title: a10.5 evaluation of benefit analysis - esdi … · title: a10.5 evaluation of benefit...

Title: A10.5 Evaluation of benefit analysis

1

Title:

A10.5 Evaluation of benefit analysis

Author(s)/Organisation(s):

Armantas Ostreika /KTC

Working Group:

WP10

References:

A10.1-D1 Report on Definition of evaluation methodology

A2.2/3-D1 Reports of A2.2-D1 Cost Analysis and A2.3-D1 Analysis of cost reduction potentials

A2.1-D2 Report on Processes Analysis (Final Version)

Quality Assurance:

[ ] Review WP Leader (WP Leader: ) [ ] Review dependent WP Leaders (Depended WP Leaders: ) [ ] Review Executive Board (Executive Board Members: ) [ ] Review others (Other Reviewers: )

Delivery Date:

Short Description:

The report analyses do expected benefits that come as a result of spatial data harmonisation are achieved (or can be achieved in nearest future) in the HUMBOLDT scenarios, in comparison with the pre-HUMBOLDT state. It is discussed how far the assumptions about benefits made in WP2 apply to the HUMBOLDT scenario use cases.

Keywords:

evaluation, benefit analysis, methodology, HUMBOLDT Framework, HUMBOLDT Scenarios

History:

Version Author(s) Status Comment

001 Armantas Ostreika new

Draft proposal of a template for the report: structure and contents of the deliverable, initial descriptions for chapters “The scope”, “Constraints”, “Terms and abbreviations”, “Evaluation methodology”

002 Armantas Ostreika rfc First version of the deliverable with completely defined document structure and substantially updated chapter “Evaluation methodology”.

003 Armantas Ostreika POSPÍŠIL Martin FRYML Josef

rfc Reworked and reviewed SWOT analyses of the scenarios: HS-Forest, HS-UrbanPlanning, HS-Ocean


2

Otakar Čerba Peter Thijsse Eric Moussat Mark Charlesworth Alain Le Calvez

004

Zaheer Khan Gabriela Galikova Daniel Kristof Moses Gone

Emanuele Roccatagliata

rfc

Supplemented by SWOT analyses of the scenarios: HS-UrbanAtlas, HS-BorderSecurity, HS-Atmosphere, HS-ProtectedAreas, HS-TransboundaryCatchments

005

POSPÍŠIL Martin FRYML Josef Otakar Čerba Peter Thijsse Eric Moussat Zaheer Khan Ulrich Schäffler

rfc

Supplemented by questionnaires “SWOT check-list” filled by scenarios: HS-Forest, HS-UrbanPlanning, HS-Ocean, HS-UrbanAtlas, HS-ERiskA

006 Armantas Ostreika rfc

Written chapter “2.2.4 Calculation of the satisfaction”. Review of the SWOT check-list questionnaires and compilation of the wrap-up tables (chapter 3.2).

007

Emanuele Roccatagliata

Roderic Molina Armantas Ostreika

final

Supplemented by questionnaires “SWOT check-list” filled by scenarios HS-ProtectedAreas, HS-TransboundaryCatchment Updated chapters: 3.2; 3.3; 3.4; 3.5.2; 4.

new/rfc/final


3

Table of contents

1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................................5

1.1 The scope..................................................................................................................................5 1.2 Terms and abbreviations...........................................................................................................6

2 Evaluation methodology............................................................................................................7

2.1 SWOT analysis .........................................................................................................................7 2.1.1 SWOT approach for HUMBOLDT scenarios expectations evaluation .....................................8 2.1.2 Perspectives (subjects) to be analysed ....................................................................................8 2.1.3 Pre-filled template .....................................................................................................................9 2.1.4 SWOT check-lists......................................................................................................................9 2.1.5 Calculation of the satisfaction .................................................................................................11 2.2 Business process aspects investigation ................................................................................ 12

3 Analysis of expectations and predictions ............................................................................... 14

3.1 SWOT analysis of HUMBOLDT scenarios............................................................................. 14 3.1.1 Issues expected to be addressed ...........................................................................................14 3.1.2 Opportunities expected to be reached ....................................................................................16 3.1.3 Collating WP2 and WP10 SWOT analysis..............................................................................17 3.2 Do scenarios’ expectations are satisfied?.............................................................................. 18 3.3 HUMBOLDT solutions overcoming weaknesses of the scenarios......................................... 26 3.4 Important threats .................................................................................................................... 34 3.5 Changes in business processes reviewed in WP2 ................................................................ 37 3.5.1 Business process changes in HS-UrbanPlanning ..................................................................37 3.5.2 Business process changes in HS-Forest ................................................................................38

4 Outlook and Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 41

5 References............................................................................................................................. 43

6 Annexes ................................................................................................................................. 44

6.1 Annex I: SWOT analyses of HUMBOLDT scenarios of the pre-HUMBOLDT state situation 44 6.1.1 HS-BorderSecurity scenario pre-HUMBOLDT state SWOT analysis.....................................44 6.1.2 HS-UrbanPlanning scenario pre-HUMBOLDT state SWOT analysis.....................................50 6.1.3 HS-Forest scenario pre-HUMBOLDT state SWOT analysis...................................................54 6.1.4 HS-Ocean scenario pre-HUMBOLDT state SWOT analysis ..................................................61 6.1.5 HS-Atmosphere scenario pre-HUMBOLDT state SWOT analysis .........................................68 6.1.6 HS-ProtectedAreas scenario pre-HUMBOLDT state SWOT analysis....................................73 6.1.7 HS-TransboundaryCatchments scenario pre-HUMBOLDT state SWOT analysis .................77 6.1.8 HS-UrbanAtlas scenario pre-HUMBOLDT state SWOT analysis ...........................................81 6.1.9 SWOT analysis wrap-up .........................................................................................................85 6.1.10 Collating WP2 and WP10 SWOT analysis results............................................................... 103


4

6.2 Annex II: Questionnaires “SWOT check-list” filled by HUMBOLDT scenarios representing final state situation............................................................................................................................... 106 6.2.1 HS-BorderSecurity SWOT check-list ................................................................................... 106 6.2.2 HS-UrbanPlanning SWOT check-list ................................................................................... 120 6.2.3 HS-Forest SWOT check-list ................................................................................................. 130 6.2.4 HS-ERiskA SWOT check-list ............................................................................................... 145 6.2.5 HS-Ocean SWOT check-list ................................................................................................ 162 6.2.6 HS-ProtectedAreas SWOT check-list .................................................................................. 178 6.2.7 HS-TransboundaryCatchments SWOT check-list ............................................................... 184 6.2.8 HS-UrbanAtlas SWOT check-list ......................................................................................... 189


5

1 Introduction

1.1 The scope The main objective of the activity A10.5 ”Evaluation of benefit analysis” is to describe economical and organisational changes in spatial data processing in HUMBOLDT scenarios after HUMBOLDT tools and methodologies are implemented, and to compare the data processing situation with the predictions made in the WP2. Since WP2 had limited capabilities in evaluation of the scenarios due to the very early stage of the project, supplemented descriptions of the pre-HUMBOLDT state of some scenarios are analysed here too.

The report analyses potential benefits that can be achieved as a result of spatial data harmonisation in the HUMBOLDT scenarios, in comparison with the pre-HUMBOLDT state. It is discussed how far the assumptions about benefits made in WP2 apply to the HUMBOLDT scenario use cases.

This report does not aim to provide descriptions of spatial data processing in a wide range but concentrates on specific cases, which are treated as most important within HUMBOLDT scenarios.

In some scenarios there were no possibility to present economical data and corresponding calculations, nevertheless the scenarios have improvement possibilities and positive outcome of data harmonisation. This is analysed by identifying strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) of data harmonisation in the scenarios.

The report consists of four main sections. After introductory part, which contains overview of tasks necessary to perform, constraints that are met, and the chapter of terms and abbreviations, the methodological approach of the analysis is described in the section two “Evaluation methodology”. Third section depicts expectations of the scenarios' participants to the HUMBOLDT framework: new tools, improvement in data sharing, new opportunities, better data and service quality etc. Some of the scenarios use cases are presented in business process schemas based on real data processing. Here HUMBOLDT solutions directed to overcom problems and weaknesses of the scenarios are analysed. This section is most important since it contains data about new business processes in the scenarios and depicts how far expectations were satisfied. This can help to make new guidelines of further improvements of the framework.

Finally, most important analysis points and notes are discussed and presented in more concentrated way in section four “Outlook and Conclusions”.


6

1.2 Terms and abbreviations

Abbreviation Explanation

AIS – Automatic Identification System

CADASTRE – Cadastre mapping

CBA – Cost-Benefit Analysis

CENIA – Czech ENvironmental Information Agency

COSMC – Czech Office for Surveying, Mapping and Cadastre

DW – Data Warehouse

DW-Work – Data Warehouse – working part

EAFRD – European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development

EPC – Event-driven Process Chains

FI – Forest Inventory

FMG – Forest Management Guidelines

FMI – Forest Management Institut

FMP – Forest Management Plans

HIRLAM – Hi Resolution Limited Area Model

HIROMB – Hi Resolution Operational Model for the Baltic

IDC – Information system and Data Center

INSPIRE – INfrastructure for SPatial InfoRmation in Europe

LHO – Forest management syllabi

MA or MoA – Ministry of Agriculture

REGION – Regional authority

RPFD – Regional Plans of Forest Development

SFMP – Summary of Forest Management Plans

SMO – The State Derived Map

WCS – Web Coverage Service

WFS – Web Feature Service

WMS – Web Map Service


7

2 Evaluation methodology Activity A10.5 Evaluation of benefit analysis aims to examine do earlier expectations about HUMBOLDT beneficial influence can be confirmed and to collate predictions made in work package two (WP2) with the changes in scenario business processes which appeared after HUMBOLDT tools were implemented. Therefore, SWOT analysis and data processing description in EPC, methodologies are used in order to obtain data in a comparable form.

2.1 SWOT analysis The SWOT analysis is a very useful tool for understanding and decision-making for all sorts of situations in business and organizations. SWOT is an acronym for Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats. The SWOT analysis headings (aspects) provide a good framework for reviewing strategy, position and direction, or any other idea like scenario evaluation.

Usually a SWOT analysis involves identifying internal strengths and weaknesses as well as examining external opportunities and threats, and then seeing how they relate to each other.

An assessment of strengths and weaknesses occurs as a part of organizational analysis; that is, it is an audit of the company's internal workings, which are relatively easier to control than outside factors.

Conversely, examining opportunities and threats is a part of environmental analysis – the company must look outside of the organization to determine opportunities and threats, over which it has lesser control.

In short:

1. The company's strengths, – a company's capabilities and resources that allow it to generate economic value and advantage – can be raised up by answering the question “What can we do? “

2. The company's weaknesses, – a lack of resources or capabilities that can prevent it gaining a competitive advantage.

3. The opportunities in its competitive environment – Opportunities provide the organization with a chance to improve its performance and its competitive advantage.

4. The threats in its competitive environment. Threats can be an individual, group, or organization outside the company that aims to reduce the level of the company's performance.

Weaknesses can be very important part, since they will have impact on development of tools. By grouping the weaknesses of different analysis-points (for instance: data related, organisation related, knowledge etc.) common weaknesses can be highlighted in different scenarios and in this way indications for HUMBOLDT tools development can be provided.

Opportunities described in the SWOT will be an identification of benefits expected by scenarios, and together with additional methodologies will aim at the HUMBOLDT impact assessment.

Threats provided by scenario participants in their SWOT analyses can be treated as costs and expenses.


8

2.1.1 SWOT approach for HUMBOLDT scenarios expectations evaluation

As indication of the current (pre-harmonisation) situation and expectations of HUMBOLDT project scenario (HS) participants towards HUMBOLDT framework outcomes, SWOT analysis was used in WP2. There pre-HUMBOLDT state situation was depicted for three HUMBOLDT scenarios: HS-Ocean, HS-Forest, and HS-UrbanPlanning. Investigation in WP2 was limited to these scenarios due to very early stage of the project and impossibility to clearly define their goals in other HUMBOLDT scenarios at that stage. To overcome such situation, additional SWOT analyses were carried out in WP10 at the very beginning of the activity A10.5, and pre-HUMBOLDT state situation was investigated for rest of the scenarios: HS-Atmosphere, HS-BorderSecurity, HS-ProtectedAreas, HS-UrbanAtlas, HS-TransboundaryCatchment (see Annex I).

SWOT analysis of a HUMBOLDT scenario doesn’t differ too much from the usual approach except that point, that we look at the opportunities as possibilities of internal improvements or new developments in the scenario procedures. Opportunities show here scenario participants’ expectations towards developments of HUMBOLDT project (in short perspective) and HUMBOLDT framework (in long perspective) as successor of the project initiatives.

In such way we have internal factors of a HUMBOLDT scenario:

1. Strengths – what HS-scenario can do or have already (capabilities, resources, advantages)

2. Weaknesses – lack of capabilities (tools, methodologies, stuff missing)

Possible positive effects of HUMBOLDT framework:

3. Opportunities – what opportunities we will have or can develop if HUMBOLDT framework and tools are implemented? – New tools, new services, better data quality, new data sources etc.

Externally implied factors:

4. Threats – what obstacles can disturb implementation of data harmonization or HUMBOLDT products? Here threats are implied by external factors and we can not solve them by ourselves.

For example, strengths might be – knowledge and understanding of user needs in terms of products and services; existing experience for combination of commercial and open source solutions; interest of people to use new technology etc.

Weaknesses – the employees may not be willing to study new things; limited experience in using open source solution; current applications are not efficient etc. Opportunities – better investigation and analytic capabilities; more efficient data management due to reduced data duplication; cost reduction due to simplified procedures; multilingual interface etc.

Threats – non-availability of tools to implement standards; insufficient operation of the portals due to limited budget; non-interoperable standards; not harmonised external data sets etc.

