SUPPORTING
INFRASTRUCTURE
If you wish to submit comments please SEND
COMMENTS TO THE EDITORS.
Objective
A necessary
consideration in the development or expansion of courses incorporating
techniques such as geographic information systems (GIS) is the establishment of
the infrastructure to support such instruction. Planning for the practical
application of knowledge involves the determination of hardware, software, data
and personnel needs. Beyond the initial establishment of facilities, ongoing
issues of maintenance (broadly defined) and upgrade, must be addressed. This
white paper will seek to synthesize key issues that arise both in the short and
long term, starting with technological, human, financial and administrative
resources. Priorities for action will then be suggested.
Background
The
burgeoning of computer technology and its incorporation into courses has created
a new dilemma for instructors: how to establish and maintain the necessary
computer related support infrastructure. Often, the hurdle of acquiring
equipment and establishing a facility looms so large in importance that little
or no time is left for conceptual development or planning for the future
maintenance and upkeep of the facility. Administrators, and those not directly
connected with using the facility often take the misguided view that computer
laboratories are self-sustaining. The literature to date covers the
establishment of teaching modules and incorporation of computer/GIS technology
into courses through instructional modules (Groop, 1985; Nellis, 1994; Walsh,
1992). Some articles have addressed the acquisition of technology and the
development of a laboratory facility (Anonymous, 1993; Brimicombe, 1993; Hepner,
1985; King, 1991; Palladino and Kemp, 1991). Beyond this, there are few
guidelines on the supporting infrastructure needed to complement instruction in
geographic information science.
Issues
1. Function/Purpose
In designing and developing the support infrastructure,
clear recognition of the intended purpose and desired outcomes is
critical to successful implementation. There is no single model that can be
employed by all in the development of an infrastructure to support GIS
education. There are a variety of scales of implementation, teaching styles,
learning priorities, and institutional frameworks within which instruction takes
place. The function may vary from a strictly educational role using the
traditional lecture/laboratory format to a combination of research and/or
contract work and education. The facility may be dedicated to one department or
tool, or have to support multiple tools for departments campus wide. In addition
to the range of functions to be supported, the scale of resources available and
the size of the client base, both in terms of the range of courses and the
number of students in each to be accommodated will strongly influence the shape
of the infrastructure.
Beyond these considerations, innovations in
technology and teaching methodology may call for radical shifts in the
design and further development of the infrastructure. The implementation of
distance learning which relies heavily on remote access and individual student
(versus institutional ownership) of the technology represents one such change
underway. The pace of change requires forward thinking on these issues, if the
infrastructure is to maintain its relevance and effectiveness.
2. Technological
Resources
- Design and Maintenance: In the initial
phase of infrastructure creation, the stated purpose of the facility should
drive the design. Who are the users and what are their needs? Will a facility
be used by faculty, students, and or organized classes? Will it be open or
restricted to particular users or set times? Is the facility to be stand alone
or part of a network of facilities? Such considerations are fundamental to the
determination of hardware, software, data, and personnel needs in the
facility. The relative availability of each of these components will dictate
how well objectives are fulfilled. For example, availability of personnel to
manage and maintain a laboratory may determine how much access is allowed and
to whom. These elements also may be substitutable. For example, an investment
in hardware security may enable more access when staffing resources are
limited. Planning for all these components should be part of the initial
proposal, as decisions made in establishing the facility will impact its
future utility and management.
- Materials: Beyond the physical
facilities, instructional materials must be procured. The world wide web has
broadened access to software, data, exercise and curricular materials. In
addition, online tutorials and demonstrations may be used to stretch limited
resources. Where facilities are limited, internships and cooperative work with
local agencies or companies may augment resources and provide more broad
reaching benefits.
- Safety and security: Relatively
inexpensive hardware security devices have been available for some time.
Operating system security functions, virus checkers and network control
programs offer protection on the software side, but only if installed and
maintained correctly. None of these measures are foolproof. Need for access
versus security control will continue to be an issue. Policies for access and
backup are necessary complements to physical security measures.
3. Human Resources
- Facility administration: Management
issues are vital to the successful operation of the infrastructure. While the
planning and acquisition phases are key to the future success of the facility,
if a management plan does not exist, the facility may not fulfill its
potential. Setting policies on resource utilization is also essential to the
smooth running of the facility. When a facility is shared between departments
and/or subjects, the chain of administrative control and responsibility is
particularly important. To a large extent, the functional orientation for
classes, practical sessions, and/or research work will determine who has
access and how that access is managed. However, personnel responsibilities and
authority need to be established and publicized, especially in a
multifunctional facility.
