Analysis: 2015 Salary Survey

Transcription

SISP
Spatial Industry
Statistics Program
Analysis:
2015 Salary
Survey
[ Analysis: 2015 Salary Survey ]
Activating
Spatial Industries Business
Organisation:
Association Ltd for SISP
Contact person:
Jack de Lange
Postal Address:
PO Box 5740, West End QLD 4101
Email Address:
[email protected]
Telephone:
07 3217 2599;
Spatial Industry Statistics
Program
04 0966 4295
No. of Pages:
27 (including cover and this page)
Version Date:
October 2015
Analysis:
2015 Salary Survey
October 2015
[ October 2015 ] [Page 2 ]
Introduction
The 2015 Spatial Salary Survey was conducted online during
May to August 2015 by Spatial Industries Business Association
on behalf of the Spatial Industry Statistics Program
participants.
Past experience suggested that a broader response would be
obtained if the survey was done on a personal basis rather
than an organisational basis. Consequently the survey was
again done on that basis, although employers were asked to
encourage their staff to complete the survey or do it for them –
with a spreadsheet format also available for that purpose.
The link to the survey was distributed through various mailing
lists and newsletters and most participants in this Program
were involved in that distribution.
In addition, social media channels were used extensively to get
the message to potential participants. This included relevant
LinkedIn groups, Twitter, and Facebook. Several reminders
were distributed through all channels.
Responses were still being received on the day the survey was
closed at end of August 2015. A total of 998 valid responses
were included in this analysis (down from 1489 in 2014).
Respondents continue to have most difficulty with the
questions relating to job classification, but the number of
issues is again reduced from the previous year.
A continuing point of comment was the separation of Cadastral
Surveying into a single classification. This was done only
because cadastral surveyors are the only type of surveyor with
mandatory registration (recognising mine surveying’s safety
requirements) and a separate analysis is relevant.
Rating the Survey
The average rank out of a possible 10 for each of the rating
questions was (2014, 2013 and 2012 in brackets) —

Relevance of the employment categories — 7.19 (7.02)
(6.85) (6.61)
Ease of use (navigation and completion) — 8.44 (8.56)
(8.43) (8.45)
Visual appeal and instructions — 7.78 (7.99) (7.80)
(7.78)
Usefulness of results to you personally — 7.16 (7.01)
(6.71) (6.69)
Usefulness of results to your organisation — 6.95 (6.69)
(6.49) (6.64)




Clearly these scores seem to have reached a plateau.
Trends
This is the fourth year that the Salary Survey has been done in
the current format. The number of respondents in each year
was —

2012 —
1162

2013 —
1137

2014 —
1489

2015 —
998
Comparisons were again made with previous years, however,
note the comments below.
About the Respondents
Age Distribution by Job Classification
It should be noted that the survey was not distributed to a
predetermined sample of the whole population in a strictly
statistically valid process. The request to participate was
merely circulated as widely as possible.
Consequently, the sample may not be, statistically, a true
representation of the whole industry population. The analysis is
therefore an analysis of the sample, not the population.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
55+
35-54
25-34
18-24
under 18
However, the following sections showing the demographic
information collected about the sample serve to provide a level
of confidence that there is sufficient data to make conclusions.
Also, comparisons with previous years and trends should be
carefully considered because of the sampling methodology.
Age distribution
Age Distribution
12%
0%
4%
29%
under
18
18-24
55%
25-34
35-54
This suggests that,
over all, the industry
is an aging one. A
separation of the
proportions into the
various job
classifications,
presents a
somewhat different
picture.
The proportion of older participants is high in the surveying
classifications, particularly cadastral surveying. Note that many
in the 18-24 group for the surveying classifications were survey
assistants rather than qualified staff.
Interestingly, the proportion of older participants is also very
high in the Remote Sensing and the Academic classifications.
However, these groups are small (16 and 5 respectively) so
they may not be completely representative.
Because of the distribution methods — by direct email and
through social media — it may be fair to surmise that people of
all ages in the various classifications were exposed to the
information about the survey.
However, the overall figures might realistically be interpreted
as representative of the industry. The results are not
significantly different from those of 2014.
Gender distribution
Education level
Speaks for itself — even
without statistical rigour,
the spatial population is
clearly biased, although
there is again a larger
proportion of female
respondents compared to
last year.
Gender Distribution
23%
Male
Female
77%
However, there is again a noticeable variation based on Job
Classification. Again the polarisation is strongest in the two
surveying classifications with both at over 90% male. The
number of Full-time and Permanent jobs far outweighs Parttime, Casual and Temporary or Casual jobs.
We would speculate that perhaps this mitigates against females
re-entering the workforce after taking time out to start a
family. A more in-depth analysis that compares Age and
Gender Distributions with Employment Type and Employment
Status would be interesting.
Gender Distribution Trend
100%
15
21
19
23
85
79
81
77
2012
2013
2014
2015
80%
60%
40%
Female
20%
0%
Male
Education Level
4%
6%
2%
Post-graduate degree
22%
2%
Graduate Diploma
5%
Bachelor's degree
2%
Associate degree
5%
Diploma
Associate Diploma
TAFE/Polytechnic Certificate
Year 12 High School
Other
52%
These figures suggest that the industry is highly educated. The
post-graduate qualification is now in two categories but the
number of respondents is the same in total. The proportion of
Bachelor Degree qualification is consistent and there are minor
variations in the smaller groups.
On a quick browse of the responses, the majority of the high
school level staff was surveyor’s assistants and some older
“other technical activities” people, particularly drafters and
some in “management/sales”. There was no provision to
specify “other” education levels.
No deeper analysis of education levels against other criteria
has been activated at this stage. As for any other deeper or
cross tabulation analyses, these can be completed on request
and a list of the questions is given at the end of this report.
Employment type and status
Employment Type
Part
time
4%
Casual
3%
Fly in / Fly
out
Full
time
91%
Employment Status
Temporary
3%
Contrac
t…
Clearly the predominant form
of employment in the spatial
industry is full time permanent
employment and not much
use is made of part time,
casual or contracting
arrangements. The Fly in/Fly
out category was added in
2013.
This question continues to cause some confusion but it was
very handy to validate the later question on job description.
4%
0%
0%
5%
Position Level
16%
15%
Professional
Technical
Administrative/support
Student
There were 22% who claimed
in excess of 40 hours per
week ranging up to 85 hours
per week.
In an industry of mainly small
business, the hours quickly
blow with increased workload
out as small business owners
start working extended hours.
CEO / Director / Head
Manager / Division / Branch
Head
In terms of hours worked per
week, 66% indicated either 38
or 40 hours. A total of 12%
indicated that they worked
fewer than 38 hours per week.
These proportions are
consistent with 2014,
suggesting a similar work load
than the year before.
Perman
ent
92%
Position level
Trainee / cadet
60%
The numbers indicate that around 22% of respondents are in
the management area of the industry – similar to 2014. That
seems top-heavy for an industry but some explanations for the
proportion might be –


