ACSM/ESRI co-hosting next three Annual Conventions

Maybe I've been asleep at the switch but I just read that ACSM and ESRI have agreed to a three year deal to co-host the "Survey Summitt" starting with San Diego in 2011.

I wonder what happened to the Eastern part of the USA? To my recollection this will be the third year in a row that the annual ACSM conference is held in the west. Last Year in Utah, this year in AZ and next year in CA?

Also, hasn't it been the past policy to include regional associations to co-host with ACSM? I recall years and years ago that it was held in RI.....

Do we know the future locations beyond 2011? I've been hoping to attend one of these but I don't know if it's possible until it gets closer. I was kind of hoping that it would move to the mid-west, the proceed easterly, not westerly!!!

Will NSPS start holding "Survey Summit" national conferences now, too???

Don

Don
I talked with Kurt Sumner (ACSM) several times but do not recall him mentioning any solid information on the locations after next years Summit. I did hear several talk that the ESRI UC might be moved to somewhere else, but no mention of the midwest or the eastern shores. 

The announcement itself of the co event with ACSM and ESRI was a complete surprise to me. Maybe others were aware of the discussions ongoing previous to this decision. From what I experienced this year, the communication between the Land Surveyors, Engineers and GIS Professionals was very positive and I felt very good about the possibilities that we could all begin to really try and work together for the benefit of everyone. 

The GIS Professionals went out of their way to make me feel welcome and constantly mentioned how much they respected and needed us. I will say that the ones I met were not the petty clerks in planning departments that are not always truly GIS Professionals and that many of us deal with often. The ones at the conference were the real deal Professionals that were concerned about accuracy and truth, just like us and not in some planning/zoning rules.

The limitations of the conference are based on the numbers of people. This years UC likely had upwards of 15,000 attending. That takes a pretty large venue to support all the classes, meals and logistics of moving this many people in and out. And then you have event staff. I saw literally hundreds of ESRI staff manning the registration desks (about a block long) and making sure all the classes went off without a hitch. Our OSLS has 500 that attend so 10 or so can usually manage the infrastructure needed but when you get to the level of the ESRI User Conference then it is just in another entire league.

I'd suggest talking to your NSPS Governor and let him know your input and those of your local organization. 

As far as the NSPS then the talks that I had, it looked like the ACSM and the NSPS were going to work out the differences and maybe there would be some structural changes in the way the ACSM is governed. I heard no details but just got the impression that they were going through marriage counseling and both sides felt that some compromises could be accomplished. I hope that pans out.

Living in SW Oklahoma which is sparse of convention centers then I just realize that I am going to have to travel when it comes to any national level conventions. The flights are about the same no matter the coast for me so this is just part of reality. 

Deral

PS_I wish you had attended. You would have loved walking along the bay and looking at all the sailing vessels. From little to very large. 

I am going to try my hardest top make it next year to the 2011 San Diego ACSM/ESRI conference.  This year in Phoenix didn't work out, but I hope that I can make it next year.

Maybe I can get a little assitance by giving a MA Land Court users seminar, or a look at Colonial surveying in a four hour presentation...

I am a little more concerned about the perception of the conference being sponsered by a commercial entitiy. 

i noted that the most recent "summitt" was 49% land surveyors, great news.....

And by the way, i embrce gis, I don't have any issues combining forces...it's a postiive thing, but under a commercial umbrella??

let's go sailing Deral, the boat is ready!!

Don,

You make a good point about ACSM national conferences being  held out west.  Convienient for many, but a ways for others.   Generally, always a long haul from Alaska, I just look at howmany plane changes it takes.  To get to San Deigo it is at least two, the same if I were to go to DC.   However, maybe the issues Deral raised about the venue size are why, and part of a comprimise to get a joint conference with ESRI.  Here is the information from ACSM on their website:

http://www.acsm.net/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.ViewPage&PageID=824

It looks like a shotgun wedding to me between ESRI  and ACSM.
No surprise.
ESRI/GIS will be the PAC-man of the surveying profession.
The ACSM has been kind of stagnate  in programs in the recent past few years. Same speakers, same programs etc besides being held out West.
It seems that the organizers have taken the path of least resistance in organizing.
ACSM hasn't been back to New Orleans since 1993. I do not know why since it is one of the leading convention and tourist destination sites in the USA.
They also hold some of the largest conventions also. Matter of fact, I think there are 20,000 Lutherans in the city now for a synod. It is easy to tell them by their blonde hair on the street cars.

This is a link from one of our luncheon speakers from GPS World on Sunday.  Eric did not talk about this issue in our lunch session but this link provides his input on the economics of conventions and addresses both Surveyors and the GIS industry.