2.1.2 Perspectives (subjects) to be analysed

By taking into account previous investigations made in WP2 and HUMBOLDT scenarios participants’ suggestions for SWOT analysis, five main analysis-points (perspectives), as most important in data harmonisation and HUMBOLDT framework context, were selected:

1. Data and metadata management;

2. Data and metadata access and sharing;


9

3. Exploitation and development;

4. Technical training;

5. Legislative.

This analysis was made from the point of view of expectations towards data harmonization and HUMBOLDT tools and methodologies implementation and depicts pre-HUMBOLDT state in the scenario.

Data and metadata management addresses issues related to data formats, description of data layers, solutions for data storage and renewal procedures.

Data and metadata access and sharing addresses data access, data sharing, ontology, web services, information gathering, and issues related to exploitation of distributed systems.

Exploitation and development - maintenance, software testing and updates, security issues, sustainability, new functionalities and data processing methods etc.

Technical training addresses possibilities to prepare personnel and availability of training courses, online training, distance learning; printed or e-learning material, etc.

Legislative – issues related to local and international law, standards and regulations.

In order do not miss any important aspects that can be related to data harmonisation, HS partners were free to provide more analysis-points if they threat them as important in their scenario context.

2.1.3 Pre-filled template

To help participants ask themselves right questions and make SWOT analysis for their scenario easier, pre-filled template for SWOT analysis was created. It was based on previous investigations made in WP2 and had most common expectations and statements of usual weaknesses and threads.

By adopting statements provided in the template and supplementing it by statements relevant to a particular scenario, new SWOT analyses, for the five analysis-points mentioned, were performed by answering to the questions:

What WEAKNESSES you see at this moment (in pre-HUMBOLDT stage) in your scenario procedures and resources? What THREATS, which limit your activities, you meet in the scenario domain? What STRENGTHS - capabilities and resources your scenario has, that can help in the harmonisation implementation? What OPPORTUNITIES you see if harmonisation procedures are implemented and HUMBOLDT framework developed successfully?

2.1.4 SWOT check-lists

HUMBOLDT scenario partners’ expectations, arising from data harmonisation and HUMBOLDT project and the framework as a whole, are analysed by investigating different perspectives of the harmonisation process and the state after harmonisation is implemented. In such way it shows all positive and negative expectations - expected benefits and costs which scenario participants foresee.


10

Figure 2.1: SWOT analysis methodology for evaluation of HUMBOLDT framework influences

A preliminary SWOT analysis for three scenarios was provided in A2.2-3-D1 Cost and cost reduction potentials analysis [2]. Based on these analyses, interviews with other scenario leaders has been held and SWOT analysis extended in order to grasp concrete aspects in specific scenarios and to form more common view over all HUMBOLDT framework. The preliminary SWOT analysis was then modified according to the requirements of this study and communicated with the scenario leaders for validation.

In the second stage of the A10.5 activity, after HUMBOLDT tools and methodologies are implemented, a review of the made SWOT analyses was carried out (see Figure 2.1), thus forming Check-lists with statements partitioned by analysis-points and by relevance to the specific scenario. Scenarios’ participants were asked to identify whether particular points in earlier SWOT predictions are confirmed or not, thus forming checklists which show real changes (successfully on not implemented solutions) for each scenario.

These results were analysed in order to form general view of the harmonisation process, which was carried out, and to make aggregate conclusions and recommendations for further developments of HUMBOLDT framework.


11

2.1.5 Calculation of the satisfaction

By answering to SWOT Check-list questions, scenario participants could choose one of the following answers: ‘Fulfilled’, ‘Is going to be fulfilled’ and ‘Remains unsolved’. These answers show ‘completeness of solution’ for the particular issue:

Option Fulfilled means, that HUMBOLDT solutions for the issue gave positive results already. By selecting this option, participant gives biggest weight coefficient, which is equal 1 (or 100%).

Option Is going to be fulfilled means, that the issue is known and HUMBOLDT developers are going to propose/produce means for the solution. By selecting this option, participant gives weight coefficient of 0.5 (or 50%).

Option Remains unsolved means, that the issue stays without attention or is reported as impossible to solve in HUMBOLDT framework. By selecting this option, participant gives lowest weight coefficient of 0 (or 0%).

This granularity of the possible answers was chosen intentionally, in order to avoid difficulties in estimation and evaluation of the HUMBOLDT solutions.

Overall satisfaction of a scenario is calculated as mean value of the ‘completeness of solution’ coefficients mentioned. In such way, if all issues, for example, raised by a scenario participants are reviewed and solved, all statements will be given weight coefficients equal to 1, and overall satisfaction of the scenario participants (and effectiveness of HUMBOLDT solutions at the same time) will be calculated as 100% satisfied.

If all issues, raised by a scenario participants, are discussed and have propositions for solutions, however are not solved practically yet, all statements will be given weight coefficients equal to 0.5, and overall satisfaction of the scenario participants will be calculated as 50%.

If none of the issues are discussed and solved, then all statements will be given weight coefficients equal to 0, and overall satisfaction of the scenario participants will be calculated as 0%.

In reality different statements have different ‘completeness of solution’ and overall satisfaction of a scenario will vary from 0% to 100%.


12

2.2 Business process aspects investigation In order to validate or deny the assumptions about benefits, made in WP2, and to show this in more tangible way, the methodology of business process descriptions by EPC (Event-driven Process Chains) schemas has been used.

Scenarios analysed in WP2 were asked to update data related to their use cases. Based on these case studies, EPC diagrams of the processes and data forms (filled in tables) were made (chapter 3.5).

By comparing changes in use case processes expected by scenario participants (see Figure 2.2) with the changes in the processes that occurred in reality, after HUMBOLDT tools were implemented, we make conclusions how far initial predictions and expectations were satisfied and note weak points where expectations were not satisfied.

By comparing changes in use case processes that took place in pre-HUMBOLDT state with the processes after HUMBOLDT tools implementation, and by making calculations of changes in resources spent for the presented use case workflow, we make conclusions about beneficial aspects of data harmonisation and tools that were used in a specific scenario.

Figure 2.2: Methodology of business processes investigation and evaluation


13

By grouping results obtained form all scenarios analysed, we make general conclusions about business aspects of the data harmonisation in HUMBOLDT framework and about reliability of predictions made in WP2.


14

3 Analysis of expectations and predictions In this section we analyse expectations of HUMBOLDT scenarios participants that were named in WP2 [1], [2], and expectations that are formulated in later stage of the project (WP10), thus including scenarios not investigated in WP2.

3.1 SWOT analysis of HUMBOLDT scenarios As it was mentioned earlier in the section “Evaluation methodology”, problems (weaknesses) and expectations of HUMBOLDT scenarios were identified by performing SWOT analysis of the pre-HUMBOLDT situation in the scenarios. Analyses performed by each scenario are presented in Annex I. Here we show summarised results of these analyses by highlighting most important issues/problems and showing most usual expectations towards new opportunities, which can be created by HUMBOLDT framework solutions.

Since in WP10 there was possibility to investigate more scenarios, most important issues detected here can be compared with indications highlighted in WP2. Furthermore, by having data from larger number of scenarios and by collating the statements provided, we have possibility to calculate coefficient of 'issue importance' for any problem raised by scenario participants.

Most important problems and expectations that were mentioned during SWOT analysis and received 50 or more percent of 'issue importance' (cf. chapter 6.1.9) are listed in following subchapters. These issues are treated as highly important and overall success of HUMBOLDT depends on how effectively these problems are solved.

About effectiveness of current HUMBOLDT solutions in next chapters (3.2 and 3.3) it is discussed.

3.1.1 Issues expected to be addressed

Data and metadata management - issues related to data formats, description of data layers, solutions for data storage and renewal procedures:

• Most metadata elements are free text, not code lists (50%)

• Non interoperable standards and tools are in use (75%)

• Uncertainty in the lineage of the data (processes being applied etc) (50%)

• Insufficient data quality (including metadata quality) (63%)

• Some data sets with unknown origin (50%)

• No tracking of data changes (50%)

• Missing guides and tools for data management (63%)

Data and metadata access and sharing - addresses data access, data sharing, ontology, web services, information gathering, and issues related to exploitation of distributed systems:

• Overviews of existing external data are not available (50%)

• Not interoperable solutions in many partner organisations (63%)

• Non interoperable standards (50%)


15

• Not harmonised external data sets (63%)

• Lack of interoperable external data sources (50%)

• Missing data sources and data gaps (50%)

• Needs for (new or more sophisticated) portal development (service integration) (75%)

• There is no standardized and open technological infrastructure (competitive services) (75%)

• Missing infrastructure in many organisations (75%)

• Networking bandwidth issues - limitation in capacity for data transfer (75%)

• Not existing interoperable components for solution of full data sharing (50%)

Exploitation and development - maintenance, software testing and updates, security issues, sustainability, new functionalities and data processing methods etc.:

• Restrictions form developer's side (50%)

• Limits of financial sources (mostly in private field) – it meant long term time limits and limits of system transformation and utilised capacity of final activities (63%)

• Insufficient operation of the portals due to limited budget (63%)

• Mostly closed proprietary desktop/web solutions are in use in the scenario domain (63%)

• Limited experience in using open source solutions (63%)

• Pushing to change often the platforms due to fast development of technologies (63%)

• Dependence on technology and service suppliers (no own developers) (50%)

• Open-Source products may require additional knowledge to use it (50%)

• Non-availability of tools to implement standards (50%)

Technical training - addresses possibilities to prepare personnel and availability of training courses, online training, distance learning; printed or e-learning material, etc.:

• The employees may not be willing to study new things (63%)

• Limited usability of new training methods (63%)

• Lack of education in the scenario domain (for developers) (50%)

Legislative - issues related to local and international law, standards and regulations:

• Impossibility of making public most data sets due to privacy or safety restrictions (50%)

• Lag behind EU in field of integrated policy (63%)

• Not clear (or not yet defined) rules for data sharing (payment, access rights etc.) (63%)

• Unclear data property and copyright (63%)

• Missing clear methodology in legislative documents (63%)

• Limits of state financial sources (50%)


16

3.1.2 Opportunities expected to be reached

Data and metadata management - issues related to data formats, description of data layers, solutions for data storage and renewal procedures:

• Exchangeable data format – better source exploitation (75%)

• Improved data quality, due to the HUMBOLDT harmonisation processes (50%)

• Standardised data structures and information models (50%)

• More efficient data management due to reduced data duplication (75%)

• Data management performed in an uniform manner (50%)

• On-line updating of information (63%)

• New software development may provide better tools for data creation, consistency checks (data uniformity) and data validation (50%)

Data and metadata access and sharing - addresses data access, data sharing, ontology, web services, information gathering, and issues related to exploitation of distributed systems:

• Inter-organisational data exchange among departments (75%)

• Better exploitation of data sources (88%)

• Foundations for vertical and horizontal data sharing (50%)

• New methods based on data sharing may be developed (63%)

• Input and output data conformed to INSPIRE standards (75%)

• Continuity of observations and improved data interoperability (63%)

• Interoperable environment will exist for harmonised data sharing (100%)

• Integrated search of accessible data across several sources (88%)

• Products and services available publicly (63%)

Exploitation and development - maintenance, software testing and updates, security issues, sustainability, new functionalities and data processing methods etc.:

• Better investigation and analytic capabilities (75%)

• Cost reduction due to simplified procedures (75%)

• Chance to achieve close cooperation with low cost and changes. Participation at international projects (63%)

• Making possible to provide a perennial infrastructure and to have sufficient long term data archiving (63%)

• New or existing services, which will not require deep technological GIS knowledge (50%)

• On-line data actualisation (63%)

• Better data operation – migration, actualisation and editing (63%)


17

• Multilingual problems solved (interface, products, services, reports etc.) (50%)

• New technologies based on effective combination of commercial and open source solution can be introduced (50%)

• New thematic layers implementation (75%)

• Chance to establish common flexible teams and cooperation with the aim of better exploitation of experiences from different fields of the activity (63%)

Technical training - addresses possibilities to prepare personnel and availability of training courses, online training, distance learning; printed or e-learning material, etc.:

• Growth of new developers, who recognise new opportunities (potentially leading to improved harmonisation) (75%)

• Interest of people to use new technology (63%)

• Existing training platform for new methods of the work (63%)

• Training services which will not require deep technological GIS knowledge (end-user oriented solution) (75%)

Legislative - issues related to local and international law, standards and regulations:

• Standardise specific conditions of harmonised processes implementation (75%)

• Establish the conditions for optimal upgrade of the national law (50%)

• Improvement of chances in communication between Countries and with authorities of EU (88%)

3.1.3 Collating WP2 and WP10 SWOT analysis

Most important problems and expectations that were identified during SWOT analysis in WP2 are presented in Annex I (6.1.10).

Comparison of the most important problems shows that vast majority (83%) of the statements did not lose their importance after more wide investigation made in WP10 was performed. This means important problems raised in WP2 were serving as good indicators for HUMBOLDT tools development. Nevertheless, it should be admitted, that investigation of bigger quantity of scenarios (eight versus three), highlighted bigger quantity of important issues which must be considered during further development of the framework.

Comparison of the most valuable opportunities, depicted in initial and extended analyses, shows that vast majority (94%) of the statements are confirmed in WP10. However, investigation of bigger quantity of scenarios highlighted much more (17 versus 34) most important expectations (see previous chapter) of scenario participants which should be taken into account for further developments.


18

3.2 Do scenarios’ expectations are satisfied? During review of SWOT analysis prepared by HUMBOLDT scenarios, SWOT statements were grouped into categories according to the nature of the issues. At the same time, similar statements were noted and common wrap-up tables for corresponding SWOT analysis subjects were formed.

Expectations of the scenarios’ participants are expressed as opportunities in their SWOT analyses. Therefore, expectations and how good they were targeted in HUMBOLDT project we analyse by forming “SWOT check-list” questionnaires of opportunities (for each scenario separately according to their statements in pre-HUMBOLDT state SWOT analysis).

