ISO/TR 19122:2004

Geographic information / Geomatics - Qualification and certification of personnel

ISO/TR 19122:2004 is applicable to the following aspects of the field of Geographic Information/Geomatics: To develop a Type 3 report, which describes a system for the qualification and certification, by a central independent body, of personnel in the field of Geographic Information/Geomatics. To define the boundaries between Geographic Information/ Geomatics and other related disciplines and professions. To specify technologies and tasks pertaining to Geographic Information/Geomatics. To establish skill sets and competency levels for technologists, professional staff and management in the field. To research the relationship between this initiative and other similar certification processes performed by existing professional associations. To develop a plan for the accreditation of candidate institutions and programs, for the certification of individuals in the workforce, and for collaboration with other professional bodies.

Information géographique — Qualification et accréditation du personnel

Geografske informacije/Geomatika - Usposobljenost in certificiranje osebja

General Information

• Status: Withdrawn
• Publication Date: 22-Nov-2004
• Withdrawal Date: 22-Nov-2004
• ICS: 35.240.70 - IT applications in science
• Technical Committee: ISO/TC 211 - Geographic information/Geomatics
• Drafting Committee: ISO/TC 211/WG 9 - Information management
• Current Stage: 9599 - Withdrawal of International Standard
• Start Date: 27-Jun-2019
• Completion Date: 13-Dec-2025
• Ref Project: SIST-TP ISO/TR 19122:2009 - Geographic information / Geomatics - Qualification and certification of personnel

Standards Content (Sample)

TECHNICAL ISO/TR
REPORT 19122
First edition
2004-11-15
Geographic information/Geomatics —
Qualification and certification of
personnel
Information géographique — Qualification et accréditation du personnel

Reference number
©
ISO 2004
PDF disclaimer
This PDF file may contain embedded typefaces. In accordance with Adobe's licensing policy, this file may be printed or viewed but
shall not be edited unless the typefaces which are embedded are licensed to and installed on the computer performing the editing. In
downloading this file, parties accept therein the responsibility of not infringing Adobe's licensing policy. The ISO Central Secretariat
accepts no liability in this area.
Adobe is a trademark of Adobe Systems Incorporated.
Details of the software products used to create this PDF file can be found in the General Info relative to the file; the PDF-creation
parameters were optimized for printing. Every care has been taken to ensure that the file is suitable for use by ISO member bodies. In
the unlikely event that a problem relating to it is found, please inform the Central Secretariat at the address given below.

©  ISO 2004
All rights reserved. Unless otherwise specified, no part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means,
electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and microfilm, without permission in writing from either ISO at the address below or
ISO's member body in the country of the requester.
ISO copyright office
Case postale 56 • CH-1211 Geneva 20
Tel. + 41 22 749 01 11
Fax + 41 22 749 09 47
E-mail [e-mail]
Web www.iso.org
Published in Switzerland
ii © ISO 2004 – All rights reserved

Contents Page
Foreword. v
Introduction . vi
1 Scope. 1
2 Terms and definitions. 1
3 Abbreviated terms. 3
4 Review of existing qualifications and certification systems. 3
4.1 Introduction . 3
4.2 Questionnaire results . 4
4.3 General comments. 5
5 National case studies . 5
5.1 Introduction . 5
5.2 Australia. 5
5.3 Austria. 5
5.4 Canada . 5
5.5 China . 5
5.6 Finland. 6
5.7 Germany. 6
5.8 Japan. 6
5.9 Korea . 6
5.10 Portugal. 6
5.11 Saudi Arabia . 6
5.12 South Africa. 6
5.13 United Kingdom . 6
5.14 United States . 7
5.15 International case studies. 7
6 Discussion . 7
6.1 Introduction . 7
6.2 Definitions. 8
6.3 National professional organizations. 8
6.4 Current qualifications and certification initiatives .8
6.5 Future directions. 9
7 Recommendations. 10
Annex A (informative) National case studies — Australia . 11
Annex B (informative) National case studies — Austria . 20
Annex C (informative) National case studies — Canada. 26
Annex D (informative) National case studies — Finland. 33
Annex E (informative) National case studies — Germany . 34
Annex F (informative) National case studies — Japan. 44
Annex G (informative) National case studies — Korea . 47
Annex H (informative) National case studies — Portugal . 48
Annex I (informative) National case studies — Saudi Arabia . 51
Annex J (informative) National case studies — South Africa. 60
Annex K (informative) National case studies — United Kingdom. 66
Annex L (informative) National case studies — USA.78
Annex M (informative) International Case Study .86
Bibliography.98

iv © ISO 2004 – All rights reserved

Foreword
ISO (the International Organization for Standardization) is a worldwide federation of national standards bodies
(ISO member bodies). The work of preparing International Standards is normally carried out through ISO
technical committees. Each member body interested in a subject for which a technical committee has been
established has the right to be represented on that committee. International organizations, governmental and
non-governmental, in liaison with ISO, also take part in the work. ISO collaborates closely with the
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) on all matters of electrotechnical standardization.
International Standards are drafted in accordance with the rules given in the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2.
The main task of technical committees is to prepare International Standards. Draft International Standards
adopted by the technical committees are circulated to the member bodies for voting. Publication as an
International Standard requires approval by at least 75 % of the member bodies casting a vote.
In exceptional circumstances, when a technical committee has collected data of a different kind from that
which is normally published as an International Standard (“state of the art”, for example), it may decide by a
simple majority vote of its participating members to publish a Technical Report. A Technical Report is entirely
informative in nature and does not have to be reviewed until the data it provides are considered to be no
longer valid or useful.
Attention is drawn to the possibility that some of the elements of this document may be the subject of patent
rights. ISO shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such patent rights.
ISO/TR 19122 was prepared by Technical Committee ISO/TC 211, Geographic information/Geomatics in
collaboration with the following ISO/TC 211 Class A liaison organizations:
 International Federation of Surveyors (FIG)
 International Cartographic Association (ICA)
 International Hydrographic Organization (IHO)
 International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ISPRS)
 Open GIS Consortium, Incorporated (OGC)
 World Meteorological Organization (WMO)

Introduction
In 1998, the Canadian delegation made a proposal that the domain of interest for ISO/TC 211 should extend
beyond data standards and encompass issues of certification and qualification of personnel. This proved to be
a radical shift. From the beginning, the work encountered some difficulty. The voting on the original work item
reflected ambiguity on the perceived value of the work. The initial reaction centred on whether there was a
need for a single system of certification and whether it should be implemented through a central body.
After several years of discussion, a questionnaire was developed to obtain some of the background on
different initiatives across the ISO/TC 211 membership. In August 2001, a small working group met to review
the first eight case studies, analyse their content and develop recommendations to ISO/TC 211 through this
Technical Report. Subsequently, five more case studies were added to this Technical Report.
To make further progress on the original Project Team 19122 agenda, there existed a continued need to
expand the membership to represent better the different domains and approaches to certification and
qualification of personnel. Nationally, this means the involvement of experts beyond the data standards arena;
internationally, it means representation of the full range of professions and disciplines embraced by the broad
geographic information/geomatics domain.
Certification in a technical subject domain raises issues for individual practitioners, education and training
institutions, government agencies, professional organizations and the private sector. There remains the need
for a mechanism that permits fair comparisons across jurisdictional boundaries; however the measures of skill
and competency must be flexible and be cognizant of the social and cultural context.
The universal nature of geographic information/geomatics and the recent and ongoing publication of
ISO/TC 211 data standards dictate a common international requirement for a deeper understanding of
different education and training systems, and the available processes for the recognition of professional
qualifications across a broad subject domain. In addition, this domain is changing rapidly as the result of the
changes in the Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) industry and the integration of GI
Technologies into an ever-expanding range of applications. This rapid rate of change has significant
implications for educational institutions, professional associations as well as standard setting organizations. All
of these must take care to build change management into any standards established. The Project Team
hopes this report will initiate a broad dialog towards greater understanding of national and disciplinary
differences.
vi © ISO 2004 – All rights reserved

