Towards a Framework for Supporting GIS Competencies in Local ...

Built Environment Education Conference

Towards a Framework for Supporting GIS Competencies in Local Government Ann Hockey Department of the Built Environment, Anglia Ruskin University Victoria Road South, Chelmsford mEssex CM1 1LL

Abstract This paper explores the implementation of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) in local government, where GIS usage continues to expand rapidly and is particularly widespread in built environment professions such as planning. The complexity of GIS present a particularly acute learning issue, and key constraints to unlocking their full benefits include organisational structure and remit, lack of awareness of potential applications, the skills base, and management support. This study started from the position that in order to make the best use of GIS, local authorities and their staff need to move into a position that allows the development of levels of learning which promote understanding of the principles and capabilities rather than the operations required to carry out specific tasks. It thus addresses issues related to both individual and organisational learning and development. The research, undertaken in summer 2006, identified three ‘communities’, namely suppliers of GI systems and training, GIS managers in local authorities and GIS users in local government, and, using a multi-stage, multi-method approach comprising primary data sources (material collected using survey and case study methods) and secondary data sources (a review of services provided by GIS training suppliers), investigated current provision of GIS training and development, how training and development is delivered to GIS personnel in local government, and how users’ requirements are being addressed. This paper discusses the findings of this investigation and the learning and training needs and preferences which they revealed, and outlines the conceptual and practical framework for enhancing GIS skills across all levels of local authority staff which was developed on this foundation. Keywords: Training; Education; Local Government; Professional Development; Competencies

1 Copyright © CEBE 2007

Ann Hockey, Towards a Framework for Supporting GIS Competencies in Local Government

Introduction Expansion in the use of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) within local government and the development of internet-based Geographic Information (GI) services has coincided with the drive towards e-government over the last decade. As much of the work of local government involves spatial information, with an estimated 80% of local authority data holdings being geographically referenced (Gill, 2000), the technology is considered fundamental to the achievement of local e-government, facilitating ‘joined-up’ services and access to information. Built environment professionals, whose work involves a strong spatial component, have been at the forefront of using and in many instances implementing systems to facilitate online submission and viewing of planning applications and development plans, building regulations applications, site surveys and monitoring, land and property management, environmental constraints and assessment, traffic management and many others. Despite the large sums of money, resources and user expectations invested in the implementation of ICT projects, many fail to achieve their objectives, in part due to a failure to understand how individuals and organisations learn to use and adapt to ICT (British Computer Society, 2005; Cabinet Office, 2000). GIS present a particularly acute learning issue, being complex systems, offering numerous opportunities for future development as well as considerable scope for things to go wrong. Key constraints to unlocking the full benefits of GIS in organisations include organisational structure and remit, lack of awareness of potential applications, the skills base, and management support (Birks et al., 2003; Grimshaw, 2001; IGGI, 2002). A series of reports commissioned by central government has turned the spotlight on the development of knowledge and skills for employability, both pre- and post-recruitment (ODPM, 2004; HM Treasury, 2006), and the need for ‘relevant, flexible and responsive’ education and training provision. In relation to GIS, a survey undertaken by the Royal Town Planning Institute in late 2005 revealed that over half of members surveyed felt they needed further skills development in GIS, regardless of their current skill level (RTPI, 2005), These factors - the continuing expansion of GIS facilities, the acknowledged high failure rates in ICT projects of all kinds, and the current emphasis on workforce skills gaps - increases the need to address the provision of support for developing and enhancing competencies in applications involving geographical information. This paper is based on research undertaken in 2006 into the implementation of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) in the local government sector in Great Britain. The study started from the position that staff are the most important factor in the successful organisational implementation of GIS, and in order to make the best use of GIS, local authorities and their GIS users needed to move into a position that allowed them to ‘act-with’ the technology (Zuboff, 1988), developing levels of learning which promote understanding of the principles and capabilities and a ‘can-do’ attitude to replace ‘know-what’ operations are required to carry out a specific task (Quinn et al., 1998). It thus addressed issues related to both individual and organisational learning and development (Elkjaer, 2004). Three ‘communities’

2 Built Environment Education Conference Copyright © CEBE 2007


were identified for study, namely suppliers of GI systems and training to local government customers, GIS managers in local authorities and GIS users in local government, and three questions were examined: •

What GIS training and development is currently provided?

