====== **Standardising QA/QC between missions and agencies** ====== ===== **Background** ===== To meet the needs of the societal themes of GEOSS requires the use of data from many sources and often their synergistic combination. This includes data from different satellite sensor technologies and/or agencies, in-situ and ancillary data and involves a variety of models, algorithms, differing processing and delivery strategies. It is clear that such a system cannot function without a set of clearly defined internationally agreed procedures to allow interoperability. The most critical of these enabling procedures must ultimately lead to a descriptor that defines and guarantees the adequacy, “fitness for purpose”, of the final data product being delivered to address the requirements of a particular societal theme. The most demanding in terms of performance are likely to be those addressing climate and weather, but all will require some form of conformity to standard approaches accepted by the international community “community of practice”. This practice (conformity to standard approaches) must be applied to all activities contributing to the production of a data product, including: data collection, calibration, validation, processing, archiving and delivery. The operational details of an appropriate system of accepted approaches to serve the needs of all stakeholders within the GEO community is still to be defined but is likely to adopt, where possible, the established best practices of not only the Earth Observation community but the wider industrial community as a whole (for example ISO 9001 or 17025). The minimum set of activities must include: written and followed procedures, an assessment and full breakdown of uncertainties (where appropriate), auditable and published evidence of traceability of the delivered activity to an agreed international standard (in some cases such a standard may be defined specifically by the EO community, for example a calibration/validation reference test site such as a dessert or the Moon for an optical sensor). Although, in the short term this may incur some additional cost, it will in the longer-term lead to greater operational efficiency, reduced duplication of effort and consequently cost savings. It should also be noted that formal certification may not be necessary for all activities and similarly that it only needs to be carried to the level of rigour necessary to confirm the “performance level” that is user specified as a requirement for the product or service. The concept of certification is more to facilitate conformity in demonstrating QA rather than an added bureaucracy or any implied lack of trust of any organisation. The certification process for approving these accepted practices is likely to be carried out under the auspices of an appropriately defined entity. This may well be a space agency or another recognized body (e.g. ISO approved body) and supported in many cases by National Metrology Institutes, with the aim of providing independent review of the information supplied by the organisation demonstrating its capabilities. The international coordination and consistency of this process is likely to be carried out by CEOS on behalf of GEO. It is noted that in a number of cases such processes are already in operation, although sometimes not always visible to the wider community. In order to move towards the full implementation of such a system it will be necessary to identify all elements involved in the development of a data product which will need some form of certification, and for collating and contrasting existing “best practices” as an aid to any potential certifier. This latter task will also provide an educational aid to those new to the field, and will include definitions of terminology to avoid any potential confusion. It will also be essential to establish appropriate tools/databases to allow information to be readily stored, compared and referenced in advance of any implementation. ===== **Discussion** ===== The following questions have been formulated to trigger discussion and views please feel free to add others or reformulate. * Does the community see the need for improved QA/QC? or perhaps making more visible what it is? * If so, is there a need for standardising our means of assessing it? * The concept of Certification is often confused with additional non-productive bureaucracy and/or unwanted “policing” of an organisations activities – are there better words to describe a system that seeks to increase overall value of a process and which is about demonstrating capability “fitness for purpose” in a consistent manner?. * Are GEOSS and CEOS appropriate bodies to coordinate the development and operation of such a system? * Are Space Agencies appropriate bodies to implement the system? ===== **Comments/Views:** ===== **Please do not edit this first page but make comments in the discussion forum below.** ===== **OTHER DISCUSSION TOPICS** ===== **Reference Test Sited for Calibration and validation and their Certification by CEOS**[[cal_val_reference_sites]]