RISE-MOTIIVE HAC-PB 6 June 2007, Brussels

Data Harmonisation and Integration for Coastal & Marine Stakeholders

Cost-Benefit Methodology DevelopmentsWorkpackage 7

Roger LonghornDirector, GI Projects Office, IDG (UK) Ltd

MOTIIVE Project Steering Committee Leadere-mail: ral@alum.mit.edu

RISE-MOTIIVE HAC-PB 6 June 2007, Brussels

Data Harmonisation and Integration for Coastal & Marine Stakeholders

Investigate the cost-benefit of developing fully integrated land-marine datasets, based on UK ICZMap findings.

Look at the data standards and interoperability specifications that would help reduce costs in future initiatives such as this.

Help develop or steer development of those standards and specifications, working within the ISO and OGC frameworks.

Gather input from the coastal/marine community as to what they need in regard to such harmonised datasets.

Do this by building on the earlier work of the MarineXML project.

MOTIIVE Concept (Dec. 2003)

RISE-MOTIIVE HAC-PB 6 June 2007, Brussels

Data Harmonisation and Integration for Coastal & Marine Stakeholders

•The MOTIIVE Cost-Benefit Analysis Methodology (M-CBA)

•A hybrid Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) methodology

•Costs (monetary) & Benefits (value based)

•Built on SDIGER Project cost analysis & NASA ROI GeoVMM (Value Measuring Methodology) MCA approach

•Spreadsheet(s) that can be used for project-based CBA – but (probably) not for SDI-level work.

WP7 – Cost Benefit Analysis

RISE-MOTIIVE HAC-PB 6 June 2007, Brussels

Data Harmonisation and Integration for Coastal & Marine Stakeholders

Traditional CBA methodologies and metrics are best suited to project justifications - not “infrastructures”.

The more complex is the target (an infrastructure versus a project), the greater are the number of assumptions made in performing the analysis.

Therefore, the less ‘believable’ is the result – especially by funding agencies.

Traditional CBA best for project work, where monetary figures can be assigned to costs & benefits.

CEA often used if CBA not suitable due to inability to monetarize all costs and/or benefits.

MCA much more flexible, more subjective, invites wider stakeholder participation.

WP7 – Cost Benefit Analysis

RISE-MOTIIVE HAC-PB 6 June 2007, Brussels

Data Harmonisation and Integration for Coastal & Marine Stakeholders

GeoVMM – Geospatial Value Measuring Method – used by NASA specifically for investigating Interoperability ROI.

Methodology is approved by US Government (recognized as “best practice” by OMB).

Captures expert input, as well a stakeholder input.

Allows for 'weighting' of value factors and benefits.

Takes account of risk factors.

NASA (Booz Allen Hamilton) study focused specifically on added costs and benefits of introducing interoperability technology to existing/new projects. Results were ‘normalized’.

Current WP7 CBA (MCA) Approach

RISE-MOTIIVE HAC-PB 6 June 2007, Brussels

Data Harmonisation and Integration for Coastal & Marine Stakeholders

Direct User value

Data availabilityEase of useBroad data sharing capabilities

Social Value

Better decision making abilityExtra-Governmental coordinationMinimal barriersInstitutional effectivenessEfficient use of taxpayer resources

Government Foundation/Operational

Ease of integrationIntragovernmental collaborationPublic participation and accountabilityInteragency collaborationRe-use, adaptation and consolidationMainstreaming GISIT performance

GeoVMM CBA Methodology (1)

RISE-MOTIIVE HAC-PB 6 June 2007, Brussels

Data Harmonisation and Integration for Coastal & Marine Stakeholders

Government Financial Value

Total cost savingsTotal cost avoidance

Strategic/Political Value

Close working relationshipsSupport improved decision making

GeoVMM CBA Methodology (2)

RISE-MOTIIVE HAC-PB 6 June 2007, Brussels

Data Harmonisation and Integration for Coastal & Marine Stakeholders

Drawbacks exist, as with any CBA methodology:

An expensive methodology to follow – use of experts plus lots of stakeholder time required if the weighting factors, etc. are to be acceptable to stakeholders and funders.