The number of very small businesses in the industry
The number of government respondents
The proportions of “technical” level (down 11% on 2014) and
“professional” (up 17%) showed significant variations from
previous years again may be due to the sampling process.
Job classifications
Respondents were asked to select a classification and then a
job description from a second question that popped up relevant
to that classification.
Cadastral Surveying
Job Classification
Other Surveying
18%
20%
Geospatial Activities
Remote Sensing
Activities
0%
5%
15%
Information Technology
Activities
Other Technical
Activities
7%
2%
Academic - Teaching /
Research
Management / Sales
33%
This still caused some confusion despite amendments
prompted by feedback in previous years, but the question
seems to be becoming less problematic.
A total of 33 (down from 84 last year, 96 in 2014, and 123 in
2012) additional job descriptions were added in the “other”
option. Some of these seemed to be respondents trying to
match their job title to the question. Rather, the survey was
more interested in the activities of the respondent than the
actual job title.
In the meantime, the best attempt has been made to place
respondents into a job description that best fits or remove the
response from the analysis for this review.
Around 33% of the respondents indicated some kind of
surveying as their major activity (down from 46% in 2014).
Cadastral surveyors were separated out because they are the
only type of surveyor that has mandatory registration through
government legislation and reporting on that group represents
a special case. It is also the largest group of surveyors
amongst respondents.
The major variations since 2014 are the drop in the number of
cadastral surveying respondents (down 10%) and the increase
in the number of geospatial activity respondents (up 12%).
Experience
The survey asked respondents to nominate the number of
years in their current role/job. A second question asked the
number of years in the industry. Respondents answering the
second question have obviously largely rounded off their best
guess at the 10, 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40 marks.
A comparison of the two charts is interesting. The much
broader range of the second chart suggests that there is quite
a deal of movement of people in the spatial industry — either
between jobs internally (including promotions) or between
organisations.
It might be interesting to ask a third question seeking the
number of years in the current organisation to gauge
movements in that aspect.
Time in the Current Role/Job
250
Trends in the Respondents
The following charts indicate the trends in the data received. It
is important to remember that they are not necessarily true
trends in the overall industry because of the sampling method.
200
Nevertheless, they give an indication of the demographics of
the sample from year to year.
150
The Gender Distribution has been static the last three years but
somewhat different from the first year.
100
50
Age Distribution Trend
0
1
3
5
7
9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43
Years
Years in the Industry
2015 4%
2014
5%
29%
55%
29%
12%
51%
15%
2013
8%
28%
48%
16%
2012
8%
27%
48%
17%
0%
70
20%
40%
18-24
60%
25-34
35-54
80%
100%
55+
60
50
Gender Distribution Trend
40
30
2015
20
2014
10
2013
77.0%
80.5%
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47
Years
19.5%
78.6%
2012
0
23.0%
21.4%
85.4%
0%
20%
40%
Male
14.6%
60%
80%
100%
Female
Job Classification Trends
2015
18%
15%
33%
Work Location Trends
2% 7% 5%1%
2015
20%
2014
2014
28%
18%
20%
1% 9%
6%1%
16%
2013
2013
29%
13%
29%
3% 6%
8% 1% 12%
2012
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Cadastral Surveying
Other Surveying
Remote Sensing Activities
Australia - ACT
Australia - NSW
Australia - NT
Information Technology Activities
Other Technical Activities
Australia - QLD
Australia - SA
Australia - TAS
Academic - Teaching / Research
Management / Sales
Australia - VIC
Australia - WA
New Zealand
100%
Position Level Trends
2015
5%
2014
5%
16%
17%
2013
10%
2012
10%
0%
59%
15%
44%
16%
26%
40%
CEO / Director / Head
20%
5% 1% 3%
22%
20%
10%
6%
45%
30%
40%
Manager / Division / Branch Head
4% 0%
50%
Professional
19%
60%
Technical
70%
Administrative/support
80%
Student
1% 5%
4% 1%2%
90%
100%
Trainee / cadet
About the Organisations
3%
0%
2%
1%
4%
24%
The survey was circulated to all sectors of the spatial industry.
The figures shown here are proportions of respondents rather
than an indication of the proportions of type of organisation in
the industry.
Organisation Size
2%
1-4
5-9
34%
20 - 99
Organisation Type
1%
9%
100 - 499
Private sector business
500 +
33%
Cooperative
7%
Local Government
State Government agency
7%
