Future Roles of the RPLS and GISP

One of the new initiatives at Geospatial Solutions (GSS) that I mentioned a couple of weeks ago is a Surveying Section on the website. This is an area on the GSS website that’s going to be dedicated to surveyors and GISer’s who want to collaborate. By collaborating, I mean sharing ideas, sharing data, resolving conflicts and generally communicating in a positive way.

From my previous column…

“A particular area where I want to pay specific attention is what I call the Survey Section. There is no doubt in my mind that land surveying professionals and GIS professionals are going to be close brethren in the geospatial world. The roles of both are evolving and the line of demarcation is not always clear, but the two need each other terribly in order to best serve the public. GIS isn’t always about parcel maps and land surveying isn’t always about coordinates. The Survey Section (or whatever better name I come up with) will be a place for this sort of knowledge exchange and collaboration in a positive way. There is not one person or company that can stop this geospatial train, so what’s left is how best the two professions can work together.”

In the column title, I refer to RPLS (Registered Professional Land Surveyor) and GISP (Geographic Information System Professional). RPLS is a generic term I use, but actually there are many different titles used depending on which US state or which country you reside in. RPLS roles are defined by each U.S. state statute (or country law) and their role varies widely from state to state and from country to country. For example, their role in California is much more encompassing than in Nevada. Likewise, the RPLS definition from one country to the next can be vastly different. GISP, on the other hand, is a certification of competency. Their role is not defined nor regulated by individual states or countries (that I’m aware of).

RPLS and GISP are formal titles for the licensed (RPLS) and certified (GISP) people in their respective professions. Beyond those who are licensed and certified, there are orders of magnitude more practioners, technicians and specialists who utilize measurement, data collection and data processing technology (hardware and software) in order to complete their tasks at hand. As technology advances and becomes more accessible and more powerful, the growth rate of practioners, technicians and specialists is going to far exceed the growth rate of RPLS and GISP personnel.

How can I make that statement?

The fact is that data collection (hardware/software) and analysis (software) technology is becoming cheaper and easier to use every year. The established guard might think of it as “dumbing down” the profession, but I don’t think it is. Think back 60 years ago when data entry was accomplished via punch cards. Today, it is widely accepted and expected that everyone uses a keyboard to enter data…and they are responsible for their data entry errors.

The result of advancing technology and a tightening economy is that there are many more organizations purchasing the technology and performing certain tasks themselves. So, not only are the roles between the RPLS and GISP getting fuzzier, but also the line of demarcation between the client and the RPLS/GISP.

One example is wetland delineation mapping. In the past, it was common for a wetland scientist to flag the boundary of a wetland and then hire a third party to measure the locations of the flags and create the wetland delineation map. However, it is becoming common for the wetland scientist to carry a GPS mapping receiver with them and map the flags as they are set. This saves the client time by not having to wait for someone else to return to the site and map it. It also saves money by being able to keep the activity in-house. The risk of bringing the activity in-house is having potentially lower quality data if the wetland scientist isn’t well-versed in how to utilize the GPS mapping technology.

One can argue that the line of demarcation is easy to draw…just refer to the local statute. Maybe, but I can see two problems with that:

1. Advancing technology and expertise have allowed RPLS to extend their scope of services in their businesses. For example, an RPLS firm offers mapping services that aren’t inside the bounds of the local statute (eg. wetland surveys). GPS and GIS technology advancements have stimulated this growth.
2. In the areas of expertise that fall outside of the local statutes, there ends up being a “turf battle.” In the wetland mapping example above, the wetland scientist may not be an in-house employee. He/she may be a contractor to the client just like the RPLS firm. In essence, they are competitors. As technology tools become more accessible, powerful and friendlier, this type of “turf war” is inevitable.

Does this mean the RPLS firm is destined to only be competitive within the confines of the local statutes (eg. boundary surveys, etc.)?

I think it depends on the RPLS firm. The answer is “probably” if the RPLS firm is not willing to update its technology toolbox and technology expertise. That would be a shame, though.

From an expertise perspective, the GISP need the RPLS, badly…but that can only work if the RPLS can speak and operate in terms that make sense to the GISP. The fact is that it’s a bigger step for a GISP to learn RPLS-speak than it is for an RPLS to learn GISP-speak. The GISP speaks coordinates and metadata. To an RPLS, a boundary survey does not a coordinate make.

From a “turf war” perspective, it’s more difficult. When egos and money are involved, people predictably become sensitive and defensive. GISP are a threat to the way RPLS firms have been doing business for decades. There have been two typical attitudes by the RPLS firm in response to this threat:

1. Disengage and view the GISP as an adversary rather than a complementary colleague
2. Expand its “turf” by effecting change in the local statutes to increase the scope in which the RPLS firm operates, thus excluding/restricting the GISP from practicing in certain areas (e.g., GIS mapping).

The former isn’t going to accomplish much. Change is inevitable and firms must adapt to change in order to survive. Sticking one’s head in the sand isn’t going to make the problem go away.

The latter is a short-term solution. One can “hide behind a stamp” for only so long. Maybe that’s a rough way to state it, but it’s a proven fact that competition promotes excellence. One only has to look as far as the automobile industry to understand this. Had not Japan entered the automobile industry, the quality of automobiles would not be near what they are today. Yes, it has shaken the core of the US economy, but it was something that was needed. It was a “wake-up call” of sorts.

This column was not meant to provide answers or even attempt to paint the entire picture. It’s an opening statement on what will be a core part of the Geospatial Solution’s coverage in the future.

See you next week.