Executive Summary
IOGP has established a Geomatics Committee expert group to develop Version 3 of the Seabed Survey Data Model (SSDM, Report 462), the first major revision since Version 2 in 2017. The published aims are migration from ArcMap to ArcGIS Pro 3.x, support for dynamic coordinate reference systems, and closer alignment with the Land Survey Data Model and Offshore Infrastructure Survey Data Model. Publication is expected in 2027. The harder problem is not technical compliance but how survey, GIS, and asset teams adapt their workflows to it.
What IOGP Has Announced
The IOGP Geomatics Committee has established an expert group to develop the third version of the Seabed Survey Data Model (SSDM), published as IOGP Report 462. According to IOGP’s own announcement, the revision targets a migration from Esri ArcGIS Desktop (ArcMap) to ArcGIS Pro 3.x, support for dynamic coordinate reference systems aligned with the IOGP EPSG Geodetic Parameter Dataset, and closer harmonisation between SSDM and its companion models: the Land Survey Data Model (LSDM) and the Offshore Infrastructure Survey Data Model (OISDM).
That is the verified scope. IOGP has stated that the work is intended to keep SSDM “relevant, practical and aligned with how geospatial survey data is produced, managed and used today,” with publication expected in 2027.
SSDM Version 1 dates to 2011 and Version 2 to January 2017; Version 3 is expected in 2027 – the arc a reader may carry in from the “16 years” framing. A decade since the last major release is not, on its own, a failure – the value of a data standard lies in stable, broad adoption rather than frequent change. But a decade is long enough that the underlying GIS platform itself has been retired, which is much of what drives this revision.
Why This Matters
SSDM is widely used across the offshore energy sector as the delivery format for seabed survey GIS data. Pipeline route surveys, field surveys, and inspection datasets are commonly specified for delivery in SSDM, and the resulting data flows into GIS, engineering, and asset-integrity systems. When the platform underpinning the standard changes, that chain is affected.
The platform change is real and dated. Esri’s ArcGIS Desktop (ArcMap) entered Mature Support on 1 March 2024 and is scheduled to retire on 1 March 2026, with no further functional updates. SSDM Version 2 is built around the ArcMap workspace. Projects can open Version 2 deliverables in ArcGIS Pro through backward compatibility, but teams commonly report friction on conversion – symbology that does not carry over cleanly and layers that need manual adjustment. The exact cost varies by organisation and project; treat any single “hours saved” figure with caution.
Dynamic reference systems are the second driver. Regional datums are moving to time-aware frameworks – Australia’s GDA2020 and its planned dynamic successor are the most-cited example, reflecting plate motion of roughly 7 cm per year. Over a span of years, that motion accumulates to metre-level differences if coordinate epoch is not recorded. The EPSG dataset has supported coordinate epochs for some time. Aligning SSDM Version 3 with dynamic-CRS handling is what would let temporal metadata travel with the survey data rather than being lost.
The third driver is harmonisation. SSDM, LSDM, and OISDM overlap wherever a project spans seabed, infrastructure, and onshore data. Where those overlaps are handled with three separate schemas and workflows, integration is repetitive and error-prone. Closer alignment across the three models is the stated intent of the Version 3 work.
The Pattern Standards Follow
Survey data standards tend to follow a familiar adoption curve: slow uptake at first, then written into tenders, then treated as routine once contractors and clients align on it. SSDM Version 2 has reached that routine status for much of the sector – it is now a common delivery requirement in survey tenders. A new version restarts part of that curve, because the platform and structure change underneath established habits.
Automation is where that cost concentrates. File formats, symbology, and project structure are expected to change with the move to ArcGIS Pro, which means SSDM document generators and validation scripts built against Version 2 will need re-engineering. It is not only the software that changes – it is the stable workflows built on top of it. Organisations that invested in Version 2 automation should plan to revisit that investment.
The timeline matters too. IOGP states only that publication is expected in 2027; the downstream dates here are our projection on a typical procurement lag, not dated guidance. If Version 3 publishes in 2027, procurement and contract updates follow, and first deliverables in the new format would realistically arrive in 2028 or later. Expect a period of parallel formats – Version 2 and Version 3 deliverables coexisting across active contracts – with the duplicate validation and import procedures that implies. Planning for that overlap now is cheaper than absorbing it later.
Where Teams Get It Wrong
1. Assuming Standards Compliance Equals Data Quality
A common mistake is to treat an SSDM-compliant deliverable as a quality-assured one. The standard defines data structures and spatial references; it does not validate the underlying survey. Multibeam processing, refraction handling, and geological interpretation determine whether the data is correct – SSDM is the container, not the guarantee. Version 3 does not change that.
