Geographic Information Systems (GIS) have become a fact of our life as they are being used by more people and organizations for more complex decision problems than ever before. The use of GIS can achieve valuable benefits for individuals, organizations and society; however, the achievement of these benefits depends on the success of GIS. While information systems (IS) success models have received much attention among researchers, there is a general scarcity of research conducted to measure the GIS success. This paper proposes a success model for measuring GIS success by extending and modifying previous IS success models. The developed success model consists of two main levels: GIS project diffusion success, and GIS post-implementation success. The first level identifies the critical success factors (CSFs) that influence the success of GIS adoption at each stage of the diffusion process. The second level of the proposed model identifies and organizes the success dimensions (outcome measures) of GIS in temporal and causal relationships. In order to assess the relationships among the success dimensions, 11 hypotheses were tested. Data were collected through a questionnaire that was distributed to 252 GIS users/managers in Egypt and abroad. The empirical results support 6 hypotheses and reject 5 hypotheses.
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) are a mainstream technology with a vital and growing use across all industries [
This paper is structured as follows. First, we review the development of IS success models, and consider the challenges and difficulties facing these IS success models. Second, based on prior studies, a GIS success model and a comprehensive set of hypotheses are proposed. Third, the methods, measures and results of the study are presented. And, finally, the results are discussed.
Information system (IS) success is one of the most researched topics in IS literature [
The IS literature provides several definitions and measures of IS success. As [
A wide range of research has proposed IS success models [
Since 1992, a number of studies have undertaken empirical investigations of the multidimensional relationships among the measures of IS success such as [
DeLone and McLean IS success model (1992), several studies have been published that challenge, critique, or extend the model itself. On balance, these articles have contributed to a better understanding of IS success such as Ballantine et al. (1996) [
Ballantine et al. (1996) [
Based on suggestions offered by researchers, and criticisms directed to the DeLone and McLean original model, DeLone and McLean (2003) [
1) The addition of service quality to reflect the importance of service and support in successful e-commerce systems;
2) The addition of intention to use to measure user attitude;
3) The collapsing of individual impact and organizational impact into the net benefits construct.
The categories of the updated taxonomy were system, information, and service quality, intention to use, use, user satisfaction, and net benefits. DeLone and McLean models (1992, 2003) could serve as a basis for the selection of appropriate IS measures. Researchers had to choose several appropriate success measures based on the objectives and the phenomena under investigation, as well as consider possible relationships among the success dimensions when constructing the research model [
While the updated DeLone and McLean model (2003) is a comprehensive IS success model, it suffers from certain difficulties. First, the Net Benefit measure in the model is conceptually too broad to define. As [
Second, as DeLone and McLean (1992) [
While the 3-D IS success model represents a holistic view of the concept of IS success. This model did not focus on the outcome measures of IS as DeLone and McLean (1992, 2003) did. Although Ballantine et al. (1996) [
Based on the above mentioned literature, this study proposes a new GIS success model by extending and respecifying both the 3-D model of IS success and the updated DeLone and McLean model (2003) in the context of GIS.
The literature search indicated that, there is a general scarcity of models and frameworks for measuring GIS success. However, there are some frameworks that were developed for evaluating the contributions of GIS to efficiency, effectiveness, and societal well being (see e.g., [
By extending and respecifying both the 3-D model and the updated DeLone and McLean model (2003) of IS success, we proposes a GIS success model that provides a holistic view of GIS success concept via defining GIS success as a cumulative process that starts from initiating successful GIS projects and ending with the success of GIS in delivering their business objectives. Thus, we divide success into two levels: (1) GIS diffusion success, and (2) GIS post-implementation success, as shown in
This level extends and respecifies the 3-D model of IS success developed by Ballantine et al. (1996) [
According to [
1) GIS success research cited in the literature which is mostly based on case studies or observations of GIS projects and practices, such as [
2) GIS failure research which is based on lessons learned from certain types of GIS projects, but they are mostly similar enough to be generalized, such as [
3) Researches about GIS implementation that mentioned CSFs briefly such as [
Stage | GIS CSFs | Sources |
---|---|---|
Initiation (Pre-Implementation) | Organization Culture | [ |
Organization Structure | [ | |
Clear Goal and Vision | [ | |
Top Management Support/Awareness | [ | |
External Environment | [ | |
Acquisition (Implementation) | Strategic Planning | [ |
Skilled Staff | [ | |
Communication Channels | [ | |
User Participation | [ | |
Education and Training | [ | |
Business Process Re-Engineering | [ | |
Hardware and Software Selection | [ | |
Software Customization | [ | |
Data Issues | [ | |
Incorporation (Post-Implementation) | Perceived Usefulness | [ |
Vendor Support | [ | |
User Skills and Experience | [ | |
Task Characteristics | [ |
The objective of this stage is to learn about GIS technology, explore the appropriateness of GIS for the organization, and to gain official sanction for the next stage (acquisition). The result from this stage reveals if the organization is ready to accept GIS. This stage includes the following CSFs: organization culture, organization structure, clear goal and vision, top management support/awareness, and the external environment [
The acquisition stage begins when the organization becomes aware of the GIS and decides to adopt it, and when GIS advocates have confidence that financial and management support exist to establish a budget. In this stage, the organization engages in the activities necessary to put the GIS into practice [
The incorporation stage focuses on the acceptance of the technology by members of organization and its utilization over time [
The stages of GIS diffusion process are represented in the proposed success model with respect to their occurrence. Hence, the arrows between stages of GIS diffusion process represent temporal relationship.
