International Archives of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing. Vol. XXXII, Part 6. Bandung-lndonesia 1999 
RECOLLECTIONS OF THE TRANSITION TO GEOMATICS 
Clive S Fraser 
Department of Geomatics 
The University of Melbourne 
Parkville Vie 3052 Australia 
Email: c.fraser@eng.unimelb.edu.au 
AUSTRALIA 
Commission VI, Working Group VI/1 
KEY WORDS: educational transition, geomatics, geomatics degree program 
ABSTRACT 
In mid 1993, the then Department of Surveying and Land Information at The University of Melbourne initiated the process of 
changing its name to the Department of Geomatics. The hope offered by a name change was that “geomatics” would be seen as a 
discipline encompassing much more than measurement science. Indeed, the aim was that geomatics would indicate to prospective 
students and associated professions the science of acquisition, management, modelling, analysis and presentation of spatial data over 
a range of activities focussed on land and environmental management. In this the 50th year of operation of the Department, we look 
back upon a successful transition to geomatics over the past half decade and reflect upon both the compelling reasons for the 
transition and the impact of the rapidly evolving spatial information industry. 
1. INTRODUCTION 
In mid 1993, the then Department of Surveying and Land 
Information at The University of Melbourne initiated the 
process of changing its name to the Department of Geomatics. 
The reasons for the change have been well documented by the 
present author and others (e.g. Gagnon & Coleman, 1990; 
Trinder & Fraser, 1994). Basically, they hinged upon the fact 
that the academic program in “surveying” was offering much 
more than the traditional measurement science focus of 
surveying education. Thus, while the degree programs had 
broadened to embrace emerging new fields such as GIS, 
environmental planning, land and resource management, and 
other elements of spatial information technology, there was 
limited recognition of this by either potential students or 
associated professions. 
The hope offered by a name change was that “geomatics” 
would be seen as a discipline encompassing much more than 
measurement science. To quote from Gruen (1998): "the task 
of the geomatic engineer consists of recording, managing, 
designing, developing and securing the structures inherent in 
our living space and economic environment”. One could go 
further and say that geomatics is about “designing, building and 
managing the spatial dimension of our natural and built 
environment" (Williamson, 1999). 
This year The Department of Geomatics celebrates its 50 l h 
anniversary as a stand-alone program in ‘surveying’ education 
at the University of Melbourne. In the 44 years prior to the 
name change to Geomatics, the Department changed its name 
only once, in the mid 1980s, when it became the Department of 
Surveying and Land Information. This name change attracted 
little attention, whereas the change to geomatics initially met 
with a reasonable measure of resistance from within both the 
traditional surveying profession and in quarters of academia. 
Indeed, in Australia a debate over the transition to geomatics 
raged via the pages of The Australian Surveyor for almost two 
years following program name changes at the Universities of 
Melbourne (Geomatics) and New South Wales (Geomatic 
Engineering). Now that the acrimony of this debate is but a 
memory, and there has been half a decade or so for the 
transition to geomatics to come to full fruition, it is useful to 
reflect. In this paper we both look back upon the process to 
assess whether the explicit and implicit aims of this transition 
have been realised, and we also touch upon the future. 
A number of measures, both internal to the university, and 
external within the professions, can be called upon to quantify 
the success or otherwise of the transition to geomatics. For 
example, we could look at changes in student numbers and 
quality, changes in curricula, changes in employment trends 
and prospects for graduates, and also possible changes in the 
overall professional standing of recent graduates. It is never 
easy to bring forth compelling quantitative evidence to back up 
assertions that are in large part qualitative. Yet we are in an era 
in education where such quantitative data is being increasingly 
replied upon as an essential component in the determination of 
both the resources given to academic programs, and their 
prospects for longevity. 
At the University of Melbourne the transition to geomatics was 
couched in long-term goals of building a better academic 
program in spatial information science and management, but it 
also had the very real imperatives of boosting student quality 
and numbers in order to arrest talk of possible future program 
closure.