SURVEYORS AND STANDARDS - THE INTERRELATIONSHIP
Iain GREENWAY, United Kingdom
Key words: standards, partnership, surveying
profession, FIG.
1. INTRODUCTION
In early 1998, the then FIG Bureau set up a Task Force on
Standardisation. This is a far from fashionable subject, and not one
which appears in many dinner table discussions. It is, however, one
which was becoming increasingly relevant to the surveying profession
and one, indeed, which threatened to overwhelm surveyors if they did
not make any ameliorating input. The Task Force was FIG's initial
response, with a remit to understand the issue of surveyors and
standardisation more clearly, and to advise the Federation how most
effectively to become involved in and influence the complex processes.
This paper sets out the importance of the issue, summarises the
information gathered and conclusions drawn by the Task Force to date,
and moves on to plans for the future. In the last three years,
standards may not have become any more sexy, but their profile in the
surveying community has risen a little. This trend is likely to
continue with growing speed as certain key international standards are
published and come into use.
2. WHY ARE STANDARDS IMPORTANT?
Official standards have always been important in production
operations, with many originating in military activity: the ISO 9000
series of standards on quality management is a prime example of this
spreading of military standards to the civilian world. Many surveyors
have come across ISO 9000 and other official standards. Others will be
very familiar with legal standards, for instance legislation on land
registration and cadastral surveying. All of us are increasingly
subject to de facto standards in all that we do - for instance,
Microsoft personal computer operating software and TCP/IP standards on
the World Wide Web. Standards, in all of these manifestations, are
becoming increasingly important for surveyors (and, indeed, for all
people).
To give an idea of the breadth of standardisation activities, the
International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) has 135 national
standardisation bodies as members, and 2,867 technical bodies
(technical committees, subcommittees, working groups and ad hoc study
groups). At the end of 1999, there were 12,524 ISO standards in print,
amounting to 356,427 pages. The current standard set includes:
- ISO 2172 - Fruit juice - determination of soluble solids content
- Pycnometric method
- ISO 2729 - Woodworking tools - chisels and gouges
- ISO 6806 - Rubber hoses and hose assemblies for use in oil
burners - specification
- ISO 8192 - Water quality - test for inhibition of oxygen
consumption by activated sludge
- ISO 11540 - Caps for writing and marking instruments intended
for use by children up to 14 years of age - safety requirements
- ISO 12857 - Optics and optical instruments - geodetic
instruments - field procedures for determining accuracy
Turning to the benefits of standards, recent research undertaken by
the Technical University of Dresden and the Fraunhofer Institute for
Systems and Innovations (DIN 1999) found that:
- The benefit to the German economy from standardisation amounts
to more than US$ 15 billion per year;
- Standards contribute more to economic growth than patents and
licences;
- Companies that participate actively in standards work have a
head start on their competitors in adapting to market demands and
new technologies;
- Transaction costs are lower when European and
International Standards are used; and
- Research risks and development costs are reduced for companies
contributing to the standardisation process.
At a very practical level, the attendance of each delegate at this
FIG meeting required standardisation in very many fields: in
telecommunications, to ensure that our booking forms were received
correctly; in aeronautics, to ensure that safe and efficient fuel was
used in the aeroplane, and that it could dock at the gate on arrival;
in IT, so that overheads could be projected successfully by speakers.
Perhaps the difficulties caused by the lack of standardisation in some
areas make the benefits more clear: how many times has anyone
forgotten their international plug adapter and been unable to charge
electronic equipment in another country? And how often have we all
been frustrated (or worse) by the American insistence on using a
different standard paper size (and a different measurement system)
from the rest of the world?
Turning more specifically to the field of surveying, many of the
disciplines within the profession have not to date been subject to de
jure international standards. Some standards have existed for land
survey instruments (for instance ISO 12857 cited above), but these
have not been widely used. In the valuation field, national standards
have long existed for the process of valuing a building. These are now
being consolidated at an international level by the International
Valuation Standards Committee (IVSC), in the first instance in IVS2000
published last year. For the suppliers and users of geographic
information, however, 2001 will be a very important year, with the
publication of most of the 20 or so standards in the series ISO 191xx,
covering a broad range of issues relating to geographic information. A
particular piece of work of the ISO Technical Committee (number 211)
developing these standards is on the Qualification and Certification
of personnel, something which has the potential to override any
agreements for mutual recognition/ reciprocity between FIG member
associations.
