Across Australian Councils, spatial data is no longer a specialist resource tucked away in one department. GIS feeds into all areas of operations from planning and compliance, to reporting and (of course) asset management. Location data is informing decisions about where to spend, what to renew, as well as how to respond when things go wrong. When the spatial layers underlying these frameworks are stable and reliable, the decisions are made confidently. When it is not, problems can begin to show.
Given this “foundational state” of GIS data within our Councils, it is important to understand the tools that aid in delivering and maintaining this information. Are the spatial tools being developed within the same context environment as your spatial data? Australia exists in a specially unique geospatial context and we must ensure that the tools we leverage are aware of, and developed for, this context.
Spatial data has Australian characteristics
What is so special about Australia’s geospatial context?
It is in the particulars of a transformation from GDA94 to GDA2020, and in some rare cases, initial uplift from AGD66. It is knowing the “sources of truth” for cadastral data sources across various States and Territories. It is an appreciation of how Crown land, easements and road reserves interplay with our Asset infrastructure ownership structures.
Tools built within this context are not just “bolting on a patch” to handle these intricacies. They are designed from the ground up in anticipation of your needs. They are robust and battle-tested specifically for the Australian geospatial environment.
Asset Management in the Australian context
Like our spatial information, asset management within Australian local Councils has its own unique context. Whilst it exists under the purview of ISO 55000/55001, it is also governed by many Australian Accounting Standards such as AASB 116, AASB 13, AASB 136, and more. It is influenced by local industry bodies like IPWEA through management manuals and practice notes. It is shaped by programs like Roads to Recovery and Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements.
Again, software built overseas needs to be retrofitted for this context. Software developed and maintained within Australia is shaped by this context from day-one. The difference between a retrofit and a contextually aware design can be seen in all parts of a system. From product terminology and templates, to development road maps and their timeframes. A local development team is not just capable of delivering the features you need, they are often aware of them before you are.
GIS Data and Asset Data: Integration versus Unification (and the background environment)
So we have two very contextually dependent ecosystems, both operating at a foundational basis within our Council organisations. You need to know that your Asset Management and GIS tools are actually working together, whilst maintaining their contextual awareness. This is no longer possible by simply “bolting GIS onto your Asset Management”. They need to operate together as a single record of truth – a unified dataset.
When your data is only integrated, most operations need to be done twice to reflect a change in both datasets. When your data is unified, changes are made once, within the same environment, under the one rules & permission engine, yielding a consistent outcome for ALL connected resources.
Integration versus Unification in Practice
Consider splitting a water main segment (to allow for a new spur line or the like).
In an integrated environment you might easily split the spatial feature, but then you would also need to create new asset records to represent the smaller segments. You would need to handle the migration and allocation of any pre-existing capital value. Condition and maintenance histories would need to be transitioned to the new segments.
In a unified environment such as the Metrix Asset Management system, you simply spatially split the asset record. The system generates the required replacement segments with respect to appropriate spatial projection constraints. The system handles capital value allocation and migration with consideration to the context of Australian Accounting Standards. The system will inherently link the new segments to their maintenance and condition histories from the parent record in a manner that adheres to local industry best practices.
In short, a unified system will prepare the work for you. Given this however, a unified system carries even more of an onus to be contextually aware of your operational environment.
A note on Data sovereignty
For Australian Councils, the question of data sovereignty is no longer abstract. Spatial mapping of public infrastructure is sensitive information. Ratepayer information is sensitive information. These sensitivities come with data residency considerations. Many Australian Councils now have policies requiring data to be stored within Australia, or require visibility into how foreign-owned platforms handle access requests under overseas jurisdictions.
Australian-owned platforms operating from Australian-hosted infrastructure remove a layer of complexity from such conversations. It is not the only factor that matters, but it is a meaningful one, and one that is becoming harder to overlook in procurement and risk reviews.
A note on Support that understands your workflows
With the deep considerations of the above put to the side, there is also the day-to-day reality of working with a vendor. When the team building the product is in the same timezone, shares the same professional jargon, and has spent time inside Australian Councils, the support relationship is different. Issues are understood faster. Feature requests carry more weight. The roadmap reflects feedback from users whose work you recognise.
Smaller Australian vendors tend to operate this way out of necessity, but it is also a deliberate choice. The relationship between Vendor and Council becomes a partnership rather than a transaction. Over the long life of an asset management system, that partnership often matters more than any single feature.
Where this lands in practice
All of this is theoretical until you see it in action. Asset management lives or dies on small interactions: editing a feature, splitting a line, updating a condition rating, correcting geometry that has drifted over time. These are the tasks where the philosophy behind a product becomes visible.
That is what we are exploring in our upcoming webinar.
See it in action: Practical Spatial Editing in Metrix Assets
On Wednesday 13 May, 10:30 to 11:30 AM AEST, Matt Robinson, Technical Director at Chartis Technology, will run a live session on how Metrix Assets handles practical spatial editing day to day. Metrix Assets is Australian-built and Australian-hosted, designed specifically for the way Councils work.
In the session, Matt will cover:
- Using the line split tool for partial replacements without losing segmentation or financial history
- Applying automatic spatial themes to surface condition, width, and depth anomalies
- Linking asset data to spatial properties and working with WKT geometry on import
- Viewing spatial history for auditing purposes
- Getting the most out of Metrix Assets and QGIS together
The session is open to the public and free to attend. Whether you’re already familiar with Metrix Assets, reviewing your current asset management tools, or simply curious about how a modern Australian platform approaches spatial work, you’re warmly welcome.
RSVP for the webinar via Microsoft Teams
Know colleagues in your team or network who’d find this useful? Please share the link. The more practical questions in the room, the better.
Prefer a closer look at your own data? Get in touch to arrange a demo.