Process Simplification
Office of the Vice President for Management and Budget
University Mapping Initiative Final Report
July 21, 2009
Contents I. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................. 3 II. GOALS/OBJECTIVES .................................................................................................. 3 III. DEFINITIONS .............................................................................................................. 3 IV. APPROACH TO WORK/ EVALUATION & ASSESSMENT................................... 4 V. EXISTING CONDITIONS, CORE FINDINGS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....... 7 VI. CONCLUSION AND FOLLOW-UP ......................................................................... 11 VII. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY ................................................ 13 APPENDIX A: UNIVERSITY MAPPING INITIATIVE FINAL SCOPE .................... 15 APPENDIX B: INTERNAL USER SURVEY ................................................................ 17 APPENDIX C : INTERNAL MAP PRODUCER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS.............. 20 APPENDIX D: EXTERNAL BENCHMARKING SURVEY ........................................ 21 APPENDIX E: EXTERNAL BENCHMARKING SURVEY RESULTS ...................... 26 Process Simplification-University Mapping Initiative
Page 2 of 27
I. Background
The production of University maps is a decentralized function, often resulting in duplication of effort and
varying map styles across Grounds. Departments responsible for creating and publishing maps, include
but are not limited to, Parking and Transportation; Athletics; Police; Web Communications; Schools;
Medical Center; Office of the Architect; Facilities Management; and Space and Real Estate Management
(SREM). While department personnel share data and collaborate frequently across these areas, errors are
still made when updating and publishing University maps. The University Mapping Initiative (UMI)
team was tasked with increasing efficiency and accuracy in the production of University maps and
identifying potential cost savings associated with these improvements. The team’s final
recommendations suggest ways to centralize mapping information and services, use equipment and
materials more efficiently, and standardize processes to improve the consistency and accuracy of
University maps.
The team was established in February 2009, with members selected from units affected by the project and
for their subject matter expertise. The project charter is appears in Appendix A.
Team members:
Scott Martin, Team Lead, Facilities Management (FM)
Garth Anderson, Facilities Management
Nicholas Bartley, Space and Real Estate Management (SREM)
Todd Campbell, Medical Center
Julia Monteith, Office of the Architect
Bill Palmer, Office of the Architect
II. Goals/Objectives
The overall goal of the UMI team was to recommend ways to increase efficiency and accuracy of the
production of University maps. Specifically, the team explored means to:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Create a unified look and feel for all University maps;
Produce more consistent and accurate maps;
Reduce duplication of production efforts between staff producing maps;
Pool resources between offices and mapping or geographic information systems staff;
Realize cost savings for departments by eliminating the need to purchase and maintain
specialized plotting equipment to print out large format maps; and
Raise awareness within the University community on where or how to access, create, or request
maps.
III. Definitions
This report uses the terms: maps, mapping, and geographic information system (or GIS); below are
definitions of these terms.
Maps or Mapping is the creation of printed or on-line (typically web-based) maps using specialized
Computer-Aided Design (CAD) or graphics software. Any such (static) maps are accurate at the time of
creation, but may quickly become out-of-date with new construction, street or building re-naming, or
temporary street closures, for example. It also refers to using hyperlinks to MapQuest® or Google™
Process Simplification-University Mapping Initiative
Page 3 of 27
Maps with an address embedded. These on-line maps are created using map information that may be
several years old and are easily confused by private zip codes such as 22908 for the Medical Center.
Geographic Information System (GIS) is essentially software that produces printed or on-line maps in a
manner which may appear very traditional, but which also incorporates the ability to relate or link tabular
(relational) data to objects on the maps. The result is the ability to create useful and interactive mapping
products limited only by the ability to divine relationships between the geographic, coordinate-based
objects and any available relational data.
At the University, for example, there are traditional “base maps”, which are layers of information
containing building shapes, roads, sidewalks, fire hydrants, trees, streams, etc. Each of these layers
contains individual objects which may be linked to a database that holds relational data about them.
Information for a building, for example, includes its official number, name, 911 address, year of
construction, and classification (academic, medical, athletic, housing, etc.).
Inherent with GIS systems and their ability to directly link objects with relational data is an enhanced
ability to perform technical analyses on information and to query specific subsets of map information.
For example, a GIS user might query information (map) all housing facilities greater than 50 years of age
within 700’ of the Rotunda and the fire hydrants in that area. This same linking and querying ability
mean GIS users no longer need to depend on the recreation of static maps but might view a map current,
to the extent data are maintained, at any time they desire by simply refreshing a page in their web
browser.
For the purposes of this initiative, maps, mapping, and GIS are generally related to those features outside
University facilities and not to internal “space”, or room-related, information or floor plan drawings.
IV. Approach to Work/ Evaluation & Assessment
The UMI team initially convened to discuss overall approach tactics and analysis tools. By consensus, the
team agreed to: 1) perform external benchmarking of peer institutional practices; 2) conduct an internal
survey of University departments acting as producers or consumers of maps and conduct more detailed,
follow-up interviews with the internal map producers; 3) evaluate/create a mapping request form
(workbook) to streamline map production; and 4) develop communication recommendations to educate
the University community on where and how to obtain mapping information and data.
For document management, a “Collab” website was established to share all resources, information and
reports among the team members.
1) External Benchmarking
The UMI team developed a survey in order to benchmark the University’s processes and resources
relating to mapping with those of other institutions (Appendix E). Twenty-four institutions were selected
to participate in this survey, based on their status as University peers or particular characteristics of the
institutions that were deemed important for comparison. The team constructed and distributed an
electronic survey instrument (Appendix D), and team members also contacted institutions for additional
information. Additional survey responses were solicited through a directed email of the Campus FM
Technology Association (formerly the National Collegiate Computer-Aided Design and Drafting (CADD)
Conference) user’s group community. Overall the response rate was high, and a total of 20 institutions
responded to the survey. Institutions responding were:
Process Simplification-University Mapping Initiative
Page 4 of 27
Brigham Young University, Clemson University, Georgia Institute of Technology, Lewis & Clark
College, Princeton University, Smith College, Southern Utah University, Stanford University, State
University of NY at Stony Brook, University of Florida, University of Iowa, University of Maryland
College Park, University of Massachusetts (Amherst), University of Michigan, University of NebraskaLincoln, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Vanderbilt University, Virginia Tech, and Yale
University
While there was a wide range in the answers provided, general trends emerging from the data are outlined
below.
Creation, management, and dissemination of mapping and GIS information: Most institutions
reported having either one to three offices involved in the gathering and analysis of mapping related data.
