APPENDIX B 

LITERATURE REVIEW

1. Ayan, Danielle. 2003. Compiling a Business Case for a State GIS Clearinghouse. ESRI 

Education User Conference 2003.

Summary

The Georgia Tech Center for GIS compiled the Business Plan Business Case for the Georgia Geographic 

Information Systems Coordinating Committee (GISCC). The intent of the business case is to 

economically justify the existence of the GISCC and the State Data Clearinghouse it oversees. Because 

Clearinghouse benefits are mostly intangible—i.e., increasing data accuracies—and because literature 

regarding Clearinghouse valuation approaches is scarce, it is difficult to perform a proper cost analysis 

supporting the GISCC and Clearinghouse. The resulting business case, however, quantifies benefits 

wherever possible and delivers a strong message of the benefits to cost advantage. 

Excerpts 

“On average, the Clearinghouse daily Internet data download is 1.7 Gb and 750 Mb from other means of 

data dissemination. The user base grows by an average of 366 members per month (based on 2002 

statistics). These statistics alone reveal public dependency on the State Clearinghouse and justify its 

existence.” 

“A case-in-point of a current GIS application benefiting multiple stakeholders (state and local 

governments and private industry) financially and efficiently is the timber industry and Georgia 

Department of Revenue’s Property Tax Division’s joint Timber Assessment Satellite Imagery Project. 

The project consolidates many different datasets into an easy-to-use application for the identification of 

land cover changes. The data includes Georgia Department of Transportation road network coverage, 

1993 Georgia DOQQs, digital topographical maps, and two years of satellite imagery. By comparing 

ground cover change detection derived from satellite imagery analysis, a GIS application has been created 

to delineate areas of timber harvest. This program is distributed to all Georgia counties via CD-rom. 

Harvested areas are displayed graphically atop DOQQs allowing tax assessor staff to cross-reference 

property owners with timber taxes paid or unpaid. Although incentives and penalties encourage harvesters 

to pay timber taxes, it can be estimated that counties only collect approximately 75% of due timber taxes. 

The DOR Satellite Imagery Project application allows Georgia counties to properly assess harvested 

acreage. 

“... five key areas of impact that the Clearinghouse will implement with continued commitment. 

1. Expedited service: electronic data download via FTP (including large datasets, such as

 imagery) 

B-1 
2. Additional datasets: Clearinghouse will encourage fresh data contributions via state and local 

agency inventories. 

3. Integration with Georgia.gov: Clearinghouse Web site will be revamped to include dynamic 

content, easier access to data, and easier navigability. Pending Georgia Technology Authority 

approval, it will be integrated with Georgia.gov as a Sub-portal site complying with state 

requirements and support. 

4. Better cost-recovery: for-fee data (i.e., imagery) will be more accurately priced and will have 

more added value, i.e., new products will be built atop the standard DOQQ, such as MrSid files, 

.jpg files, etc. 

5. E-commerce functionality: Clearinghouse purchases will be improved, and data will be 

streamed via the Internet thereby expediting customer receipt and greatly reducing clearinghouse 

time and materials.”

______________________________________________________________________________

2. Xirgu, Dani. 2003. Generating Metadata: Saving Money in the Organizations. 9th EC GI & 

GIS Workshop, ESDI Serving the User, A Coruña, Spain, 25-27 June 2003.

Summary 

This study examines how to quantify the final costs and benefits in the process of geographic metadata 

creation. The study is focused on the personnel involved in the process: hours invested, directly or 

indirectly, and salaries. Also, it considers the personnel training concerning the program and the metadata 

standard. 

Excerpts 

The metadata must contribute to the value of the geographic data. It must “increase the exchange 

information and the economic transactions of the spatial information producing companies. ...many 

companies show certain distrust in concepts like interoperability, interchange, metadata... whether for 

excessive secrecy ... This study has tried to demonstrate ... that the cost of the metadata creation is not 

excessively high and, in addition, it’s easily recoverable....” Metadata should be viewed as an investment 

that will produce benefits. 