The questionnaires, filled by HUMBOLDT scenarios showing the final state situation (after HUMBOLDT solutions implementation), are presented in Annex II. In this chapter we show summarised results and satisfaction of participants, which is calculated considering completeness of the solutions and importance of the issues/problems solved.

Legend for the table below:

1 - HUMBOLDT solutions for the issue gave positive results already.

0,5 - The issue is known and HUMBOLDT developers are going to propose/produce means for

solution.

0 - The issue stays without attention or is reported as impossible to solve in HUMBOLDT

framework.

√

- The issue raised by scenario participants in pre-HUMBOLDT state analysis; however no information about solution is received.


19

Cat

egor

y

Foreseen opportunities

HS-

Atm

osph

ere

HS-

Bor

derS

ecur

ity

HS-

Fore

st

HS-

Prot

ecte

dAre

as

HS-

Urb

anPl

anni

ng

HS-

Urb

anA

tlas

HS-

Tran

sbou

ndar

yCat

chm

ent

HS-

Oce

an

HS-

ERis

kA

Solu

tion

ratin

g fo

r the

issu

e (%

)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13

Data and metadata management

• Diversity of data sources 1 0,5 1 83

pin

crea

sed

use

of th

e i

fti

• Exchangeable data format – better source exploitation 1 0,5 1 0,5 0,5 1 0,5 1

75

• Improved data quality, due to the HUMBOLDT harmonisation processes √ 1 0,5 1 0,5 0,5

70

• Standardised data structures and information models 1 0,5 1 0,5 1

80

• All metadata are prepared in compliance with INSPIRE metadata models 0 0,5 0,5

33

Info

rmat

ion

of h

igh

qual

ity

• A metadata profile for the scenario domain will be defined 1 1 0

67

• More efficient data management due to reduced data duplication √ 0,5 0,5 1 0,5 0,5 1 0,5 1

69

• Data management performed in an uniform manner √ 1 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5

60

Red

uced

cos

t

• The cost for data updating and maintenance may decrease after data harmonisation 0,5 0,5

50


20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13

• On-line updating of information √ 1 0 1 1 0,5 70

• New software development may provide better tools for data creation, consistency checks (data uniformity) and data validation √ 1 0 1 0,5 0,5

60

• All data available from their producer by using Web services √ 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5 0

40

• Integrated accessible data review - metadata linked to images 0 1

50

• Implemented coherent and meaningful catalogue with easy discovery/assessment function 1 0,5

75

• Development of new applications and better cooperation/feedback from end user’s side 0 0,5

25

Flex

ible

, con

veni

ent

and

relia

ble

serv

ices

• Scenario prototype development and implementation, which helps to review and improve workflow processes in the scenario domain. 0,5 1 1

83

Data and metadata access and sharing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13

• Inter-organisational data exchange among departments √ 1 0 1 1 1 0,5 1

79

• Better exploitation of data sources √ 1 0,5 1 0,5 1 1 1 86

• Foundations for vertical and horizontal data sharing √ 0,5 0 0,5 0 1

40

• New methods based on data sharing may be developed √ 0 0,5 1 0,5 0

40

Impr

oved

and

incr

ease

d us

e of

the

info

rmat

ion

• Data and information accessibility will be increased for all users 0,5 0,5 0,5 1

63

• Input and output data conformed to INSPIRE standards √ 1 0,5 1 0,5 0,5 1 0,5 0

63

Info

rmat

ion

of

high

qua

lity

• Continuity of observations and improved data interoperability √ 0 0,5 1 1

63


21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13

• Interoperable environment will exist for harmonised data sharing √ 1 0,5 1 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5 1

69

• Integrated search of accessible data across several sources √ 0 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5 0

36

• Products and services available publicly √ 0 0,5 1 0,5 0,5 0

42

• Risk of inaccessibility of data sources will be minimised 0,5 0,5 0

33

• Reciprocal data accessing through WMS and WFS – data preservation and up-dating 0,5 0,5 0,5

50

• A working transformation service (WCTS) 0,5 1

75

• Metadata browsing, downloading/uploading 0,5 1 0,5

67

Flex

ible

, con

veni

ent

and

relia

ble

serv

ices

• Semi-automated building of derivative information for end-users 0,5

50

Exploitation and development

• Chance for all users to employ the same version of the software √ 0 1 1 0 1

60

Impr

oved

and

in

crea

sed

use

of

the

info

rmat

ion

• Chance to exploit resources of other institutions 0 0,5 1

50

• Better investigation and analytic capabilities √ 0 0,5 1 1 0,5

60

• Increased transboundary collaboration in the field 0 1 1 0,5 1

70

• Build of new solution with the respect to standards √ 1 1 1

100

• Both technologies commercial and open source will use the same interoperable standards 1 1 0,5 1

88

Info

rmat

ion

of h

igh

qual

ity

• Assured continuity of observations and improved data integration and interoperability √ 0 0,5

25


22

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13

• Improved data integration and interoperability 1 1

100

• Chance to use uniform database in management of state administration 0,5 0

25

• Market enlargement in terms of users and application developers 1 0,5 0,5

67

• Cost reduction due to simplified procedures √ 1 0,5 0,5 0,5 0 0,5

50

• Chance to achieve close cooperation with low cost and changes. Participation at international projects √ 0 0,5 0,5 1 0,5

50

Red

uced

cos

t

• Open source solution, which allows to build cost effective solutions for small municipalities 0,5 0,5 1

67

• Making possible to provide a perennial infrastructure and to have sufficient long term data archiving √ 0 1 0,5 0,5 0,5

50

• New or existing services, which will not require deep technological GIS knowledge √ 1 1 0,5

83

• On-line data actualisation √ 1 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5 1 67

• Better data operation – migration, actualisation and editing √ 1 0,5 0,5 0 0

40

• Multilingual problems solved (interface, products, services, reports...) √ 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5

50

• Better software (as Open-Source product development goes faster usually) √ 1 0,5 1

83

• New technologies based on effective combination of commercial and open source solution can be introduced √ 1 1 0,5 1

88

Flex

ible

, con

veni

ent

and

relia

ble

serv

ices

• Chance to keep stability and continuity in implementation of advanced technologies 0,5 0,5

50


23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13

• Visualisation via WMS some problematic types of raster and vector files 0,5 1

75

• Simplified system configuration and reconfiguration on system administrator's level 0,5 1

75

• New thematic layers implementation √ 0 0,5 1 0 1 1 1

64

Mor

e sk

illed

em

ploy

ees

• Chance to establish common flexible teams and cooperation with the aim of better exploitation of experiences of the experts from different fields of the activity √ 1 0 1 0,5 0,5 0,5

58

Technical training

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13

• Growth of new developers, who recognise new opportunities (potentially leading to improved harmonisation) √ 0 0,5 1 0,5 0,5 0,5

50

• Interest of people to use new technology √ 0,5 0,5 0,5 1 1 1

75

• Support larger training initiative 1 0,5 1 83

Mor

e sk

illed

em

ploy

ees

• Grow and stabilisation of technically skilled employers 0 1

50

• Existing training platform for new methods of the work √ 1 0 1 0,5 1 1

75

• Training services which will not require deep technological GIS knowledge (end-user oriented solution) √ 1 0 1 0,5 1 1 1

79

• Training platform quality enhancement and quality enhancement of the training materials 1 1

100

Flex

ible

, con

veni

ent

and

re

liabl

e se

rvic

es

• Increasing activities, e.g.: edification, education, residency, praxis, guidance and tutorial activity, etc. 0,5 1

75


24

Legislative

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13

• Standardise specific conditions of harmonised processes implementation √ 0 0,5 1 0,5 1 0,5

58

• Support toward clear standardization 0,5 0,5 1 0,5 1

70

Info

rmat

ion

of h

igh

qual

ity

• Establish the conditions for optimal upgrade of the national law √ 0 0 0 0

0

• Improved management of state administration, competence determination between departments of agriculture and environment 0 0

0

Flex

ible

, con

veni

ent

an

d re

liabl

e se

rvic

es

• Provide timely available information on oils spills and other sensitive and protected sites for a wide audience to inform environmental policy on a sea-basin scale 0,5

50

and

incr

ea-

sed

use

of

the

info

r- • Improvement of chances in communication between Countries and with authorities of EU √ 0 0,5 1 0,5 0,5 1 0,5 1

63

Overall satisfaction of a scenario is calculated as mean value of the ‘completeness of solution’ coefficients (cf. chapter 2.1.5):

%10011

⋅= ∑=

NP

ii

NN s

PS

where NP is the quantity of issues/problems raised by N-th scenario, is is the coefficient

‘completeness of solution’ for i-th issue/problem in a scenario, ]1,0[∈is , NS is the overall satisfaction of N-th scenario.

Overall evaluation of the project solutions:

∑=

=Q

NNS

QG

1

1

where Q is the quantity of scenarios estimated.


25

Table 3-1: Satisfaction of HUMBOLDT scenarios’ expectations

HS-

Atm

osph

ere

HS-

Bor

derS

ecur

ity

HS-

Fore

st

HS-

Prot

ecte

dAre

as

HS-

Urb

anPl

anni

ng

HS-

Urb

anA

tlas

HS-

Tran

sbou

ndar

yCat

chm

ent

HS-

Oce

an

HS-

ERis

kA

Satisfaction of a scenario expectations # 54,9% 39,6% 97,7% 53,7% 60,9% 88,2% 57,8% 73,5%

According to calculated satisfaction of scenarios’ expectations, overall evaluation of the HUMBOLDT project solutions is evaluated as 66%. This value can not be treated as objective parameter representing real efforts in preparing solutions for data harmonization problems; however it shows subjective satisfaction and acceptance of the solutions by the scenario participants.


26

3.3 HUMBOLDT solutions overcoming weaknesses of the scenarios

The chapter analyses HUMBOLDT methodologies and tools accordance to the scenario requirements.

According to frequency of statements’ appearance in SWOT analyses of different scenarios, coefficients of importance of each statement were calculated. These coefficients are used for evaluation of HUMBOLDT project solutions effectiveness, considering initial problems in workflow of the scenarios data/services production processes.

Cat

egor

y

Issues expected to be addressed

HS-

Atm

osph

ere

HS-

Bor

derS

ecur

ity

HS-

Fore

st

HS-

Prot

ecte

dAre

as

HS-

Urb

anPl

anni

ng

HS-

Urb

anA

tlas

HS-

Tran

sbou

ndar

yCat

chm

ent

HS-

Oce

an

HS-

ERis

kA

Issu

e im

port

ance

(%)

Solu

tion

ratin

g fo

r the

issu

e (%

)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13


• Non harmonized data 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5 44 50

• Big amount of not harmonised external data sets √ 0,5 0,5

33 50

• Most metadata elements are free text and requires standardized descriptions 1 0,5

22 75

• Most metadata elements are free text, not code lists √ 0 0,5 0,5 0,5

56 38

• Metadata is not prepared in ISO or INSPIRE standards (local standards are used for metadata) 0 0,5 0,5 0,5

44 38

• Non interoperable standards and tools are in use √ 0,5 0 1 0 0,5 1 1

89 57

Var

iety

of d

ata

form

ats

and

acce

ss m

etho

ds

(tech

nica

l int

erop

erab

ility

)

• Usage of different platforms, where interoperability is not always guaranteed till now 1 1 0 1

44 75


27

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

• Pollution Report data is not in a machine readable format for some organisations 1

11 100

• Uncertainty in the lineage of the data (processes being applied etc) √ 0,5 1 0 1

56 63

• Insufficient data quality (including metadata quality) √ 0 0 1 0 1 0

78 33

• Multiple versions of external data √ 1 22

100

• Data incongruity √ 1 0 33 50

• Some data sets with unknown origin √ 0 0 0,5 1 56 38

• Datasets are not up to date 0 0 22 0

• Source data lacks data schemas or schemas exist with different data models √ 1 1

33 100

Insu

ffici

ent d

ata

qual

ity

• Missing/lacking metadata information 0 0 1 0 0

56 20

• On the level of municipalities there is almost no metadata till now 0,5 0,5 0

33 33

• Till now there is almost no metadata based on ISO 19115 (INSPIRE directive) in the state at all √ 0

22 0

• Changes in data structure may not conform to standards 0,5 1

22 75

• The future data collection procedures will not be coordinated from viewpoint of content and structure 0

11 0

• New user requirements may lead to modified information models 0

11 0

• Insufficient qualification of operating personnel due to increasing demands 0

11 0

Know

ledg

e an

d ex

perie

nces

• INSPIRE compliant profile for metadata needs to be defined 0,5 0,5 1 0,5

44 63


28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

• HW and SW evolution for metadata collection, partially centralised partially distributed 0,5

11 50

• New methodology and new habits for data collection and data management should be developed 1

11 100

• Data quality assurance for data acquisition appears to be an issue (lack of quality assurance routines) 0 0,5 0 0,5 0

56 20

• No diversity of data sources 0,5 11 50

• Too big diversity of data sources 1 1 22

100

• No tracking of data changes √ 0 0 0 0 0 67 0

• Language transformation between several languages is an issue 0,5 0,5 0,5 0

44 38

• Missing guides and tools for data management √ 0 0,5 1 0,5 1

67 60

• “Real time” issue, - there are difficulties to receive new data constantly. Data reaches with delay or some data in use can be outdated. √ 0,5 1

33 75

• Current applications are not efficient 0,5 0,5 1 33 67

• Unsolved ‘configuration step’, which is needed for the oil spill scenario 0,5

11 50

• Visualisation services are not interoperable from beginning to end 1 1

22 100

Lack

of s

ervi

ces

and

tool

s or

lim

itatio

ns

in e

xist

ing

IT in

frast

ruct

ure

• Unsolved metadata management segmentation and aggregation 0,5 0,5

22 50


29


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

• Overviews of existing external data are not available √ 1 0,5 0,5 0,5

56 63

• Not interoperable solutions in many partner organisations √ 0,5 0 0,5 0,5 1

67 50

• Non interoperable standards √ 0 0 0 0,5 1 67 30

• Not harmonised external data sets √ 1 0,5 0,5 0,5 1 67 70

• Lack of interoperable external data sources √ 1 0,5 1 1

56 88

• Multiple versions of external data 0,5 0 22 25

Var

iety

of d

ata

form

ats

and

acce

ss m

etho

ds

(tech

nica

l int

erop

erab

ility

)