TECHNICAL REPORT ISO/TR 19122:2004(E)

Geographic information/Geomatics — Qualification and
certification of personnel
1 Scope
This Technical Report describes and defines the following objectives of the field of Geographic
Information/Geomatics.
 To develop a Type 3 report, which describes a system for the qualification and certification, by a central
independent body, of personnel in the field of Geographic Information/Geomatics.
 To define the boundaries between Geographic Information/ Geomatics and other related disciplines and
professions.
 To specify technologies and tasks pertaining to Geographic Information/Geomatics.
 To establish skill sets and competency levels for technologists, professional staff and management in the
field.
 To research the relationship between this initiative and other similar certification processes performed by
existing professional associations.
 To develop a plan for the accreditation of candidate institutions and programs, for the certification of
individuals in the workforce, and for collaboration with other professional bodies.
While the background research leading to this Technical Report has remained true to the framework provided
by these objectives, the focus has shifted to a more comprehensive, descriptive study of the current situation
in some member countries and the ongoing activities of some of those international professional associations
which cover the subject domain. This is in contrast to a prescriptive study, where the solution would be
dictated by ISO/TC 211.
2 Terms and definitions
For the purposes of this document, the following terms and definitions apply.
2.1
qualification
knowledge, skills, training and experience required to perform properly GIS/Geomatics tasks, normally
achieved through formal education
2.2
certification
procedure leading to a written testimony of the qualification of an individual’s professional competence
provided by a range of public, private and professional institutions
2.3
subject domain
disciplines included in the following subdivisions:
 Geographic information (ref: ISO/TC211/WG1 N119)
 knowledge obtained as the result of the synthesis, analysis or integration of geographic data;
 information concerning phenomena implicitly or explicitly associated with a location relative to the
Earth.
 Geographic Information Services (ref: ISO/TC211/WG1 40.6)
 services that transform, manage or present geographic information to users.
 Geomatics (ref: ISO/TC211/WG1 N119)
 discipline concerned with the collection, distribution, storage, analysis, processing, presentation of
geographic data or geographic information
 Geographic Information Science (ref: Mark. 2000)
 Geographic Information Science (GIScience) is the basic research field that seeks to redefine
geographic concepts and their use in the context of geographic information systems. GIScience also
examines the impacts of GIS on individuals and society, and the influences of society on GIS.
GIScience re-examines some of the most fundamental themes in traditional spatially oriented fields
such as geography, cartography, and geodesy, while incorporating more recent developments in
cognitive and information science.
NOTE 1 When defining the subject domains, it is important to recognize the suite of tools which most professionals
accept as directly applicable to geographic information/geomatics. These tools include GIS, Remote Sensing, Global
Navigation Satellite Systems and others, all of which are information and communication technologies (ICT).
NOTE 2 Each country has its own terms and their definitions for the subject domains encompassed under ISO/TC 211.
The wide variance in definition and their acceptance, especially within the academic community, is indicative of the
challenge for standardization in the human resources (personnel) arena. Later in this report the range of definitions used is
outlined. However for clarity, we provide here the definitions that have been previously specified by ISO/TC 211. The
fourth term is added since that domain has not been previously defined within the ISO/TC 211 context.
2.4
Education systems
academic and technical instruction and training at the post-secondary level
NOTE 1 The education system within a country is influenced by historical and cultural factors that impact the
relationship between government and society. In Europe, education systems can traditionally be described, for example, in
terms of the “British system”, the “German system” and the “French system”. Current European Union initiatives to
harmonize education systems across Europe required by Article 149 and 150 of the Treaty of Amsterdam of the European
Union are leading to rapid changes in national systems that may or may not resolve these differences. Globally, many
countries have education systems based on these European foundations as the result of colonial expansion, while other
systems, such as the North American one, have less relationship to colonial roots. Systems in Korea, Japan, China and
the Arabic speaking world likewise show important variations.
NOTE 2 Within the context of this report, these systems affect the level of autonomy between the needs of the national
government for skilled manpower and the curriculum at the higher education institutions. This in turn affects the
relationship between academic and technical education and training (i.e. university and community college in North
America, or Universität, Fachhochschule and Technikerschule in Germany).
2 © ISO 2004 – All rights reserved

3 Abbreviated terms
AGI Association of Geographic Information
ASPRS American Society for Photogrammetry & Remote Sensing
CIG Canadian Institute of Geomatics
CRSS Canadian Remote Sensing Society
EU European Union
FIG International Federation of Surveyors
GI Geographic Information
GIS Geographic Information System
GISSA Geo-Information Society of South Africa
IAG International Association of Geodesy
ICA International Cartographic Association
IHO International Hydrographic Office
ISO International Organization for Standardization (iso – Greek for “same”)
ISPRS International Society for Photogrammetry & Remote Sensing
NCGIA National Center for Geographic Information & Analysis
OGC Open Geospatial Consortium
TC Technical Committee
UCGIS University Consortium for Geographic Information Science
UNIGIS University Consortium for Certificate & Graduate Programs in GIS
URISA Urban & Regional Information System Association
WMO World Meteorological Organization
4 Review of existing qualifications and certification systems
4.1 Introduction
To develop an understanding of the need for a system for the qualification and certification of personnel, the
Project Team 19122 completed two activities: a questionnaire and review of submitted case studies. The
questionnaire represented a preliminary effort to gain an overall appreciation of the national variability on the
topic. The case study approach permitted nations to elaborate on their within country variation. It also
provided international professional associations with the opportunity to make a contribution.
4.2 Questionnaire results
The questionnaire can be found in ISO/TC 211 N 902. Replies were received from eighteen P member
countries and two Class A liaison members. The questionnaire included nine questions.
1) Does your country have a set of guidelines for the qualification and certification of personnel in the
field of geographic information/geomatics?
9 Yes 6 No 2 Yes/No 1 Unknown
Many of the Yes respondents qualified their answer with respect to specific subject areas e.g.
surveying, photogrammetry. Given the national emphasis, international Class A members could not
provide a valid answer.
2) If No to Question #1, are you planning to initiate this activity in the near future?
9 Yes 6 No 2 Yes/No 1 Unknown
Curiously, the response follows closely the first question. Countries that replied Yes to Question #1
also replied Yes to Question #2.
3) Do you have national legislation for certification of personnel?
10 Yes 6 No 2 Yes/No
Legislation applied only to the Surveying profession.
4) Do you have legislation for certification at the regional level?
4 Yes 13 No 1 Unknown
Regional legislation exists for surveyors in Australia, Canada, Germany and the United States.
5) Do you have industry standards?
5 Yes 12 No 1 Unknown
Standards exist for surveyors in Australia, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Thailand and the United States.
6) Is there a group that has defined a model curriculum?
6 Yes 9 No 3 Unknown
Curricula have been developed in Germany, Iran, South Africa, Thailand, United Kingdom and United
States.
7) Do you have a mechanism for program accreditation?
6 Yes 9 No 2 Yes/No 1 Unknown
8) How many higher education institutions teach geographic information/geomatics?
The response varied from two to a maximum of over seven hundred in the United States.
9) What geographic information/geomatics professional associations exist in your country?
The response ranged from two to a maximum of twenty-two (Japan).
4 © ISO 2004 – All rights reserved

