GGSC Capability Model

Average: 2.5

People 3 · Process 2 · Tech 2 · Data 3

CRITICAL - Fundamental for evidence building and awareness raising. Cannot engage stakeholders without knowing who they are.

While their are some good examples of how key stakeholder groups like government, academia, industry, and the public are collaborating, particularly within the IAG Services, their are few examples of how this is being done outside people directly involved in the geodetic community indicating a need for better understanding of stakeholder contributions, dependencies, and requirements.

Average: 2.0

People 2 · Process 2 · Tech 2 · Data 2

CRITICAL - Essential for evidence building to decision-makers. Poor performance across various groups.

Communicating effectively with and engaging key stakeholders is currently done poorly, with a lack of awareness across various groups including decision-makers, industry, and the public, and a clear need for a strategic approach and professional communication resources

Average: 1.3

People 1 · Process 1 · Tech — · Data 2

CRITICAL - Direct awareness raising capability. Low maturity with severe gaps in reaching decision-makers and industry.

The raising of public awareness about the importance of geodesy and engaging in outreach activities is not currently being done well. The evidence indicates a significant lack of awareness across various critical groups, hindering support and resources for the global geodesy supply chain.

Average: 2.0

People 2 · Process 2 · Tech 2 · Data 0

Significant gaps but not immediately critical. Important for building capacity.

Creating and providing educational content and training is significantly lacking, evidenced by a decline in formal programs, a shortage of qualified staff requiring on-the-job training, and an unequal distribution of geodetic knowledge, highlighting a strong need for more resources, coordinated initiatives, practical experience, and potentially new online platforms.

Average: 2.0

People 2 · Process 2 · Tech 2 · Data 2

Good existing collaborations but fragmented. Supportive of governance improvement.

Establishing and managing collaborations with external organizations occurs across various sectors, including government, academic, and private entities, but is often based on goodwill and in-kind contributions, is fragmented, lacks formal agreements and coordinated strategy, and needs improvement to enhance the supply chain's robustness

Average: 3.0

People 3 · Process 3 · Tech 3 · Data 3

Established practices exist. Foundation for enhanced standardization.

On a global scale their is a lack of people contributing to and promoting technical standards due to significant capability and capacity gaps in this field (who are engaged in geodesy) within Member States. Furthermore, there is a lack of dedicated resources, and reliance on in-kind contributions, despite the critical role standards play and the existence of some established practices.

Average: 1.0

People 1 · Process 1 · Tech 1 · Data 1

CRITICAL - Heavy reliance on unsustainable contributions. Required for preventing degradation.

Financial resources required to support geodetic activities are severely insufficient, with heavy reliance on unsustainable in-kind and voluntary contributions. Current governance is weak and fragmented, lacking the necessary authority and accountability to effectively manage financial risks or allocate resources. This weak governance directly hinders the development and management of adequate budgets and strategic financial planning needed for stabilization and modernization.

Average: 1.0

People 1 · Process 1 · Tech 1 · Data 1

CRITICAL - Aging infrastructure increases costs. Weak governance prevents effective resource allocation.

The reliance on aging infrastructure contributes to growing maintenance costs, indicating a challenge in optimizing operational expenditures. Weak governance means there is no mechanism or authority to allocate resources effectively to strengthen the supply chain or optimize operations globally. While options like public-private partnerships and encouraging information sharing on hardware/software are suggested, a coherent strategy and the necessary governance structure to control and optimize costs across the whole supply chain are currently lacking.

Average: 1.0

People 1 · Process 1 · Tech 1 · Data 1

CRITICAL - Severely under-resourced. Threatens maintaining current accuracy levels (Phase 1 core objective).

The global geodesy supply chain is severely under-resourced financially, with significant reliance on non-formalized in-kind contributions. Current governance is weak and not fit-for-purpose to manage risks or allocate funding effectively. There is inadequate funding for operations and standards and a need for greater visibility on current investment and pathways to attract funding through demonstrating value.

Average: 1.0

People 1 · Process 1 · Tech 1 · Data 1

CRITICAL - Lacks comprehensive governance principles. Essential for country-level work plans.

