Extending Electronic Meeting Systems for Collaborative Spatial Decision Making: Obstacles and Opportunities

Introduction

One approach to implementing a collaborative GIS system is to create a "GIS extension" to a commercially available electronic meeting software package. Such a system allows meeting participants to work individually or in groups to construct various geographic scenarios electronically. The scenarios are collected and combined via the electronic meeting system local area network. Implications can be modeled and discussed as scenarios are suggested. Decision rationale for final recommendations are recorded automatically using electronic meeting software functionality.

This paper is a collection of recommendations and observations based on experience in prototyping collaborative GIS systems within an electronic meeting system environment.

Collaborative Spatial Decision Making Using Single-User GIS

• To be successful requires that the GIS technician accurately understand and interpret comments from the group;

• Use of a single-workstation display limits meeting participants' ability to study or highlight areas of individual concern;

• Use of a single-workstation display does not allow negotiators to discuss or build upon solutions developed by other group members;

• Decision rationale, arrived at verbally, is difficult to retrieve for subsequent public inquiry and regulatory review;

• The opinions of more outgoing or assertive participants may have disproportional influence on the analysis;

• Other barriers, such as a history of litigation, may also exist that prevent participants from speaking openly.

The Power of Electronic Meeting Systems

• Voting (Yes/No, Multiple Choice, 10-Point Scale, etc.)

• Issue Prioritization

• Criteria Evaluation

• Group Writing

• Electronic Brainstorming

• Project Analysis

• Surveys and Questionnaires

Considerations for Extending EMS Architecture for Spatial Exchange

Design Considerations

A critical design objective when implementing a spatial addition to an EMS should be to create a seamless and consistent extension to the existing software. This will minimize confusion for novice users. Where possible, existing communications protocols and user interface appearance should be incorporated into the new function. EMS products which support initiation of other applications from within the EMS environment offer a convenient method for maintaining this consistency.

In addition, collaborative GIS extensions should reflect the most basic principles of electronic exchange:

• simultaneous input, allowing everyone to state their position or opinion at once;

• anonymous input (if desired), which can minimize the effects of dominant personalities and pre-established group hierarchies;

• summarized display of all input for group review; and,

• automatically generated meeting documentation, available for review at any time.

Functional Considerations

• Data Import Tool--allows for importing most GIS data formats onto the collaborative GIS platform;

• Geographic Exploration Tool--allows negotiators to interactively explore supporting data via a simple menu interface. Data may include geographic data layers, economic statistics, policy statements, photographs, etc. Participants customize presentation of the geographic data to fit their own perspective (e.g., overlay selected landmarks, zoom into particular regions, highlight areas of interest). Thus, the negotiators are no longer dependent on GIS technicians for data review and access;

• Geographic Proposal Tool--allows for graphical submission, compilation, and tracking of geographic proposals via annotated data layers. Each participant constructs geographic proposals by using a computer mouse to "trace" regions on various data layers. From a technical standpoint, each set of traced regions constitutes a data layer of digitized polygons which graphically captures the participant's perspective or position. It is important to emphasize that the outcome of this activity is a new GIS data layer generated by each participant. Data layers can be combined and analyzed for immediate display to the group. Negotiators no longer have to wait weeks for analysis results. The implications of various scenarios can be modeled and discussed during the meeting as they are generated.

• Geographic Prioritization Tool--makes use of electronic voting/prioritization utilities to establish land management priorities as weighting factors for subsequent geographic analysis and modeling. Participants first use an EMS voting application. For instance, they might rank the importance of land characteristics or score objectives based on a multicriteria land-use objective. The resulting combined scores from this exercise are then applied as weighting factors for any number of GIS analysis techniques.

• Database Link to Spatial Changes--provides the capability to track decision rationale for changes made to data layers during a negotiation session. If a database of initial issues is available, map changes can be linked to the appropriate database record(s) to document how each issue was addressed. A map change can be retrieved by clicking on an issue in the database, or conversely, the prompting issue can be retrieved by clicking on an area of the map. In addition, map changes negotiated by the group are tagged with a rationale statement with captures the essence of the discussions leading to the decision. This ensures that a record of decision rationale is maintained and is readily accessible for public inquiry and regulatory review.