2. Waiting Until 2027 to Prepare
Version 3 is expected to require ArcGIS Pro 3.x. ArcGIS Pro 3.0 was released in June 2022, and many organisations are still standardised on the 2.x line. Migrating an enterprise GIS environment is a year-scale effort, and vessels are best updated during planned mobilisations rather than mid-project. Upgrading to ArcGIS Pro 3.x is worth doing on its own merits, ahead of any SSDM requirement.
3. Ignoring Coordinate Epoch in Existing Data
In regions moving to dynamic datums, coordinate epoch is essential for correlating historical surveys with current work; without it, past and present positions cannot be reliably reconciled. Reviewing archived survey data for epoch metadata is slow but increasingly necessary.
4. Treating the Three Models as Separate Problems
SSDM, LSDM, and OISDM projects overlap wherever offshore and onshore infrastructure connect. The benefit of harmonisation only materialises if an organisation’s GIS treats the three together rather than as isolated databases. That is an organisational change as much as a technical one.
5. Underestimating Training Requirements
Teams fluent in SSDM Version 2 on ArcMap will face a genuinely different environment in ArcGIS Pro – layouts, Python scripting, and project structure all change. A few days of formal training does not absorb the productivity dip that follows a platform shift. Budget for the learning curve, not just the course.
What Version 3 Still Will Not Solve
SSDM addresses seabed characterisation data. It does not cover mobilisation surveys, routine positioning, or raw sensor data; those need their own specifications. The model also assumes end-of-project delivery and does not natively support partial or interim deliveries – so where interim data is needed, build that into contracts.
Adoption is also uneven across sectors. Oil and gas use is well established, offshore wind use is growing, and other marine sectors are further behind, with various in-house formats still in use. That unevenness will persist regardless of the version.
What Makes a Standard Last
The standards that survive are the ones that solve a real problem, retain user support, and keep pace with the technology around them. SSDM has held that position because it imposed structure on previously fragmented survey deliverables, and the platform migration in Version 3 is part of keeping pace.
The original SSDM initiative began in 2010 within the OGP (now IOGP) Geomatics Committee, led by Shell with industry partners, and Version 1 was released in April 2011. The recognised limitation is cadence: roughly six to ten years between major releases (2011 to 2017, then 2017 to an expected 2027) is slow for a field where the underlying GIS platform turns over faster. Smaller, more frequent updates would arguably serve the industry better than infrequent large ones.
A Practical Action Plan
For a senior survey manager, the useful work starts before Version 3 publishes. A prioritised checklist:
- Migrate to ArcGIS Pro 3.x on your own schedule. Standardise on Pro 3.x now and test it against existing Version 2 SSDM data to surface conversion issues early. Time enterprise and vessel upgrades to planned mobilisations, not mid-project windows – this is worth doing on its own merits, ahead of any SSDM requirement.
- Audit coordinate-epoch metadata. Where dynamic datums apply, organise geodetic archives by epoch and flag legacy surveys missing epoch information, so historical and current positions can still be reconciled.
- Add version clauses to contracts. Review current and pending contracts that will deliver data into the 2027 publication window and beyond: do they specify the SSDM version? If not, plan for mixed Version 2 and Version 3 deliverables and state the required version explicitly.
- Question contractors on transition plans. Ask survey contractors how they intend to handle the Version 2-to-3 transition – some will already be tracking the work, others will not move until the standard is published. The answer tells you who to plan around.
What to Watch
IOGP has stated the package will go through a formal review by the Geomatics Committee and external stakeholders before publication, and will ship with a change log to help users migrate from Version 2, alongside updated folder structures and delivery templates for ArcGIS Pro (.aprx) workflows and compatibility updates to .style(x) symbology files. The technical detail – feature classes, symbology rules, and the degree of LSDM/OISDM consolidation – may still change during that review. The platform move to ArcGIS Pro is the part least likely to change.
How dynamic-CRS support is implemented is the detail worth tracking most closely: time-dependent transformations and composite CRS handling are what determine whether temporal metadata is preserved rigorously through a marine survey deliverable.
The Bigger Picture
The progression of SSDM reflects the gradual maturing of offshore geospatial data management – from fragmented, hard-to-trust archives toward data that is structured, discoverable, and integrable. Consistent coordinate handling and straightforward integration that once seemed out of reach are now the baseline expectation.
A standard, though, is only as good as its application. Version 3 will provide an updated framework; whether an organisation captures its value depends on how deliberately it adopts it.
Based on: New Geomatics initiative set to enhance IOGP’s Seabed Survey Data Model
Published by
Hydrographic Methods Committee
Bathymetry, Multibeam & Seabed Mapping
An independent review committee focused on hydrographic survey methodology, IHO standards interpretation, and seabed mapping best practices for offshore and coastal projects.