The global geodesy supply chain currently lacks the comprehensive, formalized, and enforceable high-level principles, rules, and guidelines necessary for effective governance commensurate with its critical importance and the risks it faces. Elements of good governance are undertaken within each of the IAG services, however, none exists for this at the GGSC level.

Average: 1.0

People 1 · Process 1 · Tech — · Data —

CRITICAL - Weak international mandate threatens formal authority needed for governance improvement.

While the idea of policies, regulations, and a legal framework for governance exists is a concept discussed by the UN-GGCE, the practical reality is that beyond having a UN General Assembly resolution, which is not legally binding and does not require Member States to make financial contribnutions, the international mandate is weak. Formal authority for global geodesy is weak, fragmented, and insufficient to effectively develop, implement, and enforce policies and regulations necessary for a robust and sustainable global geodesy supply chain.

Average: 2.0

People 2 · Process 2 · Tech — · Data 0

Important for formal agreements but not immediately critical for preventing degradation.

The establishment of the legal structures and agreements that underpin geodetic operations within the global geodesy supply chain is significantly lacking. This is evident in the absence of legislation, policies, or other rulings needed to incorporate recommendations and mandate the operation of infrastructure into national policies in many countries. Consequently, Member States often have a lack of authority to enforce supply chain operations and apply standards, with much of the system currently relying on goodwill and informal contributions rather than formalized agreements or the formal recognition of geodetic elements as critical infrastructure.

Average: 3.0

People 3 · Process 3 · Tech 3 · Data 3

Working well. Foundation for enhanced legal frameworks.

Ensuring adherence to relevant laws, regulations, and standards related to ground observatories within the global geodesy supply chain is currently done reasonably well by the hosts within the Member States. Broadly speaking, Member States adhere to laws, regulations, and standards required for the operation of infrastruture. However there is a lack of ability to have government authorities incorporate recommendations, infrastructure, and standards into national policies and laws, highlighting a weakness in establishing the legal structures and agreements necessary to underpin geodetic operations.

Average: 1.0

People 1 · Process 1 · Tech 1 · Data 1

CRITICAL - Hampered by lack of governance model. Required for coordinated Phase 1 implementation.

Although the UN-GGCE has developed the 1st Joint Development Plan outlining strategic objectives and phases, these efforts are hampered by the lack of an overall governance model with full visibility, authority, or accountability for the entire supply chain. Consequently, the strategic direction that exists is not yet effectively integrated into a fit-for-purpose governance structure capable of managing the GGSC's inherent risks.

Average: 2.0

People 2 · Process 2 · Tech 0 · Data 0

Works well within IAG services but technology and data dimensions are not applicable (stored as 0 per NA=0 convention). Important for monitoring Phase 1 progress.

Monitoring and evaluating performance is done reasonably well within the IAG services, however, across the whole supply chain. monitoring, evaluating, and improving the performance of the global geodesy supply chain and its stakeholders is currently not being done well for the GGSC. While an assessment framework exists to evaluate some performance criteria, this assessment is limited by insufficient data and lack of available information. Critically, there is no overall governance model for the entire supply chain, with existing bodies lacking the full visibility, authority, or accountability necessary to effectively identify issues, allocate resources for improvement, or manage risks across the system.

Average: 3.0

People 4 · Process 3 · Tech 3 · Data 2

Joint Development Plan exists. Foundation for Phase 2 strategic coordination.

The 1st Joint Development Plan for Global Geodesy is the first international strategic and implementation plan which specifies the specific actions which need to be taken by Member States, the UN-GGCE and Partners.

Average: 3.0

People 3 · Process 3 · Tech 3 · Data 3

Adequate current protection. Foundation for critical infrastructure designation.

On the assumption that the geodetic observatories are not classified as critical infrastructure, most observatories do not have major issues related to site protection and access which impact operations.

Average: 3.0

People 3 · Process 3 · Tech 3 · Data 3

Well-managed currently. Foundation for next-generation security requirements.

On the assumption that the geodetic observatories are not classified as critical infrastructure, there are no major cyber security concerns.

Average: 1.0

People 1 · Process 1 · Tech 0 · Data 0

No systematic risk assessment exists at supply chain level. Technology and data dimensions are not applicable to this governance capability (stored as 0 per NA=0 convention).