Federal/Central Government
agency
Government Owned
Enterprise
Academic institution
0%
73%
The proportion of respondents from firms in the three larger
categories is due to the direct involvement of several large
firms and agencies who assisted in getting their staff
parameters into the survey.
3%
19%
Work Location
12%
Research Institute/Centre
(CRI/CRC)
Other
1%
Likewise, the proportions on the organisation size graph should
not be construed as the proportion of different sizes of
organisation in the industry. It is the proportion of respondents
who work in organisations of that size.
Australia - ACT
Australia - NSW
Australia - NT
7%
By far, the majority are in the private sector. An increase in the
numbers from Federal/Central Government agencies this year
is due to a significant response from LINZ in New Zealand.
10 - 19
Australia - QLD
Australia - SA
Australia - TAS
14%
Australia - VIC
39%
2%
Australia - WA
New Zealand
3%
The majority of responses continue to be from respondents
who work mainly in Queensland. This is due mainly to the
support that was given to the survey by private business in
Queensland. There has been a considerable increase in input
from New Zealand respondents this year.
Organisation Type Trends
2015
2014
In the two states that should have the largest numbers (NSW
and VIC), it remains difficult to attract respondents. Surveying
firms in those states and their local business associations
actively boycot the survey citing their own internal surveys
(within one state and within a single membership group) as
being sufficient.
2013
2012
0%
Through the use of social media to distribute the information
about the survey, some employees of those entities have
become involved. Clearly, the NSW-VIC anomaly will bias the
overall results.
20%
Rather it is an indication of the organisations and locations in
which the individual respondents are working in each of the
years represented.
60%
80%
100%
Private Sector Business
Cooperative
Local Govt
State Government Agency
Federal/Central Government Agency
Government Owned Enterprise
Academic Institution
Research Institute/Centre (CRI/CRC)
Other
Trends in the Organisations
Again note that the trends shown in the graphs at right are not
necessarily a complete and definitive interpretation of the
organisations in the industry.
40%
Organisation Size Trends
2015
2014
2013
2012
0%
20%
1-4
40%
5-9
10 - 19
60%
20 - 99
100 - 499
80%
100%
500 +
Markets
Respondents were asked to select as many markets as their
organisation was engaged in. Note that these graphs represent
the number of respondents working in that area, not
necessarily the work available.
There is some confusion as to what a market is in the
industry’s context. Quite a few surveying respondents, for
example added “surveying” or “surveying and mapping” in the
“other” option. Clearly surveying is done in many of the options
listed but is not a “market” in itself – surveying is not done for
the sake of surveying, after all.
The options have been clarified over the four years and the
number of “other” markets nominated continues to fall.
While the first six options still dominate, perhaps reflecting the
narrower work sphere of traditional surveying firms, there is a
noticeable general widening of activities into a wider range of
markets.
Markets
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
In the trend graph, the percentage of respondents involved in
the top three markets has remained similar while the smaller
markets have generally trended upwards over the past four
years.
Market Trends
2012
2013
2014
2015
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
These two charts provide two overview ways of looking at the
salaries for Australia.
The Salaries
120%
Salary Overview - Australia
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
< $50,000
$50,000 $60,000
$60,000 $70,000
$70,000 $80,000
$80,000 $90,000
$90,000 $100,000
$100,000 $120,000
$120,000 $140,000
$140,000 $160,000
$160,000 $180,000
$180,000 $200,000
$200,000 $300,000
Cadastral Sureying
Other Surveying
Management / Sales
$300,000 $400,000
> $400,000
Salary Overview - Australia
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Cadastral Surveying
Other Surveying
Remote Sensing
Activities
Information
Technology Activities
Other Technical
Activities
Academic - Teaching /
Research
Management / Sales
< $50,000
$50,000 - $60,000
$60,000 - $70,000
$70,000 - $80,000
$80,000 - $90,000
$90,000 - $100,000
$100,000 - $120,000
$120,000 - $140,000
$140,000 - $160,000
$160,000 - $180,000
$180,000 - $200,000
$200,000 - $300,000
$300,000 - $400,000
> $400,000
There were 812 respondents for Australia included in those
charts. These charts are useful for an overall comparison of the