During the achievement of GIS diffusion success, as shown in
The second level of the proposed model extends and respecifies the updated DeLone and McLean model (2003) to the GIS context via the following steps:
1) Replacing service quality dimension (that reflect the importance of service and support in successful e-com- merce systems) with user quality. As GIS is not solely technical in nature, adding user quality dimension as a part of the process of producing geographic information is very important. GIS user quality is considered an important human factor in a successful GIS as mentioned in many GIS researches [
2) According to [
3) DeLone and McLean IS success models (1992, 2003) are built upon the taxonomy developed by both Shannon and Weaver (1949) [
4) To avoid model complexity and to reflect the cross-sectional nature of this study, the feedback links from net benefits to both use and user satisfaction in the updated DeLone and McLean model (2003) were excluded.
The success dimensions of the proposed GIS success model are system quality, user quality, information quality, information use, user satisfaction, net benefits to individuals, net benefits to organization, and net benefits to society as shown in
The second level of the proposed model is concerned with measuring the GIS success after incorporating and adapting the GIS into the organization's operations. The GIS success should be measured after a wide spread of use to allow the members of the organization to arrive at informed opinions about the success of their GIS [
In this paper, according to previous researches on GIS, measures of the proposed model have been determined (see
System quality: system quality dimension measures the success of the technical aspects of GIS. System quality has been represented in many GIS studies by functionality, response time, system reliability, user friendless, error recovery, database content.
User quality: user quality dimension represents the quality of GIS users in terms of spatial abilities and self efficacy. In IS field, Bonner (1995) [
Information quality: information quality dimension is the quality of information provided to the organization using GIS, in the form of maps, tables, charts, and reports. The information quality dimension measured by accuracy, completeness, ease of interpretation, relevancy, reliability, timeliness, and clarity.
Information use: information use is a broad construct that is frequently used in measuring the utilization of IS. Information use dimension measures to what extent the GIS output is being used in the decision making process. Clapp et al. (1989) [
User satisfaction: this dimension measures GIS user’s level of satisfaction with the system. User satisfaction was traditionally employed as the most common measure of IS success. The most widely used user satisfaction instruments are End User Computing Support (EUCS) [
Net benefits to individuals: this dimension summarizes benefits that can be gained by users when using GIS such as enhanced decision making, time saving, increase the understanding and awareness of problems [
Net benefits to organization: this dimension summarizes the benefits that organization derives from using GIS, which refers to efficiency and effectiveness criteria. Efficiency is the degree to how GIS operates with minimum waste, duplication, and expenditure of resources, and can be expressed as cost savings, cost avoidance, or productivity gains. Efficiency may also result in the generation of revenue. Effectiveness involves generating a product of better quality or accomplishing an intended purpose [
References | Measurement Items | Success Dimension | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
[ | The GIS software contains all the features and functions required to perform the required tasks | Functionality | System Quality | |
Hardware and operating system response time are acceptable | Response Time | |||
Server downtime typically 8 hours or less per year | Reliability | |||
all failures (including server, network, and software) are less than 40 hours downtime per year | ||||
GIS software is user-friendly | User Friendless | |||
It is easy to recover from errors encountered while using GIS software | Error Recovery | |||
The database content is secured | Database Content | |||
Data backup is maintained throughout the organization | ||||
The database content is regularly updated throughout the organization | ||||
The database contains accurate data | ||||
The database contains all needed data for related tasks | ||||
[ | Comfort to use | Self Efficacy | User Quality | |
Capable to do | ||||
Understand what to do | ||||
Confidence to use | ||||
Spatial ability test | Spatial Abilities | |||
