NGAC Geospatial Workforce and Education

1. Subcommittee Status Report December 11, 2013 NGACGeospatial Workforce and Education

2. Geospatial Education & Workforce Guidance • The National Science and Technology Council’s Committee on STEM Education issued a 5-Year Strategic Plan on Federal Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education in May 2013. The NGAC Education and Workforce Subcommittee is asked to review the STEM strategic plan and provide an assessment of how geospatial education is addressed in the plan and its implementation activities.  The Subcommittee is also asked to identify opportunities to more effectively incorporate geospatial education and training into the implementation of the STEM strategic plan.* *October 2013 NGAC Guidance

3. Subcommittee Membership • Chair: Dave DiSera • Members: • Talbot Brooks • Keith Clarke • Carolyn Merry • Tim Nyerges • Matt O’Connell • Doug Richardson • Gary Thompson

4. Activities • Reviewed: • The Federal STEM Strategic Plan • The NRC Report: Future US Workforce for Geospatial Intelligence • The DOI STEM Education and Employment Pathways Strategic Plan The STEM Workforce Challenge: the Role of the Public Workforce System in a National Solution for STEM • Meetings: • November 8th Subcommittee Conference Call • November 18th Subcommittee Conference Call • November 22nd Working Call to Prep Subcommittee Call • December 2nd Subcommittee Conference Call December 11, 2013

5. Key Findings/Learnings • Federal STEM Plan is at a strategic level, does not reference specific programs or disciplines • Other back-up documentation used to develop the Plan may include references • DOL related material show that federal agencies are recognizing GIS as a STEM component - acknowledgement is a breakthrough  • THE DOI STEM Plan references GIS and programs for employment in GIS related fields • Follow-on work regarding the NGA Report findings and recommendations continues December 11, 2013

6. Challenges • There is no clear and broadly accepted definition for what constitutes the “geospatial industry” or a “geospatial workforce”. (http://www.profsurv.com/magazine/article.aspx?i=71204) • A clear continuum which establishes a clear educational path to credentialing to classified employment does not exist • No CIPS/Degree codification exists at the collegiate level • While GISP is growing, it lacks broad employer-based support • NAICS and similar job codes do not exist • Many educational, certification, and employment classification efforts are in place or underway which place specialization before and above generalization in an effort to meet limited, niche-oriented workforce demands. • Lack of cohesive identity and industry unity = lack of funding • How to apply/extend/interface with the Geospatial Competency Model

7. Impact of Challenges on Federal Gov. • Observations that need to be validated with a broader group: • Difficulty in identifying, listing, and filling geospatial contracts, services, and positions • Loss of leadership and the resultant ability to proscribe standards of practice globally • The creation and growth of geospatially oriented activities may be stunted • Collaboration and cooperation across the Federal enterprise is limited due to lack of common ground

8. Potential Actions • Have dialogue with the broader federal and geospatial communities to: • Define the geospatial industry • Establish policy and recommendations which creates a recognizable continuum and identity for geospatial information technologies which includes career identification, education, credentialing, and employment • Outcome for creation of the continuum must include a demarcation of geospatial as a clear STEM field of study and employment whose application may extend across and be taught/used by the arts, humanities, and other groups

9. Geospatial Workforce SWOT Analysis • Strengths: • Clear understanding of workforce development pathway • Sense of identity and ownership which fosters cohesiveness and leadership • Clarity with respect to Geomatics, surveying, information technology, and allied fields (de-confliction) • Weaknesses: • Many benefit from current confusion (special interests able to manipulate current system) • Development of a clear identity may disturb traditional models/owners • Some who are considered geospatial may fall outside new boundaries • Opportunities: • Linkage to STEM and similar “new” funding sources • Platform from which we may lead globally • Creation of Community focus to solve “big problems” • Better collaboration through shared understanding • Threats: • Opposition from those benefiting from current ambiguity • Inertia associated with breaking from past • Ambiguity/challenges associated with creating and potentially codifying definitions • Failure to define soon will result in absorption by other areas

10. Initial Actions for the Geospatial Community to Consider • Review and revise NAICS Codes to better fit jobs with substantial activities rooted in geospatial • Assess the geospatial Generalist to Specialist education and certification/credentialing • Assess the CIP/degree code for geospatial included in the definition of STEM education