The facilities management departments tended to be the main department that handles map data gathering
and analysis. In addition, a significant number of respondents cited their space management, utilities, and
planning departments as being involved in the mapping process. In terms of staff devoted to data
gathering and analysis for mapping, a third of the institutions indicated having more than five full-time
equivalents (FTEs), with another third having two to three (Note that there was a variation in the size of
the institutions that corresponds to the number of FTE’s). In general, the survey results show that
personnel who maintain mapping products and services are heavily involved in both Computer Aided
Design (CAD) and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) work. Team members and those contacted at
the targeted institutions have confirmed that these two disciplines go hand-in-hand with mapping. Some
other additional responsibilities of mapping personnel included space management and construction
drawing management and planning. In general, responding institutions indicated that contracted (outsourced) map production fills only a small percentage of their mapping needs. The type of work that was
contracted out was primarily surveying and aerial photo acquisition, or “pictography”, so it appears that
most mapmaking is accomplished in-house.
Education, outreach, and miscellaneous issues: A variety of methods are used to educate faculty and
staff about mapping products or services at the surveyed institutions. Primary methods include webbased on-line training, workshops, and off-site training. The highest frequency response was education is
accomplished on an ad hoc basis, which indicates an absence of formal training and education tools. Ad
hoc also describes how maps are requested by the responding institutions as only roughly one fifth have
an on-line form for map requests. The clear majority of surveyed institutions absorb the cost of providing
mapping products and services as general overhead. Only one-fifth of the institutions have conducted a
needs analysis of their mapping programs.
In summary, the survey revealed that mapping tends to be a relatively unstructured endeavor that is
dispersed across several departments at the institutions. Most mapping costs are absorbed as overhead
and, with the exception of data servers, mapping equipment is not typically shared among departments.
Data tend to be developed in-house and maintained on an as-needed basis, both in CAD and GIS
platforms. In general, a formal map request procedure does not exist at surveyed institutions, but
educational opportunities for faculty and staff do exist to aid them in using mapping products. Although
the external benchmarking information indicate that the University is managing and providing mapping
and GIS resources in a similar manner as its peer institutions, there appears to be three areas where the
University lags behind its peers: education about available mapping products, centralizing data on servers
shared by multiple offices, and the availability of space utilization data to customers. Many of the
individuals contacted also expressed a desire to work towards having a more integrated and collaborative
environment (i.e. having at least certain resources centralized).
Process Simplification-University Mapping Initiative
Page 5 of 27
2) Internal Survey and Interviews
In addition to the UMI team, a separate GIS subgroup was established to support this project. The GIS
subgroup team members are:
Nicholas Bartley— Space and Real Estate Management
Bill Bond— Space and Real Estate Management
Todd Campbell – Medical Center
Shaun Farrell – Facilities Management
Chris Gist – Scholars’ Lab
Bill Palmer – Office of the Architect
The GIS subgroup performed several key tasks, including the development of an Internal User Survey, indepth interviews with internal users producing maps, and participation in UMI expanded team meetings
to discuss education and outreach ideas and cost savings opportunities.
The Internal User Survey (Appendix B) was distributed to 170 University staff soliciting information
about current unit-level mapping practices. Seventy-five survey responses were received for a response
rate of approximately 44%. Key findings of the survey are outlined below.
In general, departments use maps predominantly for their own use, distributing them almost equally via
the worldwide web and print form. Typically, a mixture of traditional location, orientation, and routing
based maps and data focused GIS based maps are produced. There is no clear understanding of when or
why maps and associated information are updated, and the perception is that updates to maps presented
via the worldwide web are inconsistent. Roughly one-fourth of departments depend on non-departmental
resources to create or update their maps, and most departments do not closely track the costs associated
with producing those maps. Almost one-third of respondents do not have a clear understanding of
available University mapping resources, and a majority of respondents felt there would be an advantage to
having central tools or resources available to help request a map. Almost one-third of the respondents are
not aware of mapping services available in University offices that house staff with specialized GIS
training, and a smaller number of respondents are unfamiliar with the University Web Map. In addition,
many freeform comments revealed frustration with maps not adequately representing construction
projects or progress as it relates to site work, road/traffic impacts, etc.
In addition to the user survey, more detailed user interviews were conducted with staff, who are actively
engaged in map creation. Being represented on the UMI team and the GIS subgroup, Facilities
Management, Space and Real Estate Management, and the University Architect’s Office were all
excluded from these interviews. For the questions posed during the Map Producer Interviews, see
Appendix C. Key findings of the interviews are outlined below.
Almost 150 maps of varying kinds are created annually in non-mapping or GIS focused offices. Most
individuals involved in map production do not have mapping responsibilities or associated skills
formalized in their job descriptions and, as a result, do not have specific mapping or GIS training. Map
creation consumes, on average, over 7% of these employees’ overall time, and yet, less than one-fifth of
those responding are using mapping or GIS specific software to create maps. Over half of the maps being
used as the basis for the creation of other maps emanate from Space & Real Estate Management and
Facilities Management. Most maps are updated ad hoc, usually less than once a year. Less than half of
those creating maps consult with anyone regarding their mapping project and do not appear to be availing
themselves of available resources. Two-thirds of those responding felt their mapping needs were being
met only minimally, while one-third felt their mapping needs were not being met. All those responding
indicated they would avail themselves of any potential centralized mapping resources.
Process Simplification-University Mapping Initiative
Page 6 of 27
3) Mapping Services Request Form (“Workbook”)
The GIS subgroup committee, comprised of those having advanced mapping and GIS skills and training,
convened to discuss and evaluate the potential for the creation and use of an on-line request form or
“workbook” which might expedite the creation of maps. The results of these discussions are contained
within Section V. (Existing Conditions, Core Findings, and Recommendations).
4) Communication Plan
The UMI team and the GIS subgroup convened together for a broad discussion on potential opportunities
to promote and maintain an awareness of mapping and GIS resources available to the University
community. The results of these discussions are contained within Section V. (Existing Conditions, Core
Findings, and Recommendations).
V. Existing Conditions, Core Findings, and Recommendations
A.
Existing Conditions: Although 75 map users were identified for the internal survey, most of these
users represent irregular or occasional consumers of mapping information already produced by two of the
four offices at the University that house dedicated mapping and GIS staff— Space & Real Estate
Management and Facilities Management. Other offices within the University with mapping and GIS staff
are: The UVa Library Scholars’ Lab and the Office of the Architect. A brief summary of the mapping
functions of these four offices is listed below.