[ | the GIS provides the accurate information you need | Accuracy | Information Quality | |
the GIS provides sufficient information | Completeness | |||
the information on the map is easy to understand | Ease of Interpretation | |||
the information provided meet your needs regarding your questions or problems | Relevancy | |||
the GIS provides reliable information | Reliability | |||
the GIS provide up to date information | Timeliness | |||
the information on digital or hardcopy maps are clear | Clarity | |||
[ | you are pleased with the GIS | Technology Satisfaction | User Satisfaction | |
you like to use the GIS | ||||
you are willing to use the GIS | ||||
Overall, how would you rate your satisfaction with the GIS? | Overall Satisfaction | |||
[ | To what extent do you actually use the reports or the output generated by the GIS? | Information Use | ||
To what extent could you get along without the use of the GIS? | ||||
What is the level of importance of decisions affected by the generated information? | ||||
[ | Using GIS save time required for making decisions | Time saving | Net Benefits to Individuals | |
As a result of GIS, I am better able to set my priorities in decision making | Enhanced Decision Making | |||
GIS has improved the quality of decisions I make in this organization (decisions are more accurate and correct) | ||||
As a result of GIS, the speed at which I analyze decisions has increased | ||||
GIS enhances the understanding of the problems | Understanding | ||
---|---|---|---|
GIS enables timely problem recognition | Awareness | ||
[ | The GIS helps the organization save cost in information production and provision | Efficiency | Net Benefits to Organization |
The GIS increases the organization profitability | |||
The GIS improves the organization’s competitive position | Effectiveness | ||
The GIS helps the organization to achieve its goal | |||
The GIS enables a new range of output (maps, tables, lists, etc.) | |||
The GIS provides the organization with better motivated workforce | |||
The GIS improves information sharing and flows to management and between departments | |||
The GIS reduces risk in the decision making process | |||
[ | The GIS provide equal availability of information to citizens when needed and equal ease of access | Social Justice | Net Benefits to Society |
The GIS enables participation by public in decision process (Enhancement of principles of a democratic society) | Participation | ||
Using the GIS improves the standard of health and safety in the society | Quality of Life | ||
Using the GIS increases the economic benefits to the society | |||
The GIS provides better service to public/citizens |
Net benefits to society: based on the study of “The impact of GIS technology” conducted by [
The first level of the proposed GIS success model acts like a guide or a reference for GIS project managers to concentrate on the most critical success factors of GIS project diffusion. Although, establishing the CSFs of GIS project does not implicate that the whole project will automatically succeed, but it would be erroneously to neglect one of these CSFs.
The second level of the proposed GIS success model is a multidimensional construct, and the dimensions are interrelated. GIS are first implemented and incorporated within the organization and exhibit various degrees of system, and user quality. System quality and user quality affect the quality of the produced information. Managers/decision makers experienced the quality of information by using it for their works. Users and managers/de- cision makers are either satisfied or not satisfied with using the GIS. Finally, the use of information by managers/decision makers and the satisfaction of GIS users trigger influence on net benefits to individuals, organization and society.
The second level of the proposed model suggests that there can be positive influence between the GIS success dimension. Thus, we propose the following 11 hypotheses:
H1. System quality will positively affect Information quality;
H2. User quality will positively affect Information quality;
H3a. Information quality will positively affect user satisfaction;
H3b. Information quality will positively affect information use;
H4. Information use will positively affect User satisfaction;
H5a. Information use will positively affect net benefit to individuals;
H5b. Information use will positively affect net benefit to organization;
H5c. Information use will positively affect net benefit to society;
H6a. User satisfaction will positively affect net benefit to individuals;
H6b. User satisfaction will positively affect net benefit to organization;
H6c. User satisfaction will positively affect net benefit to society.
