GEOSPATIAL MARKET
SEGMENTATION
Question 5: Select one of the following methods that
you think best categorizes the geospatial technology
industry.
Question 6:
How would you improve the categorization you have just chosen in the
previous question? (Answers listed as
individual comments below)
·
CAT 1 (33;
47.14%): Division by technology categories: GIS; Photogrammetry;
Geographic Management Systems (i.e., real-time interactive GPS/GIS operations
management systems, dispatch, electronic battlefield, AVL, work order systems,
GPS-RFID logistics systems, etc.); Remote Sensing; others.
o View Summary
Individual
Comments from respondents who chose CAT 1 (direct quotes, as is):
o
Possibly
shorten the number of categories listed.
o
Asset
locating
o
Realative to workforce needs...I'd get a better listing of all the
technologies involved...especially those involved in creating GIS software,
databases, capturing, managing and updating large data sets and real
applications (lots more than just simple queries).
o
Again,
combining the first two may be good. As an example how each technology category
applies to cetain industries (User Application Group). In that way you can broaden the GIS industry for future
workforce development.
o
Its all GIS or GIT with subcagegories for
specific applications. Industries and
other organizations may share application needs, but use the same underlying
geospatial technology.
o
add cartography! (especially with regard to
cartographic visualization, geovisualization, and/or
scientific visualization), add surveying (termed also ""geomatics"" in the
o
Perhaps
further subdivide by application group?
o
I
think that the approach suggested by the above questions is not a proper way to
categorize our discipline. Regardless of application domain, employer type, or
specific technololgy implementation focus, there is a
core set of knowledge that is required by all practitioners. This core set can
be thought of as the science of geospatial technology. The core knowledge has
to do with such things as coordinate reference systems, geodesy, error
analysis, data models, and so forth. Such knowledge is cross cutting.
Personally, I would not hire a ""geospatial tech specialist""
that did not have a strong grounding in geospatial science. I have worked in
Government, the private sector, and for a not-for-profit. To
often, students learn the tools and not the science. They learn processes and
do not understand problem solving.
o
Are
there any users here? Are they all users? Are they developers?
o
Unsure
of what 'electronic battlefield' is.
o
Start
teaching how these categories are interconnected and aply
to user application groups and division by sectors.
o
there
should be a possibility to combine categories, e.g. public sector health care
GIS
o
Geodatabase Designs by Application Group
o
Expand
on technology categories -- the GIS category can be broken into geographic
analysis, data management, and GIS system/software development.
o
The
key to using this categorization is Technology.
Use of geospatial technologies should be catagorized
according to application.
o
The
ASPRS already has a segmented organization that identifies the various broad
sectors of the industry. Might do well
to use that as a model. By application
type becomes to fractured and unweildy.
o
add
... GIScience, ILCS, and Decison
Making (Decision Support)
o
The
first two categorizations in 5 are superior to the third, but they are
cross-cutting, not mutually exclusive. I also distinguish doing work
""with"" GIS (applications) and doing work
""on"" GIS (basic research).
o
visualization will be the largest category in the near future.
o
technology category division is appropriate, despite what the business
verticals may believe, the technology does not change dramatically for the
verticals.
o
The
geospatial technology industry categorized by application group and sectors is
too fragmented. Categorizing by the
suggestions in question 8 is my preference.
o
I
would combine this segmentation with that of ""application
groups"". It is more important
to hire somebody with training in the appropriate technology, but almost as
important to get somebody with the background knowledge & experience in the
type of data they will be using.
o
A
combination of application groups with the technology categories may be
appropriate.
o
I
believe I would include application to some degree.
o
Use
all 3; ideally with #1 as a subset of #2 and #3 as a subset of #1.
o All categories MUST have a strong
base in measurement science.
·
CAT 2 (33;
47.14%): Division by user application groups: Utility; Telecommunication;
Health Care; Agriculture; etc.
o View Summary
Individual
Comments from respondents who chose CAT 2 (direct quotes, as is):
o
We
need to focus on data integration at the enterprise level. Indrustry focus
should be targeted at the specific information needs of a given industry. In regards to geospatial information it
should be focused on tying that information to a specific landbased
location. As long as we know the
specifications used to define the cooridinate it
should be valid in any application that needs to use it. GIS should be an under lying component, not
the main focus.
o
Market
segments are not intended to be restricted to a single form of
segmentation. Restricting to one form of
categorization is not recommended.
o
Rely
upon industry to identify market sectors.
o
The
reason I would categorized by user application is the use and practicality can
be quite different depending on the user community group.
o
Businesses
generally categorize the application of technology across real-world industry
domains (eg. utilities, local government, telco, health care). Education would be sectors (eg. k-12 and higher education). Industry division by technology makes less
and less sense these days.
