Independent Geomatics Analysis
Standards unpacked. Risks identified. Decisions supported. Independent analysis for geomatics professionals.
Analysis across four critical dimensions of geomatics
How experienced clients structure survey governance, manage risk, and avoid costly assumptions before mobilisation.
What IMCA, IOGP and ISO standards actually require – and where they deliberately leave gaps for operator judgment.
Recurring survey mistakes, dangerous assumptions, and anti-patterns that damage project outcomes.
Strategic perspectives for senior managers: when to seek independent review, how to de-risk projects, what advisors look for.
Recent articles on geomatics risks, standards, and decision-making
Pipeline depth of burial verification in shore approaches is consistently mismanaged. Here's what actually works across the intertidal gap.
Brazil's first S-101 ENC at Suape signals major shifts in survey deliverables, QC workflows, and client expectations across Latin American offshore operations.
Satellite geometry, ionospheric scintillation, and IMU drift cripple positioning above 70°N. We analyse the data and what offshore operators must do.
What Really Moves on an Offshore Platform: The Subsidence-vs-Growth Problem
14 views
When GNSS Fails: What a Norwegian Dog Race Reveals About Offshore PNT
9 views
Why Arctic GNSS Positioning Fails Above 70°N – And What Actually Works
7 views
Why Following ASOG Still Fails: The Drift-Off Problem No One Wants to Discuss
6 views
Battery Packs in Pressure Housings: Field Lessons from Three Decades
5 views