different groups of the spatial industries and the relativities
within groups. The “Other Technical Activities” group includes a
wide range of disciplines (from drafters to pilots) so this
comparison is not very meaningful but the group is included for
completeness.
The number of respondents from New Zealand totalled only
185, up from 135 last year. A pleasing increase but not
sufficient to make the overview for New Zealand very
meaningful. Most of these are in the classification of Geospatial
Activities and, consequently, that is the only classification
analysed for New Zealand in the detail sections of this report.
Note that the salaries in these tables ae in NZD.
120%
Salary Overview - New Zealand
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
< $50,000
$50,000 $60,000
$60,000 $70,000
$70,000 $80,000
$80,000 $90,000
$90,000 $100,000
$100,000 $120,000
$120,000 $140,000
$140,000 $160,000
$160,000 $180,000
$180,000 $200,000
$200,000 $300,000
Cadastral Sureying
Other Surveying
Management / Sales
120%
100%
Salary Overview - New Zealand
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Cadastral Surveying Other Surveying
Geospatial
Activities
Remote Sensing
Activities
Information
Technology
Activities
Other Technical
Academic Activities
Teaching / Research
Management /
Sales
$300,000 $400,000
> $400,000
< $50,000
$50,000 - $60,000
$60,000 - $70,000
$70,000 - $80,000
$80,000 - $90,000
$90,000 - $100,000
$100,000 - $120,000
$120,000 - $140,000
$140,000 - $160,000
$160,000 - $180,000
$180,000 - $200,000
$200,000 - $300,000
$300,000 - $400,000
> $400,000
Cadastral Surveying Activities
A total of 181 Australian respondents listed cadastral surveying
as their principal activity (381 in 2014). The breakdown (by
percentage) is shown in the following chart.
Cadastral Surveying Activities - AUS
11%
2%
Survey Assistant
9%
Survey Technician
Surveying graduate
Reg'd / Licensed Surveyor
Senior Surveyor
17%
Other (Please specify)
35%
90%
Survey Manager
The boycott by NSW and VIC surveyors will be most influential
in this classification — but thank you to those who did
participate.
The sample is reasonably evenly, but because of the lower
numbers, the comparisons in the smaller groups may be less
reliable as a result.
6%
20%
The total responses for surveyors was significantly reduced
from previous years.
The range for Survey Assistant is much narrower (and lower)
than last year and more closely related to previous years.
At Survey Graduate and Registered Surveyor level, there are
wide variations in salary but the peaks have become less
prominent. The range for Survey Manager has a significant
peak which was also present last year but not in previous
years.
< $50,000
Cadastral Surveying Salaries - AUS
80%
$50,000 - $60,000
$60,000 - $70,000
70%
$70,000 - $80,000
60%
$80,000 - $90,000
50%
$90,000 - $100,000
$100,000 - $120,000
40%
$120,000 - $140,000
$140,000 - $160,000
30%
$160,000 - $180,000
20%
$180,000 - $200,000
10%
$200,000 - $300,000
0%
$300,000 - $400,000
Survey Assistant
Survey Technician
Surveying graduate
Reg'd / Licensed Surveyor
Senior Surveyor
Survey Manager
> $400,000
Engineering surveyors were the largest (but reduced)
proportion of the respondents, but there were significant
increases in other classifications.
Other Surveying Activities
There were a total of 146 Australian responses for the “Other
Surveying” classification (283 in 2014). The breakdown (by
percentage) is shown in the following chart.
Other Surveying Activities - AUS
14%
15%
2%
0%
0%
1%
12%
Note that the survey managers could be in any of the
disciplines also listed as options for operational staff.
Survey Assistant
Survey Technician
Engineering Surveyor
Hydrographic Surveyor
Mining Surveyor
14%
Senior Mine Surveyor
Superintendent Mine
Surveyor
Chief Mine Surveyor
8%
The fact that this classification is a mixture of levels and
disciplines is a reflection of the anticipated number of returns.
For 2014 and 2015, the mining activities have been divided
into defined levels but the total response from the mining
sector was not as high as expected from previous experience.
Geodetic Surveyor
34%
Survey Manager
120.0%
< $50,000
Other Surveying Salaries - AUS
$50,000 - $60,000
100.0%
$60,000 - $70,000
$70,000 - $80,000
80.0%
$80,000 - $90,000
$90,000 - $100,000
60.0%
$100,000 - $120,000
$120,000 - $140,000
40.0%
$140,000 - $160,000
$160,000 - $180,000
20.0%
$180,000 - $200,000
$200,000 - $300,000
0.0%
Survey
Assistant
Survey
Technician
Engineering
Surveyor
Hydrographic
Surveyor
Mining
Surveyor
Senior Mine Superintendent
Surveyor
Mine Surveyor
Chief Mine
Surveyor
Geodetic
Surveyor
Survey
Manager
$300,000 - $400,000
> $400,000
There were a total of 330 Australian responses for the
“Geospatial Activities” classification (up from 199 in 2014). The