Average: 1.7

People 2 · Process 2 · Tech 1 · Data 0

No formal disaster recovery protocols or geographic redundancy strategies at supply chain level. Data dimension not applicable (stored as 0 per NA=0 convention).

Average: 3.3

People 2 · Process 4 · Tech 4 · Data 3

Limited network but not critical for preventing degradation of core services.

The Earth's gravitational field is measured using a network of gravity observatories and gravimeters. However, this network is limited in number and unevenly distributed globally, particularly sparse in developing regions. This uneven distribution hinders accurate modeling of the geoid in less-monitored areas.

Average: 2.0

People 2 · Process 2 · Tech 1 · Data 3

Significant gaps but not immediately critical for maintaining accuracy.

There are singificant gaps associated with the capacity, processes, technology and data used for local tie surveys.

Average: 3.0

People 3 · Process 3 · Tech 3 · Data 3

Sparse network but functioning. Important for maintaining current products.

VLBI data collection occurs using a sparse network of telescopes, with particularly limited coverage in the southern hemisphere. Over half of the VLBI stations are aging or degrading, impacting data quality and reliability. Restricted bandwidth at some remote sites also delays data transmission, potentially preventing use for real-time products.

Average: 3.0

People 2 · Process 4 · Tech 3 · Data 3

Functioning despite aging. Foundation for network expansion.

SLR data collection uses a sparse network of stations, especially in the southern hemisphere. Over half the SLR stations are aging or degrading, affecting data quality and reliability. The network infrastructure has not kept up with growing demand and limited continuous tracking reduces the accuracy of derived products.

Average: 4.0

People 4 · Process 4 · Tech 4 · Data 4

High performance. Foundation for Phase 2 network expansion.

Data is collected from a network of around 60 DORIS stations, with a desire to increase this number for robustness. The current network is quite well distributed globally, however, the geopolitical context creates coverage gaps.

Average: 3.5

People 4 · Process 4 · Tech 3 · Data 3

Excellent performance. Sets foundation for Phase 2 robustness.

Data is collected from a substantial global network of GNSS stations, notably coordinated by the IGS. Overall, this process is well done and very useful to the broader community, however, the availability of open access GNSS data and services is limited in some regions, especially developing countries, which creates geographical data gaps.

Average: 2.0

People 2 · Process 2 · Tech 2 · Data 2

Single points of failure concerning but not immediate degradation threat.

There is very little geographical redundancy for data storage and archiving with the CDDIS being the only single point of truth for some geodetic datasets.

Average: 3.0

People 3 · Process 4 · Tech 2 · Data 3

Generally available data. Foundation for enhanced FAIR principles.

There is a call for open data sharing, with data from IAG Services being generally available, often for free. Open access to geodetic data is however limited in some regions.

Average: 2.0

People 2 · Process 2 · Tech 1 · Data 3

Data sharing is largely voluntary and uncoordinated; no binding international governance; single-point-of-failure risk at CDDIS for the complete geodetic dataset.

Average: 2.0

People 2 · Process 3 · Tech 1 · Data 2

Limited capability but not critical for core GNSS/VLBI operations.

The analysis relies significantly on in-kind contributions, limitied capacity and limited capability.

Average: 2.8

People 3 · Process 3 · Tech 2 · Data 3

In-kind model unsustainable but functioning for now.

The analysis relies significantly on in-kind contributions, limitied capacity and limited capability.

Average: 2.3

People 2 · Process 2 · Tech 2 · Data 3

Strong technical capability. Foundation for accuracy improvements.

VLBI data analysis is carried out by analysis and correlation centers as part of the IVS. The current capability within the centres is relies significantly in-kind support and is therefore inadequately funded. There is a bottleneck associated with the correlation of VLBI data due to the limited number of correlators operating worldwide.

Average: 3.5

People 3 · Process 4 · Tech 3 · Data 4

Good performance. Foundation for Phase 2 improvements.

SLR data analysis is performed by dedicated analysis centers within the ILRS. These activities are hindered by a reliance on unsustainable in-kind contributions and overall inadequate funding.