At a specific and at a generic level, therefore, standards are
important to surveyors. The German research referred to above shows
the potential positive power of standards. Such positive results,
however, do not occur without effort by the stakeholders of the field
in question.
3. THE VOICE OF THE SURVEYOR
The process of creating standards is a lengthy one - many of the
draft ISO standards on geographic information (19101 et seq.), for
instance, have already been under development for more than three
years, and none have (at the date of writing) been published as
international standards. This time scale has to be shortened in a
world where technological developments are happening more and more
frequently; as ISO recognises, standards will otherwise constrain
development. The same difficulties can arise with legislation - the
cadastral survey regulations of many countries prescribe methodologies
which must be used, thereby often disallowing GPS methods.
The main participants in the process of developing standards are
generally academics and public servants - people whose organisations
can afford for them to spend time on, and travel to, the necessary
meetings. In general, practitioners are present in much more limited
numbers. This means that standardisation bodies will often have
limited knowledge of other initiatives - they will assume a 'green
field site' when in fact a good deal is already in hand. A
particularly relevant current example for surveyors is the area of
Spatial Data Infrastructures (at national, regional and global levels)
- these will be profoundly impacted (for good or ill) by standards and
it is therefore vital that there are clear links between the various
professional and standardisation activities.
These difficulties are recognised by the various standardisation
bodies and solutions are allowed for in their statutes. ISO, for
instance, recognises Liaison bodies. Such organisations can
participate fully in the process of developing standards, with the
single exception that they do not have voting rights (whereas national
standardisation bodies - the members of ISO - do have such rights).
There are currently over 500 liaison bodies recognised by ISO,
including Consumers International, the European Aluminium Association,
the International Association of the Manufacturers of Stocks and
Soups, and Visa International. In the surveying field, FIG, ICA, IAG
and ISPRS are all registered as Liaison bodies and are active (to
differing extents) in relevant ISO activities. Further details of the
way in which ISO operates can be found in Greenway (2000) and in the
draft FIG Guide on Standardisation (FIG 2001).
At this point, it should also be noted that international
standardisation activity is becoming increasingly dominant, in an era
of increasing international trade, over regional and national
standards. This emphasises the growing role for international
organisations such as FIG in inputting to the standardisation process
- as opposed to doing this at the national or regional level.
The current ISO work on the Certification and Qualification of
Geomatics Personnel provides an example of how surveyors can have a
voice in the development of a concept - and of the limitations on the
power of that voice. The concept behind the work item is one with
which it is easy to agree - that, in an increasingly international
world, the mobility of qualifications and certification is important.
Following the rules of ISO, the Canadian national standardisation body
prepared a proposal for a new work item to cover this field, leading
to an international standard in the area. This was debated within the
Technical Committee meetings, supported by some countries and opposed
by others. It was strongly opposed by the professional survey bodies,
on the basis that official standardisation risked fossilising the
process (as with the cadastral legislation referred to above). Written
submissions, however, have nowhere near the impact within ISO as being
present at meetings, and lobbying. Many of the survey Liaison bodies
were not present and their written submissions could therefore be more
easily ignored.
The point at which significant change was introduced into the
Canadian proposal - to develop an informative report rather than a
standard - was a meeting of interested parties in Brighton, in the
margins of the FIG Congress in July 1998. This meeting showed the
importance of continued, personal lobbying to get points across,
particularly bearing in mind that Liaison bodies do not have a vote at
any stage of the standardisation process. In the ensuing postal vote,
the proposal to set up such a work item was passed by 12 votes to 9
(many of the larger, active members voted against the proposal but
smaller, non-active national standardisation bodies were not aware of
the debate raised by the proposal and voted in favour). Once the
working team was set, Liaison bodies again varied in approach. Some
bodies chose to ignore the working group. FIG, however, felt that it
was important to be a part of the discussions, shaping the process as
much as possible whilst, in parallel, continuing its own work in the
Task Force on Mutual Recognition chaired by Stig Enemark (see Enemark
and Plimmer, 2000, for more information on this Task Force).
