In my last article I talked about the phenomena of application erosion where, over time, IT applications, for a couple of reasons, tend to reach a point where they no longer have any value to the organizations. Once this point is reached most organizations will respond by seeking out a new system to replace the one that no longer works well. I had noted that technology change can drive an application out of favour however the affects of use (or inappropriate use to be more specific) of the system likely has a greater affect.
All information technology systems are influenced by application erosion to some extent but I would argue that GIS in particular is very susceptible. The ad hoc nature of the way many GIS are built (more on this later) results in an over dependence on the skill of a specialist to ensure integrity of the system is maintained. This is asking a lot. Fortunately, there is a way to monitor the health of the GIS through a GIS audit.
A GIS audit is a methodical inward facing assessment of the health system with an eye to identify weaknesses and make improvements. It ensures that an organization continues to get value from its GIS over time. A GIS does the following:
- Establishes a benchmark , including key measurables, to allow for comparison with future audits
- Assesses every aspect of the system including applications, work-flows and data resources
- Identifies gaps and areas where the GIS can be leveraged to increase value to the organization
A report-card is created that summarizes the health of the GIS and allows for easy comparison between audits.
An audit is an excellent way to keep a system like GIS on track and, perhaps even more so, assist with budget planning. The audit becomes the tool that sets priorities for the system and provides the supporting background when it comes to budget time.
For all its benefits, surprisingly few organizations undertake audits of their systems. Cost may be a factor although the benefits of knowing the results of an audit will easily outweigh the cost of undertaking the audit itself. More likely, however, it will be the fear of finding out what an organization doesn’t want to know that will prevent an audit from being done. After spending large sums of taxpayers money on a system like GIS who needs to be told its not good enough?
Accountants are long used to audits and realize they are a necessary evil. Rather than an “evil” think of an audit as the best way to ensure you are getting the best value for money and ultimately lead to even more support for your GIS.