4.3 General comments
Most of the respondents provided the perspective from the surveying profession. There was limited input from
the broader geographic information professional. The variation of content and the range in the amount of
detail of the questionnaire responses pointed out the need for more in-depth analysis of individual country
situations.
5 National case studies
5.1 Introduction
The preparation of comprehensive national case studies needed input from different sectors and disciplines.
As well, in those countries with a large geographic extent, there may be different approaches within the
individual states or provinces (e.g. United States, Canada). The project leader distributed the Canadian case
study as a template of topics i.e. terminology, professional associations, current qualifications and certification
initiatives and future directions. This allowed each case study to use the terms in common usage in their
country and to identify those agencies which had taken a leadership role in the subject of education and
training of Geomatics personnel.
Case studies (Annex A) have been received from Australia, Austria, Canada, Finland, Germany, Japan, Korea,
Portugal, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, United Kingdom and the United States. The reader should refer to the
individual submissions for the details. In this section, the emphasis is upon the key features of each case
study.
5.2 Australia
Australia is divided into a number of states and thus implementation of qualifications and certification in
Geomatics will vary across the country. At the national level, there has been an emphasis on national
vocational (technical) standards. In terms of subject domain, there are different viewpoints from those
disciplines which apply Geomatics technologies for resource management and those disciplines which
emphasize the base data sets for surveying and mapping (see Annex A for details).
5.3 Austria
The Austrian contribution offers insight into recent changes in their higher education system which reflect
broader European Union (EU) initiatives encouraging cooperation between member states with respect to
education. Variations in the structures for higher education in geographic information/geomatics in Austria are
outlined (see Annex B for details).
5.4 Canada
Canada exhibits the same jurisdictional variations in the education system at the provincial level as found in
Australia and the United States. Nationally, the federal government is a strong proponent of Geomatics and
commissioned a consulting study of the personnel requirements for this industry. The response to that study
indicated considerable ambivalence towards certification. Currently, there are several voluntary certification
programs in place, supported by their respective professional associations (e.g. CIG, CRSS) (see Annex C for
details).
5.5 China
The Chinese contribution is an expansion of the original questionnaire. It does not provide sufficient detail to
be incorporated here as a national case study.
5.6 Finland
The Finnish report summarizes their contribution to the 1995 Allan report which provides an analysis of the
different education and professional profiles for Geodetic Surveyors in Western Europe. Although this
information does not contribute to the current study, reference to the Allan report provides useful historical
insight into the pre-cooperation situation in Europe for a subset of the broader geographic
information/geomatics domain (see Annex D for details).
5.7 Germany
One of the defining characteristics of the German case study is the formal system of education in the country.
Equal emphasis is placed on academic education and technical training (see Annex E for details).
5.8 Japan
The Japan case study focused on surveying and mapping. In this case, a national examining body is
responsible for determining achievement of certification (see Annex F for details).
5.9 Korea
Based on the working group discussion, the Korean model is very similar to the approach in Japan and China.
There exist a series of levels and the movement to the next level depends upon a combination of formal
education and work experience. To reach the next level, the candidate must pass an exam set by the national
body (see Annex G for details).
5.10 Portugal
Training for cartographic production and management of the cadastre of real property is accredited through
the National Mapping Agency. The structure of university level education described here will be affected by
the new European Union policies (see Annex H for details).
5.11 Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia has a traditional university system. To meet the need for technical Geomatics personnel, they
have been investigating the concept of technical institutes or colleges. At the same time, they continue to
actively study the different models in North America, Europe and Australia (see Annex I for details).
5.12 South Africa
South Africa is unique in that there is a general recognition of the need to redress past unfair discrimination in
education, training and employment opportunities and the need to recognize prior learning. A concerted
national effort is underway to define the qualifications needed by GIS professionals at various levels of
qualification. A formal system of learning objectives and qualifications is expected to be in place very soon
(see Annex J for details).
5.13 United Kingdom
The response to this work item was prepared by the Association for Geographic Information (AGI) who has
developed a program for continuous professional development. They believe that there is no need for a
system of qualifications and certification of personnel since the marketplace is too dynamic; there is too much
overlap between the different disciplinary interests; and that a certification system would not serve the
interests of the public, the industry or the practitioners (see Annex K for details).
6 © ISO 2004 – All rights reserved

