×

You are using an outdated browser that does not fully support the intranda viewer.
As a result, some pages may not be displayed correctly.

We recommend you use one of the following browsers:

Full text

Title
Sharing and cooperation in geo-information technology
Author
Aziz, T. Lukman

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.