•

How is training and development delivered to GIS personnel in local government?

•

What do users require of GIS training and development?

This paper addresses these questions and concludes by outlining a framework of learning and training options to support the development of GIS skills in local government. It also considers the implications of the study’s findings for the current employability debate.

Context What’s special about GIS? Over the last decade, the have been major advances in the diffusion of GIS throughout business and society, not least due to the use of internet technologies, the e-government agenda, and ever-widening ICT literacy. GIS is, to an increasing extent, joining the toolbox available to automate routine tasks, yet ICT literacy does not guarantee its effective use. The ability to ‘think spatially’ is a prerequisite to the successful implementation and use of GIS, and the ever-widening availability and accessibility of GIS technology involves large numbers of people in both applying principles of geographical knowledge and producing geographical knowledge, either consciously or subconsciously. Such principles include scale changes, transformations of phenomena, representations among one, two, and three spatial dimensions, distance, direction, orientation, distributions and patterns, the nature of spatial hierarchies, adjacency and nearest neighbour concepts, density, spatial association, together with the temporal element, and issues such as data quality and accuracy. Spatial data is ‘tricky stuff’ (Reeve and Petch, 1999, p.182) which may conspire against the development of ‘sound’ spatial awareness and understanding. To the geographical knowledge and skills outlined above are added other elements which may make GIS challenging or even overwhelming for new users: sophisticated database technology; visual, pictorial, symbolic output; complex, inter-related data structures; spatial querying; data management; communications with other systems, and so on. Lack of skills, confusion, and misunderstanding on the part of the GIS user may result in the improper use of geographic information, as unwary users fail to identify intrinsic uncertainty in complex knowledge, the ‘ignorance concealed under pretty pictures’ (Couclesis, 2003, p.174). Learning GIS There is a distinction to be drawn between learning to ‘think spatially’ and learning to use a specific GIS package. Many disciplines and professions, such as town planning, are underpinned by, or encourage, the ability to 'think spatially', which is a different type and level of knowledge from that required to know how to operate a specific GIS package. The latter can be achieved without the former, but it is a central proposition of this paper that



successful implementation and use of GIS, the ability to make best use of the software in the workplace, requires the development of a level of spatial thinking and understanding. The emergence of the GIS profession over the last 30 years has highlighted the need to build education opportunities that align with the demands of the employment market. The relationship between education and professional practice is cyclical: education informs practice, practice informs education, and so on in a continuous circle of evaluation and repositioning. As expressed by Frank and Raubal (2001, p.9), ‘teaching methods must be technically adequate and follow the development of technology, but content must also track changes in the real world’. Academic GIS curriculum Writing in the academic context, Berendsen et al. (2003) concluded that in order to successfully teach GIS, a balance has to be found between education (with concepts and principles) and training (acquiring skills for operating a specific software). A concentration on the former lacks a skills base, while the latter lacks conceptual background. The task is complicated by the assertion that ‘these things must be learned, and, unfortunately, their important nuances probably cannot be taught’ (Bernhardsen, 1992, p.v). There have been several exercises to define a ‘standard’ curriculum for teaching GIS knowledge and skills in higher education, most recently, the ‘body of knowledge’ required by GIS professionals published by the University Consortium for Geographic Information Science (UCGIS) in the USA (UCGIS, 2006). However, academic institutions are, with the possible exception of those teaching professionally accredited courses in subjects requiring GIS competencies (for example, those accredited by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors), still largely free to determine the content, assessment methods and evaluation of GIS courses themselves, as there are no universal accrediting bodies (DiBiase, 2003; Wikle and Finchum, 2003). GIS in the workplace The academic debate has been mirrored by debate about the knowledge and skills required to use GIS effectively in the workplace and the certification of GIS professionals. Determining the set of core knowledge and competencies that are considered essential for all GIS professionals is fraught with difficulties, not least because, in a rapidly evolving profession, even the definition of what is or is not a ‘GIS job’ may be debatable (Thurston, 2001). Academic curricula may provide a starting point, but the contribution of business and government, as key employing sectors, is crucial to ensure that the wide range of GIS applications and roles is taken into account. Major initiatives include the Geospatial Technology Competency Model (Gaudet and Annulis, 2001, the GIS Certification Institute scheme (Huxhold and Craig, 2003) and, in the UK, the Association of Geographic Information and Royal Geographical Society’s CGeog (GIS) scheme (RGS, 2006). The Geospatial Technology Competency Model is a detailed exposition of the roles, competencies and outputs required by the GIS industry, and its focus on roles rather than jobs or tasks lead it beyond what might commonly be construed as