o
a
cross matrix between item 1 & 2 above
o
I
see little to no targeting of the natural sciences, for example endangered
species management, in the application sector. Recent events suggest this may
be turning (ESRI virtual campus Turning Natural Resources Information into
Data...or something like that)
o
Geospatial
technologies are a ever-developing suite of methods
used to address specific problems. Each user application may draw upon
different GIScience components to address these
problems. The key idea is to view and understand the asking of the questions in
terms of spatio-temporal connections.
o
I
have no suggestions.
o
Under
the application groups, there would need to be categories, i.e. Geographic
Management Systems, dispatch, AVL, etc.
o
I
think categorizing by application area is helpful in assessing the geospatial
workforce needs. There are advantages and disadvantages in the different types
of divisions, but dividing by application area seems to make the most sense.
o
I
think the first level of categorization is by industries and next by
technologies.
o
I
would change it to be by data usage groups and break it down into an asset
management group and a data analsysis group. The idea is you are either tracking something
like people, places, or things a.k.a. physical assets or using data to track
weather, soil erosion, or things that you wouldn't consider an asset.
o
Make
sure education is included as an application group.
o
I
think that it is fine...
o
The
above with subdivisions of level of expertise.
o
I
would do an upward sumarization of application
groups, so the categories become infrastructure management; spatial analysis,
thematic mapping, world coordinate determination, etc.
o
The
average user in todays world
needs to use accurate data to manage his/her life in a spatially oriented
world. Whether getting directions,
planning a media campaign or shipping a product spatial information is
important in these and almost all aspects of daily interaction on the planet.
o
Good
God - so many ways to cut a cake. This is hard and I reserve the right to
change my mind. I have thought about
this a great deal and I think the user application group may make the most
sense. It is hard to separate GIS from
GPS from RS or data management for that matter; they are all integrated.
o
Emphasis
on cross-discipline use of data and applications
o
The
selected application group should contain GIS, Photogrammetry,
Remote Sensing, GPS, Spatial OR/M as distinct categories so as to include
private sector companies filling these niches independently of utility, telcom, etc..
o
The
primary breakout should be by industry - however, in each industry, there
should be specific sub-market segments such as those listed in the first
option."
o
I
feel that there are two sides to the geospatial industry - users and
developers. That should be worked into this because in the long run, the
o
I
believe grouping by application/business sectors provides the best support to
the user community.
·
CAT 3 (4;
5.74%): Division by sectors: Private sector; Public sector; Education sector;
Non-Profit sector; etc.
o View Summary
Individual
Comments from respondents who chose CAT 3 (direct quotes, as is):
o
Break
each sector down futher in a matrix using additional
cross cutting categories like National, State, Regional, Local domains. This
would give a better picture of what kinds of workers are needed and where they
are needed.
o
GIS
is the core technology and emphasis, while the other technologies are
contributors or enhancements to GIS, such as GPS. There seems to be a mix of techological confusion in the previous categories listed
above.
o
I
would use the sectors. as general categories and then
expand it by the technology categories within the sectors.
Respondents were split
between Categories 1 and 2 in regards to a method for categorization of the
geospatial technology industry. Very few selected category 3 alone. However, as with the definition of the
geospatial technology itself, many suggested that a single method of
categorization is problematic. Instead,
a combination of categories may work best.
Suggestions for
improvement of Category 1 (Question 6):
I. No Changes
II.
Add Other Technologies to Category 1
III. Combine with Category 2 (Division by
User Application Groups)
IV.
Combine with Category 3
V. Combine all
Three Categories (Technology, User Application and Sectors)
VI.
General Comments and Questions
Comment
1:
§
I think that the
approach suggested by the above questions is not a proper way to categorize our
discipline. Regardless of application domain, employer type, or specific
technology implementation focus, there is a core set of knowledge that is
required by all practitioners. This core set can be thought of as the science
of geospatial technology. The core knowledge has to do with such things as
coordinate reference systems, geodesy, error analysis, data models, and so
forth. Such knowledge is cross cutting. Personally, I would not hire a
"geospatial tech specialist" that did not have a strong grounding in
geospatial science. I have worked in Government, the private sector, and for a
not-for-profit. Too often, students learn the tools and not the science. They
learn processes and do not understand problem solving.
Comment
2:
§
“All categories
MUST have a strong base in measurement science.”
Questions:
·
Are there any
users here? Are they all users? Are they developers?
·
Unsure of what
'electronic battlefield' is.
Suggestions for
improvement of Category 2 (Question 6):
Suggestions for
improvement of Category 3 (Question 6):