GeoBase Challenges
DATABASE MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL ARE UNRESOLVED ISSUES FOR THE AIR FORCE’S GIS FOR INSTALLATION MAPPING.
Three years ago, Military Geospatial Technology (Vol. 2, Issue 2) reported on Air Force adoption of GeoBase, a GIS for installation mapping. GeoBase replaces many legacy maps maintained by separate installation entities, such as civil engineering (CE) and communications maintenance, with a common digital map displaying several data layers, each contributed by a separate installation agency.
In the past, Air Force Civil Engineer Electrical and Utilities Work Centers in particular have relied on numerous, cumbersome and often outdated paper-based utility infrastructure maps in order to conduct business. With the advent of computeraided drafting and emergence of geospatial software, relational databases and applications, the utility maps migrated from paper-based to digital media. This allowed the addition of geolocation information as well as annotation of features and attributes of individual system components such as installation date and responsible agency.
Despite implementation success, several important issues remain as to how these systems are used and maintained. A recent in-depth study by the Air Force Institute of Technology of four major installations using GeoBase, each from a different major command, has uncovered several challenges for GeoBase owners and users.
We contend that system implementation issues have largely been resolved. But two categories of post-adoption issues are still largely unresolved, negatively impacting GeoBase utilization and the long-term health and sustainability of the system. These categories are data management and utilization, and administrative control.
DATA MANAGEMENT AND UTILIZATION
The challenges in the area of data management and utilization include data access, updating data at jobsites, data quality and data security. GeoBase supports a “common installation picture,” in which all of the utility, physical infrastructure, emergency response routes, explosive safety zones and other data are represented on a common GIS as separate mission data layers (MDL).
Multiple installation agencies each maintain a MDL and make use of the combined data represented by all of the MDLs together. Providing timely access to GeoBase data for all interested agencies has proved challenging. Some installations have maintained GeoBase only in a centralized location, in the civil engineering offices, which makes data usage in the field by CE employees and other agencies problematic.
Agencies with network access can print maps as needed ahead of time, but no jobsite access is available. Agencies without access may query the GeoBase program office to print maps for them. As a result, individuals at the jobsites have no access to the dynamic capabilities of the GIS. These access difficulties have negatively affected use of the system, according to installation GeoBase owners, by making the process more time consuming and frustrating. In addition, the printed maps have been less effective than use of the full system.
However, results indicate that use (and value added) would greatly increase if GeoBase was accessible remotely at the jobsites, via viewing software on laptops, PDAs or tablet PCs. Onsite viewing of the GIS, rather than printing static maps ahead of time, would grant immediate access to data that might be needed to confront emergent situations, including life-threatening ones that require fast onscene decisions.
The second data management issue concerns updating data while in the field. Typically, data corrections and updates are discovered by teams out on jobsites. An advantage of the GeoBase system—as opposed to legacy paper-based systems—is that information can be immediately captured and universally updated in the common installation picture. However, analysis of current practices indicates that it is not feasible for GeoBase technicians, who are currently responsible for data updates, to travel to remote work locations to capture new data. Instead, we recommend that users be trained in collecting and inputting MDL data directly into GeoBase from jobsite locations.
Third, maintaining data quality is a significant problem. It was the challenge cited as most important by engineers interviewed in the study. Data quality refers to data attributes such as accuracy, relevance and currency. While an MDL data accuracy threshold had not been determined at any of the four case locations, each location was working toward having as accurate data as possible available within the GeoBase system.
Because legacy data imported into GeoBase was often erroneous or incomplete, continual updates are needed. Our results suggest that each organization maintaining an MDL ought to have a data steward, with practical knowledge of the data in the MDL and trained to create and update the organization’s MDL, who is responsible for keeping data current, accurate and relevant.
Finally, an emerging yet critically important issue for GeoBase is data security. Maintaining a common installation picture creates a single point of failure if data are compromised or exploited by an unfriendly entity. While security is a broader concern for all installations and IT systems, there are specific problems incurred with increased reliance on GeoBase. These include theft or misuse of mobile devices loaded with GeoBase and used at jobsites and the risks of sharing GeoBase data perfunctorily with other agencies and contractors who might not need access to all the data.
ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL
Administrative control issues concern how GeoBase is centrally managed at each installation and how implications of managing the system reflect relationships up and down the chain of command. These challenges include clear reporting relationships within civil engineering for GeoBase program managers and technicians, formal relationships with MDL owners, funding issues for ongoing system maintenance, and standardization across the larger Air Force community of GeoBase users.
First, analysis showed that GeoBase program management and technical support were managed differently for each of the four installations studied. For example, one had the GeoBase program manager directly responsible for the GeoBase office and technicians, and in turn reporting to the operations flight commander. Another had program management as an oversight role held within the resources division, yet the office and technicians were managed by the operations division. Still another maintained the GeoBase office under the engineering, rather than the operations, flight.
As a result, each program manager had varying levels of management and oversight as well as varying pay grades or rank. While rank was not indicative of capabilities or expertise, it was noted that the program manager’s ability to facilitate changes in the program were, in many cases, affected by his rank/pay grade and position in the organizational structure. Standardization of GeoBase program management across installations is needed, especially as it pertains to open and direct communication with installation leadership.
Second, GeoBase managers need a single point of contact with each organization supporting an MDL in GeoBase to establish formal relationships for enforcing standards and adjudicating issues across the user community. These might include deciding how frequently data must be updated, resolving disputes and implementing new policy directives. Without these formal relationships, GeoBase managers lack the authority requisite for their responsibility to maintain a quality system for the installation.
Third, issues are emerging concerning the continued funding of GeoBase as more and more installation organizations come to rely on it for the common installation picture. In each location studied, funds were needed for additional training, software, hardware and personnel. While GeoBase management falls under CE responsibility, funding responsibility for external agencies, such as security, safety and communications, is unclear.
Additionally, it is difficult to quantify the funding requirements for such issues as “data quality assurance” and “data collection training.” It may be that CE management of GeoBase for other installation agencies includes responsibility for all training and data maintenance. But these agencies should incur financial responsibility via some type of licensing or internal service level agreement, such as that often found for tech support between the IT and other divisions of an organization.
The last challenge concerns Air Force level oversight of GeoBase, which becomes a greater concern as more installations come to rely on GeoBase and more organizations maintain MDLs within each system. While early Air Force guidance mainly concerned implementation of GeoBase, our analysis uncovered more complex issues regarding standardization of use across installations and inefficiencies resulting from redundant work accomplished at several installations.
At each of four installations studied, a locally produced program was created to process Base Civil Engineering Work Clearance Requests. Each location was unaware of the same application in work at other installations. Thus the installations should be working toward a collaborative effort concerning GeoBase applications. Some tools are already in place to facilitate this effort, including a number of Air Force communities of practice for sharing methods, best practices and data across commands. As GeoBase was devised to reduce redundancy in mapping, so too should efforts be made to reduce redundancy in applications. ♦