5.14 United States
In the United States, education and training is organized at the state level. There is considerable national
variation in the certification of surveyors and other Geomatics professionals. From the industry perspective,
there is a concern for technically qualified personnel and the relationship between technology and science.
The United States has been a strong proponent of Geographic Information Science. The concept of
certification remains an active discussion item, especially within the professional organizations (e.g. URISA).
There remains the requirement to balance a concern for the public good against the maintenance of an open,
free market Geographic Information economy (see Annex L for details).
5.15 International case studies
5.15.1 International Federation of Surveyors (FIG)
National professional associations see value in forming international bodies. Within the geographic
information/geomatics field, FIG has been very effective in presenting the international interests of the
surveying profession. Within the context of certification, they have adopted a mutual recognition of
qualification strategy leading to greater labour mobility of survey professionals. This requires institutional
recognition of equivalence between member countries and measures of individual competence. The concept
has obvious utility within the context of the European Union.
While this approach may be quite feasible within the narrow definition of Geomatics employed by FIG, the
broad definition of geographic information/geomatics used by ISO/TC 211 suggests it may be difficult to
implement more widely within the profession (see Annex M for details).
5.15.2 International Hydrographic Organization (IHO)
In the hydrographic community, there prevails the concept of shared ownership of the oceans and the need
for standardization of electronic navigation charts. In comparison with land-based mapping, the number of
agencies or partners is much reduced. The existence of an international curriculum provides an excellent
model for the creation of a certification system albeit for a narrowly defined domain.
5.15.3 International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ISPRS)
The International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing is an international scientific society that,
according to its mission statement, is “devoted to the development of international cooperation for the
advancement of knowledge, research, development, education and training in the photogrammetry, remote
sensing and spatial information sciences, their integration and applications, to contribute to the well-being of
humanity and the sustainability of the environment”. Membership of ISPRS is within the categories of Ordinary
Member, Associate Member, Regional Member or Sustaining Member. No minimum qualifications are placed
on member organizations to join ISPRS.
Member organizations may have minimum qualification criteria within their own organizations, but they are not
assessed by ISPRS as criteria for membership. Professionals working in the fields of photogrammetry, remote
sensing and spatial information sciences within their own country will be required to gain suitable qualifications
to practise. These are usually tertiary level qualifications, but ISPRS does not monitor the level of these
qualifications, nor does it attempt to standardize levels of qualifications of practicing professionals in each
country. Hence, the international reputation of ISPRS is dependent on the output of individuals within its
members, as displayed in its conferences and publications.
6 Discussion
6.1 Introduction
Each case study was to be divided into four sections: definitions, national professional associations, current
qualifications and certification initiatives and future directions. Given the variation in terminology, it made more
sense to allow each country to define its own terms. These definitions refer to both the subject domain and the
education system. Within each country, certain professional associations are more active than others. These
associations may or may not be linked to the international forum.
The core component of the case study is the description of current initiatives. These initiatives include existing
certification systems and mechanisms for the achievement of competency in the relevant technical or
conceptual domain. Future directions elucidate areas of concern, where current initiatives are inadequate or
where new technologies and concepts are changing the face of the industry.
6.2 Definitions
Even with a limited set of case studies, there is no consistency in the use of terms to describe the profession.
Geomatics has strong acceptance in Canada. In the United States, academically, there is a movement to
establish the term ”Geographic Information Science”. The Europeans prefer the term “GeoInformatics”,
whereas in Australia there is primary reference to Spatial Information Systems. In South Africa, both terms
Geomatics and Geoinformatics are in common use. The preferred terminology appears to be a function of
historic events and the prevailing education system.
Within the context of ISO/TC 211, terms must be open and inclusive. Rather than invent new “inclusive”
terminology, the preference is to equate a variety of different national terms under a broad consensus.
6.3 National professional organizations
In theory, the international professional organizations exist at the country level. In practice, different
professional groups may or may not be active in a country. The other challenge is that in large geographically
extensive countries, there is considerable variation in different states and provinces. This variation may be
greater than between countries.
Japan and Korea have established national government bodies, which have responsibility for the certification
of personnel. Germany has a strong educational structure, which has certain similarities to these Far East
countries. In the UK, a number of professional organizations are linked to AGI, which is a consortium of
private and public interests. Canada and the United States have academic consortium (e.g. UCGIS) and also
active professional bodies (e.g. ASPRS, URISA, CRSS). In South Africa a strong national association
(GISSA) has formed to bring together regional GIS organizations.
6.4 Current qualifications and certification initiatives
6.4.1 Introduction
While limited in coverage, the set of submitted case studies allowed the identification of a number of critical
dimensions across which the different national systems of qualification and certification varied. These
dimensions are described in the following sections.
6.4.2 Authorities who confer qualification and certification
In those countries where a system exists, the organization that confers or acknowledges a level of
qualification or certification may include one or more of the following:
 Accredited universities
 A government agency
 Professional organizations
 Industry or Trade organizations
8 © ISO 2004 – All rights reserved

6.4.3 Methods for determining required competency
Recently, there has been a significant effort by various agencies and countries worldwide to define skill sets
and competencies. Technical skills are often amenable to measurement under national vocational
qualifications system (e.g. Australia, UK, South Africa). FIG has been working on the definition of
competencies. Within the academic community, there is a history of attempts to define core curriculum, in
particular in the United States with GIS e.g. NCGIA, UCGIS. Through an organization like UNIGIS with its
presence in several countries, there is the potential for a de facto international curriculum.
Required competency can be stated and assessed in a number of different ways. These include
 competency/knowledge/skills guidelines such as those provided by national governmental vocational
qualifications and professional association guidelines,
 international regulations such as those set out by IHO,
 standardized curricula.
6.4.4 Levels of qualification/certification conferred
In those countries where systems exist, professionals can be qualified at one or more levels. How those levels
are defined varies considerably.
6.4.5 Factors used in determining the level of qualification/certification
In general, there are two factors used to determine if an individual can be considered for a certain level of
qualification or certification. The weight accorded to each of these varies. These factors are
 level of academic education,
 amount of practical experience.
6.4.6 Mechanisms for granting qualification/certification
There is a very broad range of mechanisms used to assess and grant qualifications and certification. This
includes
 mutual recognition of qualifications (see Annex B FIG),
 examinations as part of an education program,
 examinations independent of education,
 portfolio assessment,
 continuing professional development programs.
The mutual recognition strategy is particularly applicable to the exchange of personnel between countries with
a similar institutional structure. However it may not be appropriate where matching institutions do not exist. To
be effective, it requires careful assessment of both formal academic programs and work experience, since the
recognized educational value of these components varies and the content, duration and assessment of formal
courses has wide cultural and institutional discrepancies.
6.5 Future directions
If we accept the continued globalization of society, then there will be an increased demand for transferability of
skills and qualifications across national boundaries. This serves to illustrate the need for continued effort to
develop some equivalencies between different curricula and the work experience components.
If it were possible within the broad definition of Geographic Information / Geomatics to create an agreed
international curriculum as in the IHO case, this could lead to de facto standardization. However, with the
increasing delivery of courses over the Internet, the challenge will be to measure the practical applications of
the science and technology and professional experience.
Within the field of technical education, in some countries such as Canada, there is a trend towards “portfolio”
education, where the portfolio contains a learning contract and examples of the students’ work. In these cases,
it will be important to find consistent methods to assess the contents of the portfolio and to ensure that the
work has been completed by that individual.
We can establish frameworks and policies for dialogue between professional organizations and national
education bodies. Ultimately, skills and competencies are tied to the individual. To establish a credible and
workable certification system will require further research on existing national situations, i.e. additional country
case studies addressing qualification across the full range of relevant domains and better understanding of
current trends in technical education research.
Present barriers to progress on this complex subject are lack of consensus on the subject domains, lack of
interest by a number of the contributing professions, lack of understanding of different learning strategies in
different countries. On the horizon, we can see new attempts to define skills and competencies, new
curriculum models and new delivery mechanisms.
7 Recommendations
Given the range of approaches, definitions and solutions identified by this limited set of case studies, this
project team concludes that it is not possible, within the context of the ad hoc set of technical experts, to
achieve the original goals of the project (see Annex M for details). These findings cannot provide an
exhaustive review of all existing systems of qualification and certification. However, the research has identified
a number of workable mechanisms and thus the project team presents the following recommendations.
1) An effective and feasible system for the transferability of qualifications and certification of personnel
in geographic information/geomatics should be advanced by a broadly based international
professional organization which promotes the wide range of qualification and certification systems
currently in place within individual countries. Such a system would support the national and
international mobility of properly trained and educated personnel in the field of geographic
information/geomatics.
2) The domain embraced by this organization must be inclusive and extend to all disciplines
encompassed broadly by the ISO/TC 211 definition of the field. This organization shall invite
representation from all relevant international associations, including members of the ISO/TC 211
community as well as other related international and national organizations.
3) At all times, this organization must acknowledge the dynamic and evolving nature of the domain and
related technologies and thus should take care not to institute any procedures or requirements which
would make it difficult for professionals to advance the knowledge and skill sets required.
4) A preliminary charge of this organization should be to extend and further investigate the findings of
this project team, building upon the framework outlined here in order that similarities and differences
between national and regional systems can be identified and equated. Examples of national or
regional qualification and certification systems, which may act as examples for implementation in or
comparison among other countries and regions, should be documented.
Our historical model is the 1995 report by Professor Allan on “The Education and Practice of the
Geodetics Surveyor in Western Europe”. Today, we need a new report which addresses the “The
Education and Practice of the Geographic Information / Geomatics professional in the global
marketplace”. This is a much broader subject domain with a larger geographic area of concern. The
current document offers a first step in that direction.
10 © ISO 2004 – All rights reserved

Annex A
(informative)
National case studies — Australia
A.1 Definitions
A.1.1 Spatial Information Services
Spatial Information Services are chara
...

