who stated that internal
interactions were adequate also raised concerns).
Table 4.6 Internal position level interaction matrix
Position levels
Managers Directors Dept. Staff
GM Councillor / Mayor
Officers Coordinators/ Supervisors
Other Depts.
Level 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Level 3 3 3 1 3 1 0 1 0
Level 4 7 7 5 5 3 3 3 0
Level 5 4 3 3 0 0 1 1 1
Level 6 2 1 0 0 1 2 1 3
(Note – Some participants identified more than one interaction)
Figure 4.5 Internal interaction model
Note: The red arrows highlight assumed interactions (the Mayor and Councillors were not
interviewed) and the General Manager did not comment on his interactions with the Directions. The
clique is identified in bold.
71
Whilst there is communication at a senior level, the information does not always
flow onto the general staff such as Coordinators/Supervisors and Planners/Officers,
but remains in a clique of Mayor/Councillors – General Managers – Directors as
illustrated in Figure 4.5. This promotes the silo culture between council departments
and individuals and is supported by JPEAO1 who stated, “there seems to be a sort of
silo effect with different departments”. It is important to break down the silo culture
as it creates inconsistencies in the flow and sharing of information throughout the
institution.
The main form of internal communication in local government is by email and to a
slight lesser degree telephone (Table 4.7). There is markedly less time spent in face-
to-face contact and discussion between individuals. Email utilisation however, was
perceived as inefficient because individuals are continuing to print the messages.
This could be the result of emails being regarded as ‘legal documents’ that should be
filed for future reference. Delays and outstanding email communications are the
consequence. As LPME1 notes “… the culture of email … will be another
generation … before email is seen as a reliable quick exchange … I don’t know
whether people really know how to use them yet. It’s timing more than anything and
I think people are still printing them off and filing them …”. Inefficiencies in the use
of email could hinder successful partnerships within the AF. Email communication
would be a key mechanism for information exchange between representatives from
councils and disparate organisations.
Table 4.7 Process of communication between council colleagues
Positions Email Telephone Meetings Face-to-face Memos Managers 16 14 12 11 14
Directors 13 11 9 9 12
Dept. Staff 9 7 7 6 8
GM 7 5 5 5 7
Council/Mayor 6 3 5 3 6
Officers 6 5 4 4 6
Coordinators/
Supervisors 6 5 4 5 6
Other Depts. 4 4 3 3 3
(Note – participants identified more than one process)
The GIS/IT participants interviewed do not establish interaction with other
departmental staff as maps/information requests are usually initiated by the
72
Engineering, Planning or Rates departments. It was apparent that this one-way
stream of communication would compromise the awareness by GIS/IT participants
of the needs and demands of other internal colleagues, which validates the necessity
for policy dialogue between the technical experts and the decision makers within
local government.
Participant JPEAO1 noted the need for “better coordination between departments, so
there’s no, like two departments doing, … working the same sort of projects, but just
coming from different angles”. The interviewees noted that conflicting strategies
and priorities resulted from a lack of informed dialogue between departments and
individuals caused by constraints on internal interactions such as time and workloads
(50%) and different work priorities of professionals (22.7%) (Figure 4.6). These
work priorities contribute to the personal attitudes of individuals who are under
pressure due to workloads and time constraints, to portray the ‘not my job’
impression to those who are trying to initiate communication and share information.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
No
. o
f p
art
icip
an
ts
No constraints Time / workloads Different priorities
Key internal interaction constraints
Figure 4.6 Graph illustrating the internal interaction constraints identified by the participants
(Some participants identified more than one constraint)
Internal isolation between colleagues and departments diminishes coordination and
cooperation and increases the strain on working relationships as experienced in
council ‘L’ where participant LAMIP1 stated “relationships with the people in the
Development Unit which is the area … that we work most closely with … it’s very
strained. There has been some sort of HR issues that have strained those
relationships”.
73
Council professionals are responsible for areas that encompass the whole
environment, including land, traffic, flood and infrastructure planning. These
roles/responsibilities are areas that should not only be managed within the respective
departments but should also take into account the priorities and strategies of other
departments to ensure sustainable decision making and policy development. Due to
the complexity of council responsibilities, there is a need to promote communication
across service areas and with disparate committees at different levels of political and
office management as supported by Rashid (1999). It was postulated that
technological innovation should encourage cross-service collaboration at different
seniority levels within an institution. Internal isolation, however, could hinder the
collaboration, cooperation and coordination process between participants and
supporting institutions and therefore managed during the formation of partnerships
within the AF.
4.3.2. External Relationships
Council professionals interviewed interact to some degree with a great variety of
external organisations, with common interactions occurring with DEP and various
government agencies. Reasons for these interactions ranged from: as part of a
project or work tasks; routine dialogue; information exchange; governance matters
(Appendix V) or to a limited extent - regional activities (Figure 4.7). The innovation
champion should promote external interaction as an incentive for stakeholder
participation in the technological spatial innovation. The business plan should also
outline external interaction as an incentive to broaden efficient cross-boundary
collaboration.
The NUD*IST analysis revealed that senior Executives and Department Managers
frequently engage in external interaction (Table 4.8). Again, email is the most
common process along with phone, face-to-face contact, correspondence and
committees/groups. With the increased use of email, 81.2% of the professionals
interviewed indicated that were satisfied with interactions between external
organisations (Table 4.8). EGISA1 quoted “… in the advent of, certainly e-mail, it
has made a huge difference to the ability to be able to deliver both information and
advice between organisations”. Cross-boundary communication using the
74
technological innovation of email is an opportunity to promote further collaboration
between institutions.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14N
o.
of
pa
rtic
ipa
nts
Work Tasks
and projects
Dialogue Information
Requirements
Governance Regional
Activities
Purposes for external interactions
Figure 4.7 Graph illustrating the purposes for external interactions
(Note - some participants identified more than one purpose)
Table 4.8 Perceived adequacy / issues of external interaction compared with seniority level of
participants
Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Adequate 1 2 7 5 3
Issues 1 1 3 1 2
(Eight participants who stated it was adequate also identified issues)
Council professionals’ work responsibilities are more than roads, rates and rubbish,
they extend into areas that should not only be managed within an LGA, but should
also be considered over the wider region for more efficient and effective decisions
and improved policy development. As LAMIP SPO1 said “…transport corridors
are almost impossible to plan in isolation at the local level”, and GMCSS stated that
“Local government boundaries are lines on a map, in our particular region here,
decisions we take in [Council ‘G’] impact on our surrounding neighbours”. As
identified by LAMIP SPO1, councils are not good at taking a regional view, there is
a mentality of – not part of my work role and therefore not my problem – which is
hindering efficient decision making in local government. GMCSS1 stated “we just
didn’t consider [inadequate provision of transport] because that’s not our problem,
[the public] get in and out however they want to get in, our concern was that the
75
development itself was suitable and there was reasonable transport access for the
people in [Council ‘G’]. But the council takes the view, well [the development] is in
[‘G’], we don’t have to consider [neighbouring councils] even though that’s the
catchment for [the development]”.
Planning in isolation of the extended region is supported by the NUD*IST analysis
by exposing council professionals’ lack of dialogue/communication with adjoining
councils and the wider region, in the performance of their work duties (Table 4.9).
As a result local government professionals are making decisions within their own
LGA boundaries without considering the adjoining or wider regions outside their
jurisdiction as ITP and LAMIP SPO1 stated respectively “we tend to live within our
local government boundaries…” “[with] blinkers on”. This is supported by the fact
that only two participants had external interactions for gaining a regional perspective
as was illustrated in Figure 4.7. LMACO1 noted, “when you are dealing [with]
policies at a local level it is very easy to get carried away and focus on your interests
and that happens a lot of the times”. This limited consideration of regional issues by
council staff results in a lack of communication and policy dialogue with adjoining
councils / organisations. Consequently, this mentality could obstruct council and
individual innovation acceptance and participation within regional partnerships in the
AF therefore requiring promotion of incentives for involvement by the innovation
champion.
Table 4.9 Participants’ external interactions
State Government departments/agencies
Community Other councils WSROC/ MACROC
No. of professionals 19 8 8 7
Level 2 - 1 1 1
Level 3 3 1 2 1
Level 4 7 2 4 5
Level 5 5 3 - -
Level 6 4 1 1 -
(Note – some participants identified more than one external interaction)
Local governments also compete with each other for resources and political favours,
and additionally there is a perception, as identified by GMEP1, that “GMs and
executives are more inclined to be driven by political imperatives, keeping
Councillors happy” based on the political agendas of Councillors. Consequently,
76
there is little opportunity for council professionals to think outside the square, or
outside their LGA.
The interviews supported Rashid’s (1999) notion for a ‘new local government’ as
issues (such as health, crime prevention, sustainable development and transport)
faced by local authorities today are too complicated to be managed within the
traditional management and political structures of local councils. Rashid states that
these issues “cannot be dealt with by a single organisation”, but they “require a
multi-level and multi-agency approach” (p.1-2). The importance of the multi-
agency approach is amplified when it incorporates regional planning and
management, however issues such as lack of coordination and cooperation between
organisations hinders effective policy development. As GMCSS1 identified “the
major issues facing this area are probably environmental, transport and
employment, now they’re not issues that stop at lines on a map, they transgress those
boundaries and there’s no coordinated approach to address it”. Participant GMEP1
noted that the lack of coordination and cooperation between local and state
governments results in the duplication of catchment LEPs between neighbouring
councils, the “[LEPs] say exactly the same thing, same objectives, same everything”,
however they are separate and individual policies.
The current volatile operating environment of local government with regard to water,
natural resource management, planning and local government reforms, as well as the
restructuring of NSW Government departments contributes to issues with external
relationships. Participant GMEP1 noted that “the complexity of the organisation
undergoing review and restructure all the time” was a constraint that limited
interaction with government departments. This has caused the dissolution of
contacts and networks, and conflicting advice from new/former departments. The
threat of forced amalgamations is also resulting in uncertainties and concerns about
loss of power and employment. Participant GMEP1 identified that “the fear a lot of
GMs often have is about amalgamations, and for that reason they tend not to be as
cooperative”. The AF should consider the volatile operating environment as it could
limit institutions participation and support for cross-boundary collaborative
innovation. Technological innovation however could also promote collaboration and
77
mitigate this volatility by representatives from institutions working together to
support regional policy dialogue.
When a local government proposes to be involved in major development plans
within a region, the state department limits this involvement to the LGA that contains
the development. One example was, when Penrith City Council submitted a request
to DEP to have representation on the Growth Executive Committees for both the
North-West and South-West Growth Centres (both of which border Penrith LGA),
the request was rejected. The reason for the rejection was that the committee
members to be involved in “the preparation of individual precinct plans and zoning
provisions … [were] best suited to councils which have land within the growth
centres” (Norris, 2005). However, these plans and zoning provisions will potentially
influence the surrounding LGAs, examples include, additional traffic on local roads
and increased pressure on infrastructure. The Growth Executive Committees would
be unaware of the future impacts of these major developments upon the greater
region.
Participant responses revealed that there is a need to improve (Table 4.10):
• Communication and cooperation between councils and state
agencies/departments;
• Access to regional information/resources; and
• Government efficiency.
Table 4.10 Improving regional policy suggested by participants
Improvements No. of participants Improved communication/cooperation 11
Regional information/resources 8
More efficient government 7
More amalgamations 4
Others – more amalgamations and willingness to
prepare regional policies
16
(Note – some participants identified more than one improvement)
Local government professionals predominantly access internal information when
preparing/developing policies and making decisions (Figure 4.8). The interviews
78
exposed only limited consideration of regional information within work roles
because of the absence of an integrated regional information resource to assist
decision makers. Decisions therefore impact on surrounding LGAs, for example
participant MIM noted that “what Liverpool does [at] the head of South Creek
obviously impacts on what’s going to happen at [Council ‘M’] and those sort of
things on the borders [such as] developments. … Now Western Sydney has reached
the stage of … any development is now impacting on other councils because we are
in-filling”. Integration of data and support of policy dialogue between neighbouring
councils could be viable through new technologies for spatial analysis. The AF
provides a potential mode to improve the communication, cooperation and
information sharing between councils and other organisations via professional
representations within regional partnerships and the multi-participant organisational
structure.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
No
. o
f p
art
icip
an
ts
Information sources
NPWS 1 0 0 1 0 3
Government agencies 1 1 2 0 0 2
LPI 1 1 3 0 0 1
DIPNR 0 0 2 2 1 2
ABS 0 2 0 1 3 2
Own Council 2 3 5 2 4 5
E G I J L M
Figure 4.8 Graph illustrating the current information sources identified by participants
(Note - some participants identified more than one source)
The potential benefits identified by participants of accessing neighbouring council
information would provide a regional context and awareness of boundary issues for
informed policy dialogue and decision / policy making (Figure 4.9). GMCSS1 stated
79
that neighbouring information “would enable [decision makers] to address, or be
more effective in addressing the regional issues that local government face”. As
ITPME1 noted regional information would be essential for cross boundary planning
as it would support and facilitate discussion in cross boundary working groups and
planning by breaking down the perceptions of boundaries within the system.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
No. of participants
Extra information
Inform decision / policy making
Regional context
Sharing information / knowledge
Dialogue
Boundary management
Increase awareness
Conduct comparisons
Others
Benefits from accessing neighbouring council information
Figure 4.9 Graph illustrating the benefits of cross-jurisdictional information identified by participants
(Note - some participants identified more than one benefit)
The success of regional policy development and planning is dependent upon
effective policy dialogue and on the tools that are available to decision makers on a
local and regional level. This is supported by Fonseca et al., (2000) who stated that
when “exchanging data about a city, one must notice that urban data are strongly
related to location, and therefore, it is likely that a city will need data on
neighbouring cities, because the urban environment does not cease to exist at the
municipal borders. Issues like transportation and environmental concerns can only
be treated in a continuous way.” (p. 252).
The absence of informed and purposeful dialogue between internal council
departments and externally between councils has contributed to the lack of awareness
80
by staff of internal and regional issues, constraints and trends within the sampled
area. Consequently, conflicting, varying and duplicated planning/policies have
ensued across the region. Rashid (1999) states, there is a need for Managers to
operate effectively across agencies and across sectors, thereby building relationships
with internal colleagues and other organisations to influence the development of
strategies, policies and priorities. The revised AF (Figure 4.10) identifies the
opportunities, considerations and constraints to promote internal and external
communication relationships between the technical and decision making spheres
during the formation of partnerships and also sustain that interaction within the board
and advisory teams of the multi-participant organisational structure.
Figure 4.10 Opportunities, constraints and considerations affecting key components of the AF model - outcomes of the first interview analysis of sample GWS council professionals
81
4.4. Conclusion
Knowledge based on current data and information is essential for decision makers in
the preparation and development of policy. In a rapidly changing world, information
such as SI, analysis and purposeful dialogue are essential, to enable an understanding
of linked issues and how policy development could take creative advantage of such
linkages, especially across regions.
This chapter analysed council’s land policy framework through interviews of sample
GWS local government professionals. The research found that the current structures
generate silo cultures within and between councils, a consequence of minimal
information sharing and dialogue, contributing to a lack of awareness and
understanding of internal and regional issues, constraints and trends. The interview
data suggests that new technologies for spatial analysis have the potential to break
down silo practices and induce collaboration in a greater scale to provide modern
channels for better informed local government decision making.
The chapter emphasised the importance of problem identification within the
proposed AF thereby identifying the motivation to form partnerships. The
development of the technical capacity to share data could benefit by the
organisations’ computer internet connection, internet speed and participants’ use of
laptops. The technical capacity of the innovation provides the incentives, such as
data access for regional consideration, and promotion by the innovation champion
would encourage professionals to participate in partnerships. Frustration of
participants with the current technology and the fact decision makers disregard issues
beyond their LGA could hinder the willingness of council professionals to participate
in an innovation cooperative. To ensure that there is a correct participant
representation (SI experts and users) within the partnerships and on the board or
advisory teams of the multi-participant organisational structure requires serious
consideration within the AF. Successful partnerships could considerably improve
internal and external professional communication and cooperation.
82
The following chapter further examines the proposed AF exploring SI usage by the
sample professionals interviewed and the potential of an OSP as an example of a
technological innovation as a potential mechanism to support policy dialogue.
83
5. Results and Discussion II: The relationship of
technological innovation and policy dialogue
5.1. Introduction
Councils within the GWS region have complex GIS and policy/decision making
responsibilities. Participants interviewed are working within silo cultures (Appendix
W – validation of results), and as Chapter 4 concluded spatial technology innovations
could have the potential to support council professionals’ (both decision makers and
GIS experts) with policy dialogue and informed decisions. This hypothesis is further
explored using NUD*IST qualitative analysis software to analyse the second phase
in-depth interviews that included a demonstration of an OSP concept to each of the
interviewed GWS council professionals. This chapter investigated institutional
learning within the sample GWS councils and the potential for an OSP as a
technological innovation for policy dialogue support in the context of professionals’
work roles and the challenges faced by their prospective use of a portal.
5.2. Institutional learning: the application and use of SI
Institutional learning pertains to the learning that takes place amongst individuals in
different organisations and groups that work together to achieve a common end.
Organisational learning refers to an organisation’s ability to accumulate knowledge
from its own experiences, disseminate it to members throughout the organisation,
reflect on it, and use it to plan, adapt and cope with change (Horton and Mackay,
2003). Incorporation of the use of GIS and SI into the work roles of professionals
within these two learning areas could enable sharing of SI throughout the institution.
SI usage by the interview participants was affected by two interconnected factors 1)
the officer’s GIT experience, and 2) efficiency of each council’s GIS section/unit.
5.2.1. GIT experience of the professional staff interviewed
Council professionals (excluding GIS personnel), in their diversity of
roles/responsibilities and backgrounds, generally had limited experience with GIT.
GIT involves knowledge, skills and the use of SI and related technology, which
84
includes remote sensing, GIS, and GPS (global positioning system) (Warnecke,
1999). Generally the majority of council professionals who had a low to moderate
experience with GIT (Figure 5.1) reflected their age category, the older the
participant the less likely he/she had experience with GIT and use of SI. This
experience was evident during the interviews by their limited understanding of the
concept of SI and their lack of awareness of the tools and information available for
their use. This finding challenges McDougall et al., (2005) who reported that
internal council users appear to have good access to data discovery tools such as GIS
viewers or desktop mapping systems and that 60% of those users who have access to
these tools have a good understanding of the organisation’s GIS data sets. This
finding would be dependent on the innovativeness of the council and the professional
within the council who completed the survey. Participants confined their SI usage to
basic locating and pasting maps for preparation of reports:
• To enable a visual representation of relevant sites;
• To enable consolidation of area data;
• To enable better informed planning; and
• Other purposes as set out in Table 5.1.
0
2
4
6
8
10
No
. o
f p
art
icip
an
ts
Participants' GIT experience compared with
their age category
Low 0 1 2 7
Medium 1 5 4 0
High 1 0 3 0
20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59
Figure 5.1 Graph illustrating participants’ GIT experience compared with their age category
85
Table 5.1 Current uses of SI identified by participants
Value and uses of SI: Percentage of responses
Good visual representation 50%
Consolidates information about a site or area 50%
Contributes to informed planning 37.5%
Identifies ideas, features, issues, problems and patterns 33.3%
Assists in informed decision making 25%
Communicates information to the community, decision makers and
councillors
25%
Enquiries and reporting to the public 12.5%
(Note – Some participants gave multiple responses)
The use of SI identified by participants as was outlined in Table 5.1 is very basic
which supports the Corporate GIS Consultants (2003) annual survey that local
government has one of the lowest levels of mature use of spatial systems compared
with other industry sectors (Appendix X). Although the majority of the participants
interviewed realised the importance of information being spatially referenced
inadequate consideration appears to be given to using SI effectively in policy
development and decision making, the importance and benefits of SI and GIS use in
work roles are overlooked. The majority of local government data has a location
basis and GIS can play a vital role in council functioning, resulting in more efficient
operation, management, policy implementation, decision making and public service
(Nedovic-Budic and Pinto, 1999a). The negligible effective use of SI by participants
could restrain their participation within AF partnerships, as they might hold the belief
that their SI and GIT experience would be unproductive for the innovation.
Consequently, the innovation champion should emphasise incentives for their
contribution and involvement.
The more experience participants had with SI and used the Intranet mapping tool
(viewing tool) the more open-minded they were to the potential applications of SI in
their work roles, providing that they had access to the information. These
experienced users of SI are also more likely to participate in the AF partnerships and
utilise technological innovations.
86
5.2.2. Efficiency of council’s spatial innovation and own GIS unit
At the time of the interviews, four of the six sample councils had a corporate GIS,
maintained by a GIS unit/section or by the IT department. Those that did not have a
unit/section had the GIS maintained by the engineering section and they generally
lacked the GIS expertise to capitalise on its functionality, which supports the
preliminary findings of McDougalls et al., (2005) that smaller councils do not have a
dedicated GIS officer. The sample GWS councils however challenged the findings
of McDougall’s et al. (2005) that a significant number of councils have adopted GIS
across the organisation with the GIS residing in the corporate services section instead
of the technical branch of council. The majority of participants were positive about
their current access to SI (Figure 5.2) however, this represents the simplicity of their
requests, their limited GIT experience and naivety of SI use. Seven participants
described SI access as “limiting and frustrating” and “pathetic”. The following
mechanisms were used by council professionals to access SI when required (Figure
5.3):
• Internal SI requests to council GIS units;
• Intranet mapping;
• External information through consultants and other agencies; and
• Hardcopy archival map use.
