Zerihun Amdemariam Berisso February, 2008 · 2008-03-13 · AAWSA , UIDD, ETC , EEPCo , AACRA , AAICA and MoWR . To all GIM Class 2006/2008, I have no words to say all. You are real

Analysis of GIS Adoption Process Based on Organisational Changes and Decisions

(Cases of Municipal Utility Organizations in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia)

Zerihun Amdemariam Berisso February, 2008

Analysis of GIS Adoption Process Based on Organisational Changes and Decisions (Cases of Municipal Utility Organizations in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia)

By

Zerihun Amdemariam Berisso Thesis submitted to the International Institute for Geo-information Science and Earth Observation in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Geo-information Science and Earth Observation, Specialisation: (Geo-information Management) Thesis Assessment Board Dr. Ing. P.Y Georgiadou (Chair) Prof. Dr. A. van der veen (External examiner) Ir. W. T. de vries (First Supervisor) Ir. M. J.G. Brussel (Second Supervisor)

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation Enschede, the Netherlands

Dedicated to

Filimon and Namirud Zerihun Amdemariam

Disclaimer This document describes work undertaken as part of a programme of study at the International Institute for Geo-information Science and Earth Observation. All views and opinions expressed therein remain the sole responsibility of the author, and do not necessarily represent those of the institute.

Analysis of GIS Adoption Process Based on Organisational Changes and Decisions (Cases of Municipal Utility Organizations in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.)

Zerihun Amdemariam, [email protected] / [email protected] i

Abstract

The aim of this research is formulating recommendations to improve the GIS adoption process. It does so by analysing the introduction, implementation and adoption of GITs in municipal organisations in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. It mainly focuses on GIS adoption decisions and induced changes. The thesis has used the process, content, and diffusion models to evaluate the GIS adoption process in each organisation. In the diffusion model, initiation and implementation phases were considered to identify the decisions on acquisition and adoption of GIS. The measure of investigation considered in the adapted process model was whether the implementation process is supported by an implementation plan, the planning process was participative and subject to degree of execution. Perceived benefit, complexity and advantage of GIS, observed changes and attitude towards the changes and resources availability were the variables considered for enquiry in the content model. Moreover, GIS implementation strategy and change management models have been referred for recommendations. The research is supplemented by the empirical evidences obtained through interviews and questioners. The opinions, attitudes and perceptions of the respondents were analysed and interpreted comparing with related theories and assumptions reviewed from literatures.

The results of the study showed that most organisations introduced GIS through projects designed for specific purposes while the implementation was found ad hoc. Although the organisations’ members that have been using GIS see its benefit and advantages of using GIS, organisational benefits obtained are reported as very low. It is also observed that GIS has not been supporting all organisational tasks and functions. Organisational and behavioural changes were observed in the post GIS periods. In all organisations the implementation process has been affected by lack of skilled staff. Despite all that the organisations are striving to adopt GIS as a major or one of major systems. Likewise, similarities, differences and uncertainties have been seen in comparing the empirical evidences and the theories reviewed. For instance, the research results confirmed that GIS has induced changes. Differing from the theory, most organisations decided to acquire GIS without evaluating organisational needs and benefit. Although the results showed that technological views dominated the introduction and implementation of GIS, the decision and interest of individuals to introduce and sustain it raised a dilemma that whether this view has been completely driving the adoption process.

Generally, it was found that the planning of GIS implementation and management of induced changes are important factors in GIS adoption process. The more the implementation and the changes are planned and managed, the better the adoption process will be. Therefore, recommendations on minimizing the restraining factors, managing the changing work environment and suitable GIS implementations strategies were pointed out.

KEYWORDS: GIS, Implementation, Adoption, Change


Zerihun Amdemariam, [email protected] / [email protected] ii

Acknowledgements

This piece of work is the result of support and learning in last 18 months from many lecturers, friends and family who invested their time and energy. For this, I am deeply grateful. Bearing in my heart that all is from GOD, no achievements in life is without the help of many known and unknown individuals who are contributed in the process. Here are just a few who made this work possible.

To The Netherlands Government, I thank you greatly for the opportunity gave me as part of Nuffic scholarship without which all the knowledge I acquired from ITC would be a dream. Thanks to my employer, Addis Ababa Water and Sewerage Authority for allowing me the study leave.

To my sweet heart Sara Kidane, for your unwavering support and patience.

To Ir. Walter devries, my excellent supervisor, your persistent patience with me during the first proposal, field work preparation, data collection and thesis writing was tremendous. Your critical comments were source of motivations and courage. To Ir. Mark Brussel, your critical assessment of my questionnaire during field work preparation and the comments on my thesis report were very much valuable. To Dr. Ing. Erick de man, I greatly thank you for your earlier guidance in developing this research concept. To all GIM lecturers, Bronsveld and Jacqueline, my success is attributed to you all. I learnt a lot. THANK YOU VERY MUCH!

Many thanks to those I interviewed and gave me tremendous assistance during the data collection. I would like to thank for the cooperation and positive attitude I got from AAWSA, UIDD, ETC, EEPCo, AACRA, AAICA and MoWR.

To all GIM Class 2006/2008, I have no words to say all. You are real friends who allowed me the privilege to share ideas, happiness, anger, sadness and so on. Kunle, Tam, Kasuko, Claudia, Juliana and Song, I appreciate your cooperation during group assignments. I gained a lot. To Tam, Kunle, Kasuko, Claudia and Jing, special thanks for your hospitable friendship.

To my best friend in ITC Ashenafi Degefe, Thank you very much. I had a very nice time with you. I can imagine that how things would be difficult without you. You are a very nice and kind friend. Also, I would like to thank you all Ethiopian students in ITC. May God Bless you!

Last but not least, my respectful thanks for all ITC staff. God Bless you all.


Zerihun Amdemariam, [email protected] / [email protected] iii

Acronyms

AACRA Addis Ababa City Road Authority

AAICA Addis Ababa Infrastructure Construction Authority

AAWSA Addis Ababa Water and Sewerage Authority

BPR Business Process Reengineering

EEPCo Ethiopian Electric and Power Corporation

ETC Ethiopian Telecommunication Corporation

GI Geo-information

GIM Geo-information Management

GIS Geographic Information System

GIT Geographic Information Technology

Gtz German Development Cooperation Organisation

JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency

LAN Local Area Network

MoWR Ministry of Water Resources

UIDD Urban Information and Documentation Department

UNECA United Nations Economic Commission for Africa


Zerihun Amdemariam, [email protected] / [email protected] iv

Table of contents Abstract...…………………………………………………………………………………….i Acknowledgment....…………………………………………………………………………ii Acronyms……………………………………………………………………………………iii Table of contents……………………………………………………………………………iv List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………………v List of Figures….……………………………………………………………………………vi Appendices..…………………………………………………………………………………vii 1. Introduction..................................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Background................................................................................................................ 1 1.2. Research Problem...................................................................................................... 2 1.3. Research Objectives .................................................................................................. 3

1.3.1. General Objective.............................................................................................. 3 1.3.2. Specific Objectives............................................................................................ 3

1.4. Research Questions ................................................................................................... 3 1.5. Research Justification................................................................................................ 3 1.6. Research Approach.................................................................................................... 4

1.6.1. Data Collection Methods................................................................................... 4 1.7. Limitations of the Research....................................................................................... 5 1.8. Thesis Structure......................................................................................................... 6

2. Theories on GIS Adoption, Implementation and Organistional Changes................. 7 2.1. Overview ................................................................................................................... 7 2.2. GIS Adoption............................................................................................................. 7 2.3. GIS Implementation .................................................................................................. 8

2.3.1. GIS Implementation Strategies........................................................................ 10 2.4. Organisational Changes........................................................................................... 11

2.4.1. Change Management Strategies ...................................................................... 12 2.5. Analysis Framework................................................................................................ 13

3. The Field Works ........................................................................................................... 18 3.1. Data Collection........................................................................................................ 18 3.2. The GIS Environment in Addis Ababa...................................................................19 3.3. Selection of the Organizations and Respondents..................................................... 20 3.4. Context of the Organizations................................................................................... 21 3.5. Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 24

4. Current GIS Adoption in Addis Ababa...................................................................... 25 4.1. GIS Introduction...................................................................................................... 25 4.2. GIS Dissemination and Difficulties......................................................................... 27 4.3. Changes and Experiences ........................................................................................ 29

4.3.1. Organisational Changes................................................................................... 29 4.3.2. Attitude Changes ............................................................................................. 31 4.3.3. Experiences in Application of GIS.................................................................. 33

4.4. Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 35 5. Understanding GIS Adoption Process ........................................................................ 36

5.1. GIS Diffusion and Performance Gap....................................................................... 36


Zerihun Amdemariam, [email protected] / [email protected] v

5.2. Initiation and Implementation ................................................................................. 37 5.3. Induced Changes ..................................................................................................... 39 5.4. Technical and Managerial Capacity ........................................................................ 40 5.5. Understanding of Organisational Changes and Decisions....................................... 41 5.6. Conclusions on Understanding GIS Adoption ........................................................ 45

6. Conclusions and Recommendations............................................................................ 47 6.1. Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 47 6.2. Recommendations ................................................................................................... 48

6.2.1. Recommendations for GIS Adoption .............................................................. 48 6.2.2. Recommendations for Further research........................................................... 49

7. References...................................................................................................................... 50 8. Appendices..................................................................................................................... 52


Zerihun Amdemariam, [email protected] / [email protected] vi

List of Tables: Table 1-1: Research Questions.................................................................................................. 3 Table 1-2: Research Methods (Kumar, 2005) ........................................................................... 5 Table 2-1: Strategies for Implementing Information Systems (Budic and Godschalk, 1994) 11 Table 2-2: Lewin’s Change Process ........................................................................................ 12 Table 2-3: Lewin’s Force Field Analysis ................................................................................ 12 Table 2-4: Planning/action matrix (adapted) ........................................................................... 15 Table 2-5: Content model Variables (adapted)........................................................................ 17 Table 3-1: Social systems and observed GIS diffusion communication channels .................. 20 Table 3-2: Summary of Respondents ...................................................................................... 21 Table 3-3: Summary of Mainly mentioned data need and perceived performance gap .......... 24 Table 4-1: Purpose of introduction of GITs ............................................................................ 26 Table 4-2: Series of attempts to introduce GI related software in the organizations............... 26 Table 4-3: Location of GIS in the organizations management level and involved professionals............................................................................................................................ 28 Table 4-4: Difficulties encountered in dissemination.............................................................. 28 Table 4-5: Summary of Changes due to introduction of GIS.................................................. 30 Table 4-6: Summary of perceived effects of organisational Changes.....................................31 Table 4-7: Summary of organisational members Perceptions on GIS ................................... 32 Table 4-8: Summary of Expectations from GIS...................................................................... 32 Table 4-9: Summary of future plan related to GIS.................................................................. 32 Table 4-10: GIS application experiences in the organizations ................................................ 33 Table 4-11: Summary of Perceived organisational benefits................................................... 34 Table 4-12: Summary of Personal Judgments on GIS implementation efforts ...................... 34 Table 4-13: Summary of Perception on planning culture....................................................... 35 Table 4-14: Summary of ratings of factors negatively contributed to implementation.......... 35 Table 5-1: Characteristics of technological determinism (Campbell, 1994) and observed views........................................................................................................................................ 39 Table 5-2: Observed implementation, change and adoption relationships. ................ 40 Table 5-3: Comparison of theories and research results on GIS adoption decisions. . 42 Table 5-4: Comparison of theories and research results on organisational changes. . 43 Table 5-5: Comparison of theories and research results on motivation/pressure to

adopt GIS. .............................................................................................................................. 44 Table 5-6: Comparison of theories and research results on organisations capacity. .. 44 Table 8-1: GIS Location and Data Management ............................................................... 62 Table 8-2: GIS Datasets and Supported Organisational tasks......................................... 62


Zerihun Amdemariam, [email protected] / [email protected] vii

List of Figures: Figure 1-1: Research Approach................................................................................................. 4 Figure 2-1: Conceptual framework.......................................................................................... 13 Figure 2-2: Diffusion of GIS: the phases and outcomes (Rogers 1983).................................. 15 Figure 3-1: Attitudinal scale ................................................................................................. 19 Figure 3-2: Institutional arrangement level........................................................................ 20

List of Appendices: Appendix 1: Questionnaires Explanation................................................................................ 52 Appendix 2: Questionnaiers .................................................................................................... 53 Appendix 3: Technical/Technological capacity ...................................................................... 59 Appendix 4: GIS Implementation ........................................................................................... 62 Appendix 5: Respondents Details ........................................................................................... 63


Zerihun Amdemariam, [email protected] / [email protected] 1

1. Introduction

1.1. Background

Utility networks such as water, sewerage, power, telecommunication and drainage are vital for the proper and smooth functioning of a society. Any malfunctioning or breakdown of these services can cause considerable damages on the society’s life. A reliable information base is essential for successful utility infrastructures management and strategic decision making. Lack of information contributes to problems such as ineffective infrastructure management. Hence, there is a strong interest to apply any tool that may contribute to prevent such problems. Geographic Information System (GIS) is certainly one of these tools. In Western Europe and North America GIS diffusion in utility companies is virtually complete; there is hardly a utility company left that does not adopt GIS. Generally, this level is much lower in the developing countries (Paulsson, 1992; Hofstee et al., 2006). However, recently, GIS is becoming a popular term among professionals and decision makers in Africa (Gawecki, 2005). Thus, as the interest for GIS and well recorded information continues to grow, organisations must decide how to deal with organisational and technological issues (Pickering et al., 1993).

GIS adoption is not just technological but also social and organisational Issue. The critical role of the latter in the introduction, implementation and adoption of GIS by organisations has been noted many times such as the mutual relationships of information technologies or GIS and organisations. This is because, in most cases, decisions to adopt GIS is viewed as integrating new working practices with existing practices of an organisation which might require organisational changes (Budic and Godschalk, 1994; Obermeyer and Pinto, 1994; Campbell and Masser, 1995; Masser et al., 1996; Nedovic-Budic and Godschalk, 1996; de Man, 2002; Tomlinson, 2003; McMaster and Usery, 2005; Schildt et al., 2005; de Man, 2007; Obermeyer and Pinto, 2008). The implication is that the widespread introduction and adoption of GIS technology by private, NGO and public sector users requires addressing organisational issues related to the adoption process and impacts of the technology. The changes induced by the technology and the reaction of the individuals and organizations also need to be assessed as GIS applications increase. Moreover, as the relationship between organizations and GIS takes many directions depending on their context, actual adoption decisions and consequences might also vary from potential decisions and consequences (Campbell and Masser, 1995; McMaster and Usery, 2005).

Geographic information technologies (GITs) in general, and GIS in particular, have been adopted in most industrialized and some Sub-Saharan Africa countries (Campbell and Masser, 1995; Linden, 1996). But, in a study on the effectiveness of GIS in British local government showed that successful implementation of GIS is extremely difficult (Campbell, 1994). The survey in eleven countries in Sub-Saharan Africa also showed that the majority of existing GIS is hardly used or does not meet the initial expectations of their users (Linden, 1996). The mentioned not a success cases, both implies that GIS adoption should be addressed carefully. Among the issues the decisions to introduce, implementation processes and addressing induced organisational changes are crucial to integrate a new working practice with existing values and practices (Campbell and Masser, 1995; de Man, 2002; Obermeyer and Pinto, 2008). Hence, Examination of



such issues in a particular context is necessary. Therefore, this case study is needed to evaluate municipal utility and information center organizations’ efforts, in light of the mentioned issues, and formulate a recommendation to improve the GIS adoption process. And also contributes for studies on GIS and organisations.

1.2. Research Problem

For well informed and timely decision making, in the past two decades, various types of Information system technologies have been used by numerous organizations to satisfy the needs of accurate and timely information. GIS is among those. It is relevant for understanding and solving spatial problems. It is relevant for analysis, planning, implementation, monitoring and management of the plans and decisions made in connection with spatial problems (Molenaar, 1989).

Due to the spatial distribution of the utility infrastructures, and the capability of GIS dealing with it, municipal utility service providers have been among the main users. The introduction of GITs into the organizations might have similar justifications. For instance, significant institutional knowledge about the sub surface infrastructures has been retained by employees. Getting all the necessary layers of data on paper maps and updating is time taking. Sharing information with other organizations is not easy. Consequently, to access and relay on information from such sources is difficult and so on. But, that does not confirm that the level of utilization, the choice or type of GITs used, and the adoption and implementation processes are necessarily identical. The dissimilarity might be stem from organisational context and managerial and technological views on implementation processes (Campbell and Masser, 1995).

On one hand, adoption and use of GIS will vary with social conditions and circumstances (de Man, 2002). The overall picture of GIS development that emerges from the survey findings is one of considerable diversity reflecting the specific demands of particular types of organizations (Masser et al., 1996). On the other hand, several GIS characteristics differentiate it from other technologies and need specialized organisational and management approaches. These issues include the characteristics of geographic data and their role in the organization’s business operations, the current state and advancement of GIS technology and its future directions, the relationship of GIS technology with other technologies in the organization, and the multiuse nature of GIS data (Somers, 1998; Tomlinson, 2003). The implication is that the demand for GIS and its adoption are generally influenced by various factors of the environment, such as technological advancement and its diffusion, character and use of geographic data, economic growth and political willingness, in which the organization is functioning and organisations desire for improvement and their behaviour.

Information technologies, such as GIS, and organizations have a mutual relationship. It may have an impact on the structure and design of the organization and on its occupational structures (de Man, 2002). The impact may affect the adopting organizations and induce changes. The changes might shape individuals, work groups or organizations behaviour as a whole. This might affect the way that the business processes have been used to do. That might be reflected on the institutional framework or organisational structure. It might also be reflected in inter-organisational relationships.

Therefore, the adoption of GIS must address the factors that might influence the adoption process and impact of such technologies on decisions and behaviour of individuals within the



context of group or organization (de Man, 2002). In order to properly address the mentioned circumstances a better understanding of relationship between organisation and GIS is needed:

• to identify the specific representation of GIS adoption process and organizational changes in a specific context,

• to indicate how an organization should address the changes due to adoption of GIS.

1.3. Research Objectives

1.3.1. General Objective

To formulate recommendations to improve GIS adoption processes.