______________________________________________________________________________

3. MetroGIS Staff. December 2004. Performance Measurement Report for the period October 1, 

2003 through September 30, 2004. Report was prepared by MetroGIS Staff, accepted by the 

B-2 
MetroGIS Coordinating Committee on December 15, 2004, and approved by the MetroGIS 

Policy Board on January 26, 2005.

Background 

In early 2002, MetroGIS developed a Performance Measurement Plan to more clearly state expected 

accomplishments, to demonstrate accountability for results, and to support continuous organizational 

improvement. MetroGIS’s mission is to provide an ongoing, stakeholder-governed, and metrowide 

mechanism through which participants easily and equitably share geographically referenced graphic and 

associated attribute data that are accurate, current, secure, of common benefit, and readily usable. 

Report Contents 

The report reviews Performance Measures (PM) for MetroGIS as follows: 

A. Outcomes for Data Users – Ease-of-discovery and access 

PM #1: Visitor sessions to DataFinder web site 

PM #2: Datasets downloaded through DataFinder 

PM #3: Sector/stakeholder groups 

PM #4: Datasets and metadata records on Data Finder 

B. Outcomes related to Users – Data Currency 

PM #5: Percent of Datasets Updated 

C. Outcomes related to Producers – Internal efficiencies; level of cooperation 

PM #6: Manual vs. self-service requests for data (by producer type) 

PM #7: Staff time saved in data distribution tasks (by producer type) 

PM #8: Entities listing metadata records on DataFinder 

PM #9: Entities using DataFinder and DataFinder Cafe as a data distribution 

method 

D. Ultimate Outcomes – Improved decision-making and better service to the public 

PM # 10: Testimonials (Non-quantitative) 

B-3 
______________________________________________________________________________

4. Pluijmers, Yvette. 2002. The Economic Impacts of Open Access Policies for Public Sector 

Spatial Information. Presented at FIG XXII International Congress, Washington, D.C., USA, 

April 19-26 2002.

Summary 

Governments around the world are the largest producers of spatial information. Public sector spatial 

information is a major, but so far under-exploited asset, which could and should be a fundamental 

building block of the new economy and the information society. 

United States federal information policy is based on the premise that government information is a 

valuable national resource and that the economic benefits to society are maximized when government 

information is available to all. However, other governments do not necessarily share this view and are 

sometimes treating their information as a commodity to be commercialized. Arguments to support open 

access policies have primarily focused on the fact that the information has already been paid for by 

taxpayers who should not be charged a second time for it. Although these arguments are convincing to 

many, they are not yet strong enough to convince all governments to abandon short-sighted attempts to 

raise relatively small sums of immediate revenue in favor of adopting policies which maximize economic 

benefit—particularly jobs and wealth—encourage scientific and technological research and development, 

and ultimately maximize general tax revenues in the longer term. This paper provides an economic 

argument to go towards open access policies. Based on the specific economic characteristics of spatial 

information and both qualitative and quantitative research on economic effects it is argued that open 

access policies are beneficial in the short term as well as in the longer term for the general public, the 

private sector, and also for government entities. 

Excerpts 

“The consensus of recent research is that charging marginal cost of dissemination for public sector 

information will lead to optimal economic growth in society and will far outweigh the immediate 

perceived benefits of aggressive cost recovery. Open government information policies foster significant, 

but not easily quantifiable, economic benefits to society.” 

“High prices for information ultimately lead to predatory and anticompetitive practices, like price 

dumping, and the creation of government owned corporations or joint ventures with preferred private 

sector entities that may serve to exclude others from the market.” 

“Some government agencies are willing to liberalize their policies, but fear they will suffer budget 

consequences ... open data policies will create wealth and tax revenues more than adequate to offset the 

short term losses and to fully fund agency information activities ... open access to government 

information is critical to the information society, environmental protection, and economic growth.” 