0
8
16
24
No
. o
f p
art
icip
an
ts
Positive (but with
room for
improvement)
Negative – frustrating,
poor and pathetic
No comment
Adequacy levels of interviewees’ access to SI
Figure 5.2 Graph illustrating participants’ responses regarding adequacy of access to SI
87
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
No. of re
sponses
Process used to obtain spatial information
Hard copy maps 1 0 1 0 1 0
Externally 0 2 0 0 2 1
Intranet mapping 0 2 0 0 2 4
Mapping requests 1 5 2 2 3 4
E I G - no J - no M L
Figure 5.3 Graph illustrating the current process used by the participants to obtain SI compared between councils
(Note – some participants gave multiple responses. The councils that did not have intranet mapping
available is indicated by ‘no’ beside the council code)
Participants’ experience however, with SI access could have both a positive and
negative effect on the AF and innovation use by professionals. Participants’
dissatisfaction/frustrations with current SI access could:
1. Hinder and/or promote professionals’ participation in partnerships within the
AF; and
2. Hinder acceptance and use of new technologies for spatial analysis, however
this could be compensated by the fact that decision making professionals
may be prepared to ‘try anything’ to obtain SI quickly and through this need
innovation use could escalate.
Four of the six councils that participated in this research had Intranet mapping
available, and as was illustrated in Figure 5.3, not all participants were either aware
of or used the technology to access SI to inform their work roles. A number of
interrelated reasons for this were as follows:
• Intranet mapping is a basic map viewing tool that does not include analytical
functions which would enable participants to make informed decisions;
88
• Intranet mapping includes simple base data information limiting the extent to
which participants can use the available SI; and
• Participants’ limited GIT experience as a contributing factor to a lack of
confidence in the use such tools.
The use of intranet mapping was more frequent in the councils with SI expertise and
a progressive GIS unit. Intranet mapping expands the awareness of SI use by
decision making professionals’ within their work roles thereby increasing their needs
and demands for more and better SI. This supports one of Nedovic-Budic and
Godschalk’s (1996) conclusions that exposure to the technology affects employees’
willingness to use new GIS technology. However, this places mounting pressure on
the capacity of council GIS units to develop new systems and collect more data.
SI can vary from minutes to months, depending on the GIS unit’s workload, the
complexity and clarity of the requests, and the individual GIT experience, thus
hindering their reliance and confidence in SI use. Retrieval time also depended on
the seniority level of the person requesting the information. Executives’ requests
tended to be processed much faster than those of the less senior officers and planners.
Although the GIS/IT professionals interviewed were satisfied with their current SI
access procedures they also identified a number of problems, which include:
• No intranet mapping available in two of the participating councils;
• Independent internal systems – ( rates, assets, property) and GIS systems not
integrated;
• Slow processing of SI requests by the GIS unit;
• Limited staff training and/or induction in the processes of SI access;
• Participants’ lack of awareness of the availability of SI and its potential use
within their own work roles;
• Spatially referenced information not loaded on to the GIS by council’s GIS
unit; and
• Data quality concerns.
89
However, participants’ demands for SI are escalating, as stated by LGMO2 “…our
expectations and needs for the future are so large”. For all council professionals to
have immediate access to SI would place council GIS units under much greater
pressure because of the limited staff and resourcing constraints within these units.
Participant LMLTP2 stated, “our IT is fairly small … to share two or three people
across the organisation is kind of difficult”. This supports Corporate GIS
Consultants (2003) results that local government has one of the lowest average per
site budgets (at 6%) for spatial information systems (Appendix Y). In 2003 staffing,
data capture, training and software development experienced a downturn in budget
allocation compared with 2002. This explains the SI access issues experienced by
decision making professionals identified during the interviews. The allocation of
funds to purchase data however increased significantly from the previous year’s
survey (Corporate GIS Consultants, 2003), supporting the potential for a single
technological repository innovation through which council professionals could freely
access SI.
Often local government GIS experts do not apply GIS to other relevant service areas
within council (Rashid, 1999). The interview analysis identified that GIS experts did
not initiate inter-departmental communication and sometimes appeared to be almost
oblivious to the needs and demands of the other departments. As a result, several
council departments had implemented their own independent GIS, which differed
from the main council system. Duplication of information and lack of access to
and/or sharing of SI contributes to internal isolation. GIS council staff participation
in the AF partnerships could be restricted because of their unwillingness to promote
SI usage, their workloads and resource constraints. Their reluctance could also
create doubts regarding data updating and maintenance compliance, which is a
prerequisite for spatial data sharing for the technical capacity within the AF.
Local government should encourage council professionals to focus on increasing
performance through empowering people, both internal and external colleagues and
the community, thereby adding value to their contribution (Rashid, 1999).
Professionals must therefore place a high importance on knowledge and the sharing
of that knowledge, either by face-to-face or through electronic communication, it is
90
about being capable to work in responsibility areas that require dialogue across a
wide range of agencies and sectors (Rashid, 1999). The AF provides a model to
encourage participants to share knowledge and utilise new technologies for spatial
analysis as an alternative collaboration tool. This would to enable professionals to
increase their performance; be empowered through access to information; and
facilitate dialogue both internally and externally with organisations. An OSP could
be an alterative spatial technological innovation tool to mitigate policy dialogue
issues with isolation and promote SI use within work roles.
5.3. Technological spatial innovation as a supporting tool for policy dialogue
within the sample local government councils
The demonstration of an OSP as an example of technological spatial innovation and
the subsequent interviews of local government professionals examined how
innovation technologies would provide a valuable supporting role in policy dialogue.
The NUD*IST analysis of participant responses revealed that spatial innovations
would predominantly be utilised by professionals within the policy area of
environmental planning (Table 5.2). This supports the view that environmental
planning professionals should be targeted to participate within the AF partnerships to
assist in identifying the information and function needs of the portal.
Table 5.2 Policy areas for OSP use identified by participants
Policy areas No of responses Environmental planning 18
Environmental management 10
Emergency management 10
Transport planning 7
Development management 6
(Note – some participants gave multiple responses)
The majority of professionals interviewed were very positive about the OSP
demonstration concept describing it as a great innovation that would drive efficiency
savings and assist in relationship building between councils and the state government
thereby supporting policy dialogue. A few participants identified that it would not be
of assistance within their work roles:
91
• The General Manager and a Director stated that they personally would not
use the tool, as they would request staff to retrieve information if required.
Both interviewees stated that their staff would definitely use the tool to access
state government and regional information.
• The Community Safety Coordinator and a Transport Planner, both of whom
had low GIT experience, were overwhelmed by the innovation
demonstration.
• The GIS experts interviewed were very cautious about the innovation,
although they recognised benefits for environmental and strategic planning,
they did not identify benefits for their own work roles. These professionals
felt threatened by the innovation and constantly referred to their corporate
GIS as being satisfactory to meet council needs and that council professionals
do not need to access neighbouring local government or regional information
to fulfil their work requirements. It is essential to gain support from council
GIS experts for portal establishment. The innovation champion must
promote the OSP as tool that would support both decision makers and GIS
experts within their work roles. An OSP tool would not eliminate the need
for a council GIS unit but rather reinforce their system significance in data
collection, maintenance and updating.
NUD*IST analysis of the interview responses following the OSP demonstration
revealed key applications that could support local government policy dialogue, these
include:
• Sharing of SI and knowledge control;
• SI access and integration;
• SI modelling and analysis; and
• Informed dialogue and decision making
5.3.1. Sharing of SI and knowledge control
The interviewees identified SI sharing as an OSP opportunity of medium to high
importance (Figure 5.4). Sharing SI creates the scope to promote cooperation
between organisations across the region. As identified in Chapter 4 cooperation
92
between councils within a region does not always occur. The portal’s functionality
to share SI and the ability of the participants to cooperate would depend upon
regional politics and the data that councils are willing to share. This verifies the
importance of the collaboration, cooperation and coordination process within the AF,
together with gaining support from politicians, senior management and gaining
participation of GIS professionals in partnerships to encourage sharing of SI.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Perc
enatg
e o
f re
sponse
SI sharing, regional cooperation and reduced costs opportunities of
an OSP
Low 0 2 2
Medium 8 8 8
High 16 14 14
Information sharing
between
organisations
Promote
cooperation between
organisations
Reduce costs -
enable more efficient
use of GIS unit
Figure 5.4 Graph illustrating OSP opportunities - importance levels identified by participants
for the sharing of SI, regional cooperation and reduced costs
The participants interviewed identified that an OSP would reduce duplication of
council information across a region, such as cadastre, which would open
opportunities for institutional cost savings (indicated as medium to high importance)
as illustrated in Figure 5.4. An OSP has the potential to reduce the strain on council
GIS unit resources by allowing decision makers to source their map requests through
the Web browser on their desktop/laptop computers. These opportunities would
encourage professionals to use a portal as a tool to provide ready access to accurate
and current local and regional information held in a single data repository thereby
providing a mechanism for regional knowledge management. The role of the council
GIS professional could change from fulfilling mapping requests to the role of
keeping the system functioning (maintenance, upgrading and updating).
93
5.3.2. SI access and integration
The NUD*IST analysis revealed that 91% of participants considered that immediate
access to SI would be a fundamental function of the portal (Figure 5.5). Immediate
access would provide decision makers with the opportunity to reduce time requesting
and obtaining information internally and externally and identified to be of high
importance by 83.3% of the interviewees (Figure 5.6). Participants identified that
accessing regional and neighbouring council information through 'one common
system' would be an invaluable portal function (87.5%) as illustrated in Figure 5.5.
Half of those interviewed identified that SI held by their councils does not extend
beyond their own LGA boundary. Participant ISTP2 recalled a conversation with a
colleague as an example of SI ceasing at the council boundary: “I had a planner who
used to work here, [who] looked at the edge of our map, and it was the Hawkesbury
River that was the boundary. It was on the eastern boundary and she used to say
‘What’s that side, is that the beach?’ Oh, we are not on the coast [but] because our
zoning map stopped there and [it is] white [in the neighbouring council], it’s just
traditionally how it happens… But she used to think that [it] was the beach, because
it was white [and] there was nothing there.” The portal would support council
professionals by enabling a map view of the local government interfaces.
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
No. of participants
Immediate access to information
Region-wide/cross boundary information
Communication device internally/externally
User-friendly functionality
One common system
GIS functionality
Public access to information
Valuable functions of an OSP
Figure 5.5 Graph illustrating the valuable functions of an OSP identified by participants
(Note – some participants identified more than one function)
94
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Perc
enta
ge o
f re
sponse
Opportunities of an OSP – Time reduction to request/obtain SI and
Public participation in planning
Low 1 2
Medium 3 8
High 20 14
Reduce time to request/obtain SI Public participation in planning
Figure 5.6 Graph illustrating the opportunities of an OSP – importance levels identified by the
participants for reducing time requesting/obtaining SI and public participation in planning
As was illustrated in Figure 5.5 the majority of professionals interviewed did not
consider public access to information to be a valuable function of the portal and a
few participants noted that they did not want to involve the public too much as it
would create more work. However, public access to SI through a portal could
promote a knowledgeable society, elevating deliberative democracy and public
participation in planning and as Figure 5.6 identifies, regarded as medium to high
importance by the interviewees. The representatives within the multi-participant
organisational structure of the AF would need to deliberate upon the following
aspects of public access to information through the portal:
• Information availability - linked with information needs and functions;
• Portal security and information privacy – linked with the portal’s technical
capacity; and
• Marketing and fees/charges – linked with the business plan.
The analysis revealed 95% of participants rated inventory as high to medium
importance as they would frequently utilise a portal for locating, identifying and
obtaining an inventory of features (Figure 5.7) for layer and cross-jurisdictional
integration. Therefore, it can be surmised that the value of an OSP is its ability to
integrate SI. The high importance of the basic inventory application reflected the
95
limited GIT experience and awareness of SI use by the interviewees in the capacity
of their own work roles. There is an expectation that their GIT experience and
knowledge would develop with portal usage thus creating an awareness of SI and its
benefits and opportunities within work roles.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Perc
enta
ge o
f re
sponse
Importance levels of various OSP applications
Low 1 4 4
Medium 7 10 10
High 16 10 10
Inventory/locating Policy analysisManagement/policy
making
Figure 5.7 Graph illustrating the importance levels identified by the participants for inventory, policy analysis, and management/policy making applications of the portal
5.3.3. SI modelling and analysis
The more advanced portal applications of modelling and analysis using sophisticated
OSP functions such as queries would be used to a lesser degree by participants, as
was illustrated in Figure 5.5. Policy analysis (searching features per area, proximity
to a feature or land use, correlation of demographic statistics with geographic
features) and management/policy making (more efficient routing, modelling
alternatives, forecasting future needs and work scheduling) applications were
identified as medium/high importance by 83% of participants (Figure 5.7). This
response verifies the significance of the GIS functionality of an OSP. However, only
33.3% of interviewees referred to GIS functionality (queries, cross-referencing,
searches and statistics) as a valuable capability of the portal.
96
The GIS functionality of an OSP requires considerable consideration within the
technical capacity of the AF to achieve the information and function needs in a user-
friendly interface as indicated by 45.8% of interviewees. During the partnership
meetings, identification of common policy scenarios would enable the technical
capacity’s GIS experts to develop an easy to use query function to encourage
potential users of the portal to undertake applications that are more sophisticated.
5.3.4. Informed dialogue and decision making
The majority (75%) of professionals interviewed (Table 5.3) indicated that an OSP
has the potential to assist with informed internal and external dialogue across the
region by the sharing of, and immediate access to, SI. As participant GMCSS2
commented, an OSP would “not just [be for] government bodies, but people
outside… there’s opportunities right across the board”. Importantly, as stated by
79% of participants, an OSP could function as a communication device between
professional colleagues (Figure 5.5), thereby supporting deliberative dialogue for
committees and during meetings. Participant ISTP2 stated: “[the portal] would
[have] a positive effect, that’s for sure and probably for the reasons…
communicating with other councils [and] making decisions” and GMEP2 “…if you
are a good planner, you are going to go and use [the portal] all the time…”.
Most significantly, 95.8% of participants identified that their use of an OSP would
promote informed policy and decision making as outlined in Table 5.3 by:
• Gaining a regional perspective/context on topics and issues (87.5% of
participants);
• Visualising the LGA interface/boundary (75%);
• Promoting purposeful dialogue (75%); and
• Encouraging SI use within work roles (37.5%)
The innovation champion should promote these purposes for portal use. The AF
business plan should elaborate upon these purposes as fundamental innovation goals.
97
Table 5.3 Purposes for using an OSP identified by participants
No. of responses
Purpose Descriptions
23 Decision making
(some participants
suggested that it was
not specifically for
themselves but for
their colleagues)
Involves: professionals delivering a thorough assessment;
informed decision making; improved quality of planning;
raised awareness of future needs; knowledge of impacts of
decisions on other areas; viewing external factors before
making a decision; faster decisions; providing informed
options; and streamlining decisions.
21 Developing a
regional
perspective/bigger
picture
Provides an efficient way to obtain an understanding of
planning contexts. Places the LGA in the context of the
region; provides awareness of occurrences surrounding the
LGA; provides understanding in the context of development
proposals; provides a regional and metropolitan context to
decisions.
18 Visualising the LGA
interface/boundaries
Assists in preparing negotiations on cross boundary
discussions and border issues; information sharing with
neighbouring councils; and visualisation of occurrences in
neighbouring LGAs. Information does not stop at the council
boundary – blurring administrative boundaries.
18 Internal and external
dialogue
Improves communication by providing opportunities for more
purposeful dialogue within and between councils. Triggers
and promotes discussion on issues from an informed
perspective.
9 Promoting SI use in
work roles
Access to SI from a computer desktop would encourage
professionals to make greater use of SI within their day-to-day
activities.
9 Information sharing Provides a mechanism to enable information to be shared.
Encourages information sharing between councils.
7 Supporting major
strategic planning
processes
Supports statutory planing - LEPs; DCPs; environmental,
vegetation and traffic management; and water revitalisation.
6 Informing public
decision making
A mechanism for the community to access their local council
and regional information - supporting community knowledge
and decision making.
(Note – participants gave multiple responses)
The interviewed council professionals revealed that the use of an OSP would
improve the effectiveness of their decision making because of the added efficiency in
communicating information and confidence in analysis, thereby expediting decision
making time, all of which were identified by participants to be of medium to high
importance (Figure 5.8). As a result, portal users would be able to identify potential
conflicts, especially on LGA boundaries, therefore generating greater explicitness of
decisions and creating the opportunity for OSP use to inform local and regional
decisions and policies. The majority of participants identified this opportunity as
having a high level of importance (Table 5.4).
98
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Perc
enta
ge o
f re
sponse
OSP as a support mechanism for improving the effectiveness of decision making
Low 2 3 2 2 2
Medium 6 5 7 9 10
High 16 16 15 13 12
Confidence in
analysis
Communication
of information
(visual form)
Decision
making time -
prompt
Identification of
conflicts
Explicitness of
decisions –
detailed
Figure 5.8 Graph illustrating the importance levels identified by participants of an OSP as a support mechanism for improving the effectiveness of decision making
Table 5.4 Importance levels of an OSP to inform local and regional decision and policy making
identified by participants
Level of Importance OSP opportunity: Low Medium High
Inform local and regional decision
and policy making - 5 19
The interviewees who indicated a low importance level for an OSP, as a support
mechanism for improving effectiveness of decision making as illustrated in Figure
5.8, were participants who did not see the benefits of region-wide SI access, as they
believed that council professionals only required LGA information to inform their
decisions. This particular mentality of some council professionals would be a
potential constraint for OSP acceptance and therefore would require careful
management within the AF. The role of the innovation champion and diligent pilot
testing could be the key to achieving portal use and acceptance by these professionals
who have a narrow decision making view.
A technological spatial innovation, such as an OSP, could potentially provide a
mechanism for decision makers to gain a spatial representation of a site or issue, to
analyse and model relevant SI for strategic thinking, promote regional consideration
and deliberative democracy between all stakeholders and the community. This
would facilitate more purposeful dialogue, internally and externally between
organisations, stimulate inter-organisational collaboration and cooperation and
99
improve organisational decision making and policy development locally, at the LGA
interface and regionally, as supported by Pinto and Onsrud (1995), Dawes (1996)
and Kumar and Dissel (1996).
5.4. Challenges for an OSP innovation as a supporting tool for policy dialogue
By using NUD*IST qualitative software to examine participant responses it became
apparent that there were interrelated challenges, including knowledge control and
innovation acceptance, that would determine the level of support by the institutions
for the sharing of SI and OSP innovation. These challenges would require
management within the AF for the opportunities and benefits of technological spatial
innovation to emerge. There is no point developing the technical capacity of an OSP
only to discover that these obstacles will be a major hindrance to innovation success,
this raises the importance of problem identification within the AF.
5.4.1. Knowledge control
Knowledge control is not limited to local government. It also occurs in state
agencies and utilities and stems from ownership, intellectual property rights and
restrictive licensing. Ownership of information derived using government data,
accessed under license, often prohibits on-selling or ex-project distribution. In many
cases it is a copyright issue (Ronaldson et al., 2000) with evidence indicating that
data ownership would be a SI sharing constraint within the participating councils.
Participant LDMS2 stated, “there is an attitude … in some councils that I have
worked in …, we are paying for this data, we are not going to let other people have
access to it”. This attitude must change to allow the sharing of SI by council GIS/IT
professionals. It is therefore vital that there is partnership representation by council
GIS/IT within the AF.
Knowledge control stems from the GIS professionals’ sense of information
management, empowerment and employment security therefore, they are often
apprehensive about innovative technology that could influence aspects of their work
roles. This supports Azad and Wiggins (1995) who identified that organisational
100
autonomy affects relationship establishment, and when distributed strategies
transcend organisational boundaries, resistance is magnified, with concerns about
loss of control and loss of power (Meredith, 1995). Knowledge control by GIS
professionals challenges McDougall et al., (2005) who noted that council GIS
experts support data sharing. However, GISASS2 noted “some councils will have
reservations about… giving information out ... Whether or not we would want to give
information out [for] others to share.” The resistance of GIS experts to share data
within an innovative concept supports Allen et al., (2004). If a council were
unwilling to share information through the portal, there would be, as described by
participant JMSP2, “a big hole” in the map area decreasing the effectiveness of an
OSP providing region-wide SI access to decision makers.
Data quality concerns and data consistency across the region were the main reasons
noted by GIS/IT professionals to control SI and limit its sharing. Participant
MGISASS2 illustrated this by stating “… they [GIS professionals] don’t feel secure
for information to go out… the data might not be a hundred percent accurate”, this
supports Frank (1992 cited in Nedovic-Budic and Pinto, 1999b). Concerns over data
quality are of interest, especially if decision making professionals are currently using
this same data in their work roles to make decisions. It was identified by Ronaldson
et al., (2000) that spatial accuracy of data was often not known and that there are
varying quality standards between data collectors/generators/holders. This lessens
innovation acceptance by decision making professionals and hinders technology
innovation.
5.4.2. Innovation acceptance and capacity for innovation
As Allen et al., (2004) identified there is a resistance amongst mainstream staff to
accept innovation because of their lack of exposure to technology and networking
which influences their willingness to use new GIS technology, as supported by
Nedovic-Budic and Godschalk (1996). As discussed in Section 5.2.2 participants’
frustration with current SI access and intranet mapping functionality lessens their
willingness to try any new spatial innovations.
101
Participants interviewed had limited knowledge of the concept of an OSP or what it
involved and 33% had no idea (Figure 5.9). Participants attempted to describe the
purpose of an OSP. Generally, their explanations were confined to the basic
functions of an OSP, i.e. providing ready and easy access to a large range of SI
through an online website (Figure 5.9). These outcomes verified the need to produce
a working example or a pilot of the innovation to raise professionals’ awareness of
portal functions, applications and opportunities thereby increasing their perceived
relative advantage of using new technology tools, this is supported by Nedovic-
Budic and Godschalk (1996).