comprising GIS in the workplace, to include business and interpersonal competencies, and to individual and organizational development. However, it appears over-complex for general application in the workplace, and is targeted at geospatial professionals, rather than the expanding group of professionals of all disciplines who use GIS as a tool to assist in their everyday working lives. From the employers’ perspective, the process of certification, by which individuals who have demonstrated a level of expertise in a profession are formally identified as such to their peers, colleagues and the wider community by a third party, may be attractive as a ‘one-stopshop’ for quality assurance of the person who has achieved certification. In a rapidly evolving technological environment it may also appeal to individuals who have no formal academic qualifications in GIS or a related discipline but who have acquired GIS knowledge and skills in the workplace, or wish to further develop these (Finchum et al., 2002). Major schemes include, in the USA, the GIS Certification Institute (GISCI ) scheme, which has, at the time of writing, certificated 1,541 GIS professionals (GISPs), mainly from the US business sector (GISCI, 2007). More recently, in the UK the Association for Geographic Information in conjunction with the Royal Geographical Society has added a new category of certification for GIS professionals to the existing Chartered Geographer status. The CGeog (GIS) is open to both established GIS practitioners and new practitioners who are either graduates or nongraduates. In common with most certification programmes, these require participants to demonstrate a level of continuing professional development throughout their careers to demonstrate that their knowledge and skills remain current. In relation to the topic of this paper, perhaps the biggest shortcoming of both the competency model and certification schemes is that they seek to define what a GIS professional needs to know, but do not address HOW they might learn it, or how people in organisations can move between levels of learning, enabling them to ‘act-with’ the technology and promote innovation. Crucial to this is the recognition that people and organisations learn in different ways and at different levels. These are central issues around which this research revolved.

Research Methods The study adopted a multi-stage, multi-method approach comprising primary data sources (material collected using an e-survey and case study methods) and secondary data sources (a review of services provided by GIS training suppliers). The findings of this multi-stage approach, completed in summer 2006, informed the design of a framework for enhancing GIS skills within local authorities in the UK. Review of training providers This focussed on the type of user to which a training product was geared and the level and type of skills, competencies and knowledge it would be likely to promote. Preliminary research quickly revealed that it was not feasible to review all training providers (even if it proved possible to identify them all). Thus the review was limited to 22 major players with a known large market share in local government in the following categories: major GIS



vendors, 3rd party suppliers & consultants, e-learning suppliers, academic sector, professional organisations, GIS user groups, data providers. E-survey of local authorities This aimed to establish the range of GIS training and development delivery methods, attitudes to, and experiences of, training in the local government sector. It was conducted across county, district, unitary and metropolitan authorities in England, Wales and Scotland, and targeted GIS managers, strategic managers, and ‘power users’ (users involved in geographical data management and GIS development, and advanced frequent users). The response to the e-survey (253 questionnaires, 52%) indicates that this is a highly topical issue, and, while the results could not be considered representative due to the purposive nature of the sample, the response rate, mix of types and geographical spread of responding authorities provide results broadly indicative of local government throughout Great Britain. Case studies The e-survey was supplemented by case studies of local authorities of different types, giving a deeper understanding of the processes at play in GIS training and skills development, A major case study was undertaken of Colchester Borough Council (shire district council), plus three smaller comparative case studies of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead (unitary council), Manchester City Council (metropolitan district council) and Essex County Council (shire county council). Semi-structured face-to-face and telephone interviews were conducted with key individuals, supplemented by email and documentary sources. They focussed on the respondents’ assessments of the context of the GIS training and development environment in their local authorities, their perception of the level of skills amongst GIS users, factors likely to influence GIS usage and skills development, the type of training and development that would be best suited to those users, and any emerging development opportunities or challenges which the respondent was promoting or aware of.