• Harmonization aspects for environmental indicators 0,5 1

22 75

• Little experience of organisations in working together 1 1

22 100

• Low willingness to be introduced new models of data sharing √ 1 0 0 0,5

56 38

Know

ledg

e an

d ex

perie

nces

• Low interest of data producers to share data using Web services √ 1 0 0 0

56 25

• Missing data sources and data gaps √ 0 1 0 1 56 50

• Needs for (new or more sophisticated) portal development (service integration) √ 0 0 0 0,5 0,5 0

78 17

• There is no standardized and open technological infrastructure (competitive services) √ 0 0,5 1 0,5 0,5 1 1

89 64

• Missing infrastructure in many organisations √ 0 0 1 0 0,5 1

78 42

• Networking bandwidth issues - limitation in capacity for data transfer √ 0 0 1 0 0,5 0

78 25

• Security of products and services is an issue √ 0 0 0,5

44 17

• Not existing interoperable components for solution of full data sharing √ 1 0,5 0,5 0 1

67 60

Lack

of s

ervi

ces

and

tool

s or

lim

itatio

ns

in e

xist

ing

IT in

frast

ruct

ure

• Current WCS and WFS solutions do not have sufficient functionality 1 0,5 0 1

44 63


30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

• None of the data is currently provided via WCS or WFS services, but rather as files √ 0 1

33 50

• There is no metadata discovery service implemented yet 0 0,5 0,5

33 33

• Data availability is not guaranteed 100% √ 0,5

22 50

• Missing transformation services upon access (cf. format change, filtering, smoothing, thresholds, confidence) 0,5 0,5

22 50


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

• Each organisation is using its own technologies for a number of operations 0,5 1

22 75

• The organisation is using old technologies for a number of operations √ 0,5 1 1

44 83

• Mostly closed proprietary desktop/web solutions are in use in the scenario domain √ 1 0,5 0,5 1 0,5 1

78 75

• Limited experience in using open source solutions √ 0,5 0,5 1 1 0 0,5

78 58

• Pushing to change often the platforms due to fast development of technologies √ 0 0,5 1 0

56 38

• Some technology suppliers don’t have expertise to be able support their customers with new interoperable solutions √ 1 0,5 0,5

44 67

• Several organisations at the local level and private sector are not ready for service oriented architecture √ 1 0,5 0,5 0

56 50

Know

ledg

e an

d ex

perie

nces

• The end users are not able to exactly define their needs 1 1

22 100


31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

• Dependence on technology and service suppliers (no own developers) √ 1 0 0,5

44 50

• Open-Source products may require additional knowledge to use it √ 0,5 1 0,5 0

56 50

• There is no possibility to exploit, get to know the security systems in big details due to their secured character 0

11 0

• Unknown future for the Open-Source product used √ 0 0

33 0

• Need of permanent experts/advisors to develop √ 0 0,5 0,5

44 33

• The end users may not be willing to change platforms 0 0 0,5

33 17

• Different platforms are in use in the scenario domain (till now interoperability is guaranteed) 0,5 0,5

22 50

• Heterogeneity of the information systems 0,5 0,5 1

33 67

• Current applications are not efficient √ 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5 1 67 60

• No current coherent framework for three types of products: thematic from a provider point of view, thematic from a user point of view, and reference static data

0

11 0

• Absence of INSPIRE and OGC compliant standardised and implemented information system accessible through a web portal or as web services √ 1 1 0,5 1

56 88

• Non-availability of tools to implement standards √ 1 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5 1

78 67

• Lack of extensive catalogue of services √ 0 0,5 0,5

44 33 Lack

of s

ervi

ces

and

tool

s or

lim

itatio

ns

in e

xist

ing

IT in

frast

ruct

ure

• Sophisticated technologies are exploited insufficiently (benefits of outsourcing are not used as well) 0,5 0,5 0,5

33 50


32

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

• Problems with visualisation of vector data like shape files 1

11 100

• Insufficient visualisation of ocean currents 0,5

11 50

• Missing hierarchical expandable presentation of metadata (similar to layers) 0,5

11 50

Technical training

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

• Most of municipalities (employees and organisation) are not ready for new solutions √ 0,5 0 0,5

44 33

• The employees may not be willing to study new things √ 1 0,5 1 0 0,5

67 60

• The staff might not be motivated √ 1 0,5 0,5 0,5 56 63

Willi

ngne

ss a

nd m

otiv

atio

n

• Limited interest to use new methods of training √ 1 0,5 0,5 0,5

56 63

• Limited usability of new training methods √ 1 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5 1

78 67

• Difficult to capture wider scope of the training for the scenario 0,5 1

22 75

• The experts may require much understanding in relation to geo-spatial standards 1 1

22 100

• Lack of education in the wider scenario scope and its impact on EU policy support and local decision making 0,5 1

22 75

• Lack of education in the scenario domain (for developers) √ 0 1 0,5 0

56 38

• Training material actuality 1 0,5 22 75

• Prerequisites of a training course 1 1 22

100

Trai

ning

mat

eria

l and

met

hodi

cs is

sues

• Time limits for online courses to learn new methods. 0,5

11 50


33

Table 3-2: Effectiveness of the proposed technical/technological solutions

HS-

Atm

osph

ere

HS-

Bor

derS

ecur

ity

HS-

Fore

st

HS-

Prot

ecte

dAre

as

HS-

Urb

anPl

anni

ng

HS-

Urb

anA

tlas

HS-

Tran

sbou

ndar

yCat

chm

ent

HS-

Oce

an

HS-

ERis

kA

Effectiveness of the solutions # 48,0% 33,7% 100 % 29,7% 60,3% 100 % 46,8% 61,6%

Effectiveness of the solutions (weighted)

# 53,7% 34,0% 100 % 30,0% 60,3% 100 % 41,8% 66,4%

The parameter "Effectiveness of the solutions" shows how much and in what degree problems highlighted in HUMBOLDT scenarios are solved. Mean value of this parameter for all scenarios evaluated equal to 60 %.

Other important calculations are made by defining weighted parameters of the "Effectiveness of the solutions", which show do developments in the project were targeted towards most important and most frequent problems in the scenarios. Except HS-Ocean scenario, weighted values of the effectiveness are bigger that mean parameters, this confirms that firstly most frequent problems were targeted, and some specific issues were solved according to the resources available.

Mean value of the Effectiveness of the solutions is equal to 61 %.


34

3.4 Important threats This chapter depicts identified threads implied by external factors, therefore not aimed (not planned due to impossibility to solve) in the HUMBOLDT project, nevertheless important for further creation of ESDI.

Cat

egor

y

Issues expected to be addressed H

S-A

tmos

pher

e

HS-

Bor

derS

ecur

ity

HS-

Fore

st

HS-

Prot

ecte

dAre

as

HS-

Urb

anPl

anni

ng

HS-

Urb

anA

tlas

HS-

Tran

sbou

ndar

yCat

chm

ent

HS-

Oce

an

HS-

ERis

kA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

• Not clear responsibility for data management and updating 0 0 0

• Some datasets could not be published due to legislative issues. 0 0 0 0 0

• No clear legislation for data sharing 0 1 0 0 0

• Data accessibility and use constraints (due to privacy or security restrictions) 0 0 1 0 0

• Insufficient financial funding 0 0 0

• Restrictions form developer's side √ 0,5 0 0 0,5 0,5

• Limits of financial sources (mostly in private field) – it meant long term time limits and limits of system transformation and utilised capacity of final activities √ 0 0 0 0

• Insufficient operation of the portals due to limited budget √ 0 0,5 0,5 0

• Problematic acquisition of source data from some subjects √ 0 0,5 0,5 0 1

• There is no institutional assurance of elimination of possible duplicity and development without coordination at some areas √ 0 0 0 U

ncle

ar re

spon

sibi

litie

s, o

rgan

isat

iona

l and

pol

icy

diffi

culti

es

• No coordination among ministries/departments and/or foreign authorities 0 0,5 1


35

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

• The experts have good knowledge in GIS operations but less knowledge in strategic issues. √ 1 0

• Missing of high level professionals skilled for management and administration 0,5 0 0

• Missing advanced GIS users √ 1 0,5 0,5 0 0

Pers

onne

l and

use

rs

• The end users use GIS technologies for short time. 0

• Problematic source data acquisition from other ministries (legislative, contracts) 0 0 0 0

• There may be restricted exploitation of data from other agencies 0 0 0

• Some datasets could not be published due to legislative or ownership protection issues 0 0 0

• Impossibility of making public most data sets due to privacy or safety restrictions √ 0 0 0 0 0 E

xist

ing

rest

rictio

ns

• Restricted exploitation of data from other agencies √ 0 0,5 0 0

• Problematic source data acquisition directly from sensor devices. Lag behind EU in field of integrated policy √

• Lag behind EU in field of integrated policy √ 0 √ 0 0

• Transboundary cooperation malfunction caused by hierarchal information flow 1

Lags

in c

oord

inat

ion

betw

een

EU

sta

tes

• Not coordination abroad 0,5 0 0 0,5

• Not clear (or not yet defined) rules for data sharing (payment, access rights etc.) √ 0,5 1 1 0,5 0

• Unclear data property and copyright √ 1 √ 0,5 0,5 0

• Not clear responsibility for data management and updating √ 1 0 0,5

• Missing clear methodology in legislative documents √ 1 0 0 0

• Missing implementation of INSPIRE norms/standards into amendment of the state law 0 0 0,5

• Pollution Report contents vary from one collating organisation to another due to the flexibility in the use of the Bonn agreement on Pollution Report 0,5

• No clear commitment for (ocean) data sharing at downstream level (proprietary know how and ownership not protected) 0

Dem

ands

for n

ew s

tand

ards

and

ena

ctm

ents

• Legal status of transformed and harmonised product not defined 0 0


36

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

• Not clearly defined cross-thematic interoperable standards 0 0,5

• The data and SW managers at ministries are not well informed about INSPIRE. 1 0,5 0,5

Oth

er

• Limits of state financial sources √ 0 0 0


37

3.5 Changes in business processes reviewed in WP2

3.5.1 Business process changes in HS-UrbanPlanning

As reported by HS-UrbanPlanning scenario participants, business process described in WP2 no longer exists as exemplary material because it was replaced by another process (use case) according to HUMBOLDT project requirements:

“The use cases were re-formulated in terms of requirements of the HUMBOLDT project partners. The reason is that there were poor relationships of the original use cases and possibilities of the HUMBOLDT project. The proposed HUMBOLDT solution is not able to solve the real problems of some urban planning activities in Czech Republic planed in earlier use cases.

Current HUMBOLDT solution is aimed at the processing of data models detailed description, but the above all the urban planning in the Czech Republic (and we think, that the same problem is all over the world) in conjunction with a limited support of legislation, users, data and software providers do not make possible to design and use uniform data model(s).

The re-formulation results from the main geospatial data activities of urban planning and forestry. Both subjects are collecting large number of the very detailed and actual data sets. These data sets should be used to update other data sets, which are not updated so often or which are not so detailed. For these use cases theme ‘land cover’ there was chosen, because the land cover is linked to other scenarios, GMES and INSPIRE (Annex II). In reality the forest and urban planning data could be used to update the land cover data set CORINE Land Cover (CLC). Such data covers many European states therefore the results and benefits could be used in updating of CLC in other countries, too.”


38

3.5.2 Business process changes in HS-Forest


39

Figure 3.1: EPC Diagram describing HS Forest scenario processes with Humboldt tools implemented


40

The diagram (see Figure 3.1) shows HS Forest scenario processes with HUMBOLDT tools implemented in the main dada production process.

In comparison with processes described in WP2 [2], we can see changes in the definition of metadata, WMS and WPS (from step 3 in the diagram). Harmonization of source and target datasets can be saved in OML file, as final product of HALE processing. The process defined in OML can be transformed into WPS and it is saved in Metadata (step 6 and 7). The result could be visualized on portal (sdi.humboldt.cz).

As it is explained by HS Forest scenario partners: „this way of the processing is a possible benefit from implementation of HUMBOLDT tools in HS-Forest.”

It should be admitted that there are no economical benefits achieved at the current moment in the scenario, which could be explained as a result of HUMBOLDT solutions and changes in production processes. Nevertheless, we can see benefits in developing “new way processing”, - how to define and achieve results and have harmonised processes by exploiting HUMBOLDT tools.

Most comments, regarding processes of this scenario, are similar to the explanations provided for HS-UrbanPlanning above: the foreseen “future processes” evolved and changed during the project duration, and the initial use cases were re-formulated according to changes in processing ideology.

Therefore, main benefits scenario partners see only in development of next or future processes which can became as economical gain in long term perspective.


41

4 Outlook and Conclusions This chapter summarises results obtained in section 3 and draws a parallel to the predictions made in WP2.

Satisfaction of the scenarios’ participants

Satisfaction of the scenario participants’ expectations is important aspect since it shows how community accepts HUMBOLDT solutions. On the other hand, it must be admitted, that satisfaction is a subjective valuation and can not be as representation of real amount of work done in preparing solutions for data harmonization problems.

By the means of 70 concrete problems formulated by HUMBOLDT scenarios participants and by their subjective evaluations of the proposed/implemented solutions for these problems, satisfaction parameter for each scenario is calculated in this report. The satisfaction ranges from 40 to 98 percent (depending on a scenario, see chapter 3.2) and has mean value of 66 percent. The latter parameter can be treated as a grade of the practical work done in this project.

Therefore it must be admitted, that, by having in mind all tasks of investigation and designing, wide range of the problems solved, and limited resources, the grade of 66 percent satisfaction should be treated as very high. This value shows that practically in all domains of HUMBOLDT scenarios were solutions proposed, and part of them is implemented practically already.