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
No. of participants
No idea
Ready & easy access to SI
Online website
Large range of information
Ability to build layers
Easy to understand – user friendly
Search / Locate facility
Perceptions of an online spatial portal prior to demonstration
Figure 5.9 Graph illustrating the participants’ perceptions of an OSP prior to demonstration
(Note – some participants gave multiple responses)
Success of an OSP depends upon professionals’ confidence in the accuracy, currency
and in-system reliability of SI. There is a concern that a portal user would assume
the data is current. Participant EGIS2 stated that “… the major issue you are always
going to have with anything like this [the portal] in dealing with spatial data is the
concurrency of the data and [how] that’s managed”, and DARS2 noted “…
providing that the information is up to date and that would be certainly a necessity, I
mean if you’re assessing services and things like that, the currency of the data would
be critical.” Table 5.5 outlines that all participants had a high concern that the portal
may contain faulty data, therefore leading to faulty assumptions (identified as
medium to high importance by 87% of participants) which may create liability issues
102
for councils, as noted by 79% of participants. As stated by participant IMEWSS
“the only negative effects that I could see would be that if the information … on the
portal was incorrect. You’d be making decisions based on [information] that may
not be quite accurate.” The interview participants identified that councils should be
obligated to update their data periodically on the corporate GIS and on the portal
thereby insuring data accuracy (Figure 5.10).
Table 5.5 Potential concerns in the use of an OSP identified by participants
Level of Importance Concerns:
Low Medium High
Faulty data - - 24
Faulty assumptions 3 6 15
Liability 5 5 14
Barriers to accessibility 3 9 12
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
High Medium Low
Level of Importance
OSP operational effectiveness - Accuracy
Figure 5.10 Graph illustrating the importance levels identified by the participants of OSP
accuracy
Faulty data concerns by participants lessen the acceptance of an OSP as a reliable
innovation. Therefore, it is important to follow the guidelines set out within a
specific region’s SDI policy such as the ASDI regarding data standards and metadata
within the AF during the development of the technical capacity for data sharing.
Appendix Z highlights other factors that hinder innovation capacity and therefore
innovation acceptance. As stated by participant MIM2“…as soon as it [the portal]
103
starts to slip it will very quickly become useless. As soon as people lose confidence
in it, it’s dead. So there’s got to be a commitment and an ongoing commitment to
it.” The resistance of senior management because of their misunderstanding of the
role of the innovation and fear of loss of control (Allen et al., 2004) would need to be
minimised by education and outreach by the innovation champion. An Innovation
champion should be a well respected individual(s) or organisation that has a passion
and commitment for the initiative, to provide leadership, sustain collaboration and
have access to resources (Geodata Alliance, 2001). Achieving commitment during
the initial stages of the AF and during the development of partnerships is essential to
develop both formal and informal partnerships. Dialogue, internally and externally,
between decision makers and GIS professionals would be critical to maintain portal
functionality and continued improvement. This dialogue requires consideration by
the representatives in the multi-participant organisational structure within the AF.
5.5. Informing the AF – bringing the pieces together
For an OSP to provide a tool to facilitate policy dialogue and inform decision
making, it is important that during portal development the following process should
be undertaken, within the context of the conceptual framework put forward by
Bassolé et al., (2001) Figure 5.11:
• Problem identification/planning to develop the innovation context;
• Forming formal and informal partnerships between stakeholders'
representatives from senior and junior management, simultaneously utilising
the top-down and bottom-up approaches;
• Identifying information needs and functions for SI users and organisations
whilst simultaneously developing:
o A user friendly and interoperable technical capacity for data sharing;
o A business plan to ensure sustainability of the innovation.
• A multi-participant organisational structure to ensure smooth portal
operations.
Problem setting/planning refers to pre-research, investigation and planning, including
studies by a consultant or a researcher undertaken by the initial Steering Committee
104
for the initiative. During this stage, identification of stakeholders should occur
within the inter-organisational environment and the mutual acknowledgement of the
issue that joins them ascertained. One of the steering committee members should
assume the role of project champion.
Figure 5.11 Opportunities, considerations, alterations and requirements of the AF as a result of
the OSP demonstration and subsequent interviews
105
The significance of the framework is its diversity of representation. Establishment of
the portal without representation from senior, middle and junior management from a
number of policy areas within different organisations would not facilitate policy
dialogue, since it would be unsustainable for use by GIS experts, for data
management and by decision makers, for policy preparation. Ideally, to achieve
participant collaboration and the formation of partnerships a simultaneous/combined
top-down and bottom-up incremental approach would be required, this supports
Boulos (2004) as one of the requirements for successful implementation of SDIs.
The approach (as it corresponds to the framework, is illustrated in Figure 5.12)
would be based on communication levels within and between organisations through
formal and informal partnerships. Professionals are more likely to support and use
the tool if they are involved in the development, establishment and management of
the portal from its conception, thereby taking ownership. The GeoData Alliance
(2001) outlined six common practices for organising and sustaining collaborative
projects that need to be implemented within the formation of partnerships:
• Broad support for vision and expectations;
• Champion individuals/community support;
• Knowledgeable, respected participants;
• Frequent contact with national (high order) organisations;
• Proactive, open and inclusive processes/procedures to enable maximum
participation/diverse perspectives; and
• Improved understanding/outreach.
An important aspect that the GeoData Alliance appears to have overlooked is the
crucial factor of funding/money. As McDougall et al., (2005) identified without
sufficient financial incentives many local governments would be unlikely to
participate in the early stages of the collaborative innovation.
106
Figure 5.12 Phases in the top-down and bottom-up approach
Formal partnerships would be those formed by representatives from senior
management within federal, state and local government. The formal setting
corresponds to the top-down approach, thereby gaining support, commitment and
funding for the innovation from the executives of each collaborating organisation.
This approach depends upon gaining long-term support from these stakeholders and
thereby embracing the innovation (Croswell, 1991, Budic, 1994, Sieber, 2000, Kim
and Bretschneider, 2004). The role of the innovation champion would be vital to
promote the benefits of an OSP for policy dialogue, as a data-sharing tool, and as a
mechanism to inform decision making. Promotion of the innovation would involve
education and a demonstration of the OSP pilot to executive stakeholders, to assist in
the development of their practical experience, thereby creating “innovativeness”
(Kim and Bretschneider, 2004) and enhanced knowledge of IT. Visualisation of the
innovation by stakeholders (through a pilot version) could achieve an overall vision
for the initiative by all levels of government thereby increasing the likelihood of
commitment, funding and other relevant assistance, supported by Nedovic-Budic
(1999a) and Chan and Williamson (1999). Reliable and sufficient funding is
107
essential for the innovations (Croswell, 1991, Budic, 1994, Nedovic-Budic and Pinto,
1999a, Sieber, 2000, Boulos, 2004), especially for an OSP, due to the cost of
coordination of resources (equipment, software, expertise) and developing and
maintaining common datasets (Nedovic-Budic and Pinto, 1999a).
Informal partnerships encompass the bottom-up approach, whereby it would be
necessary to ascertain the needs and requirements of professionals at all levels in
order for an OSP innovation to be applicable within their work roles and in the
context of their organisational settings. The approach would involve a series of short
realistic projects aimed towards a common objective (Boulos, 2004), depending on
the willingness of participants to open-up to new ideas. The overall champion has a
vital role to promote incentives and participation in the initiative. Participants’
support and commitment to the innovation would rely on promotion, education and
outreach campaigns to inform the stakeholders of the benefits of using an OSP in
their work roles. It is important to maintain stakeholders’ confidence in the initiative
by providing training for inexperienced users (O'Looney, 2000) and assistance for
council staff to adapt to new technologies (Iversen et al., 1998). This would help to
overcome the lack of effective use of SI within existing work roles, as identified in
Chapter 5, and manage the key issues of knowledge control and innovation
acceptance. The development of the OSP pilot would maintain the enthusiasm of
stakeholders, and increase the knowledge and experience levels of potential users,
this supports Boulos (2004).
Initially there should be two informal partnerships created a) technology users and b)
SI users. The technology users’ partnership encompasses the data custodians (GIS
experts) and system staff in the development of the technical capacity to share SI, to
manage incompatible data, to achieve interoperability of systems and to establish
strategies for data updating and maintenance. Gaining commitment from these
experts would be critical to achieve cooperation, this supports Nedovic-Budic
(2000a). The SI users’ partnership encompasses both casual and high level users of
spatial data such as managers, coordinators, planners and other officers to ascertain
their information needs and the desired functions required from a regional portal.
108
It would be pertinent to learn and take heed from other inter-organisational
partnerships such as the successful voluntary partnership between the three spheres
of government (local, state and federal) and peak community groups within the South
East Queensland (SEQ 2001) project. The partnership was initially very insecure,
full of suspicion and with little cooperation between local councils, however it went
from ‘a bargaining position’ to being the most important idea and shared value in the
SEQ 2001 process (Abbott, 2001). Essential in the formation of partnerships is the
open and free flow of information which is supported by Abbott (2001) and was the
key in the SEQ project with all papers and reports forwarded to all sectors involved
before meetings.
The following three steps occur simultaneously, in consultation with the formal and
informal partnerships:
1. Identification of the information and function requirements of the OSP - to be
outlined by the decision makers and GIS experts, as the major users of the
portal.
2. Development of the technical capacity has a number of factors:
a. Formation of the OSP should be in consultation with the innovation
technology partnership, as they are the SI knowledge controllers
within their respective organisations. The provision of help tools
would assist users’ understanding of mapping functions and data
analysis as supported by Cobb and Olivero (1997).
b. Cartographic design principles - Lowe (1999) suggests five tips for
successful GIS Internet web design: 1) avoid jargon; 2) anticipate
errors so that if a user makes a mistake during a request or query, the
server should be able to instruct the user on how to correct the error;
3) careful colour consideration; 4) conserve space - use intuitive
directions; and 5) maximise the maps and separate the metadata.
Typically, an OSP interface frame setup should consist of three static
and dynamic frames (Appendix AA) to present a friendly interface
to account for users’ varying experience levels (Marshall, 2003).
109
c. Protect data integrity and authorised data access - The interviews
revealed that the different user levels should have access to the OSP
database at various authorisation levels, this supports Ziliaskopoulos
and Waller (2000).
d. Other considerations - map and data retrieval speeds and portal
security.
e. A demonstration of the portal pilot is required to gain feedback and
comment from i) the GIS experts regarding SI maintenance and data
updating requirements and to identify any concerns; and ii) the
decision makers regarding their needs and demands in relation to SI
accessibility, availability and overall OSP functionality.
3. Close consultation with the senior management partnership is required to
complete the development of the business plan because the executives of the
respective organisations determine the support, commitment to data sharing
and financial contributions. The business plan would outline the economic
planning/management of the portal, such as a form of fees or charges to
businesses to enable the system to become self-sustaining over time. This is
necessary to cover the high costs of data accession and maintenance,
operations (expert personnel, hardware and software) and further system
development. An annual review of the business plan would update the new
management strategies and goals.
The final step is the creation of a multi-participant organisational structure, to ensure
sustainable operation of the portal. This would mean dissolution of the formal and
informal partnerships with participants having the option to become representatives
within the structure. The structure should consist of three tiers, based on the
MetroGIS initiative: 1) policy board; 2) coordinating committee; and 3) the technical
advisory team (GeoData Alliance, 2001). This structure would suit a regional OSP
innovation, with one extra inclusion - on the same level as the technical advisory
committee, there should be a decision maker’s advisory team to ensure that the portal
is meeting the needs and functionality of users at all levels as well as enabling the
introduction of new demands (Figure 5.13). The policy board would ultimately
replace the formal partnership, while the technical and decision maker’s advisory
110
teams would replace the informal partnerships. There should be open and free flow
of information between the three levels, which would assist the policy dialogue
process between the technical capacity sphere (GIS experts) and the decision making
sphere (decision and policy makers) within the Bassolé et al., (2001) framework.
Open and free flow of information supports McDougall et al. (2005) who identified
that good communication requires constant nurturing.
Figure 5.13 Sample of a regional OSP multi-participant organisational structure
It is important however for the policy board to outline a criteria for measuring the
success of the innovation (McDougall et al., 2005) and the outcomes of the policy
dialogue. Appendix AB outlines an example of a criteria list.
5.6. Conclusion
The demonstration an OSP concept and the subsequent interviews with local
government professionals confirmed that spatial technological innovation would
assist internal and external interactions across the region by the sharing of and
immediate access to SI. Importantly, a portal would provide a medium to support
policy dialogue within Bassolé’s framework. Portal utilisation would enhance SI use
within council professionals’ work roles by providing a regional perspective on
topics and issues locally, at the local government interface, and across the region,
thereby informing decisions. The interview analysis revealed key applications - SI
sharing and knowledge management; SI access and integration; SI modelling and
111
analysis; and informing dialogue and decisions. An OSP could reduce professionals’
internal SI requests to councils’ GIS units, thereby creating opportunities to reduce
costs within the technical capacity and decrease pressure on staff and resources.
The analysis identified the challenges that an OSP would encounter to support policy
dialogue including knowledge control and innovation acceptance. Knowledge
control encompasses two elements: data licensing and council GIS professionals’
empowerment/job security. Innovation acceptance reflects decision makers’ limited
GIT experience, concerns about data quality and OSP functionality. Professionals’
confidence in the portal is a significant factor facing innovation acceptance and use.
These results support Nedovic-Budic and Godschalk’s (1996) finding on factors that
affect the diffusion of GIS technology and on sharing SI between organisations
(Nedovic-Budic and Pinto, 1999a).
The subsequent review of the AF (Figure 5.11) provided an OSP establishment
model, as a medium for improved policy dialogue between the GIS technical
resources and the decision making spheres, within and between organisations. The
model is a complex web of interconnected components:
1) Problem identification and planning;
2) Formation of partnerships (simultaneous top-down and bottom-up approach);
3) Identification of information and functional needs;
4) Simultaneous development of the technical capacity to share data;
5) Development of the innovation business plan; and
6) Formation of a multi-participant organisational structure.
Ultimately, it does not matter if the innovation is the best initiative for informed
decision making in local and state governments, if there is no commitment, support,
funding or eventual portal use by stakeholders, the innovation will subsequently fail.
The AF should manage these concerns by providing a sustainable base for innovation
development and establishment.
112
The case for an OSP as an alterative tool to support policy dialogue is examined in
the context of three land policy framework case studies investigating scenarios on
three spatial scales: local, cross-jurisdictional and regional in the following chapter.
113
6. Results and Discussion III: Land policy case studies
scenarios
6.1. Introduction
Chapter 4 highlighted that decision making participants interviewed had only
nominal internal and external interactions occurring between professional colleagues.
Chapter 5 noted that participants did not utilise the full potential of SI within their
work roles. The OSP demonstration identified four key portal applications that could
minimise or manage these issues. This hypothesis was further explored using
GWSspatial (an as example of an OSP concept) in three policy case study scenarios
within the GWS region. These scenarios were selected for the following key
reasons:
1) All three case studies were contemporary examples of policy preparation and
development within the GWS region; and
2) The case studies presented different spatial scales and content, thereby
enabling the exploration of a diversity of OSP applications.
Land management scenarios could be utilised by the representatives from the
professional partnership to identify information and function needs of the portal
within the AF. The policy case study scenarios investigated were:
• On a local scale – the proposed Pitt Town development (PTD).
o A contemporary issue facing the Hawkesbury region, whereby the
local council was considering an application for a controversial urban
development on two large farms in the heritage village area, Pitt
Town. The investigation necessitated a Local Environmental Study
(LES) and the development of new LEP and DCP planning controls
and required extensive community consultation.
• On a cross jurisdictional scale – bushfire emergency management (BEM).
o Bushfires are an annual event in the hot summers throughout the
GWS region and effective management during planning, response and
review of these emergencies is essential to minimise damage and
114
provide community safety. Recently Penrith, Blacktown and Fairfield
Rural Fire Controls amalgamated to form the Cumberland Zone
necessitating management and availability of information for smooth
operations and implementation of policies.
• On a broad regional scale – the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy (SMS).
o An example of cross-jurisdictional regional strategy that influences
local government planning and regional management requiring
purposeful dialogue between institutions using local and regional
information.
The chapter outlines each case study, followed by identification of key elements,
which have the potential for OSP applications. The OSP key applications identified
in Chapter 5 are further explored utilising GWSspatial (as an example of an OSP)
and their significance within the AF highlighted.
6.2. Case studies
6.2.1. Pitt Town development (PTD)
Pitt Town is located approximately 6 kilometres north-east of the township of
Windsor where a 225 hectare development has been proposed encompassing two of
the largest farms in the district (Connell Wagner Pty Ltd, 2003, Murphy, 2003)
(Connell Wagner Pty Ltd, 2003). The land had been investigated since 1998 for its
urban potential (Connell Wagner Pty Ltd, 2003) and the Masterplan adopted by
Hawkesbury City Council will yield up to 715 new dwellings (Hawkesbury City
Council, 2004). In May 2004, council was delegated authority by the state
government to exhibit the Pitt Town LEP after council was satisfied with a number of
key issues. One of these issues included the protection of the cultural heritage of Pitt
Town (Hawkesbury City Council, 2004). Other issues included the loss of rural
character through urban encroachment and the retention of agricultural land. Local
residents were fighting the development plans, the orchard manager, however stated
115
that the farm was not sustainable because of housing encroachment and concerns with
spray drift (Murphy, 2003).
The PTD case study was a complex process (Cumming, 2004 pers. comm.),
encompassing five key elements. Within each element there is potential for portal
application and decision support opportunities, as outlined in Table 6.1.
1. Council investigated areas within the Hawkesbury LGA that had the
capability for urban development - Pitt Town was one of the five areas
identified.
2. The rezoning required a LES. A consultant completed the LES in consultation
with government agencies and exhibited. A Pitt Town Steering Committee
was established to advise the council about the options for further urban
development (or not) in accordance with the LES. The council considered the
LES and adopted it.
3. A Masterplan and a LEP were prepared in consultation with government
agencies and the Steering Committee renamed the Advisory Committee. A
public exhibition of the draft LEP to amend the Hawkesbury LEP for public
comment with submissions received and amendments made to the plans. The
LEP was sent to DEP for finalisation and gazettal.
4. Council prepared a draft DCP to accompany the draft LEP and placed it on
public exhibition. Submissions were received and consultants instructed to
prepare a draft Transport Management and Accessibility Map (TMAP).
The draft TMAP was forwarded to the Roads Traffic Authority (RTA) and
DEP for perusal. The second public exhibition of the draft DCP outlined
discussions with the NSW Heritage Office regarding advice on specific
heritage matters. Council resolved to adopt the DCP after advice from the
NSW Heritage Office.
5. LEP gazettal (note - LEP currently awaiting gazettal from the State
government), council professionals would implement the policy, which could
require monitoring and review.
116
Table 6.1 Potential portal applications for each of the key elements for the proposed PTD and
subsequent decision support
Key elements Potential portal applications Decision support Investigation Desktop computer online access to relevant SI
for the investigation.
Immediate and easy analysis such as overlaying
SI and queries.
Availability of urban development capacity map
and other relevant SI (such as environmental
constraints).
Inform strategic thinking.
Promote purposeful dialogue
between professional
colleagues.
LES –
Consultants
Data availability and accessibility to SI relevant
to the development site.
Overlay integration of data, modelling and
analysis.
Promote purposeful dialogue
between stakeholders.
Informed reporting.
Exhibition and
Steering
Committee
Public access to LES and relevant SI.
Online SI access by the Steering committee
during meetings.
Encourage deliberative
democracy.
Promote purposeful dialogue.
LEP –
Preparation
SI sharing between disparate data custodians.
Easy access through desktop computers to
disparate SI.
Data integration, visual representation and
analysis.
Promote purposeful dialogue
internally.
Support Draft LEP decisions.
Exhibition
Availability of Draft LEP and associated maps.
Public access through home computers to all
relevant SI regarding the draft LEP.
Contribute to a knowledgeable
society.
Promote purposeful dialogue
at public meetings and aid
deliberative democracy.
Alterations /
approval
Councillors’ immediate and easy access to LEP
and development site SI.
Data integration developing a spatial
representation.
Inform deliberation and
dialogue during Council
meetings and decision making.
DCP –
Preparation and
1st and 2
nd
exhibitions
Availability of draft DCP and associated maps;
Public access to DCP information.
Allowing citizens to view SI and associated
textual material regarding policy.
Assist citizens to develop a visual representation
of development controls.
Access and integration of DCP information and
other relevant SI during public meetings.
Informing citizens’
submissions.
Promoting purposeful
development control dialogue.
Alterations
Online access by Consultants to transport SI
from various data custodians.
Posting of the TMAP on the portal for
discussion.
Informing TMAP preparation.
Promoting purposeful
transportation dialogue.
Discussions
with NSW
Heritage Office
Adoption
Immediate online access to heritage maps during
discussions.
Develop a visual representation of heritage
items.
Availability of DCP maps and associated policy.
Community access to DCP maps and policy
online.
Dataset management through a single data
repository.
Informing heritage dialogue.
Inform professionals on
development applications.
Implementation
and review
Management of knowledge in a single data
repository by council/organisations GIS units.
Reduce duplication of knowledge and the need
for printed maps - decreasing SI management
costs.
Increasing professional
experience and knowledge of
SI within work roles.