SLOVENSKI STANDARD
01-september-2009
Geografske informacije/Geomatika - Usposobljenost in certificiranje osebja
Geographic information / Geomatics - Qualification and certification of personnel
Information géographique - Qualification et accréditation du personnel
Ta slovenski standard je istoveten z: ISO/TR 19122:2004
ICS:
35.240.70 Uporabniške rešitve IT v IT applications in science
znanosti
2003-01.Slovenski inštitut za standardizacijo. Razmnoževanje celote ali delov tega standarda ni dovoljeno.

TECHNICAL ISO/TR
REPORT 19122
First edition
2004-11-15
Geographic information/Geomatics —
Qualification and certification of
personnel
Information géographique — Qualification et accréditation du personnel

Reference number
©
ISO 2004
PDF disclaimer
This PDF file may contain embedded typefaces. In accordance with Adobe's licensing policy, this file may be printed or viewed but
shall not be edited unless the typefaces which are embedded are licensed to and installed on the computer performing the editing. In
downloading this file, parties accept therein the responsibility of not infringing Adobe's licensing policy. The ISO Central Secretariat
accepts no liability in this area.
Adobe is a trademark of Adobe Systems Incorporated.
Details of the software products used to create this PDF file can be found in the General Info relative to the file; the PDF-creation
parameters were optimized for printing. Every care has been taken to ensure that the file is suitable for use by ISO member bodies. In
the unlikely event that a problem relating to it is found, please inform the Central Secretariat at the address given below.

©  ISO 2004
All rights reserved. Unless otherwise specified, no part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means,
electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and microfilm, without permission in writing from either ISO at the address below or
ISO's member body in the country of the requester.
ISO copyright office
Case postale 56 • CH-1211 Geneva 20
Tel. + 41 22 749 01 11
Fax + 41 22 749 09 47
E-mail [e-mail]
Web www.iso.org
Published in Switzerland
ii © ISO 2004 – All rights reserved

Contents Page
Foreword. v
Introduction . vi
1 Scope. 1
2 Terms and definitions. 1
3 Abbreviated terms. 3
4 Review of existing qualifications and certification systems. 3
4.1 Introduction . 3
4.2 Questionnaire results . 4
4.3 General comments. 5
5 National case studies . 5
5.1 Introduction . 5
5.2 Australia. 5
5.3 Austria. 5
5.4 Canada . 5
5.5 China . 5
5.6 Finland. 6
5.7 Germany. 6
5.8 Japan. 6
5.9 Korea . 6
5.10 Portugal. 6
5.11 Saudi Arabia . 6
5.12 South Africa. 6
5.13 United Kingdom . 6
5.14 United States . 7
5.15 International case studies. 7
6 Discussion . 7
6.1 Introduction . 7
6.2 Definitions. 8
6.3 National professional organizations. 8
6.4 Current qualifications and certification initiatives .8
6.5 Future directions. 9
7 Recommendations. 10
Annex A (informative) National case studies — Australia . 11
Annex B (informative) National case studies — Austria . 20
Annex C (informative) National case studies — Canada. 26
Annex D (informative) National case studies — Finland. 33
Annex E (informative) National case studies — Germany . 34
Annex F (informative) National case studies — Japan. 44
Annex G (informative) National case studies — Korea . 47
Annex H (informative) National case studies — Portugal . 48
Annex I (informative) National case studies — Saudi Arabia . 51
Annex J (informative) National case studies — South Africa. 60
Annex K (informative) National case studies — United Kingdom. 66
Annex L (informative) National case studies — USA.78
Annex M (informative) International Case Study .86
Bibliography.98

iv © ISO 2004 – All rights reserved

Foreword
ISO (the International Organization for Standardization) is a worldwide federation of national standards bodies
(ISO member bodies). The work of preparing International Standards is normally carried out through ISO
technical committees. Each member body interested in a subject for which a technical committee has been
established has the right to be represented on that committee. International organizations, governmental and
non-governmental, in liaison with ISO, also take part in the work. ISO collaborates closely with the
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) on all matters of electrotechnical standardization.
International Standards are drafted in accordance with the rules given in the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2.
The main task of technical committees is to prepare International Standards. Draft International Standards
adopted by the technical committees are circulated to the member bodies for voting. Publication as an
International Standard requires approval by at least 75 % of the member bodies casting a vote.
In exceptional circumstances, when a technical committee has collected data of a different kind from that
which is normally published as an International Standard (“state of the art”, for example), it may decide by a
simple majority vote of its participating members to publish a Technical Report. A Technical Report is entirely
informative in nature and does not have to be reviewed until the data it provides are considered to be no
longer valid or useful.
Attention is drawn to the possibility that some of the elements of this document may be the subject of patent
rights. ISO shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such patent rights.
ISO/TR 19122 was prepared by Technical Committee ISO/TC 211, Geographic information/Geomatics in
collaboration with the following ISO/TC 211 Class A liaison organizations:
 International Federation of Surveyors (FIG)
 International Cartographic Association (ICA)
 International Hydrographic Organization (IHO)
 International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ISPRS)
 Open GIS Consortium, Incorporated (OGC)
 World Meteorological Organization (WMO)

Introduction
In 1998, the Canadian delegation made a proposal that the domain of interest for ISO/TC 211 should extend
beyond data standards and encompass issues of certification and qualification of personnel. This proved to be
a radical shift. From the beginning, the work encountered some difficulty. The voting on the original work item
reflected ambiguity on the perceived value of the work. The initial reaction centred on whether there was a
need for a single system of certification and whether it should be implemented through a central body.
After several years of discussion, a questionnaire was developed to obtain some of the background on
different initiatives across the ISO/TC 211 membership. In August 2001, a small working group met to review
the first eight case studies, analyse their content and develop recommendations to ISO/TC 211 through this
Technical Report. Subsequently, five more case studies were added to this Technical Report.
To make further progress on the original Project Team 19122 agenda, there existed a continued need to
expand the membership to represent better the different domains and approaches to certification and
qualification of personnel. Nationally, this means the involvement of experts beyond the data standards arena;
internationally, it means representation of the full range of professions and disciplines embraced by the broad
geographic information/geomatics domain.
Certification in a technical subject domain raises issues for individual practitioners, education and training
institutions, government agencies, professional organizations and the private sector. There remains the need
for a mechanism that permits fair comparisons across jurisdictional boundaries; however the measures of skill
and competency must be flexible and be cognizant of the social and cultural context.
The universal nature of geographic information/geomatics and the recent and ongoing publication of
ISO/TC 211 data standards dictate a common international requirement for a deeper understanding of
different education and training systems, and the available processes for the recognition of professional
qualifications across a broad subject domain. In addition, this domain is changing rapidly as the result of the
changes in the Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) industry and the integration of GI
Technologies into an ever-expanding range of applications. This rapid rate of change has significant
implications for educational institutions, professional associations as well as standard setting organizations. All
of these must take care to build change management into any standards established. The Project Team
hopes this report will initiate a broad dialog towards greater understanding of national and disciplinary
differences.
vi © ISO 2004 – All rights reserved

