ICDM Research Report 01 · Appendix

Full response distributions.

Every question, reported as delivered. Percentages are stored to one decimal exactly as received and are not rounded, combined or restated.

ICDM Research Report 01. Version 1.0, publication date to be confirmed.

Back to the report

Method and base

Base
1,000
Fielded
July–August 2026
Geography
United Kingdom
Question type
single-choice throughout
Weighting
none; raw response distributions, unweighted
Margin of error
±3.1 percentage points at 95% confidence for a proportion near 50%; indicative only, non-probability online panel
Precision
Percentages are stored to one decimal exactly as delivered. Never recompute from n at render time.

Sample composition

Composition of the achieved sample. These are not crosstabs: the study reports single-choice totals on a base of 1,000, and no sector, role, function or size breakdown of any question exists.

Sector

Financial services (banking, trading, markets, insurance)68.1%
Data centres, colocation and cloud infrastructure31.9%

Seniority

Manager57.1%
Head of or senior manager23.8%
Director or VP15.0%
Owner or C-suite4.1%

Function

General management or executive22.8%
IT, technology or infrastructure20.1%
Resilience or business continuity19.2%
Operations or service delivery18.1%
Engineering or operations8.0%
Security7.0%
Risk, compliance or audit4.8%

Organisation size

1,000 or more employees65.1%

Full response distributions

Q1 · Reliance on GNSS timing and positioning. Base: all respondents (1,000). Single choice. Percentages as delivered, to one decimal.
Responsen%
Critically — core operations would fail without it14214.2%
Heavily20720.7%
Somewhat45245.2%
Barely / not at all10710.7%
Don't know929.2%
Total1,000100.0%
Derived figures
Critically or heavilyCritically — core operations would fail without it (14.2%) + Heavily (20.7%)34934.9%
Q2 · Prior awareness that GNSS can be jammed or spoofed. Base: all respondents (1,000). Single choice. Percentages as delivered, to one decimal.
Responsen%
Very aware — we actively consider it19719.7%
Fairly aware34934.9%
Vaguely aware30930.9%
Not aware at all12412.4%
Don't know212.1%
Total1,000100.0%
Derived figures
Vaguely aware or unawareVaguely aware (30.9%) + Not aware at all (12.4%)43343.3%
Q3 · Impact of losing accurate timing for 24 hours. Base: all respondents (1,000). Single choice. Percentages as delivered, to one decimal.
Responsen%
Catastrophic828.2%
Serious21721.7%
Moderate42242.2%
Minor / none10910.9%
Don't know17017.0%
Total1,000100.0%
Derived figures
Serious or catastrophicCatastrophic (8.2%) + Serious (21.7%)29929.9%

The 17.0% who could not estimate the impact is reported as a finding in its own right, not as a residual.

Q4 · Ownership of timing and positioning failure risk. Base: all respondents (1,000). Single choice. Percentages as delivered, to one decimal.
Responsen%
IT / technology46946.9%
Operations17117.1%
Risk and compliance11011.0%
A dedicated resilience / risk function898.9%
No one specifically303.0%
Don't know13113.1%
Total1,000100.0%
Derived figures
A risk professional of any kindRisk and compliance (11.0%) + A dedicated resilience / risk function (8.9%)19919.9%
No identified ownerNo one specifically (3.0%) + Don't know (13.1%)16116.1%
Q5 · Testing under interference. Base: all respondents (1,000). Single choice. Percentages as delivered, to one decimal.
Responsen%
Yes — formally and regularly828.2%
Yes — once or informally21621.6%
No — but it is planned18118.1%
No — never42942.9%
Don't know929.2%
Total1,000100.0%
Derived figures
Any testing carried outYes — formally and regularly (8.2%) + Yes — once or informally (21.6%)29829.8%
No completed testNo — but it is planned (18.1%) + No — never (42.9%)61061.0%
Q6 · Confidence in detecting a jamming or spoofing event. Base: all respondents (1,000). Single choice. Percentages as delivered, to one decimal.
Responsen%
Very confident13313.3%
Fairly confident19619.6%
Not very confident35235.2%
Not at all confident14914.9%
Don't know17017.0%
Total1,000100.0%
Derived figures
Not very or not at all confidentNot very confident (35.2%) + Not at all confident (14.9%)50150.1%
Q7 · Confidence in proving timing accuracy to a regulator or auditor. Base: all respondents (1,000). Single choice. Percentages as delivered, to one decimal.
Responsen%
Very confident717.1%
Fairly confident30830.8%
Not very confident22022.0%
Not at all confident18218.2%
Don't know / not applicableCombines two response states. Reported as delivered and not divided.21921.9%
Total1,000100.0%
Derived figures
Not very or not at all confidentNot very confident (22.0%) + Not at all confident (18.2%)40240.2%

The final option combines two states and is reported as delivered. It is not split, and is not folded into either net.

Q8 · Operating duration after a timing failure. Base: all respondents (1,000). Single choice. Percentages as delivered, to one decimal.
Responsen%
Indefinitely — GNSS-independent time source10210.2%
Several days898.9%
A day or so34834.8%
Only a few hours, or don't knowCombines two response states. Reported as delivered and not divided.33933.9%
Don't know12212.2%
Total1,000100.0%
Derived figures
Days or moreIndefinitely — GNSS-independent time source (10.2%) + Several days (8.9%)19119.1%
A day or betterIndefinitely — GNSS-independent time source (10.2%) + Several days (8.9%) + A day or so (34.8%)53953.9%
A few hours, or could not sayOnly a few hours, or don't know (33.9%) + Don't know (12.2%) · combines a substantive answer with a non-response and cannot be divided46146.1%

The fourth option combines a substantive response with a non-response, and a separate don't-know option is also offered. The two states cannot be separated after the fact.

Q9 · Understanding of regulatory obligations. Base: all respondents (1,000). Single choice. Percentages as delivered, to one decimal.
Responsen%
Very well — we actively manage them818.1%
Fairly well28828.8%
Not very well29229.2%
Not at all / unsure they apply to us19819.8%
Don't know14114.1%
Total1,000100.0%
Derived figures
Not very well or not at allNot very well (29.2%) + Not at all / unsure they apply to us (19.8%)49049.0%

This question referenced MiFID II, which applies to investment firms and trading venues but not to data centre operators. It was asked across both sectors and is reported as a measure of general regulatory confidence rather than of compliance with any single rule.

Q10 · Value of an independent resilience assessment. Base: all respondents (1,000). Single choice. Percentages as delivered, to one decimal.
Responsen%
Extremely valuable16216.2%
Valuable27727.7%
Somewhat valuable32232.2%
Not valuable18818.8%
Don't know515.1%
Total1,000100.0%
Derived figures
Valuable or extremely valuableExtremely valuable (16.2%) + Valuable (27.7%)43943.9%