Abstract
The Commander, U.S. Army Military District of Washington (MDW) decided to develop and implement a Spatial Data Standards (SDS) compliant major command (MACOM) Geographic Information System (GIS). This paper will describe a system that evolved from installation unique approaches to a major command standards-compliant template. The paper will also describe how MDW integrated existing databases and pushed the maintenance responsibility down to data owner levels. We will describe how development has been centralized and how the MDW approach to GIS has contributed to successful installation GIS implementation.
The Military District of Washington (MDW) is an Army Major Command responsible for installation management at six installations including Fort A. P. Hill, Fort Belvoir, Fort Hamilton, Fort Meade, Fort McNair and Fort Myer. Installation management is focused around several main areas including master planning and development, real estate and real property facility use, utilities, construction, operations and maintenance, housing operations and management, and environmental management.
Several installations began their own individual GIS initiatives as they recognized the value of GIS for base operations and management. Fort Belvoir was one of the first MDW installations to recognize GIS as a core operations function. Following in their path, other MDW installations began to implement GIS, often through existing programs such as Environmental, Natural Resources, Public Works and Integrated Training Area Management (ITAM). Not all MDW installations were successful due to fragmented approaches. Their success was hindered due to inconsistent funding, lack of a single GIS proponent, duplication of efforts, miscommunication, and resistance to the technology. Military District of Washington decision makers saw past these problems and realized that by implementing a MACOM-wide GIS, with clear and definitive tasks, a robust GIS could be established.
This initiative began in September 1999. MDW began with planimetric data development and then decided to focus on the development of utilities since they were directly related to the privatization of utilities initiative and safety concerns. Knowing where utilities exist, especially underground, is a great asset to an installation during construction. It not only prevents accidents, it also helps identify costs by allowing personnel to know which utilities would have to be moved, added, or removed under different scenarios. In one instance, after a valid digging permit was issued, a gas line was ruptured at the location, resulting in a fire that impacted the overhead electrical utilities. This accident cost the installation a large sum of money and was a huge cause for concern about the knowledge of the location of underground utilities. In another case, there was a data call for utility information to support the privatization initiative. It was observed that the installation with the most robust GIS was able to produce needed information on a CD while others produced rolls of paper drawings or nothing at all. The Commander of MDW made the decision to fund a centralized GIS program. By centralizing the funding, MDW was ensuring that the funding was used for the purpose intended and would result in consistent data development among the installations. The outcome of this effort became much more than initially envisioned. GIS at MDW is now a robust program that installation personnel have come to rely on for execution of their day-to-day activities.
As with the development of any GIS, the solution is reliant upon a clear understanding of the requirements. Performance Group Inc. (PGI) conducted needs assessments for each of the six MDW installations within the required MDW timetable of two-weeks. Multiple teams were used and a comprehensive report was generated. The report defined the hardware, software, and service requirements, a plan of action for each installation, and the cost for the desired effort.
MDW hoped to fund the entire budget, but due to constraints, the contract was awarded for about half the original estimated cost. PGI re-evaluated the technical approach, services, and scope of the contract to concentrate on MDW’s new budget guidelines. One installation, Fort Meade, was removed from the equation, and was funded separately. The MACOM GIS Development Center was also removed but the vision was kept alive.
The philosophy of the Center is and was a good one. The Center was proposed as a means of providing cost efficiencies to the long range program by providing a single location for a concentration of GIS professional personnel; specialized GIS development tools; and symmetry in the design and implementation of GIS systems including hardware, software, data types, data format, database structure and functionality for all MDW facilities. Additionally, the Center was to be a place to centralize a GIS database for distribution of all MDW installation data to MDW Headquarters users and as a data security backup site.
PGI staffed each installation with competent GIS analysts, developed Implementation Plans, and procured and installed the necessary hardware and software, including GIS workstations and plotters for each installation. PGI provided interim MDW GIS Center support at its Dahlgren, Virginia office, as well as at installation GIS Centers, in coordination with the MACOM GIS Manager. Once the infrastructure was in place, PGI began data creation. The data came from all available sources ranging from paper documents, digital CAD files, aerial photography and GPS field data location collection methods. Today, as PGI continues to develop data, the information is immediately integrated into the GIS systems providing instant support to on-going operations. Hands-on GIS software training and documentation are also provided. Currently, 12 GIS contractors support MDW and the 6 installations and $2.9 million has been spent by MDW on this effort.