Predictions made in WP2

The identified cost-benefit potentials highlighted in SWOT analysis (see chapter 3.2) by HUMBOLDT Scenarios embrace among others:

• More efficient data management due to reduced data duplication;

• Data management performed in a uniform manner;

• The cost for data updating and maintenance may decrease after data harmonisation;

• Market enlargement in terms of users and application developers;

• Inter-organisational data exchange among departments;

• Integrated search of accessible data across several sources;

• Cost reduction due to simplified procedures;

• Chance to achieve close cooperation with low cost and changes. Participation at international projects;

• Open source solution, which allows building cost effective solutions for small municipalities.

Analysis of these issues shows that solutions which will help in achieving the benefits mentioned are proposed (majority of the answers in the questionnaires are: “Fulfilled” or “Is going to be fulfilled”), however real changes are not observed yet.

The important point here is that real cost-benefit analysis could not be executed, and scenario partners are not able to define costs and expenses related to implementation of the data


42

harmonisation processes. Important problem when implementing an SDI is that the costs of the investments usually do not occur within the same organisations that are having the major benefits of it. With reference to the OECD study [i2], most e-governmental projects have larger costs than benefits, if we only consider the organisation that implements the services. As a confirmation of this fact we can refer to explanations (cf. chapter 373.5) of HS-UrbanPlanning and HS-Forest scenarios, in which special use cases were created and additional processes “for harmonisation purposes” were added, however economical benefits due simplification of processes are expected in some future, when “old suited” tasks can be eliminated completely.

In general the overall costs of a Spatial Data Infrastructure are easier to estimate than the general benefits and cost reduction potentials. Unfortunately, one of the limitations imposed on A2.2 and A10.5 activities encompassed the impossibility to estimate the investment cost since the HUMBOLDT tools have not been defined at earlier stages of the project.

By summarising the mentioned, conclusion can be maid that positive treatments of the benefit potentials (listed above) by scenario participants can be considered as benefits in long term perspective. The mentioned benefit evaluation issues, benefit potentials and, finally, predictions of WP2 that the view on the foreseen future processes will be evolved and changed during the project duration, are confirmed.

Since, this report contains much valuable data in form of questionnaires and summarising tables, it could be advised to use this material for further HUMBOLDT framework developments.


43

5 References

[1] Ostreika A. et al: Deliverable A2.1-D2 Report on Processes Analysis (Final Version), HUMBOLDT, 2008. https://intranet.esdi-humboldt.eu/documents/details/768/1 (768-a2_1-d2_report_on_processes_analysis-ktc-001-final.pdf)

[2] Östman A. et al: Joint report of A2.2-D1 Cost Analysis and A2.3-D1 Analysis of cost reduction potentials activities, HUMBOLDT, 2008. https://intranet.esdi-humboldt.eu/documents/details/767/4

[3] Zdravkovic J, Östman A, 2008. An agile method of automated provisioning of the geographic information in public services. Urban and Regional Data Management 2008, pp 319-332.

[4] Halsing, D., K. Theissen, et al. (2004) – A Cost-Benefit Analysis of The National Map, USGS. http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2004/1271/

[5] PWC (2006), Socio-Economic Benefit Analysis of GMES. http://www.traverse.nl.sharepointsite.com/Traverse/Platforms/Ongpa/GMES/document_library/general/Socio-Economic%20Benefits%20Analysis%20of%20GMES_Executive%20Summary.pdf

[6] Gone M. et al: Quality Measurement Component Abstract Specification, HUMBOLDT, 2009. https://intranet.esdi-humboldt.eu/cgi-bin/download.pl?f=1032.doc

[7] ARIS - Business Process Frameworks by August-Wilhelm Scheer, 3rd ed., 2000. (216 p. ISBN:3540658351)

[8] Ferdian: “A Comparison of Event-driven Process Chains and UML Activity Diagram for Denoting Business Processes, Technische Universität Hamburg-Harburg, Master thesis, April 2001, (http://www.sts.tu-harburg.de/pw-and-m-theses/2001/Ferd01.pdf).

[9] P. Loos , T. Allweyer: “Process Orientation and Object-Orientation - An Approach for Integrating UML and Event-Driven Process Chains (EPC),” Publication of the Institut für Wirtschaftsinformatik, Paper 144, Saarbrücken, March 1998, (http://www.iwi.uni-sb.de/Download/iwihefte/heft144.pdf).

Internet references

[i1] EPC Tools - an open source initiative. http://wwwcs.upb.de/cs/kindler/Forschung/EPCTools

[i2] OECD, 2005. E-government for better government. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/44/42/38404094.pdf


44

6 Annexes

6.1 Annex I: SWOT analyses of HUMBOLDT scenarios of the pre-HUMBOLDT state situation

6.1.1 HS-BorderSecurity scenario pre-HUMBOLDT state SWOT analysis

6.1.1.1 Data and metadata management

STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES

Clear defined responsibility of the institution for data management

All data sets in use with known origin

OGC and Web standards support new methods of data management

INSPIRE profile draft for metadata exists already

Data formats and layers (Hungarian data) are directly described by the data provider (FOMI)

The datasets are updated periodically in compliance with the defined quality.

The metadata are in compliance with ISO standards.

The quality assurance routine for data acquisition and update is defined.

Data sets with unknown origin

Diversity of data sources

Multiple versions of external data

No tracking of data changes

Most metadata elements are free text, not code lists

Lack of quality assurance routines for data acquisition

Not clear responsibility for data management and updating

Missing guides and tools for data management

Metadata are not prepared in ISO or INSPIRE standards (local standards are used for metadata)

Datasets are not up to date.

OPPORTUNITIES THREATS

All data available from their producer by using Web services

Exchangeable data format – better source exploitation

Standardised data structures and information models

Data management performed in an uniform manner

More efficient data management due to reduced data duplication

New software development may provide better tools for data creation, consistency checks (data uniformity) and data validation

Big amount of not harmonised external data sets

Non interoperable standards and tools are in use

Data incongruity

Insufficient data quality (including metadata quality)

Data renewal is a concern of the organization itself - there is no appointed organisation responsible for data management and consistency

Till now there is almost no metadata, mainly on level of municipalities


45

Improved data quality, due to the HUMBOLDT harmonisation processes

Integrated accessible data review - metadata linked to images

New thematic layers implementation

On-line updating of information

All metadata are prepared in compliance with INSPIRE metadata models

No metadata based on ISO 19115 (INSPIRE directive) in the state at all

6.1.1.2 Data and metadata access and sharing


Most of the customers - municipalities already manage their documentation trough Web

The implemented web services are in compliance with OGC standards

Some partner organisations already support sharing a part of their data using WMS free of charge

Missing data and data gaps

Lack of interoperable external data sources

Overviews of existing external data are not available

Security of products and services

Needs for portal development (service integration)

Not interoperable solutions in many partner organisations

There is no technological infrastructure (competitive services)

Not existing components for solution of full data sharing

Current WCS and WFS solutions do not have sufficient functionality

There is no metadata discovery service implemented jet.

Some datasets could not be published due to legislative issues.


Interoperable environment for harmonised data sharing

Vertical and horizontal data sharing

Continuity of observations and improved data interoperability

Inter-organisational data exchange among

Missing infrastructure in many organisations Networking bandwidth issues - limitation in

capacity for data transfer

Non interoperable standards

Not harmonised external data sets

Low willingness to be introduced new models


46

departments

Integrated search of accessible data across several sources

Products and services available publicly

Input and output data conformed to INSPIRE standards

New methods based on data sharing may be developed

Better exploitation of data sources

of data sharing

Low interest of data producers to share data using Web services

6.1.1.3 Exploitation and development


Knowledge and understanding of core production

Knowledge and understanding of user needs in terms of products and services

Existing experience for combination of commercial and open source solutions

Maturity reached and experiences acquired in Web Mapping Services

Partners experience (all roles covered)

Existing system is in use by several companies and countries already (has a network of users)

The system has been in operational use during such a long time that identified weaknesses have been taken care of

The end users know their needs well and they are able to define them for further development.

Lack of catalogue of services

Need of permanent experts/advisors

The end users use GIS technologies for short time.

The end users are not able to exactly define their needs.

Problematic acquisition of source data from some subjects

Mostly closed proprietary desktop solutions are in use in the scenario domain

Dependence on technology and service suppliers

Absence of standardised and implemented information system accessible through a web portal or as web services

There is no institutional assurance of elimination of possible duplicity and development without coordination at some areas

Fast development of technologies with push to change often the platforms (upgrades etc)

There is no possibility to exploit, get to know the security systems in big details due to their secured character.


47


Better investigation and analytic capabilities

On-line data actualisation

Better data operation – migration, actualisation and editing

Cost reduction due to simplified procedures

Multilingual interface

Better software (as Open-Source product development goes faster usually)

New technologies based on effective combination of commercial and open source solution can be introduced

All users employing the same version of the software

Existing services, which will not require deep technological GIS knowledge

Chance to establish common flexible teams and cooperation with the aim of better exploitation of experiences of the experts from different fields of the activity

Chance to achieve close cooperation with low cost and changes. Participation at international projects

Build of new solution, based on new laws with the respect to standards

Assured continuity of observations and improved data integration and interoperability

Making possible to provide a perennial infrastructure and to have sufficient long term data archiving

Insufficient operation of the portals due to limited budget

Several organisations at the local level and private sector are not ready for service oriented architecture

Some resistance, which complicates introduction of new solutions

Restrictions form developers side

Some technology suppliers don’t have expertise to be able support their customers with new interoperable solutions

Limits of financial sources in private field – it meant long term time limits and limits of system transformation and utilised capacity of final activities

Non-availability of tools to implement standards

Open-Source products may require additional knowledge to use it

Unknown future for the Open-Source product used


48

6.1.1.4 Technical training


There exist good examples, which could be used for awareness of best practices

The implemented system is easy to use and learn.

The employees may not be willing to study new things

Limited interest to use new methods of training

The experts have good knowledge in GIS operations but less knowledge in strategic issues.

Lack of education in the scenario domain


Interest of people to use new technology

Existing training platform for new methods of the work

Training services which will not require deep technological GIS knowledge

Grow of new developers, who recognise new opportunities

Missing advanced GIS users on most of municipalities

Most of municipalities (employees and organisation) are not ready for new solutions

The staff might not be motivated

Limited usability of new training methods

Time limits for online courses to learn new methods.


49

6.1.1.5 Legislative


INSPIRE defines new rules for Geospatial Infrastructure


Not clear rules for data sharing (payment, access rights etc.)

Unclear data property and copyright

Problematic source data acquisition from other ministries (legislative, contracts)

Not coordination abroad

Lag behind EU in field of integrated policy

Missing clear methodology in legislative documents

The data and SW managers at ministries are not well informed about INSPIRE.


Establish the conditions for optimal upgrade of … law

Standardise specific conditions of implementation

Improvement of chances in communication with authorities of EU

Impossibility of making public most data sets due to privacy restrictions

Restricted exploitation of data from other agencies

Limits of state financial sources


50

6.1.2 HS-UrbanPlanning scenario pre-HUMBOLDT state SWOT analysis




INSPIRE profile draft for metadata already exists

There exists well defined profile for urban planning given by Ministry for regional development

There exist systems which could support metadata and catalogue searching

New technological tools offer new effective methods for data management including their sharing



Non harmonised data with low quality

The descriptions of data sources according to new standards are necessary

The metadata used in CR till now don’t support standards

On the level of municipalities there is almost no metadata till now

There is no metadata profile for Urban planning


New methods based on data sharing will be developed

All data will be available using Web services from their producer

There will exist interoperable environment for harmonised data sharing

All data will be described on the users’ side

A metadata profile for Urban planning will be defined


Most of municipalities till now use closed proprietary desktop solutions

The metadata for Czech (urban planning) must be created according to ISO 19115 and Inspire standards

Additional financial sources are necessary


51



Some municipalities manage Planning documentation trough Web already

Some organisations (such as CENIA or FMI) already share a part of their data using WMS free of charge

Cadastral office offers commercial exploitation of topographic data

Some regional companies offer WMS services

New technological tools offer new effective methods for data management including their sharing

Partners are not ready for new solution

Missing infrastructure in many organisations

Missing readiness to share data



Reciprocal data accessing through WMS and WFS – data preservation and up-dating

Exchangeable data formats


Insufficient capacity of communication network No portal development for service integration

Insufficient Hardware and software maintenance

Possible technical and technological difficulties

Big part of the data has to be protected and cannot be shared, because it belongs to personal ownership

Not clear legislation for data sharing

Low expectation to introduce new models of data sharing



52

6.1.2.3 Exploitation and Development


There are open attitudes to start exploit new methods of the work

Similar technologies are known already


Impossibility of making public most of the data sets

Difficulties in acquiring source data from other partners - companies creating urban infrastructure

Some technology suppliers don’t have expertise, to be able support their customers with new interoperable solutions

Limited experience in using open source solution

Not existing components of the solution for full data sharing

Current WCS and WFS solutions do not have sufficient functionality


Data expenditure reduction

Data access simplification

On-line updating

Presentations of the municipalities on the web

Better access to information

Open source solution, which allows to build cost effective solutions for smaller municipalities

Relatively good support from the side of companies for new interoperable solutions based on Open sources

New technologies based on effective combination of commercial and open source solution will be introduced

Both technologies commercial and open source will use the same interoperable standards


Restrictions given by Ministry of Regional development regulation

Restriction form part of developers

Non-interoperable solutions

Most of users are currently using proprietary desktop solution, not based on open standards

The end users will not will to change platforms

People will continue to use old fashion tolls

Some application providers with strong position on the market will not be able to move new technologies


53




Relatively good IT equipment on the level of municipalities

There exist companies which can support municipalities

Missing advanced GIS users in most of the municipalities

Some resistance, which complicated introduction of new solutions




More user centric, not technology centric solution

Existing services which will not require deep technological GIS knowledge

Existing platform for new methods of the work

There will grow new developers, who recognise new opportunities


The architects and planners might not be interested in learning about new technologies