The working group is currently drafting a report (which is due by
the autumn of 2001); one of its convenors is a regular attendee at FIG
meetings and is a member of the FIG Task Force on Standardisation.
FIG's presence has allowed us to make our case clearly, but our
influence within the working group (as but one voice) is limited, and
the final vote on accepting (or not) the report will be made by postal
vote, with again organisations who have had no involvement (and very
limited interest) holding key votes. The working group's progress and
conclusions are summarised in Knoop (2001).
To date, therefore, surveying Liaison bodies to ISO have had
limited effect in influencing the process. Such bodies are, however,
recognised by key players as providing a useful input to the process.
They are also, of course, key players in encouraging the use of
standards when they are finally published. The reasons for limited
impact include a limited understanding of the processes of ISO and how
to influence them to best effect; a fragmentation of the surveying
communities voice, with limited coordination between FIG, ISPRS and
the other bodies; and not using even the full range of communications
possible through the various internal FIG groups such as Task Forces,
Commissions and Bureau. There has, perhaps, also been a tendency to
give up in the face of perceived lack of understanding of FIG's point
of view by the ISO, without fully appreciating the situation as ISO
(and the individuals involved) see it.
During 2000 and 2001, FIG (through the good offices of Commission
9) has also been working closely with IVSC, to gain a voice in the
process of developing international valuation standards. IVSC is a
much younger and less complex body than ISO, and more rapid progress
has therefore been possible, with the professional surveying community
seen as providing an important input to the process and being invited
to do so. This will, hopefully, lead to a formal recognition of this
role for FIG within IVSC but, as so often in international activity,
formal recognition is often much less important than informal input
and influence.
4. SURVEYORS AND STANDARDISATION - PROGRESS TO DATE
As described above, the FIG Task Force on Standardisation has spent
much of the first three years of its existence understanding how ISO
works (recognising that the scale and scope of ISO's operations dwarfs
that of most other standardisation bodies). This has included active
involvement in ISO Technical Committee (TC) 211 on Geographic
Information/ Geomatics, attending meetings, commenting on work in
progress, and reporting on FIG activity. FIG also has a longer history
of involvement with two other ISO TCs covering the general field of
survey instrumentation. Professor Jean-Marie Becker (Chair of FIG
Commission 5) is actively involved in this work, attempting to
simplify the current standards and make them more relevant to
practising surveyors (for more information, see Becker et al, 2000).
In light of the learning to date, and recognising that FIG's funds
are limited in the face of the vast range of standardisation activity
in hand at any time, the Task Force has created a draft FIG policy for
this area. This has been reviewed by Commission Chairs and by the
Bureau but is not yet ratified by the General Assembly. The draft
policy reads as follows:
'Standardisation activity is becoming of increasing importance to
surveyors; indeed, the application of technical and professional
standards is one element which sets professionals apart from others.
In 1997, therefore, the FIG Bureau decided to place an emphasis on
developing FIG's work in the standardisation field, whilst recognising
the limitations of what FIG's resources could achieve.
Overall, FIG's aim in the field of standards is to assist in the
process of developing workable and timely official and legal standards
covering the activities of surveyors: FIG is one of the few bodies
through which surveyors can formally be represented in international
official standardisation activities. In so doing, FIG will be
supporting its objective to collaborate with relevant agencies in the
formulation and implementation of policies. FIG is also committed in
its objectives to developing the skills of surveyors and encouraging
the proper use of technology, activities which are becoming
increasingly shaped by standards.
FIG will generally seek to ensure that de facto standards become
official standards as technology matures, or at the very least that
all relevant official, legal and de facto standards are produced in
full knowledge of all other related material.
FIG sees the following roles for professionals in the
standardisation process:
- Assisting in the production of workable and timely standards by
proposing material which can be transformed into international
standards (rather than relying on work developed by others) and by
participating in the process of developing standards; and
- Disseminating information and creating explanatory material and
guidance notes to ensure that all members of FIG are aware of the
most recent standardisation activities, standards and regulations,
and their implications for surveyors.