•
•
•
•
Space & Real Estate Management (1 FTE)
o Surface Features – Information related to the topography of the land and the
improvements made upon it (buildings, roads, walkways, landscaping, etc.)
Facilities Management (2 FTE’s)
o Utility Features - Information typically related to utility infrastructure, including those
owned by the City of Charlottesville, Albemarle County, and utility providers, such as
Dominion Va. Power
The UVa Library Scholars’ Lab (2 FTE’s)
o Academic Support – Produces some maps for, and in support of, academic research and
instruction; also provides GIS software administration and consulting services (primarily
for students).
The Office of the Architect (1 FTE)
o Planning & Development – includes Land Use planning; builds upon basic SREM & FM
mapping information
The user surveys, interviews, and core UMI and GIS subgroup team knowledge and experience confirm
that most maps currently produced outside of these four offices, which is to say most maps currently
being produced, are generally adaptations or augmentations of basic Surface Features and Utility
Features maintained by SREM and FM. The focus of the findings and recommendations for this
initiative, therefore, centers on those surface and utility features maintained by Space & Real Estate
Management and Facilities Management since they are the foundation upon which most other maps are
currently being created.
Process Simplification-University Mapping Initiative
Page 7 of 27
B.
Core Findings: The production of University maps has historically been decentralized, and there
are a variety of map styles used across Grounds. The departments of Parking and Transportation,
Athletics, Police, Web Communications, University libraries, individual schools, the UVa Health System,
the Office of the Architect, Facilities Management, and Space and Real Estate Management all produce a
variety of maps. These entities share data and collaborate frequently but despite this collaboration, maps
and associated data are not always up-to-date or completely accurate. For example, some maps do not
show recently constructed facilities or amenities.
The University does not have a unified system of creating or distributing many valuable or necessary
intra-University maps. For example, any given map bearing the University’s name may have come from
one of twenty different University departments. Of those departments, only five currently employ staff
with specific and significant mapping and GIS training. In addition, much of the University community
is unaware of the mapping or GIS information available for the production of maps. This has resulted in a
variety of inefficiencies and inaccuracies which waste equipment and labor resources and create an
inconsistent product presented to the University community.
Although external benchmarking suggests the University is currently managing the production and
dissemination of mapping products and services consistent with its peers, there is a great deal of potential
to improve these processes and services and establish the University as a leader in this field. These
efforts also have the potential to realize cost savings for the University. C.
Recommendations: The recommendations below are intended to improve the efficiency of map
production and increase the accuracy of maps and thus, provide higher quality maps for users, both
internal and external to the University. The recommendations address five main areas: a) creating a new
central mapping unit for the University; b) centralizing base mapping resources; c) creating a user selfservice for maps; d) promoting the availability of mapping and GIS resources; and e) ensuring the new
central mapping unit regularly updates aerial flyover information. The following recommendations are
currently in the beginning stages of vetting among unit stakeholders and as such are neither definitive nor
binding. Next steps regarding adoption and implementation of these recommendations will be determined
in consultation with the unit stakeholders owning the mapping functions described below. a. Consolidate surface mapping functions – The UMI team recommends that the work functions
and associated staff within SREM (1 FTE) and FM (2 FTE’s), related specifically to the
development and maintenance of surface and utility map features, as well as associated
relational data, be consolidated to form a new organizational unit serving as a central
University-wide resource for mapping. This unit would develop and maintain the surface and
utility features that currently serve as the foundation upon which most other maps at the
University are built. Without further study, it is unclear if cost savings associated through
staff reduction could be achieved, although it seems reasonable that consolidation will
eliminate duplication of efforts.
Resources and responsibilities relating to “space” information currently maintained by SREM
and the Office of Health System Support would remain unchanged since this information is
fundamentally different and unique from the surface and utility mapping information
maintained by FM & SREM. See Section VII (Recommendations for Further Study) for
additional information on this topic.
In finalizing this recommendation, the UMI team evaluated options for the potential
placement of the new mapping unit. It was determined that either Space & Real Estate
Management or Facilities Management was the most logical potential locations as these
service organizations already house the functions proposed for consolidation. However,
Process Simplification-University Mapping Initiative
Page 8 of 27
further study is needed to determine the appropriate home for the new mapping unit. A
preliminary list of the pros and cons of creating a new unit to consolidate mapping functions
at the University is as follows:
•
Pros
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
•
Cons
o
o
o
o
o
Provides a central resource for the University community relating to
mapping.
Helps to establish the University as a leader in mapping and GIS.
Improves the opportunity for overall map branding and communications
within the University.
Minimizes the potential for redundant work being accomplished.
Promotes the use of best practices within the group and the University and
related efficiency for employees.
Minimizes or eliminates duplication of certain mapping or GIS information.
Maximizes the benefits of other recommendations, especially the
consolidation of physical resources (servers, software, etc.), minimizing file
maintenance activities and promoting improved disaster recovery efforts.
There may be some initial cost outlay to study this recommendation more
fully and, if it moves forward, to establish the new unit and transition
existing staff.
There will be a learning curve within the University community to be able to
fully understand and utilize the new unit.
A budget model for the new unit would need to be established from existing
budgets.
A clear understanding of the work scope for the new unit would need to be
established along with the development of new work processes.
As FTEs shift from existing offices to the new unit, there may be some
“growing pains” in the existing offices coping with the loss of certain
functions or having less direct access to performing certain work.
If a new mapping unit is established, it would be logical that the implementation of the
remaining recommendations would be the responsibility of this unit. However, if a new unit
is not created, it is still possible to realize some or all of the remaining recommendations
through the existing organizational structure. In this scenario, coordination and collaboration
among stakeholders will be critical for successful implementation of the remaining
recommendations.
b. Centralize base mapping resources – The current University Web Map
(http://www.virginia.edu/maps) is not regularly updated and does not take advantage of the
best available GIS software technology for mapping. The Office of Space & Real Estate
Management (SREM) is in the process of developing a new, interactive map to replace this
suite of existing, generally static, maps. Facilities Management is also in the process of
migrating to the same software platform being utilized by SREM for the new University Web
Map under development. The UMI team suggests that this effort be expanded to incorporate
base mapping layers for both SREM and FM. By synergizing the SREM and FM efforts, a
single homogenized development and maintenance environment for base mapping at the
University will be created. Participation and coordination from Web Communications and
Information, Technology, and Communications (ITC) would be required to accomplish this
effort. Centralizing resources in this way will provide the potential to:
Process Simplification-University Mapping Initiative
Page 9 of 27
•
•
•
•
•
•
Facilitate the creation of a UVA mapping “identity” with a standard look and feel.