117
Portal use by professionals within the Pitt Town development scenario could enable
online sharing of SI, thereby, providing council staff, consultants, government
departments/agencies, developers, utilities and the community with a tool to access
disparate SI for their local area. This creates the opportunity for professionals to
develop more skills in IT use, a better understanding of the development’s problems
and opportunities and have consideration of perspectives of other stakeholders,
thereby producing creative ideas and strategic thinking, which supports Innes and
Booher (2003). The concerned residents could have their suspicions minimised by
accessing interactive SI during the planning process of the development as supported
by Kingston, Carver, Evans and Turton (2000). This helps to build societal capacity,
with tools to enable queries. An OSP could promote deliberative democracy and
reduce the effects of isolation between institutions and the community. The
advantage of a deliberative, Internet-based approach to participation is that
information would be readily accessible from any location with an Internet
connection. The concept of ‘24/7’ (24 hours a day, 7 days a week) access creates
opportunities for more people to participate in public consultation.
6.2.2. Bushfire emergency management (BEM)
There is a growing recognition that IT and high-quality SI have a significant role to
play in emergency management. In a recent Victorian bushfire inquiry, two key
recommendations were that: 1) the government acknowledge the importance of SI as a
crucial element of planning, operations and program evaluation, and 2) greater
priority given to information management. Raising the profile of SI as a tool for
improving community safety will encourage state governments to contribute more
resources to spatial data (Garvey, 2004).
Typically there are three phases in bushfire emergency management, as seen in
Figure 6.1 – planning, response and review, with each having potential for OSP
application, as outlined in Table 6.2:
118
• Planning - Councils must consider bushfire protection in LEP and DCP
provisions, control of construction standards and change of use considerations
(NSW Rural Fire Service, Planning and Environment Services and
PlanningNSW, 2001). Councils are required to prepare bushfire-prone land
maps to manage planning and development control (PlanningNSW, 2002).
• Response - In an emergency situation, decision makers require rapid access to
SI, which is crucial to effective decision making when working on a
collaborative basis, especially when 90% of the necessary SI (road data) is
used in multiple types of hazard environments (Garvey, 2004). This
information is required from multiple data custodians in a timely manner.
However, as Rauschert, Agrawal, Fuhrmann, Brewer, and MacEachran (2002)
state, “conventional GIS are not suited for multi-user access and high-level
abstract queries”. Decision makers currently do not have access to real time
information and would have to request a map from GIS analysts, which often
leads to overlapping requests and slow delivery times (Rauschert et al., 2002).
Stein (2004) notes that “in any emergency situation, lack of information
makes it difficult for those in charge to make informed decisions.”
• Review – An example of a review process was the devastating 2003
Australian Capital Territory (ACT) bushfires that compelled the ACT Land
Information Centre (ACTLIC) to improve their information management
system to use GIS buffers for ‘constraints planning’. GIS buffers eliminate
all land not suitable for future development, such as areas with more than a
20% gradient or that are environmentally sensitive. The layering of this
information assists the decision makers to identify land that would be
considered suitable for development release (McHenry, Norman and Searle,
2004).
119
Figure 6.1 Key elements of bushfire emergency management
Table 6.2 SI requirements and potential portal applications for each of the key elements for bushfire
management policy
Key elements Potential portal application Decision support Planning A tool to enable the sharing of disparate
spatial data between different custodians.
Immediate online access to SI, allowing
overlay and cross-jurisdictional data
integration and modelling/analysis.
Informed planning and decision
making.
Promote regional consideration.
Response Immediate access and display of all relevant
SI of the bushfire site.
Overlay and cross-jurisdictional data
integration.
Conduct SI queries and modelling fire
behaviour.
Inform dialogue with response
crews.
Inform strategic decision making.
Enable decisions on extra
resources.
Inform onsite crews.
Review Management of SI and knowledge collected
from the site.
Overlay and cross-jurisdictional data
integration, creating a spatial representation
and analysis of the emergency.
Inform decisions to alter
operational procedures and bushfire
planning policies if required.
Promote regional consideration.
Within the BEM scenario, a portal could assist in building organisational capacity
enabling collaboration and the sharing of skills and information both internally and
externally. The OSP could provide readily accessible interactive SI that crosses
jurisdictional boundaries for emergency services, such as Rural Fire Service (RFS) and
local councils, to enable the integration of data and analysis to aid identification of
bushfire prone areas and in the development of planning provisions. The timely
availability of portal-accessed information could be a valuable tool for generating
response information in an emergency, for crews en route or on-site at a fire.
Collection, integration and analysis of data downloaded to the portal during an
emergency incident could provide an effective administration tool for review of
operational procedures and planning policies. Importantly, through a portal,
information can flow both up and down the hierarchy as well as across departments,
which could assist organisational capacity, as the RFS or the council would have the
120
opportunity to gather real time information from its environment and use that
information to adapt their strategies (Stinchcombe, 1990 cited in Innes and Booher
2003).
6.2.3. The Sydney Metropolitan Strategy (SMS) – Regional
management/planning
A region is a geographic area that is usually smaller than a state or territory but larger
than an LGA. Regional planning is defined as a way “that can accommodate people
coming together to make commitments, to negotiate, to agree, to disagree and
ultimately spend money to make things happen” (Holliday, 2001). A regional
approach allows LEPs to incorporate cumulative effects on the environment (Vipond,
2001).
There have been two metropolitan strategies for Sydney since the 1940s: The
County of Cumberland Plan (1947) and the Sydney Region Outline Plan (1968)
(Westacott, 2004). In December 2001, the state government initiated an investigation
into future urban release areas, and in April 2004, announced the development of a
new Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney and in November 2005, released the
Metropolitan Strategy .The strategy encompasses the Lower Hunter, Central Coast,
Sydney and Illawarra regions (Department of Infrastructure Planning and Natural
Resources, 2004b). The SMS concerns urban management and sets out how the state
government intends to manage growth and change in Sydney and the Greater
Metropolitan Region (GMR) over the next 30 years (Department of Planning, 2005).
The SMS is a series of strategies with priority actions to manage the key issues
identified during the Sydney Futures and Local Government Forums (Department of
Infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources, 2004c). The strategy is incorporated
into the NSW planning system in three ways - policy, priorities and implementation,
as illustrated in Figure 6.2.
121
The development process of the SMS was lengthy and complicated. Figure 6.3
illustrates the key elements from the initial investigation into future urban release
areas to the strategy launch. Table 6.3 outlines potential portal applications for these
elements including sharing, accessing and integrating SI.
Figure 6.2 Incorporating SMS into the NSW planning system
(Department of Infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources, 2004d)
Figure 6.3 Key elements of the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy
(Adapted from: Department of Infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources, 2004c)
122
Table 6.3 Potential portal applications and decision support for the key elements of the SMS
Key elements Potential portal application Decision support Initial investigation
Sharing spatial data between various custodians across the region. Ability to access disparate SI online. Enable both overlay and cross-jurisdictional data integration. Capability to conduct future modelling of urban release areas and potential impacts on surrounding areas.
Inform strategic thinking. Promote regional consideration.
Ministerial Directions Paper
Immediate access to local and cross-jurisdictional SI.
Identify key issues and inform paper outcomes
Sydney Futures and Local Government Forums
Immediate online access to SI during the forums. Visual display of integrated data by the forum’s audience.
Promote purposeful dialogue and informed outcomes.
Discussion Paper Immediate access to cross jurisdictional SI. Ability to integrate spatial data. Capability to model impacts and scenarios. Public access to the relevant spatial data and the paper online.
Identify key metropolitan strategic issues. Empower citizens to provide informed comment.
Community and Sydney Future (2) Forums
Immediate online access to SI during the forums. Display of integrated data by the forum’s audience. Visual spatial representation.
Enhance community understanding. Promote purposeful, deliberative and informed outcomes.
Growth Centre Commission and Land Releases Advisory Committee
Immediate access online to SI during the meetings. Capability to conduct queries, modelling and analysis during the meetings.
Enhance purposeful discussion and outcomes. Minimal delay in obtaining external information.
Exhibition of the North-West and South-West Growth Centres maps and plans
Online availability of growth centre maps and plans. Public access to relevant SI (such as cadastre and environment) integrated with the growth centre maps. Provide a visual spatial representation of growth centres.
Inform citizens’ judgment and submissions.
Finalisation of the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy
Access to all relevant SI available across the region and to the maps developed during the strategy preparation. Management of all relevant SMS information in a single repository allowing maintenance and data updating.
Facilitate informed decision making and reporting. Support annual strategy performance report and five year review.
Portal usage by a group of organisations, such as the SMS scenario (various
custodians such as government departments/agencies, councils and utilities), in a
regional capacity would provide the opportunity to create working relationships, and
as Yankelovich (1999 cited in Innes and Booher 2003) identified, the ability to
“share information and engage in constructive dialogue rather than debate and
argument.” The SMS decision makers’ could have ready and easy access to region-
wide SI, enabling cross-jurisdictional data integration and the tools to enable SI
123
queries, modelling and analysis without the delay of information gathering from each
individual organisation’s GIS unit. The use of a portal by decision makers would
assist in the development of institutional capacity by enabling effective collaboration
with a diverse range of stakeholders. Knowledge gained from these differing
stakeholders would inform decisions, which supports Innes and Booher, (2003).
Portal usage helps foster regional consideration on key issues and promotes better-
informed and purposeful dialogue/deliberation within and between institutions,
therefore facilitating innovative solutions.
6.3. The case for an OSP as a potential spatial technological innovation to
support policy dialogue
As Peng and Tsou (2003) stated, “any activity that can utilise spatial data can benefit
from a GIS and any activity that needs to communicate and collaborate with many
users at different locations can benefit from a Web environment. Meld the two
technologies together and you have a very powerful tool for planning and managing
resources.” As was discussed in section 6.2, an OSP provides a potential tool for
policy dialogue, portal applications and decision support opportunities (Table 6.4).
The portal applications and decision support opportunities provide valuable
incentives for promotion by the innovation champion to involve participants in the
AF partnerships. The OSP pilot testing of the technical capacity within the
framework is important as it could provide a visualisation of the incentives to the
participants, clarify expectations and promote further support and funding from
participating organisations. Therefore the AF as described in Chapter 1 (p.41),
amended in Chapters 4 and 5, requires further alteration:
• The pilot testing by participants would confirm and generate new incentives.
• The information and function needs should link with these incentives.
• The business plan should also link with these incentives as fundamental
outcomes.
124
Table 6.4 Policy strategies, potential OSP applications and decision support
OSP Application Policy strategies PTD BEM SMS
An online mechanism for sharing information/intelligence between
intuitions X X X
Data availability X X X
Immediate access to SI online through work desktop computers X X X
Visual spatial representation X X X
Seeking and over-laying SI (maps and analysis) X X X
Integrating disaggregated data sets across the region X X X
Identify locations X X
Search by various parameters (queries) X X X
Mechanism for modelling and analysis of cumulative impacts X X X
Assist with the development GIT experience X
Facilitate management of knowledge in a single repository X X X
Decision support Blurring administrative boundaries through regional information –
regional consideration X X
Facilitate strategic thinking X X
Provide timely expert knowledge to improve efficiency of services X X
Cost savings (reducing duplication, labour effort in providing
information products) X X
Response planning and communication X
Purposeful dialogue between councils, residents, government
departments and utilities (deliberative democracy) X X
Informing decisions, policy, reporting, judgments, outcomes, reporting
and review through access to and analysis of SI locally, LGA interface
and regionally
X X X
Raise the profile of SI use in decision and policy making X X X
GWSspatial, an example of OSP concept was used together with the land policy
scenarios to further explore the four significant OSP applications identified in chapter
5 and outlined in Table 6.4.
6.3.1. SI sharing and knowledge management
The potential of an OSP is its ability to provide a tool that allows distributed data
sharing by multi-agency/organisations/departments. Professionals with
responsibilities within PTD town planning, BEM and regional management (SMS)
require the correlation of multiple layers of spatially referenced data to support
strategic thinking and decision making. The data determined by professionals as
being necessary to inform decisions and needed by one organisation to perform
analysis, may be captured by another organisation (Martin, 2003) this results in
complex data sourcing relationships between various data custodians (Figure 6.4).
Examples:
125
• Traffic accident data required by HCC for the PTD is provided by the RTA;
• The RFS request water hydrant locations for specific areas from Sydney
Water; and
• SMS professionals acquire local zoning information for the GWS region from
local councils.
Figure 6.4 The complexity of data interrelationships between organisations
Each copy of a requested dataset entered into an organisation's corporate GIS usually
involves a cost and an extended amount of time resulting in duplication of
information. Consequently the copied datasets fall out of currency synchronisation
with the source, requiring requests/copies again at a future date. When the copied
data is not maintained, the result is unreliable information (Martin, 2003).
A portal provides a single Internet data repository that enables sharing of SI on a
professional’s desktop computer through a Web browser reducing the complex data
interchange relationships (Figure 6.5). This creates distributed network
infrastructure for interoperable data-stores and applications. A portal also enables
task and operational re-engineering and online streamlining of maintenance activates
(Figure 6.6) (Gant and Ijams, 2004).
126
Figure 6.5 Data interchange relationship through a portal
Figure 6.6 Illustration of the overnight update of datasets onto a portal, providing an up-to-date service for the following day
(GWSspatial Steering Committee, 2003)
Establishing an OSP could improve GIS database management efficiency (improve
data standards, service and quality) and reduce costs (Martin, 2003, Peng and Tsou,
2003) by:
• Reducing multiple entry of the same data and the subsequent costs of
maintaining alignment between different formats of the same data;
• Capturing local data and consolidating it into larger datasets thereby
improving the timeliness and completeness of SI; and
• Reducing the need for duplicated infrastructures.
127
6.3.2. Accessibility and integration of information
An OSP allows timely accessibility to disparate SI online (through the internet) from
various/numerous sources through a user-friendly interface (Figure 6.7). A portal
provides a tool for decision makers to obtain consistent information through their
desktop/laptop computers without the need to undertake previously time-consuming
data collection.
Figure 6.7 GWSspatial interface (as an example of an OSP interface)
It is the ability of an OSP and its inherent tools that allows sharing and access of data
to create the capacity for greater integration of both layered and cross-jurisdictional
information (Gant and Ijams, 2004) (Figure 6.8). The integration of data
consequently portrays spatial relationships to a large audience such as councils, state
agencies and the public by a picture or map that is easy to interpret (Peng and Tsou,
2003) locally, on the LGA boundary and regionally (Appendiix AD for inventory
applications). Public access to spatial data could promote community outreach (Peng
and Tsou, 2003) and enhance deliberative democracy in land use planning.
128
Figure 6.8 Illustration showing overlaying and cross-jurisdictional data integration
1. PTD - data overlay integration from disparate sources.
Town planners examining the urban development, could immediately access the
portal through a work computer either in their office, on-site or at home, locate the
suburb of Pitt Town and begin overlaying HCC information such as cadastre
(property information), zoning (planning policy) and the sewer pipes (services),
water pipes from Sydney Water and traffic accidents from the RTA. The integration
of this information would assist planners by presenting a visual representation of the
development site and surrounding area as illustrated in Figure 6.9. All relevant
information is therefore available to town planners to make judgements regarding the
impacts of the proposed development.
2. BEM - combined overlay and cross-jurisdictional integration of SI.
Council planners having access to SI within their LGA, from adjoining councils and
other institutions can primarily ascertain the risk level of bushfire prone property.
An example being a risk assessment of a property located on the local government
interface (Penrith and Blue Mountains Councils on the Blue Mountains eastern
escarpment). A planner requires essential cross-jurisdictional information including
contours, vegetation, cadastre, zoning, aerial photography and location of hydrants.
Currently there is no mechanism to allow immediate access and integration of cross-
jurisdictional SI. Figure 6.10 illustrates cadastral and zoning information concurrently
129
displayed by both councils and when Sydney Water hydrant information is
overlayed, the portal allows both layering and cross-jurisdictional integration of SI.
Figure 6.9 The data overlay integration of disparate SI at Pitt Town, utilising GWSspatial
130
Figure 6.10 Bushfire emergency management using data integration with GWSspatial
Frame 1 displays both Blue Mountains and Penrith Councils’ cadastre; Frame 2 displays the
watercourse information locating the Nepean River; Frame 3 locates Sydney Water hydrants; and
Frame 4 displays both Councils planning information.
As a result, the planner can develop a spatial representation of the property and
ascertain the level of bushfire hazard. Although there are hydrants located in the
vicinity, there is only one access point to the property, as the Nepean River,
Glenbrook Creek and the Blue Mountains railway line border the eastern, southern
and western boundaries respectively. With property access difficulties, dense
vegetation and its location on the Blue Mountains eastern escarpment, this property
could be regarded as having a high bushfire risk. By utilising an OSP, RFS
professionals could immediately gather the information necessary to improve their
response strategy and bushfire management.
3. LGA interface planning – cross-jurisdictional integration of SI.
Local government planners could access cross-jurisdictional council information and
state agency information when planning is required on the LGA interface. Transport
131
planners could utilise the portal from their work/home desktop computers, laptops
and PDAs whilst in the field to retrieve and integrate SI such as property, planning
and traffic information. Traditionally, local council SI stops at the LGA boundary.
Therefore, access to seamless SI through a portal could promote regional
consideration and informed planning decisions. Figure 6.11 illustrates the interface at
Parramatta and Holroyd LGAs, identifying the special use zones including schools,
university, hospital and railway station which indicate a high traffic area and
consequently a higher risk of traffic accidents. By overlaying the LGA interface with
RTA traffic accident data, accident ‘hotspots’ could be identified and, with
purposeful dialogue between the two councils and the RTA, proposed strategic
solutions could be examined.
Figure 6.11 GWSspatial map illustrating both overlay and cross-jurisdictional data integration at an LGA interface
6.3.3. Queries, modelling and analysis
An OSP could have the capabilities of an independent GIS and therefore the ability to
query, model and analyse spatial data. GIS software has the capacity to perform
complex tasks such as modelling patterns and trends, forecasting the impact of
planning, policy or strategy initiatives and streamlining internal business and
operational processes. Advanced applications include statistical analysis, operational
research and automated spatial modelling, mobile computing features using real time
or near real time data and user-controlled customisation of analytical and modelling
132
tools (Gant and Ijams, 2004). Generally, decision makers do not have access to GIS
functionality or the tools to analyse requested SI through their GIS unit or Intranet
mapping systems. The portal would provide user-friendly tools to enable decision
makers to analyse the information from their computer desktops.
An OSP has the potential to retrieve general and regional statistics such as area and
number of parcels per LGA (Figure 6.12) and as illustrated in Figure 6.13 a simple
query can request planning statistics. Use of these simple statistical queries by
decision makers provides a rapid impression of the situation within an LGA, or
across the region. Sophisticated enquiries should be an integral component of an OSP
innovation.
Figure 6.12 GWSspatial general statistics
Figure 6.13 GWSspatial planning statistics query
133
An OSP offers opportunities to custom build queries, utilising a series of windows
with easy to use drop-down menus from the available spatial data (Figure 6.14). The
example in Figure 6.14 is a query to locate all the commercial zones within
Parramatta LEP. The query lists the properties with an option to “locate” on the map
display or obtain “attribute” information. This feature allows decision makers to
conduct more sophisticated and specialised enquiries for policy analysis and
management/policy making applications (Appendix AC and AD) (O'Looney, 2000).
Figure 6.14 An example of building a query using GWSspatial
6.3.4. Inform dialogue and decisions
As Buchanan and O’Connell (2006) state “Few decision makers ignore good
information when they can get it” (p.41). The potential for GIS usage within
decision making includes exploration, confirmation, synthesis and presentation as
outlined in Table 6.5. Access to an OSP could improve decision making efficiency
by making inventory (simple questions), analysis, planning and policy (complex
questions) possible online. The three applications all influence dialogue between
professional colleagues and inform decisions. SI and GIS functions accessed online
could assist a decision maker in three major ways as noted by O’Looney, (2000):
134
1. Visualisation – representing problems to reveal solutions
2. Creating alternative views of information
3. Revealing geographic associations
Table 6.5 Range of GIS uses for decision making
Purposes of visualisation ………… ……Visual thinking………… ……………………………………Visual communication…………
Exploration Confirmation Synthesis Presentation
Setup of GIS capabilities High interactivity
High abstractness
Low interactivity
High realism
Users Planner/policy
specialist
Policy group Council committee /
advisory group
Whole council Larger public
Visual thinking requires interactivity with the GIS; visual communication usually relies on a vivid presentation of
the results of the system. A high level of abstractness facilitates visual thinking, while displays that are more
realistic tend to facilitate visual communication.
(Source: Berry, 1994 citied in O'Looney, 2000)
An OSP could increase decision making time allocated to the professional (Figure
6.15) through the sharing of and immediate access to better organised information
online, professionals thereby would be empowered to provide informed assessments,
alternatives, decisions and policies (Gant and Ijams, 2004). The OSP accordingly
provides a medium for policy dialogue to occur within Bassolé’s model. The portals
interactivity would facilitate informed decisions by its ability to integrate data and
query/analysis, thus supporting strategic thinking.
Figure 6.15 Decision making time allocation comparison between the current information data collection and access to an OSP
The four key applications have the potential to build on individual, organisational
and institutional capacity thereby facilitating policy dialogue in a number of ways as
shown Table 6.6. Within the AF these fundamental outcomes should be:
a) Promoted by the innovation champion to motivate professionals’
participation in partnerships;
135
b) Outlined in the business plan; and
c) Tested using land management scenarios during the technical capacity pilot.
Table 6.6 Key applications and capacity building matrix
Capacity building Sharing and knowledge
management
Access and integration
Modelling and analysis
Informed dialogue and
decision making
Skills
Understanding problems
Creativity
Learning
Listening
Information/knowledge
Networking
Empowering
Working relationships
Leadership
Responsive
Trust
Resilience
Investigation of the case study policy scenarios of OSP applications prompted
amendment to the AF (Figure 6.16) in five main ways:
• The innovation champion for organisational and individual participation in
the OSP establishment should promote the portal applications as incentives.
