The Crisis in Geospatial Research and Education - A preliminary review from the OGC’s Perspective Mark Reichardt, with input from Mike Jackson, Kimon Onuma and Carston Roensdorf January 17, 2011

Albert Einstein on education: "The value of a college education is not the learning of many facts but the training of the mind to think." "A society's competitive advantage will come not from how well its schools teach the multiplication and periodic table, but from how well they stimulate imagination and creativity."

Overall problem University departments are out of touch, don’t serve critical needs: Measurement and data standards are an integral part of the modern scientific method, essential for complex information modeling and development of “open science”. Most university departments/disciplines are predicated on traditional information constructs and institutionally resistant to change i.e. careers take precedence over scientific innovation. Complex information modeling is a “disruptive technology”, challenging academic policy (disciplines), careers and traditional research funding models. Few universities have been restructured to accommodate the discipline convergence implicit in innovative information modeling and the recognition of “information interoperability” as a science. Progress in the geosciences and continued CAD/GIS integration depends on institutional support for information interoperability and the creation of “chainable” models for "geodesign" and building information models (BIM) in many domains.

Causes of the problem Academic departments are insular, seldom collaborate on cross-disciplinary projects. “Tribalism” within departments discourages cross-disciplinary studies. National organizations may understand, but incentives and awareness are inadequate at the local level. Students learn a particular GIS, and that particular vendor's paradigm is all they know. Geography attracts students interested in society and culture, not math, statistics and computer science. Staffing and curricula reflect students' interests. Academics see standards as "consolidation of mature technologies." Researchers like “new things.” Standards research is thus not held in high academic esteem. "GIS people" have difficulties understanding "CAD/BIM-people" when it gets to details. Schools cater to industries that they serve and thus churn out mediocre thinking. University administrators and professors lack “big picture” IT awareness. In geosciences, old institutional constraints (artifacts of old IT) limit the sharing of knowledge and data. New IT can eliminate those constraints, but this requires restructuring institutions, practices and incentives.

Solutions Recession is good! Evolution happens when old habits die off. Non-traditional curricula and programs are needed – degree, certificate training, and practical experience. Link graduate courses with continuous professional development. Demand more from schools! Harness the Facebook generation and force change by mashing up GIS and BIM, sociology and economics, etc. Bring geographic scientists and designers together for fusion of GIS and design. Both groups look at IT through different paradigms. OGC research members in OGC's 3DIM Domain Working Group bring communities together, encouraging new ideas and viewpoints. OGC could convene a Workshop or Technical Group outside of OGC Membership to produce a report to Governments and International Agencies (EU, World Bank, UN etc) to raise the political level of debate. Learn from the leaders: Paul Cote in Harvard, Thomas Kolbe in Berlin, Prof. Henning in Darmstadt have embeded CAD/GIS/BIM topics in graduate studies. Claus Nagel, the editor of CityGML, made key contribution with a MsC thesis on BIM/CityGML translation. Mike Jackson’s center at University of Nottingham has various programs focused on interoperability, proposes a Persistent Test-Bed concept for bridging the research and commercial/user communities.