Eric on ACSM and GIS

Read towards the end to get his feel and ideas on co-opted conferences. I think he is pretty perceptive in these economic times.

Deral

PS- I would be in favor of a conference in New Orleans. Not only a great conference but somewhere that you could get a pretty decent meal to boot. 

One unfortunate consequence of the scheduling change is the negative impact it will have on the NSPS Student Competition. The Summit dates are July 9-12, 2011, right in the middle of the virtually all schools’ summer vacations.
 
The California Land Surveyors Association and the Nevada Association of Land Surveyors are holding a joint conference March 5-10, 2011 in Las Vegas, Nevada. They have offered to host the NSPS Student Competition and the last correspondence I had on the subject indicates this will be the option of choice. However, I have also heard from one of the schools that has been a major player in past Competitions that they will not be participating under that scenario. I suspect others will feel the same.
 
I understand the thinking behind ACSM’s decision to partner with ESRI, but I think it’s unfortunate that one of the more successful NSPS projects has to suffer as a result.

Rich:
It is  obviously evident that ESRI has more clout than any state surveying association.
It would be nice  to see more regional conferences (NE, SE, MW, W etc) with a group of state associations  as sponsors throughout the year. Then maybe one  smaller  final national with a premier program.
But I think the conventioanl thinking is that "Big is Better" for these events.

R.

The "bigger is better" conference attitude is certainly true for the commercial sponsers, but neglects to take into account the members attending.

I am a big fan of the Regional joint conference including ACSM/NSPS or any other associated groups.   I am sure that ESRI's pockets are significantly deeper than any state, or even national group pockets but that shouldn't be "wagging the dog."

It's confusing enough for us "small guys" to keep up with the associations.  I am a member of MALSCE and serve on the OD, also a member of NSPS,ACSM, for over 30 years with ACSM, and since 1983 for MALSCE.  During my term as Chapter President we hosted our State convention one year.  I thought it was a success, about 120 attendees, but when admin costs were built in we found it to be a loss financially.   Now we have a New England Surveyors group, I think, although I haven't heard much of them...

Is the goal of a Professional Association Convention to make $'s or to provide infiormation to the members?   i would like to think that a convnetion would be at least self sufficent but there is a problem.....

Is the solution to dilute the convention/summitt by larger commercial sponsership?  mybe, I am in favor of permitting local MALSCE sustaining members to sponser or local seminars but that is a much more local item than a board brushed convention...

I don't have anything against GIS or ESRI, as a matter of fact I can see that it's a HUGE item in the surveyors world.....

Don

One of the first things my best pal Deral noticed at the Summit was how the tone of the Conference differed from the State versions. He described the Summit as more businesslike and less casual. I heard other comments as well. Like , "At the State Conferences guys show up in jeans and tee shirts and sleep through the CEU sessions". Yeah! And then they ask: "how come nobody don't think we're perfessional?"

Business gentlemen, it is about business. One of the things I discussed with Professor Joshua Greenfeld was about how little attention is given to business in Survey Programs at universities. The Professor does a session on the "Survey Body of Knowledge". You will be hearing more about this in the future.

The key word here is business. That is what this is about. Remember, the first rule: "Follow the money".

Change is not just a word. It happens. If you want to help shape change, you have to get in the game.
Here is the ACSM/GITA Hall , April 2010, Phoenix. Note the "Anchor Client"

MLB

"The key word here is business. That is what this is about."

I have no problem with the GIS industry. This is the path that is being followed for the profession. If ACSM seeks corprate sponsorship, then they  need to do it.
But MLB, if it is all about business get a new suit for crying out loud.
That profile pic suit is horrible and with a yellow shirt, OMG,and that  tie totally complements the blase' look also.

I will stick with my carhardts.

R

I have some real concerns that ACSM is going to lose the interest of the east coast folks if they keep having the conventions on the west coast.  As someone who has been at the convention for many years now, I can tell you it costs a ton of money to take a booth to the show.  I can make the finances work if the show moves close enough every few years that I can just drive the stuff.  But when it is on the west coast year after year after year, it starts to not be worth the money.

For some historical prospective here are the conventions I've attended in order:

Nashville
Las Vegas
Orlando
St. Louis
Spokane
Salt Lake City
Phoenix

Now they are talking about San Diego for next year.  That would be four years in a row of having to fly everything. 

I guess that's my question, "business is business" is something everyone of us can understand, but not at the expense of the Profession. I believe that our National Professional organizations need to break even on their expenses but not have to make a profit.