B-4 
______________________________________________________________________________

5. Booz Allen Hamilton. January 2002. XML.gov Registry/Repository Business Case

Summary 

The purpose of this business case analysis (BCA) is to provide the justification for the XML.gov 

Registry/Repository, based on an analysis of its cost, value, and risk. The primary business driver for the 

BCA is to address the need for the coordination and interoperability of Extensible Markup Language 

(XML) registry/repositories sponsored by federal agencies. 

This XML.gov Registry/Repository BCA was prepared using the Value Measuring Methodology (VMM). 

VMM provides a structure in which a broader range of benefits than those considered in a traditional costbenefit analysis are captured and quantified. This approach is compliant with guidance from the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) and incorporates both public and private sector analytical best practices. 

Accordingly, this business case documents the analysis and comparison of the costs, value (benefits), and 

risks of initiative alternatives analyzed using VMM. 

Excerpts 

“The eXtensible Markup Language (XML) has emerged as a key technology to assist commercial and 

government organizations in exchanging information and conducting business over the Internet. Groups 

of public and private organizations are using XML today to define standard data components and business 

processes that can be built into Web applications, enabling them to use the Internet in innovative ways. 

As communities of interest define XML elements to be used in their business transactions, other business 

partners seeking to implement XML solutions—either within these particular communities or for their 

own internal use—can access the results of these standardization efforts. These XML definitions can be 

published via XML registries, which are data stores created according to industry standards to facilitate 

the sharing and reuse of XML artifacts. Several such registries have been and are currently being 

established by agencies of the federal government to support the use of XML technology in IT projects.” 

“The current federal XML environment is characterized by a patchwork of initiatives with varying goals. 

There is no common definition of what a government-sponsored XML registry or repository should 

contain. ... Once implemented, the XML.gov Registry/Repository initiative will enable suppliers of 

goods, services and IT to share information seamlessly with their government customers. Both application 

owners (AOs) in agencies and their user communities will benefit from the transactional, technological, 

and communications efficiencies that a coordinated Federal XML effort would deliver.” 

 

B-5 
______________________________________________________________________________

6. Montgomery County, Maryland. 1999. Geographic Information System Cost/Benefit 

Assessment Report M-NCPPC. Submitted to: Montgomery County Council’s Management and 

Fiscal Policy Committee April 12, 1999.

Abstract 

A “Benefit Assessment Report” was prepared in November 1997. This 1999 report was prepared by using 

the original report’s format. The information has been updated and expanded to reflect the benefits. MNCPPC has traditionally performed a variety of map and geographic analysis functions. A standard set of 

property maps has been maintained and updated for years. GIS implementation began in 1989, following 

the preparation of a feasibility study and a implementation plan. A pilot project was conducted in 

coordination with Montgomery and Prince George’s County Executives and WSSC. Large-scale map 

database development began in 1992 following an evaluation of the pilot project. The basemap 

development was completed, on schedule, in July 1997. 

Currently, the GIS has been implemented and is operational throughout the county. Many departments 

and agencies are now using GIS to support their functional operations. MNCPPC is performing 

maintenance on the basemaps and developing additional coverage, such as the street address and zoning. 

The property coverage is updated daily, and a maintenance plan has been developed for the 

planimetric/topographic coverage. 

Excerpts 

“The ability to analyze and compare areas in the County, with uniform data, provides a decision-making 

tool, which was almost impossible before the GIS.” 

“...it could take weeks or months to produce a certain map, while with the GIS not only is it faster, but 

different options can now be tried with the saving of preparation time.” 

“The maps produced in this group are all special types of maps that would have been quite difficult (i.e., 

legislative district) or impossible (the conference maps) to produce without GIS.” 

“M-NCPPC is just beginning to realize that the savings/benefits of the GIS are not only quite varied, but 

can also be unexpected. Some of these benefits were anticipated while others are a pleasant surprise. One 

such surprise is the saving of file space and work hours needed to file copies of the basemaps. Now that 

current copies of the basemaps are readily accessible, maintaining a file of the maps is unnecessary. This 

frees staff up to do other tasks, but also frees up floor space in an already crowded building.” 