Results and Analysis GIS Training and Development: What is Provided It was clear from the review of selected GIS training providers that there is a very wide range of training available to local government, both formal and informal, general or specific, off- or on-the-job, delivered traditionally or electronically. Research by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) indicates that at present organisations in both the public and private sectors still favour, either implicitly or explicitly, formal training (CIPD, 2006. Difficulty of identifying suitable training opportunities may contribute to this: given the huge range, it may be easier to use methods and providers that have been used in the past, or which are the ‘obvious’ choice such as software vendors. However, the review indicated that no single provider meets the entire range of training opportunities likely to be needed to accommodate the different ways and levels at which people learn and the particular characteristics and requirements of GIS. This indicated that a blended approach, incorporating different training mechanisms from different suppliers, might best suit the development of GIS competencies in all types of local government user, whether



experienced users needing to develop further, new users learning from the start, or strategic managers requiring sufficient knowledge to understand material presented to them for policy analysis. Some of these needs are addressed by ‘non-standard’ training providers, organisations whose prime purpose is not GIS training, and so may be overlooked or not even identified by individuals seeking training. Delivering GIS Training and Development The e-survey confirmed that GIS use is widespread, and its adoption as a corporate information tool is steadily increasing. Tensions emerge in providing the ‘right’ training for the widening user base within available budgets. A number of issues were highlighted which add to the complexity of developing GIS competencies in local government, including inconsistencies, both between and within local authorities, in terms of level of GIS application (for example, as a map production tool or a (corporate) information management and analysis tool), senior management commitment, staffing levels and training. Skills, training and communication gaps were revealed, and the training and development emphasis appears to be on ensuring staff know what they are expected to do, on the ‘know-what’ and ‘know-how’ learning levels rather than the ‘know-why’ and ‘can-do’ levels. This may be a reaction to heavy workloads, and limited time and budgets to develop more proactive strategies which encourage movement to the higher learning levels. A high degree of support was apparent for a combination of learning and training methods to suit the topic, staff and requirements, suggesting that GIS managers are well aware that a different approach to ‘standard’ training courses is needed. The preferred mode of delivery is small group or individual hands-on training by professional trainers, plus training from product or software vendors, customised to the organisation’s specific operational requirements. However, training budgets are generally small and training courses delivered by vendors and professional trainers are often expensive, limiting availability to local government staff. On-the-job training is widespread and often delivered by colleagues who are not trained trainers, and word of mouth is relied on to large extent as a means of sharing GIS knowledge and experience. Although not widely used at present, there is growing interest in e-training. Overall, there is unlikely to be a ‘one size fits all’ solution: training programmes must be flexible enough to respond to training needs in a timely and topical way in order to avoid obstacles to take-up of training, and to address the varied needs of a wide user base, including training in related aspects of information management and non-GIS software which nevertheless require spatial and geographical knowledge and skills. GIS Training and Development: Addressing Needs Common themes which emerged in all four local authority case studies related to the uneven adoption of GIS throughout the organisations, lack of awareness of the business benefits of GIS, wide variations in GIS expertise, users’ reluctance to explore for themselves GIS tools and techniques beyond their current usage level, and insufficient specialist staff to provide the training and support which might remedy this. None of the case study authorities have developed GIS training strategies as a framework for the consistent development of GIS skills and competencies throughout their authorities, although all mentioned the likelihood of



utilising their intranets for the provision of e-learning, training and support materials in the near-future. Colchester Borough Council’s move to a competency-based approach to staff appraisal, supported by a private website dedicated to the provision of staff development resources supporting the identified competencies, workshops, away-days and learning networks, suggests a partial way forward to provide GIS training and development programmes which may allow users to move towards the ‘know-why’ and ‘can-do’ levels of learning, for their own and the organisation’s benefit.