TECHNICAL REPORT ISO/TR 19122:2004(E)

Geographic information/Geomatics — Qualification and
certification of personnel
1 Scope
This Technical Report describes and defines the following objectives of the field of Geographic
Information/Geomatics.
 To develop a Type 3 report, which describes a system for the qualification and certification, by a central
independent body, of personnel in the field of Geographic Information/Geomatics.
 To define the boundaries between Geographic Information/ Geomatics and other related disciplines and
professions.
 To specify technologies and tasks pertaining to Geographic Information/Geomatics.
 To establish skill sets and competency levels for technologists, professional staff and management in the
field.
 To research the relationship between this initiative and other similar certification processes performed by
existing professional associations.
 To develop a plan for the accreditation of candidate institutions and programs, for the certification of
individuals in the workforce, and for collaboration with other professional bodies.
While the background research leading to this Technical Report has remained true to the framework provided
by these objectives, the focus has shifted to a more comprehensive, descriptive study of the current situation
in some member countries and the ongoing activities of some of those international professional associations
which cover the subject domain. This is in contrast to a prescriptive study, where the solution would be
dictated by ISO/TC 211.
2 Terms and definitions
For the purposes of this document, the following terms and definitions apply.
2.1
qualification
knowledge, skills, training and experience required to perform properly GIS/Geomatics tasks, normally
achieved through formal education
2.2
certification
procedure leading to a written testimony of the qualification of an individual’s professional competence
provided by a range of public, private and professional institutions
2.3
subject domain
disciplines included in the following subdivisions:
 Geographic information (ref: ISO/TC211/WG1 N119)
 knowledge obtained as the result of the synthesis, analysis or integration of geographic data;
 information concerning phenomena implicitly or explicitly associated with a location relative to the
Earth.
 Geographic Information Services (ref: ISO/TC211/WG1 40.6)
 services that transform, manage or present geographic information to users.
 Geomatics (ref: ISO/TC211/WG1 N119)
 discipline concerned with the collection, distribution, storage, analysis, processing, presentation of
geographic data or geographic information
 Geographic Information Science (ref: Mark. 2000)
 Geographic Information Science (GIScience) is the basic research field that seeks to redefine
geographic concepts and their use in the context of geographic information systems. GIScience also
examines the impacts of GIS on individuals and society, and the influences of society on GIS.
GIScience re-examines some of the most fundamental themes in traditional spatially oriented fields
such as geography, cartography, and geodesy, while incorporating more recent developments in
cognitive and information science.
NOTE 1 When defining the subject domains, it is important to recognize the suite of tools which most professionals
accept as directly applicable to geographic information/geomatics. These tools include GIS, Remote Sensing, Global
Navigation Satellite Systems and others, all of which are information and communication technologies (ICT).
NOTE 2 Each country has its own terms and their definitions for the subject domains encompassed under ISO/TC 211.
The wide variance in definition and their acceptance, especially within the academic community, is indicative of the
challenge for standardization in the human resources (personnel) arena. Later in this report the range of definitions used is
outlined. However for clarity, we provide here the definitions that have been previously specified by ISO/TC 211. The
fourth term is added since that domain has not been previously defined within the ISO/TC 211 context.
2.4
Education systems
academic and technical instruction and training at the post-secondary level
NOTE 1 The education system within a country is influenced by historical and cultural factors that impact the
relationship between government and society. In Europe, education systems can traditionally be described, for example, in
terms of the “British system”, the “German system” and the “French system”. Current European Union initiatives to
harmonize education systems across Europe required by Article 149 and 150 of the Treaty of Amsterdam of the European
Union are leading to rapid changes in national systems that may or may not resolve these differences. Globally, many
countries have education systems based on these European foundations as the result of colonial expansion, while other
systems, such as the North American one, have less relationship to colonial roots. Systems in Korea, Japan, China and
the Arabic speaking world likewise show important variations.
NOTE 2 Within the context of this report, these systems affect the level of autonomy between the needs of the national
government for skilled manpower and the curriculum at the higher education institutions. This in turn affects the
relationship between academic and technical education and training (i.e. university and community college in North
America, or Universität, Fachhochschule and Technikerschule in Germany).
2 © ISO 2004 – All rights reserved

3 Abbreviated terms
AGI Association of Geographic Information
ASPRS American Society for Photogrammetry & Remote Sensing
CIG Canadian Institute of Geomatics
CRSS Canadian Remote Sensing Society
EU European Union
FIG International Federation of Surveyors
GI Geographic Information
GIS Geographic Information System
GISSA Geo-Information Society of South Africa
IAG International Association of Geodesy
ICA International Cartographic Association
IHO International Hydrographic Office
ISO International Organization for Standardization (iso – Greek for “same”)
ISPRS International Society for Photogrammetry & Remote Sensing
NCGIA National Center for Geographic Information & Analysis
OGC Open Geospatial Consortium
TC Technical Committee
UCGIS University Consortium for Geographic Information Science
UNIGIS University Consortium for Certificate & Graduate Programs in GIS
URISA Urban & Regional Information System Association
WMO World Meteorological Organization
4 Review of existing qualifications and certification systems
4.1 Introduction
To develop an understanding of the need for a system for the qualification and certification of personnel, the
Project Team 19122 completed two activities: a questionnaire and review of submitted case studies. The
questionnaire represented a preliminary effort to gain an overall appreciation of the national variability on the
topic. The case study approach permitted nations to elaborate on their within country variation. It also
provided international professional associations with the opportunity to make a contribution.
4.2 Questionnaire results
The questionnaire can be found in ISO/TC 211 N 902. Replies were received from eighteen P member
countries and two Class A liaison members. The questionnaire included nine questions.
1) Does your country have a set of guidelines for the qualification and certification of personnel in the
field of geographic information/geomatics?
9 Yes 6 No 2 Yes/No 1 Unknown
Many of the Yes respondents qualified their answer with respect to specific subject areas e.g.
surveying, photogrammetry. Given the national emphasis, international Class A members could not
provide a valid answer.
2) If No to Question #1, are you planning to initiate this activity in the near future?
9 Yes 6 No 2 Yes/No 1 Unknown
Curiously, the response follows closely the first question. Countries that replied Yes to Question #1
also replied Yes to Question #2.
3) Do you have national legislation for certification of personnel?
10 Yes 6 No 2 Yes/No
Legislation applied only to the Surveying profession.
4) Do you have legislation for certification at the regional level?
4 Yes 13 No 1 Unknown
Regional legislation exists for surveyors in Australia, Canada, Germany and the United States.
5) Do you have industry standards?
5 Yes 12 No 1 Unknown
Standards exist for surveyors in Australia, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Thailand and the United States.
6) Is there a group that has defined a model curriculum?
6 Yes 9 No 3 Unknown
Curricula have been developed in Germany, Iran, South Africa, Thailand, United Kingdom and United
States.
7) Do you have a mechanism for program accreditation?
6 Yes 9 No 2 Yes/No 1 Unknown
8) How many higher education institutions teach geographic information/geomatics?
The response varied from two to a maximum of over seven hundred in the United States.
9) What geographic information/geomatics professional associations exist in your country?
The response ranged from two to a maximum of twenty-two (Japan).
4 © ISO 2004 – All rights reserved