1.3.2. Specific Objectives

I. To evaluate how organizations have been introducing, implementing and

adopting GIS.

II. To identify guidelines used for adoption process.

III. To formulate recommendations based on the situation in the study area.

1.4. Research Questions

Research Objective

Research questions

I.

1. What were the critical factors contributed to the adoption of GIS?

2. What experiences and cases exist and how are the resources and organizations changed?

II.

3. Which guidelines exist for successful adoption of GIS and

how does the guidelines differ each other? 4. How does the organisations differ each other with respect to

GIS adoption?

III.

5. What critical issues should be considered in adopting GIS? 6. What strategies are suitable for the situation?

Table 1-1: Research Questions

1.5. Research Justification

The widespread introduction and adoption of GIS technology by private, NGO and public sector users requires addressing organisational issues related to the adoption process and impacts of the technology. Inevitably, the changes induced by the technology and the reaction of the individuals and organizations will need to be assessed as GIS applications increase. Examination



of such issues is necessary to establish guidelines for effective GIS adoption. Moreover, the relationship between organizations and GIS takes many directions depending on their context, and we know less about actual consequences than we do about potential consequences of GIS adoption (Campbell and Masser, 1995; McMaster and Usery, 2005). Thus, this type of studies allow flexibility in choosing groups, organizations and places that can represent specific contexts and study similarities, differences and resulting consequences. In this respect, case studies are important for better understanding of GIS introduction and adoption process and the impacts in different organizations context. In this case utility organisations in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, with the aim to improve adoption process such that the organisations get better benefits from GISs.

1.6. Research Approach

As researches shown, one way to move towards a general understanding of the relationship of GIS and organization is at a level of municipal/local government through case study in one particular sector. Although the applicability of findings in one sector to those in another is not representative, it has been thought that the research focus can help to identify factors that contributed to the introduction and adoption of GIS and the changes experienced in the sector.

With a consideration of cross-sectional study design (see Kumar 2005, pp-93), the research was concentrated on the utility sector and attempted to identify the relative contribution of a number of factors based on observed communalities and disparities in introduction, adoption decisions, induced changes and organisations’ capacity. Those are gathered through interview and questionnaires that queried focused group of individuals in the work setting. As it has been learnt from literatures that utility organizations are not the only potential adopters of GITs in the local governments, the research has also included those organizations which are potential adopters and can affect the GIS adoption decisions in the utility organizations in the context of the case study area. Figure 1.1 shows the components and procedures followed to carryout the research.

Figure 1-1: Research Approach

1.6.1. Data Collection Methods

The research approach is through case study to describe the different aspects of adoption in municipal utility organizations and other organizations that have mutual relationship with them. That is comparing case study of different organisational context in similar place (McMaster and Usery, 2005). Data will be collected from primary sources and secondary sources. The latter is



used to support former sources of information. The respondents for the former selected from different work groups and management levels of an organization. The criteria for selection were direct1, potential2 and indirect3 user of GIS. The aim is to investigate the issues related to the introduction, implementation and adoption of GIS such as adoption decision, organisational changes and capacity (see section 2.5; Table 2-5) and understand the GIS adoption process in the case study organisations.

Data Collection Methods

Secondary Sources Primary Sources Methods

of analysis

Research Questions

Earlier researches (case studies)

Organization histories (documents)

Observation

Intervie-wing

Questio-nnaire

Qualitati

ve analysis

1 √ √ √ √ 2 √ √ √ √ √ √ 3 √ √ √ √ √ √ 4 √ √ √ √ 5 √ √ √ √ 6 √ √

Table 1-2: Research Methods (Kumar, 2005)

1.7. Limitations of the Research

Validity is the degree to which a study actually measures or reflects what it intends to measure while reliability refers to the consistency of a research finding (Kumar, 2005). Given that this kind of research might not be carried out without limitations, the difficult task is achieving valid and reliable results. There were some factors in this study that can affect its validity and reliability. One of the problems was wrong perception of respondents. Some of the respondents were suspicious of the study, associating it with organisational reforms which were underway during the visit. Some are also did not want to comment on weaknesses and so on (see section 3.1). The other problem was securing secondary data sources such as project, BPR and structural change documents. However, in spite of the above mentioned problems, the following precaution measures were taken in order to maintain and ensure the reliability and validity of the outcome of this research. These are:

• Focus groups in each organisations management level was used to obtain opinions on issues related to the study.

• The respondents were selected purposefully that they can provide the required information.

1 Respondents those are personally operating GIS. 2 Respondents those will be direct users of GIS in the organizations. 3 Respondents who use products generated by GIS technology but do not operate the technology personally

(see Budic, Z.D and D.R. Godschalk, 1994)



• The questionnaire also prepared in such a way that the individual respondent’s perception and opinions can be enquired with respect to the issue. The researcher’s experience of the study area and relevant observations also add to this.

In addition to the research approach, the theoretical approach also affects the validity. In this research the process and content models approaches were employed to study the GIS adoption process. The process approach focuses on the dynamics of implementation but the model is adapted to fit in the study approach i.e. one time cross-sectional interview. Regarding the content model, some factors like political and economic and social values were not included in the study. Thus, the time component eliminated from the process model and inconsideration of some of the factors may have an effect on the validity of the research. Furthermore, most of the organisations considered in this study are in one application context while the municipality in Addis Ababa is composed of many others which are using GIS. Therefore, generalisation of conclusions should be treated with care.

1.8. Thesis Structure

The thesis has been organised in 6 chapters as follows.

Chapter 1: Introduction; in this chapter the context of the research is discussed i.e. the research problem, objectives, questions, approach and the methods used to data collection to answer the questions.

Chapter 2: Theory on GIS Adoption, implementation and organisational changes; this chapter involved a literature review on GIS adoption, implementation, organisational changes and analysis framework.

Chapter 3: Field Works; this chapter described the data collection, the GIS environment in the case study area, the selection of organisations and respondents and the context of the organisations visited. Furthermore, general opinions on the relevance of GIS and efforts made to introduce it were quoted.

Chapter 4: Current GIS Adoption in Addis Ababa; in this chapter the introduction of GIS, its dissemination and difficulties, the changes and experiences were described as they were responded and in summary tables.

Chapter 5: Understanding GIS Adoption Process; in this chapter, with the aim of understanding the GIS adoption process in Addis Ababa, interpretation and analysis of the field work findings discussed in chapter 4 is made with reference to theories reviewed in chapter 2. The analytical frame work considers GIS diffusion and performance gap, initiation and implementation, induced changes, and technical and management capacity which are in line with the content and process models (see section 2.5) and the content of the questionnaire used for data collection (appendix 1). The issues included from the findings are opinions and attitude of the respondents on motivations/pressure, GIS adoption decisions, organisational changes and capacity. The analysis follows interpretative way of analysis owing to the research objectives and questions. From which a general conclusions on the GIS adoption process in Addis Ababa is made.

Chapter 6: Conclusions and Recommendations; in this chapter general conclusions and recommendations on the research results were made. Answers for the research questions were summarised. Moreover, recommendations for further researches were made.



2. Theories on GIS Adoption, Implementation and Organistional Changes

2.1. Overview

In the utility sector, the efficient delivery of services such as power distribution, telecommunication, water, sewerage and drainage depends on effective planning and management of the infrastructures. Without proper information, operation and maintenance of the infrastructures, planning and management can be adversely affected which in turn erodes delivery of services. On one hand, inefficiency in maintaining valuable utility infrastructures information by manual systems, on the other hand, the advancement of information technologies motivates utility organisations to invest large amounts in technologies such as GIS to improve their services (Pickering et al., 1993; Hofstee et al., 2006). For instance, unlike the manual system, GIS allows to spatially locate and select best route, use spatial tools to review the area and adjacent facilities to determine the resources need and so on (Water Environment Federation, 2005; Hofstee et al., 2006). The implication is that the capability of GIS to allow users a better access to information for operation, planning and decision making motivates GISs adoption decisions. As the interest for recorded information and application of technology continues to grow, effective implementation of the technology within an organization is vital for better benefits. Thus, organisations must decide how to deal with organisational issues in introducing, implementing and adopting GIS (Pickering et al., 1993; Parkey, 2003).

However, often, organizations decide to introduce a GIS because they have heard great things from other organizations or they just do not want left behind technologically. As a result, many organizations have failed in their implementation efforts because they reluctantly followed a process or advice that was used in another organization’s context but was not as well suited to theirs (Somers, 1998; Tomlinson, 2003). To better understand the adoption of geographic information systems within in organizations, a basic knowledge of relationships of GIS, organization and human behaviour in the work setting is essential (Obermeyer and Pinto, 1994).

2.2. GIS Adoption

The adoption and effective use of GIS technology depend, to a large extent, on particular organization’s cultural conditions. The deep rooted pervasiveness of organisational culture explains the resistance that can be met in certain conditions when introducing or using GIS. Another consequence of this cultural perspective is that no general and globally applicable conditions exist for the introduction and implementation of GIS (de Man, 2002). With the acknowledgement that organisations rather than individuals provide the focus for decisions concerning GIS adoption (Rogers, 1983; Campbell and Masser, 1995) and the significance of organisational culture in this, there appear to be two interrelated elements of organisational cultures which are important in relation to it. These are styles of bureaucracy and the approach to decision making. The first referring to the norms and values of the organization which are reflected in, for instance, routine practices, general expectations, styles of leadership and the staffing structure, while the second focuses on the formal and informal procedures of decision making and in particular the role of (geo-)information in this process.



In relation to the need of organizations to adopt GIS the key aspects with respect to the style of bureaucracy appears to be the capacity for the organization and by implication the individuals within that environment to cope with changes. Moreover, an organization is a system where each organisational element, as a group or individual, evaluates how changes will either offer opportunities or be disadvantageous. The responses to changes vary between individuals, groups or organizations. Many factors colour an organization’s responsiveness to technological challenges and opportunities. Technological competence, financial and managerial capability, and attitude to change are among others (Hanna et al., 1995). Some demonstrate capacity to absorb by creating innovative practices or procedures. In contrast, others prefer to maintain the existing norms and values (Masser et al., 1996).

Regarding the decision making processes, identifying what constitutes proof in a particular environment to establish the contribution to be made by the introduction of GIS and the nature of the proof is likely to change according to the type of task being considered. For instance, for routine tasks such as responding for simple queries the evidence required to support a particular decision is likely to take a different form than strategic planning, operational planning and management, and monitoring and evaluation (Campbell and Masser, 1995; Masser et al., 1996).

The point here is how to secure the acceptance to the introduction of GIS by all members of the organizations. This is because from the above discussions it is certain that there will be different perceptions. Some may think that they are suspicious that whether their interests, expectations, values and practices will be kept unchanged. On the other hand there might be certainty that the introduction of GIS can improve individual and organisational performance that change is necessary. However, the awareness on the necessity of change can not ascertain that individuals and/ or organizations are ready for change. Accordingly, introducing GIS without understanding why change is (is not) sought and what constructive role it can play in such situation might possibly lead to poor utilization or most likely rejection by some members and/or groups in an organization (Leonard-Barton 1998; cited by (Nedovic-Budic, 1998)). This implies that understanding the perception of organizations perhaps members of organizations on GIS adoption process is crucial.

As implementation of GIS is a means through which technology and organisational changes is transmitted to the members of the organization, interpretations as to the meaning and complexity of this process vary with their context (Budic and Godschalk, 1994; Campbell and Masser, 1995). Thus, recognising perspectives of GIS implementation provides a basis for investigation of the variation of implementation view that might drives organisation’s adoption decisions and factors that contributed.

2.3. GIS Implementation

The contexts of organizations vary with the types of members, function, culture, and so on. Consequently, the view for any technology in general and GIS in particular is dependent up on the organisational context in which it is introduced. This means that in different organisational contexts and also within an organization the advantages, opportunities and negative consequences of the introduction of GIS takes different meaning (Masser and Onsrud, 1993; Campbell and Masser, 1995).



Recommendations for implementation and evaluation of GIS can be seen from a broader theoretical foundation to support investigation and understanding of implementation process and its success. According to (Huxhold 1991, Antenucci 1991; cited by (Campbell and Masser, 1995)), GIS implementation in municipal organisations consist sequential steps to guide the process and evaluations of success have also been based on accomplishment of organisational objectives (Guptill et al. 1988; (Campbell and Masser, 1995)), data availability and data accuracy (Budic and Godschalk, 1994). Other measures of success are subject to perspectives and judgments based on personal efforts of GIS implementation and may change with the passage of time (Campbell and Masser, 1995). Research on GIS implementation contexts have expanded understanding of the prescriptive approach to implementation and explored the role of the organization and its politics. (Campbell and Masser, 1995) introduced three implementation perspectives that shape organization’s efforts to establish GIS: technological determinism, managerial rationalism and social interactionism.

Technological determinism

This theory assumes that due to the advances inherent within innovations they will diffuse. Under these assumptions the technical specialists design the new product, users utilize it and the whole of the society benefits. As a result the key determinant as to the speed and extent of diffusion are the technical characteristics of the innovation. Given that, there are only two constraints in the widespread of innovations particularly computer based systems. The first of these are the technical characteristics of the innovation. Consequently, the lack of adoption of new technology is regarded as the result of its technical inadequacies such as being too slow or cumbersome. The second set of factors accounting for the non-adoption of the technology is the lack of skill of potential users (Masser et al., 1996). The assumption of this perspectives creates unfavourable attitude that any change is forced on the potential users which are not involved in the implementation and might lead to failed cooperation with the technical expertise. This would in turn lead to a low rate of use of the new system (Grimshaw, 2000).

Managerial Rationalism

The rationale for this perspective is that the process of introducing GIS should not be regarded as solely technological. Effective implementation should be viewed as a combination of rational management and technical competence. That is, GIS is not expected to be introduced and utilized purely because of its technological advantages or benefits rather as a result of pre determined organisational strategies set by top-level management of the organization. It remarks that adoption is inevitable if it has the potential to overcome human limitations in decision making (Campbell and Masser, 1995). Thus, in the decision for introduction and the implementation process should win the support of top-level management. Consequently, it is certain that the implementation and the technical competency is dominated by the needs and desires of top-level management (Masser and Onsrud, 1993).

Converging from the former perspective, this perspective acknowledges that the introduction of new technology needs to be managed and coordinated to assure the efficient utilization. However, the needed management is conceived as a guiding management style that mostly reflects the interest of the top-level management. Despite the consequences of this, a GIS implementation process under such circumstances expected to be successful because of the relatively better linkage with underlying organisational strategy (Campbell and Masser, 1995).



But, in the realization of information systems in an organization, such as GIS, participation of the members is seen as the key to implementation. It is a way of working with greater knowledge and understanding of the system but perhaps more importantly it serves as a mechanism or expression of consent. It is also basis for negotiation and compromise. It can also be seen as scoping implementation, including scoping participation by setting boundaries to decision making (Reeve and Petch, 1999). However, in the view of managerial rationalism, the participation of members of an organisation other than the top-level management and the technical specialists is highly constrained. As a result, the strategic views in management and operational levels, such as perception of the disadvantages and opportunities, evaluation of the effect on interests and cooperation, often overlooked (Campbell and Masser, 1995).

Social Interactionism

Differences in the extent of GIS diffusion have been related to, among others, variations on data availability and widely differing institutional arrangements. However, evidences suggest that there are some significant similarities between organizations which may be located in widely varying institutional contexts. The underlying premise of this argument is that the extent of diffusion of an innovation such as GIS is dependent up on the interaction between the technology and either the external or internal context in which it is located. This is subsequently referred to us social interactionism. In general, the key characteristics of the information technologies which have been adopted are essentially social than technological. These include simplicity, observable benefits, relative advantages and compatibility with existing norms or practices. The tendency for effective implementation depends up on the context of each organization. This is because each member of an organization assesses the personal implications of the introduction of a GIS rather than the extent to which it is likely to enhance overall organisational performance. Given the differences between contexts and the varying values, norms and motivations of individuals within the environments, the processes of adoption and implementation must be both complex and problematic. In light of the complexity of the problems associated with the adoption and implementation of GIS, the underlying goal of socio interactionist perspective is to gain organisational and user acceptance for the technology, not simply to achieve a technically operational system (Campbell and Masser, 1995). The emphasis is successful integration of GIS into the organization. Recognising the individual, organisational and institutional aspects is critical to determine how they behave and how they like to respond for the introduction of GIS (Reeve and Petch, 1999).

Therefore, evaluating organizations effort in light of the aforementioned GIS implementation perspectives provides general information on GIS planning, participation of organisational members and implementation actions. This might indicate the views that drive the adoption of GIS in a particular organisation. Furthermore, the evaluation helps to predict probability of implementation process success (see section 2.5; process model).

2.3.1. GIS Implementation Strategies

The selection of GIS implementation strategies depend on the type of organisation and particular application (Grimshaw, 2000; Somers, 2000). Eason (1998) has identified five alternative strategies which illustrate the main approaches ranging from the most revolutionary to the most evolutionary. When considering which approach to use, the distinctive characteristics



and principles on which the five strategies are based make them suitable for particular types of applications and organisational situations (Budic and Godschalk, 1994; Grimshaw, 2000).

Strategy Description of basic characteristics and principles

Bing Bang

Instant changeover with simultaneous technology and organisational change; involves great risk; requires substantial planning; preparation for change and extra funding; centrally managed; creates stressful conditions; suitable for applications that need “critical mass” of users.

Parallel Running

Slower process with technological change preceding organisational adjustment; requires careful planning, extra time and funding; may be frustrating to run parallel both systems; problems with lagging organisational change; suitable for applications with “critical mass” of users and for avoiding implementation risks.

Phased Introduction

Slower process with gradual introduction of both functionality and users; technical issues do not dominate; sequence of system delivery is critical; doesn’t require extensive resources, but appropriate attention should be devoted to each new group; risk is very low; advantageous for tailoring the system to user needs; suitable for independent set of users.

Trials and dissemination

Small-scale implementation intended for testing technical systems and for identifying possible problems and needs; doesn’t require a lot of planning and extra resources; risk is low; lessons/experiences are hard to disseminate; solutions are unique for each group (opportunity for local design); suitable for environments with many problems, and where the acceptable pace of change is critical.