Towards a Framework for Supporting GIS Competencies in Local Government The research results led to the specification of a set of conditions and conceptual model upon which a framework of training and learning options might be developed, capable of customization to individual user needs and requirements. The conditions may be summarised as: •

Wide range of user needs from beginners to advanced;

•

Mix of training methods to suit individuals and topics;

•

Preference for individual and small group training;

•

In-house training opportunities preferable;

•

Opportunities to quickly use newly-learned skills;

•

Limited budget provision;

•

Colleagues may be uncomfortable about delivering training;

•

E-training as an option for future development;

•

Opportunities to gain academic qualifications or professional certification;

•

Co-ordinate GIS learning and training with general ICT learning and training

•

Knowledge management and experience-sharing

These conditions, plus other local constraints and opportunities, should be considered when deciding on a programme to support the development of GIS competencies. In addition, an organisational culture which encourages informal learning, inquiry and reflection as part of everyday organisational life is required, promoting individual learning and ownership of learning objectives over ‘being taught’. Although the study did not consider this in any detail, approaches emerging in the case study local authorities indicate ways of tackling this issue. Conceptual Model It was a prime aim of the study to outline a generic framework of training options which might be used by any local authority across all levels of staff. This is described in conceptual terms in Figure 1.



Figure 1: Conceptual Framework for Developing GIS Competencies in Local Government

The model begins by identifying the context within which a GIS learning and training strategy will be located: organisational and local government environment, the broader ICT context, and the learning and training environment. These impact upon each other in cycles of evaluation, change and development. The GIS learning and training strategy comprises the main body of the diagram. This identifies ‘learning pathways’ associated with staff with differing levels of GIS knowledge and skills. These are identified for simplicity as ‘New to GIS’, ‘Introductory GIS’, ‘Intermediate GIS’ and ‘Advanced GIS’, rather than adopting a more complex classification such as that identified by Gaudet and Annulis (2001) for the



Geospatial Technology Competency Model. Each pathway will comprise individuals with differing requirements, learning styles and preferences, and differing existing and desired levels of GIS knowledge and skills. Recognising this, the pathways are shown as overlapping, indicating that elements of more than one pathway may be relevant for any one individual: there is not a straight-line progression from lower to higher knowledge and skill levels, nor is it assumed that all individuals must progress to Pathway 4. The framework indicates a movement from lower to higher levels of learning, from ‘knowwhat’ to ‘can-do’ as one moves to more advanced pathways. This assumes that, as individuals gain in-depth GIS knowledge and advanced skills, their ability to contribute proactively to GIS application, development and learning in their organisation increases. This is not to say that they WILL do so: this depends not only upon their personal motivation but upon the organisational culture encouraging and supporting knowledge-sharing activities. Similarly, an individual moves to an ‘acting-with’ the technology position with increasing knowledge and skills. For some individuals, this may happen very soon after initial exposure to GIS principles and practice; hence this is not identified with a particular learning pathway. The framework incorporates the four ‘family groups’ of GIS competencies identified by Gaudet and Annulis (2001). The two-directional arrow indicates that these will be present to greater or lesser degrees in all pathways, with the possible exception of Pathway 5. It is proposed that a hands-on knowledge of GIS is not essential for this group; what is essential is a full appreciation of the benefits and opportunities which GIS can offer to the local authority, and how these can best be exploited. The framework suggests that participative modes of learning may be more appropriate for this group, for example, learning from networks of senior managers in other authorities, in addition to sharing the knowledge of their own officers. For other pathways and levels of learning, either acquisitional or participative modes of learning may be relevant, according to the topic and individuals concerned. An individual’s journey through the pathways, the competencies and modes of learning relevant to them and the organisation will be assessed and re-assessed by them in discussion with their manager. Thus, progression to a pathway beyond that strictly needed for the current requirements of a job would not necessarily be ruled out. Learning Pathways Whilst this outlines the broad framework of a GIS learning and training strategy, it does not indicate HOW individuals might ‘learn GIS’. The exact configuration of learning & training options followed by individual will depend upon organisational learning environment, & discussions between individual & his/her manager; however, the pathways described above have been expanded to indicate training options which an individual and his/her manager might consider: examples of Pathway 1 and Pathway 4 are shown below. The pathways comprise 3 streams, as appropriate: self-learning options (left-hand stream); formal training options (centre stream); academic options (right-hand stream). The streams have been populated with providers and products from those reviewed. Note that these are included as examples only: there is no suggestion that they are the only or ‘best’ options. Each stream includes a mix of methods and providers; no- or low-cost resources; internet



and traditional delivery formats, allowing the individual and his/her manager to customise the learning programme.

