Post: 3 February 2018
(This post is about the Geospatial Commission. Please see my resource page for background.)
The Geospatial Commission was announced by the UK Government in November 2017.
So far there has been no further official public statement, other than passing mentions in speeches and articles.
However I’ve located some additional information that provides insight into the thinking behind the Commission.
In early September 2017 the Boston Consulting Group (BCG), a US-based management consultancy, was awarded a £554k contract to provide “consultancy support regarding geospatial data” over the two months leading up to the Autumn Statement in November.
You can download the docs from Contracts Finder or I’ve made PDF copies:
Contract Document
Statement of Requirements
BCG’s Proposal Methodology
Letter of Appointment
Following are points from the contract documents. Most of the useful content is in the Statement of Requirements.
The contract is with UK Government Investments (UKGI), the HM Treasury agency that manages shareholder relationships with businesses owned or part-owned by the Government. The overall project lead is Claire Wren at UKGI. (Wren is also on the board of HM Land Registry.)
There is a Steering Group with “representatives from HMT, BEIS, DCLG, MOD, HMRC, GDS, DCMS and Defra” and a Sounding Board with “CEOs and Chairs of involved organisations”. Both are chaired by John Manzoni, Chief Executive of the Civil Service.
The purpose is given as:
UKGI’s (UK Government Investments Limited) challenge is to maximise the use and economic impact of geospatial data created in the public sector, primarily by Ordnance Survey (OS), HM Land Registry (HMLR), UK Hydrographic Office (UKHO), British Geological Survey (BGS) and Valuation Office Agency (VOA) (but also others) while ensuring that it is financially sustainable and able to evolve to meet future needs.
Registers of Scotland, which manages land ownership data equivalent to that held by HMLR, also gets a specific mention in the statement of requirements.
There’s a link to the Conservative Party’s manifesto statement:
The Government has a manifesto commitment to create a new geospatial data body that brings together the relevant parts of OS, HMLR, UKHO, BGS and VOA. Planning and video games are highlighted as opportunities, but the economic potential is considerably broader (e.g. driverless cars, drones, 5G).
Phase 1 deliverables include
Phase 2 deliverables include
BCG’s Proposal Methodology is unenlightening – very generic and no particular observations on geospatial in the UK. There is an “initial view of 5 priority case studies identified”: Netherlands, Western Australia, USA, Germany, Singapore.
Deliverables from BCG’s work on this contract have not been published. However it seems likely that they provided the basis for the annual “£11 billion of extra value” figure in the November announcement and the “more than £10 billion per annum” figure in John Manzoni’s recent Civil Service transformation speech.*
BCG has a track record for attaching big numbers to the growth value of geospatial services.
Beyond that it is not clear to what extent BCG’s work influenced the November announcement of the Geospatial Commission or its current direction.
However we can see some movement. The specific references to OS MasterMap and benefits to “UK-based small businesses in particular” are new elements that were not evident in either the manifesto statement or the requirements for the contract awarded to BCG.
The announcement also suggests the form of any new geospatial body that emerges from the Geospatial Commission will be mainly about governance and oversight, rather than the physical restructuring of public bodies contemplated in earlier iterations.
Update 19 February 2018
* Treasury and UKGI have refused FOI requests from Christopher Roper and myself for the analysis behind the £11bn figure, on the basis that the information is intended for future publication “later this year”.