breakdown (by percentage) is shown in the following chart.
Geospatial Activities - AUS
GIS Officer/Technician
GIS/Spatial Analyst
8%
Senior GIS/Spatial Analyst
23%
13%
GIS Systems Developer
GIS Systems Analyst
GIS Systems Architect
4%
20%
14%
3%
3%
0%
12%
GIS Systems Administrator /
DBA
GIS Co-ordinator / Team
Leader
GIS Consultant / Business
Analyst
Senior/Principal GIS
Consultant
These categories were obtained in consultation with
experienced geospatial practitioners, but the feedback suggests
that there is still a significant variation in terminology. We have
sought to clarify the terminology over the past three years and
there were fewer “other” inputs than previously.
Formalised career structures and career progression categories
are still unclear and inconsistent within the spatial sector. This
is reflected by the variation in spread of data across the
different position descriptions.
The salaries attained reflect junior positions in the industry and
may reflect those working in the industry who do not currently
have professional qualifications.
At the upper levels, the spread appears to reflect the diversity
of the definition of ‘Senior’, which in some cases simply reflects
5 years+ work experience, while in other cases reflects a wider
range of core competencies, both in technical and project
management and/or management areas.
120.0%
Geospatial Salaries - AUS
100.0%
80.0%
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
GIS Officer /
Technician
GIS/Spatial
Analyst
Senior GIS /
Spatial Analyst
GIS Systems
Developer
GIS Systems
Analyst
GIS Systems
Architect
GIS Systems
GIS CoGIS Consultant / Senior/Principal
Administrator / ordinator /
Business
GIS Consultant
DBA
Team Leader
Analyst
< $50,000
$50,000 - $60,000
$60,000 - $70,000
$70,000 - $80,000
$80,000 - $90,000
$90,000 - $100,000
$100,000 - $120,000
$120,000 - $140,000
$140,000 - $160,000
$160,000 - $180,000
$180,000 - $200,000
$200,000 - $300,000
$300,000 - $400,000
> $400,000
From New Zealand there were a total of 104 responses for the
“Geospatial Activities” classification (up from 76 in 2014). The
breakdown (by percentage) is shown in the chart.
Geospatial Activities - NZ
GIS Officer/Technician
GIS/Spatial Analyst
8%
The two largest groups are Spatial Analyst and Senior Analysts.
10%
Senior GIS/Spatial Analyst
4%
The other groups are very small and it is not obvious that the
comments above in relation to geospatial activities in Australia
also apply in New Zealand.
GIS Systems Developer
10%
GIS Systems Analyst
The spatial industries in the two countries are probably at
around the same level of maturity but the relative size and
spread of the industry in the two regions could mean that the
industry is more uniform in New Zealand.
GIS Systems Architect
5%
GIS Systems Administrator /
DBA
2%
4%
36%
2%
Again the overall sample is not large and anomalies may arise
from the lack of truly random sampling.
GIS Consultant / Business
Analyst
Senior/Principal GIS
Consultant
19%
Note that the salaries in this table are in NZD.
80.00%
Geospatial Salaries - NZ
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
GIS Officer /
Technician
GIS/Spatial
Analyst
Senior GIS /
Spatial Analyst
GIS Systems
Developer
GIS Systems
Analyst
GIS Systems
Architect
GIS Co-ordinator / Team
Leader
GIS Systems
GIS CoGIS Consultant
Administrator / ordinator /
/ Business
DBA
Team Leader
Analyst
Senior /
Principal GIS
Consultant
< $50,000
$50,000 - $60,000
$60,000 - $70,000
$70,000 - $80,000
$80,000 - $90,000
$90,000 - $100,000
$100,000 - $120,000
$120,000 - $140,000
$140,000 - $160,000
$160,000 - $180,000
$180,000 - $200,000
$200,000 - $300,000
$300,000 - $400,000
> $400,000
There were a total of 16 Australian responses for the “Remote
Sensing Activities” classification. The breakdown (by
percentage) is shown in the chart below.
Remote Sensing Activities - AUS
0%
Remote Sensing Operator
Photogrammetric Operator
13%
Image / Remote Sensing
Analyst
Senior Remote Sensing
Analyst
Senior Photogrammetrist
34%
27%
0%
The number of responses in this classification continues to be
unexpectedly small. It is intended to cover people supplying
and using satellite imagery or data and imagery or data
captured from aerial platforms such as planes or drones.
Strictly, “remote sensing” is wider than that, but that is
probably close to the traditional perception of it. It may need
some better definition of terms if the survey is to continue with
this classification. Perhaps the terminology is out of date.
The analysis shown on this page should be read with
recognition of the small sample size.
Remote Sensing Specialist
Remote Sensing Consultant
0%
Remote Sensing Manager
13%
13%
120.0%
Remote Sensing Salaries - AUS
100.0%
80.0%