B-6 
______________________________________________________________________________

7. Fries, T. James, Annie Metcalf, and Dr. Lisa Warnecke. 2001. Final Best Practices Report for 

the Ohio Spatial Data Cost-Benefit Analysis. Prepared for: Stuart R. Davis Ohio State Project 

Manager and Executive Director Ohio Geographically Referenced Information Program. 

Summary 

This report provides a summary of information from 15 selected states. The focus is on statewide 

geographic information and related technology (GI/GIT); including funding sources to support statewide 

data development, management, and maintenance; and approaches supporting a more comprehensive 

approach to statewide data management 

The primary focus is on funding sources: 

• Dedicated Funds 

• Mission-driven Funding 

• Assessments on Agencies 

• Central and Capital Funding 

• Cost Recovery 

The advantages and disadvantages of these funding sources are discussed. 

Excerpts 

“Approaches to funding state spatial data development and coordination vary significantly. However, one 

point that was very clear was the use of multiple funding sources by the majority of states to support their 

efforts. The majority of states have a primary funding source augmented with several other secondary 

sources in support of spatial data development and coordination.” 

“These 15 states and many others have successful programs because they have a maintained, stable, and 

reliable funding level. This has been key to the development of their spatial data management and GIS 

coordination programs.” 

______________________________________________________________________________

8. McInnis, Logan and Stuart Blundell. 1998. Analysis of Geographic Information Systems 

Implementations in State and County Governments of Montana. Prepared for: The Montana 

Geographic Information Council, October 1998.

B-7 
Summary 

The Montana Geographic Information Council perceived a need for an economic analysis of geographic 

information system (GIS) implementations at the state and county government levels. This study was 

commissioned for the dual purpose of determining the monetary benefits for justification of GIS 

implementation and devising a set of guidelines for planning future GIS implementations at the state and 

local government levels. 

The Gillespie regression model was used to measure economic benefits for a number of case studies of 

GIS implementation by state and local government agencies in Montana. Economic benefits were 

estimated from key GIS applications utilized by each agency included in the case study. The costs and 

benefits of GIS revealed some important benefits of using the model. First, the model allows effectiveness 

benefits to be estimated in a straightforward manner. In addition, the model deals with GIS on an 

application-by-application basis. 

Excerpts 

“GIS implementation should focus first on applications, not data”

“The primary focus of our study was to identify benefit/cost analysis methods and apply them to a 

number of case studies ... The nine case studies described in Section 3 provide excellent examples on 

how to apply the Gillespie model ...” 

 “The other goal of the study was to summarize the lessons agencies have learned thus far in their efforts 

to implement GIS. If there was one question that was easy for the interviewees to answer, it was the 

question about the lessons they have learned. Every person we talked to was certain about what things had 

caused the greatest problems. GIS implementation does not happen smoothly without a great deal of 

planning and coordination. If this report can save other agencies from experiencing some of these same 

difficulties, then it has achieved its second goal as well.” 

______________________________________________________________________________

9. Thomas, Christopher and Milton Ospina, Editors. 2004. Measuring up the Business Case for 

GIS. ESRI Press. 

Description 

This book offers case studies about companies and government agencies that have implemented GIS 

solutions to meet business goals and how their successes with this technology measure up in: 

• Saving money and time 

• Increasing efficiency, accuracy, productivity, communication and collaboration 

B-8 
• Generating revenue 

• Supporting decision-making 

• Aiding budget development 

• Building information bases 

• Managing resources 

It presents 75 articles from 22 business sectors. The book describes not only what people are doing with 

GIS, but how these new business processes have improved communities and organizations. 

______________________________________________________________________________

10. Koontz, Linda D. 2003. Geographic Information Systems Challenges to Effective Data 

Sharing. GAO-03-874T, Testimony before the Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, 

Intergovernmental Relations and the Census, Committee on Government Reform, House of 

Representatives.

Excerpts 

“The federal government has tried to reduce duplicative geospatial data collection by coordinating GIS 

activities within and outside the federal government. For example, in 1990, the Office of Management 

and Budget established the Federal Geographic Data Committee to promote the coordinated use, sharing, 

and dissemination of geospatial data nationwide. In 1994, the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) 

program was established by executive order to address the problem of the redundancy and incompatibility 

of geospatial information on a national basis. More recently, Geospatial One-Stop, a component of NSDI, 

was initiated.” 