In supporting this policy, FIG will ensure that the work of its
Commissions and other bodies dovetails with that of official
standardisation bodies, to ensure that the greatest possible benefit
for practising surveyors and their clients is achieved. This
dovetailing will be reflected in Commission, Task Force and Permanent
Institution workplans - these will include the creation of necessary
information and explanatory material, and any planned output from any
of FIG's bodies will be discussed with the relevant standardisation
bodies before it is created. FIG will also seek to work with other
international bodies representing surveyors, to ensure the most
effective use of resources.
In the short-term, the FIG Task Force on Standardisation will
provide the necessary coordination in planning of activity to achieve
these goals, recognising that it is through the Commissions and Member
Associations that most of the necessary work and liaison will be
achieved. The structural arrangements within FIG for the medium-term
coordination of standardisation activities will be determined in light
of the decisions made on the future structure of FIG Commissions and
Permanent Institutions.'
Working with ISO and IVSC, and within FIG, the Task Force has
developed a draft Guide on Standardisation, to provide FIG officers
and Member Associations with a clearer understanding of how they can
influence the development of standards. The Task Force, in
collaboration with FIG Commission 7, also proposed the FIG Statement
on the Cadastre (FIG 1995) to ISO for fast tracking to become an
international standard. Once we had understood the procedures for such
a submission, and reformatted elements of the document to meet the ISO
document structure, the Statement was submitted. It has not been
accepted for fast-tracking, on the basis that it is a field generally
covered by national legislation, so the Task Force is currently
considering what other FIG material might be suitable for
fast-tracking, taking forward the first of the two roles set out in
the Policy. One active area at the moment is on determining how the
FIG Multi-Lingual Dictionary can be consolidated to best effect with
ISO terminology activity in the surveying field.
On the educational side, the Task Force has set up an area of the
FIG web site and maintains it, providing information on current
standardisation activities. The number of papers about standards
activities at FIG meetings is also increasing, as the topic gains
profile in the surveying community. Documents such as FIG Publication
No 9 on the testing of EDMs (FIG 1994) is another example of the
explanatory material which FIG produces.
In all of this, the Task Force is building on the results of
questionnaire, completed by over 40 individuals ands member
associations in 1999, which provided guidance on the key areas of
standardisation on which FIG should concentrate.
At this stage, it is fair to say that FIG's increased focus on
standardisation has created a higher profile for FIG within this
field, and for standardisation within FIG. Much greater coordination
of activity, within and beyond FIG, is however needed if the efforts
to date are to build into meaningful, concrete progress.
5. NECESSARY ACTIVITY
As described in the previous section, some solid work has been done
in a number of areas since the creation of the Task Force. Over the
next year or so, there are a number of key tasks for the Task Force
(and, through it, for FIG generally). The general areas are described
in this section.
Standardisation work items have to progress through a complex and
lengthy process before they become published standards. It is
unrealistic for FIG, as one of many bodies representing professionals,
to be able to control the progress of individual standards, and FIG
will have to accept that many of its proposals for changing documents
will not be accepted (although the general principle of consensus
allows FIG to push home points on which it feels particularly
strongly). Similarly, standardisation bodies will not readily accept
new work item proposals unless there is a proven market need for them.
FIG should, however, be well aware of the needs of its 230,000
individual members - a significant market - and can therefore expect
standardisation bodies to listen to it. To achieve the greatest degree
of success, therefore, FIG needs to coordinate its efforts, and to
recognise the needs of the standardisation bodies as well as those of
FIG's members.
5.1 Interpreting and promoting published standards
Standards will inevitably tend to be fairly dry documents, with
lengthy glossaries and definition sections. ISO figures give the
average length of a standard (excluding some of the terminology lists)
as nearly 30 pages. It is unlikely that the average person in the
street or even the average professional has read any standards, or is
aware first hand of their requirements.
Much more likely is that people encounter standards through either
their practical manifestations (products created to conform to
particular standards) or through advisers, part of whose role is to
interpret standards. In recent years, we have seen a large industry
evolve to interpret the ISO9000 quality standards for businesses. We
have also seen very large numbers of publications addressing what is a
very concise standard of 20 short clauses. This shows both how complex
standards can be (or be made - as with laws, the practical
implications often emerge through 'case law'), and that there is no
shortage of interpreters, as long as you are willing to pay money for
their services.