We, MALSCE that is, do sponser a scholarship fund with any excess $'s that may be generated but i don't believe that we funded any amount this year. The Scholarship fund is healthy and we are not.

I also work on the Professional Development Committee for MALSCE and we are having a tough time breaking even with our seminars.  Please note that Continuing Ed is NOT required in MA yet, nor do I support mandatory continuing ed as a funding source for our group.   It is difficult to get folks out to the seminars, and i think that we do a bangup job of providing interesting subjects!

But, on the National Level I think that there needs to be more attention shown to us Colonial Surveyors.   I am not sure if the interest lies in the PLSS states and therefore ACSM is responding to a group that repsonds back ?  Maybe we on the east cost have not shown the interest as others have shown?

One other "issue" is the timing of the conference.  April is a much better month for us new englanders to get away for a few days.  July?  Now that's a tough one for me in particular!  leave Cape Cod in July and head SOUTH and WEST??  ouch, that sounds hot!!!   But if I can I will attend.

I am interested in our brothers out west.  Since I've become more involved with RPLS i have learned much from our  brothers in the PLSS states and have enjoyed many a conversation.  I would like to attend one of our gatherings...

But July???

Don

Yo Muddy- off topic but, not to demean your sartorial appraisal, but that suit and tie are by Brooks Brothers, the shirt is Van Heusen. Both were "approved" by my East Coast (read couture sensitive) bred wife, who would never have allowed me to attend the event that photo was taken at if it didn't meet "spec". You are treading on dangerous ground here. Two years ago she gave my last two pair of Carharts to the painter working on our home remodel. Had I known, I would have sent them to you.
MLB

i think it would be great if ACSM could break it down to 4 regional conferences, one in each quarter. Have Q1 be west of the Rockies, Q2 in the Northeast, Q3 in the Central /Midwest and Q4 in the Southeast. The Big vendors could offset their costs by teaming with regional suppliers, much like they do at the state conventions. Each of these could be hosted by one or more state conventions allowing surveyors to double up on their dollars.I would bet overall attendance and membership would go up. You could combine each of these conferences with one major sponsor, say ESRI, Bentley, Autodesk, Trimble, Leica, Topcon and have then make it a joint affair with their usual user conferences. Groups like ASPRS, SPAR, GITA could also join in. This would bring greater exposure to them, greater exposure to surveyors on other markets and allow for intermingling of GIS, Survey, Construction and Design people.

I wish Ihad brought this up to Curt and Wayne when I spoke with them in San Diego, alas I didn't think of it until the trip home. If I can get some positive feedback here, I'd have no problem approaching them with this idea.

What say you all?

Rob M

I see a couple of problems with the premise of four regional conferences Rob. First is that  most states now require CEU's and this has led to pretty large state conferences. Ours in Oklahoma will have 99% of all the registered surveyors in our state in attendance. Ours is set up where if you attend our conference each year then you will have enough CEU's without doing anything else. So for another conference to be successful then they have to set themselves apart.

I think this fact has led to the smaller turnouts at the ACSM the past few years. I think the ACSM has to regain a separation from the state level seminars. They could do this by not inviting any of the lecture circuit speakers and also following the ESRI format of shorter sessions and more diversity within the sessions. Michael pointed out that the ESRI was just not about the release of Version 10 but a majority of the sessions were devoted to users and their unique applications of GIS.

And we should not forget about the member organizations within the ACSM. Outside of the NSPS many of them are international. They have a much more expensive trip than those in CONUS. Michael mentioned that attendees at the ESRI UC came from over 120 countries. I'm pretty sure they would favor the once per year super conference.  The NGS and other involved I'm sure want to get the most exposure and input for positioning around the world and the ACSM has been that venue for them for many years but they are getting more involved in the GIS arena now. 

So I guess I would be against the regional conferences. I prefer to go to one big one and drop the anchor for an extended stay and see it all in one place. 

Another point might be product unveilings. These are usually at the bigger shows and sometimes at their own shows such as the ESRI UC or Trimble Dimensions.  Four conferences might force them to choose which one to attend and could hurt the sponsorship.

I think your idea is good but just not what the market is willing to bear at this point.

One thing that I very much enjoyed about the ESRI conference was the networking outside of the class. While I enjoyed the company of my friends, I often searched for unknown name tags during the breaks and started up conversations to see what others were doing in the geospatial world. I was never disappointed in any of these impromptu discussions. 

But hopefully others will chime in with their two cents. This forum is a good place to place things out in the open and see where they lead us.

Deral

I think that is a workable idea Rob, that is if the conference rotated each year between the regions...

