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

3.  Human Resources

4.  Financial and Administrative Resources

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:
  1. 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:
  2. 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.
     
  3. 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. 
     
  4. 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.