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
Remote Sensing
Operator
Photogrammetric
Operator
Image / Remote
Sensing Analyst
Senior Remote
Sensing Analyst
Senior
Photogrammetrist
Remote Sensing
Specialist
Remote Sensing
Consultant
Remote Sensing
Manager
< $50,000
$50,000 - $60,000
$60,000 - $70,000
$70,000 - $80,000
$80,000 - $90,000
$90,000 - $100,000
$100,000 - $120,000
$120,000 - $140,000
$140,000 - $160,000
$160,000 - $180,000
$180,000 - $200,000
$200,000 - $300,000
$300,000 - $400,000
> $400,000
There were a total of 59 Australian responses for the
“Information Technology Activities” classification (down from
110 in 2014). The breakdown is shown in the following chart.
Information Technology Activities - AUS
4%
Data Entry Operator
24%
24%
Analyst Programmer
5%
7%
4%
Software Designer
This classification mimics the other in that there is a large
group describing themselves as “manager”. This was more
unexpected here than elsewhere and perhaps reflects the view
that information technology activities in the spatial industry are
not merely service personnel.
Systems Designer
Systems Manager
27%
60.00%
While descriptions were the same as last year, a very different
group appears to have responded to the survey this year. The
numbers in “Systems Programmer” are down 40% and the
numbers in “Software Designer” and “Information Technology
Manager” are up 20% and 16% respectively.
Technical Support
Systems Programmer
5%
The descriptions in this classification group were modelled on
those used by Australian Information Industry Association
(AIIA).
Some commentators of the spatial industries have promoted
the alignment of “spatial” and “ICT” for some time. Perhaps
this is evidence that such an alignment exists.
Information Tech Salaries - AUS
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Data Entry
Operator
Technical Support
Systems
Programmer
Analyst
Programmer
Software Designer Systems Designer
Systems Manager
Information
Technology
Manager
< $50,000
$50,000 - $60,000
$60,000 - $70,000
$70,000 - $80,000
$80,000 - $90,000
$90,000 - $100,000
$100,000 - $120,000
$120,000 - $140,000
$140,000 - $160,000
$160,000 - $180,000
$180,000 - $200,000
$200,000 - $300,000
$300,000 - $400,000
> $400,000
There were a total of 48 Australian responses for “Other
Technical Activities” (down from 89 in 2013). The breakdown is
shown in the chart at left. The major variation from last year is
in the “Drafter” category, down from 44% in 2014.
Other Technical Activities - AUS
4%
2%
2%
0%
Drafter
Cartographer
Pilot
Navigator
11%
31%
Photo Lab Technician
Town / Urban Planner
Sen Town / Urban Planner
Landscape Gardener
5%
Sen Landscape Gardener
2%
Environmental Scientist
7%
2%
0%
0%
0%
18%
16%
Senior Env. Scientist
Engineer
Senior Engineer
This is a very mixed group of largely unrelated disciplines and
some of the returns were very small. The classification is
included to capture the support and other disciplines regularly
employed in spatial organisations. It is recognised that the list
is not exhaustive.
These low returns may be because some of these people are
not receiving mail or social media notices aimed at spatial
people and were not aware of the survey.
This intelligence is important to employers of those disciplines
and is included where there was more than one response for a
particular job description.
Research Officer
Sen Research Officer
120.00%
Other Technical Salaries - AUS
100.00%
< $50,000
$50,000 - $60,000
$60,000 - $70,000
$70,000 - $80,000
$80,000 - $90,000
$90,000 - $100,000
$100,000 - $120,000
$120,000 - $140,000
$140,000 - $160,000
$160,000 - $180,000
$180,000 - $200,000
$200,000 - $300,000
$300,000 - $400,000
> $400,000
80.00%
60.00%
40.00%
20.00%
0.00%
Drafter
Cartographer Town / Urban Senior Town / Landscape
Planner Urban Planner Gardner
Senior
Environmental
Senior
Landscape
Scientist Environmental
Gardner
Scientist
Engineer
Non Salary Benefits
Nearly 700 respondents (out of the total of 998) selected one
or more non-salary benefits.
The table below indicates the percentage of those respondents
who selected each of the benefits listed.
By a large margin, the payment of seminar and conference
attendance was the most popular, followed by Frequent Flyer
points retention, health and other insurances, and membership
of professional associations.
Membership of professional associations was, until this year, a
close second on this priority. In an ominous sign for spatial
industry Associations, perhaps employers are becoming
reluctant to cover their employees’ professional memberships.
At this stage, no analysis of these benefits against Position
Level has been addressed.
Of interest was the list of “other” benefits provided in answer
to this question by 38 respondents.
These included —








