As a GIS person I find categorizing the various parts of GIS by system as useful: System of Record, System of Engagement, System of Insight. But to me these should be an internally not externally discussed. Robert Brooke did an excellent job of describing these systems in a recent LinkedIn post: What Does GIS Really Mean for Asset Management? But when reading the article I was struck by the inherent complexity of the language (and again nothing against Roberts writing).
This all feels too much like GIS talk
System .. Record .. Engagement .. Insight. Surely there is simpler language we can use to convey what are in essence simple concepts?
GIS Systems .. you What?
In very simple terms dont we mean:
- Centrally stored asset related data <-> Record
- Ways to look at that data <-> Engagement
- Ways to ask questions of that data <-> Insight
One trend I am seeing in the world of GIS is a gradual change in our language. Much of this is being driven by the need to communicate with a non-GIS audience. In my view, expressing GIS in terms of a series of systems is unnecessarily complicating the picture.
Author: Matt Sheehan
Matt Sheehan is a Principal at WebMapSolutions. Matt evangelizes GIS and location intelligence around the world through keynotes, articles, tweets and his books. Follow him on Twitter:
Recent Comments