Incremental Evolution

Slow, time-consuming process; often lacks planning, but requires an overarching policy infrastructure and strong user support; advantageous for local user-led design for professional and managerial groups; ad hoc approach can lead to dead end and difficult transfer of information.

Table 2-1: Strategies for Implementing Information Systems (Budic and Godschalk, 1994)

2.4. Organisational Changes

Organizations are systems that exist in the context of an external environment, in a dependent relationship, and interact with it in order to survive and grow. Any factor in the environment that interferes with the organization’s ability to produce and provide its services becomes a force of change. Internal to itself, a number of forces operate in the organization that could facilitate or hinder its functions, processes and actions (Harigopal, 2006). Although there are number of factors influencing organizations to change, related to this research the focus is on the changes due to introduction of information technologies such as GIS in to organizations. Without diminishing the effect of technological advancement and its diffusion, the motivation for the introduction of GIS by organizations stems from the desire to enhance the efficiency of planning, operational, managerial and decision making process (Campbell and Masser, 1995). Yet, GIS to be adopted by an organization and successfully implemented it must involve either the minimum of change or the change must be accepted by all separate interests within the



organization (Obermeyer and Pinto, 1994; Masser et al., 1996). In this type of change due to external or internal pressures, individuals and organizations make changes in the way they do business (Campbell and Masser, 1995). The changes in the organisational environment might include activity patterns, procedures, processes, organisation, roles, responsibilities, attitude and behaviour (Huxhold and Levinsohn, 1995; Bradley, 2006). One of the issues of implementing GIS is how to integrate a new working practice with existing values and practices. That can also be managing the changes following the adoption of GIS technology (Obermeyer and Pinto, 1994; Campbell and Masser, 1995). Hence, adopting GIS is about introducing new practices into an organization. Managing the changes is developing the big picture and seeing the mutual relationship (Pugh, 2007). That understands current state and formulates the transition process to the future. However, acknowledging that change has its source in the past, this research will focus on the observation of organizations members on changes due to introduction of GIS.

2.4.1. Change Management Strategies

As (Medyckyj-Scott and Hearnshaw, 1993) indicated, change is something organisations experience but is managed better if planned for. Such planning will be influential in insuring that GIS becomes integrated with an organization’s practices.

However, according to (Hersey et al., 2001), planning changes require identifying what is actually happening and likely to happen in the environment, what would people ideally like to be happening in the situation, and what are the actual and ideal impediments. Once the discrepancies identified, analysing the effect of the changes that can be altered by the organisation and its management such as leadership or management style, organisational structure, and organisational objectives is most common approach. Once the analysis is completed, the next step is determining appropriate implementation strategies. The approaches that are helpful in change implementation process are shown in Table 2-2 and Table 2-3.

Process Description

Unfreezing

Thawing-out process. That is breaking down of old ways of doing things so that individuals are ready to accept new alternatives.

Changing A process which occurs when one or two change models are provided from which others can learn.

Refreezing

A process by which newly acquired change comes to be integrated. That is provision of support and reinforcement to demonstrate the learnt attitudes.

Table 2-2: Lewin’s Change Process

Process Description

Driving Forces Forces affecting a situation that are initiating a change and keep it going.

Restraining Forces acting to restrain or decrease the driving forces.

Table 2-3: Lewin’s Force Field Analysis



2.5. Analysis Framework

The introduction of new computer based technology, such as GIS, in a work setting affects the skills, interactions, roles, responsibilities, competencies of the individuals. It can also affect organisational aspects such as rules, procedures and organisational structure. Hence, individual and organisational issues are the levels of analysis considered for this research (Bingham, 1978; Markus and Robey, 1988; Huxhold and Levinsohn, 1995; Bradley, 2006). Additionally, GIS diffusion (external to organizations), perceived performance dissatisfaction (internal to organizations) are considered as the motivation/pressure to adopt GIS (Campbell and Masser, 1995). Technical and managerial aspects of the organizations also considered as capacity (internal to organizations) as a condition to absorb the induced changes or facilitate adoption (Hanna et al., 1995). Framework

According to (Kumar 2005), in this type of research that attempts to investigate causal relationships, variables that operate are change (independent) variables, outcome (dependent) variables, cause-and-effect (extraneous) variables and linking (intervening) variables. Therefore, the conceptual model shown in Figure 2-1 is developed on the basis of this notion. In one hand, it considers GIS adoption, induced changes and motivation/pressure as independent, dependent and intervening variables respectively. On the other hand, as the research sought to find out whether the changes affect the adoption, induced changes, GIS adoption and capacity are considered as independent, dependent and intervening variables respectively.

Figure 2-1: Conceptual framework

The factors, phases and indicators considered in the analysis framework such as GIS diffusion, performance gap, initiation, implementation, attitude and structure (organisational and/or occupational structure) are explained below. Moreover, the models adapted to evaluate each case are indicated.



According to (Campbell and Masser, 1995), the motivation for the introduction of GIS by organizations stems from the desire to enhance the efficiency of planning, operational, managerial and decision making process. The implication of this argument for utility organisation is incorporation of GIS to maintain utility infrastructures information and support operation, planning and management of the facilities to improve the services (Pickering et al., 1993; Hofstee et al., 2006). (Warnecke, 1998) also stated, GIT is changing the way organizations manage operations and make decisions, deliver services, interact with the public and each other and plan for the future. Accurate GI and modern GIT are relevant in locating new development, repairing water lines, responding to fires or other emergencies, ensuring the equity of public services and other activities.

As defined by Rogers (1983), diffusion is a process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of organizations or organizations themselves. Hence, it creates a situation in which individuals interact with the innovation. The interactions between them precede the behaviour which results from the interaction. The product of this interaction is called perception. The behaviour causes changes which alter the relationship between the person and the environment. The change produced by behaviour is accomplishment. The accomplishment may be desirable or undesirable. In either case it may affect the situation (Hersey et al., 2001). By implication, the perception of individuals interacting with GIS develops an attitude that can change their behaviour which results in changing or not changing the way they have been accomplishing their activities. This in turn can affect the decision of GIS adoption.

Moreover, adoption of GIS requires both technological and organisational adjustment. It may have an impact on the structure and design of the organization and on its occupational structures as well (Rogers, 1983; Campbell and Masser, 1995; de Man, 2002). The changes in the organisational environment might include activity patterns, procedures, processes, organisation, roles, responsibilities, attitude and behaviour (Huxhold and Levinsohn, 1995; Bradley, 2006). However, organizational members under-utilize, or even sabotage, the new technology if they feel they may be adversely affected by the changes (Leonard-Barton 1987; cited by (Nedovic-Budic, 1998)). In evaluating and finding out how the resources of the organization changed due to the introduction of the technology and what experiences and cases exist (i.e. how the organizations reacted to the changes and the capacity of organisations) the research adapted the content model evaluation of GIS implementation (Obermeyer and Pinto, 1994).

As (Rogers 1983) identified, initiation and implementation are key phases in the adoption process. Also, stated initiation as the phase at which organizations becomes aware of the technology. Obermeyer and Pinto (1994) also described it as a phase at which organisations evaluate needs and benefit of the technology or GIS. Implementation phase also stated as engagement of the organization in the activities such as database development, system maintenance and utilization of the technology which requires technological and organisational adjustment. (Campbell and Masser, 1995) also argued that if extent of adoption provides a benchmark as to whether users accept GIS to have potential, implementation determines whether it is utilized. Moreover, (Masser et al., 1996; Somers, 2000; Tomlinson, 2003; Lisho, 2007) indicated GIS implementation, which follows the initiation phase requires not only technical skills but also identifying, organizing, planning and managing all its components such as body of ideas, technology, data, organisation and methods. (Tomlinson, 2003) also argued absence of such



implementation plan leads to failure or rejection. However, as stated by (Campbell and Masser, 1995) it may take place repeatedly in different sections of an organisation or within the same section. The phases and the decision outcomes of diffusion process are shown in Figure 2-2. The study adapted the process model of implementation to evaluate how organizations have been initiating, acquiring, implementing and adopting GIS.

Figure 2-2: Diffusion of GIS: the phases and outcomes (Rogers 1983)

Process Model (adapted)

As argued by (Shultz, Slevin and Pinto,1987; cited by (Obermeyer and Pinto, 1994) ), one simple and effective way to view the implementation process is as a distinction between planning activities and action-oriented efforts. That is to say, planning activities are related to the early planning phase of implementation. Recognizing the difficulties to measure effectiveness of a plan and actual process in a cross-sectional study (Kumar, 2005), the measure of investigation considered was whether the implementation process is supported by an implementation plan and whether the planning process was participative. These are supported by whether it is executed and whether the execution considered as a success or failure. The former considered as planning and the later as action. Referring to the discussion of GIS implementation perspectives in section 2.3, we can deduce probability of implementation process success or failure and relate with the above discussion to adapt the effectiveness ‘strategy’ Vs effectiveness ‘tactics’ process model matrix to planning Vs action matrix of a position model of implementation process for probability of adoption and use.

Quadrant I (Managerial Rationalism)

(Low probability of adoption and

misuse)

Quadrant II (Social Interactionism)

(High probability of adoption and

use4)

Quadrant III (Technological determinism)

(Low probability of adoption and use)

Quadrant IV (uncategorised)

Table 2-4: Planning/action matrix (adapted)

4 Conventional GIS work flow process: data capture, data retrieval, data manipulation, data analysis and

information display.

Act

ion

Planning Low High

High

Low



Quadrant I: characterised as low probability of adoption and misuse. The idea is that

managerial rationalism considers pre-determined organisational strategies set by top-level management. The implication is planning is viable but with restricted participation. Apparently the possibility of wining support from the top-management results in high level of action. Yet, the potential users are only the technical experts that involved at prior stage.

Quadrant II: characterised as high probability of adoption and use. The idea is that social

interactionism considers pre-determined organisational strategies set by members of an organisation. The implication is planning is viable with wider participation which makes it to win support from most members of the organization results in high level of action.

Quadrant III: characterised as low probability of adoption and use. The idea is that

technological determinism considers only the capabilities and benefit from the technology. The implication is planning is neglected. Apparently there is no participative approach such that low possibility of winning support results in low level of action.

Content Model (adapted)

The issues related to the introduction, implementation and adoption of GIS such as

adoption decision, organisational changes and capacity attributed to various factors. These include perceived benefits, complexity and relative advantages, fear of induced changes, availability of resources and readiness to change and motivation/pressure to incorporate technology (both internal and external to the organisations) (Obermeyer and Pinto, 1994; Nedovic-Budic and Godschalk, 1996; Garson, 2003; Obermeyer and Pinto, 2008). These factors can be identified based on attitude and perceptions of members of organisation (Nedovic-Budic and Godschalk, 1996). The concepts/issues to be measured, factors that affect GIS adoption process are listed in Table 2-5 below.



Concepts

Factors

Decision level

Individual benefit

If staff is satisfied with how GIS positively affected his performance.

Perceived organisational benefit If the organization as a whole perceive benefits from GIS (Craglia and Couclelis, 1997).

Perceived complexity of GIS If GIS is perceived as complex.

Adoption decision or

Willingness to take up Perceived relative advantage

If the comparative advantage of using GIS is small. (Nedovic-Budic and Godschalk, 1996; Nedovic-Budic, 1998);

If individuals or work groups tasks, roles and responsibilities changed or broaden.

If there is a change of rules, procedures, and responsibilities in pre and post GIS period.

If there is communication patterns changed in pre and post GIS period.

Induced organisational changes

If formal/informal power structures are created, eliminated or changed (Huxhold and Levinsohn, 1995).

Organisational Changes

Induced behavioural changes.

If there is fear of change and incompetence (Nedovic-Budic and Godschalk, 1996; Nedovic-Budic, 1998)

Number of trained staff

Availability of technology

Availability of Finance

If there is extensive trained staff, technology and sufficient budget.

(Hanna et al., 1995; Huxhold and Levinsohn, 1995)

Organisations capacity

Readiness to change

If the planning and implementation process is open for participation; (Hanna et al., 1995; Huxhold and Levinsohn, 1995).

Table 2-5: Content model Variables (adapted)



3. The Field Works

The field visits in Addis Ababa is briefly discussed in this section in light of the investigation of the introduction and use of GIS in different organizations. In addition to the brief description of the data collection, this section tried to provide a very general and related overview of the GIS environment in the city and the context of each organization which were the focus of the field visit.

3.1. Data Collection

The intent of the data collection was to gather information on individual and organisational issues that can affect decisions to adopt and use GIS (see section 2-5).

The methods employed for the data collection were interview, questionnaire and observation with respect to the research questions outlined in chapter one. The interview questions were semi-structured and categorized into four sections (see Appendix 1) based on the concepts intended to be observed (see Table 2-5). Generally, the questions help to identify the factors that are attributed to adoption decision, organisational changes and capacity. Furthermore, internal and external motivations/pressures that can influence organisations and their members’ decisions also addressed. As the questions were prepared with some assumptions or they were proposed questions, there were deviations that forced to raise some issues and pose questions which are not included in the questionnaire and thought to help find out relevant information. There were also some questions which were not applicable for the cases in some organizations. In such instances either the questions are skipped or modified. All the pre-interview and those questions posed during interview were considered to gather information on experiences, cases, factors contributed for the adoption process and changes (organisational and behavioural) due to the introduction of GIS. Those were aimed to be observed through the perception and attitude of the respondents.

The required information was collected in two ways. One is an oral interview by recording and the other is allowing the respondents (depending on their preference) to give the answers in written form. Out of 27 questionnaires distributed for the potential respondents in seven organizations, 19 are collected back. Of which, five are in written form, ten individual interview and four were group discussions (groups of two, three and four participants in four different organizations). Total number of respondents participated were 27. Out of these, 42% are direct users, 39% potential users and 19% are indirect users.

In most interview sessions, in addition to the voice recording, there was an attempt to fill the questionnaire. That was the case especially on the closed questions which require scaled agreement or disagreement on an issue. That was as a result that in instances respondents do not want to say completely agree (ca), agree (a), more agree than disagree (mad), more disagree than agree (d) or completely disagree (cd) rather they prefer to describe the issue. In such instances, the techniques chosen and decided to use to scale the responses were; their attitude towards the issue, facial expressions, voice tone, the off record discussions, and observations where ever applicable to the description. Hence, the interview results are the combination of the attitude and perception of individual respondents and interviewer observation. With the consideration of the limitation to ask clarification on some unclear responses, comparatively, the responses given by those



respondents preferred to answer by writing contains the individual’s view and attitude. The responses on closed questions measured in a numerical scale classified in to three directional categories as positive, neutral position and negative (see Kumar, 2005). In all interviews it was observed that the interviewees choose mad considering it as neither against nor supporting the issue. Thus, it was considered as a neutral position (see figure 1.1).

Figure 3-1: Attitudinal scale

Despite all that, during the data collection period from September 11th to October 14th

2007, there were significant limitations observed. Those were getting organisational documents (new BPR documents, new structural adjustment documents, and related proposals which are mentioned during interviews), hesitating to clearly respond on questions which involve government or executive management, repeated shift of appointment, an attempt to replace another person, interruptions in the middle of interview, and difficulties in identifying the right work unit. Although these are cumulative cases of all organizations visited, the information gathered, to some extent, is the compromised outcome of all mentioned issues.

3.2. The GIS Environment in Addis Ababa

Addis Ababa, capital of Ethiopia, has a population more than 3.5 million with an area of 540 Km2. The city administration is under the city council chaired by a Mayor. All municipal service giving organizations are administered under the council. Besides that, there are a number of federal and municipal/local government organizations, foreign and local private companies, NGOs and the academics from which some have been using or involving in GI/GIT sector one way or the other. For instance, Gtz is supporting the municipality to enhance the use of GIS, JICA is supporting MoWR to disseminate GIS (by giving training on ArcView for professionals in local and federal offices under the ministry and some other government offices related to water resource management), Addis Ababa University is providing Remote sensing and GIS course, and UNECA is using it for their own functions and have been organizing awareness sessions for organizations functioning in the city. There are few local consulting offices involved in this sector. There are also a number of federal and local government organizations which have employed GIT to support their organisational functions. Among the federal and municipal government organizations Ministry of Water Resources (MoWR), Ethiopian Electric Power Corporation (EEPCo), Ethiopian Telecommunication Corporation (ETC), Addis Ababa Water and Sewerage Authority (AAWSA), Addis Ababa Roads Authority (AACRA), Addis Ababa Infrastructure Construction Authority (AAICA) and Urban Information & Documentation Department (UIDD) are those which have been using and/or starting to use GIS. Generally, these indicate that how skill and knowledge on GIS transfers across organisations which might influence the decision of organisations and their members to adopt GIS.

2 1 0 1 2

ca a mad d cd

Numerical Scale

Attitude



Social Systems Communication Channel Communication Type Project Offices On Job Trainings/Sharing skills Formal5/Informal6 International Organisations Work shops Formal NGO’s Workshop, Training, technical support Formal Academics Training Formal GI Consulting Offices Promotion demonstrations Formal Personal relationships Sharing skills Informal

Table 3-1: Social systems and observed GIS diffusion communication channels

3.3. Selection of the Organizations and Respondents

Based on the intent of the research proposal and existing situation in the city the four utility organizations providing water, sewerage, telecom, power and storm water drainage services and three other organizations which directly or indirectly thought to influence the introduction, adoption and use of GIS in the utility organizations were the focus of the field work. Generally, the composition of the organizations is with in the consideration of different organisational and GIS application context. For example, AAWSA, AACRA, AAICA and UIDD are organized under the municipal/local government. On the other hand, EEPCo, ETC and MoWR are organized under the federal government and provide their respective services throughout the nation through regional and district offices. Among these some are functioning in Addis Ababa. For simplicity of presentation, the organizations under consideration can be grouped in to three institutional arrangement levels according to their proximity to the city council (see Figure 3-2).

Since the views on introduction, implementation and adoption of GIS depend on the institutional arrangement and context of organisations (see section 2.2 and 2.3), selecting organisations within different institutional arrangements can help to find out the different attitudes and perceptions towards GIS adoption decision.

Figure 3-2: Institutional arrangement level 5 Trainings conducted with the consent and decision of the organisations. 6 Skill or Knowledge transfer as a result of individual contacts to accomplish a common task or for good

relationships.