- Staffing: Personnel is generally the last
budget item considered. The type of support (full or part-time, shared or not)
and the expertise level of the individuals may determine how well the
facilities meets users' needs. Alternative strategies abound. Graduate
assistants, university computing services, departmental staff and faculty may
be in the mix. Where several individuals are involved, policies on the chain
of command and the duties and responsibilities of each person (for example,
teaching versus maintenance role) should be set out. Informal networks for
support in the vendor or private sector should also be cultivated.
4. Financial and Administrative
Resources
- Funding: Given the growing need and
tightening funds, all sources should be explored. Internal funding may be
available in the form of grants, laboratory fees or capital expenditure funds.
External mechanisms include grants, contracts, and donations. Matching
programs should be explored as they can often provide much needed
leverage.
- Administrative issues: Direct
administrative issues involving the enunciation of policies on responsibility
and authority of personnel are generally easily handled under existing
structures. However, the time cost of establishing and maintaining a facility
are often overlooked. In addition, time spent in building private and agency
partnerships may not show immediate tangible results. In particular, untenured
faculty burdened with such responsibilities may be at risk when promotion, and
tenure or job retention decisions arise. Thus the traditional reward structure
which rarely counts service equal to research and teaching may need to be
adjusted to fully acknowledge time spent in laboratory building and
administration. A separate issue arises when the laboratory fills the dual
role of teaching and contract facility. Clear definition of responsibilities
and priorities are needed.
5. Future Proofing
Technology is not static. A commitment for continuing
hardware, software and data upgrade and maintenance may be difficult to obtain,
but is essential if infrastructure is to retain its level of effectiveness.
Initial startup funding generally does not include additional amounts for these
necessities. The availability of funding or means of covering maintenance and
upgrades will impact the management strategy. Mechanisms for creating revenue so
that the facility becomes self supporting should be carefully examined for both
direct and indirect impacts. Cooperative or collaborative options, for example
cost sharing through site license purchase, may provide savings. Other units on
campus, for example the library and computing services may provide opportunities
for resource sharing.
As well as funding, time requirements for
installing software upgrades, data management and general maintenance need to be
examined. The issue of whether funds are available for staff or whether the
burden is to be carried by faculty or student assistants needs consideration. In
some instances, vendor support services may be available or a vendor maintenance
contract may be required as part of the purchase agreement. In each case,
funding mechanisms need to be explored both internally (for example, through lab
fees) and externally (for example, through cooperative agreements with private
sources).
With the rapid changes occurring in the technology
components, for example, new versions of operating systems and software
packages, hard questions have to be asked about how to support these continuing
demands both in financial and personnel terms. Is it important to support a
variety of hardware/software options, or only one or two? Should multiple
formats be supported or one standard adopted? Do all innovations have to be
adopted?
The inevitable developments in hardware, software,
data standards and various other technology components will have ripple effects
within the infrastructure, potentially necessitating accommodations and changes
in other components. Therefore, change management is vital to prevent
dislocation.
Benefits And Importance To
National Needs
While many of the
issues outlined in this white paper are focused on the specifics of
infrastructure establishment and management, the overall effort is directed
towards the removal of physical impediments to instruction in a largely
technology dependent field. Expanded capability in practical training, and
streamlining of technology delivery should enhance the theoretical component of
geographic information science education through the resultant broadening of
students' exposure to the concepts as they work real world examples.
The UCGIS has the opportunity to play a leadership
role in examining these little studied issues. By exploring options to improve
and strengthen the geographic information science education supporting
infrastructure, a contribution will be made both in member institutions and the
broader community.
On the practical level, the examination of issues
involved in the establishment, management and maintenance of the supporting
infrastructure should prove of benefit to the novice starting the process as
well as those with established facilities. The novice may not be aware of the
pitfalls noted above, while the current manager may benefit from the
acknowledgment of the importance of such issues when seeking internal or
external support for the facility's operation or growth.
Recommendations and Action
Items
In conclusion, the
following recommendations and associated action items are suggested for
consideration:
- Information Dissemination: With the
continual changes occurring in the support infrastructure, it is difficult for
any one individual or department to keep up with the state-of-the-art in this
field. It is undesirable for time and resources to be unnecessarily diverted
from conceptual and instructional development to management and maintenance.
Yet it is vital that the practical component of instruction remain up to date.