This will improve many aspects of map creation and use and help to assert the
University presence as a leader in the mapping field.
Reduce the labor demand on offices currently producing maps.
Establish better map feature and data consistency since there will (generally) be a
single-point source for base map information.
Create a UVA-wide feedback loop for base map information meaning more eyes to
help expose errors or to suggest improvements.
Create the best possible mapping resources for items such as parking during special
events, and construction awareness and avoidance, improving the safety of students,
faculty, staff, and visitors.
Help to minimize a growing replication of mapping and GIS hardware and software
infrastructure and the capital and maintenance costs associated with same.
c. Create a user self-service for maps – Currently, users either create their own maps,
developing them from static instances of base map information, or go through a very iterative
process, working with mapping and GIS staff, to request and ultimately develop a map that
meets their needs. A two-part solution to improve this process is recommended.
•
The UMI team recommends an on-line solution be created to allow users to fill out a
form, or workbook, to help guide and refine their requests in advance. The request
form would likely have links to examples of different types of maps that could be
produced, both with respect to visual aspects and information content. This would
help to simultaneously educate the requestor and expedite the request being filled,
consuming fewer resources to develop the final map product.
•
As a result of centralizing base mapping resources, an improved opportunity exists to
create a mapping “self service” web site integrated with the recommended mapping
portal (see d. below). Through the self-service site, appropriately identified and
enabled end users (such as Parking & Transportation, the Office of the Architect, and
the Scholars’ Lab) would be able to create maps that they would have previously
requested from mapping or GIS staff, or attempted to create on their own. In
addition, as stated above, there are currently a significant number of maps produced
from static instances of base maps. Since this recommendation would facilitate maps
which are generated with data and information current at the time the user selects the
desired map features and data, the periodic investment of time to recreate these maps,
as map features or data change, is avoided. Significant savings in resources, mostly
in the form of labor hours, could result from the development of this self-service site.
d. Promote the availability of mapping and GIS resources – The internal survey and interview
work performed by the GIS subgroup revealed that there is a substantial portion of the
University community that may not be completely aware of all available mapping or GIS
resources. Centralizing mapping resources and providing a means for users to self-serve their
own maps will result in only marginal cost savings or quality improvements if efforts to
educate the community at-large about these resources are not identified and pursued. The
UMI team and the GIS subgroup collaborated to identify some possible opportunities for
outreach, which may be implemented so that the maximum benefits related to the other
recommendations may be realized. While the following opportunities for outreach will
generate additional costs initially, it is expected that the efficiencies gained over the long run
Process Simplification-University Mapping Initiative
Page 10 of 27
will result in net cost savings across Grounds. The recommendations are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Provide a web-based University Mapping Portal, acting as a clearinghouse of
information related to mapping and GIS resources at the University.
Create Print/web-based advertising in, for example, the Cavalier Daily, the LINK, or
the Alumni magazine, and provide additional information such as informational
brochures which might be available to faculty, students, staff, and visitors.
Provide periodic (email) announcements to user groups who participated in the
survey, creating an email list-serve of the internal and external mapping or GIS
community.
Hold promotional events such as GIS Day, soliciting media coverage where possible.
Hold workshops educating users on how to create maps. This may require
participation or development with ITC.
Create a wallet-sized or postcard-sized card with mapping and GIS information
similar to what exists for University libraries (a map that shows where the libraries
are located).
Provide mapping and GIS information at new employee orientation.
Publicize success stories (case studies) of people using mapping technologies and
resources in a productive way.
Explore and encourage Academic Collaboration. This could provide additional tools
for future use, labor resources to meet ongoing obligations, and, in general, promote a
healthy interchange between faculty, staff, and students.
e. Conduct Regular Aerial Flyovers – Aerial pictography provides the base map layers for all
University mapping including the aerial (flyover) image as well as lines and polygons related
to surface features (buildings, roads, walkways, landscaping, etc.). Currently, no specific
organizational responsibilities or funding mechanisms for keeping the aerial pictography upto-date exist. The recent growth of the University has rendered the current pictography less
valuable than preferred. Several external benchmarking survey questions related to the
collection, creation and maintenance of aerial flyover data (Appendix D). The UMI team
recommends that the new mapping unit be tasked with developing and implementing a plan
to update the aerial flyovers. Based on the fundamental nature of this information, the UMI
team recommends that the flyover information be updated at a minimum on a five-year cycle.
The UMI team did not have sufficient time to estimate potential cost increases and savings
associated with this recommendation, however, it is expected that net cost savings and quality
improvements will be a likely result.
VI. Conclusion and Follow-Up
The University has a relatively cohesive and unified system of creating maps and performing related
geographic information systems (GIS) work that is directly related to professional responsibilities.
However, the system for creating intra-University customer support maps is not cohesive and unified.
This has resulted in a variety of inefficiencies and inaccuracies, which waste equipment and labor
resources, and create an inconsistent product presented to the University community at-large.
The UMI team investigated this issue, performing external benchmarking of peer institutions, surveying
and interviewing University staff, and holding meetings to discuss possible improvements. The team’s
core recommendations are to create a new central mapping unit for the University; centralize base
mapping resources, create a user self-service for maps, promote the availability of mapping and GIS
resources, and assign responsibility to ensure that aerial flyover information is updated regularly. In the
Process Simplification-University Mapping Initiative
Page 11 of 27
absence of establishing a new unit, the other recommendations may be realized under the existing
organizational structure through deliberate collaboration and coordination among stakeholders.
Accomplishing these recommendations will improve the efficiency with which maps are produced and
increase the accuracy of the maps providing higher quality maps for users, both internal and external to
the University.
User survey information revealed that there is no specific cost-tracking occurring in most of the
University departments producing maps. As such, it is difficult to accurately assess any cost savings
associated with the recommendations made within this report. However, based on largely anecdotal
information from the map producer interviews and other acquired knowledge from UMI team members, it
is estimated that if all recommendations within this report are adopted and implemented, the University
can conservatively expect to save as much as $~185,000 annually. More detail about these prospective
cost savings is provided below.