Accommodation allowance
KiwiSaver contributions
Healthy Living package
Income protection
Relocation allowance
Rental assistance
Leave purchasing
Sometimes get a free morning tea. Which is nice
Non-Salary Benefits - AUS/NZ
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Position Descriptions
Commentary
The list of additional position descriptions provided in answer to
“other” at questions 17 – 24 has reduced dramatically since the
survey began in this format four years ago. There were 33
position descriptions added.
Over 48 respondents left a comment at the end of the survey.
Many of these were to clarify a response to a question in the
survey or remove some confusion. These suggestions will be
valuable in formatting the 2016 survey.
Terminology is still an issue, but most of the “other”
suggestions were able to be absorbed into existing
descriptions.
Others provided general commentary and most of these were
positive towards the survey and its objectives or provided good
advice.
The new classification of Management and Sales has
accommodated many of the “other” suggestions of previous
years, but that classification is even more diverse than specific
discipline classifications and many of the “other” suggestions
this year were in this classification.
The new descriptions in the classification of Academic
Teaching/Research appears to be addressing that sphere to
some extent but again, that is an area very diverse in
terminology. Responses in this area were low this year.
Obviously, the more the data is segmented, the better the
intelligence for prospective employers and employees.
However, if the number of respondents in one group gets too
small, then the data is not meaningful as an indicator because
of the unknown external influences on the salary amount.
More Detailed Analysis
The survey questionnaire is provided on the following pages
and the raw data received is maintained.
A detailed cross tabulation analysis on any of those questions
could be done.
Organisations or individuals who would like a deeper analysis
on a particular parameter should contact the author. See Page
2 for contact details.
Depending on the scope of the work and its purpose, any
deeper analysis may incur a cost.
Some of the “other” suggestions were actually already in the
questionnaire somewhere but the respondent has not found
them in the classification he/she expected. We’ll continue to
look at some way to make this clearer in future.
The Survey
The Salary Survey
2015 was conducted
on a per person basis
and one record was
sought for each
individual.
Most questions were
dropdown lists or
multiple choice.
Job descriptions lists
emerged for each
classification selected
at Question 15.
Question 3
Question 8
Question 11
Education level —
 Postgraduate degree
 Graduate Diploma
 Bachelor degree
 Associate degree
 Diploma
 Associate Diploma
 TAFE/Polytechnic
Certificate
 Year 12 High School
 Other
Number of hours per
week usually worked
(insert number)
Organisation size —
 1–4
 5–9
 10 – 19
 20 – 99
 100 – 499
 500+
Question 4
Years in the current role?
(insert number)
Question 5
Years in the industry?
(insert number)
Question 6
Question 1
Age —
 Under 18
 18 – 24
 25 – 34
 35 – 54
 55+
Question 2
Gender —
 Male
 Female
Employment type —
 Full time
 Part time
 Casual
Question 7
Employment Status –
 Permanent
 Temporary
 Contract
Question 9
Position level —
 CEO/director/head
 Manager / division /
branch head
 Professional
 Technical
 Admin. / support
 Student
 Trainee / cadet
Question 10
Organisation type —
 Private sector business
 Cooperative
 Local Government
 State Gov’t agency
 Federal/Central Gov’t
agency
 Gov’t owned enterprise
 Academic institution
 Research
Institute/Centre
 Other