Therefore, the following actions are suggested:
- "How to" guide: As a starting point, a
guide which sets out the basic steps, as well as scenarios for the
development or management of facilities under different resource conditions
would be helpful. Such a guide may include a series of laboratory facility
models, broken down by type, scale and budget. Action Item:
explore options for producing a "how to" guide.
- Case Study Models of Facilities: Rather
than repeat the same errors or reinvent the wheel, the UCGIS membership
holds a wealth of knowledge on what works and what does not work in terms of
support infrastructure development and maintenance. No single model will fit
all needs or environments. Policies, pitfalls, "tricks" and lessons learned
can be shared to the advantage of all.
Action Item: solicit case study information from
the UCGIS members, and possibly other exemplar institutions, and compile for
distribution through the World Wide Web.
Action Item: solicit volunteers to create a Web
based FAQ on support infrastructure issues and maintain a section for
discussion.
- Web Clearinghouse: A wealth of
information and materials already exist on the Web, and elsewhere.
Specialized software, data and instructional materials already exist and the
amount of material is growing daily. While such material can be found
through searches and browsing, room exists for streamlining and improving
access to this information.
Action Item: create a UCGIS Clearinghouse Page
for links to instruction related materials and resources including software,
data, and exercise materials.
- Funding/Financing: More information on
funding sources, both traditional and nontraditional, and opportunities to
support and expand facilities would be beneficial. Additionally, institutional
recognition of the need for ongoing funding for maintenance, replacements and
upgrades is not always present. Those seeking support often have little
"ammunition" with which to convince administrators of this need.
Action Item: add a section to the Clearinghouse Page on funding
sources, opportunities, and alternative support avenues. Items might include a
list of funding sources, contact information for successful grant writers who
are prepared to be mentors, special offers from vendors, government agencies,
and other institutions.
Action Item: include funding as one of the FAQ
topic areas.
Action
Item: solicit information from
members on infrastructure costs an creative funding arrangements. Provide a
summary of this information on the Clearinghouse Page.
- Partnerships: Vendors, government
agencies at all levels, and private interests are both providers of materials
and benefactors of instructional improvements. Therefore they may be enrolled
as partners in the process of improving the support infrastructure for
geographic information science education.
Action Item: actively pursue opportunities for
dialog with vendors, government agencies and private companies with a view to
developing areas of mutual support.
Action Item: designate UCGIS contact
person(s) to serve as conduit(s) for information to be disseminated to the
membership.
- Support Infrastructure Related Policy:
Compatibility and lack of standardization remain stumbling blocks to easy
sharing of materials (especially data), and efforts to provide students with
at least an overview of the breadth of technologies they may face when they
graduate.
Action Item: initiate
discussion of standards and compatibility issues among the membership through
the Clearinghouse Page or the FAQ.
Action Item: open discussion with key figures in
government agencies and other organizations working on standards and related
issues.
References
Anonymous,
1993. Planning a computer lab. Considerations to ensure success. Higher
Education Production Companion, 3, 1: 16-18, 20.
Brimicombe, A. J. 1993. GIS laboratories: Perpetual
motion, perpetual money. Geo Info Systems, 3, 4: 53-56.
Groop, R., S. L. Dodge, and G. Manson. 1985.
Microcomputer modules for undergraduate geography. Journal of Geography,
84, 4: 161-164.
Hepner, G. F. 1985. Considerations in the
development of a computer mapping laboratory. Journal of Geography, 84,
2: 64-67.
King, G.O. 1991. Geography and GIS technology.
Journal of Geography, 90, 1: 66-72.
Nellis, D. 1994. Technology in geographic
education: Reflections and future directions. Journal of Geography, 93,
1: 36-39.
Palladino, S. D. and Kemp, K. K. (eds.) 1991. GIS
Teaching Facilities: Six Case Studies on the Acquisition and Management of
Laboratories. National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis
Technical Paper 91-21.
Walsh, S. 1992. Spatial education and integrated
hands-on training Essential foundations of GIS instruction. Journal of
Geography, 91, 2: 54-61.
Author:
Susan M. Macey
Department of Geography and Planning,
Southwest Texas State University.
sm07@swt.edu
Additional Working Group
Members:
Geoff Dean,
North Forests Burnie, Tasmania
Geoff.H.Dean@north.com.au
James Wilson,
Center
for GIS, James Madison University,
wilsonjw@jmu.edu
If you wish to submit comments please SEND
COMMENTS TO THE EDITORS.