The views presented in On Balance are those of the authors and do not represent the views of the Society, its Board, or its members.

Throughout my career I have been aware of the use of benefit cost analysis (BCA) or engineering economics studies to justify new projects or capital investments for government agencies and private companies. It always struck me as curious that rarely do government councils require a post-project implementation return on investment study.

Benefit cost analysis is most powerful when it is applied in both  theory and reflective practice – from asking the questions “how can we evaluate this?” and “what economic information can best support this decision-making process?”  to “did this investment actually deliver what we thought it would?” providing data that can be appreciated in the reflection process post project and act as a baseline to be iterated upon.

A recently completed GIS (geographic information system) return on investment study for the City of Seattle utilizes the “with versus without” methodology developed by Prof. Richard Zerbe – a foundational approach in benefit-cost analysis - and exemplifies benefit-cost analysis applied as a reflective and iterative tool in local government decision-making processes and impact studies. The Seattle 2024 GIS ROI study found that the use of GIS for Seattle business functions provided an annual net financial benefit to the city of $187 to $126 million. The project methodology in practice, as inspired by the King County GIS ROI study (also utilizing Zerbe’s with vs. without method) is described below: 

Seattle’s GIS management had been aware of the pioneering King County (Washington) GIS ROI study conducted during 2011-2012 by a team led by Prof. Zerbe, motivated by widespread pressure on city, county, and state GIS operations to reduce their budgets in the aftermath of the 2008 housing-related financial crisis. While most large government geographic information systems were developed as capital projects (the decision-making processes for utilizing  benefit cost analysis), there had never been a comprehensive study done by Seattle to reflect back and determine if the projected financial benefits of this investment were in fact realized. In 2009, the State of Oregon and King County agreed to jointly fund a GIS ROI study of the first 19 years (1992-2010) of GIS use by the county. In addition to documenting King County GIS ROI, project objectives included: 1.  to demonstrate to other jurisdictions the magnitude of GIS ROI that can be generated, and 2. to develop a methodology that could be used for other similar studies.

The King County GIS ROI study team included Prof. Zerbe, four graduate students from the University of Washington Evans School, and the author. The study was based on a “with versus without” methodology that asked GIS end-users to estimate their level of efficiency and productivity gains from using GIS technology and data. End user input was compiled from structured face to face interviews and a companion online survey.The King County study found that during the 19-year period, GIS generated at least $775 million in net financial benefits, and for the most recent year of the study net GIS ROI was between $180 million and $87 million.

The King County GIS ROI study is often cited within the GIS community. The Zerbe “with versus without” GIS ROI methodology has been used for other studies. The methodology has also been documented in an article about GIS ROI within the Geographic Information Science and Technology Body of Knowledge.

The Seattle GIS (Seattle Information Technology, GIS & CADD) annual budget is more than $9 million, which supports almost 6,000 GIS end-users (44.7% of total city staff). Seattle GIS was motivated to show the benefits that GIS provides to the city, in part because of periodic budget pressures.

The Seattle GIS ROI study was based on a combination of face-to-face structured interviews and an online survey of city GIS users. The methodology was refined by assigning respondents to GIS user personas, in order to extrapolate ranges of benefits across all city departments. Individual GIS ROI rates were calculated for more than 30 departments. The time for city staff to use GIS was treated as a cost that was ultimately subtracted; this totaled more than $65 million annually. A few of the resulting impact metric key messages include: The range of net financial benefits found, represents between 2.54% and 1.71% of the total city annual budget, and; the benefits represent the equivalent cost for between 1200 and 800 city staff. ROI impact messaging like this can be a powerful tool in local government planning/decision-making. 

The completed study was validated in early 2025 via an internal City of Seattle review process, which identified additional financial and non-quantifiable benefits. To share the outcome of the study with City employees and citizens, the City commissioned a short YouTube video. The City also explored the possibility of similar studies for other technologies and the development of an online ROI dashboard to allow future ‘with versus without’ benefits to be recalculated.

Babinski, G. (2024). Measuring GIS Return on Investment. The Geographic Information Science & Technology Body of Knowledge (2024 Edition), John P. Wilson (Ed.). DOI: 10.22224/gistbok/2024.1.3.

Zerbe, R., Fumia, D., Reynold, T., Singh, P., Scott, T., Babinski, G. (2016). An Analysis of Benefits from Use of Geographic Information Systems by King County, Washington. URISA Journal, Vol. 27 No. 1 (2016).