Question 12
Work Location —
 Australia – ACT
 Australia – NSW
 Australia – NT
 Australia – QLD
 Australia – SA
 Australia – TAS
 Australia – VIC
 Australia – WA
 New Zealand
Land development
Land Titling / Admin
Law & Order
Logistics
Marketing
Maritime
Medicine/Health
Resources / Energy
Retail
Social services
Tourism
Transport/Roads
Urban Planning
Utilities
Other (specify)
Question 14
Question 13
What market sectors does
your organisation operate
in? (tick all that apply)
 Agriculture/Food
 Asset management
 Civic administration
 Communications
 Construction
 Culture & Arts
 Defence
 Education
 Emergency services
 Environment
 Indigenous lands
Annual Salary range
(gross salary incl.
compulsory super.)
 < $50,000
 $50,000–60,000
 $60,000–70,000
 $70,000–80,000
 $80,000–90,000
 $90,000–100,000
 $100,000–120,000
 $120,000–140,000
 $140,000–160,000
 $160,000–180,000
 $180,000–200,000
 $200,000–300,000
 $300,000–400,000
 >$400,000
Question 15
Question 16
Non-salary benefits – (tick
all that apply)
 Private use of company
car
phone
equip.
 Professional
memberships
 Club memberships
 Car parking for private
vehicle
 Expenses for private
vehicle
 Seminar / conf.
attendance
 Business profit sharing
 Performance or other
bonuses
 Frequent Flyer points
retention
 Private accom. in
remote areas
 Home phone expenses
paid
 Home utility expenses
paid
 Salary sacrifice
arrangements
 Study assistance/
scholarship
 Health or other
insurances
 Other (specify)
Job classification —
 Cadastral surveying
 Other surveying
 Geospatial activities
 Remote sensing
activities
 Information technology
activities
 Other technical
activities
 Academic
teaching/research
 Management/sales
Cadastral surveying  Survey assistant
 Survey technician
 Surv. graduate
 Reg. surveyor
 Senior surveyor
 Survey manager
 Other (specify)
Other Surveying —
 Survey assistant
 Survey technician
 Engineering surveyor
 Hydrographic surveyor
 Mining surveyor
 Senior mine surveyor
 Super’dnt mine
surveyor
 Chief mine surveyor
 Geodetic surveyor
 Survey manager
 Other (specify)
Geospatial activities —
 GIS Officer /Technician
 GIS/spatial analyst
 Senior GIS / Spatial
analyst
 GIS Systems
Developer
 GIS Systems Analyst
 GIS Systems Architect
 GIS Systems
Administrator / DBA
 GIS Coordinator /
Team Leader
 GIS Consultant /
Business Analyst
 Senior / Principal GIS
Consultant
 Other (specify)
—
 Remote sensing
operator
 Photogrammetric
operator
 Image/remote sensing
analyst
 Senior remote sensing
analyst
 Senior
photogrammetrist
 Remote sensing
specialist
 Remote sensing
consultant
 Remote sensing
manger
 Other (specify)
Information technology
activities —
 Data entry operator
 Technical support
 Systems programmer
 Analyst programmer
 Software designer
 Systems designer
 Systems manager
 Info. technology
manager
 Other (specify)
Other Technical activities
—
 Drafter
 Cartographer
 Pilot
 Navigator
 Photolab technician
 Town/urban planner
 Senior town/urban
planner
 Landscape gardener
 Senior landscape
gardener
 Environmental scientist
 Senior environ.
scientist
 Engineer
 Senior engineer
 Research officer
 Senior research officer
 Other (specify)
Academic
Teaching/Research —
 UNI – Assoc Lecturer /
Tutor
 UNI – Lecturer
 UNI – Senior lecturer
 UNI – Assoc Professor
 UNI – Professor
 TAFE – Tutor . Assist
Lecturer
 TAFE – Teacher /
Lecturer
 TAFE – Senior Teacher
/ Lecturer
 Program Manager
 Other (Specify)
Management / Sales —
 General office duties
 Sales representative
 Office manager
 Sales manager
 Account manager
 Project manager
 Marketing manager
 Business dev. manager
 General manager
 Other (specify)
About SISP
The Spatial Industries Statistics
Program was formed by the
stakeholders listed in February of 2011.
Over several brainstorming sessions,
the participants developed a sense of
what information is required.
The statistical intelligence required for
the industry can be roughly described in
3 groups —
1. Whole of industry, size, economic
impact, etc
2. Business operations, profitability,
sustainability, markets, etc
3. Workforce development, entry,
pathways, demand, supply, etc
Discussions are being held with the
Australian Bureau of Statistics in
relation to (1) with a view to
establishing a “satellite account” for the
spatial industries.
This Salary Survey represents part of
(2). Discussions are also being held
with a commercial business analysis
organisation who currently conducts
surveys in related areas, to explore the
potential to broaden that work into the
whole of the spatial industries.
SISP Participants
ABS – Australian Bureau of
Statistics
A pilot study was conducted at some
universities as part of a consultancy to
advise the Queensland Destination
Spatial group on communication to
school leaver entrants to the industry.
ANZLIC – the Spatial
Information Council
This study sought information on how
students were attracted to spatial
courses and the pathway which brought
them to their current situation.
CIT – Canberra Institute of
TAFE
Two questionnaires are now available
for entering students and completing or
abandoning tertiary students.
ASIERA – Australian Spatial
Information Education &
Research Association
CRCSI – Cooperative
Research Centre for Spatial
Information
DIGO – Defence Imagery and
Geospatial Organisation
GA – Geoscience Australia
IMTA – International Map
Traders Association
LGMA – Local Government
Managers Association (tbc)
OSP – Office of Spatial Policy
SEAC – Spatial Education
Advisory Committee
SIBA – Spatial Industries
Business Association
SSSI – Surveying and Spatial
Sciences Institute

Analysis: 2015 Salary Survey

Transcription

Similar documents

Shoreh Elhami - Center for Urban and Regional Analysis

EGM101 Skills Toolbox

of the data

iVIEWER MOBILE

Mathew Hall, Peter Hegedüs, Josip Maras, Marco Mori, Zoltán

geo saude

Vancouver`s VanMap: Bringing Spatial Data to Everyone

Winston County, Louisville Tornado: DeSOto County GIS

Bolthouse 10.23.2015.cdr

GIS Department Alamance County