“Federal, state, and local government agencies are using GIS today to provide vital services to their 

customers. For example, local fire departments can use geographic information systems to determine the 

quickest and most efficient route from a firehouse to a specific location, taking into account changing 

traffic patterns that occur at various times of day. Highway departments use GIS to identify intersections 

that have had a significant number of personal injury accidents to determine needs for improved traffic 

signaling or signage. GIS can also be an invaluable tool in ensuring homeland security by facilitating 

preparedness, prevention, detection, and recovery and response to terrorist attacks.” 

“Developing common geospatial standards to support vital public services has proven to be a complex 

and time-consuming effort. The number of types of geospatial data and the complexity of those data make 

developing geospatial standards a daunting task.” 

B-9 
“In summary, a coordinated nationwide network of geographic information systems offers many 

opportunities to better serve the public, make government more efficient and effective, and reduce costs.” 

______________________________________________________________________________

11. SAIC, 2001. Final Report: Requirements and Cost Benefit Analysis Managing Geospatial 

Data for Better Program Delivery a Service Center Initiative. Prepared for 

United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Beltsville, Maryland. 

Summary

The focus of this study is the three Service Center Agencies of the United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA): 

 Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and Conservation District (CD) partners 

 Farm Services Agency (FSA) 

 Rural Development Agencies (RD) 

The three Service Center Agencies share a common high-level mission to enhance the quality of life for 

the American people by supporting agricultural production while upholding a healthy and productive 

nation in harmony with the land. Although the mission is the same, the individual business requirements 

vary from one agency to another. 

The tasks for this study were: 

 Review and validation of the business requirements of the three Service Center Agencies and 

partners. 

 Identification of emerging technologies that will affect geographic information systems (GIS) in 

the next 5 to 10 years. 

 Development of potential geospatial information architectures (GIA) for the three Service Center 

Agencies and partners. 

 Estimation of benefits, life-cycle costs, and other financial metrics for potential GIAs. 

 Development of recommendations regarding GIAs that are balanced among the technological, 

cost-benefit and cultural/political realities of the organizations. 

Excerpts 

“The CBA results support the investment in GIS for all three alternatives. However, the case is much 

stronger for the to-be distributed and to-be mixed alternatives.” 

B-10 
“ In this analysis, all three had a positive NPV.” 

“GIS provides several benefits that accrue to both the USDA and its customers but are difficult to assess 

quantitatively. Following is a list of some of the qualitative benefits of GIS: 

• Ability to use geospatial information to make informed business decisions. 

• Faster access to more current and accurate geospatial information. 

• Improved map quality and access to a common base map. 

• Elimination of redundant work and data, resulting in reduced Service Center workload. 

• Accurate data development. 

• Efficient analysis tool. 

• User-friendly querying techniques” 

“The as-is alternative is not an acceptable solution. It supports only 25% of the business requirements. It 

also has a negative cost-benefit relationship as it costs about $60 million more than it returns and it has a 

number of technical weaknesses.” 

“The table below summarizes the financial, technical and organizational rankings of the three “to-be” 

alternatives. The To-Be Centralized Alternative is consistently the third choice. The To-Be Distributed 

Alternative is clearly the best choice financially and organizationally. It ranks second technically as it 

does not support all of the business requirements and has a worse ratio of pros to cons than the To-Be 

Mixed Alternative. However, its financial results, the organizational realities and its strong showing in the 

technical areas make the To-Be Distributed Alternative the recommended choice.” Net Present Value Risk Adjusted Benefit Cost Ratio Internal Rate of Return Payback Year Pros and Cons Requirements Supported 

