| |
Appendix to item 20.1, 21.1 and 26.1 FIG TASK FORCE - REVIEW OF COMMISSION STRUCTURE
|
QUESTIONS FOR BREAKOUT SESSIONDo you agree with these pressures for change?
|
Before considering the need for any major change in the longer term it may also be useful to make more explicit the 'informal' operational structure of the work of the FIG which has been emerging over the past 4-5 years including a formalisation of those activities which will be required to implement the new Governance model.
This emergent structure could be considered as existing in several 'clusters' nd the following lists the existing elements of this structure together with some new elements which will be created to reflect the activities which have been developing in the recent past.
The structure does not imply any significant changes to the role of ACCO, although it clearly reinforces the need for this form of coordinating body.
4.1.1 Nominations Review Committee - Responsible for reviewing nominations to the Council (This is a new element of the structure to reflect the new Governance procedures). The membership of the NRG would consist of 3 - 5 senior members of the FIG. Normally chaired by the immediate past president (PP), the Council would nominate 2-4 additional senior members to the NRG. The additional members would be selected to ensure a balanced committee taking into account of geography, and disciplinary background. Members would be invited to contribute for a maximum of 4 years. The nomination of the NRG shall be confirmed by the General Assembly at its meeting during the Congress. However, for the first time at the General Assembly in Seoul for 2001-2002. The NRG to be nominated at the General Assembly in Washington will serve from 2003-2006.
4.2.1 International Standards Committee - Responsible for links with ISO and the Commissions on standards issues. (This is suggested as a new, more permanent element, of the structure which reflects the importance attached to the work of the Task Force on Standards)
4.2.2 Strategic Alliances Committee - Responsible for Alliances with other
professional bodies, NGOs, UN agencies etc. (Again this is suggested as a
further new, more permanent element of the structure which also reflects the
growing importance of links with a range of international bodies).
This committee will be chaired by a Vice President assisted by a group of 3-4
people with specific alliance responsibilities
4.2.3 Academic Members Coordination Group - Responsible for the coordination of the interests of the growing academic membership base of the FIG. The relationship between this group and Commission 2 will require further discussion.
4.2.4 Sponsor and Corporate Members Coordination Group - Responsible for the coordination of the interests of the current sponsor and proposed wider 'corporate' grades of membership.
4.2.5 The Advisory Committee of Commission Officers (ACCO) . - Responsible for the coordination of the work of the Commissions.
Task Forces will continue, as at present, to be established for a limited time period to analyse a particular issue and report their findings to either the Council or GA (or both).
In the current structure this would include the;
4.3.1 Task Force on Cultures and Languages
Final Report in Washington
4.3.2 Task Force on Mutual Recognition of Qualifications
Final Report in Washington
4.3.3 Task Force on Under-Represented Groups
Final report in Washington
Other groups will be formed to deal with 'hot-topics' which require short term analysis and action.
As at present the Task Forces would be formed for a limited timescale (typically 4 years) with the intention that the work of the Task Force would then be integrated into the work of other more permanent structures.
The current structure consists of 9 Commissions and 1 Ad-Hoc Commission. The need for change in the current structure of the Commissions is becoming apparent in order to respond to the pressures highlighted earlier. Some options for change are outlined in section 5.
As certain areas of work of particular Commissions has evolved and matured, it has become apparent that the activity would benefit from a higher degree of autonomy. Consequently in recent years the FIG has established 3 FIG International Institutions, namely;
4.5.1 The FIG Multi-Lingual Dictionary Board
4.5.2 The International Institution for the History of Surveying and Measurement - Permanent Institution of FIG, and
4.5.3 OICRF - The International Office of Cadastre and Land Records
The terms of reference for the appointment of officers varies in each case, partly reflecting the historical evolution of the Institution. As part of the work of this Task Force it is proposed that each Institution be invited to clarify their current approach to Governance with any proposed changes.
In due course following further debate in Korea the positioning of the FIG Foundation will also require consideration.
QUESTION FOR BREAKOUT GROUPDo you feel the 'emergent structure' outlined above is an accurate reflection of the current framework (with appropriate modifications to reflect the changes introduced in the review of the Governance structure?
|
In an exercise to review the overall structure of the Commission framework it is important to ensure all possible scenarios are considered. Some (extreme) examples include;
Scenario 1 - Increasing the number of Technical groups significantly and eliminating the existing Commission structure. In this scenario, Technical groups would be clustered around relevant themes (e.g. sustainable development, technology, promotion of the profession etc.) and report directly through a Task Force Chair to the Council via a Vice President. Groups would be able to be formed as and when a sufficient number of members from a specified number of countries were able to put forward a business plan to the Council to justify the establishment of a new group.
Scenario 2 - Decreasing dramatically the number of Commissions . In this scenario perhaps only 3 or 5 major themes would be identified with each expected to support an increased number of working groups.