The selection of respondents in all organizations was based on the predefined criteria for the use of GIS (direct user, indirect user and potential user) and the existing situation of each organization. Initially, the minimum number of respondents set for each organization was three; however, the questionnaire was distributed for all potential respondents identified to minimize uncertainties to get the minimum number. Yet, the number of respondents willing to be interviewed in each organization was not uniform.

As it was the view of the data collection to incorporate respondents from the top level management, middle level management and operational level in order to get balanced view on the organisational issues; the job position of the respondents was composed of general managers, deputy general managers, department heads, team leaders, experts and drafts persons. Their profession composition was managers, economists, geographers, engineers, architect planners, computer science and drafting.

Management Level Number of

Respondents Job Position

Top Two General Manager Top Two Deputy General Manager Top Four Department Head Middle Three Team Leader Operation Three Section Head Operation Three Engineer Operation One Aid Engineer Operation Three Senior Drafts Person Operation Two Drafts Person Operation One Senior GIS Expert Operation One GIS Expert Operation Two GIS Technician

Note: See the details in Appendix 6.

Table 3-2: Summary of Respondents

3.4. Context of the Organizations

The context of each organization visited is highlighted to give very general background information on the type of the organizations, their responsibilities, and the use and importance of GIS to accomplish these responsibilities. That is supplemented by representative descriptions or statements from respective respondents which shows interests and views on GIS adoption.

Addis Ababa Water & Sewerage Authority (AAWSA)

The organization is a public and non-profit making organization, which provides water supply and wastewater disposal services, having eight branch offices within the city. The main responsibilities of the organization are the production of potable water, treatment of wastewater, construction, operation, maintenance and management of both systems. It has different departments that deal with the planning, study, design, managing and controlling various tasks of the organizations. The engineering department, sewerage department, Research and water demand management department, water production and distribution department and projects office are the main users of Geo-information. It is in these departments that most GI related such as AutoCAD, GIS, Water CAD, Sewer CAD and other application software users are found. The organization has centralized IT department which mainly focus on billing and financial systems.



Ex-planning department head of AAWSA describes the importance of GI/GIT “… in this organization in the early times some personnel used to record the pipe routes and location of

valves using hand sketches on A4 papers. After some time it was decided to do this on properly prepared maps… we have used these technologies (AutoCAD and GIS) to map the water and

sewer pipes. … in my opinion, it is a must to have properly organized GIS unit in order to support the network management, planning, design, leakage control, etc”. Moreover, the responses obtained from other respondents also indicate that the use of GIS is a must due to various pressing reasons. One respondent mentioned “The importance of GIS for my organization is vital as there

are different water sources with a number of attribute variables to be managed, network of pipe

lines and high number of customers becoming hardly manageable without computer based

management system like the GIS environment”. During the visit I have observed an order to the ITS (Information Technology Service) to incorporate GIS in the TOR prepared for upgrading the billing system.

Ethiopian Telecommunication Corporation (ETC) The organization is a public and profit making organization, which provides all type of

telecommunication services in the country. It has six zonal offices within the city and eight regional offices throughout the country. The organization has eleven different departments from which only Access Network Division which is under Telecom Engineering Department is where AutoCAD and GIS are found in use and planned to be used for GI data collection respectively.

However, the use of GI is observed to be essential for a number of departments that their tasks are interrelated. Emphasizing on that the General Manager of Access Network Planning Division describes that “…ETC’s training centre is giving GIS training for some staffs by

employing a GIS consultant…previously the telecom network did not cover large area but these

days its coverage is becoming larger and we want to use these technologies to map all our networks…and also in the city there are other infrastructure organizations like water and

sewerage, electric power, road, etc…GIS will help us to work in an integrated manner according to the city’s master plan and share information. Secondly, applying GIS in ETC will facilitate the

planning and service provision to our customers. ETC has a number of technical work units such as maintenance, operation, telecom engineering, sales, etc… in my opinion through time when

these work units observe the benefit of this technology they will implement it to support their

respective tasks. Since the telecom network of the country and the city is growing very fast, in my

view, it is a must to implement GIS”. The staffs who are currently converting the telecom network paper maps to digital format using AutoCAD has complete agreement on the manager’s statement.

Ethiopian Electric Power Corporation (EEPCo) The organization is a public and non-profit making, which is responsible for power

Generation, Transmission, Distribution and Sales of electricity all over the nation. It has number of district offices throughout the country including Addis Ababa. The departments under The Power distribution, Transmission and Substation, Generation Operation, and Generation sectors are certainly potential users of GIS. Currently, EEPCo has initiated to use GIS in Rural Electrification and Distribution Rehabilitation Projects. According to the senior drafting person “… the engineering department has been using AutoCAD… there are some staffs trained in GIS



but never used it”. Strengthening this statement the Distribution Rehabilitation Project Co-ordination Department head described “…we are trying to implement GIS in this project for the

first time. Although it is difficult for me to tell about the use of GIS in the power generation and distribution sectors, we are aiming to record all the facilities, equipments, etc information that

are related to the power distribution sector using GIS. Generally, we are in the process of modernizing the organization. In my opinion EEPCo has a firm stand to implement GIS”. It is observed that one of the tasks of this project is to change the over head power cables to under ground cables which require the information about the location of other underground cables and pipes.

Addis Ababa City Roads Authority (AACRA) The organization is a public and non-profit making organization, which established to

plan, design, construct and maintain the roads, bridges and storm water drainage facilities. The Deputy General Manager states “we have been using AutoCAD for design and drafting works

since the establishment of the organization in 1997. Regarding GIS, the organization uses GI for the planning, design, construction, maintenance scheduling, controlling and management. It is

difficult to perform all mentioned tasks without GI. Hence, using GIS to manipulate the information and support our functions is a must ”.

Addis Ababa Infrastructure and Construction Works Authority (AAICA) The organization is a public and non-profit making organization, which ensures

implementation of construction laws and approves designs up on presentation. It coordinates through preparing harmonious design for power, telephone, water, sewer, road and other infrastructures construction. Also, issue building permits. According to the responses obtained from all interviewee in this organization, it has been using GIS since its establishment in 2003. Regarding the need and importance of GIS, the General Manager states “…currently we are using

GIS for integrated management of utilities…moreover, there is also an effort to develop an integrated information system among organizations like urban planning department, Land

Administration agency, Urban Information and Documentation Department… in my view, GIS is a must for our organization because all the tasks of the organization are related to land”. Adding

to this, Construction coordination and Design Department Head describes that”… the

organization is mandated to give building permit, follow up the construction of infrastructures against the cadastral information and the city master plan…. in my view, the role of GIS for our

organization goes beyond this. Hence, using GIS in our organization is inevitable”.

Urban Information & Documentation Department The organization is a public and non-profit making organization, which collect, process,

store and disseminate information on the basis of land plot/parcel. This department which is directly under the office of the City‘s General Manager Office was established by the decision made by the then Mayor mainly with the aim to facilitate the revenue collection. The Urban Information and Documentation Department head states ”…our department collects buildings,

households, utilities, demography, etc data on household level. This is to have property

information in relation to land and building in order to use for municipal level decision making

and revenue collection. To manage such vast data in a modern way using GIS is vital”. Adding to



this the Geo-Information Study and Analysis Team Leader described “Basically we have been using the stored information for title deed and to verify boundary dispute cases…as an Urban

information centre we also delivery the information as an input for research, policy making purpose and for different urban development projects…utility organizations, sub city

administrations, etc.”.

Computer and Geographic Information System Service (MoWR) Although all technical departments, such as hydrology, planning and projects, and river

basins development studies, engaged in data generation, analysis, retrieval and dissemination, CGIS is the main organ of the Ministry of Water Resources (MoWR) for data management. The GIS section is one subunit under CGIS. According to the responses obtained there was a GIS unit established for Tekeze River Basin project. Later different river basin study projects implemented GIS for the study. Then, after the completion of these projects the current GIS unit is established by bringing together the trained staff and equipments. The GIS and remote sensing team leader stated that “since the start of GIS and AutoCAD in our organization it helped us to automate and speed up most of the conventional activities”. The GIS technicians agreed on the statement and added ”…almost all the information of the river basins found in this unit…we are the data bank of the ministry and most are stored in GIS. Hence, in our opinion, GIS is very important for the

ministry”.

Organization Digital Information need

Performance Gap GITs Input to satisfy the need

UIDD Land, Buildings, Demography

Manual LIS and poor land administration and revenue collection.

AutoCAD, GIS

AAWSA Pipes network data Poor network management, inefficient water loss management and services

AutoCAD, GIS, WaterCAD, Sewer CAD

AACRA Road pavement data Poor road maintenance schedule

AutoCAD, GIS

AAICA Infrastructures data Unorganized planning and construction

AutoCAD, GIS

ETC Telecom network data Inefficient planning and construction

AutoCAD

EEPCo Power distribution facilities data

Poor asset management AutoCAD, Integra

MoWR River basins data Lack of information on the river basins for studies and planning

AutoCAD, GIS

Table 3-3: Summary of Mainly mentioned data need and perceived performance gap

3.5. Conclusions

Despite the significant challenges to gather organisational, institutional and individual information, from the forgoing discussion in this section, it is apparent that the organizations considered are among the main users of GI. The environment that the organizations functioning leads to a greater expectation of substantial GIT penetration. However, to get the full picture looking at the introduction, dissemination and consequences from the point of view of the members of the organisations who might be affected by/affect the adoption process is fundamental. The up coming chapter provides the findings of the field visits.



4. Current GIS Adoption in Addis Ababa

In this chapter, the findings from the field visits on the introduction and dissemination of GIS, changes, application and implementation experiences are presented. Generally, the issues included are how and for what purpose GIS has been introduced, consequences of the introduction and implementation experiences. The attitude and perception of the respondents and observations on the issues were described. The description is presented as a narration of observations, quoted responses and summary of responses in tables.

4.1. GIS Introduction

In all the organizations, except MoWR, the Addis Ababa Water Supply Study Project is mostly mentioned as a cause to start using GITs. The project introduced AutoCAD and the large scale digital line map of the city in 1994. This incidence stimulated the municipal government to use the digital line map to upgrade the manual land information system to computerized system and improve the revenue collection, land registration, land transaction and other related activities.

In 1996, the municipality launched urban information development project which, initially, fully utilized AutoCAD and the digital line map to collect land parcel based data. Later on GIS is used to link the descriptive information collected with the graphic information. Similarly, the water leakage detection and control project of AAWSA and the pavement management system study project of AACRA used the digital line map in the GIS environment to collect, store and analyze water pipe network system and the road network system information respectively. The power distribution rehabilitation project, with main objectives of collecting data on the power distribution facilities and changing the overhead power cables to underground, is using AutoCAD and Integra7 to collect and store the power network data. Yet, the project is looking forward to use GIS for same purpose and plus. Access Network Planning Division of ETC is converting the paper network maps in to digital format using AutoCAD. It is mainly with the aim to facilitate the planning task of the division. The division is very sure that they will get GIS software soon such that they will transfer the data from AutoCAD to GIS. With a consideration that AAICA is in the first level of the institutional arrangement of the local government the introduction of GIS was since its establishment. Literally, it is inherited from Urban Information Development Project Office. However, the formal GIS software acquisition was in relation to the Street naming and addressing project. Although there are different opinions on how it is introduced, it is strongly believed that the simultaneous river basin study projects are the cause for the introduction of GIS in MoWR. Strengthening this observation, the GIS & Remote sensing Team Leader states “…project based GIS Units be created during projects…to swap the necessary data.”

With some unlike cases and different institutional arrangement, it is noticeable that the above discussion reveals a general picture on pattern of introduction of GIS in to the organizations. Summary of purpose of introduction and implemented software and series of attempts made to introduce GIS are shown in Table 4-1 and 4-2 below.

7 “Software used to link digitized objects to the attribute information stored in Access data base. It is

supplied from ABB company”



Organization Purpose of Introduction Implemented software UIDD Collecting Parcel Based Data AutoCAD, ArcInfo AAWSA Water Leakage Management AutoCAD, InFoCAD AACRA Road Pavement Management AutoCAD , MapInfo AAICA Street naming and addressing AutoCAD, ArcView 3.2 ETC Planning telecom network AutoCAD, GIS (to be purchased) EEPCo Collecting power distribution network

facilities data AutoCAD, Integra, GIS (to be purchased)

MoWR Collecting & distributing river basins data.

AutoCAD, ArcInfo

Note: except ETC’s all are introduced through projects.

Table 4-1: Purpose of introduction of GITs

Organization Software Type Year

Introduced

Obtained

through

Project

type Remark

AutoCAD 1995 Project Local In use

ArcInfo 1996 Project Local In use UIDD

ArcView 3.0 Not known Purchase - In use

AutoCAD 2003 UIDD - In use

Arc Info 2003 UIDD - In use AAICA

ArcView 3.2 Not known training - In use

AutoCAD 1994 Project Foreign In use

InFoCAD 1998 Project Foreign Obsolete

ArcView 3.x 2003 training - Occasionally used AAWSA

ArcView 9.1

ArcEditor 9.1 2006 Purchase - Not in use

AutoCAD 2002 - Foreign In use AACRA

MapInfo 2002 Project Foreign In use

AutoCAD Not known - - In use ETC

GIS10 Not yet - - Plan to purchase

AutoCAD 2001 - - -

Integra1 Not known Not known - In use EEPCo

GIS10 Not known Project Foreign Plan to purchase

AutoCAD Not known - - In use

ArcInfo 1992 project Foreign In use

ArcView 9.2 Not known training - In use MoWR

ArcView 3.x Not known training - In use

Table 4-2: Series of attempts to introduce GI related software in the organizations



4.2. GIS Dissemination and Difficulties

This section presents the dissemination of GIS among organisational units and related difficulties encountered.

Dissemination The dissemination of GIS within each organisational set up started after the completion of

the respective projects. Up on the completion of the project the municipality established UIDD. Then, during the municipal organizations reform in 2001-2002, GIS is disseminated to the other organizations such as Infrastructure Construction Authority (AAICA), Land Development & Administration Agency, Housing Agency, Economy and Finance Bureau, and Master Plan Bureau. In the discussions made with some of the respondents in UIDD & AAICA, it appeared that the dissemination was intentional and the decision was due to the perception on the importance of the GI to support the duties of the organisations. This lead the giving out of the information followed by the assignment of trained staff (those trained and involved in the project) to each organization. To emphasize on this the Infrastructure Design, Study and Information team leader said “…if you go and see in each organizations, you will find at least one staff involved in that project”. Regarding the dissemination within AAICA, it is observed that there are no work units formally using GIS; however, some professional staffs are using it. Some responses might give firm conformation for that “…we just need one unit…it is not good for data security…”

In the case of AACRA, the Technical Deputy General Manger described it as “…by the

time the pavement management system study project completed, in 2002, there was organisational

restructuring…we used that opportunity to incorporate GIS in to the organization…in fact it is not a GIS unit, but all trained staff, software, the equipments are put in this section. That is

Pavement Management and Road System Team”. Although it was observed that the General Manger uses GIS to follow up projects, there were no other work units using it.

In case of AAWSA, after the completion of the Water Leakage Detection and Control Project, in 1998, the GIS unit of the project handed over to the trained staffs and continued functioning under similar, but in house, project. Then, in 2003, the in house project terminated and the unit is included to the organization. The ex-planning department head describes the further attempt made to disseminate GIS “…I remember in 2006 there was self initiated training

by the unit to disseminate GIS in to other departments and branch offices. But, now there are no

work units using GIS. In short, those self initiated staffs are not around and the GIS unit also,

almost, not in existence”. During the visit, an incidence that might reinforce this statement was observed. Some engineers and drafting persons are very busy in digitizing water network pipes using AutoCAD. While some are transferring the pipes to the WaterCAD environment and store some attribute information. For the question forwarded why they are using WaterCAD than GIS, the response was “…we are doing up to our knowledge and skill…there is no one critically

commenting on this. Every one suggests what he knows then we try to do it…the management needs some result…having all the pipes in digital format…” Yet, few professional staffs are occasionally using GIS to facilitate their personal tasks such as preparing hydro geological maps and storing data on ground water boreholes.

In the cases of ETC and EEPCo, it was observed that both have just started training selected staffs. Hence, it is difficult to describe the dissemination in these organizations.



However, the responses obtained indicate the intention and hope of disseminating the technology. Fore instance, the project head described that “….generally, we are in the process of modernizing

the organization. In my opinion EEPCo has a firm stand to implement GIS and have intention to use this project as a means for technological transfer to internalize such technologies (GIS, GPS,

etc) in to regular work units…” The Access Network Planning Division manager also said that “ETC has a number of technical work units such as maintenance, operation, telecom engineering,

sales, etc…in my opinion through time when these work units observe the benefit of this technology they will implement it to support their respective tasks…”

Organization Management level Involved professionals UIDD Middle GIS expert, Geographer, Planners , Engineers AAWSA Middle/Operation Engineers, Drafting persons AACRA Middle/Operation Engineers AAICA Middle/Operation Architects ETC Middle Computer science, Engineers EEPCo Operation Drafting persons MoWR Middle/operation NRM, Geographer, Drafting persons

Table 4-3: Location of GIS in the organizations management level and involved professionals.

Difficulties

Organization Issues mentioned as barriers for dissemination

“Very low awareness of the essence of GIS to development in general and its invaluable contribution to our department in specific, backwardness in terms of up to date GIS software manipulation capabilities of the staff in the department, and insufficient budget allocation.” UIDD

“The basic problem is dissemination of the tasks prior to the technology. There was no proper training. When they face problems they follow their own way. Our department has no power and mandate to standardize and guide the other organizations.”

AAICA

“Insufficient budget, lack of skilled staff, lack of serious attention from management, no network to share information, data security.”

“Lack of awareness of the uses that it offers by most staff member; engagement of trained personnel in other tasks that does not permit them to use it so frequently; shortage of skilled personnel on the subject to deal with big problems of the organization that can promote the importance of GIS.”

“One reason is lack of GIS professional/ skilled manpower, the second reason might be due to organisational structure, and also less financial capacity or budget allocation.”

AAWSA

“There was no strong unit to disseminate it to other work units, first we must have strong central unit that can show the importance of GIS”

AACRA

“There was no an intentional move to do the dissemination.”