To ensure the content validity of the scales used in this study, We used the measurement items that were operationalized and tested in previous empirical GIS/IS studies and were found to have demonstrated good psychometric properties. The measuring items for each success dimension are summarized in
The data used to test the model were obtained from a sample of experienced GIS users and managers. This study developed a questionnaire (see appendix A) using a five-point Likert scale (1 - 5) ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” The questionnaire was sent to 350 GIS users and managers in different GIS organizations in Egypt and abroad to answer the questions by assessing their GIS. For each question, respondents were asked to circle the response which best described their level of agreement. In total, 252 samples were received with an effective ratio of 72%. Detailed descriptive statistics relating to the respondents’ characteristics are shown in
Characteristics | Number | Percentage |
---|---|---|
Job Title | ||
Decision Maker | 7 | 2.8% |
Geologist | 19 | 7.5% |
Geophysicist | 6 | 2.4% |
GIS Specialist | 134 | 53.2% |
Technician | 38 | 15.1% |
GIS Managers | 48 | 19% |
Gender | ||
Female | 153 | 60.7% |
Male | 99 | 39.3% |
Age | ||
21 - 30 | 87 | 34.5% |
31 - 40 | 59 | 23.4% |
41 - 50 | 62 | 24.6% |
Over 50 | 44 | 17.5% |
Work Experience | ||
1 - 5 years | 82 | 32.5% |
6 - 10 years | 68 | 27% |
11 - 15 years | 40 | 15.9% |
16 - 20 years | 24 | 9.5% |
Over 20 years | 38 | 15.1% |
Education Level | ||
Diploma | 39 | 15.5% |
Bachelor | 162 | 64.3% |
Master | 30 | 11.9% |
PhD | 21 | 8.3% |
Reliability refers to the consistency or stability of the questionnaire results. Fewer errors lead to a higher level of reliability. In other words, a better reliability measurement will result from the consistency and stability of results. The present study measured the questionnaire reliability and the consistency of the items using Cronbach’s alpha (SPSS Version 20). Many scholars have suggested that a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient exceeding the 0.7 threshold indicates a high level of consistency among the aspects; a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient exceeding 0.9 indicates a much higher level of consistency among the aspects (e.g., [
Structural Equation Modeling technique was used to assess the model fit and show empirical findings and hypotheses results using LISREL 8.8. Seven common model-fit measures were used to assess the model's overall goodness of fit: the ratio of X2 to degrees-of-freedom (df), goodness-of-fit index (GFI), adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI), normalized fit index (NFI), comparative fit index (CFI), root mean square residual (RMSR), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). As shown in
Properties of the causal path, including the path coefficient, t-values, and variance explained for each equation in the hypothesized model, are presented in
System quality and user quality had significant positive influences on information quality. Thus, H1 and H2 were supported. The influence of information quality on both user satisfaction and information use were also significant. H3a and H3b were supported. The influence of information use on user satisfaction was not significant. Thus, H4 was rejected. User satisfaction has no significant impact on net benefits to (individuals, organization, and society). H6a, H6b, and H6c were rejected. Information use has a significant positive influence on both net benefits to individuals and net benefits to society, but has no significant effect on net benefits to organization. H5a and H5b were supported, while H5c was rejected. The direct, indirect, and total effects of system quality, user quality, information quality, information use and user satisfaction on net benefits to (individuals, organization, and society) are summarized in
With regard to the constructs explained in the variance (R2), 89% of the variance in information quality was explained by system quality and user quality, while 20% of the variance in information use was explained by information quality. 87% of the variance in user satisfaction was explained by information quality and information use. The variance explained by information use and user satisfaction on net benefit to individuals is 34%, net benefit to organization is 8%, and net benefit to society is 13%.