•
Labor: Based on the user surveys and map producer interviews, it is estimated that creating the
new mapping unit, centralizing mapping resources, and providing a mapping self-service site will
save labor costs across Grounds. Consolidating personnel mapping activities across the
University is estimated to generate savings equivalent to two FTEs. One of these FTEs is
essentially associated with direct savings related to staff having ready access to a mapping selfservice site which would generally provide maps which meet their needs. The other FTE is
associated with more indirect savings related to reducing or eliminating inefficiencies and
redundant work. The FTEs are not actual, specific FTEs at the University, but rather are simply a
means of quantifying potential savings. The overall estimated annual labor savings, including
overhead, associated with implementing these recommendations is $~150,000. Examples of this
cost-savings potential include:
o
o
One University department had internal staff that spent 8 hours attempting to create a
specific map. After extreme frustration, they contacted SREM staff who were able to
create the desired map in less than an hour. With the recommended mapping self-service
site in place, the effort would be further expedited.
One University department solicited a proposal from an outside vendor to determine the
impact of construction projects on traffic at the University and disseminated that
information, primarily through mapping, The vendor’s proposal was over $~57,000.
Ultimately, the department availed themselves of FM GIS staff who perform the critical
portion of the vendor’s suggested scope at approximately $~2,000 annually.
•
Equipment and maintenance: By creating the new mapping unit and consolidating certain
equipment resources, such as plotters, servers, and GPS equipment, it is estimated that the
combined effect of reducing redundant equipment and maintenance, and cost avoidance related to
new equipment purchases and software/ hardware configuration is $~5,000 annually.
•
Quality, Branding, Education, & Outreach: It is expected that initial outreach efforts will
generate additional up-front costs. However, it is also expected that the return on this initial
investment will be significant and immediate, such that outreach efforts will result in a net cost
savings. While it is difficult to assess the potential cost savings associated with these issues, the
UMI team conservatively estimates the benefit of having a more knowledgeable University
community, both with respect to the nature and location of available resources, and a higher
quality of mapping products and services, at $~30,000 annually. This is based on approximately
one-quarter of the University community gaining the equivalent value of at least 5 minutes of
additional time as a result of improvements in these areas. In addition, time and effort saved as
noted under the above section on Labor (bullet item 1) can also be envisioned as an opportunity
Process Simplification-University Mapping Initiative
Page 12 of 27
for improved performance of UVa mapping systems. Based on the benchmarking data collected,
additional mapping can be useful to the University in areas far beyond the realm of mapping,
such as improved security, maintenance and repair, visitor wayfinding and experience, recruiting
of students and faculty, and additional academic resources.
VII. Recommendations for further study
“Space” Information – There are some ties between the “space” information, maintained by SREM and
the Office of Health System Support, and the surface and utility feature information maintained by SREM
and FM, including similarities with respect to the technologies used. However, this “space” information
is, for the most part, separate and unique. The UMI team recommends that regular meetings be held
between staff responsible for these two disparate sets of information so that, over time, any changes in
technology, organizational structure, or business processes can be reviewed as relates how, and to what
extent, these staff interact. Also, “space” information, especially considering the magnitude of the
University’s construction and renovation projects, is in constant need of maintenance. There are
enterprise-wide software systems in the marketplace to help maintain this kind of information which
provide improved user interfaces, functionality, and broader data accessibility. A future study evaluating
the potential for such a system is recommended.
New Technologies – There are always new technologies being developed which the University, and more
specifically, its mapping interests, might be able to take advantage of. Three technologies currently being
used and also developing are Pictometry , Building Information Modeling (BIM), and LIDAR.
Pictometry is a method for developing very useful 3-D imaging of structures and geographic features by
capturing a multitude of more traditional static images. It’s possible flyover data could be augmented to
provide such Pictometry for the University. Pictometry may be of most value for security or emergency
preparedness efforts but may also be just as useful for routing and location assistance. BIM is very much
still an emerging technology and standards are currently being developed. BIM is an improved method of
designing and developing construction documents, in 3-D, helping to ensure the constructability of
projects prior to construction. It also seeks to provide a single document model as an information base
relating to projects. LIDAR (LIght Detection And Ranging) is a remote sensing technique that uses laser
technology to collect information on a variety of measurable qualities of a site, including elevation,
vegetation type and tree canopy density and height. These qualities can be measured at far greater
accuracies than was previously possible before LIDAR techniques were developed. The UMI team
recommends that the GIS subgroup, and anyone tangentially involved with mapping and GIS, keep aware
of general industry trends and particularly these two technologies.
Google maps, Yahoo! Maps, and Similar Technologies – These kinds of technologies are ubiquitous
today, much like the worldwide web itself. They tend to be oriented towards consumers and certainly can
provide an intuitive, helpful interface. In this way these technologies have helped educate the internet
community as to the benefits of mapping and geospatial visualization. However, as stated previously,
these kinds of mapping tools are considered static in nature. Other potential issues for the University in
utilizing these technologies are:
1. A significant investment in programming would be required to mimic GIS functionality, i.e.
adjusting to changes in relational data.
2. Currently, there are important accuracy limitations on base-mapping layers. These limitations
would preclude their use for certain purposes, such as design and construction projects, utility
location, etc.
3. Currently, there is no ready means of providing analytical functions (geospatial queries, data
editing and analysis, etc.) within these technologies.
4. Use of other coordinate systems beyond the technology standard may be difficult or impossible.
Process Simplification-University Mapping Initiative
Page 13 of 27
5. These technologies tend to focus on user-added objects as simple points, not more complicated
shapes, such as would be typical of facilities, utilities, etc.
6. Mobile data collection use GPS is not available.
In essence, these technologies do not currently meet the University’s needs for core mapping and GIS
functions and services and so these core systems would still need to be maintained, serving as the
foundation for highly accurate base-mapping and analytical use. This means that any foray into Google or
similar mapping products would require separate, largely redundant, development and maintenance
efforts. This kind of redundant effort, while potentially useful on certain levels or for certain applications,
is inconsistent with the goals of the UMI team. The UMI team does recommend that any groups working
to develop and maintain maps for the University keep aware of improvements in these technologies,
which are under constant development, and revisit the issues outlined above, or others, as appropriate.
Education/ Outreach – Additional development needs to occur to fully realize the intended benefits of the
promotion of available mapping and GIS resources (item 4) d. above). The UMI team recommends that
the GIS subgroup work collaboratively to further develop the items listed above and, working through
their respective organizational units, build support and develop a plan for implementation.