Doesn't overcome problem with assigning monetary values to intangible benefits – this is still required and leads to assumptions.

As presented by NASA (BAH), looks mainly at the IT issues relating to interoperability – this seems not to interest many (most?) of the stakeholders in the marine/coastal research and management community.

They are concerned with cost:benefit of project activities, not interoperability issues, i.e. cost of beach nourishment versus benefit to tourism industry, not how the data was collected or harmonised.

GeoVMM CBA Methodology

RISE-MOTIIVE HAC-PB 6 June 2007, Brussels

Data Harmonisation and Integration for Coastal & Marine Stakeholders

SDIGER Project Cost Analysis(Actual Cost Categories Used)

Initial System StudyData architectureNetwork architectureSecurity considerationsAccessibility considerations

Pre-implementation WorkApplication scenario developmentData and Metadata modellingMetadata profilingMetadata editing tool(s) developmentThesaurus / controlled vocabulary developmentGazetteer development (content)Web applications abstract model development

RISE-MOTIIVE HAC-PB 6 June 2007, Brussels

Data Harmonisation and Integration for Coastal & Marine Stakeholders

SDIGER Project Cost Analysis(Actual Cost Categories Used)

Hardware & Software Acquisition & MaintenanceHardware, assessmentHardware, acquisition and upgradesHardware, maintenance & insuranceSoftware, system toolsSoftware, development toolsSoftware upgrades & annual licenses

Development SupportTraining, technical support staffTraining, usersExternal experts / consultancyCreate infrastructure (install DBMS, GIS, etc.)

RISE-MOTIIVE HAC-PB 6 June 2007, Brussels

Data Harmonisation and Integration for Coastal & Marine Stakeholders

SDIGER Project Cost Analysis(Actual Cost Categories Used)

DevelopmentDevelop search client, genericDevelop search client, thematic (1, 2, 3, …)Develop gazetteer clientDevelop map viewer

Develop Web ApplicationsWeb application for scenario 1Web application for scenario 2Web application for scenario n

Handling Legacy DataRe-engineer & load data set 1Re-engineer & load data set 2Re-engineer & load data set n

RISE-MOTIIVE HAC-PB 6 June 2007, Brussels

Data Harmonisation and Integration for Coastal & Marine Stakeholders

SDIGER Project Cost Analysis(Actual Cost Categories Used)

Setting up (new) System

Re-engineer web application dataRe-engineer gazetteer dataRe-engineer thesaurus dataCollect/enter metadata for/from legacy datasetsConfiguring catalog servicesConfiguring gazetteer servicesConfiguring portrayal servicesConfiguring thesaurus services

RISE-MOTIIVE HAC-PB 6 June 2007, Brussels

Data Harmonisation and Integration for Coastal & Marine Stakeholders

SDIGER Project Cost Analysis(Actual Cost Categories Used)

On-going Data Related Costs

Data acquisitionData conversionCreating/entering standard metadataData entry/update/loading all datasetsOn-going General System CostsProgramme/Project managementOperationsSecurityHelpdeskTrainingOther operations

RISE-MOTIIVE HAC-PB 6 June 2007, Brussels

Data Harmonisation and Integration for Coastal & Marine Stakeholders

SDIGER Project Cost Analysis(Actual Cost Categories Used)

Other Specific Project Costs (non-IT / non-Info)

Cost Type 1Cost Type 2Cost Type 3Cost Type 4Cost Type n

Total non-IT / non-Info Project Costs =

Total Project Costs Analysis = Information + Other

RISE-MOTIIVE HAC-PB 6 June 2007, Brussels

Data Harmonisation and Integration for Coastal & Marine Stakeholders

D12 – CBA “Projection” for a GSE project (or 2) to be

replaced with use of GeoVMM methodology if we can

find a suitable candidate project – the hunt is on.

Preparing a practical “how to” manual for the

MOTIIVE (M-CBA) approach for use by other

coastal/marine projects.

Workshop where the method is applied at CoastGIS’07

Conference in Santander, Spain (October 2007)

Promulgation of the M-CBA methodology via EUCC –

The Coastal Union – newsletters, e-mail list and web

site.

WP7 – Cost-Benefit Methodologies – next steps