The New GIS Users

Last year I met with a product manager of an online housing rental search company. This company is the perfect example of a venture capitalist’s dream, in which they had already received money to expand the company. I walked in knowing these guys not only have the cash for GIS analytics, but just by browsing their website, they also needed online mapping for their clients. I walked in with the thought, maybe I could convince them a web map application is a good start for them.

I actually walked out with my tail between my legs. Web map applications are not for private business. These guys utilize the power of Web 2.0 and the service capabilities of mash-ups. In fact, being in GIS for 13 years, these guys schooled me on what is really important with GIS. There are two customers GIS serves – government employees and "everyone-else". With the new online mapping companies' influence, I believe GIS companies should look toward "everyone-else" for the next big client.

The everyone-else users of the future require just a little more than the visualization of internet mapping today. They want simple analysis tools – to be able to view their business data on a map, drill down, or select several areas to pass back to analytic engines for further analysis. Very simple and Web 2.0 ”ish”. The deep analytics that come from GIS will have to be built into an analytics platform and offer access as a service, which means the power of in-database processing, http://www.sas.com/technologies/architecture/in-databaseprocessing/index.html, a concept SAS has been working on recently.

What this means for GIS - no longer are graphics the content for the engine. Topology and geoprocessing happens within the database, and visual reports are generated only by request. Also, the Web 1.0 GIS application, which involves heavy user interaction for analysis, such as: 1)make the zoning layer active, 2)select the parcel layer, and 3)ask GIS to show you how many parcels are within the code “R1a” is gone. Analysis must now be a simple query of the Web 2.0 command line.

Providing tools for only the government space dampens innovation. Henry Ford, concerned with the danger of listening too closely to customers, once said "If I had asked my customers what they wanted," Ford said, "they would have said a faster horse”, meaning customers don't envision the future, they inform the present.

So my feeling is yes, we should look at web application companies and point out the leaders, and develop on top of their new "standards". Not only will government benefit with their technology, I believe their is more to provide in the new arena of the private sector. Let’s all collaborate and make sure we are ahead of tradition. That seems to be making a lot of money in my region.

Where are Maps taking us?

I have recently researched 2 mapping technologies. 1)The internet maps (such as Google and Yahoo maps) and 2)web map applications for organizations (companies that sell an application to place internal data on the web with desktop “ish” GIS functionality). I am struggling with comparing the two, with the reservation of knowing web map applications still have not moved into the new arena of internet maps' popularity, and provide so many tools so few use.

The web has changed drastically within the past year. I live in an influential region of the country, sometimes referred to as the “second silicon valley”. I have many friends that work in tech start-ups and all have received investment funding. These companies were born with a mindset that Web 2.0 is the only future in which to make money. I am constantly amazed by their marketing, PR capabilities, and how well they sell product. Surrounded by these mindsets can be overwhelming. GIS, as cool as it is, has a long way to catch up.

What is Web 2.0? It's many things to different people. But the gist is:
• The end user does not see an application
• New, simpler, intuitive interfaces (UI) – very ergonomically friendly
• User generated content and visualization
• Mash-up is imperative. Mash-up is loosely spoken of, but it comes down to the integration of content and functionality from multiple sources; and coupling those into the visibility of one application. Sources can be from anywhere, anyone, multiple vendors, or even a government provider.
• SaaS – software as a service – like all the internet maps now.
• Services added as functionality by requirements of the end user – a pick list of functions only needed by the individual user
• Search (SEO), and the search input as the “new” command line. Anything you want to do is typed into one line, i.e.… geocode an address- then search for all pizza locations within view. This functionality has the chance to provide the ultimate end-user power - to simply add in GIS layers by keywords.

In contrast, to understand what above means, recall what Web 1.0 was:
• An application controls the user experience
• Applications that provide every tool imaginable but:
o UI not intuitive, exposing hundreds of buttons and tools – limited to what the manufacturer of the application wanted to provide
o Functions and tools that require a manual to use
• Content and services are provided by the end-user or its organization only
• Additional functionality has to be programmed, which breaks code and in turn provides maintenance nightmares.

