The Problem with Design-Build GIS
Nobody disputes the need for an architect in building construction. Nobody disputes the architect’s fees, either (running between 6.5% and 30% of the total construction cost). This is just how it works. And it does work. Just look around – there are so many beautiful buildings. Even the ugly ones function as intended. Rarely does a building collapse on its own.
Not so in GIS. The GIS landscape is littered with Frankensteins, a wasteland of wasted effort, where bitter early adopters often claim that GIS stands for “Gee, I’m Sorry.”
Why is that? Because of poor, rushed, or entirely skipped system design phase.
To continue with the construction analogy, most GIS contracts are awarded to design-build vendors. In the inevitable drive to cut costs, design inevitably suffers. The system design is often tailored to match the technical capabilities of the vendor. We know what happens next – cost overruns, overspending, poor (if any) fit to owner’s needs and business processes, shelved systems, “Gee, I’m Sorry.”
If only the owners had hired a GIS architect at the very beginning of the process. GIS architects know the industry inside and out, follow technology trends, and know the vendors’ strengths and weaknesses. An independent GIS architect will study the owner’s needs, help develop a program, prepare an RFP, select a vendor, and oversee the system implementation.
If you are planning to spend $1M on a GIS, budget an extra $65,000 (at a minimum) for a GIS architect. You won’t be sorry.
Posted by Atanas Entchev at 11/28/2009 4:39 PM 
Categories: Design,Opinion,GIS,Business,Architect,IT,GIS architect
Tags: Design Opinion GIS Business Architect IT GIS architect
Categories: Design,Opinion,GIS,Business,Architect,IT,GIS architect
Tags: Design Opinion GIS Business Architect IT GIS architect
Hear, hear.
Reply to this
A friend recently moved to a fancy high-rise apartment in Jersey City. She just got shocked by her first electric bill. The apartment has electric heat. Electric heat is the most inefficient. Cheapest to install, though.
Symptomatic of a system where those who build buildings have no lasting investment in how the buildings perform.
Reply to this