It is also important to remember that, in most circumstances, a
practitioner has the choice of whether to follow a particular standard
or not. In many circumstances, a standard's detailed provisions will
not be appropriate. One example of this is the very complex ISO
standards which exist on the calibration and testing of EDM total
stations and other surveying equipment (an additional problem in this
area is the number of uncoordinated ISO standards; as mentioned in
section 4, FIG is involved in activity to rationalise the situation).
The detailed requirements of the standards may be appropriate for
industrial metrology-type applications, or for the calibration of
equipment by manufacturers and national laboratories, but are almost
certainly not relevant for the average land surveyor to undertake on a
regular basis.
For further advice, individual practitioners will often turn to
their national professional association. Such associations often have
technical departments responsible for interpreting standards for their
members, either as part of the membership fees or for an additional
fee. In turn, they will often look to international bodies to provide
guidance to them, and so FIG and in particular its Commissions will
need to ensure that they are fully aware of key standards and are able
to provide timely guidance to FIG's Member Associations on necessary
activity and priorities. In this way, FIG can provide a service to its
Member Associations, can avoid duplication of effort at a national
level, and will be well placed to feed back suggestions for
improvement to the relevant standardisation body.
An area of particular activity over the coming year will be
promoting and explaining to professionals the implications of the ISO
191xx set of standards on geographic information. These cover factors
from terminology to referencing by coordinates. Further information on
the developing work is available in the papers of Ostensen (1998),
Knoop (1998), Slaboch (1998) and Hothem et al (2001). The Task Force
continues to work closely with ISO TC211 to emphasise the importance
of this activity (in addition to the completion of the standards) and
determine how best FIG can support it.
Another role for national and international professional
associations is the pooling of best practice, which may often be ahead
of the content of standards. For instance, many professional
institutions produce best practice material which can be used by all
practitioners and clients as a basis for defining requirements. FIG is
keen to spread knowledge of such documents, developed by individual
member associations, throughout its membership. At an international
level, the current work of FIG's Working Group 3.3 in compiling a
HABITAT Best Practice Database is another example of this type of
activity.
To achieve FIG's stated policy, therefore, FIG's Commissions, Task
Forces and Permanent Institutions need to work closely with the
relevant standardisation bodies (including the Technical Committees of
ISO) so that any informative or explanatory material that they create
which supports the use of standards is produced at the appropriate
time, has clear references to the relevant standards, and can be
published and marketed in a coordinated way with the published
standards.
5.2 Influencing the existing work programmes of standardisation
bodies
FIG needs to coordinate the inputs it makes to the creation and
development of standards by the various standardisation bodies. This
is both at international level (through FIG continuing to work with
ISO and IVSC) and at national level (through FIG's member associations
lobbying their national standardisation bodies).
At the international level, FIG (as a Liaison body to ISO) can
appoint Experts to ISO's working groups. In this way, FIG has
commented on a number of the key TC211 documents and has influenced
ISO's work on optical instrumentation. Funds, however, are limited,
and it will be vital to prioritise activity and not to spread resource
too thinly.
Currently, the Task Force on Standardisation has taken on the task
of maintaining contact, formally and informally, with the ISO Central
Secretariat, to keep them informed of FIG plans and to understand how
FIG can influence ISO activity to best effect; future organisational
arrangements for this activity within FIG will need to be determined.
It takes time for individuals to understand the sometimes arcane
ISO processes and language. It is also vital, if Experts are to have
the greatest possible effect and influence, for them to be involved in
the relevant drafting activity from the beginning (FIG's influence, in
the absence of a vote, declines as the drafting process progresses).
This points to the requirement to maintain a list of possible Experts,
with their field of expertise, and the need to maintain the currency
of the list. The relevant Commissions have an important role in
publicising the existence of the list, and in encouraging individuals
to join it. It is also important that the many FIG members who
represent their national standardisation bodies in ISO activity are
aware of FIG's requirements and views, as they can input views to the
process without the need for FIG funding. Particular care will be
needed where FIG and national needs may conflict.
Lobbying national standardisation bodies is an important role for
national delegates to FIG Commissions, who should be made aware of
current standardisation activity of relevance to their Commission, and
should seek out the relevant contacts in their national body. National
standardisation bodies will generally set up committees shadowing the
work of each ISO TC. The leader of each committee will normally be a
specialist in the field, although also someone with knowledge of how
national and international standardisation activity works. It is
important that the FIG delegate finds out who this person is, and
works with them to gain maximum influence for practising surveyors.
