IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirb/v19y1992i1p85-95.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Organisational Issues and the Implementation of GIS in Massachusetts and Vermont: Some Lessons for the United Kingdom

Author

Listed:
  • H Campbell

    (Department of Town and Regional Planning, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, England)

Abstract

Technological progress in recent years has removed many of the barriers which inhibited the development of geographic information systems (GIS). However, there is increasing recognition that human, institutional, and organisational factors are likely to have a profound impact on the experiences of individual organisations. With these considerations in mind in this paper the author explores the results of a series of interviews with system designers and users in Massachusetts and Vermont. These findings are examined in relation to a conceptual framework which stresses the importance of the organisational context, the individuals involved, and the level of environmental and organisational stability. Given the generally longer length of involvement of the authorities visited in the United States with GIS, the author seeks to identify lessons for the British context. Consideration is given to the similarities and differences between the broad environmental forces encouraging the take-up of GIS in Britain and the United States. However, the most significant findings concern the process of implementation. Effective utilisation was not found to be simply dependent upon the technical operation of a GIS. Organisational issues, including the ownership and control of information, securing general commitment, and ensuring the needs of users are met through a realistic understanding of the role of information in decisionmaking, were also found to have a marked influence on the implementation process.

Suggested Citation

  • H Campbell, 1992. "Organisational Issues and the Implementation of GIS in Massachusetts and Vermont: Some Lessons for the United Kingdom," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 19(1), pages 85-95, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:19:y:1992:i:1:p:85-95
    DOI: 10.1068/b190085
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/b190085
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1068/b190085?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:19:y:1992:i:1:p:85-95. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.