Transcript Slajd 1 - Provent Polska

Standards, Shelves and Services
Experience from Western Europe
Andy Graham, White Willow Consulting
David Kelly, Blue Cedar
Włodek Laskowski, Nomad Fund
Marian Ohl, Provent Polska
Sesja... Nr sesji...
Presenters
 Marian Ohl
 ITS General Director, Provent
Polska, responsible for whole
scope of Provent Polska ITS
activity
 Former employment: Polimex
Mostostal (Director of the
Department of Road
Construction), Przedsiębiorstwo
Robót Inżynieryjnych Spółka
Akcyjna Holding, Huta
Ostrowiec (Vice President,
CFO)
 Włodzimierz Laskowski
 Co-founder of the fund,
managed successfully the
application to secure Swiss
government funding
 Partner, leading investments in
the ICT start-up and SME
companies
 Former employment:
investment banks (Merrill
Lynch, HSBC), GE's elite Global
Leadership Development
Programme
2
Presenters
 David Kelly
 Owner, Blue Cedar Services
 More than 25 years’ experience
in the design and management
of major traffic control, tolling,
road tunnel and communication
systems projects
 Last 7 years in Poland on
tolling and ITS projects for the
A2 and A4 Autostrada
 Worked around the world
including Brazil, Thailand,
South Africa, Israel and most of
Europe
 Andy Graham
 Owner, White Willow consulting
 Work currently focussed on
GPS data capture, road
charging, enforcement and
other ITS business projects in
the UK, Japan, Australia,
France, South Africa, Canada,
Ireland and the US
 Former employment: ITS
Director of AECOM in the UK,
where he worked on many
local authority and central ITS
systems
3
Our observations over 20 years...
 Local Authorities / politicians want ITS
 To provide better services (like the next town)
 To save money
 To collect revenue (parking, fines..)
 But they often think “S” means “system”
 Technology is specified and purchased
 Not the outcome they want
 Designed for the Local Authority
 Financing and ownership of ITS
 Moving away from owner to service model
4
And more….
 They want lowest cost
 Low headline capital cost
 Operational costs will be an issue later
 They want to control the technology..
 Interfaces with other systems and people
 Take all the risks
 But often staff not experienced in ITS
 They want to solve today’s local problems (but do
they address tomorrow's needs?)
5
Supporting the future
 Easy addition of Apps and Twitter?
 Low or zero cost services possible, but…
 Linking to the next town to reduce costs?
 Separate islands or one country ….
 Borders between systems for drivers?
 Who’s road am I on? I don’t care …
 Refreshing technology after 5 years?
 Lock-in current suppliers, dependance …
 All often forgotten in a system design?
 Future integration potential is key …
6
This is the same everywhere...
 Not observations about one country
 But about all Local Authorities at some point in
their ITS evolution
 UK, Ireland, Netherlands, US…
 All have been like this
 So there are experiences to draw on
 The subject of this talk…
7
Bespoke systems
 Systems built for one city cost more to:
 Specify, build and design and to maintain
 operate ( as you need experts for the city)
 refresh in the future (they become legacy)
 Bespoke systems have risk
 Supplier goes bankrupt, new code to develop…
 Just don’t work well (politicians get upset)
8
Off the shelf vs bespoke
 In buying clothes you can visit a bespoke tailor, or
buy clothes off the peg
 In general IT Commercial Off the Shelf software is
now widely accepted
 Configure and set up to local needs, not tailor each time
(SAP, Windows, Cloud based...)
 Reduces costs
 But requires standard approaches
 A shelf!
 A peg!
9
Standards are all around us
 GSM
 Your phone just “works”
 The internet
 Clothes sizes (almost)
 Some are open like the internet
 Some are proprietary
10
„Standards” for its
 Previous speakers discussed FRAME
 This takes architecture to detailed level
 De jure standards
 formal
 De facto “standards”
 Informal specifications
 Allow off the peg / off the shelf ITS
11
Benefits of standards
 Allow a manufacturer to build one product
 Allow a buyer to specify performance and
connections for their city
 System is a “black box” that can be replaced
 Allow “plug and play” (Architecture)
 Reduces costs
 The way you would buy any other IT...
12
Some western europe examples
 Different approaches reflect different nations
 But achieve same outcome
 Off the shelf ITS
 Others exist
13
OCIT/ OTS
 Open Communication Interface for Traffic Control
Systems and Open Traffic Systems
 use standards for interoperability of traffic systems
in German, Austrian and Swiss towns and cities.
 Started in 1999
 Defined standards and specifications
 De jure standard
14
UTMC
 Urban Traffic Management and Control
 De facto standard
 Capture and distribute good practice among
highways authorities since 1997
 Before that, UK systems were bespoke and
authorities "locked in” to suppliers for maintenance,
upgrade and replacement.
 New suppliers enter market – reduce cost
15
UTMC as a specification
 UTMC is an open systems framework for interfaces
between different systems.
 Designed by users and suppliers
 Add extra functions when money is available or
policy requires
 Eg air quality monitoring to parking
 Data export to other systems
16
Case Study for UTMC flexibility
Weymouth
(small seaside town, population 50K)
A perhaps sleepy UK port town with a UTMC system – why would it need to
expand to a whole host of new systems and services – and traffic demand ?
17
The 2012 Yachting venue…
Transport wasn’t in the news for Dorset –the Medals were
18
UTMC helps Zofia Klepacka ?
19
Services not systems
 A trend in Western Europe
 Don’t own any hardware or software
 Don’t buy a system – have a service
 Government IT moving to “the cloud”
 The service supplier owns the equipment
 You pay for the service they give
 Outcome based KPIs and SLAs
 Collection of revenue
 Quaranteed availability and performance
20
In a Service contract …...
 Supplier takes as much risk as you decide
 Supplier can make economies of scale
 One data centre for 6 clients, not one each
 Services can be flexible (if use standards)
 Easy addition of other ITS systems
 Payment for service means no up front costs
 Supplier quarantees and has incentives to deliver
highly performing ITS
21
SERVICE CONTRACTS – Experience so far
 Supplier motivated with incentives, which are in
turn tied to performance
 Win/win for both sides!
 Don’t try to do everything at once
 Keep it simple to start and use change control
 Easy to measure outcomes
 Contract must be flexible
 Use best practice from elsewhere
 Contract term realistic
 5-7 years not 30 years
22
Conclusion
 ITS is no longer about buying a single system
designed for today at lowest cost
 Its about an “off the shelf” service matched to
future local needs that uses standards
 Focus on outcomes you want not tech
 Use contract to reduce risk
 This allows new ways to pay for ITS too
 or let ITS pay for itself .......... Another story
23
Contact us for more