Average: 3.8

People 4 · Process 4 · Tech 3 · Data 4

High performance despite funding challenges. Future robustness foundation.

DORIS data analysis is conducted by Analysis and Associate Analysis Centers within the IDS25. This process, like others, relies heavily on in-kind support from France.

Average: 3.8

People 4 · Process 4 · Tech 3 · Data 4

Strong capability. Foundation for next-generation accuracy improvements.

GNSS data analysis is performed by dedicated analysis centers and a combination centre within the IGS. This currently capability within the centres is relatively strong compared to the other geodetic techniques.

Average: 2.0

People 2 · Process 2 · Tech 1 · Data 3

Functioning but FAIR improvements needed for better user access.

While data management are largely supported, the overall processes and technology used are fragmented. As a result, the Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reusability (FAIR) of geodetic data and metadata could be improved. Comprehensive metadata are considered essential for seamless communication between data providers and users.

Average: 2.0

People 2 · Process 2 · Tech 1 · Data 3

Quality checks in place but limited by aging infrastructure.

Data centers perform quality checks and quality management is a recognized element. Nevertheless, aging and degrading infrastructure significantly hinders data accuracy and reliability. Limited resources mean critical quality control and validation processes do not receive enough attention, and the current accuracy and reliability are insufficient for the most accurate applications.

Average: 2.3

People 2 · Process 2 · Tech 2 · Data 3

Fragmented but functioning. Important for effective data management.

Data centers are in place for various techniques to collect, quality check, store, archive, and distribute data. However, overall processes required for an effective and efficient global supply chain are fragmented and lack cohesion; in particular the siloed nature of the data across the IAG Services. There is an identified need for authoritative data governance frameworks and guidance on data collection, processing, and management best practices.

Average: 2.0

People 2 · Process 2 · Tech 1 · Data 3

Well-handled within services. Foundation for integrated governance.

The global geodesy supply chain is described as a complete cycle from creating geodetic products and distributing them to users, with data centers handling collection, quality checking, storage, archiving, and distribution. This is done well within the IAG Services, however, there is not the necessary authoritative governance frameworks, guidance, and processes needed to effectively manage data consistently across this lifecycle are currently fragmented or lacking.

Average: 1.7

People 2 · Process 1 · Tech 2 · Data —

CRITICAL - Declining formal programs threaten capacity retention. Essential for maintaining current capabilities.

There is a clear decline in the number of academic courses and formal training programs offered, leading to a shrinking pool of geodesy professionals globally. This is a significant concern, particularly for developing countries needing more training opportunities.

Average: 2.0

People 2 · Process 2 · Tech 2 · Data 2

CRITICAL - Poor FAIR data access undermines user confidence. Essential for maintaining current service levels.

Data centers collect and distribute data, and geodetic data and products are made available through websites of the IAG Services and GGOS. Improving Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reusability (FAIR principles) is vital for broader use. Limited resources impact the geodesy communities ability to carry out this work.

Average: 2.0

People 2 · Process 3 · Tech 1 · Data 2

Specialized software functioning but improvement needed for reliability.

Software is a material element of the supply chain, however, some of the important software which is used is bespoke. The specialized nature of the software means development may depend on a single person.

Average: 3.0

People 3 · Process 3 · Tech 3 · Data 3

Critical infrastructure but more than half stations stable. Important maintenance activity.

Maintaining a stable reference frame relies on continuous observation with a stable observatory network, but more than half of the stations needed for this are aging and degrading, which threatens the accuracy of future terrestrial reference frame. Furthermore, there is a risk associated with the limited expertise available worldwide capable of performing accurate reference frame computations.

Average: 2.8

People 2 · Process 3 · Tech 3 · Data 3

Standards exist but improvements needed for next-generation requirements.

Average: 1.0

People 1 · Process 1 · Tech 1 · Data 1

CRITICAL - Missing foundational processes for risk management and vulnerability analysis.

The foundational processes required for effective GGSC modeling are largely missing or fragmented, and there are significant open questions and identified needs regarding the required vulnerability analysis and simulation. This collectively implies that this area is not currently being managed or operated well enough to provide the required understanding and robustness for the supply chain.