Process Simplification-University Mapping Initiative
Page 14 of 27
APPENDIX A
UNIVERSITY MAPPING INITIATIVE
Final Scope
February 2009
Overview of Issue:
The production of University maps is decentralized and various map styles are used across Grounds. This
results in the potential for duplication of effort. The departments of Parking and Transportation,
Athletics, Police, Web Communications, Library, individual schools, the Medical Center, Office of the
Architect, Facilities Management, and Space and Real Estate Management (SREM) all produce maps for
various purposes. These entities share data and collaborate frequently, however, errors are still made
when updating and publishing University maps. For example, some maps do not show recently
constructed facilities or amenities.
Several University staff members in the Office of the Architect, Facilities Management, and SREM have
training in the field of Geographic Information Systems (GIS). These staff members are responsible for
ensuring relational and spatial mapping information is accurate and produce maps for the University
community. A trained GIS staff member has specific expertise to update maps and minimize the potential
for discrepancies. However, mapping errors do occur and are likely due to many factors, but early
research reveals the following:
•
•
•
the University community may be unaware of where current maps or information necessary to
produce maps resides;
departments may have redundant software or hardware platforms which are dissimilar or out-ofdate; information may not be up to date or be reviewed for accuracy; and
trained GIS staff members may not be fully utilized to update maps and minimize the potential
for discrepancies. GIS staff currently only resides in Office of the Architect, Facilities
Management, and SREM.
Much of the University community is unaware of the spatial and relational information available for the
production of maps. Centralizing mapping information or services may decrease the workload of some
employees, who create and manage department maps; make better use of equipment and materials; and
improve the accuracy of University maps.
Goal:
The goal of the team is to increase efficiency and accuracy in the production of University maps, and
realize cost savings. This will include leveraging GIS information maintained by SREM and Utilities
offices; determine stakeholder mapping needs; and setting standards for the maintenance of the GIS data.
Scope of Work and Objectives:
Establish a Process Simplification team to:
• explore ways to improve or formalize the University’s mapping processes;
• identify internal entities currently developing and/or utilizing mapping products;
• research costs incurred to University departments that outsource their mapping production;
• benchmark peer institutions to determine how mapping is handled;
• identify potential ownership of mapping services;
• determine ways to raise awareness of mapping services within the University community;
• explore cost recovery for use of mapping services;
Process Simplification-University Mapping Initiative
Page 15 of 27
•
•
•
develop a mechanism for customers to more efficiently request maps;
determine if current technologies can support all mapping needs; and
determine ways to collaborate with University constituents on mapping services.
Recommendations are expected to:
•
•
•
•
•
•
create a unified look and feel to all university maps;
produce accurate maps;
reduce duplication of efforts between mapping offices;
pool resources between offices and GIS staff;
realize cost savings for departments needing to purchase/house expensive plotting equipment to
print out large format maps; and
raise awareness within the University community on where/how to access/create maps.
Timeline:
The team will be created in January 2009, and is expected to provide a preliminary recommendations
report to the Process Simplification Advisory Committee in May 2009. Tentative implementation of
recommendations will occur July 1, 2009.
Team Members:
• Scott Martin, Team Lead, Facilities Management
• Julia Monteith, Office of the Architect
• Bill Palmer, Office of the Architect
• Garth Anderson, Facilities Management
• Nicholas Bartley, Space and Real Estate Management
• Todd Campbell, Medical Center
Potential Subgroups:
• GIS
Shaun Farrell – FM Utilities
Bill Bond—SREM
Nicholas Bartley—SREM
Bill Palmer –Architect
Todd Campbell – Medical Center
Chris Gist – Scholars’ Lab
•
Users Group
John Monceaux - P &T
Robert Larson & Reeyce Modny – Medical Center
Emma Edmonds - Web Communications
Nancy Tramontin -Web Communications
Jason Bauman and Mark Fletcher –Athletics
Earl Ward – FP&C
George Southwell – FP&C HS Division
Chris Gist – Scholars’ Lab
Sgt. Delvecchio – UPD
Trish Romer – Housing
John Robertson - ITC
Admissions
Development Office/Alumni Association
Process Simplification-University Mapping Initiative
Page 16 of 27
APPENDIX B
Internal User Survey
1. (Check the items that best apply to your department.) What types of maps do you use?
Location map
To display specific data
Physical map (basic features; roads, buildings, etc.)
Route map (trails, bus routes, etc.)
Informational map (points of interest, where to park, etc.)
82.6%
69.6%
92.8%
46.4%
55.1%
2. (Check the items that best apply to your department.)Where are your maps used?
Publications
Web sites
Internally
Email
Official documents
Visitor Information
Other
50.7%
62.3%
81.2%
40.6%
42.0%
49.3%
27.5%
3. Approximately how many maps does your department create internally each year?
0
1-2
3-4
5-6
7-8
9+
6.5%
16.1%
12.9%
6.5%
1.6%
56.5%
4. Approximately how many maps does your department request from a UVa department (such
as Facilities Management, Space and Real Estate, University Architect) each year?
0
1-2
3-4
5-6
7-8
9+
6.5%
29.0%
12.9%
9.7%
1.6%
40.3%
Process Simplification-University Mapping Initiative
Page 17 of 27
5. Approximately how many maps does your department order from an outside agency each
year?
0
1-2
3-4
5-6
7-8
9+
54.8%
14.3%
7.1%
7.1%
2.4%
14.3%
6. What is the approximate dollar amount your department spends on maps each year?
Range
Mean
Median
Mode
$0 – $250,000
$21,298.53
$100
$0
7. Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements:
SA
A
D
SD
NA
19.0% 48.3% 10.3% 8.6% 13.8%
5.4% 12.5% 35.7% 17.9% 28.6%
10.7% 44.6% 14.3% 3.6% 26.8%
Our maps are updated on a consistent schedule
Map updates are sent to us automatically
We have to request updates to our maps
8. How often are your maps updated?
4 times a year or more
Twice a year
Once a year
Every 2 years
Every 4 years or more
Other (as needed, continuously, on request)