6.1.2.5 Legislative


New civil construction law defines methods of work


It is expected that all plans will be defined digitally in 2012

Not clear definition or missing standards for Urban planning in Czech Republic



New clear standards will be defined

To build new solution that is based on the new laws with the respect with standards

To start with new innovative methods

During transaction period there will be established proprietary methods of work

There will be not defined clear interoperable standards


54

6.1.3 HS-Forest scenario pre-HUMBOLDT state SWOT analysis

6.1.3.1 List of abbreviations

CR - Czech Republic

FMI - Forest Management Institute

GPS - Global Positioning System

HW / SW - Hardware / Software

IDC - Information system and Data Centre

MA - Ministry of Agriculture

RPFD - Regional Plans of Forest Development

WMS - Web Map Service

WFS - Web Feature Service



Aerial photographs and data processing since 1950

Experience on field of digital technology are established in FMI since 1960

Space image processing since 1980

Since 1990, digital Forest Management Plans has been developed

Geographic data experience since 1990

Standard of Forest Management in 1998

Metadata introduction in Ministry of Agriculture in 1998

Metadata description in RPFD since 2001

Long-term FMI experience of new technology data collecting application

Commercial and non-commercial software experience

RPFD methodology

Data audit and quality control

Assistance and cooperation with other departments

Seamless data source experience

Detailed geographic data description


Uncertainty in the lineage of the data (processes being applied etc)

Imperfect contracts for administration and updating of data

Lack of effective data maintenance procedures (Missing guides and tools for data management)

Current data not homogenous (Data incongruity)

Current applications are not efficient


No code lists defined in standards

Missing of high level professionals skilled for management and administration


55



Assurance of high quality of HW and SW

The cost for data updating and maintenance may decrease after data harmonisation

There will be clear origin and assurance of quality of the data


Data management may be performed in an uniform manner

Possibilities to search for data set components

Data information standard provide better data management



There will not be duplicities in data

Insufficient adoption of new technological development for data maintenance

Insufficient incorporation to standard activity of FMI

Insufficient investments in HW/SW

Insufficient financial resources

Increased costs on field workers equipment (HW and SW)

Changes in data structure may not conform to standards

The future data collection procedures will not be coordinated from viewpoint of content and structure

New user requirements may lead to modified information models

No forestry metadata profile based on ISO 19115 and INSPIRE

No standard for metadata

Additional financial funding might be lacking

Missing higher claims on quality of management integrated activities

Insufficient qualification of operating personnel due to increasing demands (if it will not be executed in form of subcontracting)


56



Intranet in FMI already in year 1996

Relational databases have been used since 2000, which gives easier integration of data sets and preserves data uniformity.

Map Server in operation 2002

WWW service experience since 2003

Service administration included in a subject of activity

Public access on RPFD data

Public access on WWW services


Some internal data only available through DOS-based Czech systems



Not clear rules for data sharing (payment, access rights etc)

Problematic source data acquisition from other ministries (legislative, contracts across the Ministry of Agriculture, etc.)

Lack of quality assurance routines for data acquisition


Impossibility of making public most data sets (Ministry of Agriculture) due to privacy restrictions


Partners are not ready for providing data

Not interoperable solutions in many partners organisation

Missing infrastructure in many organisations

Limitation in capacity for data transfer


Inter-organisational data exchange among departments

Inter-organisational data accessing per WMS and WFS - lower needs for data up-dating at several places

Exchangeable data format – better usage of data

New interoperable services for Czech forestry

Interoperable SDI in all country (countries)

Data and information accessibility will be increased for all users

There might be a wide range of non-harmonised data sets available

Networking bandwidth issues - limitation in capacity for data transfer

Insufficient development of portals for service integration

Insufficient HW and SW maintenance

Possible Technical and technological difficulties

The standards being developed will not be recognised in the Czech republic


57

Risk of inaccessibility of data sources will be minimised

The central database of department will disseminate an integrated information service of forestry under state guarantee

Insufficient financial funding



First GIS already in 1988

Ministry of Agriculture data provision regulation since year 2002

The Ministry of Agriculture (MA) is head of 21 government organisations as a methodology leader

MA can be as coordinator of the transformation process of all organisations, leading into integrated system of information access

For the period of implementation of INSPIRE directives all organisations can participate in common projects

Experiences in using modern equipments for field data collection (GPS, electronic tachymeter, portable computers etc)

Long term tradition of development and activities, flexible adaptation to new requirements

Map printing for different governmental institutions

Effectual demand review, relatively good knowledge of user requirements and claims

High qualification of foresters in the FMI

Cooperation in development of SW TOPOL (a Czech tool)

No coordination with other Ministries

No coordination abroad


There is no institutional assurance elimination of possible duplicity and development without coordination at some areas

High differentiation in activities of experts could be the reason of non replaceability

The organisation is using old technologies for a number of operations

Low level of usage of sophisticated technologies, (the benefits of outsourcing are not used as well)

Using of different platforms (till now interoperability is guarantee)

Dependence on technology and service suppliers. No own developers.


Improved software for migration, data maintenance and analytic outputs

Better searching, updating and editing facilities



Insufficient performance of the portals due to limited budgets


Limits of financial sources in private field – it


58


FMI presentation in projects

Wide information support of community in forestry (from small forest owner to State Forest Enterprise)

Better services for Government

Better services for forest owner

Better and more objective methods and tools for forestry protection

Improvement of benefits for forestry, which state administration need to guarantee on theoretical and practical level with positive impact for development state forest policy and for expedient financing of forestry

Improvement of integrated assistance to local administration and regional administration as methodological, control, educational and expert support in case of administrative decision making, chances to react in current or disaster situations in forestry

Chance to use uniform database in management of state administration, incl. improvement of its services

Chance to achieve close cooperation between MA and EU with low cost and changes. Participation at international projects with support of changes

Chance to establish common flexible teams and cooperation with aim of better exploitation of experiences of the experts from different fields of activity

Chance to exploit resources of other institutions of the MA which are highly decentralised at this stage

Preserve the independence between organisations, treaty commitments in sharing of applications and information

Standardised conditions of new implementations, determined structure of the MA

Preserved continuity of complementary, special, experimental and other tasks in frame of the MA

Chance to keep stability of activities in information structure of the FMI incl. Continuity of implementation advanced technologies (e.g. IDC, etc.)

meant long term time limits and limits of system transformation and utilised capacity of final activities

Legal restriction given by Ministry of Agriculture will not be resolved

Persistent heterogeneity of the information systems



59



Training courses and mutual meetings of GIS workers

Missing of high level professionals skilled for management and administration


Increasing activities, e.g.: edification, education, residency, praxis, guidance and tutorial activity, dissertation, etc.,

Grow and stabilisation of technically skilled employers in FMI

Low interest and willingness to increase high tech computing skills in forestry working

Discontinuity in use of gained qualifications

6.1.3.6 Legislative


Long term tradition of Czech forestry

Long term tradition of development and activities to adapt new requirements (changes are running from 18th century, and new - after 1989)

Legislative purity and continuity of solution under the law, with optimal conditions for system development defining functions of each institution

There is no legislative for assurance of transformation and unification exploitation data sources

Possible problem with law about protection of data ownerships

Lag behind EU in field of integrated policy (national forestry program, integrated forestry research, services and informatics, exploitation common capacities

Lag behind of mandatory monitoring of effects (forest inventories)

Unclear data property and copyright in CR

Missing implementation of special norm (INSPIRE) into amendment of the new forest law


60


Improved management of state administration, competence determination between departments of agriculture and environment


Flexible reaction to obtain information for solving of problems in forestry operations

Establish the conditions for optimal upgrade of forestry law, to establish integrated activity of the MA

Establish the real conditions for benefits in forestry, which need the state guarantee in theoretical and practical platform with positive impacts for development of the state forest policy and with positive impact for effective funding of forestry

Unsolved privatisation of some activities in forestry, unclear ownership

Lag behind in field of inefficient management due to political concerns instability of state forest

Vague data property and copyright in CR

Restriction of financial resources in forestry research, services and informatics under the political influence

Continuous transformation of forestry ownerships and data responsibilities - cost savings are impossible

No implementation of special norm (INSPIRE) into amendment of the new Forest Law

Conflicts between INSPIRE and other legislation could cause non-reversible mistakes in implementation of INSPIRE


61

6.1.4 HS-Ocean scenario pre-HUMBOLDT state SWOT analysis

6.1.4.1 Data and metadata management (from companies inside perspective)


Clear definition of the marine core service needs

Clear integration of needs within the downstream service

Clearly defined organisation responsible for data management and data quality

All data sets used have known originator

Large and coherent system in SEADATANET, large number of in situ products, embedded catalogue systems

Metadata profile was a precursor within the Sea-Search project , revised for a wide variety of sources within MERSEA and its project successor “MyOcean”, completed for ISO compliance plus ontology rules, reference fields and data model mapping within SEADATANET

Metadata filled in by appropriate thematic assembly centres, and harmonised by thematic services (cf. MERSEA and its project successor “ MyOcean” serving Marine Core Service, SEADATANET serving the research community or ECUME/SEXTANT serving the French oil spill downstream service)

HW and SW evolution for metadata collection, partially centralised partially distributed

Missing production context, clear origin, lineage and assurance of the resolution (space & time) and quality (including accuracy) of the data

Same actor may be a provider and a user, these two roles have to be clearly separated (new methodology and new habits for data collection and data management should be developed)

There are not consistent metadata descriptions making some data unusable

Core oceanographic and marine data modelling and services are covered by the MyOcean and SeaDataNet data management, but there is a lack of inclusion of other supporting datasets like HS-Ocean observed pollution reports and spatial data such as protected sites, coastlines etc.

Most metadata elements of geographic datasets (other then covered by CDI) are free text, not code lists (e.g. Pollution reports, sensitive areas etc.). In CDI V1 metadata for datasets is structured with code lists!

Usage of different platforms dependant solution to allow interoperability but for limited domain



Products’ definition and granularity are not harmonised, as the well as the interface with inventory

Pollution Report data is not in a machine readable format for some organisations

Pollution Report contents vary from one collating organisation to another due to the flexibility in the use of the Bonn agreement on Pollution Report


62


Standardised data structures and information models, - compliance with INSPIRE requirements => better inclusion of supporting datasets leading to improved products

Implemented coherent and meaningful catalogue with easy discovery/assessment function

Multilingual problems solved (products description, services description, pollution reports)

A perennial technical infrastructure allowing to have sufficient long term data archiving

Integrated accessible data review - metadata linked to images


Scenario prototype development and implementation, which helps to review and improve workflow processes in the scenario and in the ocean domain.

Improved product quality, due to implementing the HUMBOLDT harmonisation processes

Development of new applications and better cooperation/feedback from end user’s side.

Key staff critical, - impossibility to have all needed actors at one place

Unsolved ‘configuration step’, which is needed for the oil spill scenario (it is too heavy and rigid)

Visualisation services are not interoperable from beginning to end

Performance problems when harmonising datasets on the fly (e.g. numerical forecast ocean model).

Unsolved metadata management segmentation and aggregation

Non interoperable (domain specific) standards and tools are in use

Data renewal is a concern of the organization itself and may therefore lack behind

Not available metadata based on ISO 19115 (INSPIRE directive) when datasets come from outside SeaDataNet/MyOcean coverage

6.1.4.2 Data and metadata access and sharing (from inter-organisational perspective)


Clear commitment of the marine core service for ocean data sharing

Ocean data format: there is large consensus for two types of standard data formats: two types of standard data exchange formats: 1) Network Common Data Format (netCDF) following the Climate and Forecast (CF) convention, which allows use of metadata and serves (using Internet via Opendap) to create virtual time series (For realtime data, gridded data, remote sensing) 2) ODV ASCII for data profiles of in situ collected data

Retrieval at a given time of time dependant data of multiple types and of multiple

Missing data sources, data gaps


Missing guides and tools, need of a hot line

Opendap services are not compliant with INSPIRE requirements

Networking issues for operational oceanography data flow (bandwidth problems, performance)

Missing transformation services upon access (cf. format change, filtering, smoothing, thresholds, confidence)


Not existing interoperable components for solution of full data sharing (for dataprofiles


63

sources ( observations, monitoring and forecast model…)

Non standard but nice client applications (like LAS, Live Access Server, DIVA) that help understand what is behind.

There exist systems which support metadata and catalogue search, and data ordering and access (CDI V1)

the CDI solution is in place using a Download Manager, for Gridded data the NetCDF/OpenDAP solution)

Needs for more flexible portal development (service integration)


Improved access to data and fulfilled spatial and temporal gaps in specific datasets

A working prototype for an OGC WCS providing Opendap service to assure continuity of observations and improved data integration and interoperability

A working transformation service (WCTS)

Products and services publicly available

Metadata browsing, downloading/uploading (all actors)



Integrated search of accessible data across several sources (catalogues)

Semi-automated building of derivative information for end-users


No global convergence on metadata scheme (Europe, Australia, US…)

“Register once” problem, - there is no possibility to accesses all necessary data by making just one log-in (currently we have multiple accesses at various places). (Only SeaDataNet CDI V1 has a central user register in place)

No clear commitment for ocean data sharing at downstream level (proprietary know how and ownership not protected)

Non interoperable standards when going out of domain

Not harmonised external (out of domain) data sets

Complex data policy but clear responsibility for data, lack or old data sharing framework (some products are freely available, others on demand, thirds accessible during crisis only)

“Real time” issue, - there are difficulties to receive new information constantly, - some data in use is outdated.