In this paper, by combining IS success models and previous studies, a model for measuring GIS success is pre-
Total Relation of Fixed Item | Items | Construct (Cronbach Alpha) |
---|---|---|
0.635 | SQ1 | System Quality (0.874) |
0.560 | SQ2 | |
0.433 | SQ3 | |
0.514 | SQ4 | |
0.653 | SQ5 | |
0.530 | SQ6 | |
0.577 | SQ7 | |
0.495 | SQ8 | |
0.494 | SQ9 | |
0.742 | SQ10 | |
0.794 | SQ11 | |
0.835 | UQ1 | User Quality (0.93) |
0.886 | UQ2 | |
0.919 | UQ3 | |
0.740 | UQ4 | |
0.831 | IQ1 | Information Quality (0.91) |
0.761 | IQ2 | |
0.725 | IQ3 | |
0.781 | IQ4 | |
0.842 | IQ5 | |
0.543 | IQ6 | |
0.671 | IQ7 | |
0.908 | IU1 | Information Use (0.808) |
0.926 | IU2 | |
0.831 | IU3 | |
0.870 | US1 | User Satisfaction (0.95) |
0.833 | US2 | |
0.431 | US3 | |
0.705 | US4 | |
0.627 | IND1 | Net Benefits to Individuals (0.997) |
0.686 | IND2 | |
0.686 | IND3 | |
0.686 | IND4 | |
0.679 | IND5 | |
0.668 | IND6 |
0.627 | ORG1 | Net Benefits to Organization (0.993) |
---|---|---|
0.632 | ORG2 | |
0.617 | ORG3 | |
0.620 | ORG4 | |
0.590 | ORG5 | |
0.616 | ORG6 | |
0.573 | ORG7 | |
0.611 | ORG8 | |
0.604 | SOC1 | Net Benefits to Society (0.968) |
0.598 | SOC2 | |
0.610 | SOC3 | |
0.625 | SOC4 | |
0.601 | SOC5 |
Recommended Value | Structural Model | Fit Indices |
---|---|---|
<=3 | 1.325 | X2/df |
(0) to (1) | 0.92 | Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) |
(0) to (1) | 0.79 | Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) |
<=0.1 | 0.051 | Root Mean Square Residual (RMSR) |
<=0.08 | 0.081 | Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) |
>=0.9 | 0.95 | Normed Fit Index (NFI) |
>=0.9 | 0.98 | Comparative Fit Index (CFI) |
(0) to (1) | 0.90 | Relative Fit Index (RFI) |
IQ | US | IU | IND | ORG | SOC | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Direct | Indirect | Total Effect | Direct | Indirect | Total Effect | Direct | Indirect | Total Effect | Direct | Indirect | Total Effect | Direct | Indirect | Total Effect | Direct | Indirect | Total Effect | |
SQ | 0.3 | - | 0.3 | - | 0.13 | 0.13 | - | 0.14 | 0.14 | - | 0.09 | 0.09 | - | 0.04 | 0.04 | - | .06 | 0.06 |
UQ | 0.7 | - | 0.7 | - | - | - | 0.31 | - | 0.31 | - | 0.25 | 0.25 | - | 0.16 | 0.16 | - | 0.19 | 0.19 |
IQ | - | - | - | 0.41 | - | - | 0.45 | - | - | - | 0.29 | 0.29 | - | 0.14 | 0.14 | - | 0.18 | 0.18 |
US | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0.05 | - | 0.05 | 0.1 | - | 0.1 | 0.11 | - | 0.11 |
IU | - | - | - | 0.02 | - | 0.02 | - | - | - | 0.54 | - | 0.54 | 0.22 | - | 0.22 | 0.3 | - | - |
sented. The proposed GIS success model has comprehensive components. It integrates the CSFs (independent variables) with the outcome measures of GIS (dependent variables) into one model. The first level of the proposed model extends and respecifies the 3-D model of IS success by organizing the CSFs that have been discussed in the GIS literature, according to their occurrence in GIS diffusion stages. The first level of the proposed model can benefit organizations by focusing on the vital aspect of a successful GIS project. The second level of the proposed model is concerned with measuring the post-implementation success of GIS. The second level of the proposed model extends and respecifies the updated DeLone and McLean model (2003) in the context of GIS. Through the above analysis, 8 success dimensions, 49-items instrument were demonstrated to produce acceptable reliability estimates. The second level of the proposed model exhibited reasonable fit with the collected data. Six of the eleven hypotheses were found to be significant. The empirical results showed that the system quality and user quality had a significant positive influence on information quality. In addition, information quality had a positive influence on both information use and user satisfaction. It can be interpreted as a response to high system and user quality; a high information quality is produced which in turn causes satisfaction to GIS users and causes more use to these valuable information. The finding that information use did not have a significantly direct influence on user satisfaction was inconsistent with most prior IS studies. Thus, information use is necessary but not sufficient to cause user satisfaction. The results showed that information use had a significant influence on both net benefits to individuals and society, and that information use had no significantly positive effect on net benefits to organization. Also, user satisfaction had no significantly positive effect on net benefits to individuals, organization, and society. This explains why there are many different stakeholders whose satisfaction needs to be considered. The user satisfaction measures the technological satisfaction and the overall satisfaction of the GIS users (direct users) with their software, while the net benefits to individuals measure the satisfaction of the indirect users (like decision makers who make use of the technology by relying on other members of the organization) with GIS in enhancing the process of the decision making. The net benefits to organization are directed to GIS managers to measure the efficiency and the effectiveness of GIS in their organizations, while net benefits to society are directed to citizens to measure the contribution of GIS to societal well being especially in governmental organizations. This may explain why there is no direct causal relationship among these constructs. For example, the GIS users may be satisfied by using their GIS, but for some reasons the organization cannot achieve benefits due to administrative or economic problems. Therefore, user satisfaction should precede net benefits dimensions, but it is not sufficient to cause them.
