Le portail francophone de la géomatique

Un interessant communique de l’Ordnance Survey

On remarquera :
- Le chiffres d’affaires : pres du double de l’IGN, pour un territoire
deux fois plus petit. Cela resulte notamment d’une offre plus complete (en
particulier pour les grandes echelles), d’une offre plus realiste
(abonnements interessants pour les collectivites locales et les
gestionnaires de reseaux) et du developpement systematique de partenariats
avec le secteur prive (qui verse de tres importants royalties…).
- Le benefice (marge de plus de 10 %). Il inclut en recettes une
subventions publique pour les missions de service public (entendues la-bas
dans un sens assez limite).
- La baisse continue des prix associee a une ouverture plus grande des
droits d’utilisation. Cela resulte de gains massifs de productivite lies a
l’utilisationdes NTIC et aux  rendements croissants  propres a
l’economie de l’information (couts marginaux proches de zero). L’Ordnance
Survey est entre dans le cercle vertueux ou l’extension de la base
d’utilisateur permet une baisse des prix et reciproquement.
- Le programme d’ecoute des besoins des utilisateurs.
- La mise a jour en continu ( 5000 modifications enregisteres chaque nuit)
- Le debat sur l’opportunite d’inclure dans les actifs de la societe
(trading fund : entre l’EPIC et la societe nationnale) la valeur de la
base constituee au fil des ans.

Sans nier que cette base ait une valeur, Ordnance Survey fait valoir
quatre arguments :
- la base doit etre mise a jour pour garder sa valeur
- cettevaleur est difficile a evaluer.
- Les pratiques comptables des societes excluent cette valorisation, en
vertu d’un principe de prudence, et aucun organisme public ne valorise ses
actifs intellectuels.
- La prise en compte de cette valeur necessiterait d’augmenter les prix,
toutes choses egales par ailleurs, pour garantir une rentabilite
suffisante…

On aimerait bien etre en position d’ouvrir un tel debat en France….

First profits at Ordnance Survey pave way for new investment
---
National mapping agency publishes its Annual Report on the Internet
For the first time in its 209-year history, Ordnance Survey has ended the
year in profit. Its Annual Report and Accounts, published today on the
Internet at www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk, reveal a £12.7 million trading
surplus on a record turnover of £99.6 million for the 1999-2000 financial
year.
The results are allowing Britain's national mapping agency to implement a
twin-track programme to improve services to customers - including
investment in the business to improve data and facilities while at the
same time cutting many prices and easing licensing arrangements.
The report maps out the results of a highly successful first year as a
Trading Fund, a new status which gives the public-sector agency much
greater responsibility for its own business planning and finances along
with more freedom to develop new initiatives.
It also reveals a disagreement between the National Audit Office (NAO) and
Ordnance Survey about whether the National Topographic Database (NTD) -
the master map of Britain - should be valued in the accounts as a tangible
asset.
The head of the NAO, Sir John Bourn, has qualified his opinion on the
1999-2000 accounts because of Ordnance Survey's long-standing policy not
to value the NTD as a tangible asset. Having taken advice, the NAO says it
estimates that ?the value of the database to the business is not less
than £50 million.
But Ordnance Survey is challenging any move to put a value for the
database in its accounts. It does not dispute the database is both
valuable and fundamental to its work. But it argues that the constantly
changing data - more than 5,000 revisions are made to it every night -
make it an intangible asset similar to intellectual property, rather than
a tangible asset such as a building.
However, the NAO's view is that, while recognising the database's currency
is critical, the six-monthly urban and five-yearly rural cycles of
updating typically change only a small element of the recorded
topographical landscape, reflecting the fact that most features - such as
buildings and roads - stand for many years. Sir John's opinion is,
therefore, that much of the data has a useful economic life that extends
well beyond one year, supporting treatment of the data as a capital asset.
Ordnance Survey's Director of Business Strategy and Finance, David Willey,
was the agency's acting Director General and Chief Executive for much of
the year covered by the report.
He says that the agency follows accepted financial reporting standards in
preparing its accounts. These state that such internally-generated assets
should not be included in company accounts unless they can be reliably
valued. We are not aware that any other government database is treated in
this way, and our advisors are unaware of any in the private sector, he
comments. The accounts we presented are, therefore, a true and fair
record of the financial affairs of Ordnance Survey.
Andy Simmonds, Accounting Technical Partner with Ordnance Survey's
financial advisors, Deloitte and Touche comments: There is no doubt the
database is an asset, but current accounting practice says it should not
be on the balance sheet - mainly because no accountant can be sure what
its value would be. This is absolutely consistent with normal accounting
practice.
But Sir John notes that in the past, in accordance with standard
accounting practice in central government, Ordnance Survey was not
required to account to Parliament for assets developed from public monies,
but only for the cash expenditure and cash revenues arising. Financial
reporting standards recognise, for example, that internally-developed
software should be capitalised, and Ordnance Survey has capitalised its
database management system (DMS) as an asset. Sir John considers that it
is inappropriate to recognise the DMS as an asset without also recognising
the value of the database, as together they form the basis of Ordnance
Survey's operations.
Mr Willey says: If the database were to be included in the accounts,
there would be serious long-term consequences for Ordnance Survey's
customers. We would have to make much bigger profits on an ongoing basis
simply to satisfy formal financial targets linked to the capital we
employ. Even if we could raise the money - and that's not certain - we
would not be allowed to use it for reinvestment in the business or to
offer other direct benefits to customers. We think that would be a
retrograde step which would not be welcomed by customers in either the
public or private sectors.
Senior Press Officer - Philip Round E-mail: pround@texte-a-enlever.ordsvy.gov.uk Phone:
( 44) 023 8079 2635

Press Officer - Terri Sharpe
E-mail: tsharpe@texte-a-enlever.ordsvy.gov.uk

Press Office Assistant - Anne Patrick
E-mail: apatrick@texte-a-enlever.ordsvy.gov.uk