10/15/2026
A GIS lead at a midsize utility asked us a fair question.
“Can a utility our size realistically take on an ArcGIS Utility Network migration?”
We get the concern. The complexity is real. Moving from a geometric network changes the data model, editing workflows, network rules, tracing, and integrations. Treating it like a routine software upgrade understates the work.
What it misses is how much the scope of the first phase determines what the team has to solve at once. Put every commodity, service territory, editor, and integration into that phase, and every major design decision lands at the same time.
That is where a focused first phase makes the difference. Start with one commodity, one service territory, and one group of editors.
Within this focused scope, the team can map its existing schema to the new model, identify data issues, validate network rules, test editing and tracing workflows, and check its integrations. The next phase begins with a working pattern the team can refine and scale.
We covered this concern earlier in the year, and it became our most-discussed post. It is still coming up, so we are taking another look.
If you had to choose one network to prove the model on, which would you choose, and what has kept you from starting there?