A less radical scenario could be:
Scenario 3 - Review the current structure and update this to reflect changes which have occurred in the recent past in order to ensure it is sufficiently flexible to adapt to future changes.
Each of these scenarios has its attractions. Scenarios 1 and 2 offer radically different potential outcomes. In the first the possibility is offered to broaden the range of activities examined by members. On the other hand it presumes that it would be possible to identify individuals to progress the work of a series of working groups. Scenario 2 on the other hand limits the number of themes under consideration, but with a potentially much more demanding coordination role for each of the leaders of the (say) three 'super-commissions'. On the downside is the potential damaging consequences of the election of a poor Chair who does not fulfill his or her responsibilities, with both short and long term consequences for the work in that area of activity.
An alternative perspective could be to suggest that the issue we face has less to do with the actual structure we create - and more to do with how we respond to the pressures for change outlined previously. In particular the need for a clearer long term strategy for the FIG and the need for a structure which can flexibly respond to this strategy in a coordinated and integrated manner.
The approach suggested for debate is closer to scenario 3 than scenarios 1 or 2.
The future Commission structure shall reflect the general strategies of the
Federation.
At the most recent meeting of the Bureau in December, 2000 the long term
strategy for the FIG was debated and the following 6 priority themes were
identified as being appropriate guiding principles for the long term strategic
direction of the FIG:
By identifying a set of 'guiding principles' to help direct the work of the FIG in the longer term, the issue of creating a structure which can respond to these long term principles becomes potentially clearer.
It is suggested that many features of the existing Commission structure, with some modifications in three key areas, could be adapted to meet the needs of the FIG in the longer tern. The three areas of identified need include;
5.2.1 Areas of Enquiry
The following revised and streamlined structure is suggested as a framework for the Commission structure after 2006.
Existing Title | Proposed Revision |
Professional Standards and Practice | Professionalism & Business Management |
Professional Education | Education and CPD |
Spatial Information Management | Geographic Information Management |
Hydrography | Hydrography and Offshore Surveying |
Positioning & Measurement | Combine – Geomatic Surveying |
Engineering Surveying | |
Cadastre & Land Management |
Land Management & Administration |
Spatial Planning & Development | Planning & Development |
Valuation and the Management of Real Estate |
Combine - Property Development, Construction, Valuation and Management |
Ad-hoc Commission on Construction Economics and Management |
Whilst 8 general areas of enquiry are recommended, it is anticipated that an increased number of working groups would be established. Each WG would be chaired by a Commission Vice Chair which means that there will be more than one vice chair in each commission. It is anticipated that each Commission would establish at least one working group which required collaboration with at least one other Commission.
5.2.2 Elections
As mentioned before it is becoming increasing difficulty to accept a commitment to a 8 year period of office as a Vice Chair and Chair of a Commission. Consequently, in the longer term it is suggested that the practice of electing a single Vice Chair who would normally automatically become Chair of the Commission be discontinued. In addition it is suggested that all Chairs of Commission working groups be given the title of Vice Chair. The election of the Chair would then be left open - although it would normally be expected that the election would be based around those who had successfully progressed the work of a Working Group within the Commission.
An option worthy of further consideration would be to elect the Chair at the Working Week prior to the Congress. This would provide a period for the Chair-Elect to become familiar with the role of Commission Chair, but only for a 1 year, as opposed to a 4 year lead-in time which exists at the present.
A further refinement would be to encourage those who might wish to be considered for the role of Commission Chair to formaly make this known to the NRG perhaps at the Working Week (WW) prior to the WW when the lection will take place.
5.2.3 Formation of New Commissions
To ensure maximum flexibility it would be possible for a proposal to form a new Commission to be considered by the Council at any time. The case for the establishment of a new Commission would then be put forward by the Council (with its recommendation) to the next meeting of the GA. Formation of new working groups would be the responsibility of the Commission, with the ability to create new, and disband old, working groups on an ongoing basis, apart form those involving collaboration with other Commissions which it is suggested should be considered and ratified by the Council.
QUESTION FOR BREAKOUT GROUPDo you have any views on the suggested restructuring, the election processes
and the flexibility offered to the Commissions to form new Working Groups?
|
This discussion paper offers some suggested directions for evolving the Technical/Professional work of the FIG. It is offered as an initial catalyst for debate. In the light of the feedback from the discussions at the breakout groups in Korea, it may be possible to formulate some recommendations for consideration at the second meeting of the General Assembly for action in the short term. A final report with more detailed recommendations for action in the longer term will be developed for presentation to the GA in Washington. This report will also consider point 5 on the terms of reference concerned with any changes to the arrangements associated with the arrangements for the Working Week.
Terms of Reference
In the light of:
To consider and make recommendations for any changes to:
Proposed Membership of Task Force
Dr Tom Kennie
Chair of Task Force - Review of Commission, Task Force and Permanent
Institution Structure 2000 - 2002
Email: tkennie@compuserve.com
12 March 2001