Organizational 

Solution 

Recommended 

Solution 

To-Be 

Distributed 

Alternative 

$596 M 

Best 

1.97 

Best 

86% 

Best 

2004 

Best 

6 to 3 

Second 

85% 

Second 

Best Best 

To Be 

Centralized 

Alternative 

$18 M 

Third 

1.02 

Third 

6% 

Third 

2010 

Third 

4 to 6 

Third 

80% 

Third 

Third Third 

To-Be 

Mixed 

Alternative 

$361 M 

Second 

1.35 

Second 

49% 

Second 

2005 

Second 

9 to 2 

Best 

100% 

Best 

Second Second 

B-11 
______________________________________________________________________________

12. Cahan, Bruce. 2004. The Value Proposition for Geospatial One-Stop. A Report Prepared by 

Urban Logic, Inc. for the Federal Geographic Data Committee.

Summary 

Geospatial One-Stop (GOS) is one of 24 e-government initiatives of President Bush, within the cluster 

aimed at improving government-to-government operations. GOS leverages investments that federal 

agencies make in spatial data standardization, cataloguing, and accessibility. Such spatial data is often a 

product or by-product of federal operations under a diverse cascade of statutory and executive 

requirements. 

A two-step approach to valuing GOS requires first, knowing the value of spatially enabling the federal 

enterprise (spatial readiness), and second, determining how much of a fully spatially-ready federal 

enterprise GOS accelerates. Thus, GOS’ value depends on how much faster it causes agencies to perform 

as parts of a spatially-ready federal enterprise. 

The federal budget for FY ’04 exceeded $2.4 trillion, of which $58 billion (2.4%) will be spent on 

information technology. Ideally, step one would quantify how much federal agencies spend on spatial 

readiness—the institutional capacity to solve government-to-government issues using spatial intelligence 

(an understanding of where people, capital, and institutions combine). This report investigates the value 

of GOS using different approaches. 

Excerpts 

“This Report has highlighted various approaches—quantitative and qualitative—to portray the value of 

Geospatial One-Stop in allowing users to realize spatial intelligence through investments in people, 

systems, and data generating spatial intelligence (spatial readiness investments). The Report proves the 

need for further quantitative research into the relationship between spatial readiness and government 

agency business processes.” 

“This summary of federal procurement activity demonstrates the diversity and financial impact of spatial 

readiness buying habits across the federal marketplace, and suggests the significant savings opportunities 

that GOS and other initiatives might create by leveraging federal agency procurements.” 

“As the complexity for decisions increases, any individual agency’s capacity and budget to self-assure 

spatial readiness (i.e., knowing all it needs to know about a place to make reliably effective decisions) 

becomes self-limiting, requiring reliance on a greater number of spatially-ready collaborators to tell the 

whole story about the place where something is happening. Thus, spatial readiness is a function of (1) 

whether an individual agency has all the spatial intelligence it needs, plus (2) whether its partners in 

approving, funding and implementing related decisions in real-time simultaneously have and share a like 

amount of spatial readiness. Emergency response illustrates the highest degree of these dual aspects of 

spatial readiness (inside and across agencies). But non-emergency settings of public health, 

environmental, and other sub-functions call on spatial readiness as well. Any initiative (like GOS) that 

B-12 
accelerates higher averages of spatial readiness increases the measurable output of government, namely 

responsiveness in real-time.” 

“While some of the numbers are known or their magnitude can be inferred, no one has an accurate 

catalogue of spatial readiness investments.” 

“Like other infrastructure, spatial readiness is achieved through a series of ongoing investments (spatial 

readiness investments) in hardware, software, data and institutional cultures to leverage exchange and use 

spatial intelligence. GIS—geographic information systems—is industry shorthand for the infrastructure 

that provides spatial readiness.” 

______________________________________________________________________________

13. Price Waterhouse, 1995. Australian Land and Geographic Data Infrastructure Benefits 

Study. for the Australia New Zealand Land Information Council.

Summary 

Land and geographic data indicate the location and nature of many of the inputs required for economic, 

social, and environmental development. They are a fundamental ingredient for major investment 

decisions and cover areas that include topography, property ownership, natural resource distribution, land 

use and administrative boundaries. 

Recent studies point consistently to significant and broad ranging economic benefits from data usage. 