Influence at a national level is crucial if FIG is to achieve as
much as possible with its limited budget for standardisation
activities. National activity will generally involve limited
travelling expenses, and can double up with the necessary activities
of the member association in influencing standardisation activities.
It is clear that, at present, FIG is insufficiently linked into this
national aspect of activity. A number of elements need to come
together to correct this:
- FIG Member Associations need to be made more aware of FIG's
activities in standardisation. The lead responsibility here rests
with heads of delegations to the FIG General Assembly, to
communicate with the relevant officers and members of their Member
Association;
- FIG delegates to Commissions need to be aware of the particular
areas of standardisation activity which could affect them; the
role here is for FIG Commission officers, both explicitly through
their work programmes, and on an ongoing basis in their
newsletters and other communications;
- Similarly, Member Associations need to provide information to
FIG's Commissions and the Task Force on Standards (and its
successor) as to relevant national standardisation activity, so
that FIG can support the Member Association in influencing this
activity;
- A bank of information should be maintained centrally by FIG, to
be called on by delegates; this is currently the responsibility of
the Task Force but future organisational arrangements are under
consideration.
5.3 Proposing new work areas for international standardisation
The work of ISO grew out of manufacturing. It is therefore of no
surprise that the activities of the technical commissions of FIG (5
and 6 in particular) are well-covered by international standards, even
if these at times are out of date or don't allow for new technology.
Recent work around the world on national and global spatial data
infrastructures has catalysed ISO work (particularly in TC211) in the
area covered by FIG Commission 3 but has left open the possibility
that such infrastructures will be adversely impacted by standards. FIG
Commission 4 has a particular link with the International Hydrographic
Bureau (IHB) and International Hydrographic Organisation (IHO), which
set international standards on hydrography. Commissions 1 and 2 have a
more general interest in professional standards, which are likely to
be covered by ISO and other activities (ISO 9000, for instance), and
where FIG's influence is likely to be very limited.
Some of FIG's other Commissions, however, are less well covered by
ISO activity. Commission 9 will have more interest in the work of IVSC,
but commissions 7 and 8 and the Ad Hoc Commission on Construction
Economics (in conjunction with International Cost Engineering Council
(ICEC)'s work on best practice) may well be working in areas where
there are not international standards, and where they believe that
there should be. These are therefore particular areas where FIG can
consider the submission of material to ISO for fast-tracking, and the
Task Force has been trying for some time to determine particular areas
which might be suitable for this.
In this area in particular, but across its range of work, FIG
should review the needs of the market in terms of published standards
before drawing up Commission and Council work programmes, and should
liaise with the Secretariats and Technical Committees of
standardisation bodies over particular gaps in activity. Wherever
possible, these gaps should be filled through the development of
material by FIG, in close liaison with the relevant standardisation
body, so that the completed FIG work can successfully be fast-tracked
to become a standard, and so that the timing of the production of
FIG's deliverables fits with the needs of the standardisation body
(and the market).
5.4 Coordination of activities
All of the above requires discipline on behalf of FIG and its
Commissions and Permanent Institutions, with appropriate coordination
of the development of work plans so that FIG's work has the greatest
possible impact in the world of standards. This may require a slightly
greater planning horizon for Commissions and Permanent Institutions,
and greater coordination of effort, which will be facilitated by the
use of strategic planning meetings of the Council and the Advisory
Committee of Commission Officers (ACCO). This will be particularly
important over the next year, as work plans for 2002-06 are drawn up,
and the Task Force will work to be involved in and influence the
content of these plans. Also important over the coming year will be
the determining of how the coordinating activities of the Task Force
should be continued into the future - this is currently under
consideration by the FIG Task Force on Commission Structure.
It is also important for FIG to co-ordinate its influencing and
informative efforts with other international NGOs to ensure that the
combined efforts are coordinated to best effect. This can probably
best be achieved through the Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) that
FIG is developing with sister NGOs, following the disbanding of the
International Union on Surveying and Mapping (IUSM), and the Task
Force will continue to seek to ensure that standardisation issues are
covered by such MOUs.