Although MDW funded most of the data development and has use for the installation GIS data, the installations are considered the data owners, and thus they are responsible for the maintenance of the data. Any specialized projects that arise that do not match MDW’s core GIS implementation plans are funded by installations, not the MACOM.
Support is ongoing and PGI has now begun support to Fort Meade and the Center located at Fort McNair. Future plans include expanding and maintaining the GIS data for each installation, providing for local distribution of GIS data and providing MDW HQ access to shared GIS data for each of the MDW installations. This tailored secure web access capability will allow for the sharing of GIS information with consideration for data security, authorized access, data ownership, change authorization, data red-lining and collaboration as well as communication features. The addition of other data layers such as fiber optic backbone location and feature information, environmental information, and master planning information is a welcomed opportunity to capitalize on the GIS investment by providing GIS functionality to additional users.
Comprehensive needs assessments were conducted for each installation to determine the current status of GIS systems, usage and requirements of the systems, data and equipment. The resultant implementation plans outlined the best approach to continue GIS efforts. This process continues to date, as implementation plans are viewed as living documents that are adaptive to changing requirements and lessons learned, as well as funding availability. Communication and involvement of government and GIS contractor personnel between installations and the MACOM is one of the most important aspects of this effort. PGI employees are in continual communication with each other as well as with installation and MACOM staff. Re-evaluating approaches and discussing work with other staff that share similar experiences, and perhaps a different viewpoint, is critical. Successful communication has allowed GIS managers, staff and developers to be proactive in responding to new requirements.
As the MDW GIS effort got underway, it was quickly recognized that a standard for organizing GIS data was needed. At that time, a number of military installations were beginning to implement the Computer Aided Design and Drafting/Geographic Information System (CADD/GIS) Technology Center’s Spatial Data Standard for Facilities, Infrastructure and Environment (SDSFIE). SDSFIE is a non-proprietary standard for managing spatial data as it relates to facilities, infrastructure and environment that is used across the Department of Defense and was the logical choice for MDW GIS. Since then, on 16 October 01, the Army issued an Interim Policy and Guidance memorandum signed by the ACSIM and G3 on CADD/GIS that designates SDSFIE as an Army standard. This standard approach to data management allows consistency between installations, reduces the learning curve for new GIS users and allows for the scalability of the installations GIS databases for MACOM, Army Wide and cross-installation queries.
MDW took the SDSFIE one step further and identified those data layers that were most relevant to its installations. Thus, an MDW data template based on the SDSFIE was created. 287 core and 363 optional data layers were identified as relevant to MDW. Figure 1, MDW Data Template, summarizes the layers chosen. Attributes (what was populated and examples of formats for answers) were also compared to ensure consistency between installations.
Although the MDW Center was not initially funded, development efforts, whether they were new tools and applications or fixes to problems, were done centrally from PGI headquarters and at installation GIS Centers. This resulted in tremendous savings in time and costs for development efforts. As GIS is a quickly emerging and changing technology, the amount of resources spent on development time can be quite large and is often prohibitive. By spreading the costs of a central development effort across the MACOM, installations were able to reap the benefits of development at a much smaller cost. This MACOM approach also allowed constant communication between installations and between developers that encouraged creativity, problem solving and brainstorming of new ideas and better ways to carry out tasks.
A successful GIS meets the needs of a variety of types and levels of users. Web based GIS applications were customized based on the type of data and functionality a user needs as well as whether or not they are viewers, users or doers. Efficiencies were gained in applying experience in developing these applications across each installation. Rather than re-inventing an application for each installation, the core functionality was re-used to develop a customized site for each site.
As the GIS systems developed and became an important part of installation base operations, the benefits of integrating legacy databases became apparent. In addition to providing the most robust system possible, PGI integrated as many Army applications and separate databases as possible with the GIS. The Army uses a number of database and reporting systems to manage their base operations and the utility of these databases is maximized by integration with the GIS. These databases track information such as facilities management, environmental compliance, funding, and military training data.
The Army’s Integrated Facilities System (IFS) tracks data related to work management, real property and supply and contract administration. The Integrated Facility System Management (IFSM) component contains service orders and work orders for an installation. Through a customized GIS, an approved user can query all work orders involving certain criteria at any installation or across all installations. The results are returned in both tabular and graphical format. Additionally, the user could then view the detailed floor plans for each of the resulting facilities.