• Representatives from the partnership should consider brainstorming land
management scenarios to identify information and functional needs of the
portal.
• Use land management scenarios to test portal applications through the pilot of
the technical capacity thereby, ascertaining functions that require further
development and to identify further incentives. Link outcomes of the pilot to
the identification of information and function needs and to the business plan.
• Portal applications provide the fundamental reasons for business use by
professionals and therefore require listing as outcomes within the business
plan.
136
• The representatives from the multi-participant organisational structure should
implement business plan outcomes and explore further land management
scenarios to identify additional information and functional needs of the portal.
Figure 6.16 Opportunities, considerations and alternations to the AF
137
6.4. Conclusion
This chapter explored the potential use of an OSP within three spatial scenarios of
contemporary land policy areas within the GWS region: the Pitt Town development,
bushfire emergency management and Sydney Metropolitan Strategy. Key elements
with potential for OSP application were identified for each of the policy areas. The
portal key applications identified in Chapter 5 were then explored using GWSspatial
as an example of an OSP concept, these included:
• Sharing of SI and knowledge management;
• SI access and integration;
• SI modelling and analysis; and
• Informing dialogue and decisions.
These key portal applications would assist in building individual, organisational and
institutional capacity that could significantly benefit council professionals’ policy
dialogue to improve their land management decision making on a local, LGA interface
and regional basis. The case studies support the hypothesis that innovative spatial
technology such as an OSP, as an instrument that facilitates policy dialogue and
collaboration in and between local councils. As a technological innovation an OSP
would also bring other benefits related to the technology implementation itself but
the effects on policy dialogue are of special interest. The AF was further amended,
however, further research is required to implement the framework into an OSP
innovation initiative to assess its impact and achievement.
138
7. Conclusion
7.1. Introduction
This thesis has studied the role and applications of an OSP as an example of a
technological spatial innovation to support decision making and improve policy
dialogue within GWS local government. The project focused on the emerging theory
field of ‘policy dialogue’, which encompasses interdisciplinary areas of sociology,
political science and economics. The qualitative, multi-methodological approach
undertaken incorporated a sequence of two in-depth interviews, the second including
a demonstration of an OSP to sample GWS council professionals, together with three
policy framework scenario case studies. This approach provided a comprehensive,
systematic analysis of the local government policy framework and ascertained the
potential for technological spatial innovation as a tool to support policy dialogue.
The interview process discovered that the participating local government councils
operate at different levels of innovation, consequently silo practices are occurring in
the control and management of SI databases and, as a result, there are fluctuating
opinions regarding the adequacy of local government’s corporate GIS. The thesis
supports the theory (Ting and Williamson, 2000, Bassolé et al., 2001, Australian
Local Government Association and Australian and New Zealand Land Information
Council, 2004) that the success of decision making is reliant on access and analysis
of up-to-date information. Therefore there is a need to share data between
institutions which supports Kevany (1995) to build individual, organisational and
institutional capacity to reduce the occurrence of policy silo cultures across the
region.
This thesis contributes to knowledge in two ways:
1. Identifying that an OSP, as an example of a technological spatial innovation,
is a medium to share data between institutions to assist capacity development
and support policy dialogue; and
2. The development of an analytical framework (AF) to facilitate the
establishment of a sustainable technological spatial innovation.
139
This chapter presents the development of the AF model, key applications to improve
policy dialogue in local government and recommendations for further study.
7.2. The development of the AF model – chapter summaries
7.2.1. SI significance within local government and OSP establishment
framework (Chapter 2)
The AF model originated with a simple conceptual framework outlined by Bassolé et
al., (2001) which illustrated an organisation’s interaction between the technical
capacity of the GIS and the decision making spheres in a bi-directional policy
dialogue to facilitate informed decisions. Bassolé’s framework encompassed neither
inter-organisational policy dialogue interaction, nor a possible mechanism to support
policy dialogue. This research project investigated a technological spatial innovation
such as an OSP as a tool to support policy dialogue. The theoretical review outlined
the features required to establish a functional OSP including the formation of an
inter-organisational partnership. The NSDI framework of the Federal Geographic
Data Committee (1997) informed the components for the AF model which included
information content, operational, technical and business contexts. The NSDI
framework however, did not illustrate the progression phases/steps for development
of a technological spatial innovation. Personal attitude, social pressure and perceived
behavioural control influence the establishment of a technological spatial innovation.
Ideally, the process of inter-organisational relations should move from collaboration
to cooperation to coordination. The outcome of the theoretical review was an AF
model that illustrated the process of establishing an innovation to improve policy
dialogue support.
7.2.2. Institutional SI framework – challenges for local government policy
making (Chapter 4)
The analysis of the first interviews with sample GWS council professionals provided
the context to test the AF model within the local government environment. The
theoretical review emphasised the importance of financial, human and technological
resources for governance, however a significant finding from the interview analysis
140
was the lack of resources available to support policy dialogue and debate as a basis
for democratic government. The analysis also identified that negative silo cultures
occurred within the sample local government organisational structures and therefore,
required consideration and control methods within the AF model. Alterations to the
AF model highlighted the importance of problem identification to enable
consideration of constraints, potential opportunities and the significance of the
innovation champion’s role to promote incentives. Examination of councils’
organisational structures is necessary during the partnership formation phase of the
AF to obtain a diversity of seniority level representation by local government
professionals. This diversity is essential for a collaborative spatial innovation to
obtain commitment, funding and to facilitate knowledgeable deliberation within the
partnerships. Development of successful partnerships should promote
communication and cooperation between professional colleagues across a region.
7.2.3. The relationship of technological innovation and policy dialogue
(Chapter 5)
The analysis of the second interviews with the same sample GWS local government
professionals and an OSP demonstration validated and reviewed the AF model.
Consequently, the AF became a complex web of interconnected components
formulated using the fundamental NSDI tasks as follows:
• Problem identification;
• Formation of partnerships (formal and informal);
• Identification of information needs and functions;
• Development of the technical capacity;
• Preparation of the business plan; and
• Formation of a multi-participant organisational structure (Policy board,
coordinating committee, technical and decision making advisory teams).
It is imperative that these tasks be undertaken within the composition of the amended
AF as one task informs and directs the subsequent task. This thesis contributes to
knowledge by elaborating upon the structure to incorporate these arrangements and
141
to manage organisational, institutional and economic barriers by applying a
simultaneous top-down (formal) and bottom-up (informal) approach (point 2 page
140). The benefits for policy dialogue include - enhancement of inter-organisational
relationships and cross-organisational communication. Other benefits include
identification of decision makers’ needs and demands for SI thereby assisting GIS
experts with the capacity to develop technical initiatives, data products/services, and
the necessary data standards and protocols. The AF process would promote support
from senior management for funding and commitment. Improvements made to
policy dialogue within local government would measure the success of the
innovation. The analysis of the interviews contributes to knowledge (point 1 page
140) by identifying four key applications for technological spatial innovation use by
professionals: Sharing and knowledge control of SI; Immediate access and
integration of SI; Modelling and analysis of SI; and consequently informed dialogue
and decision making. These applications would assist in the building of individual,
organisational and institutional capacity to support policy dialogue. Two significant
issues, knowledge control and innovation acceptance, hinder the key applications and
require consideration and control within the AF prior to formation of partnerships.
7.2.4. OSP supporting land management policy framework – case study
scenarios (Chapter 6)
The policy framework scenarios validated the key applications. The innovation
champion should promote the applications within the AF as incentives for
participation by professionals in the collaborative innovation and as fundamental
outcomes within the business plan. Partnership representatives should consider
brainstorming land management scenarios as a catalyst to trigger the identification of
innovation information and function needs. The technical capacity could then test
these scenarios by way of an OSP pilot programme. To ensure sustainable operation
of the innovation and support for policy dialogue the representatives of the multi-
participant organisational structure should also continue exploring new land
management scenarios to expand portal operation; and consider public access,
marketing (fees and charges) and standards (reliability, data accuracy and currency).
Figure 6.16 on page 136 illustrates the complexity of the AF, Figure 7.1 illustrates
142
the benefits of the AF model for policy dialogue, and Figure 7.2 illustrates a
simplified version of the AF model.
Figure 7.1 Benefits of the AF for policy dialogue in local government
143
Figure 7.2 Simplified model of the AF within the context of the Bassolé et al., (2001) framework
7.3. The key applications and catalysts to improve policy dialogue in local
government
7.3.1. The importance of the four key applications
The four key applications formed the logical sequence to build individual,
organisational and institutional capacity to support policy dialogue (Figure 7.3) as
they had the potential for stakeholders to:
• Share information;
• Listen and learn;
• Build upon skills, information/knowledge, networks; and
• Promote working relationships, understanding of problems, creativity,
empowerment, leadership responsiveness, trust and resilience.
144
Figure 7.3 Four key applications
Although there were other applications identified during the empirical phase (the
interviews and case studies) they were sub-applications of the four key applications
listed below:
1. SI sharing and knowledge management. Successful internal and external
policy dialogue demands efficient information sharing between individual
organisations, decision making colleagues and other institutions. The GI
community has been focusing on sharing SI (Foust et al., 2005, Tait, 2005),
the challenge is however for institutions such as councils and state
departments to initially agree to share their SI and secondly, to commit to
developing and maintaining a technological spatial innovation (such as a
145
regional OSP) to share the disparate information. Sharing information, as
highlighted by the literature (Onsrud and Rushton, 1992, Nedovic-Budic and
Pinto, 1999a, Ronaldson et al., 2000) as well as the empirical interviews, is
constricted by a number of organisational and behavioural impediments
rather than by technical factors. The sharing of SI increases the availability
of time and finances for GIS experts to focus on knowledge management
such as data collection, quality standards, research and development which
supports Maguire and Longley (2005).
2. Access and integration of SI. The empirical interviews identified that by
initially gaining agreement and commitment to share SI by organisations
opens up opportunities for decision makers to access and integrate this
information immediately online through their work desktop computers.
Currently delays in making decisions, as identified by the empirical
interviews, are partly because of the unavailability of data. SI accessed
though a technological spatial innovation has the potential to alleviate these
delays. The significance of immediate access and integration of information
is the creation of an environment for purposeful dialogue on a local and/or
regional basis especially during appointments, meetings, forums, and
seminars. The interviewees regarded integration of SI as the foremost
application of a spatial innovation and, as revealed within the case studies,
integration of SI produces a comprehensive visual representation of a site or
issue being investigated either locally, at the jurisdictional boundary or
regionally.
3. Modelling and analysis (GIS functionality). The real value in accessing
spatial data is in the analysis of that data thereby assisting decision making
professionals to be innovative thinkers and develop knowledgeable results,
support strategic thinking and to test theories/alternatives which supports
Nedovic-Budic (2000a) and O’Looney (2000). Several spatial initiatives
such as Geoportal and iPlan are based on simple integration of information
and, as identified by the empirical interviews, GIS queries are considered too
complex for use by all mainstream operators. The theory is that the use of
technological spatial innovations by decision makers would increase their
acceptance, awareness and skills to progress to applications that are more
146
sophisticated. To promote advanced use of queries by decision making
professionals it was revealed during the case studies that the developers of the
innovation would be well advised to incorporate a user friendly interface to
create an illusion of simplicity although the applications are quite complex.
4. Informing dialogue and decision making. A technological spatial innovation,
as identified by empirical interviews, provides a tool to assist decision makers
in the process of informed decision making. Analysis of SI provides a visual
representation of a location such as a jurisdictional interface, and presents
data in a communicative form. This allows decision makers to develop a
regional perspective on land related topics and issues, and provides them with
the opportunity to identify land management conflicts. As revealed within
the case studies a technological spatial innovation such as an OSP is a tool to
facilitate explicitness of decisions in a timely manner.
7.3.2. The functionality of the four key applications
The four key applications are all dependent sequentially upon each other (Figure
7.4). Removal of one of the applications or if one is ineffective, such as ‘sharing and
knowledge control’, then the whole sequence would be futile and would result in the
failure of the innovation as a support tool for policy dialogue. From the empirical
interviews, it was clear that the sample local government professionals accepted
sharing of SI, however this does not mean that the other three key applications would
automatically follow. Constraints to the key applications identified by the empirical
interviews were knowledge control by GIS experts and innovation acceptance by
decision makers. These constraints, supported by Allen et al., (2004), stem from
resistance to technology by professional staff.
147
Figure 7.4 Sequential dependence of the four key applications
Knowledge is power. Consequently knowledge control by GIS experts, which
challenges McDougall et al. (2005) who note that GIS experts within councils are in
favour of data sharing, could limit the availability of SI to be shared with external
organisations. This control of knowledge stems from the uncertainty of employment
positions. Should an innovation assist with the management of knowledge, as
indicated during the interviews and supported by Allen et al., (2004), IT
professionals take on a “technical outlook that lacks a strategic emphasis thereby
defending their IT unit.” GIS experts are apprehensive to share their SI because of
their insecurity concerning the level of data accuracy, which could necessitate
extensive labour input.
Innovation acceptance, as identified by Nedovic-Budic and Godschalk (1996),
reflects professionals’ exposure and willingness to use new GIS technology. This
was confirmed by the demonstration of an OSP concept, which overwhelmed the
interview participants by its functionality. The perceived complexity of technology
could limit decision makers’ use of spatial innovations. This supports Allen et al.,
(2004) whereby ‘mainstream’ staff are “increasingly aware of IT and the importance
of information management and are impatient to adopt it and are doing so in a
limited, piecemeal fashion”. The factors that influence innovation acceptance
identified during the empirical analysis include:
148
1. Concerns by decision makers about faulty and out-of-date data which could
lead to faulty assumptions and possible legal liability; and
2. Senior management are hesitant to integrate/support IT as they do not
understand the technology and the role it plays to inform government because
they fear the loss of control which supports Allen et al., (2004) and occurred
within the GWSspatial project.
7.3.3. The significance of the four key applications to policy dialogue
Policy dialogue, as revealed in the theoretical analysis and supported during the
empirical interviews, is about building relationships between colleagues internally
and externally with a diversity of work responsibilities (such as planners and GIS
experts) for the purpose of developing better policy and decision making (The EPIQ
Technical Advisory Group, 1998, Voluntary Sector Canada, 2002, Adler and Celico,
2003). When policy dialogue extends across jurisdictional boundaries, it is
imperative that information from disparate stakeholders is organised and managed to
allow fluent exchange and sharing of information. Significantly, three major
catalysts triggered the demand by decision makers and GIS experts for the four key
applications. The catalysts as identified during the theoretical and empirical analysis
include (Figure 7.5):
• Disasters/emergencies – Natural: flood, bushfires, earthquakes, volcanoes,
cyclones and drought; Man-made: terrorism, engineering failures, industrial
and transport accidents and massacres. All of which require an immediate
response;
• Land use pressures – Urban growth, agriculture, transport, water resources,
natural environment, infrastructure, services and regulations and legislations,
all requiring ongoing land management, monitoring and planning;
• Climate change – Effects on: agriculture and forestry; ocean productivity and
fisheries; natural systems - biodiversity; health; human settlements and
infrastructure; water resources and hydrology; and tourism require long-term
critical environmental management, monitoring, planning and response.
149
Figure 7.5 Catalysts for policy dialogue within the AF framework
The relationships between the catalysts (Figure 7.6) illustrates the importance placed
on government policy and funding to provide the resources needed, such as
technological spatial innovations, for disparate decision making professionals, GIS
experts and the community to analyse data, plan and respond within a deliberative
democratic environment that crosses jurisdictional boundaries. A technological
spatial innovation provides GIS functionality and data to improve the process of
150
decision making by adding value to existing information as supported by Budic
(1994). The four key applications create an opportunity for collective power through
the sharing of knowledge resulting in the ability of stakeholders to think collectively
and thereby stimulating the policy dialogue process either for an immediate response,
an ongoing concern or for long-term management.
Figure 7.6 Relationships between the catalysts that trigger technological spatial innovation for
data sharing, access, analysis and informed decision making
7.4. Further research
Further research is required to examine the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and
threats of a technological spatial innovation (such as an OSP - GWSspatial or a
similar initiative) on the entire GWS region and to implement the AF
recommendations. Investigation of the AF would allow assessment of the model
within a genuine OSP initiative to ascertain its practicality and possible refinement.
The OSP framework would then have the potential to be utilised in other regions and
catchment areas.
Broad surveys of GWS councils and state agencies/departments are required to
ascertain the value of a spatial innovation as a mechanism:
• To share SI from a regional data repository on a larger scale;
• To provide immediate access to SI
• To examine portal speed and reliability;
151
• To inform decisions and policy development by retrieving local and regional
SI; and
• To facilitate purposeful dialogue between colleagues from disparate
organisations and deliberative democracy with the community.
Current local government decision making processes under individual corporate
structures require further systematic investigation. This thesis identified factors that
require improvement to enable efficient decision making within the sample councils
such as access to local and regional SI and purposeful dialogue both internally and
externally. These decision making processes can be further examined by comparing
traditional local councils with Liverpool Council (which has recently undergone a
restructure), and/or other councils, to ascertain and/or refine new administrative
systems.
Policy dialogue was a significant area of research in this thesis. However, there are
gaps in the knowledge regarding the activities that promote innovation in local
government and of the professionals who participate in these activities. Research
should be undertaken to investigate the types of government bodies that are
implementing innovative activities and a study of the factors that promote or hinder
innovation success.
The occurrence of silo cultures both internally and externally was one of the major
findings of this thesis. Further research is required to ascertain whether there is a
propensity by local government structures and Australian government organisations
to endure silo cultures. It is also important to determine whether the silo cultures in
government differ from those in private enterprise and if so, the reasons for these
differences. A study of the factors that promote silo cultures and the activities that
could manage or break these cultures could provide valuable knowledge to shape the
future structure of local government.
152
8. References
2006 Australian State of the Environment Committee. 2006. Australia State of the
Environment 2006. Canberra: Department of the Environment and Heritage.
Abbott, J., 2001. A Partnership Approach to Regional Planning in South East
Queensland. Australian Planner, 38 (3-Apr), 114-120.
Adam, N. R. and Gangopadhyay, A., 1997. 7. Emerging Issues. In: Database Issues
in Geographic Information Systems. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers, 113-119.
Adler, P. S. and Celico, K. P., 2003. Policy Dialogue. Intractable Conflict
Knowledge Base Project, Conflict Research Consortium, University of
Colorado.
Albrecht, J., 1999. Towards interoperable geo-information standards: A comparison
of reference models for geo-spatial information. The Annals of Regional
Science, 33 (2), 151-169.
Allen, B., Juillet, L., Miles, M., Paquet, G., Roy, J. and Wilkins, K., 2004. Chapter
VI. The organizational culture of digital government: Technology,
accountability and shared governance. In: Pavlichev, A. and Garson, G. D.,
Digital Government: Principles and Best Practices. Melbourne: Idea Group
Publishing, 78-96.
Appleton, K., Lovett, A., Sunnenberg, G. and Dockerty, T., 2002. Rural landscape
visualisation from GIS databases: a comparison of approaches, options and
problems. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 26 141-162.
Asproth, V. and Håkansson, A., 1997. GIS as a Decision Support Tool in Local
Authorities. In: Geographical Information 97, April 16-18, 1997, Joint
European Conference and Exhibition on Geographic Information, From
Research to Application through Cooperation, Amsterdam. IOS Press. 881-
889.
Australian Local Government Association and Australian and New Zealand Land
Information Council. 2004. Local Government Spatial Information
Management Toolkit. ALGA and ANZLIC.
Aybet, J., 1997. Interoperability of Spatial Objects for Open System Geoprocessing.
Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Azad, B. and Wiggins, L. L., 1995. 2. Dynamics of Inter-organisational Geographic
Data Sharing: A Conceptual Framework for Research. In: Sharing
Geographic Information. New Brunswick, New Jersey: The Centre for Urban
Policy Research, 22-43.
Balodis, M., 1986, Map perception as a response to user's needs, Technical Papers
28th
Australian Congress. Adelaide, Australia: Institute of Surveyors
Australia.
Bassolé, A., Brunner, J. and Tunstall, D., 2001. GIS: Supporting Environmental
Planning and Management in West Africa. United States of America, World
Resources Institute.
Benbasat, I., Goldstein, D. K. and Mead, M., 1987. The Case Research Strategy in
Studies of Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, (September), 369-386.
Blunt, E., 2001. Sydney's Information Highway. GIS User, February-March (44), 26-
27.
153
Bouguettaya, A., Benatallah, B., Hendra, L., Ouzzani, M. and Beard, J., 2000.
Supporting dynamic interactions among Web-based information sources.
Knowledge and Data Engineering, IEEE Transactions, 12 (5), 779-801.
Boulos, M. N. K., 2004. Towards evidence-based, GIS-driven national spatial health
information infrastructure and surveillance services in United Kingdom.
International Journal of Health Geographics, 3 (1).
Brown, M. M., 1996. An Empirical Assessment of the Hurdles to Geographic
Information System Success in Local Government. State and Local
Government Review, 28 (3), 193-204.
Brown, M. M., O'Toole, J., Laurence J. and Brudney, J. L., 1998. Implementing
information technology in government: An empirical assessment of the role
of local partnerships. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,
8 (4), 499-525.
Buchanan, L. and O'Connell, A., 2006. A brief history of decision making. Harvard
Business Review, 84 (1), 32-41.
Budic, Z. D., 1994. Effectiveness of Geographic Information Systems in Local
Planning. American Planning Association Journal, 60 (2), 244-263.
Burrough, P. A., 1997. GSDI and ESDI - Views on Interoperability [online].
Available from http://www.gsdi.org/docs/parma.html, [Accessed 13th
December 2001].
Calkins, H. W., and Obermeyer, N. J., 1991, Taxonomy for Surveying the Use and
Value of Geographic Information, International Journal of Geographical
Information Systems, 5(3), 341-351.