Average: 2.5

People 3 · Process 2 · Tech 2 · Data 3

CRITICAL - Severely challenged operations threaten maintaining current accuracy. Essential for Phase 1.

The managing and operation of physical geodetic equipment at ground observatories are severely challenged and largely inadequate for sustaining a robust global geodetic supply chain. The evidence points to a critical situation characterized by significant under-resourcing, aging infrastructure, operational unreliability, and weak governance frameworks.

Average: 2.0

People 2 · Process 2 · Tech 1 · Data 3

Fragile but functioning. Important for maintaining current operations.

Managing and operating geodetic networks is fragile due to insufficient resources, aging infrastructure, geographical gaps, heavy reliance on in-kind contribution , and a lack of coordinated governance and recognition as critical infrastructure. This situation puts the accuracy and reliability of geodetic products and the many applications that depend on them at risk.

Average: 2.5

People 2 · Process 3 · Tech 3 · Data 2

Necessary for functionality but not immediately critical for preventing degradation.

System testing and validation are necessary to confirm functionality and performance. However, outdated software contributes to products not meeting required quality, and quality control and validation efforts are hindered by limited resources. While important, these validation processes do not receive adequate attention.

Average: 3.3

People 4 · Process 3 · Tech 3 · Data —

Growing maintenance costs but currently functioning. Important for accuracy.

Equipment calibration and maintenance are critical for accuracy, but maintenance is a growing cost due to aging infrastructure. More than half of the observing stations are degrading in terms of accuracy and reliability. Resource limitations lead to longer outages and unreliability, and the specialized nature of hardware with limited supplier support adds difficulty to maintaining accuracy.

Average: 3.0

People 3 · Process 3 · Tech 3 · Data 3

Ad-hoc but functioning. Important for future capabilities.

Developing and testing new concepts, theories, models, or new technology is undertaken on an ad-hoc basis, predominantly within the academic sector. Due to the issues related to a lack of formal governance mechanicms at a global level, this effort is not formal and not coordinated.

Average: 1.5

People 2 · Process 1 · Tech 2 · Data 1

Under-funded but not critical for preventing degradation. Foundation for Phase 2.

Research and development planning in the 1st Joint Development Plan for Global Geodesy, however, it is a component which is currently under-funded. Furthermore, due to the issues related to a lack of formal governance mechanicms at a global level, this effort is not formal and not coordinated.

Average: 2.3

People 3 · Process 2 · Tech 2 · Data 2

Ad-hoc but successful. Foundation for coordinated innovation.

Deploying production-ready technologies to support geodesy is undertaken on an ad-hoc basis, predominantly within the academic sector. Due to the issues related to a lack of formal governance mechanicms at a global level, this effort is not formal and not coordinated.

Average: 1.3

People 1 · Process 2 · Tech 1 · Data 1

Limited documentation, no centralised knowledge repositories, dependencies on individuals approaching retirement.

Average: 2.8

People 2 · Process 3 · Tech 3 · Data 3

Limited basis but functioning. Important for coordinated development.

Managing projects focused on developing and implementing innovative geodetic solutions is being undertaken on a limitied basis, predominantly within the space agencies. Due to the issues related to a lack of formal governance mechanicms at a global level, this effort is not formal and not coordinated.

Average: 1.0

People 1 · Process 1 · Tech 1 · Data 1

Not formal but not critical for Phase 1. Foundation for coordinated R&D.

This is not being done in a formal or coordinated manner

Average: 2.8

People 2 · Process 3 · Tech 3 · Data 3

Limited basis but functioning. Important for gradual improvements.

Adopting and integrating new technologies into the global geodesy supply chain is being undertaken on a limitied basis, predominantly within the space agencies. Due to the issues related to a lack of formal governance mechanicms at a global level, this effort is not formal and not coordinated.

Average: 2.5

People 3 · Process 2 · Tech 3 · Data 2

Not formal but not critical for Phase 1. Foundation for systematic innovation.

This is not being done in a formal or coordinated manner

Average: 1.8

People 2 · Process 1 · Tech 2 · Data 2

Not formal but not critical for Phase 1. Foundation for Phase 3 innovation.

This is not being done in a formal or coordinated manner