Networking bandwidth issues - limitation in capacity for data transfer (direct access / load), performance problem when converting

Need of operational maintenance, and monitoring indicators


64



System of service chain systems, distributed at the place where it is managed, federated at the place where it is used

Knowledge & understanding of marine core production (in situ and remote sensing observations, global and regional ocean forecasts): real time data stream, standard format, parameters served, data already available on the net in appropriate serving format for wide use

Knowledge & understanding of downstream production (local meteorological and hydrodynamic model analyses and forecasts)

Knowledge & understanding of other static marine information (basic, administrative & socio-economical information)

Knowledge and understanding of user needs in terms of products and services (via expert providers)

Maturity reached and experiences acquired in Web Mapping Services


Existing system is easy expandable (new GIS layers, new analysis methods can be easily added)

Non standard but nice client applications (like LAS, Live Access Server,DIVA) that help understand the needs of visualisation.

Existing systems/components are in use by several institutes and countries already (has a network of users)

There are open attitudes to start exploit new methods of work

Lack of extensive catalogue of services

Need of permanent experts/advisors to develop

Each organisation is using its own technologies for a number of operations

No current coherent framework for three type of products: thematic from a provider point of view, thematic from a user point of view, and reference static data

Impossible to engage large number of users in the process

Insufficient visualisation of ocean currents

Not implemented 3D (X,Y, Z or T) visualisation

Problems with visualisation of vector data like shape files representing oil dispersion

System has difficulties of projection at extreme latitudes

Missing software development background for tricky configuration issues

Missing coherent colour scales for various mapping tasks

Missing hierarchical expandable presentation of metadata (similar to layers)

Mostly closed proprietary desktop/web solutions are in use in the scenario domain

Limited experience in using open source solutions




65


Simplified system configuration and reconfiguration (casting, pollution perimeters, GIS layers, ontologies and references) on system administrators level

Implemented maps animation

Visualisation via WMS some problematic types of raster and vector files (by transforming them first in maps or layers)




Multilingual interfaces

New thematic layers implementation (!)

New technologies based on effective combination of commercial and open source solution can be introduced


Participation at international projects, chance to achieve close cooperation with low cost and changes.

Link with similar international activities (cf. IOOS DMAC at NOAA, Ocean US)

Consensus among the operational oceanography actors to help sort out ocean products and describe them consistently

Sort ocean products depending on use, and distribute them according to user needs

Improved data integration and interoperability

Enlarged use of ocean observations data/products



Lack of education in the oceanography course

Not sufficient performance for direct mapping / load, zoom operations

Missing tools for implementation of standards

Lack of observations, defective data

No possibility to upload request and warning messages


Components must be delivered, tested and documented with enough time for integration by O. Scenario to develop appropriate demonstrator


66




Large coverage of potential users in the ocean/marine domain

Some coordination and sharing of best practise and tools amongst partners through other European projects

Lack of specific knowledge in the scenario and common GIS domain for developers

Available tools are not always fit for purpose




Training services which will not require deep technological GIS knowledge for end-users

Grow of new developers, who recognise new opportunities potentially leading to improved harmonisation of other marine datasets

Need of education to ensure good description of observations, once and on a long term issue


Software may not be fully functional

Resources may not be available to complete training of the software tools

6.1.4.5 Legislative



Some common use of terminology for POLREPS through the Bonn Agreement across European partners


Not clear rules for data sharing (payment, access rights etc.)Unclear data property and copyright


Not coordination abroad



Information to inform European policy on oil spills and nature conservation is not readily available

Legal status of transformed and harmonised product not defined


67


Establish the conditions for optimal upgrade of law



Provide timely available information on oils spills and other sensitive and protected sites for a wide audience to inform environmental policy on a sea-basin scale

Impossibility of making public most data sets due to restrictions of different kind ( Safety, Defense …)




68

6.1.5 HS-Atmosphere scenario pre-HUMBOLDT state SWOT analysis



Clearly defined responsibility of the institution for data management

All data sets in use with known origin

There are Open-Source tools for data management on the market


Data quality assurance routines for data acquisition is well defined

Clear responsibility for data management and updating


The origin of the data is not clear what is mean by this. For instance the air quality data is provided by EEA, or German environmental agency, but these institutions do not collect this data themselves. If origin means the actual data collector, then…in most cases that is unknown. If it’s the Institutions e.g. EEA, then the origin is known.

Source data lacks data schemas and in case there is, then these exists with different data models




Metadata is not available, however, the information on metadata is available from other sources




All data available from their producer by using Web services

Some sources already have exchangeable data format – better source exploitation

Some data sources already have standardised data structures and information models






Data incongruity



Till now there is almost no metadata based on ISO 19115 (INSPIRE directive) in the state at all

There is no real time data available. Only near


69




real time data is available.



Air quality data is available from one central source (EEA)

Near real-time weather data in METAR format is available in a decoded format from a web service.

There is some documentation of the data sources e.g. accessibility, attributes etc.

There exist systems which could support metadata and catalogue search

Some partner organisations already support sharing a part of their data using web services




Security of products and services




Not existing components for solution of full data sharing

None of the data is current provided via WCS or WFS services, but rather as files.













Non interoperable standards


Low willingness to be introduced new models of data sharing


Data availability is not guaranteed 100%


70



Knowledge and understanding of core production



Maturity reached and experiences acquired in Mobile Web Mapping Services

Existing system is easy expandable (new GIS layers new analysis methods can be easily added)

Existing system uses ‘state of the art’ methods


The system has been in operational use during such a long time that identified weaknesses have been taken care of

…









Absence of standardised and implemented information system accessible through a web portal or as web services

There is no institutional assurance of elimination of possible duplicity and development without coordination at some areas









Better software (as Open-Source product development goes faster usually)

New technologies based on effective combination of commercial and open





Some technology suppliers don’t have expertise to be able support their customers with new interoperable solutions


Non-availability of tools to implement


71

source solution can be introduced

All users employing the same version of the software




Build of new solution, based on new laws with the respect to standards

Assured continuity of observations and improved data integration and interoperability

Making possible to provide a perennial infrastructure and to have sufficient long term data archiving

standards


Unknown future for the Open-Source product used







The experts have good knowledge in GIS operations but less knowledge in strategic issues.



72






Missing advanced GIS users on most of municipalities




6.1.5.5 Legislative



Rules on Air quality data collection exists


Not clear rules for data sharing (payment, access rights etc.)


Problematic source data acquisition directly from sensor devices. Lag behind EU in field of integrated policy



Establish the conditions for optimal upgrade of law



Impossibility of making public most data sets due to privacy restrictions




73

6.1.6 HS-ProtectedAreas scenario pre-HUMBOLDT state SWOT analysis

6.1.6.1 Context and users


Synergy with other running projects, namely Nature-SDIplus, motivated to test the Humboldt Framework

A good "run in" with the project team (since the Fast Track Scenario)

Is a general scenario (actually a real scenario and not a specific case/application) which needs to "represent" also very different use cases

Fragmented situation and different evolution states in the different Countries

Some users not easy to involve (Public bodies)


Protected Areas is INSPIRE Annex I, currently under high consideration

Professional stakeholders in between INSPIRE and nature management needs to assume measures and the scenario can provide hints and support

There is also a chest of opportunities towards final users (for tourism application) and a potential user market (guides, on-line advertising, ... )

Its general character (it does not refer to a specific running project and related needs) calls for a leading actor committed to further exploit its outcome



All data sets in use with known origin Metadata, in general, already based on ISO

19115

INSPIRE profiles for the Protected sites theme already exist

Usage of different platforms, where interoperability is not always guaranteed till now

Different responsibility for data management and updating

Uncertainty in the lineage of the data



74


Diversity of data sources (more work to do for Humboldt harmonisation)



Need of improved data quality, as allowed by the HUMBOLDT harmonisation process









Some partner organisations already support sharing a part of their data using WMS free of charge


not always there is no technological infrastructure (competitive services)



Data exchange among departments and organisations


Need of input and output data conformed to INSPIRE standards





Little experience of organisations in working together.


75




Partners experience (all roles covered) Existing system is easy expandable (new

GIS layers can be easily added)




New services, which will not require deep technological GIS knowledge

Chance for common flexible teams and cooperation, for better exploitation of experts' experiences

Build of new solution with the respect to standards

Making possible to provide an infrastructure and to have sufficient long term data archiving

Increased trans-border collaboration in the field

Market enlargement in terms of users and application developers

Theme of interest for citizens and NGOs

Limited budgets of interested users

When needed, Open-Source products may require additional knowledge to use it



There exist good examples, which could be used for awareness/dissemination of best practices

Relatively good IT equipment in the possibly involved operators at the different levels

Good IT competence in the possibly involved operators at the different levels




76


Existing training platform


Growth of new developers, who recognise new opportunities

Missing advanced GIS user knowledge

6.1.6.6 Legislative


INSPIRE defines new rules for Geospatial Infrastructure and requires to be complied

Not clear (or not yet defined) rules for data sharing (payment, access rights etc.)



Improvement of chances in reporting and communication between Countries and with EU


77

6.1.7 HS-TransboundaryCatchments scenario pre-HUMBOLDT state SWOT analysis

6.1.7.1 Context and users


Synergy with sectoral thematic network run by GISIG and other interest groups can open for a meaningful audience of users motivated to test the Humboldt Framework, also in the industrial sector (Water Companies) and beside the potential interest of public bodies (administrations, water Authorities)

The link with hydrological modelling

Even if its scope is limited and avoids vagueness (water resources and catchment are indeed very large and comprehensive terms), this scenario is, as the case of Protected Areas) a very general scenario: needs of clear target and scope, to be maintained along the development

Some users are not easy to get involved (Public bodies)


Water sector is addressed by the Water Framework Directive and is crucial in territorial management, of interest for several different stakeholders. So is for the associated geo-information

Trans-boundary catchment is important in national and European policies

The link with modelling opens opportunities to an important target audience

User are rather scattered and could be difficult to bring them together



Clearly defined responsibility of the institutions for data management

All data sets in use with known origin Some INSPIRE profiles in the field already

exist (namely Annex I)

Several independent data sources (making choice easier)

Usage of different platforms, where interoperability is not always guaranteed till now

Missing metadata information


78



Improved data quality, thanks to the HUMBOLDT harmonisation processes






Some collaborating organisations already support sharing a part of their data using free WMS

There is no technological infrastructure




Data exchange among organisations Integrated search of accessible data across

several sources Need of products and services available

publicly Need of input and output data conformed to

INSPIRE standards


Little experience of organisations in working together...

Data accessibility and use constraints


79



There are open attitudes to start exploit new methods of work

Theme of interest for citizens and NGOs

Theme of interest for Water Companies



Better investigation and analytic capabilities More efficient data management due to

reduced data duplication Making possible to provide a perennial

infrastructure and to have sufficient long term data archiving

Increased transboundary collaboration in the field




HUMBOLDT framework implementation demonstration

E-learning materials exist in the field of hydrological modelling

Training material actuality


80


Exploitation of legislation implementation

Training platform quality enhancement and quality enhancement of the information in the training materials

Prerequisites of a training course

6.1.7.6 Legislative


Water Framework Directive and INSPIRE define new rules for Geospatial Infrastructure and needs to be complied with

Transboundary cooperation malfunction caused by hierarchal information flow



Improvement of chances in reporting and communication between Countries and with EU


81

6.1.8 HS-UrbanAtlas scenario pre-HUMBOLDT state SWOT analysis



Clear defined responsibility of the institution for data management

All data sets in use are mostly from known origin

There are new Open-Source tools for data management on the market


There exists a system which allows metadata cataloguing and browsing

Harmonization of both spatial and non-spatial data

Some data sets with unknown origin

Diversity of data sources

Non harmonized data


Most metadata elements are free text and requires standardized descriptions

Quality assurance for data acquisition appears to be an issue

Usage of different platforms, where interoperability is not guaranteed till now

INSPIRE compliant profile draft for metadata needs to be defined

Spanish metadata compliant profile needs to be defined




Data will be available through Web services







Calculations of some environmental indicators based on harmonized practices



Data incongruity


Till now there is limited metadata model,

Limited metadata based on ISO 19115 (INSPIRE directive)

Language transformation between Spanish, Basque and English

No clear legislation for data sharing

New INSPIRE compliant version of Spanish metadata profile is expected by May 2010 which may impact on the existing metadata profile


82



Sustainable observatory of the Vitoria Gasteiz (CEA) already manage their documentation through Web

The existing Environmental Information System (SI@M) could support metadata and catalogue search which will be transformed for more standardized OGC compliant servicers

CEA already support sharing a part of their data using SI@M free of charge and later using Urban Atlas application in a more standardized and harmonized way

New tools offer new effective methods for performing calculations for Indictors and visualizing results through shared communication medium





There is no standardized and open technological infrastructure (competitive services)

Harmonization aspects for environmental indicators



Foundations for vertical and horizontal data sharing








Missing infrastructure in many organisations Non interoperable standards for indicators


Data ownership from different departments and sharing constraints


83





Existing system can be transformed into a newly standardized system with the options to add new GIS layers, perform transformations and new analysis methods can be introduced

Existing system is in use by several companies and countries already





Some technology suppliers don’t have expertise, to be able to support their customers with new interoperable solutions


Absence of INSPIRE and OGC compliant standardised and implemented information system accessible through a web portal or as web services















Non-availability of tools to implement standards


Operational feasibility in organizations


84





More focused training for municipalities can be prepared

User centred training will be prepared

Interest to use new methods of training is unknown

The experts have some knowledge in GIS operations as well as in strategic issues but may require much understanding in relation to geo-spatial standards

Lack of education in the wider scenario scope and its impact on EU policy support and local decision making






Support larger training initiative



Difficult to capture wider scope of the training for the scenario

6.1.8.5 Legislative



Compliance to Local legislatives

Data and Information can be made available to public





85


Support toward clear standardization



There may be restricted exploitation of data from other agencies

Not clearly defined cross-thematic interoperable standards

6.1.9 SWOT analysis wrap-up

6.1.9.1 Issues expected to be addressed

Data and metadata management - issues related to data formats, description of data layers, solutions for data storage and renewal procedures.