20.8%
6.3%
20.8%
10.4%
2.1%
39.6%
9. When maps need updating, who does the work?
Original map creator
Update internally
Other UVa department who wasn’t the original map creator
Outside consultant
Other
53.7%
57.4%
14.8%
5.6%
13.0%
10. How would you describe the extent to which your department typically alters their maps?
No changes
Minor changes to base map (overlay a few labels and shapes)
Extensive changes to base map (adding/removing items & completely reshaping map)
Other
10.2%
49.2%
32.2%
8.5%
Process Simplification-University Mapping Initiative
Page 18 of 27
11. Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements:
The maps I currently use fit my needs well
The maps I currently use require improvement
I am satisfied with my current access to mapping products
I know where to go if I want a map created for me
I am satisfied with my current maps
The maps I currently use are aesthetically pleasing
The maps I currently use are accurate
I am not satisfied with the current methods for updating a map
I would find it useful to have a standard form or checklist for
requesting the production of a map from departments at UVa
I am familiar with the mapping services provided by SREM
and FM
I am familiar with the University’s online webmap
SA
22.0%
8.8%
20.3%
31.0%
19.0%
15.5%
15.3%
8.8%
8.8%
A
67.8%
40.4%
62.7%
37.9%
62.1%
65.5%
69.5%
56.1%
45.6%
D
10.2%
45.6%
15.3%
27.6%
17.2%
12.1%
11.9%
12.3%
24.6%
SD
0.0%
3.5%
1.7%
3.4%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
3.5%
3.5%
NA
0.0%
1.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
5.2%
1.7%
19.3%
17.5%
25.9%
43.1%
24.1%
6.9%
0.0%
22.0%
64.4%
8.5%
3.4%
1.7%
Process Simplification-University Mapping Initiative
Page 19 of 27
APPENDIX C
Internal Map Producer Interview Questions
Process Simplification-University Mapping Initiative
Page 20 of 27
APPENDIX D
External Benchmarking Survey
1. Total number of students, faculty, and staff (FTE’s)?
<10k
10-25k
25-50k
50-75k
>75k
14.3%
23.8%
47.6% (UVa)
9.5%
4.8%
2. Single campus?
Yes
No
52.4%
47.6% (UVa)
3. If multiple campuses, choose from below:
Multiple campuses, main plus minor (<5000 students, faculty, staff)
satellite campus(es)
Multiple campuses, main plus minor (>5000 students, faculty, staff)
satellite campus(es)
63.6% (UVa)
36.4%
4. Indicate approximate total acreage
<500
500-2000
2000-5000
5000-10000
>10000
35.0%
30.0%
10.0% (UVa)
10.0%
15.0%
5. Approximate number of facilities?
<200
200-400
400-600
600-800
>800
35.0%
25.0%
15.0% (UVa)
5.0%
20.0%
6. Approximate gross square footage (GSF)?
<2M
2-5M
5-10M
10-20M
20-30M
30-40M
>40M
10.0%
10.0%
0.0%
60.0% (UVa)
15.0%
5.0%
0.0%
Process Simplification-University Mapping Initiative
Page 21 of 27
7. Does the institution have a medical center?
Yes
No
47.6% (UVa)
52.4%
8. Amount of new construction work for the last three years (GSF)?
<50k
50-100k
100-250k
250-400k
>500k
15.0%
5.0%
20.0%
15.0%
45.0% (UVa)
9. How many offices are involved with data gathering or analysis for mapping?
0
1
2-3
4-5
>5
5.0%
35.0%
40.0% (UVa)
10.0%
10.0%
10. Which departments are involved with data gathering or analysis for mapping?
Facilities Management
Planning
Utilities
University Architect
Real Estate
Space Management
Other
70.0% (UVa)
40.0%
50.0% (UVa)
5.0% (UVa)
25.0% (UVa)
60.0% (UVa)
35.0%
11. How many FTE’s perform data gathering or analysis for mapping?
0
1
2-3
4-5
>5
Other
0.0%
26.3%
36.8%
5.3% (UVa)
31.6%
0.0%
Process Simplification-University Mapping Initiative
Page 22 of 27
12. For those staff who maintain mapping products or services, what other activities are they
responsible for?
GIS
CAD drafting
Space management
Construction drawing library
Planning
Building Information Modeling (BIM) coordination
Other
84.2% (UVa)
94.7% (UVa)
68.4% (UVa)
52.6%
42.1% (UVa)
10.5%
26.3%
13. What percentage of mapping services do you contract out?
None
<10%
10-25%
25-50%
50-75%
>75%
All
26.3% (UVa)
31.6%
21.1%
15.8%
5.3%
0.0%
0.0%
14. How do you educate faculty and staff about using or expanding your mapping products?
Offsite training
Website/Online training
Brochure
Workshops
Ad hoc
Other
25.0%
45.0%
5.0%
35.0%
50.0% (UVa)
0.0%
15. What is the method of cost recovery for mapping products or services?
Hourly rate
Produced maps
Absorbed as overhead expense
Other
10.0% (UVa)
10.0%
80.0% (UVa)
20.0%
16. How often do you collect aerial data for your campus?
As needed
Designated time frame
Range
Mean
Median
Mode
57.9% (UVa)
42.1%
Every year – Every 5 years
Every 2.18 years
Every 2 years
Every year
Process Simplification-University Mapping Initiative
Page 23 of 27
17. How do you collect aerial data?
Entire campus at once
Individually by section
90.0% (UVa)
20.0%
18. Have you performed a needs analysis of your mapping products or services?
Yes
No
26.3%
73.7% (UVa)
19. For multi-office mapping groups, do you share common:
Server(s)
Plotter(s)
GPS equipment
83.3%
33.3%
50.0%
20. Are all mapping services on the same software platform?
Yes
No
40.0%
60.0% (UVa)
21. Which software do you use?
Autodesk
ESRI
Combination of software
Other
85.0% (UVa)
85.0% (UVa)
20.0%
20.0%
22. Do you have an online form for mapping requests?
Yes
No
15.0%
85.0% (UVa)
23. Do you have an online visitor or patient directional mapping service?
Yes
No
40.0% (UVa)
60.0%
Process Simplification-University Mapping Initiative
Page 24 of 27
24. What level of detail is available to various customers?
Within facilities management,
planning, utilities
University staff
Special account
Public
Utility
information
100.0%
(UVa)
26.7%
40.0%
(UVa)
0.0%
Campus map
with layers
84.2%
(UVa)
93.3%
(UVa)
80.0%
(UVa)
43.8% (UVa)
Space
utilization
73.7%
Maps linked to
special databases
68.4%
Directional
Maps
47.4%
66.7%
26.7%
60.0%
70.0%
40.0%
50.0%
12.5%
12.5%
56.3%
25. Is the above information:
Static
Dynamic
Both
21.1%
10.5%
68.4%
Process Simplification-University Mapping Initiative
Page 25 of 27
APPENDIX E
External Benchmarking Survey Results
As part of the University Mapping Initiative, the team developed a survey in order to benchmark UVa’s
GIS mapping approach / systems with other institutions. Twenty four institutions were selected to
participate in this survey, based on their status as UVA peers and/or particular characteristics of the
institution that were deemed important for consideration and comparison. For instance, the team
recognized the difference between public and private, urban and rural, comparable land acreage, inclusion
of a medical center, and the variation in GIS use for mapping in their selection of benchmarking
institutions. Implementation of the benchmarking was managed by several team members, by providing
the survey to the benchmarking institutions and following up with assistance to complete the survey
(please see Appendix D for survey questions). Overall the response rate was good, and a total of 20
institutions responded to the survey. While there was a wide range in the answers provided, general
trends that resulted in the data are as follows.