Table 4-4: Difficulties encountered in dissemination



Since ETC and EEPCo are in a process of acquiring GIS, based on the situation in each organization, the respective respondents forwarded their opinion on future difficulties in disseminating GIS within the organizations. During the discussion with Access Network department respondents, with noticeable confidence, mentioned “We do not think that much

problem will occur. ETC has its own training centre that can organize GIS training. There are enough professionals that can easily be trained on GIS. And also the organization is capable of

buying software and hardware” while the General Manager anticipated that “…lack of GIS professional and getting the right data from data sources will be possible problems that will

hinder dissemination”. Regarding EEPCo, it appeared that the project manager is convinced on the existing situation as he described that “…the biggest challenge will be skilled man power. In

fact, we need awareness program, training and sufficient fund…”

On top of all mentioned barriers of dissemination, respondents in all organizations either they do not know whether there was an implementation plan for GIS or they are sure that there was not at all. The latter was a response from middle level and top level management respondents while the former is from the operational level. Even, in some cases it appeared that there was no proper job description for GIS staffs. Moreover, it was also observed that respondents in UIDD, AAICA, AAWSA and AACRA have a feeling that change of executive leaders and managers affected the continuity of dissemination. In ETC, those staffs engaged in the GIS activity said that “if we leave office, we guess GIS will be forgotten” .

4.3. Changes and Experiences

This section considers changes occurred in organisations structures and individual attitudes due to introduction of GIS after the completion of projects. This is because of two reasons. First, the acceptance and utilization of technological innovation within an organization is mostly linked to behavioural issues. Innovation in an organization also is often experienced as organisational change (Obermeyer and Pinto, 1994). Second, it has been learnt that projects/project offices which are mentioned in previous sections were mostly not considered as part of the regular organisational set up. If considered, their purpose is planning and supervising projects. Hence, it was thought that changes in different implementation phases of projects might hinder the effects of GIS on the organizations.

4.3.1. Organisational Changes

Within the first institutional level, there observed two kinds of changes. One is the opening of new work unit, UIDD, which is totally dedicated to GIS where as in other organizations such as AAICA GIS is incorporated within a work unit which is not solely dedicated to GIS. In both cases new job positions were opened. However, in a four days visit to the AAICA, it was observed that the staff member assigned for the GIS activity was very much busy with checking and approving architectural plans which are in process of building permit. Following the observation, a question was forwarded to check whether the GIS part in his team is still functioning or not. The reply was “…as you see I am busy with this and it was few months

that we have got a GIS expert…if the project that the department proposed for next year approved, we may use GIS fully… in the mean time we will obtain hardware, software and

additional staff. We were employing GIS fully during road naming and addressing project”.

In the case of AACRA also a new work unit that incorporated GIS as one of the tools used to run the system was opened and new job positions also created. However, not all job positions



proposed by the consultant were accepted. Unlike to those mentioned above in AAWSA the case observed was different. There was a GIS unit created which is not incorporated in the organization’s structure and also no new job positions were created. The description by ex-planning department head gives firm position for this observation “…really we had a problem to

allocate budget for the unit…it was difficult even to know clearly under which department or division it was…usually we just consider it under Engineering department” Adding on this he

mentioned that “I think, now, the GIS unit is dissolved”. During the visit, it was also learnt that restructuring of the organization is undergoing.

Based on the decision made to convert the paper maps in to digital and the intention to use GIS, it is told that there was a “minor” change within the Access Network Division. The Access Network Division General Manager explained it as “No, there was no structural change…what

we did is a minor change. That is bringing some professionals to our division who has diploma

and above in engineering and computer science that we believe can do this task efficiently”. The response from other respondents in this organization was exactly similar. Regarding the case of EEPCo, the project head anticipated that the new BPR may be considering this issue. And also he told that “…the project office is trying to identify the kind and number of staff the work requires

to perform the task in regional and district offices…how many engineers and drafts person we need”.

Organisations Introduction of GIS

Observed Changes Current Status of GIS

UIDD Project New Work unit and Job positions opened

Functional8.

AAWSA Project Change of job assignment Not functional9. AACRA Project Incorporated to a work unit, new

job positions opened. Not fully functional10.

AAICA Disseminated from UIDD/Project

Incorporated to a work unit, new job positions opened.

Not fully functional.

ETC Individuals initiation

Change of job assignment Just starting.

EEPCo Project Change of job assignment Just starting MoWR Projects New work unit and job positions

opened Functional.

Table 4-5: Summary of Changes due to introduction of GIS

8 Despite the idleness observed, they have yearly budget allocation, recognised as GIS units, and though more than 12 years old they provide data for users. 9 At the time of the visit there was no recognised GIS unit. 10 It appeared that the units not recognised as authorised GIS units. The tasks are seen as additional tasks.



Organisations Positive effects

Negative effects

UIDD Job opportunity, salary increment Mandate is not clear, conflict with land administration and archive unit.

AAWSA Awareness has been created, Individuals benefited from trainings.

Difficulties to allocate budget, no salary increment and career possibilities no power to organize and execute tasks.

AACRA Job opportunity GIS did not get attention. AAICA Job opportunity Additional tasks do not allow focusing

only on GIS activities. ETC Not known Not known EEPCo Not known Not known MoWR Awareness of the staffs enhanced. No negative effects seen.

Table 4-6: Summary of perceived effects of organisational Changes.

4.3.2. Attitude Changes

The focus here is attitude changes due to interaction of individual organisational members with GITs they have been using to perform their tasks. Specifically, with the acknowledgement of activity is a basic unit of behaviour, their perception and reasoning why they desire to change or not to change the activity they used to do (Hersey et al., 2001). By implication, the attitude to change or not to change the technology they have been using to perform that activity. Hence, this section presents the comparative perception and reasoning of respondents on the GIT they have been using. Apparently, most were between AutoCAD and GIS.

The attitude observed in all respondents answer was to use GIS in their activities. Mostly, the reason told to use GIS was its capabilities such as incorporating and managing attribute data, getting accurate position of objects than AutoCAD. Here, it was observed that such responses were both from those respondents which are using AutoCAD and GIS for their daily activity and which are even did not get formal training and their computers are not loaded with GIS software. For instance, a respondent told that “…I know about AutoCAD and GIS…AutoCAD does not give

geographically referenced objects like position of infrastructures, buildings…no, I have never used it for decision making…I mean most decisions are handled in department level…if we think

seriously we all should use it”. The other respondent who have never trained and used both AutoCAD and GIS said that ”…leaving my technical skill aside, from what I came to know from

colleagues and friends, the water network information collection, and dissemination should be

computerized; and using GIS, I think, is important”. Unlike these two responses the other respondent demonstrated how he was using ArcView to follow up the road construction projects. He opened a project that displayed the city boundary map and road network with some thick lines with different colour. He clicked on one of those such that attribute table displayed. Then he explained that “…if it was AutoCAD, I can not get this information (the attribute data

displayed)…we want our staffs to use this in networked environment…not only in here with other utility organizations too…even in a portal based data exchange”. Another respondent in UIDD without giving the reason stated that “Introduction of GIS in the organization brought new mode of thinking and new ways of doing activities…”

It was also perceived that some respondents have a feeling that the use of GIS in their respective organizations is so important that sooner or later things might totally be changed. To cope up with such a situation they feel they should have the knowledge and skill of the technology. Yet, almost all respondents rated the resistance to change as minimum.



Summary of the organisational members’ perceptions, expectations and plans (anticipations) on GIS and induced changes are shown in Table 4-7, Table 4-8 and Table 4-9 respectively.

Responses

Variables

Positive

Uncertain

Negative

Individual Benefit obtained 74% 26% - GIS is not Complex 47% 53% - Using GIS is Advantageous 84% 16% -

Note: Positive responses interpreted as Positive attitude i.e. Willingness to adopt GIS.

Table 4-7: Summary of organisational members Perceptions on GIS

GIS User Type

Management Level

Expectations from GIS

Direct Top Efficient data management and analysis. Direct Top Spatial data exchange in network environment. Indirect Top Allow us to integrate and work together with other organizations. Indirect Middle Collect and store all water network information. Indirect Middle Best choice to get integrated information & work efficiently. Direct Operation We have modern system and improve network management. Direct Operation Water sources and customers data management. Potential Operation Have integrated and documented information Potential Operation Facilitates planning and data sharing

Table 4-8: Summary of Expectations from GIS

Organisations Activity Plans GIS plan UIDD We have recently acquired high resolution

image and cadastral map. We have project proposal to update the whole data.

One of Major systems – 100%

AAWSA Convert the paper maps to digital and propose further alternatives of managing the water network information. Integrate GIS with Billing System.

Minor systems – 20% One of Major systems – 20% Not Known – 60%

AACRA Strengthen the unit and use GIS in a networked environment in all departments.


AAICA Obtain required hardware, software and staff and use GIS fully.


ETC Convert the paper maps to digital. In a long run we think to have a data server that other departments can access the data.


EEPCo Collecting and storing all power distribution facilities in GIS.

Not Known – 100%

MoWR Strengthen the unit as a water resources data bank of the country.


Note: - except MoWR all organisations have strong interest of sharing digital data. The percentage shows

the rate of the responses on the issue (see Appendix 2, question 35).

Table 4-9: Summary of future plan related to GIS



4.3.3. Experiences in Application of GIS

This section focuses on experiences in applying GIS for different tasks in the organizations and the benefit that organizations obtained. The experiences in each organization as described by the respective respondents are presented in Table 4.10 below. The quoted responses are those believed to represent the responses of each interviewee in an organization. The respondents’ perception on the post GIS organisational benefit obtained, planning cultures, personal judgements on implementation efforts and factors adversely contributed to implementation efforts in the respective organization also presented in Table 4-11, 4-13, 4-12 and 4-14 respectively below.

Organization

Experiences mentioned in application of GIS

“…we use GIS to collect, update, organize and analyze spatial data such as cadastral information of the city; distribute data and spatial information to different organizations, researchers, sector organizations, etc…”

“Basically we have been using the stored information for title deed, to verify boundary dispute cases. Generally, as an Urban information centre we deliver information as an input for research, policy making purpose and for different urban development projects such as housing, master plan study, street and road naming project, utility organizations, sub city administration offices, etc.”

UIDD

“…we use GIS to manage the collected data easily; to see the spatial relationship of parcel information and integrate it to other house hold level statistical information…”

“GIS is used for street naming and addressing project, building permit process, design, and construction control.” AAICA

“Mainly we use GIS for integrated management of infrastructures construction such as water lines, sewer lines, road, telephone and power cables control”

“GIS has been used to put the whole information of water supply lines and sanitary sewer in computer and to produce updated network maps.”

“GIS was used for water supply network map updating”

AAWSA

“ GIS has been used to put the information of water boreholes”

AACRA

“GIS has been used for asset management, planning, design, maintenance scheduling, management and control”

ETC Not yet applied

EEPCo Not yet applied

Table 4-10: GIS application experiences in the organizations



Responses

Organizations

Benefit obtained

Uncertain

No Benefit obtained

UIDD 75% 25% - AAWSA 0% 47% 53% AACRA 50% 33% 17% AAICA 11% 22% 67% ETC Not known Not known Not known EEPCo Not known Not known Not known MoWR 50% 50% -

Table 4-11: Summary of Perceived organisational benefits

Organisation Judgment Reasoning

AAWSA

Failure

“As far as I know those individuals assigned for GIS

are not around and apparently the GIS unit is also

currently not in place”.

AAICA

Not success or failure

“It is in between. If we restart it in an organized

manner, we might say it will lead to a success.

Otherwise, if it continues with very little and un

organized effort like we are doing now, I will guess a

total failure”

“To say it is a success we haven’t used it well. To say it

is a failure we haven’t rejected it. The reason for this

might be the structural arrangement of the unit”

“It is difficult to say it is a success or failure. We have

not seriously thought about it”

AACRA

Not success or failure

“It is not a success because it has not developed as we

wanted it to be or have not used efficiently. It is not a

failure because we did not abandon it. Even in the new

organization’s structure it is one of the areas we gave

more emphasis (adding more staff)”.

UIDD

Success

“The introduction of GIS, at least, has changed the

manual system to computerized system.”

“The data we have is used by number of users and

hope they benefit from this.”

“Although it is 12 years old, having digital data also a

success.”

ETC Early to evaluate

EEPCo Early to evaluate

MoWR

Success

“We can say it is successful because it has managed to

bring together the different river basin studies data. On

the other hand, we provide the data for studies”

Table 4-12: Summary of Personal Judgments on GIS implementation efforts



Responses

Variables

Positive

Uncertain

Negative

Engages staffs consultation 26% 32% 42% Awareness seminar arranged 16% 47% 37% Various issues assessed through questionnaire

5% 16% 79%

Management and few experts involved

58% 26% 16%

Table 4-13: Summary of Perception on planning culture.

Factors UIDD

AAWSA

AACRA AAICA

ETC EEPCo

MoWR

Technological problems Major Minor Minor Major Minor Minor Minor

Financial problems Major Minor Minor Major Minor Minor Major

Scarcity of skilled staff Major Major Major Major Major Major Major

Resistance to change Minor Major Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor

Table 4-14: Summary of ratings of factors negatively contributed to implementation.

4.4. Conclusions

From the discussion of the current GIS adoption in Addis Ababa above, various factors that contributed to the introduction, dissemination, consequences of introduction and experiences have been observed. Mainly, the factors are internal and external motivations/pressures to incorporate technology, the way GIS initiated and implemented, barriers of dissemination, the way organisations reacted on the consequences or changes and the organisations capacity. In the next chapter, based on the theories reviewed in chapter 2, the findings will be analysed and interpreted.



5. Understanding GIS Adoption Process

In this chapter, with the aim of understanding the GIS adoption process in Addis Ababa, interpretation and analysis of the field work findings discussed in chapter 4 is made with reference to theories reviewed in chapter 2. The analytical frame work considers GIS diffusion and performance gap, initiation and implementation, induced changes, and technical and management capacity which are in line with the content and process models and content of the questionnaire used for data collection (see section 2.5 and appendix 1). The issues included from the findings are opinions and attitude of the respondents on motivations/pressure, GIS adoption decisions, organisational changes and capacity. The analysis follows interpretative way of analysis owing to the research objectives and questions.

5.1. GIS Diffusion and Performance Gap

Similar to what (Masser et al., 1996) stated, the results in section 3.4 show that there has been the need and effort of introducing GIS to improve organisational performance. The attempts to introduce and use GITs in the organisations are increasingly becoming important component due to two main general reasons. First, looking for better mechanisms to collect, store and use vast spatial data. Second, the increased need of digital spatial information to solve pressing problems such as water leakage, land administration, revenue collection, integrated infrastructures planning, and construction (see also Table 3-3 and Table 4-1). The former emanated from the inefficiency of old data handling mechanisms and increased number of customers and spatial coverage of the services that the organisations providing. The later is due to awareness created on GITs and their capabilities to better support the mentioned tasks. Moreover, (Warnecke, 1998) also stated, GIT is changing the way organizations manage operations and make decisions, deliver services, interact with the public and each other and plan for the future. Accurate GI and modern GIT are relevant in locating new development, repairing water lines, responding to fires or other emergencies, ensuring the equity of public services and other activities. The resultant implication of seeking for better mechanisms and the attempts to introduce GITs is to ensure the services delivery by improving organisational performance.

Deferring from what (Rogers, 1983; Budic and Godschalk, 1994) stated, GIS has not been diffused among all organisations’ members and management levels. The diffusion has been through both formal and informal channels. The technological workshops, trainings and demonstrations organised by international organisations/NGOs and project/consulting offices have been the main formal communication channels. That are mostly short term application oriented trainings and conferences that have been delivered to the selected organisational members. The informal channel of diffusion has been through individuals’ interactions both within and across organisations on the basis of professional activities communication (sees section 3.2 and Table 3-1). The diffusion was also limited to a sphere of professions and management levels. For instance, it appeared that GIS has relatively well diffused among professionals such as Civil Engineers, Town Planners, Architects, Surveyors, Drafting persons and Geographers who are mostly in operational level management (section 4.2, Table 4-3). These imply that in an organisation GIS diffusion can be potentially limited within professional groups and management levels. Therefore, GIS might not necessarily diffuse among all organisational members.



In addition, corresponding to what (Tomlinson, 2003) noted, the proliferation of application oriented workshops and demonstrations on GIS’s relevance and capabilities invited the organisations to have greater expectations in improving their performance. The study results show that, the decisions made to introduce GIS were based on skill or knowledge acquired on its relevance and technological capabilities to accomplish specific objective and/or activity. That implies that introduction of GIS in the organisations was project and individual driven to serve specific objective and to support specific activity respectively. The former emerges when ever there are specific projects which constitutes spatial information. The later emerges when organisations’ members get GIS training. These incidences along with the limitations of the diffusion of GIS can not be an evidence for the consideration of the whole organisational performance gap. These might develop to fragmented efforts of introducing GIS by different components of an organisation. This might lead to fragmented technological development, information handling and management. Therefore, the introduction of GIS as a process of diffusion based on subjective evaluations of its relevance and capabilities for specific professional projects or task might lead to autonomous implementation processes. As a result the organisations might not reach to their expectations.

5.2. Initiation and Implementation

Initiation and implementation are key phases in the adoption process (Rogers, 1983; Obermeyer and Pinto, 1994). Although, as (Rogers 1983) indicated, evaluating the needs and benefits of GIS is part of initiation phase, in proportion to what (Obermeyer and Pinto 1994) noted, the study result shows that awareness of GIS technological capabilities and relevance were the most influential factors in the decision to acquire GIS. The discussion in section 5.1 also indicates the decision to introduce GIS was based on a subjective evaluation of its capabilities to support specific purpose or activity (see section 4.1 Table 4-1). That is evaluation of the organisational needs and benefits of GIS have been hardly considered. For instance, cost reduction or avoidance, increasing revenue, and supporting organisational business were not evaluated. However, similar to the statement of (Somers, 2000) and (Campbell and Masser, 1995), the result of this study shows GISs used for specific purpose projects were not rejected. Again it appeared that members of organisations also did not give up using it when they get it through social interactions. These imply that the decision to acquire GIS is not always based on detailed analyses of its organisational needs and benefits. It can also be based on the awareness of its technological capabilities and relevance to identified and pressing specific problem.