Conclusions Whilst the expanded pathways propose routes which might be taken to develop GIS competencies amongst staff, it must be noted that the framework is just that: it does not and cannot provide all the answers. The exact configuration of learning and training options which are followed by an individual will depend upon decisions which are made within local authorities to support the organisational learning environment and staff learning and development, and discussions between an individual and his/her manager. The framework cannot be implemented as a stand-alone model, and is unlikely to be effective in organisations which adopt a reactive, rather than a proactive, approach to learning and development. It is more likely to be useful in local authorities which are prepared to learn how to teach as well as teach how to learn (Shilson, 1999). Aspects of the framework which are likely to make it attractive to the local government sector include: support for the e-government and modernising agendas; support for organisational learning objectives; assist in maximising the benefit of investment in complex and expensive GIS systems; encourage a view of GIS as part of the wider ICT and information management environment of local government; and promotion of a flexible approach to GIS learning and development which will suit both the organisation and the individual. It supports the use of competency-based staff development practices, which emphasise understanding and application of learning, and indicates that greater use could be made of in-house resources including learning modules delivered over a local authority’s intranet. These would thus be available to all staff, and aid the view that GIS is a tool for all rather than for a group of specialists. In relation to the current employability debate in higher education, the study highlights the importance of contextualised and participative learning which is well-connected to the expectations and needs of business and the professions, and develops in students the capacity for self-learning. As GIS becomes increasingly a part of the ICT toolkit, employers will expect familiarity with and experience of using it, particularly so in built environment (and natural environment) disciplines, and higher education is responding: many courses in disciplines other than geography and geographical information science now include GIS in their teaching, and initiatives such as the new CEBE Special Interest Group in GIS for Planning will assist in sharing best practice in equipping graduates with highly transferable skills for employment.



Figure 2: Pathway 1: Skill Level – New to GIS (poorly developed spatial and geographical knowledge and skills)



Figure 3: Pathway 4: Skill Level – Advanced GIS skills, corporate GIS manager, frequent user, data management, GIS application development.



References Berendsen, M. E., Hamerlinck, J. D. and Wayne, L. (2003). Framework and Strategies for Integrating Metadata Concepts with Geographic Information Science Curricula, URISA Journal, 15 (1): 37-46. Bernhardsen, T. (1992). Geographic Information Systems. Arendal: Viak IT. Birks, D. F., Nasirin, S. and Zailani, S. H. M. (2003). Factors influencing GIS project implementation in the UK retailing industry’, International Journal of Information Management, 23: 73-82. British Computer Society (BCS) (2005). BCS Thought Leadership Debate, Why Are Complex IT Projects Different? URL: http://www.bcs.org/BCS/News/ThoughtLeadership/pastdebates/complex/ Cabinet Office. (2000). Successful IT: Modernising Government in Action, Review of Major Government IT Projects. London: ODPM. Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD). 2006. Reflections on the 2006 learning and development survey: Latest trends in learning, training and development. London: CIPD. URL: http://www.cipd.co.uk/NR/rdonlyres/409D5A83-E472-4380-8C16430A7E7BF5C8/0/refladndsurv0406.pdf Couclelis, H. (2003). The Certainty of Uncertainty: GIS and the Limits of Geographic Knowledge, Transactions in GIS, 7 (2): 165-175. DiBiase, D. (2003). On Accreditation and the Peer Review of Education in Geographic Information Systems and Science, URISA Journal, 15 (1): 7-14. Elkjaer, B. (2004). Organizational Learning, The “Third Way, Management Learning, 35 (4): 419-434. Finchum, G. A., Tas, H, I., and Wikle, T.A . (2002). The Status of Professional Certification in GIS. URL: http://gis.esri.com/library/userconf/educ02/pap5044/p5044.htm Frank, A. U. and Raubal, M. (2001). GIS Education Today: From GI Science to GI Engineering. URISA Journal, 13 (2): 5-10. Gaudet, C. and Annulis, H. (2001). Geospatial Workforce Training and Development: Building Tomorrow’s Workforce for Spatial Information Technologies. Paper presented at the URISA Annual Conference 2001. Gill, S. (2000). GIN’n’T, Geographic Information Networks ‘not’ Technology. URL: http://www.rtpi.org.uk/resources/panels/gis/papers.html GIS Certification Institute (GISCI). (2007). URL: http://www.gisci.org Grimshaw, D. J. (2001). Harnessing the power of geographical knowledge: the potential for data integration in an SME, International Journal of Information Management, 21: 183-191. HM Treasury. (2006). Leitch Review of Skills. Norwich: TSO. Huxhold, W. E. and Craig, W. J. (2003). Certification and Ethics in the GIS Profession, URISA Journal, 15 (1): 51-64. Intra-governmental Group on Geographic Information (IGGI) (2002). Departmental Geographical Information Strategies, Best Practice Guide. London: ODPM. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM). (2004). The Egan Review: Skills for Sustainable Communities. London: RIBA Enterprises