6. CONCLUSIONS
As can be seen in the previous sections of this paper, solid
progress has been made within and beyond FIG in raising the profile of
standardisation to surveying, and of surveying to standardisation
bodies. Section 5 shows that there is much more work to be done - work
in the standardisation area always seems to be a long haul, taking
years rather than months. It is vital that FIG continues to build on
what it has achieved so far, and the Task Force will be working to do
this. A key plank in this activity will be the FIG Guide on
Standardisation, which will be completed during 2001 and should
provide a valuable resource to all of FIG's constituent bodies to work
to best effect in the field of standardisation. Mobilisation of a
range of bodies and individuals is vital to FIG's success in this
critical area.
In essence, FIG needs to see itself, and the activity of all of its
constituent parts, as part of a larger picture which includes key
bodies such as the UN and its agencies, standardisation bodies and the
World Trade Organisation (WTO). This has been a key theme of recent
FIG Bureaux, and progress is now being delivered on a number of these
fronts. As a result, the realisation is growing that surveyors need
standards, and standards bodies need FIG - but the realisation is a
fragile plant which needs continuing nurturing and attention.
REFERENCES
Becker, J-M., Heister, H. and Slaboch, V., 2000, New technical
standards improving the quality in positioning and measurement,
proceedings of the FIG Working Week, Prague
DIN (German Institute for Standardisation), 1999, Economic benefits
of standardisation: summary of results, available at www.din.de/set/aktuelles/benefit.html
Enemark, S. and Plimmer, F., 2000, Mutual recognition of
professional qualifications in the surveying profession, proceedings
of the FIG Working Week, Prague
FIG, 1994, Publication No 9: Recommended procedures for routine
checks of electro-optical distance meters (EDM)
FIG, 1995, Publication No 11: The FIG statement on the cadastre
FIG, 2001, draft FIG Guide on Standardisation, available on FIG web
site
Greenway, I., 2000, Surveyors and Standardisation, proceedings of
the FIG Working Week, Prague
Hothem, L., 2001 [paper in session 1 of Working Week - please add
full authors and title when the paper is submitted]
Knoop, H., 1998, Standardisation, Co-ordination and Quality
Management of Geographic Information, proceedings of the XXI FIG
International Congress, Brighton
Knoop, H., 2001 [paper in session 1 of Working Week - please add
title when the paper is submitted]
Ostensen, O., 1998, Spatial Data Infrastructures - the need for
global standards, proceedings of the XXI FIG International Congress,
Brighton
Slaboch, V., 1998, ISO and the Surveyor, proceedings of the XXI FIG
International Congress, Brighton
Further information is available from the web sites of ISO (www.iso.ch),
WTO (www.wto.org), FIG (www.fig.net),
IVSC (www.ivsc.org) and ISO TC211 (www.statkart.no/isotc211)
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE
Iain Greenway joined Ordnance Survey of Great Britain in
1986 after completing an M.A. in Engineering at Cambridge University
and an M.Sc. in Land Survey at University College London. A variety of
posts in geodetic and topographic survey followed, including
short-term consultancies supporting land reform in eastern Europe.
After completing an MBA at Cranfield University in 1994/95, which
included a term studying at Macquarie University, Sydney, he worked
for Ordnance Survey in strategic planning and pricing, sales and
marketing, as well as completing a number of management consultancy
inputs in Swaziland and Lesotho. He subsequently undertook a
secondment to Her Majesty's Treasury, working on the improvement of
public sector productivity in the UK.
Since the summer of 2000, Iain has been the Deputy Director of
Ordnance Survey Ireland, responsible for much of the day-to-day
management of a national mapping agency undergoing profound changes in
status, structure, processes and culture.
Iain is a Chartered Surveyor (MRICS) and a member of the Chartered
Institute of Marketing (MCIM). He is the RICS delegate to FIG
Commission 1, Chair of the FIG Task Force on Standardisation and of
Working Group 1.2 (Business Practices). He is also a member of the
Management and Editorial Boards of the journal Survey Review.
CONTACT
Iain Greenway
13 Hazelbury Park
Clonee
Dublin 15
IRELAND
Tel. + 353 1 802 5316
Fax + 353 1 820 4156
E-mail: iain.greenway@btinternet.com
11 April 2001
This page is maintained by the
FIG Office. Last revised on 06-09-18.
|