Chan, T. O. and Williamson, I. P., 1999. A Model of the Decision Process for GIS
Adoption and Diffusion in a Government Environment. URISA Journal, 11
(2), 7-16.
Carver, S., and Peckman, R., 1999, Using GIS on the Internet for planning. In
Geographic information and planning, Spinger, Berlin. 361-380.
Chaskin, R. 2001, Defining Community Capacity: A Definitional Framework and
Case Studies from a Comprehensive Community Initiative. Urban Affairs
Review, 36 (3), 8-19.
Cobb, D. A. and Olivero, A., 1997. Online GIS Service. The Journal of Academic
Librarianship, (November), 484-497.
Comer, D. E., 1995, The Internet Book, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Connell Wagner Pty Ltd. 2003. Hawkesbury City Council - Pitt Town Local
Environmental Study. Neutral Bay: Connell Wagner Pty Ltd.
Conolly, N., 2001. Spatial Portals in Local Government. GIS User, October-
November (48), 28-33.
Cook, D. F. and Merriam, D. H., 1998. An Introduction to the Internet and Related
Technologies [online]. Available from
http://www.asu.edu/caed/proceedings98/Cook/cook.html, [Accessed 13th
February 2002].
Corporate GIS Consultants. 2003. GIS/Spatial Best Practice Survey 2003/04.
Bankstown: Corporate GIS Consultants.
Craig, W. J,, 1995), Why We Can't Share Data: Institutional Ineritia. In: Sharing
Geographic Information. New Brunswick, New Jersey: The Centre for Urban
Policy Research, 107-118.
Croswell, P. L., 1991. Obstacles to GIS Implementation and Guidelines to Increase
the Opportunities for Success. URISA Journal, 3 (1), 45-55.
154
Cumming, R., 2004. Personal Communication, 29th November 2005, Weyman, T.
Dangermond, J., 2002. Web Services and GIS. Geospatial Solutions, 12 (7), 56.
Department of Infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources. 2004a. Improving the
NSW planning system. Sydney: NSW Department of Infrastructure and
Natural Resources.
Department of Infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources. 2004b. Metro Strategy
Documents [online]. Available from
http://www.metrostrategy.nsw.gov.au/dev/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=61&
languageId=1&contentId=-1, [Accessed 30th November 2005].
Department of Infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources. 2004c. Metropolitan
Strategy - Discussion Paper. Sydney: DIPNR.
Department of Infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources. 2004d. Metropolitan
Strategy: Ministerial Directions Paper. Sydney: DIPNR.
Department of Infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources. undated. Western
Sydney [online]. Available from
http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/plansforaction/sydneywest.html, [Accessed
7th April 2004].
Department of Infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources, Local Government
Association of NSW and Shires Association of NSW. undated. Memorandum
of Understanding: Natural Resource Management Partnership Agreement.
Department of Local Government. 2004a. Comparative Information on New South
Wales Local Government Councils 2002 - 2003. Sydney, Department of
Local Government.
Department of Local Government. 2004b. Structural Reform of Local Government in
New South Wales.
Department of Planning. 2005. City of Cities: A plan for Sydney's future. Sydney:
Department of Planning.
Department of Urban Affairs and Planning. 1998. Shaping Western Sydney: The
planning strategy for Western Sydney. Sydney: DUAP.
Department of Urban Affairs and Planning. 1999. Plan making in NSW:
Opportunities for the future - discussion paper. Sydney: DUAP.
Dore, J., 2001. The Planning Jigsaw - Too many pieces. Australian Planner, 38 (2),
102-104.
Estes, J. E., Kline, K. K., Scepan, J. and Holland, P., 2001. The Imperative for
Proactive Cooperative National Mapping Strategies in the New Millennium
[online]. Available from www.auslig.gov.au/techpap.htm, [Accessed 23rd
November 2001].
Federal Geographic Data Committee. 1997. Framework Introduction and Guide.
Washington, DC.: Federal Geographic Data Committee.
Fonseca, F. T., Egenhofer, M. J., Davis, C. A. J. and Borges, K. A. V., 2000.
Ontologies and knowledge sharing in urban GIS. Computers, Environment
and Urban Systems, 24 (3), 251-271.
Foust, J., Tang, W. S. M. and Selwood, J., 2005. Evolving Infrastructure: Growth
and Evolution of Spatial Portals. In: GIF Working Week 2005 and GSDI-8:
From Pharaohs to Geoinformatics, Cairo, Egypt.
Freeland, C. and Burgess, R., 2001. Development Community Leadership in the
Australian Capital Region [online]. Available from
http://www.dotrs.gov.au/regional/summit, [Accessed 10th February 2002].
155
Gant, J. and Ijams, D. S., 2004. Chapter XVI: Digital Government and Geographic
Information Systems. In: Pavlichev, A. and Garson, G. D., Digital
Government: Principles and Best Practices. Melbourne: Idea Grip
Publishing,
Garvey, M., 2004. State of Play. Position, June-July (11).
Gelbmann, R., 1997. MetroGIS: Moving regional GIS data sharing from concept to
reality. In: URISA 97 Annual Conference Proceedings, Toronto, Canada.
URISA.
GeoData Alliance. 2001. Lessons from Practice: A Guidebook to Organising and
Sustaining Geodata Collaboratives. Reston, Virginia: GeoData Alliance.
Getis, A., 1999. Some thoughts on the impact of large data sets on regional science.
The Annals of Regional Science, 33 (2), 145-150.
Government of Western Australia. 2006. Shared Land Information Platform [online].
Available from
https://www2.landgate.wa.gov.au/slip/servet/portal?escmd+startup,
[Accessed 5th October 2006].
GWSspatial Steering Committee. 2001. GWSspatial - An innovative use of spatial
information for better planning and policy development.
GWSspatial Steering Committee. 2003. GWSspatial - An innovative use of spatial
information for better planning and policy development (Revised).
Harris, J., 2002. OPINION: The wait for Disaster Management. GIS User, April-May
(51), 9.
Hawkesbury City Council. 2000. Local Government Incentive Programme 2000-01.
Hawkesbury City Council. 2004. Pitt Town Update Authority to exhibit given back to
Council [online]. Available from
http://www.hawkesbury.nsw.gov.au/news/1085966380_5687.html, [Accessed
20th September 2004].
Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment Management Trust. 2001. Focus on SPATIAL Data
Management for Local Government. Windsor: HNCMT.
Healthy Rivers Commission. 2003a. Occasional Paper - A decision support process
for rapid assessment of catchment goals and priorities - OCP 1009. Sydney:
Healthy Rivers Commission.
Healthy Rivers Commission. 2003b. Towards Healthy Catchments and Rivers -
Collated Speeches and Papers. In: Towards Healthy Catchments and Rivers -
Collated Speeches and Papers. Sydney: Healthy Rivers Commission,
Hirsch-Kreinsen, H., Jacobson, D., Laestadius, S. and Smith, K., 2003. Low-Tech
Industries and Knowledge Economy: State of the Art and Research
Challenges. In: PILOT: Policy and Innovation in Low-Tech. Norway: STEP -
Centre for Innovation Research,
Holliday, S., 2001. Regional New South Wales. Australian Planner, 38 (1), 25-28.
Horton, D. and Mackay, R., 2003. Using evaluation to enhance institutional learning
and change: recent experiences with agricultural research and development.
Agricultural Systems, 78 (2), 127-142.
Hughes, J. R., 2000. An Internet-Based Revolution is Under Way. GEOWorld,
(December), 8.
Inner Metropolitan Regional Organisation of Councils. 2001. Sydney's Information
Highway: Web enabled planning and property information for Parramatta
Road. NSW: IMROC.
156
Innes, J. E. and Booher, D. E., 2003. The Impact of Collaborative Planning on
Governance Capacity, IURD Working Paper Series, Univeristy pf California,
Berkely.
Iversen, E. J., Orstavik, F. and Smith, K., 1998. Information and communication
technology in international policy debates. Norway: Stiftelsen STEP.
Jere, A., 2005. The future of internet GIS - An opportunity all the way. In: Map Asia
2005, Jakarta, Indonesia. GISdevelopment.net.
Johnson, R. and Arbeit, D. D., 2002. The MetroGIS Initiative: Lessons from a
Successful Geospatial Data Collaborative. In: Global Spatial Infrastructure
(GSDI) Conference, September 16-19, 2002, Budapest, Hungary.
Kelleher, F. and Sproats, K., 2004. Personal Communication, November, Weyman,
T.
Kevany, M. J., 1995. 5. A Proposed Structure for observing Data Sharing [online].
"New Brunswick, New Jersey", The Centre for Urban Policy Research.
Available from [Accessed
Kim, H. J. and Bretschneider, S., 2004. Local Government Information Technology
Capacity: An Exploratory Theory. In: 37th Hawaii International Conference
on System Sciences, Hawaii. IEEE. 1-10.
Kingston, R., Carver, S., Evans, A. and Turton, I., 2000. Web-based participation
geographical information systems: an aid to local environmental decision-
making. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 24 109-125.
Kliskey, A. D., 1995. The role and functionality of GIS as a planning tool in natural-
resource management. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 19 (1),
15-22.
Klosterman, R., 1997, Planning Support Systems: A NEw perspective on Computer-
aided Planning, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 17(1), 45-54.
Kumar, K. and van Dissel, H., 1996. Sustainable collaboration: Managing conflict
and cooperation in interorganisational systems. MIS Quarterly, 20 (3), 279-
300.
Kvale, S., 1996. Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing.
Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Lowe, J. W., 1999. Looking Good Online: Designing an effective GIS Web site. Geo
Info Systems, 9 (10), 36-44.
Macarthur Regional Organisation of Councils. 2004. About MACROC [online].
Available from http://www.macroc.nsw.gov.au/about_archive.asp, [Accessed
14th March 2004].
Maguire, D. J., 1999. Distributed-Internet GIS: The next generation GIS platform.
Geo Info Systems, 9 (8), 18.
Maguire, D. J. and Longley, P. A., 2005. The emergence of geoportals and their role
in spatial data infrastructures. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems,
29 3-14.
Marshall, J., 2003. Developing Internet-Based GIS Applications [online]. Available
from http://www01.giscafe.com/technical_papers/Papers/paper058,
[Accessed 7th July 2003].
Martin, P., 2003. Greater Western Sydney Spatial, Stage 2: Proposal for an
implementation trial of local government intelligence system based on GWSS.
Profit Foundation.
McDougall, K., Rajabifard, A. and Williamson, I., 2005. What will motivate local
governments to share spatial information. In: SSC 2005 Spatial Intelligence,
157
Innovation and Praxis: The national biennial Conference of the Spatial
Sciences Institute, September 2005., Melbourne: Spatial Sciences Institute.
McHenry, R., Norman, G. and Searle, B., 2004. Fallout from the Fires. Position,
April-May (10).
Meredith, P. H., 1995. 1. Distributed GIS: If its time is now, why is it resisted? In:
Onsrud, H. and Rushton, G., Sharing Geographic Information. New Jersey:
New Brunswick, 7-21.
Montalvo de, U. W., 2000. Access to Spatial Data - What Determines the
Willingness of Organisations to Share it? In: Report on the 4th Global Spatial
Data Infrastructure Conference, 13-15 March 2000, Cape Town.
Murphy, S., 2003. Urban Sprawl [online]. ABC. Available from
http://www.abc.net.au/landline/stories/s791453.htm, [Accessed 7th July
2004].
Myers, M. D., 1997. Qualitative Research in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly,
21 (2), 241-242.
NASA. 2000. What is Digital Earth? [online]. Available from
http://www.digitalearth.gov/vision.html, [Accessed 13th December 2001].
Nedovic-Budic, Z., 2000a. Geographic Information Science Implications for Urban
and Regional Planning. URISA Journal, 12 (2), 81-93.
Nedovic-Budic, Z., 2000b. Qualitative and Quantitative Research: Complementary
Methods for GI Science. In: The First International Conference on
Geographic Information Science, Savannah, Georgia, USA. (Abstracts pp.
260-262).
Nedovic-Budic, Z. and Godschalk, D. R., 1996. Human factors in adoption of
geographic information systems: A local government case study. Public
Administration Review, 56 (6), 554-567.
Nedovic-Budic, Z. and Pinto, J. K., 1999a. Interorganizational GIS: Issues and
prospects. The Annals of Regional Science, 33 (2), 183-195.
Nedovic-Budic, Z. and Pinto, J. K., 1999b. Understanding Interorganizational GIS
Activities: A Conceptual Framework. URISA Journal, 11 (1), 53-64.
Nedovic-Budic, Z. and Pinto, J. K., 2000. Information sharing in an
interorganisational GIS environment. Environment and Planning B: Planning
and Design, 27 (3), 455-474.
Neilson, L., 2002. Instruments of Governance in Urban Management. Australian
Planner, 39 (2), 97-102.
Norris, S., 2005. Growing Pains, The Western Weekender, Penrith, Friday November
11, 2005 (737), p.1.
NSW Rural Fire Service, Planning and Environment Services and PlanningNSW.
2001. Planning for Bushfire Protection: A guide for Councils, Planners, Fire
Authorities, Developers and Home Owners.
Obermeyer, N. J., 1995. 8. Reducing Inter-Organisational Conflict to Facilitate
Sharing Geographic Information. In: Sharing Geographic Information. New
Brunswick, New Jersey: The Centre for Urban Policy Research, 138-148.
Okoth-Ogendo, H. W. O., 1995, Governance and sustainable development in Africa.
In Sustainable Development and Good Governance, edited by K. Ginther, E.
Denters, and P. J. I. M. d. Waart., Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht,
The Netherlands.
O'Looney, J., 2000. Beyond Maps: GIS and Decision Making in Local Government.
Redlands: ESRI.
158
Onsrud, H. J. and Rushton, G., 1992. Technical Paper 92-5:- NCGIA Research
Initiative 9 Institutions Sharing Geographic Information. In: Scientific Report
for the Specialist Meeting 26-29 February 1992, San Diego, California., San
Diego, California. National Centre for Geographic Information & Analysis /
NCGIA.
Peng Z-R., 1999, An assessment framework for the development of Internet GIS,
Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 26, 117-132.
Peng, Z.-R., 2001. Internet GIS for public participation. Environment and Planning
B: Planning and Design, 28 (6), 889-905.
Peng, Z.-R. and Tsou, M.-H., 2003. Internet GIS: Distributed Geographic
Information Services for the Internet and Wireless Networks. Hoboken: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Pinto, J. K. and Onsrud, H. J., 1995. 3. Sharing Geographic Information Across
Organisational Boundaries: A Research Framework. In: Sharing Geographic
Information. New Brunswick, New Jersey: The Centre for Urban Policy
Research, 44-64.
PlanningNSW. 2002. Planning for bushfire protection. Sydney: PlanningNSW.
Probert, S. K., 2002. Relevance and Rigour, Theory and Practice in Systems. In:
Systems Theory and Practice in the Knowledge Age. New York: Kluwer
Academic / Plenum Publishers, 29-35.
Pullar, D. and McDonald, G., 1999. Geographical Information Systems. Australian
Planner, 36 (4), 216-222.
Rashid, N., 1999. Managing performance in local government. London: Kogan Page
Limited.
Rauschert, I., Agrawal, P., Sharma, R., Fuhrmann, S., Brewer, I. and MacEachren,
A., 2002. Designing a human-centred, multimodal GIS interface to support
emergency management. In: 10th ACM international symposium of Advances
in geographic information systems, McLean, Virginia, USA. ACM Press.
119-124.
Richards, T. and Richards, L., 1991. The NUDIST Qualitative Data Analysis
System. Qualitative Sociology, 14 (4), 307-324.
Richardson Richter & Associates Inc. 2002. MetroGIS 2003-2005 Business Plan.
Oct. 22, 2002. United States: MetroGIS.
Rogers, E. m., 1983, Diffussion of Innovations, 3rd
ed., The Free Press, New York.
Ronaldson, P., Kelleher, F., Ginige, A., Herborn, P., Mossfield, T. and Chant, J.,
2000. Spatial Information Systems for Greater Western Sydney - Review of
existing systems. Kingswood, WSRi.
Rowe, R., 2002. A Multi-Methodological Approach to Emergency Call Handling in
the Metropolitan Police Service. In: Systems Theory and Practice in the
Knowledge Age. New York: Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers, 79-86.
Ryan, G. W. and Bernard, R. H., 2000. 29. Data Management and Analysis Methods.
In: Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S., Handbook of Qualitative Research.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc., 769-802.
Safai-Amini, M., 2000. Information technologies: challenges and opportunities for
local governments. Journal of Government Information, 27 (4), 471-479.
Shyy, T.-K., Stimson, R., Baum, S., Davis, R., Murray, A. and Barker, R., 2001. An
Internet GIS for Improving Access to Regional Performance Data. Australian
Planner, 38 (2-Apr), 158-166.
159
Sieber, R. E., 2000. GIS Implementation in the Grassroots. URISA Journal, 12 (1),
15-28.
Sloan, M. and DiSera, D., 1994. Key Considerations in Designing a Multiparticipant
Land Base [online]. Available from
http://spatialodyssey.ursus.maine.edu/gisweb/spatb/urisa/ur94041.html,
[Accessed 11th November 2002].
Smith, K., 2002. What is the 'Knowledge Economy'? Knowledge Intensity and
Distributed Knowledge Bases. In: UNU/INTECH Discussion Papers.
Netherlands: The United Nations University, Institute for New Technologies,
Stake, R. E., 2000. 16. Case Studies. In: Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S., Handbook
of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc., 435-454.
Stein, R., 2004. Fast Fire Mapping. Position, February - March (9).
Stowers, G. N. L., 2004. Chapter XI. Issues in E-Commerce and E-Government
Service Delivery. In: Pavlichev, A. and Garson, D., Digital Government:
Principles and Best Practices. Melbourne: IDEA Group Publishing,
Tait, M., G., 2005. Implementing geoportals: applications of distributed GIS.
Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 29 33-47.
Tellis, W., 1997. Application of a Case Study Methodology. The Qualitative Report,
3 (3).
The EPIQ Technical Advisory Group. 1998. Environmental Policy Dialogue:
Lessons Learned, Draft Version: February 28, 1998 [online]. Available from
http://www.gm-unccd.org/FIELD/Bilaterals/USA/EnvLessons.pdf, [Accessed
7th July 2005].
Thoen, B., 1999. How has the Internet Influenced GIS? GEOWorld, 12 (12), 32-33.
Ting, L. and Williamson, I., 2000. Spatial Data Infrastructures and Good
Governance: Framework for Land Administration Reform to Support
Sustainable Development. In: Report on the 4th Global Spatial Data
Infrastructure Conference, Cape Town 13-15 March 2000,
UTS Centre for Local Government. 2001. Advancing Local Government:
Partnerships for New Century, A Discussion Paper, Draft. NSW: Local
Government and Shires Association of New South Wales.
Van De Weg, M., 2003. Regional Analysis Session Notes. In: Re Visioning Greater
Western Sydney, Bankstown. WSROC.
Ventura, S. J., 1995. 10. Overarching Bodies for Coordinated Geographic Data
Sharing at Three Levels of Government. In: Sharing Geographic
Information. New Brunswick, New Jersey: The Centre for Urban Policy
Research, 172-192.
Vipond, J., 2001. Regional Planning in NSW. Australian Planner, 38 (3-Apr), 121-
127.
Voluntary Sector Canada. 2002. A code of good practice on policy dialogue [online].
Available from http://www.vsi-isbc.ca/eng/policy/pdf/codes-policy.pdf,
[Accessed 5th October 2006].
Wache, H., Vogele, T., Visser, U., Stuckenschmidt, H., Schuster, G., Neumann, H.
and Hubner, S., 2001. Ontology-Based Integration of Information - A Survey
of Existing Approaches. In: Proceedings of IJACAI-01 Workshop: Ontologies
and Information Sharing, Seattle, WA. 108-117.
Warnecke, L., Beattie, J., Cheryl, K., and Lyday, W., 1998, Geographic Information
Technology in Cities and Counties: A Nationwide Assessment, American
Forests, Washington DC.
160
Warnecke, L., 1999. Geographic Information Technology Institutionalisation in the
Nation's States and Localities. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote
Sensing, 65 (11), 1257-1268.
Warnest, M., McDougall, K., Rajabifard, A. and Williamson, I. P., 2003. Local and
state-based collaboration: the key to unlocking the potential of SDI. In:
Proceedings Spatial Sciences 2003 Conference, Canberra, Australia.
Weitzman, E. A., 2000. 30. Software and Qualitative Research. In: Denzin, N. K.
and Lincoln, Y. S., Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications, Inc., 803-820.
Westacott, J., 2004. Jennifer Westacott, Director General, DIPNR - Sydney Futures
Forum [online]. DIPNR, Available from
http://www.metrostrategy.nsw.gov.au/dev/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=71&
languageId=1&contentId=287, [Accessed 5th September 2004].
Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils. 2003. Re Visioning the Greater
West - Summary of Council Local Perspectives. In: Greater Western Sydney
Regional Planning, Bankstown. WSROC.
Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils. 2004. WSROC - About WSROC
[online]. Available from http://www.wsroc.com.au, [Accessed 12th March
2004].
Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils, WSROC Member Councils and
Regional Integrated Monitoring Centre. 2000. Western Sydney Regional State
of the Environment Report 2000. Prima Printing.
Weyman, T., 2004. Policy-Technology Dialogue: Is an Online Spatial Portal a Useful
Mechanism for Regional Policy Development? In: Hodgkinson, A., The
Australian and New Zealand Regional Science Association International Inc.
28th Annual Conference, Wollongong, Australia. School of Economics and
Information Systems, University of Wollongong. 249-266.