The Army’s Integrated Facilities System (IFS) database was the first to be integrated with GIS at MDW installations, as it was the most used and had the most potential benefits. The Army’s Installation Status Report (ISR), which tracks the status of facilities, services and environmental compliance, is the next database to be integrated. The Hazardous Substance Management System (HSMS) is also being integrated. In addition, other supporting data, such as floorplans and photographs are integrated into the GIS at each installation. Floorplans will also be linked to the HSMS database and will support emergency response activities. As with all of the GIS efforts, user requirements are continually defined and refined as they relate to legacy database integration.
MDW installations quickly embraced GIS as a core management tool and have taken it even further by recognizing and embracing the countless uses for the system. One of the biggest challenges for this effort was for GIS contractor staff to keep on track in data and system development, while keeping up with the demand for services and map requests.
Army installation management is typically focused around several main areas including master planning and development, real estate and real property facility use, utilities, construction, operations and maintenance, housing operations and management, and environmental management. GIS supports all of these as a planning, management and decision support tool; as a data management tool; and as a mapping tool. Appendix A contains examples of potential uses of GIS for military installation management.
Since the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, the demand for GIS to support force protection, security and emergency operations efforts has increased dramatically. GIS has been re-discovered as an ideal tool for force protection. GIS has proven its worth in the realm of contingency planning and coordination. Tasks have ranged from determining where existing light structures poorly illuminate an installation’s perimeter to determining the linear length of fencing that needs to be installed to what the consequences would be if varying strength bombs exploded near command centers.
Because the public works directorates own the vast majority of GIS data and because the focus of MDW’s GIS initiative was on utilities, the public works directorates became the primary proponent of GIS at each installation. Each directorate (for example: Information Management, Training, Security) participates in Installation GIS Technical Review Committees that give guidance and direction to GIS efforts. The Command Group at each installation are also very supportive of and involved in its GIS. With one proponent and a multi-disciplinary committee to direct efforts, tracking and responding to user requirements and direction occurs much more efficiently. Everyone has a voice in decisions related to the installation GIS and it is clear who the data owners are for each data set and who the data managers are, and as a result, duplications of effort have been eliminated and communication lines are open.
MDW’s GIS initiative to develop basic mapping and utility data at installations has had far greater consequence than initially envisioned.
This fast track into a fully developed, robust GIS system has enabled acceptance of the technology by government staff to occur quickly, and installations have embraced the technology completely and not only integrate GIS into their jobs, but also often suggest new applications for the system.
Development efforts have allowed installations to progress very quickly. What was initially envisioned as primarily a data collection effort has become a solution to make installation management efficient and effective. Installation personnel have been able to take advantage of the full capabilities of the system much more quickly than anticipated through database integration, web based applications and other tools and technical applications that have been developed.
The MDW/PGI forward-thinking approach employed a system that is scalable to MACOM and Army levels while still allowing an installations’ GIS data to be easily queried. By developing all data in compliance with the Spatial Data Standards, each installation has been given the opportunity to focus on their core data, enhancing the capabilities and potential of their system. Additionally, the GIS eliminates duplication of efforts, retains institutional knowledge, and since the public works directorates have become the primary proponent for GIS, a reduction in the number of problems with communication and duplication of efforts has been witnessed. Lastly, as members of the GIS Technical Review Committee, each stakeholder has a voice in the direction of GIS.
GIS is now a core management tool for base operations and is used by virtually every discipline. As with any GIS, it is difficult to put a number on the return on investment these systems have provided. The complexity of a GIS application is a key factor in determining the level of benefits (input, analysis and output). But there is no doubt that the occurrences of cost savings due to the GIS have been significant and occur both over time by increasing efficiency, as well as in discrete cases for specific projects. The installations have come to rely on these systems and are thrilled with the capabilities and support they get from them. Demand for new and better uses only increases. They now wonder how they did their jobs without it.
The success of MDW’s MACOM GIS implementation has a lot to do with the value added by having a centrally funded and managed program that was adaptive and responsive to installation requirements. Some of the keys to success were: Data Standards, Common Development, Communication between and Involvement of personnel, and Adaptive Management. The absolutely critical factor for success is to have a GIS champion who will sell the program to key decision makers, secure funding and not give up.