• Geographic Negotiation Tool--a hybrid tool which evolved while prototyping collaborative GIS systems. Involves the use of a whiteboard to encourage participant interaction and collaboration. Data layers displayed on a facilitator's workstation are projected on a whiteboard using a video display device. Then, in a method similar to the Geographic Proposal Tool described above, participants work together to propose land-use scenarios by interactively tracing/erasing areas with marker pens. This encourages the group to collaborate verbally to generate a group proposal. Once the group agrees on a proposal, the meeting facilitator captures this work by tracing the pen marks overlaying the projected display with a mouse. A full array of analysis techniques can now be applied to combine and analyze this data for further discussion;

• Geographic Modeling Tool--supports scenario gaming within a resource negotiation session. This might include simulation models or quantitative models. For example, construction of a reservoir may have profound effects on an encompassing watershed. An interactive modeling tool would allow reservoir designers and stakeholders to experiment with placement/capacity of the reservoir in terms of potential impacts to the surrounding watershed habitat. Note that models incorporated into the system must be simple and interactive. Complexity of the models must be balanced with overall meeting objectives and limitations. Results should allow negotiators to assess high-level physical, economic, and/or political implications without bogging the meeting down in complicated details or excessive processing times;

• Data Export Tool--translates data back to the format of the client's database, including generated data layers, databases, and model results.

Observations From Facilitating Collaborative GIS Sessions

• A common facilitation error is to over use the electronic exchange mechanisms. For example, often there is a tendency to assume that the collaborative GIS tools will produce the "answer". Though the tools may make the negotiation session more efficient or effective, no solution is ever achieved without good old-fashion verbal debate. Collaborative GIS tools are best used as an occasional supplement to verbal debate, to stimulate discussion and focus the group on critical issues.

• Visual cues and landmarks are critical for orienting participants to the GIS data layers. Lack of adequate overlays showing familiar landmarks will inevitably disrupt the meeting and cause frustration among participants.

• It appears that groups have a much lower tolerance for computer response time than is typically acceptable for individuals working with single-workstation applications. Even the smallest amount of dead meeting time, while processing a computation, causes participants to become fidgety and restless. Though in our applications no single computation took over 3 minutes, participants visibly began to lose interest as the pauses continued to occur with each change iteration. Our meeting facilitators tried to compensate for this effect by moving to a new issue while the previous change is processing, or by processing changes during breaks or overnight. However, this seems to defeat the intrinsic value of the collaborative GIS which supports reviewing and discussing a change as it is recommended. This observation may have significance for further development of collaborative GIS systems with resource gaming capabilities.

• Applying and displaying a change, as it is recommended, appears to be a very significant step in establishing group consensus. It is common for groups to modify or reverse a decision, once they are able to view an applied change.

• The ability to individually interact directly with the data (select a coverage, zoom, overlay landmarks, etc.) seems to strengthen participant ownership of the negotiated results. Being able to touch the data themselves seems to give some participants a greater sense of control of the process. Along these lines, Colorado State University Psychology Department is currently conducting research to determine if the use of collaborative GIS systems increases the perception of "voice" (i.e. active individual contribution) in the resource negotiation process. Existing research in social justice indicates that increased perceptions of voice are correlated with increased perceptions of fairness, and with acceptance of both favorable and unfavorable process outcomes.

Opportunity for Future Development - Distributed Collaborative GIS

Conclusions

Biography

Experience in collaborative spatial decision making:

• applied research in use of groupware technologies for quantification of stakeholder values and preferences

• applied research in conceptual modeling and data visualization

• conceptualization and development of the TERRA Active Response GIS (AR/GIS), integrating electronic meeting system software with GIS capability

• customization and application of the AR/GIS system to:
  • Clayoquot Sound, Vancouver, B.C. - land allocation simulation

  • Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Process

  • City of Scottsdale - City Information System prototype

• IBM technical manager of GIS research group - developing GIS temporal analysis for terrestrial change prediction

Related Publications:

Faber, Brenda G., W. Wallace, and H. Sargent, Use of Groupware Enabled GIS for Land Resource Allocation Issues, Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on System Analysis and Management Decisions in Forestry, Pacific Grove, CA, September 1994.

Faber, Brenda G., R. Watts, J. Hautaluoma, J. Knutson, W. Wallace, L. Wallace, A Groupware-Enabled GIS, The Proceedings of the GIS /94 Symposium, Vancouver, B.C., February 1994, pp 551-561.