Yigitcanlar, 2006, Ausralian Local Governments' Practice and Prospects with Online
Planning. URISA Journal, 18(2), 7-17.
Ziliaskopoulos, A. K. and Waller, S. T., 2000. An Internet-based geographic
information system that integrates data, models and users for transportation
applications. Transportation Research Part C, (8), 427-444.
161
Appendix A: Decision process for GIS Diffusion in a
government organisation
(Sourced: Chan and Williamson, 1999)
The above framework illustrates the diffusion of GIS technology within an individual
government organisation. The framework, however, does not illustrate the
importance of the technical capacity to inform policy dialogue between the technical
and decision making spheres in order to encapsulate the significance of SI in the
formation and implementation of policies and planning as illustrated in the
framework of Bassolé’s (2001).
162
Appendix B: Phases for GIS implementation
(O’Looney, 2000)
163
(O’Looney, 2000)
O’Looney’s (2000) framework for GIS implementation involves a number of phases
of continued technological advancements. The framework, however, does not
elaborate on the decision and policy making requirements of GIS and the use of SI
by decision makers within their work roles as illustrated by Bassolé et al., (2001).
GIS and more significantly OSPs require purposeful dialogue between scientists, GIS
experts, policymakers and civil society to:
a. stimulate the demand for GIS analysis
b. generate new products and services;
c. stimulate new ideas by decision makers;
d. identify new needs for GIS analysis; and
e. increase SI demand by decision makers.
164
Appendix C: Basic requirements of Distributed GIS
1. It is composed of distributed components; each component has its own
function.
2. The component is distributed. That is, the components could reside in
different computers or GIS nodes but interact directly with each other.
3. The components are mobile. Although components reside on different
computers, they can be retrieved and downloaded into other computers on
demand.
4. The components are open and interoperable. Once the components migrate to
other computers, they can be assembled and interoperated with other
components that may be downloaded from yet another computer. To be
interoperable, the components have to be constructed according to standards.
5. The components are searchable and mechanisms are available for purchase.
A service catalogue is needed to advertise the availability and functions of all
components.
6. Data are distributed. Distributed GIS can access any data located anywhere
on the Internet. Standard metadata and/or data repository is provided to
connect distributed GIS data on the Internet.
7. Data are interchangeable. This means that data from different sources can be
integrated. Mechanisms are needed to integrate data with different spatial
reference systems, different semantics, and different formats.
The OpenGIS Consortium (2000) specified four major high-level groups of
components and their services:
1. Viewers and editors – allow the users to view and interact with maps and the
underlying data and operations.
2. Catalogues – is a collection of metadata or a repository of metadata.
Catalogues provide a search operation that returns metadata or the names of
the objects.
165
3. Repositories – are collections of data. Repositories usually maintain indexes
to help speed up the process of finding items by name or by other attribute of
the item.
4. Operators – are components that conduct some operations on the data and
produce outputs on user request. They can transform, combine, filter, or
create data.
The International Standards Organisation (ISO) standard framework is based on five
major areas that incorporate information technology concepts to standardise
geographic information:
1. The framework and reference model identifies how components fit together.
The reference model provides a common basis for data sharing.
2. Geographic information services define the encoding of information in
transfer formats and the methodology for cartographic presentation of
geographic information.
3. Data administration focuses on the description of quality principles and
quality evaluation procedures for geographic information data sets. This
includes the description of metadata, together with feature catalogues.
4. Data models and operators are concerned with the underlying geometry of the
globe and how geographic or spatial objects may be modelled.
5. Profiles and functional standards consider the technique of putting together
packages/subsets of the total set of standards to fit individual application
areas or users.
(sourced: Peng and TSOU, 2003)
Similar to Appendix A and B, the above framework focused only on the technical
aspects of distributed GIS. There was no reference to SI relevance or importance
within decision and policy formulation to inform choice, judgement, assessment and
evaluation by decision makers. There was no indication of a bi-directional dialogue
occurring between the technical and decision making spheres to inform the
development, implementation and diffusion of GIS within an organisation or
between organisations as highlighted by Bassolé et al., (2001).
166
Appendix D: Data sharing issues
Data sharing issues and description of factors
Issue Description of factors Sharing classes Classes of sharing arrangement
Access to common datasets by multiple organisations
Copying separate datasets for each organisation
Sale or purchase of data by an organisation
Project environment Number of organisations involved
Organisational goals/missions
Organisational relationships, current and historic
GIS specific (technical) relationships
Control of information, custodianship, centralised or distributed or ad hoc
Growth rate and rate of development, the need and benefits of sharing
with respect to development rate in the area
Leadership/politics, local support, partisan or non-partisan, will support or
impede sharing
Need for sharing data Adequacy of internal data and resources
Data of another organisation is needed
Need that can best be developed and maintained jointly
Level of dependence from sharer perspective
Opportunity to data
share
Organisation(s) have a need for data: sharing may be greatly facilitated if
organisations already maintain data that is required by others
Organisation(s) have a need for resources: the sharing of maintenance and
development costs is the most effective means of establishing successful
sharing environment
Willingness to share data Organisation that own data, offer or a willing to share
Organisation offers to share or is willing to share cost of data
development/maintenance
Level of dependence from lead organisation perspective: the level of
perceived dependence of user organisations, may encourage the lead
agency to facilitate sharing
Incentive to share data Government program, policy or regulations that encourage or require
sharing
Recognition of the value of sharing data; management recognise the vale
of sharing the cost reduction, improved availability, the sharing
environment will be improved. Sharing tied to program funding or
performance
Impediments to share
data
Real or perceived required for confidentiality
Incompatibility in the definition, specifications or structure of available
data: the cost of redefinition, translation or modification could exceed
value of sharing data
Technical capability for
sharing
Basis for sharing will facilitate or impede sharing: range form a formal
detailed agreement to informal working relationship or ad hoc interaction
Level of planning
Capacity and capability of organisations to support data sharing
Usefulness of technical specification
Resources for sharing Funding source will determine the level of data sharing: whether funded
by the lead agency, equitable contributions across organisations, payment
for fees or for information provided or no payment for shared data
Data or source materials are available for shared data
Service are size in determining conditions of sharing: such as the area in
kilometres, number of parcels, population size
Sourced: Warnest, et al., (2003 adopted from Kevany (1993))
167
Appendix E: Measuring capacity
Policy dialogue - criteria
• Partnership goals
• Improved capacity
• The durability of the agreement
• The improved level of communication
• Improved trust
• Satisfaction with the processes
• Improved quality of data and resources
• Greater efficiencies
McDougall et al., (2005)
E-service delivery (OSP)
Mode of E-Service Delivery
Input Measures Output Measures Outcome Measures
Information
access and
delivery
Number of hits on site/user
contact sessions
Number of downloads
Amount of time spent on site
Communication
with officials and
agency
Number of hits on site/user
contact sessions
Number of emails sent to
agency and/or officials
Number of emails returned
Amount of time required for
response back to citizens
Number of email requests
successfully resolved
Interactive
discussions
Number of hits on site/user
contact sessions
Number of different topics
discussed
Length of discussion
Resolution of discussion –
number of problems resolved
Online databases Number of hits on site/user
contact sessions
Number of times databases are
accessed
Information access most
frequently
Online
mapping/GIS
applications
Amount of staff time
to develop
Amount of staff costs
Amount of other cots
to develop
Amount of vendor
time
Amount of vendor
costs
Total cost per user
session
Staff time to
maintain and update
Number of hits on site/user
contact sessions
Application requested most
frequently
Number of different types of
maps requested
Level of citizen
satisfaction with
government
Level of citizen
satisfaction with
government services
Level of citizen trust
in government
Costs saved by e-
service
Staff time saved by
e-service provision
Percentage of site
downtime
Sourced: Adapted (Stowers, 2004).
168
Appendix F: Examples of OSPs in local government
Australia
Pittwater Council (http://www.pittwater.nsw.gov.au) – Pittwater Council’s website
uses Encounter to allow the user to search for particular lots using text or spatial
queries, all plots that fall within the search areas are listed in a table format in
another window. The website has a disclaimer that council does not want users to
reply on the information due to data accuracy issues (Conolly, 2001).
City of Sydney (http://citymap.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au) – The City of Sydney’s
Webmap won an Australian Financial Review Award in 2000; and an award at the
2001 ESRI conference. According to Conolly (2001), the website has most of the
basic functions as in ArcView which includes zoom, pan, query, layer control and
print setup. The website has a series of maps such as aerial photos, big events zones,
public transport routes and facilities that are accessible by wheelchair. All these maps
have background layers including local government boundaries, roads and water
bodies.
City of Swan (www.swan.wa.gov.au) – The City of Swan’s interactive map is called
InterMaps, the website also has a disclaimer. The website can only be viewed using
Internet Explorer and was developed using MapInfo’s MapXtreme. The system
allows the user to search data spatially or via text. SI shown on the site includes
property, zoning, electoral and health (Conolly, 2001).
Caloundra City Council http://maproom.caloundra.qld.gov.au) – Caloundra City
Council interactive online map is called Calmap the website also has a disclaimer.
Functions include: zoom, pan, search for data, identify, measure distance/area, print
and add layers. Add layers is a layer control system that allows the user to add
additional layers to the map display including cadastral, environment, drainage,
roads, sewer, water, open space, park asset audit 2004 and tourist information. The
interactive map is one of the better-advanced local government example systems
with a good user interface.
169
Mackay City Council – (http://www.mimapsmackay.com.au) – Mackay City Council
interactive map is called MiMAPS which accesses some of Councils GIS data, the
website also has a disclaimer. Access to the map is made through different map
theme selections: land and property, planning and landuse, services and
infrastructure and community facilities. Alternatively conduct a search (address,
road, lot or plan, locality) which will directly zoom into the map. Functions include:
zoom, pan, identify, measure, lat/long label, legend, layer control and export map.
Blue Mountains City Council (http://www.bmcc.nsw.gov.au) – Blue Mountains
Council’s interactive map also has a disclaimer, the ‘View Interactive Map’ option
takes the user to a search page for address or parcel description. A success search
will display a list from which a selected parcel can be viewed on a map. Once
selected a default Locality Map will highlight the selected parcel. Functions include
navigation option and view information, SI available includes: locality, topographic,
aerial photography, LEPs
, bush fire prone property, bush fire prone land, slope, environmental, character and
domestic waste.
170
Appendix G: Partnerships
171
Appendix H: Information and function needs
Common data needs Primary Reference Topography
Aerial Photographs
Administration Cadastre
Governmental Unit Boundaries
Natural
Environment
Soils and Geology
Vegetation and Fauna
Water Courses
Socio-economic Census Collector Districts and Information
Planning Zones
Land-use
Built Environment Cultural Features
Transportation Networks (roads, rail, aviation)
Water Supply Network
Electricity and Gas Network
Telecommunication Network
172
Appendix I: Technical capacity
173
Appendix J: Business plan
Business plan inclusions • Project Name
• Geographical extent
• Time frame
• Sponsoring organisation
• Overview
• Governance
• Operations
• Legal/Political environment
• Products and services
• Marketing
• Cooperation
• Competition
• Changing factors
• Budget
174
Appendix K: Multi-participant organisational structure
175
Appendix L: Summary of qualitative and quantitative GIS
research
Method Purpose Study Research description
Quantitative Qualitative Exploration Discovery Explanation
Johnson (1995) Geographic data
dissemination policies at
the local government level X X
Lopez (1996) Dissemination of GI in the
US, Canada and UK X X
Masser & Campbell
(1996)
Diffusion of GIS in British
local authorities X X
Nedovic-Budic &
Godschalk (1996);
Nedovic-Budic
(1998)
Human factors in adoption
of GIS in local government X X X
Onsrud et al.,
(1996)
GIS dissemination policy in
US local governments X X
Tulloch et al.,
(1996)
Phases of technological
modernisation in Wisconsin
local governments X X
Assimakopoulos
(1997; 2000)
Diffusion of GIS in Greece
using network analysis X X X
Masser & Craglia
(1997)
Diffusion of GIS in local
governments in Europe X X
Sieber (1997; 2000) Diffusion of GIS in local
governments in Europe X X X
Azad (1998) Implementation and
management of enterprise-
wide GIS
X X
Brown et al.,
(1998)
Assessment of
implementation and success
of local GIS partnerships
X X
Chan & Williamson
(1999)
Modelling a decision
process for GIS diffusion in
state governments in
Australia
X X
Masser (1998) Creation of national spatial
data infrastructure in UK,
Netherlands, US, and
Australia
X X
Nedovic-Budic
(1998)
Evaluation of GIS effects in
urban planning X X
Warnecke et al.,
(1998)
Diffusion of IT tools in US
cities and counties X X
Roche & Humeau
(1999)
GIS development and
planning collaboration X X
Somers (1999) Assessing the progress in
nationwide framework
activities
X X
Greenwald (2000) Multi-jurisdictional
applications of GIS X X
Nedovic-Budic &
Pinto (2000a, b)
Interorganisational GIS
activities X X X
(Source Nedovic-Budic, 2000b)
176
Appendix M: Interview schedule for the first interviews
1. Geospatial Data Sharing for Better Regional Decision Making
Thank you for your participation in my project, and in today’s interview. The
interview is broken into 5 main sections – Base Data, Technology, Key Work
Interactions, Policy and Decision making and Data / Information – all exploring your
work experiences within this organisation.
This series of questions seeks to obtain simple base-data facts about yourself and your
work role. This information will be used to conduct comparisons and analyses between
interviews. Your identity and organisation will be kept confidential at all times
throughout the research.
1.1. Base Data
• Date _________
• Identify Council (coded) ________
• Individual Name (coded) ___________________________________
• Identify Gender
Male
Female
1.1.1. Please indicate your age category: -
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60+
177
1.1.2. Please specify your current educational qualifications?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
1.1.3. Please state the position you currently hold within this organisation?
____________________________________________________________________
1.1.4. Describe your main role and responsibilities within this organisation?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
1.1.5. Describe your main work activities in carrying out this role?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
178
1.1.6. From this diagram, please indicate your position level within your
organisation:
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
1.1.7. Describe your experience with geographic information technology?
(Describe)
Number of years over which you have gained this experience?
How did you gain this experience (Capacity)?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
179
1.2. Technology
In this series of questions I wish to explore the capacity of your organisation to make
effective use of the Internet.
1.2.1. Describe your organisation’s Internet access (Simple diagram)?
Connection
o Broadband
o Cable
o Dial-up-modem
o Other
Speed of the connection
Web Browser
o Netscape
o Explorer
o Other
Firewall
1.2.2. How limiting is the firewall in allowing access to and use of websites?
Strict
Moderate
Low
1.2.3. Who has access to the Internet within your organisation?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
180
1.2.4. Please comment on the adequacy of the Internet access for the needs of
your organisation?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
1.2.5. How should the Internet access be improved?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
• If no Internet :-
1.2.6. Please indicate why your organisation does not have Internet access
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
1.2.7. In your opinion, how could any constraints to Internet access within your
organisation be overcome?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
181
In the next series of questions, I wish to explore intranet access within your
organisation.
1.2.8. Is there an Intranet network within your organisation? If so, please
comment on the main purposes for which it is used (Simple diagram)
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
1.2.9. How adequately does the Intranet network perform within your
organisation?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
1.2.10. Are there any particular problems with the intranet system in your
organisation?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
1.2.11. How could the intranet network be improved?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
182
• No Intranet Network: -
1.2.12. Can you describe the limitations on your work role by not having an
intranet network within your organisation?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
In this series of questions, I wish to explore your dedicated work computer and Internet
access situation.
1.2.13. Describe the specific attributes and functions of your dedicated work
computer
Hardware
Operating System
Software
Internet access
1.2.14. Approximately how much time are you actively on-line to the Internet
and for what purpose?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
• If no Internet
1.2.15. By not having Internet access through your dedicated work computer,
how does this hamper your work role and responsibilities?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
_
183
1.2.16. Should you require Internet access, how do you accomplish this?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
1.2.17. How adequate is this for your work role?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
1.2.18. Describe how this process could be improved?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
• If no (no dedicated work computer)
1.2.19. By not having a dedicated work computer, how does this hamper your
work role and responsibilities?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
1.2.20. How would a dedicated work computer be beneficial to your work role?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
184
1.3. Key Work Interactions
In this next series of questions I wish to explore your key work interactions in the
context of your work role and responsibilities, both internally in your organisation and
externally with other organisations (please limit your answer to your work role and
responsibilities only).
This first series of questions explores your work interactions with internal staff within
your organisation.
1.3.1. With what key internal staff positions do you regularly interact? Can you
describe the purpose for each of these interactions?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
1.3.2. How do these interactions normally occur?
Memo
Verbally
o Phone
o Personal conversation
Meetings
Other
1.3.3. How adequate is your current level of interaction with these key internal
staff to support your work requirements?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
185
1.3.4. Can you describe any constraints that are limiting your interactions with
key internal staff?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
1.3.5. How could these be improved?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
This series of questions explores your work interactions with people external to your
organisation.
1.3.6. What external organisations do you interact with as part of your normal
work activities? Can you describe the purpose for each of these interactions?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
1.3.7. Please describe how these interactions usually occur?
Memo
Verbally
o Phone
o Personal conversation
Meetings
Other
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
186
1.3.8. How adequate is your interaction with external personal and
organisations to meet your work requirements?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
1.3.9. Can you describe any constraints that are limiting your interaction with
external organisations?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
1.3.10. How could these be improved?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
1.4. Policy and Decision Making / Advice
This series of questions explores your role and processes in policy and decision-
making/advice within your organisation (by advice – I mean, if you assist the process in any
way, eg. developing maps).
1.4.1. Describe how you contribute to policy development and decision-making
within your organisation?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
187
1.4.2. Describe the major factors that facilitate the effectiveness of your
contribution?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
1.4.3. Describe those aspects that could be improved and the limitations on
these improvements?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
1.4.4. What do you consider are the major issues in the development of regional
policy, as distinct from individual / local government, policy development
/advice?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
1.4.5. How do you think that these issues could be improved?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
188
1.4.6. What types of regional analyses would enhance the quality of your
contribution to policy development /advice role?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
1.5. Data / Information
In this next series of questions I wish to explore data and information requirements /
adequacies for your work role and responsibilities.
1.5.1. Please describe the main forms and types of data and information that you
require to effectively complete your work activities? (Keep to the main
categories)
Statistics, including tables and graphs
Written Documents (reports)
Spatially referenced information (digital maps)
Other
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
1.5.2. Do you use spatial information in your work role (digital maps – GIS) if
so for what purpose? (description)
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
189
1.5.3. How important to your work role is it that data is spatially referenced?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
1.5.4. What are the main sources of this data and information?
Purchased from outside agencies
Generated within your own organisation
If so, by whom? (position)
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
1.5.5. Describe any constraints on your use of this data? (eg. Licensing)
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
1.5.6. Within your organisation, is access to the main data that you use restricted
to certain staff?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
_________________
_________________
_________________
_________________
190
1.5.7. How adequate is the data and information available to you to effectively
meet your work requirements?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
1.5.8. What data and information is not currently available that is important to
your work role?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
1.5.9. Describe the major restrictions that prevent you from accessing this
information?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
1.5.10. How do you think these restrictions could best be overcome?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
191
1.5.11. If you had access to additional data and information, what would you
regard as the most valuable to enable you to operate more effectively?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
1.5.12. Describe any potential benefits or advantages of having access to key data
and information from adjoining councils and other organisations (eg utilities)
in meeting your work responsibilities (Look at the big picture)
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
(Diagrams and descriptions follow)
192
Position Level diagram
Geographic Information Technology (GIT)
Geographic information technology (GIT) is an array of software (such as GIS),
information (such as property database), hardware (computers, printers, PDAs, and
GPS) combined as a powerful tool for local governments.
Mayor and Elected Officials
General Manager
Directors / Group Managers
Department Managers
Planners / Officers
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
Position Levels
Level 5 Coordinators / Supervisors
Level 6
193
Spatial information or geospatial information
It refers to features that can be located on a map, or geo-referenced. It means
information that identifies the geographic location and characteristics of natural or
constructed features and boundaries on the earth, including oceans, houses and roads.
Intranet
An intranet is a private network that is contained within an enterprise. Typically, an
intranet includes connections through one or more gateway computers to the outside
Internet.
194
Internet
The Internet is a worldwide system of computer networks - a network of networks in
which users at any one computer can, if they have permission, get information from
any other computer (and sometimes talk directly to users at other computers).
Technically, what distinguishes the Internet is its use of a set of protocols called
TCP/IP.
195
Appendix N: Information statement and consent form
196
197
Appendix O: Interview schedule for the second interviews
2nd Interview Schedule
Thank you for your participation in my project and in today’s interview. The
interview process will cover3 themes. First we will discuss issues that occurred
during the first interview last year, second spatial information application and its
acquisition for work roles. Then there will be approximately 10 minute
demonstration of an online spatial portal concept, followed by a few questions
regarding its application.
1. Base Data - Details
1.1 Names: (Coded) _________________________
1.2 Position: _________________________
1.3 Organisation: (Coded) ________________________
1.4 Date: _________________________
1.5 Gender: Male / Female
2. 1st Interview Issues
From the first round of interviews two significant areas emerged that affect local
government decision-making and policy development:
1. Limited spatial information utilisation within work roles
2. Professional’s relationships, isolation on a regional basis and in some cases
internal isolation within councils.
2.1 Do you have any comment on these issues?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
198
These questions refers to current opinions regarding spatial information.
3. Spatial Information Use
3.1 Can you please explain how spatial information (digital maps, and relational
databases) could assist you in your work role?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
3.2 Can you please describe the process by which you obtain any spatial information
that you require in your work role?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
3.3 Approximately how long does this take?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
3.4 How adequate is your current degree of access to spatial information for your
work role?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
199
3.5 Please comment on how this process of accessing spatial information could be
improved?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
3.6 Is there a service delivery contract that the Council’s GIS unit/section has? If so
please explain.