By focusing on a template that was based on an established standard and adapting that standard to a common requirements template, data development was focused and kept on track. Efficiencies were gained in development efforts by centrally developing solutions and new applications. By spreading the costs of a central development effort across the MACOM, installations were able to progress much more quickly to well-established robust systems.
The sharing of lessons learned between installation GIS staff reduced the learning curve for new employees; promoted problem solving, strategizing, and professional camaraderie; and helped maintain motivation and creativity among the installation GIS staff. Communication with installation and MACOM staff and the establishment of Technical Review Committees has enabled the GIS centers to be proactive.
MDW did not view GIS as a panacea. Rather, GIS was viewed as tool that would help answer real problems, integrate existing systems and databases, and save time and money. Adaptive management was a common component of successful efforts in this initiative. Continually re-evaluating plans and requirements is a critical and easily overlooked key element to success in such as complex system.
There is no doubt that MDW and its installations are satisfied with the results of this MACOM GIS effort. GIS at MDW installations has even been compared to email, as a ‘can’t live without’ tool. Installation staff has integrated GIS usage into their day-to-day operations. Keys to the success of this MACOM level effort included common development, data standards, idea sharing and problem solving, as well as adaptive management.
The MDW GIS model is both scalable and transferable to other institutions. Too often, GIS initiatives occur in a vacuum with little interaction with other GIS professionals with similar experience to share. This model promotes that interaction and therefore greatly increases returns on investment by increasing efficiency and encouraging development.
Challenges ahead include maintaining consistency in a changing environment. Good GIS comes from competent people sharing ideas freely, accurate and reliable data, and a well thought out implementation strategy—plus a lot of hard work. If spatial data is not kept up-to-date, a GIS may become ‘shelf ware’. PGI will continue to support MDW and the Army in maintaining their datasets and infrastructure, integrating additional databases and applications, ensuring confidence in their decision support tool and enhancing their return on investment.
The following are examples of uses of GIS for military installation management. Army installation management is typically focused around several main areas including master planning and development, real estate and real property facility use, utilities, construction, operations and maintenance, housing operations and management, and environmental management. GIS can support all of these as a planning, management and decision support tool; as a data management tool; and as a mapping tool.
The basis for facilities management is planimetric base maps. This data provides the foundation for all of what GIS does. Planimetric features include roads, buildings, fences, walls, and other map layers that can be fixed to some location on the ground. Complimenting this are aerial photos that serve as a backdrop to this data.
* Develop or complement installation master plans. Provides method of evaluating existing installation infrastructure for potential changes to the Master Plan; what if scenarios; decreases development time for changes/modifications by 50 to 60%; view immediate impact of potential changes to the facilities, infrastructure and installation; 3D visualization of plans.
* Link floorplans and other CAD drawings or scanned images to their respective feature
* 3D Visualization of a current, historical or proposed developed area
* Link equipment inventories to buildings
* Assist in the areas of facility design and construction activities i.e., designing a new parking lot
* Develop an as-built storage and retrieval system by scanning and maintaining all drawing information and making it available in a user-friendly web-based database
* Analyze traffic loads on main arteries and develop/coordinate evacuation routes with surrounding counties
* Create an intelligent street network for routing purposes, pavement maintenance, etc. Build into the system smart road intelligence, i.e., speed limits, stop lights, etc.
* Perform Site Selection and site suitability analysis
* Develop reporting maps for state/federal reporting of lease agreements
* Manage housing facilities; provide on-line access to floorplans and photos
Effective training area planning and management calls for using GIS to solve a variety of Problems
Includes developing water distribution, sewer collection, storm drainage, electrical distribution, telecommunication and other utility data.
GIS serves as a management tool, a decision support tool and a data management tool for environmental compliance, conservation, natural resources, pest management, restoration, environmental health, pollution prevention and noise programs. Assists in designing, funding, developing and implementing strategies and programs for complying with federal, state, and local laws and ordinances as well as showing that an installation is in fact, complying with these laws and ordinances.
Focuses on the applications of GIS, spatial analysis, modeling and data management in support of installation land managers, private contractors, and State Historic Preservation Offices in their effort to comply with federal, state, and local historic preservation legislation, such as the National Historic Preservation Act and NEPA.
GIS can support physical security and force protection through planning access control, security and emergency scenarios.
Requires that military installations be prepared to respond effectively to potential security breaches, emergency medical situations, and fire and flood disasters.