For reference the approximately 1,200 acres main campus of the University has a daytime population of
approximately 33,500 persons. The University has approximately 580 facilities totaling about 15 million
gross square feet and there has been more than 500,000 GSF of new construction in the last three years.
The general profile of the institutions from the survey response confirms that in size and composition, the
majority of the respondents are similar to the University. Half of the institutions have daytime
populations (students, faculty and staff) of between 25 and 50 thousand persons. Half of the institutions
have a single campus, like the University. Schools with multiple campuses tend to have a major campus
and one or more, smaller satellite campuses with populations of less than 5,000. In terms of size, 63% of
campuses are 2,000 acres or less. About 1/3 have less than 200 facilities on their campus, 58% have 400
or less facilities and 75% have 600 or less facilities. There was no definition of what comprises a facility,
but at UVA a facility is typically a building, but can also include sheds and open-walled pavilions. 60%
of the institutions reported their total gross square footage as 10 to 20 million, while 20% had more than
that and 20% had less. The University of Virginia has a large medical center - in comparison half of the
institutions reported having a medical center. In terms of new construction, a plurality (47%) have
constructed more than 500,000 gross square feet of space in the last three years. The other responses
were evenly distributed between four intervals of 0 to 400,000 GSF.
The second half of the survey focused on questions related to how the institutions create, manage and
disseminate mapping and GIS information. An equal number of respondents (7) reported having either
one, or between two and three offices involved in the gathering and analysis of mapping related data.
Four respondents reported having four or more offices involved and one respondent reported no office
involved. UVA has two offices involved in data gathering and analysis: Space and Real Estate and
Facilities Management. With a 68% response rate, facilities management is the main department that
handles map data gathering and analysis. In addition, a significant numbers of respondents cited their
space management (58%), utilities (48%), planning (37%) and other (37%) departments as involved in the
mapping process. In terms of manpower devoted to data gathering and analysis for mapping, 39% have
2-3 full time equivalents (FTEs), 33% have more than 5 FTEs and 22% have 1 FTE. UVA has 4 to 5
FTEs. In general, UVA and the surveyed institutions report that personnel that maintain mapping
products and services are also heavily involved in both GIS and CAD drafting. These two disciplines go
hand in hand with mapping. Other additional responsibilities of mapping personnel included space
management, construction drawing management and planning. 54% of respondents report that they
contract out 10% or less of their mapping work. Only one respondent said they contract out more than
50% of their mapping work. The type of work that was contracted out was primarily surveying and aerial
photo acquisition, so it appears that most mapmaking is accomplished in-house at the surveyed
institutions as well as at the University.
Process Simplification-University Mapping Initiative
Page 26 of 27
Education and outreach are of particular interest to the University mapping initiative. A variety of
methods are used to educate faculty and staff about using mapping products at the institutions surveyed.
Primary methods include website/on-line training, workshops and off-site training. The majority of
respondents cited one or more of those methods. The most popular single response, though, was that
education is accomplished on an ad hoc basis, which indicates an absence of formal training and
education tools. UVA reported that education is only conducted on an ad hoc basis. By comparison, 36%
of respondents listed ad hoc as their only means of education. Ad hoc also describes how maps are
requested by UVA and the responding institutions as only 16% of respondents have an on-line form for
map requests. Also of primary interest to the mapping initiative was to see how other institutions handle
cost recovery for their mapping programs. The clear majority (79%) absorb the cost of providing
mapping products and services. Several respondents report charging an hourly rate for services or having
a set fee for maps that they produce. The University responded similarly with cost recovery either being
absorbed as overhead, or being billed out as an hourly rate. Only 20% of the institutions have conducted a
needs analysis of their mapping programs. The University has not conducted a needs analysis.
Several survey questions related to the collection, creation and maintenance of data and maps. The
survey results were similar to the situation at UVA. Like UVA, about 2/3’s of the institutions report that
aerial data is acquired on an as-needed basis; the rest maintain a designated schedule for aerial data
collection. Also like UVA, most (90%) schools conduct a flyover of their entire campus all at one time
when collecting aerial data. So while aerial data is collected on an as-needed basis, the institutions take
the opportunity to get data for the entire campus. On the hardware side, most mapping groups within an
institution share data servers, but do not share plotting or GPS equipment. At UVA, nothing is shared. A
majority report that mapping services utilize both Autodesk (CAD) and ESRI (GIS), as is the case at
UVA. The University does maintain an on-line visitor and patient directional mapping service, but 63%
of respondents reported that they do not. However a quick perusal of institution websites shows that most
do have some sort of visitor map available on-line. A variety of data is available to mapping customers.
At the departmental level most personnel have access to a full spectrum of maps and mapping data, like
utility information, base mapping data and space utilization data. At the university level, access to utility
data drops off, but access to base mapping and space utilization data remains high. This information is
also available at similar rates to special account holders. It is not known who the special account holders
are, but in some cases they might be consultants who are doing work at the institution. For the most part,
the public consistently has access only to directional maps and base maps with occasional access to space
utilization data and other specialized data. No schools provide utility data to the public. The maps and
data maintained by the respondents is a mixture of static and dynamic formats - the survey did not glean
the proportion of static data to dynamic data. Data access and status at the University mirrors that of the
majority of survey respondents, with the exception being that space utilization data is not available.
In conclusion, mapping tends to be a relatively unstructured endeavor that is spread out across several
departments at the institutions that responded to the survey. Most mapping costs are absorbed as
overhead and with the exception of data servers, mapping equipment is not shared among departments.
Data tends to be developed and maintained in-house on an as-needed basis and maintained on both CAD
and GIS platforms. In general, a formal map request procedure does not exist at surveyed institutions, but
educational opportunities for faculty and staff do exist to aid them in using mapping products. The
overall situation at UVA reflects these trends. However, there appears to be three areas where the
University lags its peers: education about available mapping products, centralizing data on a single server
that is shared by multiple offices and in the availability of space utilization data to customers.
Process Simplification-University Mapping Initiative
Page 27 of 27