Don
I would be in favor of one super conference rotated between the regions each year. That is a solid compromise.

The problem I see with combining state conferences with the super conference is mostly in content. The states tend to offer up programs for their specific state. I would hate to see our state programs having to compete with other national programs. Perhaps they could do like the Summit and have the state portions several days before or after the main conference so that you could attend both. 

We have the same argument on a smaller level here in Oklahoma. We have Tulsa in the NE and Oklahoma City in the Central part of Oklahoma. The majority of our membership comes from these areas so they used to bounce back and forth each year between the two cities.  No matter which one they chose then about half complained. Our executive director resides in OKC and it's been there for several years. He has to do all the leg work setting the conference up and running it so that makes sense plus it is pretty much central to Oklahoma.  

Deral

I like Rob's idea. Based on the ACSM conferences I have attended that are combined with the state society conference it appears to me that there are state specific topics covered in some of the concurrent sessions. I would think that some of the state specific topics might be specific to the region as well. I can see where the ACSM organizing body might have its hands full with 4x  of what they do now.

All good comments and I appreciate the feedback.  Let me clarify some points and address the comments. i'm certain not all my replies will satisfy the points raised, as I agree there would be many things to work out, but here goes:

1.) ACSM would not have to put on a full blown slate of topics for each event. If most of the content is supplied by a combination of the regional sponsor ( ESRI, Bentley, Trimble, Autodesk) and the local state societies, ACSM could supply a handful of presentations, tech sessions and workshops. Maybe they have JB present at the Midwest and western conference and Jeff Lucas and Larry Phipps do the eastern ones. The difficulty here would be to get the state boards in each region to accept the content for CEU's. Something not easily done in Florida for example.

2.) Member organizations could choose to have their conference at one of the regionals, rotating it each year, or opt out for an international location.

3.) By combining with other organizations, you eliminate attendees from having to choose to go to multiple conferences. i'm fortunate in that my company will reimburse me for most of my travel and expenses  at these conferences. Imagine if you could take one trip, one hotel but attend a week of conference where you could attend local seminars for CEU's, Technical Sessions from ACSM including it's MO's, and then attend sessions put on by ESRI, Trimble Bentley, etc. So in essence, you can get your required CEU's and attend the Trimble Dimensions conference or the ESRI or Bentley User Conferences at the same time.

The two main goals I would set are to expose people of different geospatial communities ( for lack of a better word) and allow the attending surveyors to get their required CEU's.

it would not be easy, mostly dependent upon the state boards cooperating and getting the vendors to sponsor.

Rob M

Rob
One more point on the place of the conferences. I know that it takes a huge amount of work to put on any large conference and your staff has to work with and develop a relationship with the conference center staff. Having ours in the same place the last three years has made it very smooth and there are no surprises. That is worth considering when choosing a venue. A new place is going to have it's share of snafu's and false starts. When you have to herd 15,000 people then this is no small consideration.

But I think one very important point you made cannot be stressed enough. Communication and mingling with other professionals in related fields. I was pleasantly surprised by the constant mix of all those attending the ESRI conference. You do not get this at the state level.  You get what I would call the 'mirror' effect in that all attending are about the same as you. You might see some geographic diversity but not the influx of truly international opinions that we both enjoyed at the Summit. 

Your point 3 is worthy of consideration also. At the city then I got to choose one conference per year. Only one so I had to weight the benefit of the programs very carefully. I did attend others but that was on my on nickel. (or bags of nickels).

As to the CEU's then I'm pretty whizzed about how some of the states go about the selection process. I have a friend (Larry P.) who has told me about some of the huge costs and hoops that he has to go through to get a course allowed. That is just not right.  We are Professionals and should be allowed to make our own choices. I might need a seminar in Carlson from Larry P or I might need one from Dan B. on running my business.  Heck, I might even need one for tree identification.  

I did not attend the ACSM where RADU presented his paper on the Australian cadastral system but I read his papers. Truly well done and worthy of CEU's no matter the state that you reside.  Those attending got no CEU's and this was a travesty.

But let's continue the discussion as I'm sure those at all levels are listening. 

Deral

This is all good dialog and discussion.  As with most things, there are always trade-offs.  I like the idea in principle to do something different, and to expand our networking.  The regional issues are a concern.

I think the topic of PDH's and how the different States allow them is a subject worthy of its own thread.  I know that some States require pre-approval prior to allowing PDHs.  This is bad in my opinion, as it puts a huge burden on the presenters to get courses approved, and really DISCOURAGES local presentations due to the hassle.  Alaska leaves the determination of if the training is applicable to Land Surveying to the registrant, and if they are audited, they need to justify the relevance.  This is a good system, and encourages a wide range of PDH opportunity.  We are all professionals, so we should be able to decide.  I and the Surveying Society lobbied for this when we were formalizing the CU requirements with the AELS board.