Regarding the implementation phase, differing from what (Masser et al., 1996; Somers, 2000; Tomlinson, 2003; Lisho, 2007) indicated, there was no implementation plan or ongoing program which constitutes all GIS components. The results in section 4.2 shows that the organisations just continued to use the manpower trained and data gathered during the projects. Those currently introducing GIS also do not have detail plan. They just have a notion of training selected staff and converting paper maps to digital or collect and store some specific data in a GIS environment (see Table 4-9; activity plans). However, it is found out that all organisations have no problem of hardware and software (see Appendix 3). The implication is that the organisations have been giving more emphasis for the implementation components such as training of GIS technicians, acquisition of hardware and software. Furthermore, contrary to what (Rogers, 1983; Obermeyer and Pinto, 1994) pointed out, the results in appendix 4 shows most of the organisations did not involve in database development and there was no system maintenance



program. The technology has also been utilized at a lower level i.e. mostly digitizing or map printing and the data management also file based. If not, the implementation processes in the organisations should at least have pre determined strategies set by the organisations top management (Campbell and Masser, 1995) which address these activities. That is there have been no documented implementation plans or process. Therefore, a GIS acquired for professional projects and limited for the use of some professionals and management levels in an organisation might not deliver complete GIS implementation plan. This seems raise a dilemma that whether absence of GIS implementation plans can be concluded as failure of GIS adoption.

Similar to what (Tomlinson, 2003) argued, the situation discussed above can be concluded as a GIS implementation failure. However, most of the results of the personal judgements on the implementation efforts were different. Given that in all cases GIS was initiated and implemented without proper/complete planning and in most organisations do not have the relevant and up to date data, the evaluation of the implementation processes based on theoretical assumptions indicated by (Campbell and Masser, 1995) results in a failure case. Further more, being the acquisition was largely influenced by technological capabilities of GIS, the absence of implementation plan and the perceived low organisational benefits (section 4.3.3, Table 4-11) indicate the position of all organisations in plan/action matrix is Quadrant III (see Table 2-2). That is the technological deterministic implementation perspective position. The assumption of this perspective also supposed to create unfavourable attitude that might leads to low acceptance and use of the technology (see section 2.3; technological determinism). Differing from that, the results in Table 4-12 indicates that the personal judgement of the respondents on their respective organisation based on specific achievements of the implementation effort was mostly success and uncertain. Even, the organisation that evaluated it as a failure did not reject it. Consequently, the study results in Table 4-7 and 4-9 shows both the organisations and their members are willing to take up GIS. This implies that failure of GIS adoption process is not completely dependent up on plan and success of its implementation. Also, absence of detailed implementation plan can not always withstand the acceptance of GIS; however, it results in low use and benefit.

Therefore, contrary to what is shown in Figure 2-2, the independency of GIS adoption on success of implementation might indicate that the implementation phase might not be necessarily a discrete moment where the decision of adoption or rejection should be taken. The results in table 5-2 also show that the out put of the implementation efforts were the extent of functionality of GIS organisations. Therefore, in line with (Obermeyer and Pinto, 1994; Campbell and Masser, 1995) noted, the implementation phase is more described as a process that integrates GIS with the tasks which it is adopted for and demonstrates whether or to what extent it is relevant for the tasks which it is not adopted for in an organisation.

Moreover, technically, the domination of the technological views (see Table 5-1) and the absence of implementation plan might lead to a conclusion that the willingness to adopt GIS is dominantly driven by technological views. But, the inconsistency between unsatisfactory use and benefit obtained from the technology and the persistence in willingness to adopt GIS based on specific achievements might positions the conclusion as very subjective. Adding to that, the results in section 4.2 also indicate that there has been decision and interest of individuals to introduce and sustain GIS in the organisations. That might arise from political and economic interests or social values (see (Masser et al., 1996; Schildt et al., 2005; de Man, 2007) which are



not considered in this study. Therefore, it seems that this raises a dilemma that whether technological views are completely driving the adoption process of GIS.

Characteristic Technology determinism Observed Views

Propensity for adoption Inevitable if good technology. Inevitable if capable and task

congruent.

Reason for adoption

To solve identified operational problems.

To solve operational problems

such as revenue collection, water

loss management, infrastructures

maintenance.

Style of implementation Technical process Converting paper maps to digital,

digitizing, map printing, data

provision on CDs and diskettes.

Constraints on

implementation

Technical worth of the innovation

and stupidity of users.

Lack of skilled staff and awareness

on the value of GIS.

Likely out come of

implementation

Positive, greater efficiency and

more rational decision-making.

Better data management.

Table 5-1: Characteristics of technological determinism (Campbell, 1994) and observed views.

5.3. Induced Changes

Corresponding to what (Campbell and Masser, 1995; de Man, 2002; Tomlinson, 2003) stated, the results in section 4.3 shows that there were changes in the organisations due to the adoption of GIS. The changes observed were adding new work units and job positions in the organisational and occupational structures, change of job assignment without structural changes (see Table 4-5) and behavioural changes. Although it varies between organisations, the changes constitutes what (Huxhold and Levinsohn, 1995; Bradley, 2006) pointed out. For instance, in an organisation where new GIS work unit opened, it appeared that there were new job descriptions (defining roles and responsibilities), procedures, processes and organisation. In organisations where only new GIS job positions opened, it appeared that role and responsibilities of individuals changed. In organisations where previous job assignment is changed to GIS job assignment, only responsibilities were changed. The first change includes salaries and career possibilities, the second includes salary changes and the last one does not include any. Further more, the organisational members who are not assigned for GIS also found using the technology. Despite their variation in extent, all the changes were focused on GIS and were new to the organisations. The discussion in section 5.1 also shows that the reaction of the organisations, to the internal desire and external environment’s stimulation, was incorporating new technology to enhance organisational performance. From which the changes are resulted in. Therefore, since the changes are new and made on the basis to incorporate the technology for organisational or ‘personal’ purpose, it can be concluded that the adoption of GIS induces structural, non structural and behavioural changes.

Contrary to what (Obermeyer and Pinto, 1994; Masser et al., 1996) argued, the results in 5.2 and Table 5-2 shows that regardless of success of implementation and under a condition that all interests within the organisations were not dealt with the changes, the organisations and their members have been willing to adopt GIS (see Table 4-7 and Table 4-8). The comparison between



the personal judgement of the implementation efforts, induced changes and willingness to adopt GIS shows that the extents of the induced changes vary with the success of the implementation efforts while the willingness to adopt GIS remains the same (see Table 5-2 below). These indicate that despite the success of implementation organisations and their members are willing to adopt GIS. However, the results in section 4.3 did not indicate the acceptance of the induced changes by all interests within the organisations. For instance, the constrained awareness of the technology within sphere of profession, the closed planning process culture and the prediction of consequences of changes by organisations’ members did not indicate the consideration of different interests in the implementation or adoption processes. From which potential implementation barriers were appeared (see Table 4-6, Table 4-13 and section 4.3.2 paragraph

three). The implication is that implementation of GIS requires appropriate changes and acceptance of the changes. That is the extent of the changes and acceptance of the changes determines the extent to which GIS integrates with existing practices.

Note: - Theoretically all implementation cases are failures. - Uncertain = neither success nor failure cases. Table 5-2: Observed implementation, change and adoption relationships.

5.4. Technical and Managerial Capacity

Similar to the description of (Campbell and Masser, 1995), the results in sections 4.1 and 4.2 shows that there were series of attempts to implement GITs. After the introduction of GIS, mostly through projects, the organisations have been acquiring GI and related softwares (see Table 4-2). Moreover, most organisations foresee implementing GIS as a major or one of major systems in their organisations. By implication and in common with (Rogers, 1983; Campbell and Masser, 1995; de Man, 2002) that might induce more technological and organisational changes which might require a better change management capacity in both cases. However, contrary to what (Masser et al., 1996; Pugh, 2007) stated, none of the organisations have a GIS implementation plan that evaluates previous efforts, understand current situation and see the future that fits the desired system. Looking at the GIS environment in the study area, how the skills and knowledge of GIS has been diffused and the proportion of GIS professionals in the organisations, one can be in doubt about the technical and managerial capacity of the organisations to implement GISs. For instance, most of the GIS staffs are trained through projects. That is also limited to some professions and management level (see Table 4-3) and seldom supplemented by trainings on new software’s skill upgrading. Furthermore, the recent act of hiring GIS professionals from out side of the organisations might also be good indicator for the concern of the organisations on the competency of the existing GIS staff (those trained by projects).

Moreover, all organisations have been focusing only on the technology component among those indicated by (Somers, 2000; Tomlinson, 2003; Lisho, 2007). And also inline with (Tomlinson, 2003) the implementation process is mainly affected by absence of GIS

Personal judgment of Implementation effort

Induced Changes

GIS adoption Status of GIS

Successful New Work Unit Willing to accept Functional Uncertain New Job positions only Willing to accept Not fully functional Failed New job assignment Willing to accept Not functional



implementation plan and lack of skilled staff (section 4-2 and Table 4-14). As explained in section 5.2 paragraphs two, the technical and managerial capacities that were found in the organisations hardly demonstrated the consideration of the components of GIS which should be considered in the implementation. However, the results of this study show that, despite lack of communication facility (LAN), most organisations have the basic computer technologies including the peripherals and the software (see Appendix 3). The financial problems are also mostly rated as minor problems. Therefore, GISs that are implemented through projects aimed to solve specific problems might penetrate to the organisations easily but result in short of GIS professionals that can plan and manage the implementation. Consequently, in such situation its chance to emerge as a planned GIS development project is very limited. Because, as (Somers, 1998; Tomlinson, 2003) argued, several GIS characteristics differentiate it from other technologies and need specialized organisational and management approaches. These issues include the characteristics of geographic data and their role in the organization’s business operations, the current state and advancement of GIS technology and its future directions, the relationship of GIS technology with other technologies in the organization, and the multiuse nature of GIS data. Therefore, lack of GIS professionals that can handle these issues influence the adoption process.

5.5. Understanding of Organisational Changes and Decisions

With reference to the analysis and interpretation of the findings of the study from sections 5.1 to section 5.4, it is apparent that there are communalities and disparities between the theories (theoretical assumptions) and the research results with respect to motivations/pressure, GIS adoption decisions, organisational changes and capacity. In this section, it is tried to show the comparison between the two in Tables 5-3, 5-4, 5-5 and 5-6 below. Basing on these, conclusions on the GIS adoption processes in Addis Ababa is made (see section 5.6).

An

alys

is o

f GIS

Ad

optio

n P

roce

ss B

ased

on

Org

anis

atio

nal

Cha

nge

s an

d D

ecis

ions

(C

ases

of M

uni

cipa

l Util

ity O

rgan

iza

tions

in A

ddis

A

baba

, E

thio

pia

.)

Zer

ihun

Am

de

ma

riam

, be

risso

1606

4@itc

.nl

/ ze

rihun

_am

de@

yah

oo.c

om 42

Issu

e

Pha

ses

The

orie

s R

ese

arc

h re

sults

U

nde

rsta

ndin

g

An

orga

nisa

tion

beco

me

s a

wa

re

of

the

tech

nolo

gy

and

ma

ke d

ecis

ions

to

acq

uire

or

re

ject

GIS

(R

oge

rs,

1983

).

The

aw

are

ness

wa

s on

GIS

ca

pabi

litie

s a

nd

rele

vanc

e fo

r sp

ecifi

c pr

oje

cts.

Initi

atio

n p

hase

O

rgan

iza

tions

e

valu

ate

s th

eir

ne

eds

a

nd

bene

fits

to a

cqu

ire

or

re

ject

GIS

(B

udic

a

nd

God

scha

lk,

199

4;

Ob

erm

eye

r a

nd

Pin

to, 1

994)

.

The

re w

as

no e

valu

atio

n of

org

ani

satio

nal

nee

ds a

nd b

ene

fits.

The

de

cisi

on to

acq

uire

G

IS is

b

ase

d on th

e

aw

are

ness

of

its t

ech

nol

ogic

al

cap

abili

ties

and

rele

vanc

e

to

suppo

rt

ide

ntifi

ed

and

pre

ssin

g

spe

cific

pro

ble

ms.

Thi

s ra

ises

a d

ilem

ma,

under

cer

tain

con

ditio

ns,

whet

her

eva

luatio

n o

f ne

eds

and

bene

fits

can

be

consi

dere

d a

s part

of

initi

atio

n p

hase

.

GIS

im

ple

me

nta

tion

req

uire

s co

nsid

eri

ng

all

GIS

com

pon

ent

s (M

ass

er

et

al.,

199

6;

Som

ers

, 20

00;

Tom

linso

n,

200

3;

Lish

o,

200

7)

The

org

ani

satio

ns

have

be

en g

ivin

g m

ore

em

pha

sis

for

tra

inin

g of

GIS

te

chn

icia

ns,

ac

quis

ition

of

hard

wa

re a

nd s

oftw

are

.

Org

anis

atio

ns e

nga

ge i

n th

e a

ctiv

itie

s su

ch

as

data

base

de

velo

pme

nt,

syst

em

m

ain

tena

nce

a

nd

utili

zatio

n of

th

e

tech

nolo

gy

(Ro

gers

, 19

83;

Obe

rme

yer

and

P

into

, 199

4).

Mos

t or

gani

satio

ns h

ave

be

en

eng

age

d in

di

gitiz

ing

act

iviti

es.

The

impl

em

ent

atio

n w

as

ad

hoc.

GIS

is

not

fully

util

ize

d f

or

org

anis

atio

nal

task

s

and in

teg

rate

d w

ith o

rga

niza

tional f

unct

ion

s.

GIS

a

dopt

ion

deci

sion

s

Impl

em

ent

atio

n

pha

se

Impl

em

ent

atio

n p

ers

pect

ive

s

The

oret

ica

l e

valu

atio

n of

th

e

impl

em

ent

atio

ns

indi

cate

s te

chn

olog

ica

l vi

ews

are

dri

ving

the

ado

ptio

n.

The

re

was

a

lso

inte

rest

of

in

divi

dua

ls

to

sust

ain

GIS

for

som

e r

easo

n.

The

p

oliti

cal

and

eco

nom

ic

fact

ors

and

so

cial

va

lue

s w

ere

not

incl

ude

d in

the

stu

dy.

It s

eem

s th

at

this

rais

es

a d

ilem

ma

that

whe

the

r

tech

nol

ogic

al

vie

ws

are

com

ple

tely

drivi

ng

the

ado

ptio

n p

roce

ss.

Tab

le 5

-3: Comparison of theories and research results on GIS adoption decisions.

An

alys

is o

f GIS

Ad

optio

n P

roce

ss B

ased

on

Org

anis

atio

nal

Cha

nge

s an

d D

ecis

ions

(C

ases

of M

uni

cipa

l Util

ity O

rgan

iza

tions

in A

ddis

A

baba

, E

thio

pia

.)

Zer

ihun

Am

de

ma

riam

, be

risso

1606

4@itc

.nl

/ ze

rihun

_am

de@

yah

oo.c

om 43

Issu

es

Fac

tors

T

heor

ies

Res

ear

ch r

esu

lts

Und

erst

andi

ng

Ado

ptio

n of

GIS

re

quir

es

cha

nge

s on

the

stru

ctur

e a

nd

desi

gn o

f th

e or

gani

zatio

n

and

on

its o

ccup

atio

nal

stru

ctur

es

as

we

ll (C

am

pbe

ll a

nd

Mas

ser,

1

995;

de

M

an,

20

02)

.

Str

uctu

ral a

djus

tme

nts,

ne

w w

ork

unit

and

job

posi

tion

s a

nd c

hang

e o

f a

ssig

nme

nts

of s

taff

s w

ere

obs

erv

ed.

It c

an b

e s

aid

th

at G

IS h

as

induce

d c

han

ges.

orga

nisa

tiona

l

Cha

nge

s

Indu

ced

cha

nge

s

GIS

to

be a

dopt

ed

by

an

orga

niza

tion

and

su

cce

ssfu

lly i

mpl

em

ent

ed

it m

ust

invo

lve

th

e m

inim

um o

f ch

ang

e

or c

han

ges

mus

t be

acc

ept

ed

by

all s

epa

rate

inte

rest

s w

ithin

th

e or

gani

zatio

n (O

berm

eye

r an

d P

into

, 19

94;

Ma

sse

r e

t al.,

19

96).

The

e

xten

t of

ch

an

ges

ma

de

by

orga

nisa

tions

du

e

to

the

in

trod

uctio

n of

G

IS

vari

es

with

th

eir

ju

dge

me

nta

l e

valu

atio

n of

impl

em

enta

tion

succ

ess

.

It is

als

o ob

serv

ed

tha

t th

ere

are

ne

gativ

e

perc

ept

ions

of

cha

nge

s.

Impl

em

ent

atio

n

of

GIS

re

quire

s ap

propriate

cha

nge

s a

nd a

cce

ptance

of

the

change

s by

all

mem

bers

of

an o

rganis

atio

n.

Tab

le 5

-4: Comparison of theories and research results on organisational changes.

An

alys

is o

f GIS

Ad

optio

n P

roce

ss B

ased

on

Org

anis

atio

nal

Cha

nge

s an

d D

ecis

ions

(C

ases

of M

uni

cipa

l Util

ity O

rgan

iza

tions

in A

ddis

A

baba

, E

thio

pia

.)

Zer

ihun

Am

de

ma

riam

, be

risso

1606

4@itc

.nl

/ ze

rihun

_am

de@

yah

oo.c

om 44

Issu

es

Fac

tors

T

heo

ries

Re

sear

ch r

esu

lts

Und

erst

and

ing

Inno

vatio

n is

com

mun

ica

ted

thro

ugh

ce

rta

in

form

al

or

info

rma

l ch

ann

els

ov

er

time

a

mon

g th

e

me

mbe

rs

of

orga

niza

tion

s

(Rog

ers

, 1

983;

B

udic

a

nd

God

scha

lk,

1994

).

GIS

ha

s no

t be

en

diff

use

d a

mon

g a

ll

orga

nisa

tions

’ m

em

bers

a

nd

ma

nage

me

nt

leve

ls.

