I have applied for a doctoral program and want to research something useful for surveyors. My thinking preferences lean toward system processes (holistic approach) and showing how geospatial data can add value to business practices. (something I have espoused for 15 years) With those two premises as a point of beginning I want to see what questions other surveyors might like to hear research about.
What I have proposed so far is developing a better model, a matrix of workflow maybe, that would help bridge communication between geospatial providers (surveyors, GIS, RS) and business decision makers. The tools would be risked-based assessment and fitness-for-use. I understand that things like ALTA and boundary will always remain standard-based, but a lot of what we provide can be risk-based such as topos, modeling, and feature extraction.
[INDENT=1]Example: A client needs to know dirt volumes for a large project. You can send a field crew and do 0.5' contours and give him a volume with 95% certainly for x amount of dollars and 4 weeks time. Or you can do it in half the time using available 1 meter surface models but with only 65% certainty of volume for 1/4 of the cost. Based on risk involved the client then decide if the lower cost does or does not have greater value.[/INDENT]
There is a lot of research on decisions similar to the example, but I want to do something more systemic, looking at incorporating geospatial data into business processes and showing business the value and being able to select the right tool given different risk, and create models for surveyors and other geospatial professionals to use in helping businesses make those decisions. I think the industries this would best apply to are utilities, transportation, mining, and oil & gas.
So I am putting my body armor on and waiting for the tomatoes to fly. What do you guys think? Do you see value for the given industries? Is there something else you can suggest that might be more useful?
Maybe you could do some polling of relevant groups about various ways of presenting spatial information. For example, sit some somewhat real-estate savvy folks with a bit of capital at their disposal in front of computers. Present half with a tax sale add with the typical description (personal details redacted, although this is a public record):
"Being all and the same lands and premises conveyed to ____________ by Warranty Deed of ____________ dated month, day, year, and recorded in Book X at pages Y-Z of the City of Rutland Land Records...."
Present the other half with the same notice, but include gis data for the center of the parcel. Observe the behavior of the two groups for 15 minutes.
geonerd, post: 329905, member: 8268 wrote: ...Example: A client needs to know dirt volumes for a large project. You can send a field crew and do 0.5' contours and give him a volume with 95% certainly for x amount of dollars and 4 weeks time. Or you can do it in half the time using available 1 meter surface models but with only 65% certainty of volume for 1/4 of the cost. Based on risk involved the client then decide if the lower cost does or does not have greater value......Is there something else you can suggest that might be more useful?
That is indeed an interesting question. From my experience and the local contractual procedures to which we adhere, the answer to your question is probably nestled within the devilish details of the project.
Over the last twenty years I have seen a trend in contract administration to steer away from measurement based payment to lump sum payment when it comes to unclassified excavation. I believe this has evolved because of several projects with payments made per cubic yard either over-running the original engineer's estimate or winding up in litigation over the contractor's and engineer's measurements contradicting one another.
Instead of preparing contract documents that paid per unit, some contracts now pay excavation as a lump sum, with the engineer's volume estimates as a guide. Although there are provisions of renegotiation if the quantities over run a certain percentage, no additional payment is usually made for any overages or under estimations. Feeling the need to protect themselves most excavation contractors inflate their bids to protect themselves in case of improper measurements or quantity estimates.
The reason I say it is a good question is because this trend may, or may not, significantly affect the bottom line. If a project requires the displacement of 20,000 c.y., the excavation item might be less that $100K. This could be peanuts compared to the entire cost of a project. Let's say a large project has 1,000,000 c.y. that need to be moved. The differences in estimated and actual quantities could be significant and ultimately affect the cost of the project. And when dealing with public monies, everybody is usually walking on egg shells when it comes to the contract administration of payment.
Poor quantity estimation in this manner usually result in higher cost estimation by a bidding contractor. So basically the difference between a 95% confidence level of estimated quantities and a 65% confidence level may or may not be a huge factor. The total cost of the quantity needs to be weighed and compared to cost of the entire project.
I personally feel that a proper survey is usually so inexpensive in comparison to the project that there is no reason to usurp a ground survey. Conditions and locations are always a factor. The use of geospatial data to prepare quantity estimation may indeed become just as precise as a survey, but how will that 'unknown' factor be perceived when it comes to bidding the actual work? It might very well unnecessarily drive up the cost of construction. Engineering principles are one thing, budgets are another.