4.3 General comments
Most of the respondents provided the perspective from the surveying profession. There was limited input from
the broader geographic information professional. The variation of content and the range in the amount of
detail of the questionnaire responses pointed out the need for more in-depth analysis of individual country
situations.
5 National case studies
5.1 Introduction
The preparation of comprehensive national case studies needed input from different sectors and disciplines.
As well, in those countries with a large geographic extent, there may be different approaches within the
individual states or provinces (e.g. United States, Canada). The project leader distributed the Canadian case
study as a template of topics i.e. terminology, professional associations, current qualifications and certification
initiatives and future directions. This allowed each case study to use the terms in common usage in their
country and to identify those agencies which had taken a leadership role in the subject of education and
training of Geomatics personnel.
Case studies (Annex A) have been received from Australia, Austria, Canada, Finland, Germany, Japan, Korea,
Portugal, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, United Kingdom and the United States. The reader should refer to the
individual submissions for the details. In this section, the emphasis is upon the key features of each case
study.
5.2 Australia
Australia is divided into a number of states and thus implementation of qualifications and certification in
Geomatics will vary across the country. At the national level, there has been an emphasis on national
vocational (technical) standards. In terms of subject domain, there are different viewpoints from those
disciplines which apply Geomatics technologies for resource management and those disciplines which
emphasize the base data sets for surveying and mapping (see Annex A for details).
5.3 Austria
The Austrian contribution offers insight into recent changes in their higher education system which reflect
broader European Union (EU) initiatives encouraging cooperation between member states with respect to
education. Variations in the structures for higher education in geographic information/geomatics in Austria are
outlined (see Annex B for details).
5.4 Canada
Canada exhibits the same jurisdictional variations in the education system at the provincial level as found in
Australia and the United States. Nationally, the federal government is a strong proponent of Geomatics and
commissioned a consulting study of the personnel requirements for this industry. The response to that study
indicated considerable ambivalence towards certification. Currently, there are several voluntary certification
programs in place, supported by their respective professional associations (e.g. CIG, CRSS) (see Annex C for
details).
5.5 China
The Chinese contribution is an expansion of the original questionnaire. It does not provide sufficient detail to
be incorporated here as a national case study.
5.6 Finland
The Finnish report summarizes their contribution to the 1995 Allan report which provides an analysis of the
different education and professional profiles for Geodetic Surveyors in Western Europe. Although this
information does not contribute to the current study, reference to the Allan report provides useful historical
insight into the pre-cooperation situation in Europe for a subset of the broader geographic
information/geomatics domain (see Annex D for details).
5.7 Germany
One of the defining characteristics of the German case study is the formal system of education in the country.
Equal emphasis is placed on academic education and technical training (see Annex E for details).
5.8 Japan
The Japan case study focused on surveying and mapping. In this case, a national examining body is
responsible for determining achievement of certification (see Annex F for details).
5.9 Korea
Based on the working group discussion, the Korean model is very similar to the approach in Japan and China.
There exist a series of levels and the movement to the next level depends upon a combination of formal
education and work experience. To reach the next level, the candidate must pass an exam set by the national
body (see Annex G for details).
5.10 Portugal
Training for cartographic production and management of the cadastre of real property is accredited through
the National Mapping Agency. The structure of university level education described here will be affected by
the new European Union policies (see Annex H for details).
5.11 Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia has a traditional university system. To meet the need for technical Geomatics personnel, they
have been investigating the concept of technical institutes or colleges. At the same time, they continue to
actively study the different models in North America, Europe and Australia (see Annex I for details).
5.12 South Africa
South Africa is unique in that there is a general recognition of the need to redress past unfair discrimination in
education, training and employment opportunities and the need to recognize prior learning. A concerted
national effort is underway to define the qualifications needed by GIS professionals at various levels of
qualification. A formal system of learning objectives and qualifications is expected to be in place very soon
(see Annex J for details).
5.13 United Kingdom
The response to this work item was prepared by the Association for Geographic Information (AGI) who has
developed a program for continuous professional development. They believe that there is no need for a
system of qualifications and certification of personnel since the marketplace is too dynamic; there is too much
overlap between the different disciplinary interests; and that a certification system would not serve the
interests of the public, the industry or the practitioners (see Annex K for details).
6 © ISO 2004 – All rights reserved