Quinn, J.B., Anderson, P. and Finkelstein, S. (1998). Managing Professional Intellect: Making the Most of the Best. Harvard Business Review on Knowledge Management, 181-205. Reeve, D. and Petch, J. (1999). GIS, Organisations and People, A Socio-technical Approach. London: Taylor and Francis Royal Geographical Society (RGS). (2006). Chartered Status for GIS Scientists. URL: http://www.rgs.org/NR/rdonlyres/2D3D5369-771A-45E1-9302F299145FB3E6/0/CharteredStatusforGIScientists.pdf Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI). (2005). A Survey of Discipline Knowledge and Generic Skills of RTPI Corporate Members. London: RTPI. Shilson, P. (1999). Just Getting By: A Pragmatic Approach to GIS Training. Unpublished MSc dissertation. UNIGIS. Thurston, J. (2001). The New Geo-Jobs: Redefining Job Descriptions in the New Millennium. GeoInformatics Magazine, June 24, 2001. University Consortium for Geographic Information Science (UCGIS). (2006). Geographic Information Science and Technology Body of Knowledge 2006. URL: http://www.ucgis.org/priorities/education/DB/Upload/BoK_19Mar06.pdf Wikle, T. A. and Finchum, G. A. (2003). The emerging GIS degree landscape. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 27 (2): 107-122. Zuboff, S. (1988). In the Age of the Smart Machine: the Future of Work and Power. New York: Basic Books.


Towards a Framework for Supporting GIS Competencies in Local ...

Towards a Framework for Supporting GIS Competencies in Local ...

Suggest Documents

Towards a Framework for Supporting ...

Towards a Framework for Supporting Unconditionally ...

Towards a Conceptual Framework Supporting ... - Semantic Scholar

Towards a Framework for Supporting Software Modeling Activities ...

A Provisional Framework for Supporting Academics in

TOWARDS A FRAMEWORK FOR SYSTEMIC CREATIVITY IN ...

Towards a Classification Framework for

A Framework for Developing Competencies in Open and ... - Eric

a framework for assessing the competencies reflectied in ... - Journals

Recommendations for Core Competencies for Local Environmental ...

Modeling competencies for supporting work ... - Semantic Scholar

Modeling competencies for supporting work ... - Semantic Scholar

TC Practitioner Competencies Framework

Towards a Unified Source Code Measurement Framework Supporting ...

Towards a Unified Source Code Measurement Framework Supporting

STANDALONE FRAMEWORK FOR MOBILE GIS

Towards a Stage Model for GIS and SDI Deployment in Local ... - PACIS

A Harmonised Regulatory Framework for Supporting ...

A Framework for Creating and Evaluating Competencies for ...

A computational framework for supporting software inspections ...

Recommended Core Competencies for Local Environmental ... - CDC

Supporting Information for Towards a Comprehensive Understanding

PROFILE A GIS/Simulation Framework for Assessing Change in Water ...

Towards a Formative Assessment of Classroom Competencies ...