Diff

usi

on

of

GIS

is

m

ost

ly

found

amon

g a

part

icul

ar

pro

fess

ions

and

manage

me

nt le

vels

.

Diff

usio

n

Org

ani

satio

ns t

oo o

fte

n de

cide

to

intr

oduc

e

GIS

bas

ed

on h

ea

rin

g go

od t

hing

s a

bout

its

re

leva

nce

an

d ca

pabi

litie

s or

the

y ju

st d

o

not

wa

nt

left

be

hin

d te

chn

olog

ica

lly

(Tom

linso

n, 2

003)

.

Wor

ksho

ps

and

dem

onst

ratio

ns

on

GIS

’s

and

the

exp

erie

nce

s in

pro

ject

s in

vite

d th

e

orga

nisa

tions

to

have

gre

ate

r e

xpe

cta

tions

.

The

de

cisi

ons

of

intr

oduci

ng

GIS

is

on

a

con

ditio

n

that

he

arin

g

go

od

thin

gs

about

it

and/

or

exp

erie

nce

thro

ugh p

rofe

ssio

nal

pro

ject

s

that

imple

me

nte

d G

IS f

or

spec

ific

pur

pose

.

Mot

ivat

ions

/pre

ssur

e

Pe

rfor

ma

nce

ga

p

The

mot

ivat

ion

for

the

int

rodu

ctio

n of

GIS

b

y or

gani

zatio

ns

ste

ms

from

the

de

sire

to

enh

anc

e o

rga

nisa

tions

pe

rfor

man

ce (

Ma

sser

e

t al.,

19

96).

The

de

sire

to

impr

ove

the

serv

ices

an

d th

e

aw

aren

ess

on

te

chn

olog

ica

l so

lutio

ns w

ere

th

e m

otiv

atio

ns f

or in

trod

uctio

n of

GIS

.

Org

anis

atio

ns t

hat

deal

s w

ith G

I ofte

n se

ek

for

bette

r m

ech

anis

ms

to m

ana

ge th

e in

form

atio

n

and

atte

mpts

to

in

troduc

e

GIT

s in

ord

er

to

impr

ove

the

se

rvic

es

they

are

pro

vidin

g.

Tab

le 5

-5: Comparison of theories and research results on motivation/pressure to adopt GIS.

Issu

es

Fac

tors

T

heor

ies

Res

ear

ch r

esu

lts

Und

erst

andi

ng

orga

nisa

tiona

l

Ca

paci

ty

Tec

hnic

al

and

M

ana

gem

ent

ca

paci

ty

Act

ive

m

ana

gem

ent

ro

le

is

need

ed

to

inte

gra

te G

IS w

ith e

xist

ing

pra

ctic

es.

The

re w

ere

no

act

ive

im

ple

men

tatio

n a

nd

man

age

me

nt a

ctiv

ity.

The

re

sults

sh

ow

GIS

is

not

inte

gra

ted w

ith a

ll

org

ani

satio

nal

ta

sks

whic

h

mig

ht

imply

th

e

nee

d f

or

act

ive

managem

ent

role

.

Tab

le 5

-6: Comparison of theories and research results on organisations capacity.



5.6. Conclusions on Understanding GIS Adoption

With reference to the above analysis and interpretations, it is clear that organisations such as utilities and urban/regional information centers in Addis Ababa often seek for better mechanisms to manage the information and attempts to introduce GITs to improve the services they are providing. Often the introduction of GIS has driven by professional projects designed for specific purposes. Its diffusion was also restricted to professions involved in those projects and in operational management level. The initiation to acquire GIS has been based on the awareness of its technological capabilities and relevance to support identified and pressing specific problems. That is without considering the whole organisation’s needs and benefits and in some cases without direct involvement of the organisation. Moreover, the projects have been giving more emphasis to accomplish the specific objective than the implementation of GIS to achieve organisational objectives. These imply that the legacy of professional projects that implemented GIS can not ensure the implementation of GIS in organisations level such that it integrates with existing practices and support organisational tasks and functions. For instance, despite series of attempts to implement GIS, most of the GIS work units remained as they were established and organised for the projects or declining to closure. This indicates that GIS is providing lower benefit than the expected.

Although GIS was introduced for specific projects, all organisations have made changes to incorporate it by the time the projects ended. However, the extent of changes made varies between organisations. Some organisations created new GIS work unit, some new job positions and others just changed assignment of staffs, accordingly, these measures resulted in functional, unsatisfactory and non functional work units respectively. The relative benefit obtained from GIS and the acceptance of the changes is also directly related to the extent of changes made. This indicates that the extent of the changes and acceptance of the changes determines the extent to which GIS can integrate with existing practices. Therefore, implementation of GIS requires appropriate changes and acceptance of the changes by all organisational members such that it integrates with existing practices.

However, none of the organisations have a GIS implementation plan that starts by evaluating previous efforts, understand current situation and see the future that fits the desire to have GIS as a major or one of major systems in the organisations. Further more, the experience on the previous implementation efforts does not demonstrate sufficient technical and managerial capacity in the field. Therefore, it can be concluded that a GIS that is acquired for professional projects and limited to operational management levels can not deliver complete implementation and management plan that constitutes all GIS components and demonstrates the whole process. It might also lead to an independent repeated implementation processes by each department or different projects for different purposes in an organisation. Consequently, its chance to emerge as a planned and organisational level GIS development project might be hindered.

Recalling that initiation and implementation are the key phases of adoption process, it is clear that any constraint in these phases affects the process. From the above discussion it can be seen that there are number of significant factors that affected these phases. On one hand GIS is not fully supporting the organisational tasks and functions such as operation, planning, management and decision making. On the other hand, all organisations have been acquiring GIS and thinking to have it as a major system. This implies that, although it is difficult to state it



unambiguously, technological views have been driving the decision to adopt GIS. Also, as it is not supporting organisational tasks, in the case of utility organisations and urban/regional information centres in Addis Ababa, it can be concluded that GIS is not fully adopted. Hence, basing on the constraints identified recommendations to improve organisational GIS adoption are discussed in chapter 6.



6. Conclusions and Recommendations

6.1. Conclusions

Based on the theories reviewed in chapter two, this research has identified the difficulties, in utility organisations and urban/regional information centers, related to GIS adoption process as more of planning, implementation and management than acquiring GIS. The acquisition of the technologies has not come up dominantly as compared to the way the organisations tried to adopt GIS. The management of the induced changes also found among the difficulties.

The research had three objectives and six research questions (see section 1.3 and section 1.4) which are addressed in the previous chapters. Answers for the research questions were summarised as follows.

Research question 1; From the discussion in chapter three, four and five, the research has identified that there are various factors contributed to the GIS adoption process. On one hand, the internal desire to improve the services and the awareness created on the technology motivated the organisations to introduce GIS. On the other hand, the inconsideration of organisational needs and benefits, absence of a complete GIS implementation and induced change management plan, lack of alternative GIS knowledge communications and lack of GIS professionals hindered the adoption processes. Research question 2; The diffusion process has been driven by projects designed for specific purposes and individuals who acquired GIS skills through application oriented short term trainings/workshops. Since most organisations introduced GIS through such kind of projects, there is lack of skilled staff to utilize the technology fully. The organisations have also changed organisational structure, job structures and staff assignments to incorporate GIS but did not get the expected benefit. The attitude of the organisations’ members indicated interest to change the way they have been doing their tasks to GIS.

Research question 3; From the discussion in chapter three, four and five, the research did not found out guidelines designed for successful GIS adoption in all organisations. But, each organisation was mostly following a similar and ad hoc implementation process. That is opening GIS unit/job positions, change assignment of staff, training the staff, purchase software and hardware, convert paper maps in to digital and printing maps. Research question 4; Generally, the organisations differ with each other on the basis they introduced GIS. UIDD and MoWR introduced GIS to support other organisations and departments respectively. Both are considered as data centers in urban and federal level. The utility organisations (AAWSA, ETC, EEPCo, AACRA) and AAICA introduced GIS to solve identified and pressing problems such as water loss management, telecom network planning and construction, power distribution facilities asset management, road pavement management, and coordinating the design and construction of infrastructures. As the GIS activity in all utility organisations mostly focused on converting manual maps to digital, it can be said that GIS is at a starting stage. The research did not observe adoption decisions differences that an organisation is profit making or not.

Research question 5; The critical issues which should be considered in adopting GIS are the evaluation of needs and benefit of the technology in improving organisational objectives, designing GIS implementation and change management plan that starts by evaluating previous efforts, understand current situation and see the future that fits the desire to have GIS as a major



or one of major systems in the organisations. Furthermore, GIS related technical and management capacity of the organisations must be considered including a set of skills covering the planning, implementation and management of GISs. Research question 6; From the discussion in chapter two in relation to this study, generally, the strategies which should be suitable for the situation in Addis Ababa are GIS implementation and change management strategies. The selection of the strategies should depend on the context of the organisations.

Generally, it is found that the GIS implementation plan and the management of induced changes are important factors in GIS adoption process. The more the implementation and the changes planed and managed, the better the adoption process will be.

6.2. Recommendations

6.2.1. Recommendations for GIS Adoption

Improving the GIS adoption process in the Municipal utility organisations in Addis Ababa requires;

Minimizing the restraining factors;

• Identification of needs and benefits of GIS for organisational tasks and functions.

• A broad awareness of GIS technology for top managers.

• Training of the staff on software skills and management of the GISs.

• Identification of changes that GIS can require and planning implementation and management of the changes.

• Designing comprehensive GIS implementation and management plan.

Managing the changing environment;

• Since organisations and their members are already motivated to accept GIS, providing model from which they can learn is essential. It helps to maximize organisations’ members’ exposure to GIS applications before, during and after implementation.

• Defining organisational GIS objectives, major areas of individuals’ responsibilities and expected out puts.

• Appropriate organisational structural changes such as relationships, authority, titles etc.

GIS implementation strategy;

From the descriptions of the strategies in Table 2-1 and the context of the organisations, phased introduction of GIS for the utility organisations is found more suitable. Because, GIS can be introduced gradually for different departments, each implementation process gets sufficient attention, each implementation can be a model from which others might learn and it is also advantageous to develop tailored GISs.

In general, the extent to which this is possible depends on the extent that each organisation lays out comprehensive GIS implementation plan. Also, the realisation of the above mentioned issues needs high skill, knowledge and experience in the field of GIS project design and implementation which the organisations do not have. Therefore, the organisation should change



their way of implementing GIS as part of other projects and should open the sector for appropriate consultants.

6.2.2. Recommendations for Further research

Basing on the limitations of the research mentioned in section 1.8 and observations of the researcher in the case study organisations, the following issues are recommended for further research;

• Many researchers have documented that getting better access to GIS and deriving the benefits or its adoption is likely to be limited if the political and economic factors and social values are not considered. Hence, it is very important that detailed longitudinal studies should be considered in different political and social contexts to identify to what extent these factors influence GIS adoption process.

• It is observed that in the utility sector there are a number of computer based application technologies such as AutoCAD, Water CAD, Sewer CAD, Surfer, Integra, Eagle point road designer, and so on which utilizes GI. This indicates that the relationship of GIS technology with other technologies in the organization, and the multiuse nature of GIS data. Furthermore, the different professional groupings in the sector might weigh the value of GIS differently. This might affect the GIS adoption decisions. Therefore, in GIS adoption process studies, it is important to consider GIS’s relationships with such technologies and influence of professional views on GIS adoption decisions in different application contexts.



7. References

Bingham, R.D., 1978. Innovation, Bureaucracy, and Public Policy: A study of Innovation Adoption by Local Government. The Western Political Quarterly, 31(2): 178-205.

Bradley, G., 2006. Benefit Realisation Management: A Practical Guide to Achieving Benefits. Gower Publishing, Ltd.

Budic, Z.D. and Godschalk, D.R., 1994. Implementation and management effectiveness in adoption of GIS technology in local governments. Reprionted from: Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 18(1994)5, pp. 285-304.

Campbell, H., 1994. How effective are GIS in practice? . International Journal of Geographic Information Systems, 8(309-25).

Campbell, H. and Masser, I., 1995. GIS and organizations : how effective are GIS in practice. Taylor & Francis, London etc., 192 pp.

Craglia, M.e. and Couclelis, H.e., 1997. Geographic information research : bridging the atlantic. Taylor & Francis, London etc., 605 pp.

de Man, W.H.E., 2002. Culture and the adoption and use of GIS within organisations. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation JAG, 4(2002)1, pp. 51-63.

de Man, W.H.E., 2007. Institutionalization of geographic information technologies: unifying concept? Cartography and geographic information science, 27(2).

Garson, G.D., 2003. Public Information Technology: Policy and Management Issues. Idea Group Inc, 408 pp.

Gawecki, W., 2005. Bright Future for GIS in Africa, GIM International the global megazine for Geomatics.

Grimshaw, D., 2000. Bringing Geographical Information Systems into business. Wiley & Sons, New York etc., 346 pp.

Hanna, N., Guy, K., Arnold, E. and The World Bank, 1995. Diffusion of information technology : experience of industrial countries and lessons for developing countries. World Bank Discussion Paper = Documento para discusion del Banco Mundial;281. The World Bank, Washington, D.C., 207 pp.

Harigopal, K., 2006. Management of Organisational Change: Leveraging Transformation. SAGE, 350 pp.

Hersey, P., Blanchard, K.H. and Johnson, D.E., 2001. Management Of Organisational Behaviour - Leading Human Resources Pearson Education, Inc., New Jersy.

Hofstee, P.e. et al., 2006. GIS for urban planning in the developing world : lecture note. ITC, Enschede, 240 pp.

Huxhold, W.E. and Levinsohn, A.G., 1995. Managing geographic information system projects. Spatial Information Systems and Geostatistics Series;*4. Oxford University Press, New York etc., 246 pp.

Kumar, R., 2005. RESEARCH methodology. A STEP-BY-STEP GUIDE FOR BEGINNERS. Linden, G., 1996. Information technology for development. In: G.G.v.d.M.a.P.A. Erkelens(eds)

(Editor), Urban Habitat: the Environment of Tomorrow. Faculty of Architecture, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.

Lisho, C.M., 2007. Strengthning the Importance of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) Components in Organisations for a Successful GIS Technology, GIM International.

Markus, M.L. and Robey, D., 1988. Information Technology and Organizational Change: Causal Structure in Theory and Research. Management Science, 34(5): 583-598.

Masser, I.e., Campbell, H.e. and Craglia, M.e., 1996. GIS diffusion : the adoption and use of geographical information systems in local government in Europe. GISDATA series;3, London etc., 238 pp.



Masser, I.e. and Onsrud, H.J.e., 1993. Diffusion and use of geographic information technologies : proceedings of the NATO advanced research workshop, Sounio, Greece, April 8 - 11,1992. NATO ASI series D : Behavioral and Social Sciences;70. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht etc., 349 pp.

McMaster, R.B. and Usery, L. (Editors), 2005. Research Agenda for Geographic Information Dcience. CRC, Boca Raton etc., 402 pp.

Medyckyj-Scott, D. and Hearnshaw, H.M., 1993. Human Factors in Geographical Information Systems. Belhaven Press, 288 pp.

Molenaar, M., 1989. Towards a geographic information theory. ITC J., 1989-1: 5-11. Nedovic-Budic, Z., 1998. The Likelihood of Becoming a GIS User. URISA Journal, 10(2). Nedovic-Budic, Z. and Godschalk, D.R., 1996. Human Factors in Adoption of Geographic

Information Systems: A Local Government Case Study. Public Administration Review, 56(6): 554-567.

Obermeyer, N.J. and Pinto, J.K., 1994. Managing geographic information systems. The Guilford Press, New York etc., 226 pp.

Obermeyer, N.J. and Pinto, J.K., 2008. Managing geographic information systems. The Guilford Press, New York etc., 360 pp.

Parkey, J., 2003. Effective Geographic Information System Implementation: An Investigation from Practice to Theory

Paulsson, B., 1992. Urban Applications Of Satellite Remote Sensing And GIS Analysis. 11364, The World Bank, Washington D.C.

Pickering, D., Park, J.M. and Bannister, D.H., 1993. Utility Mapping and Record Keeping For Infrastructure. 10, The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank, Washington, D.C.

Pugh, L., 2007. Change Management in Information Services. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Reeve, D.E. and Petch, J.R., 1999. GIS, organisations and people : a socio - technical approach.

GIS for beginners : series;*1. Taylor and Francis, London etc., 214 pp. Rogers, E.M., 1983. Diffusion of Innovation. The Free Press, New York. Schildt, K., Beaumaster, S. and Edwards, M., 2005. Strategic Information Technology

Management: Managing Organizational, Political, and Technological Forces, Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE.

Somers, R., 1998. Developing GIS Management Strategies for an Organization. Journal of Housing Research 9(1): 157-176.

Somers, R., 2000. Quick guide to GIS implementation and management. Quick study : URISA series on GIS implementation;. The Urban and Regional Information Systems Association (URISA), Park Ridge, 32 pp.

Tomlinson, R.F., 2003. Thinking about GIS : geographic information system planning for managers. ESRI, Redlands.

Warnecke, L., 1998. Geographic information technology in cities and counties : a nationwide assessment. The Urban and Regional Information Systems Association (URISA), Park Ridge, 97 pp.

Water Environment Federation, 2005. GIS Implementation for Water and Wastewater Treatment Facilities, McGraw-Hill Professional, 242 pp.



8. Appendices

Appendix 1: Questionnaires Explanation

The questionnaire is divided into four sections: Section I: This section covers questions one up to six. They are generally aimed at investigating general information that expected to inform the trend of introduction of GIS, the business sector that the organizations belong, its future business intention, support from government and views on the use of GIS.

Section II: This section covers questions from seven up to eleven. They are generally aimed to investigate pre and post GIS experiences and changes within the organizations considered. Questions seven to nine, attempts to investigate organisational changes made due to the introduction of GIS and its effect. Question ten and eleven attempts to find out individuals satisfaction and the organisational benefit obtained respectively. Questions twelve and thirteen, attempts to investigate which tasks performance have been improved.