I emailed Curt Sumner and gave him a link to this thread, as I think it is a good discussion.  Perhaps he will chime in.

I have been trying for a number of years to get the ACSM convention to come to Pittsburgh. Despite the image some of you may have, Pittsburgh is a beautiful city with a great convention center. But, the answer always was that they want the state society to participate as a partner, and apparently the PA society does not want to move from their customary "Hershey, PA in January" venue.  

my son was just in Pittsburgh last week for the S.I.A.M. (Society of industerial and Applied Math) annual conference. He had a great time down there...

Thanks for sending the email, Mike. Certainly a lot of good conversation about the future (and past) of ACSM conferences.

I'm not sure there is enough space, or patience from posters to this site, to cover all of the elements related to the ACSM convention planning process. I will give a brief explanation of the current situation, and respond later in more detail about the history of ACSM conferences if anyone wants to hear it.

Our contract with ESRI is for three years, with the option for either of us to cancel with one-year's notice. We haven't set any plans beyond that, but hope this arrangement is so successful that we will continue it. If not, we are always open to venues where, and partners with whom, we can hold successful conferences. Our experiences have been, though, that we get higher participation (and interest in partnering) in the West than in the East. For example, for our 2006 conference in Orlando the Florida society did not partner with us. I can't say if the regional concept with "rotating sponsors" has merit, who knows? But I can tell you that after 12 years of trying to get the major professional organizations to join for a conference, I have had no positive responses from their leadership, save for GITA with whom we met this year.

Comments posted herein have captured some of the reasoning for us trying something new. Deral's comments about his experiences this year with the different groups of participants certainly represent one of the primary reasons we decided to give this a try. We also recognize that this may ultimately be the best chance we may ever have to attract a mega-conferene such as has been mentioned.

In attending the Summit and the ESRI UC for several years now, we have come to realize that ESRI is considered to be more of an advocate than simply a vendor for the GIS professionals (covering a broad array of practice areas) with whom we want to gain legitimacy. Taking into account our interest in building relationships with professionals beyond ourselves, we saw this partnership as a good way to pursue that goal, while at the same time offering conference content that is attractive to our primary constituent base (surveyors and geodisists).

One of the posts spoke about our conferences becoming stagnant in recent years. I don't have an argument with that assessment from the perspective that (partially due to our partnering arrangements) we have been a different (perhaps bigger) version of the state surveyor conferences. While we want to offer some workshops that provide CEU credits in the future, we also want to offer more. Among our goals is to prepare surveyors so that we don't get eaten by Pac-Man, but rather draw from his strength to better position surveyors to compete in the world we now live in.

One or two posts mentioned "business". Clearly, focusing on the business of surveying, exposure to in-depth information about emerging technologies, interaction with a braoder range of people, and providing a "must attend" event is our goal. That is not to say that conferencing isn't a business. Of course, it is, just like any other endeavor through which value is offered in exchange for remuneration. Conferencing is a major revenue stream of most societies, state and national. Just ask the state societies how they have been helped by continuing education requirements drawing people to their respective conferences.

Regarding Rich Leu's comments about the Student Competition, our new arrangement doesn't necessarily have to be a negative. Rich Vannozzi, who is the new Chair for the competition, feels very positive about the Las Vegas venue, and we are working with ESRI to utilize their Student Intern Program to offer attendance  at our conference for the winning team, with a chance to not only present their work, but also take in the Summit and the UC. The Student Intern Program includes lodging and a small stipend. As we move ahead from next year, we will work to continually offer students a positive experience through our competition.

One thing that is often overlooked is the fact that the commercial sponsors play a big role in making it possible to hold conferences for attendees. It would be virtually impossible to offer a registration fee large enough to cover the expenses for a national conference, and that our attendees would be willing to pay. Several of the major exhibitors for our conference also participate in the ESRI UC. Our new arrangement can offer them a two-for-one, albeit staggered, option for reaching our audience and their ESRI U C audience.

The comments made about the challenges of getting CEU approvals from the states that require pre-approval is certainly a factor. We struggle with this every year. The only thing that may change with our new arrangement is that the number of workshops for which we are seeking approval will be fewer.

I hope this information is helpful for the discussion about the future of ACSM conferencing.

As always, contact me anytime via email at curtis.sumner@acsm.net

Curt