John Wilde (JW), director at the independent technical consultancy DW International Limited, also serves as deputy chair of the Civil Global Positioning System Service Interface Committee (CGSIC), responsible for international affairs.

Alan Cameron (AC): Can you specify the need for a new GNSS industry group in Europe?

JW: It started with the work I’ve been doing over the years for the CGSIC, which does an excellent job of information flow, policy/status briefing, and providing a platform for people to bring forward any issues they may have with GPS. However, I noticed that in contrast to the regular representation of U.S. and Japanese industry interests at CGSIC through the U.S. GPS Industry Council and the Japanese GPS Council, there was no similar body to represent the interests of European industry in an organized or regular manner in this forum or elsewhere. So there was always, to my mind, the pressing need for a complementary industry group to facilitate their particular requirements.

I see an industry group which brings to the table an international information resource, both to policy-makers and the media, together with industry itself. Somewhere we can go to talk about policy, strategy, regulatory issues, technical issues, even diplomatic issues; anything that affects the conduct of industry business in the GNSS arena. I see it providing a much needed service to policy-makers and media, facilitating information flow and essentially identifying who is doing what, where and when.

This has been a difficult issue over the years, particularly in Europe. As a resource to industry, I see it providing an information portal between companies involved in GNSS, and a forum where they can not only raise issues but seek a contact within appropriate policy-makers. So it’s a two-way street.

I believe that there is a community-wide demand that needs to be satisfied for integration, coordination, and interoperability of existing solutions and proposed new solutions. This will include new GNSS solutions coming from around the world. We know there is some technical work being done on interoperability, some of which is visible. I regularly meet new people doing something interesting in GNSS, looking to talk to other companies doing similar or complementary work worldwide. One must also consider the political and administrative landscape — what is the mechanism to contact a person in whatever policy-maker about a given subject?

I believe an efficient industry grouping would also have a profound effect on the market and manufacturer acceptance of GNSS programs.

Having looked at the organizational models operated by the U.S. and Japanese councils, I realized that there was a missing third leg of the stool, and this was Europe. There is no equivalent of these groups in Europe. Whilst one could talk to individuals who were involved in a particular project or technical group, one couldn’t get an overriding comprehensive, and moreover, independent, view of what was happening.

What I see for the future is an association of both major and minor players in European GNSS, encompassing the user equipment makers, system builders, and consultancy firms, and also the major user groups, airlines, railroads, maritime, car makers, agriculture, geodesists, and so on, together with academia. I envisage close links between this new industry group and specialized groups within each of the specific industries, for example with the International Federation of Surveyors, and international organizations such as the United Nations International Committee on GNSS.

All stakeholders will be able to participate in communication across disparate worlds, leading to the ability to bring industry issues to the attention of policy-makers here in Europe, the United States, Japan, and globally. We can then credibly address market access, technical, policy, strategy, and regulation issues, moving the whole GNSS world forward.

I would hope to keep the core membership primarily European, with non-European entities represented by the appropriate regional industry group. I would expect to perform interoperability information flow through the regional industry groups. There may be specific restrictions where those groups do not have a model or a mandate to go into certain areas. At which point we may make direct contact with those outside the scope of a local industry group.

AC: Would the group take on any lobbying roles?

JW: Inevitably it would do some lobbying, in that I see it raising issues on behalf of industry to the policy-maker, inevitably leading to the need to explain those issues. If we can show that we can have a coordinated, like-minded, international association of regional groups that can aid everybody in achieving their goals — that is my number one aim.