5.14 United States
In the United States, education and training is organized at the state level. There is considerable national
variation in the certification of surveyors and other Geomatics professionals. From the industry perspective,
there is a concern for technically qualified personnel and the relationship between technology and science.
The United States has been a strong proponent of Geographic Information Science. The concept of
certification remains an active discussion item, especially within the professional organizations (e.g. URISA).
There remains the requirement to balance a concern for the public good against the maintenance of an open,
free market Geographic Information economy (see Annex L for details).
5.15 International case studies
5.15.1 International Federation of Surveyors (FIG)
National professional associations see value in forming international bodies. Within the geographic
information/geomatics field, FIG has been very effective in presenting the international interests of the
surveying profession. Within the context of certification, they have adopted a mutual recognition of
qualification strategy leading to greater labour mobility of survey professionals. This requires institutional
recognition of equivalence between member countries and measures of individual competence. The concept
has obvious utility within the context of the European Union.
While this approach may be quite feasible within the narrow definition of Geomatics employed by FIG, the
broad definition of geographic information/geomatics used by ISO/TC 211 suggests it may be difficult to
implement more widely within the profession (see Annex M for details).
5.15.2 International Hydrographic Organization (IHO)
In the hydrographic community, there prevails the concept of shared ownership of the oceans and the need
for standardization of electronic navigation charts. In comparison with land-based mapping, the number of
agencies or partners is much reduced. The existence of an international curriculum provides an excellent
model for the creation of a certification system albeit for a narrowly defined domain.
5.15.3 International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ISPRS)
The International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing is an international scientific society that,
according to its mission statement, is “devoted to the development of international cooperation for the
advancement of knowledge, research, development, education and training in the photogrammetry, remote
sensing and spatial information sciences, their integration and applications, to contribute to the well-being of
humanity and the sustainability of the environment”. Membership of ISPRS is within the categories of Ordinary
Member, Associate Member, Regional Member or Sustaining Member. No minimum qualifications are placed
on member organizations to join ISPRS.
Member organizations may have minimum qualification criteria within their own organizations, but they are not
assessed by ISPRS as criteria for membership. Professionals working in the fields of photogrammetry, remote
sensing and spatial information sciences within their own country will be required to gain suitable qualifications
to practise. These are usually tertiary level qualifications, but ISPRS does not monitor the level of these
qualifications, nor does it attempt to standardize levels of qualifications of practicing professionals in each
country. Hence, the international reputation of ISPRS is dependent on the output of individuals within its
members, as displayed in its conferences and publications.
6 Discussion
6.1 Introduction
Each case study was to be divided into four sections: definitions, national professional associations, current
qualifications and certification initiatives and future directions. Given the variation in terminology, it made more
sense to allow each country to define its own terms. These definitions refer to both the subject domain and the
education system. Within each country, certain professional associations are more active than others. These
associations may or may not be linked to the international forum.
The core component of the case study is the description of current initiatives. These initiatives include existing
certification systems and mechanisms for the achievement of competency in the relevant technical or
conceptual domain. Future directions elucidate areas of concern, where current initiatives are inadequate or
where new technologies and concepts are changing the face of the industry.
6.2 Definitions
Even with a limited set of case studies, there is no consistency in the use of terms to describe the profession.
Geomatics has strong acceptance in Canada. In the United States, academically, there is a movement to
establish the term ”Geographic Information Science”. The Europeans prefer the term “GeoInformatics”,
whereas in Australia there is primary reference to Spatial Information Systems. In South Africa, both terms
Geomatics and Geoinformatics are in common use. The preferred terminology appears to be a function of
historic events and the prevailing education system.
Within the context of ISO/TC 211, terms must be open and inclusive. Rather than invent new “inclusive”
terminology, the preference is to equate a variety of different national terms under a broad consensus.
6.3 National professional organizations
In theory, the international professional organizations exist at the country level. In practice, different
professional groups may or may not be active in a country. The other challenge is that in large geographically
extensive countries, there is considerable variation in different states and provinces. This variation may be
greater than between countries.
Japan and Korea have established national government bodies, which have responsibility for the certification
of personnel. Germany has a strong educational structure, which has certain similarities to these Far East
countries. In the UK, a number of professional organizations are linked to AGI, which is a consortium of
private and public interests. Canada and the United States have academic consortium (e.g. UCGIS) and also
active professional bodies (e.g. ASPRS, URISA, CRSS). In South Africa a strong national association
(GISSA) has formed to bring together regional GIS organizations.
6.4 Current qualifications and certification initiatives
6.4.1 Introduction
While limited in coverage, the set of submitted case studies allowed the identification of a number of critical
dimensions across which the different national systems of qualification and certification varied. These
dimensions are described in the following sections.
6.4.2 Authorities who confer qualification and certification
In those countries where a system exists, the organization that confers or acknowledges a level of
qualification or certification may include one or more of the following:
 Accredited universities
 A government agency
 Professional organizations
 Industry or Trade organizations
8 © ISO 2004 – All rights reserved

6.4.3 Methods for determining required competency
Recently, there has been a significant effort by various agencies and countries worldwide to define skill sets
and competencies. Technical skills are often amenable to measurement under national vocational
qualifications system (e.g. Australia, UK, South Africa). FIG has been working on the definition of
competencies. Within the academic community, there is a history of attempts to define core curriculum, in
particular in the United States with GIS e.g. NCGIA, UCGIS. Through an organization like UNIGIS with its
presence in several countries, there is the potential for a de facto international curriculum.
Required competency can be stated and assessed in a number of different ways. These include
 competency/knowledge/skills guidelines such as those provided by national governmental vocational
qualifications and professional association guidelines,
 international regulations such as those set out by IHO,
 standardized curricula.
6.4.4 Levels of qualification/certification conferred
In those countries where systems exist, professionals can be qualified at one or more levels. How those levels
are defined varies considerably.
6.4.5 Factors used in determining the level of qualification/certification
In general, there are two factors used to determine if an individual can be considered for a certain level of
qualification or certification. The weight accorded to each of these varies. These factors are
 level of academic education,
 amount of practical experience.
6.4.6 Mechanisms for granting qualification/certification
There is a very broad range of mechanisms used to assess and grant qualifications and certification. This
includes
 mutual recognition of qualifications (see Annex B FIG),
 examinations as part of an education program,
 examinations independent of education,
 portfolio assessment,
 continuing professional development programs.
The mutual recognition strategy is particularly applicable to the exchange of personnel between countries with
a similar institutional structure. However it may not be appropriate where matching institutions do not exist. To
be effective, it requires careful assessment of both formal academic programs and work experience, since the
recognized educational value of these components varies and the content, duration and assessment of formal
courses has wide cultural and institutional discrepancies.
6.5 Future directions
If we accept the continued globalization of society, then there will be an increased demand for transferability of
skills and qualifications across national boundaries. This serves to illustrate the need for continued effort to
develop some equivalencies between different curricula and the work experience components.
If it were possible within the broad definition of Geographic Information / Geomatics to create an agreed
international curriculum as in the IHO case, this could lead to de facto standardization. However, with the
increasing delivery of courses over the Internet, the challenge will be to measure the practical applications of
the science and technology and professional experience.
Within the field of technical education, in some countries such as Canada, there is a trend towards “portfolio”
education, where the portfolio contains a learning contract and examples of the students’ work. In these cases,
it will be important to find consistent methods to assess the contents of the portfolio and to ensure that the
work has been completed by that individual.
We can establish frameworks and policies for dialogue between professional organizations and national
education bodies. Ultimately, skills and competencies are tied to the individual. To establish a credible and
workable certification system will require further research on existing national situations, i.e. additional country
case studies addressing qualification across the full range of relevant domains and better understanding of
current trends in technical education research.
Present barriers to progress on this complex subject are lack of consensus on the subject domains, lack of
interest by a number of the contributing professions, lack of understanding of different learning strategies in
different countries. On the horizon, we can see new attempts to define skills and competencies, new
curriculum models and new delivery mechanisms.
7 Recommendations
Given the range of approaches, definitions and solutions identified by this limited set of case studies, this
project team concludes that it is not possible, within the context of the ad hoc set of technical experts, to
achieve the original goals of the project (see Annex M for details). These findings cannot provide an
exhaustive review of all existing systems of qualification and certification. However, the research has identified
a number of workable mechanisms and thus the project team presents the following recommendations.
1) An effective and feasible system for the transferability of qualifications and certification of personnel
in geographic information/geomatics should be advanced by a broadly based international
professional organization which promotes the wide range of qualification and certification systems
currently in place within individual countries. Such a system would support the national and
international mobility of properly trained and educated personnel in the field of geographic
information/geomatics.
2) The domain embraced by this organization must be inclusive and extend to all disciplines
encompassed broadly by the ISO/TC 211 definition of the field. This organization shall invite
representation from all relevant international associations, including members of the ISO/TC 211
community as well as other related international and national organizations.
3) At all times, this organization must acknowledge the dynamic and evolving nature of the domain and
related technologies and thus should take care not to institute any procedures or requirements which
would make it difficult for professionals to advance the knowledge and skill sets required.
4) A preliminary charge of t
...