However, very little information exists on how substantial these gains might be for Australia as a whole. 

Previous studies have been narrowly based in terms of product, geographic or institutional coverage, and 

their results are difficult to aggregate. 

As a first step towards bridging this information gap, the Australia New Zealand Land Information 

Council (ANZLIC) has commissioned the Economic Studies and Strategies Unit of Price Waterhouse to 

more closely examine the economic gains from developing, maintaining, improving and providing access 

to land and geographic data infrastructure at a national level. 

Excerpts 

“Extensive surveys conducted as part of the review revealed a benefit:cost ratio for data usage of 

approximately 4:1. This indicates that for every dollar invested in producing land and geographic data, $4 

of benefit was generated within the economy. For the period 1989-94, these benefits were in the order of 

$4.5 billion.” 

“Over the past five years alone, established infrastructure has saved users over $5 billion, much of which 

was re-invested to generate additional economic activity. The results suggest that investment in 

B-13 
infrastructure of close to $1 billion since 1989 has been utilized effectively by data supplying agencies 

and has led to important cost savings for industry.” 

______________________________________________________________________________

14. Halsing, David, Kevin Theissen, and Richard Bernknopf. 1994. A Cost-Benefit Analysis of 

The National Map. Circular 1271 U.S. Geological Survey.

Abstract 

In 2003, the USGS Geography Discipline conducted a cost-benefit analysis of its new program, The 

National Map. The analysis team simulated the benefits to society from increased use of the improved 

digital spatial data provided by The National Map and weighed those benefits against the cost to develop 

and implement it. Several different reports and articles describe the research, modeling, and results of this 

cost-benefit analysis project. 

Results from the “most likely” estimates of model parameters and data inputs indicate that, over its 30-

year projected lifespan, The National Map will bring a net present value (NPV) of benefits of $2.05 

billion in 2001 dollars. The average time until the initial investments (the break-even period) are 

recovered is 14 years. 

Excerpts 

“Quantifying the full benefits of a GIS is a difficult task. Although it can be relatively straightforward to 

calculate some of the efficiency benefits directly, effectiveness benefits are very difficult to estimate and 

require a more rigorous analysis than is found in a traditional cost benefit analysis (Dickinson and 

Calkins, 1988; Gillespie, 2000). Accordingly, some of the economic evaluations of GIS in the literature 

make a quantitative estimate of the efficiency benefits that a GIS can potentially bring to an organization. 

However, only a few studies have made quantitative estimates of any of the effectiveness benefits (see for 

example, Bernknopf and others, 1993; McInnis and Blundell, 1998), and we are aware of no 

comprehensive study of the effectiveness benefits that GIS brings to an organization. Instead, 

effectiveness benefits are typically treated as an important, qualitative bonus that can be added to the 

more easily quantified cost-savings resulting from the implementation of a GIS (see for example, 

Hardwick and Fox, 1999).” 

“Because of these limitations, as well as the time and resources available to conduct the analysis, a full 

accounting of the likely costs and benefits of The National Map was not feasible. Instead, we developed a 

computational simulation model called NB-Sim into which the best estimates could be entered. The 

model simulates ranges of results that can be expected from each set of inputs. It allows rapid adjustment 

of the inputs so that more pessimistic or more optimistic beliefs can be simulated, and so that new results 

can be generated if more input data or evidence becomes available.” 

B-14 
“Because the benefits of The National Map are based on expected improvements in processing 

information for applications of spatial data, the willingness to pay for the program is based on its utility as 

a provider of that data. The value-added of The National Map originates from improvements in projected 

implementation time, reduced development and maintenance costs, faster rates of data inclusion and 

integration, and increased expected usage levels over time for geospatial applications. This is a derived 

demand for the online distributed database of The National Map and assumes that data are current, 

integrated, consistent, complete, and more accessible to produce the desired outcome of an application.” 

______________________________________________________________________________

15. Booz Allen Hamilton, 2005. Geospatial Interoperability Return on Investment Study. 

Prepared for National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Geospatial Interoperability 

Office. 

