I am trying to assess the current need for training within the LiDAR and 3D laser scanning industry. From what I hear most surveying programs at least in the US, with a couple of notable exceptions like Oregon State University, do not have the funds to invest in 3D.
So not only is a large portion of the surveying profession approaching retirement, new surveyors are not being trained with the skills needed to take their place. Furthermore it seems to me that training opportunities are limited to those people who purchase hardware or software from a vendor.
I would really like to get your opinion on whether this is a real issue, or perhaps because of the economy the demand for trained people is not that great. By the way from what I am hearing the phone has started ringing for some firms.
Since I am almost finishing my Msc, and I am specially interested in LiDAR, I would like to add that even if we might be really interested in, it is not easy to find a place where to develop ourselves professionally and personally. So I fully agree with the article.
It is definitely an issue Gene. 3D Laser Scanning is not just one more/ new tool in surveying and geodesy, it is a new philosophy in geometry capturing and processing, which requires new strategy and approach. This technology and technique open new horizons for surveyors: instead of doing the same things faster/further (and unfortunately cheaper) , as some vendors wrongly declaim while promoting their stuff, surveyors should enhance and expand their services and play a new role in every process and field. Instead of selling data (dumb points or model) they can now sell knowhow, then $ becomes $$$…. It can definitely change surveyor’s role and even the profession. However, in order to do that, geodesy studies should adopt the new “things”. CAD, 3D Modeling, BIM, Geometrical analysis & design, and many other new terms should become part of the syllabus. It is not a privilege for academic institution to include 3D Laser Scanning in their program, it is of their moral and professional obligation, cut and clear! There’s no question any more if 3DLS will become a new way, it is a new way.
Last but not least: as always, it is not the money but mind fixation or fear, preventing 3DLS in becoming an attractive program in geodesy and surveying studies. The money is just very simple (not to say primitive…) excuse.
Leica HDS has an attractive education program enables almost every serious institution getting in. Just recently, together with local Leica Geosystems rep in Israel, we delivered 2 such education programs (C10 scanner+ 10 Cyclone seats) to a geodesy department in an academic institution and to an architecture faculty in another institution. Both are not the richest in the country.
If you really want it, you’ll get it….
I agree with this. I work with a conservation district that works in partnership with a federal agency in the U.S. One of many agencies who are currently working week to week due to threats of shutdowns for lack of money. We have some really nice LiDAR data to work with , purchased with soft money funds, but no money for training. It’s mostly on the job training. It’s like buying a Ferrari but not being able to afford drivers ed or the training needed to get your driver’s license. I think one solution might be to package training with data. The reason being, in some cases, like our’s, where we are working from grants, the funds might be available to get the data, but not the training, or GIS software to use it. Making training part of the data package may make it easier to use the data you are purchasing. By the way– great blog! Thank you!
I might point out as an additional comment that although there is certainly a whole new aspect of surveying added with the introduction of laser scanning, its valuation in terms of professional accreditation and recognition (i.e. PLS equivalent) is not really there.
I’ve worked with many PLS’s who staunchly oppose the reliability of laser scanning technology and I’ve worked with laser scanning professionals who radically overstate the reliability (or perhaps dependability) of laser scanning data.
In my opinion, what needs to go hand in hand with this discussion is the necessity that those who do take on the training and expertise of laser scanning also (at the appropriate level) take on the professional responsibility (and naturally the associated $$) to go with it.
Amen – I could not agree more.