From my research I saw lots of Web 1.0 and very limited Web 2.0. Technology needs to have that “ah-ha!” factor that gives consumers the “got to have it” feel. This also sparks the interests of investment bankers. So, where do we place priorities on new mapping technology? I believe it comes down to:
A) What is best for the organization
B) What will the masses want next

I did not see any benefits for the current users of web map applications. The only thing I could see is they can mash-up some internet map content (centerline, images) with their own data. But is that really a benefit? I believe anyone who has a web map application already serves that content, and it is more current than the internet maps’ data.

What will the masses want next? Competition of internet mapping will be fierce in the future. How do we compete with the next round of programmers that do not create applications, but consume content and services from around the globe, creating a single viewpoint for the user with more information than ever? In many government organizations, it is easier to consume Yahoo’s traffic service than to go across the hall and ask for street closure data.

Mapping companies need to think of who they are serving. Currently their web apps serve a minority within an organization:
1. Those who do not want to learn desktop GIS
2. Those who need access to secured data
The struggling economy today has proved the challenge of companies to make a profit by serving government GIS clients, which is generally web map applications’ focus. We need to think about the private sector.

GIS is missing its true meaning

Explaining GIS is tough. The reason is, depending on your level of use with GIS from beginner, developer, or professional, each has a varied definition. What I have noticed when trying to sell GIS to “C” level executives, or to 99.9% of the world who does not claim GIS as their profession, you can not give a standard answer, and no there is no such thing as “the answer.” In fact I have not quite figured out the perfect answer yet, but that is another reason for this blog – try to figure out the best manner to deliver the GIS message.

This blog should be able to provide “the answer” that GIS professionals will use from now on, and the rest of the population as well. The answer should be just as easy as saying “I am a doctor.” Everyone knows what that means, and also the next question, “what do you practice?” To find the true meaning of GIS (I will try not to compare that statement to Christmas!) it will take several posts to explain the background terminology I use, spreading over several dimensions. I will bold words that deserve a future post.

GIS is very often confused with mapping, or map feature drawing. Though these are two of the 4 principles of GIS, it should not be considered the primary purpose. Both these principles create a visual aspect. The visual is actually being separated from GIS, the future holds mapping as service based. In fact, the visual does have a definition that seems to be lost in the human language, cartography. I am not sure why this term and profession has gone away, but it should be brought back. It seems as soon as drawing maps went digital, the term cartography went out as well…can you say "the baby with the bath water?" The loss of cartography as a profession is confusing, because as soon as a graphic artists went digital, their title did not change to “PhotoShop Analyst.”

Mapping is most synonymous with GIS because it is what makes the most sense. It is easy to describe because of pictures…remember "a picture is worth a thousand words." The visual is so much easier to sell- its “the sizzle.” However, the sizzle is not going to sell a true analytical system. The sizzle is now a commodity due to Google.

The analytics, the 3rd of 4 principles of GIS, is the transparency for integration into other technology systems. GIS analytics are rarely known except by GIS professionals. You may even find that daily GIS users don’t even know of the analytics. Again, this is where the perception of map creation and data become more apparent to GIS. Analytics will play a huge part for the future of GIS. So what everyone should know, and “the answer” should present, is that GIS provides analytics.

How do you provide the perfect description? Well that is one of the reasons why I choose to call this blog “What’s Ur 20”. GIS professionals need to think in current technology terms that influence the majority of the population. Guess what, everyone knows what the title of this blog means from playing with walkie talkies as a kid. We should be able to describe GIS as easy as the blog’s question. In fact I once read that USA Today is such a popular newspaper because it is written at a 6th grade reading level. Another thing I have heard, and I can’t remember where, but the statement was “if you can’t describe what you do in one sentence, you need to find another profession.” We need to consider these two statements when creating “the answer.” As you can see this post has created “a can of worms” for many more posts to come.