1 Maritime Information Management Information services in port Ørnulf Jan Rødseth, MSc MARINTEK,...
-
Upload
cornelia-bates -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
0
Transcript of 1 Maritime Information Management Information services in port Ørnulf Jan Rødseth, MSc MARINTEK,...
1
Maritime Information Management
Information services in port
Ørnulf Jan Rødseth, MSc
MARINTEK, Project manager WP1.3
2
Contents
MarNIS Cluster 1 and WP1.3
The problems (some of them!)
Some existing (part) solutions
MarNIS approach
3
Cluster 1 - overview
Maritime Information Management WP1.1: Preventive and safety related
information management WP1.2: Information management for
authorities with a degree of maritime responsibility
WP1.3: Information services in port
Duration: 18 monthsEffort: 152 PM (+5 for last 18 months)14 partners
4
Cluster 1 - Partners
AVV: Adviesdienst voor Verkeer en Vervoer (NL) AWZ: Administratie Waterwegen en Zeewezen (BE) CETEMAR: Centro Estudios Técnico-Maritimos S.L. (ES) EHMA: European Harbour Masters' Association (EU) IFN: Institut Francais de Navigation (FR) KSD: Koninklijke Scheepsagentuur Dirkzwager (NL) LogIT: LogIT Systems AS (NO) NCD: Norwegian Coastal Administration (NO) Portel Servicios Telematicos S.A. (ES) Sequoyah International Restructing N.V. S.A. (BE) SET: Sistemi e Telematica (IT) SINTEF / MARINTEK (NO) SMA: Swedish Maritime Adminstration (SE) SSPA Sweden AB (SE)
5
Cluster 1 – work packages
Preventive and safetyrelated information
management
AVVEHMA
IFN
NCDKSDSMA
SafeSeaNetAIS, LRIT
Port State Control
Information managementfor authorities with a
degree of maritime resp.
AWZIFN
NCD
PortelSET
Information managementfor:
Customs, immigrationAgriculture, fisheries,
environ.Veterinary, health
Information services inport
CETEMARKSDLogIT
Sequoyah
SETSINTEF
SMASSPA
One stop shoppingOne window conceptSmall and large portsplanning, PCS, CCS
WP1.1: 49 PM WP1.2: 43 PM WP1.3: 65 PM
6
Cluster 1 – Information services overlap Information flows related to
WP1.1: Preventive and safety issues,SafeSeaNet – AIS and LRIT
WP1.2: Other authorities, port clearance
WP1.3: Commercial actors (port, pilots, cargo ...)
7
Contents
MarNIS Cluster 1 and WP1.3
The problems (some of them!)
Some existing (part) solutions
MarNIS approach
8
Information management for ships
AccountingAccounting
CRM
Comms
TrainingTraining
R&D
Marketing
Logistics
Operations
Reporting
InvoicingInvoicing ArchiveArchive
PersonnelPersonnel
© Iver Ships/Brostrøm, MariNet
9
Some other problems
Resource management and better planning: Timely and correct information
Timely and relevant information to flag and port state (certificates, inspections, dangerous goods ...)
More efficient information management (data stored in one place, availability ...)
”Single Window” for ship and ship owner ”Single Window” for port organisations
Exploit SafeSeaNet infrastructure, better use of AIS/LRIT
10
Contents
MarNIS Cluster 1 and WP1.3
The problems (some of them!)
Some existing (part) solutions
MarNIS approach
11
EDI and EDIFACT
Virtuele Haven, 1.5 – March 2001:E – EDI/EDIFACT, E-I - Internet/EDIFACT, p-I – Proprietary over InternetE-MI – E-I and WAP, e – proprietary electronic solution, Ep-I – e and EDIFACT
Imp
ort
Re
lea
se
Cu
sto
ms
Imp
ort
Pa
yme
nts
Inla
nd
Tra
nsp
ort
Da
nge
rou
s G
oo
ds
Exp
ort
Bo
oki
ng
Cu
sto
ms
Exp
ort
Rotterdam E-I E p-I E-MI E Ep-I E
Hamburg E e E E
Felixstove E e E E E
Antwerp E E E E
Barcelona E E ? E E ? E
12
Benefits of EDI/EDIFACT
Established standard Formally recognized XML is in many ways too open
Significant installed base Many users exists Changes do not generate revenue in
themselves
13
Drawbacks to EDI/EDIFACT
High installation costs. Special software and hardware.
High operational costs. EDI runs on private networks, the transaction costs of which can be significant.
Requires dedicated services, which apart from installation costs consume considerable repeat expenditure by way of maintenance.
More difficult to get persons with skills in EDI than in XML.
XML has many ”companion standards” as, e.g., XSL, XPath,XML schemas ...
”EDI users represent 95% of revenue,but only 5% of companies”
14
XML is being used and considered
SafeSeaNet (EU) Vessel reporting systems (most European
nations?) EPC2 (Singapore, Norway) China XML Port Manifest Project (TW) Port of Hong Kong National Vessel Movement Centre (USCG) ...
16
Contents
MarNIS Cluster 1 and WP1.3
The problems (some of them!)
Some existing (part) solutions
MarNIS approach
17
The cluster 1 ”full picture” ...
OneWindow
Port/flag state auth.
Port administration
Customs
Portplanning
tool
SafeSeaNet
Navigationalinformation
Weatherservices
Commercialproviders
Other authorities
PSC tool
PCS CCS
VTM
RIS
ENC, SENC
Owner/Management WP1.1
WP1.2
WP1.3
Other
Equasis
18
Main issues to be investigated
Common to cluster: Information requirements One Window Concept
Specific to WPs:
1.1: Port state control, flag/port state coordination, SafeSeaNet
1.2: Coordination of other authorities 1.3: Port resources, Architecture for one window concept
Other clusters: VTM, Weather, ENC ...
19
Solution: Cooperation
Geographically oriented SoA collection Message flow requirements One window concepts and architectures Port planning tools Port inspection tools
Cooperation between partners in cluster Regions/ports divided between partners
20
Use of workshops to analyze informationOpen to all participants
SoA
Information req.
Improve
One Wind. arch.
WP specific
0 6 12 18
KO SoA
12.05
WS
22.09
MW
15.12
PM
17.02 15.05
21
Results?
Yet another information flow analysis ?
or
Useful contribution to European maritime industry?