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
3.7 Before I start the PowerPoint demonstration of an online spatial portal, can you
please give me your impressions or opinions as to what an online spatial portal may
entail?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
This is a short demonstration of online spatial portal. After the demonstration I have a
few questions relating the usefulness of the portal to your work roles.
DEMONSTRATION - GWSspatial
200
4. Online Spatial Portal Concept
4.1 Please describe your impressions / comments of the online spatial portal?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
4.5 Describe the potential benefits of using an online spatial portal?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
4.8 Describe the potential negative effects of online spatial portal use?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
4.11 Describe how an online portal would affect:-
a) Internal dialogue communication within your Council?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
201
b) External dialogue communication with neighbouring councils, organisations
and government departments?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
c) The use spatial information in decision and/or policy making within your
work role?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
4.12 Describe how an online portal would affect: -
a) Local decision-making and policy development?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
b) Regional decision-making / policy development?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
202
4.2 From the following list please indicate the level of
importance of the following applications that an online spatial
portal could assist you in your work role? (Low, Medium,
High).
a) Inventory Application (such as locating, identifying
and inventory)
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
b) Policy analysis applications (eg. Number of features
per area, proximity to a feature or land use, correlation
of demographic features with geographic features)
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
c) Management / Policy-making applications (eg. More
efficient routing, modelling alternatives, forecasting
future needs, work scheduling).
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
d) Other.
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
L M H
203
4.3 How would you measure the operational effectiveness
of an online spatial portal for your work role from the
following indicators: Again indicate the level of
importance (High, Medium, Low)
a) Accessibility to data
____________________________________________
b) Accuracy of data
____________________________________________
c) Availability of data
____________________________________________
d) Visual display of information
____________________________________________
e) Information layering ability of the site
____________________________________________
f) Useability of the portal (ease of use)
____________________________________________
g) Functions of the portal (tools available)
____________________________________________
h) Interactivity of the portal (ability to answer ‘what
if’ questions)
____________________________________________
i) Realism (the degree to which it looks like the real
world)
____________________________________________
j) Others
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
L M H
204
4.4 How would you measure decision-making effectiveness of
an online spatial portal for your work role, from the following
indicators: Indicate the level of importance (High, Medium,
Low).
a) Communication of information
_____________________________________________
b) Confidence in analysis
_____________________________________________
c) Identification of conflicts
_____________________________________________
d) Explicitness of decisions
_____________________________________________
e) Decision-making time
_____________________________________________
f) Other
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
L M H
205
4.7 For what purpose would you use an online spatial portal?
Indicate the level of importance (High, Medium, Low) for
each of the following possible work purposes.
a) Exploration of information
____________________________________________
b) Confirmation of ideas
____________________________________________
c) Synthesis of knowledge
____________________________________________
d) Presentation of decisions
____________________________________________
e) Others
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
4.9 Describe the potential concerns in using an online spatial
portal? Indicate the level of importance (High, Medium,
Low)
a) Faulty data – data quality and accuracy
__________________________________________
b) Faulty assumptions
__________________________________________
c) Barriers to accessibility – privacy act
__________________________________________
d) Liability
__________________________________________
e) Others
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
L M H
L M H
206
4.10 What would the potential opportunities be for an online
spatial portal from the following? Indicate the level of
importance (High, Medium, Low)
a) Public participation in planning (informing the
citizens)
____________________________________________
b) Reduce time in requesting/obtaining information
_____________________________________________
c) Reducing costs – minimal duplication
_____________________________________________
d) Information sharing between organisations
_____________________________________________
e) Promoting cooperation between organisations
_____________________________________________
f) Informed local and regional decision and policy
making
_____________________________________________
g) Others
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
4.13 Describe how the portal could be improved?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
L M H
207
4.14 What spatial information should be included on the portal?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
4.15 Any other comments regarding an online spatial portal?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
208
Appendix P: Comparison between NVIVO and NUD*IST 6 (N6)
All QSR programs provide: NVivo supports: N6 supports The project and the data All qualitative methods using
rich data to build ideas, test
theories. Small or large
projects.
Fluid, rich data, detailed text
analysis, theory-building.
Customer projects set up for
teams. Project Pad gives
immediate access to functions
Small or large projects.
Automate with command files.
Merge team, or multi-site
projects. The Project Pad gives
immediate access to functions.
Data stored and managed in
documents. Ideas and coding
stored in nodes, optionally
managed in an index system.
Manage documents or nodes in
visual displays in Explorers that
show structure of document,
properties of document or
nodes. Shape documents or
nodes in flexible Sets. Manage
nodes free r tree-structured
New management tools for
shifting nodes, rearranging
trees, changing addresses and
titles. New Explorers offer
display and control over
properties: full integrated into
all documents and node
operations, as the ‘home base’
for all documents and node
work.
Importing data from word
processor or other files. Editing
the data files even after coding
has been done.
Create, or edit documents in the
rich text editor, coding as you
write. Use font, style etc to
convey rich content. Or import
rich content files with font,
colour, formatting, sections,
from word processor.
Plain text documents; line
breaks mark units for coding.
Rapid data import including
creating documents from
clipboard. Automatic formatting
for selected text units – lines,
sentences or paragraphs. Edit
any text unit, append
documents. Cut, copy and paste
text units.
Handling information about
documents or cases, sites etc.
Attributes of document or nodes
handled spreadsheet-like in
flexible display. Values can be
string, number, Boolean or
date/time. Input rapid,
automated by table import.
Information about cases, sites
etc is stored by coding at nodes.
Can be imported in tables, for
documents or cases.
Linking data and ideas Storing ideas in memos and
annotations on documents or
nodes
Memos are rich text, editable,
codeable, searchable. Link any
number of memos to any text,
document or node. Annotate
text finely with embedded
annotations that are reported as
endnotes.
Document or node can have
single memo, edit but not coded
or searched. Memos can be
saved as or appended to
documents for coding and
searching.
Import and export to statistics
packages
Attributes and values imported,
and exported; coding, profiles
of data or matrices exported.
Base data coding for documents
or cases imported or exported to
an table-based software. Coding
and Matrix tables can also be
exported.
Graphic representation of links Graphic Modeler builds models
with layers, styles and live links
to the data. Node export to
Decision Explorer.
Graphic Tree Display. Nodes
exported for modelling in
Inspiration or Decision
Explorer.
Hyperlinks taking you to other
data
Embed in text DataBite links to
any external file and DataLinks
from any text, document or
node to others. Thus create
compound documents.
Jump to data within project.
Jump from coded segment to
document, or to selected codes.
209
Coding, reviewing and coding-on On-screen coding – in
Document or Node Browser. Or
code offline. Store coding in
nodes; optionally organise
them, delete, shift, merge.
Code any selected characters, or
whole paragraphs or up to 9
levels of sections using speed
coding bar, drag and drop, or
Coder that finds required node.
Select an characters in text to
name an ‘In Vivo’ code.
Code fixed text units or
sections. Coding Bar: select
word(s) in text to name in ‘In
Vivo’ code. Very fast select-
and-click coding and uncoding,
integrated with Explorers for
rapid node creation.
View coding in Document or
Node Browser
Live margin Coding Stripes or
see all nodes coding passage.
Examine coding of any passage,
uncode or jump to node.
Edit while you code. Coding is
not invalidated
Edit freely any characters – add
or remove text, add links.
Edit text unit by text unit – or
add or remove text units.
Live Node Browser display
material coded. Show required
context. Jump to source. Code-
on, to new nodes, as
understanding of the category
develops.
Review all characters coded at
this category. View desired
context. Code-on using all
coding and node creation
facilities.
Review all text units coded,
spread to more text units,
paragraphs, section or whole
document. Code-on with coding
bar.
Automating coding Automatic Section Coder will
code all sections at a node for
each – up to 9 levels of
sections. Or autocode by text
search, selecting the context to
be coded and the location of the
new node.
Autocode by text search, spread
coding to required context.
Command files can be used for
automating even very large
processes and are easily
constructed using the Command
Assistant
Report coding of any
documents, text and statistics.
Rich text report, coding stripes
for all nodes.
Plain text reports: can have up
to 26 nodes in coding stripes.
Searching, using and showing results Search text including pattern
search. Search patterns of
coding.
Text and coding searches
integrated in one Search Tool.
Construct searches that combine
these in any search type. Select
search items individually or in
groups.
Separate dialogs and interfaces
for text and coding search. Full
range of operators. Node Search
Window, visually shows search
options with full context help.
Restrict searches to just the data
you want to focus on. Save
results as a node.
Scope searches, by documents
or nodes, filter by coding,
attributes. Assay scope to find
what’s there.
Include or exclude text or
documents coded at a node.
Matrix ‘crosstabulation’ of
coding to show and discover
patterns in data.
Matrix from nodes, text strings
or attributes. Live displays
show table, shading show
pattern. Click on cell to browse
text.
Make matrix from nodes.
Viewed in a live display with
access to reports of cell
contents. Export as text report
or table.
(sourced: QSR International, ‘NVIVO or N6? Comparison Tables’.
210
Appendix Q: Major Text Analysis Packages and Programs
Packages and Program Description ALTAS-ti Text interpretation, text management and theory building.
HyperRESEARCH Coding and retrieval – particular designed for the approach towards
qualitative hypothesis testing.
TextSmart Uses cluster analysis and multi-dimensional scaling to analyse key
words and group texts into categories.
TEXTPAC PC Useful for content analysis of open-ended questions from surveys and
deals with many aspects of text and content analysis
MAx Originally developed to support the analysis of open-ended questions in
survey questionnaires. Additional features for the retrieval of co-
occurring text segments.
Code-a-Text To aid analysis of therapeutic conversation and applied to other text
such as field notes and responses to open-ended questions.
ETHNOGRAPH One of the earliest distributed programs. Its strength is its functions to
assist researchers working in the tradition of ethnography and
interpretive sociology who are more concerned with the interpretive
analysis of text than with theory building and hypothesis examination.
It facilitates the management and analysis of text-based data.
NUDIST Facilitating theory building by searching for words and phrases and
coding data. From the coding it will search for links among the codes
and build hierarchical networks of code patterns, categories and
relationships in the original data. Code data in more than one way to
provide multiple perspectives and enable changes in codes to be
effected as a deeper understanding and grounded theory. A great variety
of retrievals can be conducted to identify co-occurrence of codes which
is defined as the overlapping, nesting, proximity and sequential order of
text segments. All Boolean operators can be employed. Additional
functions include building matrices and for auto-coding according to
user-defined keywords.
NVIVO A finer detail analyser, allowing exploration and interpretation and
integrating the processes of interpretation and questioning. Functions
include: context annotating of text or discourse, hyperlinking to other
text or multimedia, coding, recording the links between data and ideas,
filter and integrate searches of text and attributes.
QUALPRO Was originally a collection of routines for ordinary coding and retrieval
that could be executed Via DOS. It has been extended by the addition
of new functions for co-occurring code searches and matrix displays. A
unique feature is the algorithms for the calculation of interceder
reliability and for computing matrices displaying agreement and
disagreement between coders.
(Sourced: Burns, 2000 and QSR International)
211
Appendix R: NUD*IST research process
NUD*IST operations are classified by Richards and Richards (1991) under three
headings:
• The document system provides for processing and maintenance of the textual
or other documents which form the basic data of qualitative research projects
(the “NUD”)
• A hierarchical indexing system for the documents, which includes a database
of indexing data and supports the creation, modification and inspection of
that database (the “I”)
• The analysis system is a set of tools for manipulating and indexing databases
in numerous ways in the processes of category creation and design, to define
and explore research ideas (the “ST”)
NUD*IST does not build theories for the researcher, rather they have tools or
routines that support the theory-building process (Weitzman, 2000). Each
transcribed interview was loaded into the NUD*IST 6 software (N6), where base
data indexing was completed. This refers to references to facts about the participants
(such as coded identity, coded council, gender, age categories, position, seniority
level, and GIT experience), followed by coding of hierarchal categories. Each
category was then open coded (or coded-on) (Ryan and Bernard, 2000) whereby the
identification of potential themes was correlated by inspecting all passages on a
given topic. This was followed by ‘in-vivo’ coding (Strauss and Corbin, 1990 cited
in Ryan and Bernard, 2000) passages of text by selecting a key word or phrase that
occurs within the passage. This is also known as tree-structured indexing (Richards
and Richards, 1991), which involves the identification of general categories and the
more specific categories that belong under them (Figure below). All these categories
and sub-categories in the indexing tree are called nodes (Richards and Richards,
1991). Memos were used as a technique for recording relationships among the
themes, such as code notes (describes the concepts), theory notes (summary of ideas)
and operational notes (practical matters) (Ryan and Bernard, 2000).
212
Tree structuring - with one example tree shown in more detail
Further analysis of the data took place with Boolean combinations “where there is a
domain of features to be retrieved, the researcher requests to retrieve all entities
which have feature A ‘AND’ feature B, or feature A ‘OR’ feature B, or feature A
‘BUT NOT’ feature B” (Richards and Richards, 1991) which support theory
construction. The qualitative matrix tool was used extensively, whereby sub-
categories were statistically cross-tabulated. As described by Richards and Richards
(1991), the contents of cells are passages of text, and can be “effectively entire tables
of nodes”. This also supported theory building. From the analysis, models emerged
of significant themes, processes, concepts, issues and interaction.
213
Appendix S: First interviews concept map
214
Appendix T: Second interviews concept map
Red – Issues that hinder portal development
Blue – Opportunities to promote portal development
Yellow – Both issues and opportunities for portal development
215
Appendix U: Contributions to policy development
Contributions to policy development by different seniority levels within the sample
councils
Levels Contributions to Policy Development 1 - Council
(Councillors/Mayor)
Are the ultimate decision makers, adopting policy/requesting
more information/revising.
2 – General
Manager
Based on the overall governance of the organisation,
considering organisational structure and relationships, major
projects, reviewing documents before going to Council,
interacting with Council and monitoring the quality control
within the organisation
3 – Directors Driving initiatives and policies, part of the executive who
reviews policies, making recommendations to Councils and
general involvement in policy development.
4 – Managers Preparation of policies related to their respective sections;
giving advice and input into policy development; review and
providing feedback on other department’s policies. They are
also responsible for making sure that their respective sections
are working towards strategies and implementation from the
Council’s Management Plan and other regional strategies.
5 – Coordinators/
Supervisors
Preparation of policies, giving advice and feedback on
policies within their own and other departments; making
recommendations to the executive; writing reports; and
assisting in policy formulation by providing information and
expertise.
6 – Officers/
Planners
Providing feedback and suggestions to policy development to
their managers and other departments; preparation of draft
reports/policies; implementing Council resolutions and
recommendations from the Executive; writing reports; a
coordination role of pulling together information and
coordinating responses. The GIS unit provides maps as
requested by the respective sections within council.
216
Appendix V: Governance
Governance matters: - Governance in this instance refers to the interaction regarding
strategic planning issues in the actual management of council. The interaction occurs
by: a) council enquires to the state department/agency regarding a particular concern
such as an LEP; or (b) council submitting feedback at the request of the state
department/agency. Governance also involves advocacy for funding to manage a
particular regional topic such as economic development, marketing respective LGAs
and influencing political agendas.
217
Appendix W: Validation of 1st interview results
The key findings from the first interview stage were validated during the second
stage interview process. 66% of interviewees agreed that internal isolation was an
issue while the majority (75%) agreed with the findings that external isolation is a
constraint. Purposeful internal and external relationships requires professionals to
use technology to assist their dialogue, this includes immediate access to accurate
and current local and regional information to place decisions in a proper and
meaningful context.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
No
. o
f p
art
icip
an
ts
Internal Isolation External Isolation
Validation of 1st interview results
Agreed
Disagreed
No comment
Validation of key findings from the first phase interviews
218
Appendix X: Local government use of spatial systems
Level Percentage
Simple 32%
Moderate 42%
Sophisticated 18%
Complex 6%
Unknown 2%
(Source: Corporate GIS Consultants, 2003)
219
Appendix Y: Spatial system budget comparison
The allocation of the local government budget compared with the previous year’s
survey indicates the pressure on council GIS units’ resources (Corporate GIS
Consultants, 2003) (bracket percentages indicate the variance from previous year).
Spatial system component Percentage
Staff 39% (-3%)
Data purchase 16% (+12%)
Software 9% (+2%)
Maintenance 9% (+1%)
Data capture and conversion 6% (-9%)
Hardware 6% (0%)
Consulting 5% (-2%)
Mobile computing 5%
Training 3% (-2%)
Software development 3% (-3%)
220
Appendix Z: Other factors hindering innovation capacity
Other factors that hinder innovation capacity and therefore innovation acceptance
include: councils’ geographic referencing of information and loading data onto the
GIS system; GIS experts’ workloads hampering data maintenance and updating the
portal’s database; and fringe councils’ internet speed inhibiting data updates. Other
technical issues identified and must be overcome to ensure the operational
effectiveness of an OSP innovation can be seen in Table below.
Issues identified concerning the potential operational effectiveness of an OSP
Issue Response rate Why Data
accessibility
79.2% - High
importance
Ensure access to the portal immediately and
when required.
Layering
ability
79.2% - High
importance
Integration of SI to ensure compatibility with
other stakeholder SI - no inconsistencies.
Usability 100% - Medium to
high importance
User-friendly interface of the portal, to enable
professionals, not withstanding their GIT
experience, to use the tool.
Availability 95% - Medium to
high importance
Ensure SI is made available by organisations
to share through the portal.
Visual
display
100% - Medium to
high
Visualisation is a key component of SI - the
portal interface should be clear and intuitive.
Interactivity 95.8% - Medium to
high importance
Provide interaction for queries, models and
links with policy areas.
Functions 95.8% - Medium to
high importance
Provide the basic functions of a GIS and print
and download/save.
Factors necessary for OSP technical acceptance by decision makers and GIS
professionals include: maintaining acceptable standards in data quality; security;
user-friendly environment; accessibility and speed. If the portal is too slow, is
frequently unavailable, or has data currency and accuracy issues, the confidence and
support of professionals will falter.
221
Appendix AA: Recommended OSP client interface layout
(Sourced: Marshall, 2003)
222
Appendix AB: Common capacity components
Common capacity components identified (individual, organisational and
institutional)
Common capacity
Individual Organisational Institutional / governance
Skills
Understanding problems
Creativity
Learning
Listening
Information / knowledge
Networking
Empowerment
Working relationships
Leadership
Responsiveness
Trust
Resilience
Adapted from Innes and Booher 2005
223
Appendix AC: Examples of GIS inventory application in
local government
GIS Inventory Applications in Local Government Local Government
Policy Areas Inventory Application
Transportation and
Servicing Routing
Identification of bus routes, road capacity, signalling
system equipment.
Identification of accident sites.
Identification of landfill and recycling sites.
Housing Inventory of housing stock age, condition, status (public,
private, rental) and demographics.
Infrastructure Inventory of roads, footpaths, bridges, utilities: locations,
names, conditions, foundations and most recent
maintenance.
Health Location of persons with particular health problems.
Land Use Planning Parcel inventory of zoning areas, floodplains, industrial,
land uses, open space and commercial zones.
Environmental
Monitoring
Inventory of environmental hazards in relation to vital
resources such as groundwater.
Layering of non-point pollution sources.
Emergency
Management
Location of key emergency exit routes, their traffic flow
capacity and critical danger points.
Citizen Information Location of persons with specific demographic
characteristics such as voting patterns, service usage and
preferences, commuting routes and occupations.
(Source: O'Looney, 2000)
224
Appendix AD: Examples of GIS policy analysis and
management/policy applications in local government
Policy Areas Policy Analysis Applications Management/Policy Making Applications
Transportation and Servicing Routing
Analysis of potential capacity strain given development in certain areas. Analysis of accident patterns by type of site. Analysis of sanitation truck routing in relation to area pickup needs, routing efficiency and destination sites.
Use of analysis to: • Identify ideal high-density
development; areas based on criteria such as established transportation capacity;
• Identify potential alternative traffic flow mechanisms;
• Change routes or to decide where recycling programs or sites should be located.
Housing Analysis of levels of public support for housing by geographic area, drive time from low-income areas to needed service facilities.
Use of analysis to: • Direct funding for housing
rehabilitation or weatherisation; • Routing of work crew; • Location of related public facilities;
and • Planning for capital investment in
housing based on population growth projections in particular areas.
Infrastructure Analysis of infrastructure conditions by demographic variables such as income and population change.
Use of analysis to schedule maintenance and expansion.
Health Spatial, time-series analysis of the spread of disease. Analysis of association of diseases with environmental conditions.
Use of analysis to pinpoint possible sources of disease.
Land Use Planning
Analysis of percentage of land used in each category. Density levels by neighbourhoods. Threats to residential amenities. Proximity to locally unwanted land uses.
Modelling of expected industrial, retail and residential population growth for land use plan. Evaluation of land use plan based on demographic characteristics of nearby population.
Environmental Monitoring
Analysis of spread rates and cumulative pollution levels. Analysis of potential years of life lost in a particular area due to environmental hazards. Using multiple overlays of different pollutants to identify areas of potentially negative synergistic effect.
Modelling of potential environmental harm and duration of harm to specific local areas. Use of analysis of multilayered pollution to guide place specific pollution abatement plan.
Emergency Management
Analysis of potential effects of emergencies of various magnitudes on exit routes and traffic flow.
Modelling of effect of placing emergency facilities and response capacities in particular locations.
Citizen Information
Analysis of voting characteristics of particular areas.
Modelling of effect of placing information bases at particular locations.
(Source: O'Looney, 2000)