Section III: This section covers questions from thirteen up to twenty seven. They are generally aimed to investigate factors contributed to GIS implementation processes within the organizations considered. Questions fourteen to twenty one, attempts to investigate the introduction and dissemination of GIS in to different organization units. Questions twenty two and twenty three, tries to find out the comparative perception of individual members on usage of GIS/computer for daily tasks. Questions twenty four to twenty seven, attempts to investigate the organizations capacity in implementing GIS. Questions twenty eight to thirty two, attempts to investigate the factors contributed for success or failure of GIS implementation.

Section IV: This section covers questions from thirty three up to thirty nine. They are generally aimed to investigate the relevance, dependency and view of improvement of GIS within the organizations considered.

Significance of the scale: 1 = completely agree 4 = more disagree than agree 2 = agree 5 = completely disagree 3 = more agree than disagree



Appendix 2: Questionnaiers Section I: General

1. Currently, which of the following approximates your organization?

1.1 It is under public law and non-profit making:

Yes � No � 1.2 It is under public law and profit making:

Yes � No � 1.3 It is under private law and profit making:

Yes � No � 1.4 It has a budget subsidy from the government:

Yes � No � 2. In general, how do you see the future (in five years time) of your organization?

2.1 I find that it will remain under public law and non-profit making:

Completely agree 5 -----4---------3---------2-------1 completely disagree

2.2 I find that it will be under public law and profit making:


2.3 I find that the subsidy will be stopped:


2.4 I find that it will be under private law and profit making:

Completely agree 5 -----4---------3---------2-------1 completely disagree 3. How do you describe the history of your organization in relation to the introduction of

GIS or AutoCAD? Why/how it occurred? (Please specify years of occurrence) 4. In general, how do you evaluate the government decision in modernizing, such as

introducing GIS, your organization?

4.1 I find that the government is actively participating in modernizing our organization:


4.2 I find that our organization is getting guidance from the government in re-organizing our tasks:


4.3 I find that the funds for utilization of GIS in our organization are sufficient:


5. What are the organisational tasks that GIS has been used in your organization?



6. How do you see the importance of GIS for your organization? Why?

6.1 I find that the use of GIS is a must for our organization’s tasks:


6.2 I find that the use of GIS is an option for our organization’s tasks:

Completely agree 1 -----2---------3---------4-------5 completely disagree Section II: questions designed to consider experiences cases and changes.

7. In your organization, which of the following represent the changes made due to introduction of GIS?

i. Individuals, unit/subunit tasks and responsibilities have been

broadened. �

ii. New unit/subunit has been created. �

iii. Reporting lines have been changed. �

iv. No changes have been made. �

8. How do you evaluate the positive effects of organisational changes made as a result of GIS introduction?

9. How do you evaluate the negative effects of organisational changes made as a result of

GIS introduction?

10. How do you see the way GIS affected your performance?

10.1 I find that my performance is faster than before:


10.2 I find that my work is more organized than before:


10.3 I find that the quality of work is better than before:


11. How do you evaluate the benefits that your organization gained in post GIS period?

11.1 I find that the decision making process has improved:


11.2 I find that the service provision has improved:


11.3 I find that the operational costs reduced:




12. Did the use of GIS improve the efficiency of organisational tasks?

Yes � No � 13. If yes, what are the tasks?

Section III: questions designed to consider factors contributed to GIS implementation.

14. Which unit/subunit was the first to use GIS? How the unit/subunit got it?

15. For what purpose the unit/subunit was using it?

16. Currently, is there other units/subunits using GIS?

Yes � No � 17. If yes, how did they get GIS? If no, why? 18. What are the difficulties in your organization in disseminating GIS to different

units/subunits? 19. What is your suggestion to introduce and disseminate GIS into your organization?

19.1 I suggest that from the whole organization to units then sub units.


19.2 I suggest that from sub units to units then the whole organization.


19.3 I suggest that from the units to its sub units then the whole organization.


19.4 I suggest that from one unit to another unit.


20. Which of the following is/are the reason(s) for your response in question number 19? (Please tick where applicable)

i. Better awareness of the technology and usefulness �

ii. Better position to direct staff to comply with changes �

iii. Better position for more staff participation �

iv. Better position to get the necessary support � 21. How do you see the challenge units/subunits encountered to use GIS?

21.1 I find that some units/subunits lack skilled staff:


21.2 I find that some units/subunits should reduce/substitute staff:


21.3 I find that some units/subunits face problem to get necessary data:




22. How do you see the functionalities of GIS compared to other software you have used?

22.1 I find that using GIS is cumbersome:


22.2 I find that using GIS needs high knowledge and skill:


22.3 I find that using GIS is advantageous:


23. In general, how do you see the attitude of staff in using computers for daily work?

24. Did your organization have GIS implementation plan or guidelines?

Yes � No � 25. If yes, who prepared the plan? How was the participation?

26. In general, how do you evaluate the way that your organization plan projects?

26.1 I find that it engages staff consultation.


26.2 I find that general awareness seminars arranged.


26.3 I find that questionnaire and interview be used to assess various issues.


26.4 I find that it involves top management and few experts.


27. How do you evaluate the support given from different management level?

27.1 I find the support from executive management level is satisfactory.


27.2 I find the support from middle management level is satisfactory.


27.3 I find the support from operational level is satisfactory.




28. In general, how do you rate the attitude of your organization to work related changes?

(On the scale 0 signifies adverse attitude and 3 signifies constructive attitude) 0 1 2 3

29. In your organization, to what extent were the following factors problematic in the implementation of GIS? (tick where applicable)

29.1 I find that:

i. Technological problems � Major � Minor � Not problematic (Hardware and software)

ii. Financial Problem � Major � Minor � Not problematic

iii. Scarcity of skilled staff � Major � Minor � Not problematic

iv. Resistance to change � Major � Minor � Not problematic

v. Others (please specify)___________________________________

30. How did you evaluate the GIS implementation in your organization?

Successful � Unsuccessful/failure �

Other opinion (please give reasons) ________________________

31. In your opinion, what were the factors contributed for the success? 32. In your opinion, what were the factors contributed for the failure?

Section IV: questions designed to investigate the relevance and stage-of-growth of GIS.

33. How do you evaluate the dependency of your organization’s task(s) on GIS?

33.1 I find the operational tasks are completely dependent:


33.2 I find the planning tasks are completely dependent:


33.3 I find the management and control tasks are completely dependent:


33.4 I find the decision making processes are completely dependent:


34. Currently, does your organization plan to improve existing GIS? Why?



35. In your opinion, which of the following can represent your organization plan?

i. GIS is planned to be major information system �

ii. GIS is planned to be one of major information systems �

iii. GIS is planned to be minor information system �

iv. Not known �

36. What do you think should be improved in the way that GIS is used in your organization?

37. What are the practices/tasks/activities that you think are satisfactorily accepted and that need little or no support from GIS?

38. How do you see that the government could help you in increasing the utilization of GIS?

39. In your opinion, in your organization, which should come first from IT/IS development

and organisational arrangement? Why?



Appendix 3: Technical/Technological capacity

Name of organization:

AAWSA

Number of skilled staff:

GIS: 2 AutoCAD and Digitizing: 6

Hardware:

Computers: 4 (allocated for GIS works)

Scanner: No Plotter: Yes(one)

Digitizer: Yes(one) Printer: Yes(one)

Software: GIS: ArcGIS 9.2, ArcView 3.2

Other IT facilities:

Internet: Yes Intranet: No

Remark: Currently only one GIS technician assigned for printing existing maps. Most of the time engaged for other units works.


AAICA


GIS and AutoCAD: 2

Hardware: Computers: 2 Scanner: No

Plotter: Yes(one) Digitizer: No Printer: Yes(three)

Software: GIS: ArcInfo, ArcView 3.2


Internet: Yes

Intranet: No Other: LAN

Remark:


UIDD


GIS and AutoCAD: 10 (one has MSc in

GIS and Remote sensing)

IT Professionals: 4

Hardware:

Computers: 14 Scanner: Yes(A4)

Plotter: Yes(four)

Digitizer: Yes(two) Printer: Yes(four)

Server: Yes (two – one is not functional)

Software: GIS: ArcInfo, ArcView 3.0 DBMS: Oracle


Internet: No

Intranet: No

Other: LAN

Remark:




AACRA


GIS: 4

Hardware:

Computers: 4 Scanner: Yes

Plotter: Yes(one)

Digitizer: No Printer: Yes

Server: Yes

Software: GIS: Map Info V6.5, ArcView 3.2

DBMS: Oracle DB


Internet: Yes

Intranet: No

Other: No

Remark:


ETC


GIS & AutoCAD: 15


Plotter: Yes(one) Digitizer: No Printer: Yes(one)

Software: GIS: No


Internet: Yes

Intranet: No Other: No

Remark: GIS training for all 15 staffs were underway during the interview. The purchase of GIS software was in process.


EEPCo


GIS and AutoCAD: 2


Plotter: Yes(one)

Digitizer: No Printer: Yes(one)

Software: GIS: No Other related: Integra


Internet: Yes

Intranet: No

Remark: GIS training for the 2 staffs were underway during the interview. The purchase of GIS software was in process.




MoWR


GIS, AutoCAD and Digitizing: 12

Hardware: Computers: 13 Scanner: Yes(A0)

Plotter: Yes(five)

Digitizer: Yes(two) Printer: Yes(three)

Software:

GIS: ArcInfo, ArcGIS 9.2, ArcGIS 9.1, ArcView 3.2

Other related: ELWIS


Internet: Yes

Intranet: No

Other: LAN

Remark: Most computers and the plotters are obtained from projects. The problem of office supplies such as inks and papers and maintenance of equipments also a problem.



Appendix 4: GIS Implementation

Organisations Location Software Application Data

management DBMS

AAWSA Engineering ArcView Desktop File based Shape file

AACRA Engineering ArcInfo Desktop File based Oracle

AAICA Engineering/

Planning ArcInfo Desktop File based Shape file

ETC Engineering/

Planning - - - -

EEPCo. Engineering/

Planning Integra Desktop File based Access

MoWR IS ArcGIS/

ArcInfo Desktop File based

Shape

file/Access

UIDD IS ArcGIS/

ArcInfo Server Departmental

Oracle/SQL

Server/Access

Table 8-1: GIS Location and Data Management

Organisations Datasets Supported Activities

AAWSA

Base Maps

Boreholes

Water Supply Zones

Boreholes inventory

AACRA Base Maps

Road Network Road Maintenance scheduling

AAICA

Base Maps

Master Plan Road Network

Land use Maps

Ownership

Building Permit process

ETC Base Map -

EEPCo. Base Map -

MoWR

River Basins

Hydrology

Soil

Data Provision for further studies

(Paper maps, on CD and diskettes)

UIDD

Base Map

Road Network

Demography

Land Parcel

Ownership

Building

Administrative Boundary

Data Provision for other organisations

(mainly for land administration)

Table 8-2: GIS Datasets and Supported Organisational tasks

An

alys

is o

f GIS

Ad

optio

n P

roce

ss B

ased

on

Org

anis

atio

nal

Cha

nge

s an

d D

ecis

ions

(C

ases

of M

uni

cipa

l Util

ity O

rgan

iza

tions

in A

ddis

A

baba

, E

thio

pia

.)

Zer

ihun

Am

de

ma

riam

, be

risso

1606

4@itc

.nl

/ ze

rihun

_am

de@

yah

oo.c

om 63

App

endi

x 5:

Re

spon

dent

s D

eta

ils

AA

WS

A

Res

pond

ent n

ame

Add

ress

G

IS A

ffili

atio

n Jo

b P

ositi

on

Pro

fess

ion

Ato

Ge

rem

ew

Ber

ta

e-m

ail:

Ph

one:

251

166

211

20

In

dir

ect

Use

r E

x-P

lan

nin

g D

epar

tmen

t Hea

d

Eco

nom

ist

Ato

Sol

omon

Wal

ten

gus

e-m

ail: wal

solo

mon

@h

otm

ail.c

om P

hon

e: 2

519

116

496

33

Dir

ect U

ser

Sec

tion

Hea

d

Hyd

ro G

eolo

gist

Ato

Sem

u M

eles

e

e-m

ail: aa

wsa

.ha@

ethi

onet

.et

P

hon

e: 2

519

114

078

45

Pot

entia

l Use

r A

uto

CA

D O

pera

tor

Dra

ftin

g

W/r

o A

lem

Tes

sem

a

e-m

ail:

alem

mili

@ya

hoo

.com

P

hon

e: 2

519

111

861

50

Pot

entia

l Use

r A

uto

CA

D O

pera

tor

Dra

ftin

g

W/r

o H

iwot

Zeg

ye

P

oten

tial U

ser

Au

toC

AD

Ope

rato

r D

rafti

ng

W/r

o M

eaza

Deb

ebe

D

irec

t Use

r A

ID E

ngi

nee

r E

ngi

nee

rin

g

* G

roup

dis

cuss

ion

AA

ICA

R

espo

nden

t nam

e A

ddre

ss

GIS

Aff

iliat

ion

Job

Pos

ition

P

rofe

ssio

n A

to A

mb

aye

Akl

ilu

e-m

ail:

Ph

one:

In

dir

ect

Use

r G

ener

al M

anag

er

En

gin

eer

Ato

Yon

as A

yale

w

e-m

ail: y

onas

aya

lew

_t@

yah

oo.c

om P

hon

e: 2

519

113

053

00

Ind

irec

t U

ser

Con

stru

ctio

n c

oord

inat

ion

and

Des

ign

Dep

artm

ent H

ead

E

ngi

nee

r

Ato

Mes

fin T

ilahu

n e-

mai

l: arc

hm

esaf

int@

yah

oo.c

om P

hon

e: 2

519

112

266

12

Dir

ect U

ser

Des

ign

, Stu

dy

and

Info

rmat

ion

Tea

m

Lead

er

Arc

hite

ct p

lann

er

UID

D

Res

pond

ent n

ame

Add

ress

G

IS A

ffili

atio

n Jo

b P

ositi

on

Pro

fess

ion

Ato

Des

ta J

ula

e-

mai

l: dest

a_ju

la@

yah

oo.c

om P

hon

e: 2

519

114

255

74

Dir

ect U

ser

He

ad

Ge

ogra

pher

Ato

Tek

aleg

n Z

ewd

u

e-

mai

l: te

kalig

nz@

yah

oo.c

om

Ph

one:

251

911

348

997

D

irec

t Use

r G

IS E

xpe

rt

GIS

& R

emot

e se

nsin

g

Ato

Tes

hal

e A

lem

u

e-m

ail:

tesh

ale1

2@ya

hoo

.com

P

hon

e: 2

519

114

053

04

Dir

ect U

ser

Ge

o-In

fo.

Stu

dy

and

An

alys

is

Tea

m L

ead

er

Urb

an P

lann

er

Ato

Ter

efe

Hai

le

e-m

ail: T

ere

fe_

Hai

le@

yah

oo.c

om P

hon

e: 2

519

116

661

87

Dir

ect U

ser

Juni

or G

IS E

xpe

rt

En

gin

eer

An

alys

is o

f GIS

Ad

optio

n P

roce

ss B

ased

on

Org

anis

atio

nal

Cha

nge

s an

d D

ecis

ions

(C

ases

of M

uni

cipa

l Util

ity O

rgan

iza

tions

in A

ddis

A

baba

, E

thio

pia

.)

Zer

ihun

Am

de

ma

riam

, be

risso

1606

4@itc

.nl

/ ze

rihun

_am

de@

yah

oo.c

om 64

MoW

R

Res

pond

ent n

ame

Add

ress

G

IS A

ffili

atio

n Jo

b P

ositi

on

Pro

fess

ion

Ato

Tse

gaye

Deb

ebe

e-

mai

l: ts

egay

e_

d@ya

hoo

.com

P

hon

e:

Dir

ect U

ser

GIS

& R

emot

e se

nsin

g T

eam

Le

ader

G

eog

raph

er

W/r

o T

iruw

ork

Tad

ege

e-m

ail:

P

hon

e: 2

519

114

193

24

Dir

ect U

ser

GIS

Tec

hni

cian

D

rafti

ng

EE

PC

o R

espo

nden

t nam

e A

ddre

ss

GIS

Affi

liatio

n Jo

b P

ositi

on

Pro

fess

ion

Ato

Won

dwos

sen

Reg

assa

e-

mai

l: up

dp.e

epco

@et

hion

et.e

t

Ph

one:

251

911

652

643

In

dir

ect

Use

r D

istr

ibut

ion

Reh

abili

tatio

n P

roje

ct

Co-

ord

inat

ion

Dep

t.

Ato

Asr

ese

Bel

ay

e-

mai

l: as

rese

bg@

yah

oo.c

om

P

hon

e: 2

519

116

581

00

Dir

ect U

ser

GIS

& R

emot

e se

nsin

g T

eam

Le

ade

r D

rafti

ng

AA

CR

A

Res

pond

ent n

ame

Add

ress

G

IS A

ffili

atio

n Jo

b P

ositi

on

Pro

fess

ion

Ato

Bin

yam

Bed

ilu

e-m

ail: u

pdp

.eep

co@

ethi

onet

.et

P

hon

e: 2

519

116

526

43

Ind

irec

t U

ser

Dep

uty

Gen

era

l Man

ager

E

ngi

nee

r

W/r

o K

idis

t Biru

e-m

ail:

asre

seb

g@ya

hoo

.co

m

Ph

one:

251

911

658

100

D

irect

Use

r T

eam

Le

ader

E

ngi

nee

r

ET

C

Res

pond

ent n

ame

Add

ress

G

IS

Affi

liatio

n Jo

b P

ositi

on

Pro

fess

ion

Ato

Mog

ese

Dem

eke

e-m

ail:

P

hon

e:

Ind

irec

t U

ser

Gen

eral

Man

ager

M

anag

emen

t

Ale

ma

yeh

u L

emm

a*

e

-mai

l: al

emay

ehu

_le

mm

a@ya

hoo

.com

Ph

one:

251

911

211

312

P

oten

tial u

ser

De

puty

Gen

eral

Man

age

r E

ngin

eer/

Com

put

er

Sci

ence

*Gro

up

dis

cuss

ion

of f

our

Zerihun Amdemariam Berisso February, 2008 · 2008-03-13 · AAWSA , UIDD, ETC , EEPCo , AACRA , AAICA and MoWR . To all GIM Class 2006/2008, I have no words to say all. You are real

Documents