Summary

This study examined two government applications of geospatial technologies: one project utilizing a high 

degree of open geo-interoperable standards and another project implementing none or few of these 

standards. The purpose of this study is to measure, both qualitatively and quantitatively, the return on 

investment (ROI) to organizations implementing geospatial standards, standards specifically developed to 

promote interoperability between a wide variety of different applications. 

Geospatial interoperability is the ability for two different software systems to interact with geospatial 

information. Interoperability between heterogeneous computer systems is essential to providing 

geospatial data, maps, cartographic, and decision-support services, and analytical functions. Geospatial 

interoperability is dependent on voluntary, consensus-based standards, as set forth in OMB Circular A119. These geospatial standards are essential to advancing data access and collaborations in eGovernment, natural hazards, weather and climate, exploration, and global earth observation. 

Excerpts 

“Of the projects considered for this study, the project that adopted and implemented geospatial 

interoperability standards had a risk-adjusted ROI of 119.0%. This ROI is a “savings to investment” ratio. 

This can be interpreted as for every $1 spent on investment, $1.19 is saved on operations and maintenance 

costs.” 

“Overall, the project that adopted and implemented geospatial interoperability standards saved 26.2% 

compared to the project that relied upon a proprietary standard. One way to interpret this result is that for 

every $4 spent on projects based on proprietary platforms, the same value could be achieved with $3 if 

the project were based on open standards.” 

“Standards lower transaction costs for sharing geospatial data when semantic agreement can be reached 

between parties. The cost of achieving semantic agreement can be high, especially for data models. This 

B-15 
cost is reflected in the higher implementation costs for Case Study 1. However, these costs are more than 

recouped in lower operations and maintenance (O&M) costs. In this study, risk-adjusted costs for Case 

Study 1 was 30.3% lower than those for Case Study 2.” 

“The results of this study suggest that projects that adopt and implement standards early on in the project 

life cycle build in a margin of business resilience and operational flexibility that can lower long-term 

costs for operations and maintenance. Case Study 1 demonstrates that even when standards are immature, 

developing and implementing a minimal standard confers some benefits ... governments at different levels 

have varying motivations for adopting standards, and the standards they adopt vary widely. Federal 

government agencies are more likely to adopt and implement the ISO 19100-series standards and OGC 

specifications. But, county and municipal governments are more likely to develop and adopt local 

standards specifically for data exchange.” 

______________________________________________________________________________

16. Pelsoci, Thomas M. 2005. End-User Benefits of The National Map and Geospatial-OneStop: Benefits from Data Production, Data Sharing, and Data Distribution.

Summary 

A pilot study identified expected end-user benefits from The National Map (TNM) and Geospatial-OneStop (GOS). Over a hundred municipal, county, and state agencies and associations of governments were 

contacted and structured interviews were conducted with 78 end-users in 36 states, covering metropolitan, 

urban, and rural areas. 

Findings indicate that both the blanket and quilt layers of The National Map, i.e., the base-map 

component and the patchwork component of locally produced, federally integrated, high-resolution data 

will generate end-user benefits. The principal value appears to be the ‘patchwork’ component leading to 

efficiency benefits or cost savings as well as to effectiveness benefits through improved decision-making. 

Excerpts 

“Data distribution benefits result from avoided data publishing costs from using TNM and GOS portals. 

Often cited at municipal and state agencies, significant labor costs could be saved if local information 

were uploaded to a reliable, federally maintained, interactive Web site. Estimated savings range from 

$1,000 to $10,000 per agency per year. In addition, agencies can also avoid one-time systems investments 

and recurring software maintenance costs.” 

“Many local and state agencies incur significant customer service costs, responding to inquiries and 

maintaining Web sites for the distribution of local geospatial data. If local data could be published to a 

reliable and trusted, federally maintained, interactive Web site, i.e., The National Map and could also be 

referenced in Geospatial One-Stop, customer service savings could be realized from avoided labor costs 

and Web site costs, including one-time setup costs and recurring software maintenance costs.” 

B-16