This study is regarded as the first step in the long term research agenda of the researcher to develop and improve a model for measuring the GIS success. Therefore, the validity of a GIS success model cannot be truly established on the basis of a single study. Thus, caution needs to be taken when generalizing these findings. Validation of measurement requires the assessment of measurement properties over a variety of samples in similar and different contexts.
Khalid A.Eldrandaly,Soaad M.Naguib,Mohammed M.Hassan, (2015) A Model for Measuring Geographic Information Systems Success. Journal of Geographic Information System,07,328-347. doi: 10.4236/jgis.2015.74026
1) System quality
SQ1: The GIS software contains all the features and functions required to perform the required tasks
SQ2: The hardware and operating system response time are acceptable
SQ3: The server downtime typically 8 hours or less per year
SQ4: All failures (including server, network, and software) are less than 40 hours downtime per year
SQ5: The GIS software is user-friendly
SQ6: It is easy to recover from errors encountered while using GIS software
SQ7: The database content is secured
SQ8: Data backup is maintained throughout the organization regularly
SQ9: The database content is regularly updated throughout the organization
SQ10: The database contains accurate data
SQ11: The database contains all the needed data for related tasks
2) User quality
UQ1: You feel comfort while using the GIS
UQ2: You are capable to do the required task
UQ3: You understand what you do
UQ4: You feel confidence while using the GIS software
UQ5: Spatial ability test (20 questions developed by Lee and Bednarz (2012))
3) Information quality
IQ1: The GIS provides the accurate information you need
IQ2: The GIS provides sufficient information
IQ3: The information on the map is easy to understand
IQ4: The information provided meet your needs regarding your questions or problems
IQ5: The GIS provides reliable information
IQ6: The GIS provide up to date information
IQ7: The information on digital or hardcopy maps are clear
4) User satisfaction
US1: You are pleased with the GIS
US2: You like to use the GIS
US3: You are willing to use the GIS
US4: Overall, how would you rate your satisfaction with the GIS?
5) Information use
IU1: To what extent do you actually use the reports or the output generated by the GIS?
IU2: To what extent could you get along without the use of the GIS?
IU3: What is the level of importance of decisions affected by the generated information?
6) Net benefits to individuals
IND1: Using GIS save time required for making decisions
IND2: As a result of GIS, I am better able to set my priorities in decision making
IND3: GIS has improved the quality of decisions I make in this organization
IND4: As a result of GIS, the speed at which I analyze decisions has increased
IND5: GIS enables timely problem recognition
IND6: GIS enhances the understanding of the problems
7) Net benefits to organization
ORG1: The GIS helps the organization save cost in information production and provision
ORG2: The GIS increases the organization profitability
ORG3: The GIS improves the organization’s competitive position
ORG4: The GIS helps the organization to achieve its goal
ORG5: The GIS enables a new range of output (maps, tables, lists, etc.)
ORG6: The GIS provides the organization with better motivated workforce
ORG7: The GIS improves information sharing and flows to management and between departments.
ORG8: The GIS reduces risk in the decision making process
8) Net benefits to society
SOC1: The GIS provide equal availability of information to citizens when needed and equal ease of access
SOC2: The GIS enables participation by public in decision process (enhancement of principles of a democratic society)
SOC3: Using the GIS improves the standard of health and safety in the society
SOC4: Using the GIS increases the economic benefits to the society
SOC5: The GIS provides better service to public/citizens