HS-

Atm

osph

ere

HS-

Bor

derS

ecur

ity

HS-

Fore

st

HS-

Prot

ecte

dAre

as

HS-

Urb

anPl

anni

ng

HS-

Urb

anA

tlas

HS-

Tran

sbou

ndar

yCat

chm

ent

HS-

Oce

an

Issu

e oc

curr

ence

Impo

rtan

ce o

f the

issu

e (%

)

• Non harmonized data √ √ 2 25

• Big amount of not harmonised external data sets √ √ 2 25

• Most metadata elements are free text and requires standardized descriptions

√

1 13

• Most metadata elements are free text, not code lists √ √ √ √ 4 50

• Metadata is not prepared in ISO or INSPIRE standards (local standards are used for metadata)

√

√

2 25

• Non interoperable standards and tools are in use √ √ √ √ √ √ 6 75


86


HS-

Atm

osph

ere

HS-

Bor

derS

ecur

ity

HS-

Fore

st

HS-

Prot

ecte

dAre

as

HS-

Urb

anPl

anni

ng

HS-

Urb

anA

tlas

HS-

Tran

sbou

ndar

yCat

chm

ent

HS-

Oce

an

Issu

e oc

curr

ence

Impo

rtan

ce o

f the

issu

e (%

)

• INSPIRE compliant profile draft for metadata needs to be defined

√

1 13

• Usage of different platforms, where interoperability is not always guaranteed till now

√

√ √ 3 38

• Pollution Report data is not in a machine readable format for some organisations

√ 1 13

• Uncertainty in the lineage of the data (processes being applied etc)

√

√ √

√ 4 50

• Insufficient data quality (including metadata quality) √ √ √ √ √ 5 63

• Multiple versions of external data √ √ 2 25

• Data incongruity √ √ √ 3 38

• Some data sets with unknown origin √ √ √ √ 4 50

• Datasets are not up to date √ 1 13

• Source data lacks data schemas or schemas exist with different data models

√

1 13

• Missing/lacking metadata information √ √ √ 3 38

• Different responsibility for data management and updating

√ 1 13

• Not clear responsibility for data management and updating

√ √ √ 3 38

• On the level of municipalities there is almost no metadata till now

√ 1 13

• Till now there is almost no metadata based on ISO 19115 (INSPIRE directive) in the state at all

√ 1 13


87


HS-

Atm

osph

ere

HS-

Bor

derS

ecur

ity

HS-

Fore

st

HS-

Prot

ecte

dAre

as

HS-

Urb

anPl

anni

ng

HS-

Urb

anA

tlas

HS-

Tran

sbou

ndar

yCat

chm

ent

HS-

Oce

an

Issu

e oc

curr

ence

Impo

rtan

ce o

f the

issu

e (%

)

• Changes in data structure may not conform to standards √ 1 13

• The future data collection procedures will not be coordinated from viewpoint of content and structure

√ 1 13

• New user requirements may lead to modified information models

√ 1 13

• Insufficient qualification of operating personnel due to increasing demands

√ 1 13

• INSPIRE compliant profile for metadata needs to be defined

√ √ √ 3 38

• HW and SW evolution for metadata collection, partially centralised partially distributed

√ 1 13

• New methodology and new habits for data collection and data management should be developed

√ 1 13

• Data quality assurance for data acquisition appears to be an issue (lack of quality assurance routines)

√ √ √ 3 38

• No diversity of data sources √ 1 13

• Too big diversity of data sources √ 1 13

• No tracking of data changes √ √ √ √ 4 50

• Language transformation between several languages is an issue

√

1 13

• Missing guides and tools for data management √ √ √ √ √ 5 63

• “Real time” issue, - there are difficulties to receive new data constantly. Data reaches with delay or some data in use can be outdated.

√

√ 2 25

• Current applications are not efficient √ 1 13


88


HS-

Atm

osph

ere

HS-

Bor

derS

ecur

ity

HS-

Fore

st

HS-

Prot

ecte

dAre

as

HS-

Urb

anPl

anni

ng

HS-

Urb

anA

tlas

HS-

Tran

sbou

ndar

yCat

chm

ent

HS-

Oce

an

Issu

e oc

curr

ence

Impo

rtan

ce o

f the

issu

e (%

)

• Unsolved ‘configuration step’, which is needed for the oil spill scenario

√ 1 13

• Visualisation services are not interoperable from beginning to end

√ 1 13

• Unsolved metadata management segmentation and aggregation

√ 1 13

Data and metadata access and sharing- addresses data access, data sharing, ontology, web services, information gathering, and issues related to exploitation of distributed systems.


HS-

Atm

osph

ere

HS-

Bor

derS

ecur

ity

HS-

Fore

st

HS-

Prot

ecte

dAre

as

HS-

Urb

anPl

anni

ng

HS-

Urb

anA

tlas

HS-

Tran

sbou

ndar

yCat

chm

ent

HS-

Oce

an

Issu

e oc

curr

ence

Impo

rtan

ce o

f the

issu

e (%

)

• Overviews of existing external data are not available √ √ √ √ 4 50

• Not interoperable solutions in many partner organisations

√ √ √

√ √

5 63

• Non interoperable standards √ √ √ √ 4 50

• Not harmonised external data sets √ √ √ √ √ 5 63

• Lack of interoperable external data sources √ √ √ √ 4 50

• Multiple versions of external data √ 1 13


89


HS-

Atm

osph

ere

HS-

Bor

derS

ecur

ity

HS-

Fore

st

HS-

Prot

ecte

dAre

as

HS-

Urb

anPl

anni

ng

HS-

Urb

anA

tlas

HS-

Tran

sbou

ndar

yCat

chm

ent

HS-

Oce

an

Issu

e oc

curr

ence

Impo

rtan

ce o

f the

issu

e (%

)

• Some internal data only available through old DOS-based systems

√

1 13

• Harmonization aspects for environmental indicators √ 1 13

• Some datasets could not be published due to legislative issues.

√

√

2 25

• No clear legislation for data sharing √ √ √ 3 38

• Data accessibility and use constraints (due to privacy or security restrictions)

√ √

√

3 38

• Insufficient financial funding √ √ 2 25

• Little experience of organisations in working together √ √ 2 25

• Low willingness to be introduced new models of data sharing

√ √

√

3 38

• Low interest of data producers to share data using Web services

√ √

√

3 38

• Missing data sources and data gaps √ √ √ √ 4 50

• Needs for (new or more sophisticated) portal development (service integration)

√ √ √

√ √

√ 6 75

• There is no standardized and open technological infrastructure (competitive services)

√ √ √ √

√ √

6 75

• Missing infrastructure in many organisations √ √ √ √ √ √ 6 75

• Networking bandwidth issues - limitation in capacity for data transfer

√ √ √ √ √

√ 6 75

• Security of products and services is an issue √ √ 2 25

• Not existing interoperable components for solution of full data sharing

√ √

√

√ 4 50


90


HS-

Atm

osph

ere

HS-

Bor

derS

ecur

ity

HS-

Fore

st

HS-

Prot

ecte

dAre

as

HS-

Urb

anPl

anni

ng

HS-

Urb

anA

tlas

HS-

Tran

sbou

ndar

yCat

chm

ent

HS-

Oce

an

Issu

e oc

curr

ence

Impo

rtan

ce o

f the

issu

e (%

)

• Current WCS and WFS solutions do not have sufficient functionality

√

√

2 25

• None of the data is currently provided via WCS or WFS services, but rather as files

√

1 13

• There is no metadata discovery service implemented jet

√

1 13

• Data availability is not guaranteed 100% √ 1 13

• Missing transformation services upon access (cf. format change, filtering, smoothing, thresholds, confidence)

√ 1 13

Exploitation and development- maintenance, software testing and updates, security issues, sustainability, new functionalities and data processing methods etc.


HS-

Atm

osph

ere

HS-

Bor

derS

ecur

ity

HS-

Fore

st

HS-

Prot

ecte

dAre

as

HS-

Urb

anPl

anni

ng

HS-

Urb

anA

tlas

HS-

Tran

sbou

ndar

yCat

chm

ent

HS-

Oce

an

Issu

e oc

curr

ence

Impo

rtan

ce o

f the

issu

e (%

)

• Restrictions form developer's side √ √ √ √ 4 50

• Limits of financial sources (mostly in private field) – it meant long term time limits and limits of system transformation and utilised capacity of final activities

√ √ √

√ √

5 63


91


HS-

Atm

osph

ere

HS-

Bor

derS

ecur

ity

HS-

Fore

st

HS-

Prot

ecte

dAre

as

HS-

Urb

anPl

anni

ng

HS-

Urb

anA

tlas

HS-

Tran

sbou

ndar

yCat

chm

ent

HS-

Oce

an

Issu

e oc

curr

ence

Impo

rtan

ce o

f the

issu

e (%

)

• Insufficient operation of the portals due to limited budget

√ √ √

√

√ 5 63

• Problematic acquisition of source data from some subjects

√ √

√

3 38

• There is no institutional assurance of elimination of possible duplicity and deve-lopment without coordination at some areas

√ √ √

3 38

• No coordination among ministries/ departments and/or foreign authorities

√

1 13

• Each organisation is using its own technologies for a number of operations

√ 1 13

• The organisation is using old technologies for a number of operations

√

√

√

3 38

• Mostly closed proprietary desktop/web solutions are in use in the scenario domain

√ √

√ √

√ 5 63

• Limited experience in using open source solutions

√

√ √ √ √ 5 63

• Pushing to change often the platforms due to fast development of technologies

√ √ √

√

√ 5 63

• Some technology suppliers don’t have expertise to be able support their customers with new interoperable solutions

√ √

√

3 38

• Several organisations at the local level and private sector are not ready for service oriented architecture

√ √

√

3 38

• The end users use GIS technologies for short time.

√

1 13

• The end users are not able to exactly define their needs

√

1 13


92


HS-

Atm

osph

ere

HS-

Bor

derS

ecur

ity

HS-

Fore

st

HS-

Prot

ecte

dAre

as

HS-

Urb

anPl

anni

ng

HS-

Urb

anA

tlas

HS-

Tran

sbou

ndar

yCat

chm

ent

HS-

Oce

an

Issu

e oc

curr

ence

Impo

rtan

ce o

f the

issu

e (%

)

• Dependence on technology and service suppliers (no own developers)

√ √ √

√ 4 50

• Open-Source products may require additional knowledge to use it

√ √

√

√

4 50

• There is no possibility to exploit, get to know the security systems in big details due to their secured character

√

1 13

• Unknown future for the Open-Source product used

√ √

2 25

• Need of permanent experts/advisors to develop √ √ √ 3 38

• The end users may not be willing to change platforms

√

1 13

• Different platforms are in use in the scenario domain (till now interoperability is guaranteed)

√

1 13

• Heterogeneity of the information systems √ 1 13

• Current applications are not efficient √ √ 2 25

• No current coherent framework for three type of products: thematic from a provider point of view, thematic from a user point of view, and reference static data

√ 1 13

• Absence of INSPIRE and OGC compliant standardised and implemented information system accessible through a web portal or as web services

√ √

√

3 38

• Non-availability of tools to implement standards √ √ √ √ 4 50

• Lack of extensive catalogue of services √ √ √ 3 38

• Sophisticated technologies are exploited insufficiently (benefits of outsourcing are not used as well)

√

1 13


93


HS-

Atm

osph

ere

HS-

Bor

derS

ecur

ity

HS-

Fore

st

HS-

Prot

ecte

dAre

as

HS-

Urb

anPl

anni

ng

HS-

Urb

anA

tlas

HS-

Tran

sbou

ndar

yCat

chm

ent

HS-

Oce

an

Issu

e oc

curr

ence

Impo

rtan

ce o

f the

issu

e (%

)

• Problems with visualisation of vector data like shape files

√ 1 13

• Insufficient visualisation of ocean currents √ 1 13

• Missing hierarchical expandable presentation of metadata (similar to layers)

√ 1 13

Technical training- addresses possibilities to prepare personnel and availability of training courses, online training, distance learning; printed or e-learning material, etc.


HS-

Atm

osph

ere

HS-

Bor

derS

ecur

ity

HS-

Fore

st

HS-

Prot

ecte

dAre

as

HS-

Urb

anPl

anni

ng

HS-

Urb

anA

tlas

HS-

Tran

sbou

ndar

yCat

chm

ent

HS-

Oce

an

Issu

e oc

curr

ence

Impo

rtan

ce o

f the

issu

e (%

)

• Most of municipalities (employees and organisation) are not ready for new solutions

√

√

2 25

• The employees may not be willing to study new things

√ √ √ √ √

5 63

• The staff might not be motivated √ √ √ 3 38

• Limited interest to use new methods of training √ √ √ 3 38

• Limited usability of new training methods √ √ √ √ √ 5 63


94


HS-

Atm

osph

ere

HS-

Bor

derS

ecur

ity

HS-

Fore

st

HS-

Prot

ecte

dAre

as

HS-

Urb

anPl

anni

ng

HS-

Urb

anA

tlas

HS-

Tran

sbou

ndar

yCat

chm

ent

HS-

Oce

an

Issu

e oc

curr

ence

Impo

rtan

ce o

f the

issu

e (%

)

• Difficult to capture wider scope of the training for the scenario

√

1 13

• The experts may require much understanding in relation to geo-spatial standards

√

1 13

• Lack of education in the wider scenario scope and its impact on EU policy support and local decision making

√

1 13

• Lack of education in the scenario domain (for developers)

√ √

√

√ 4 50

• Training material actuality √ 1 13

• Prerequisites of a training course √ 1 13

• Time limits for online courses to learn new methods. √ 1 13

• Resources may not be available to complete training of the software tools

√ 1 13

• The experts have good knowledge in GIS operations but less knowledge in strategic issues.

√ √

2 25

• Missing of high level professionals skilled for management and administration

√

1 13

• Missing advanced GIS users √ √ √ 3 38


95

Legislative - issues related to local and international law, standards and regulations.


HS-

Atm

osph

ere

HS-

Bor

derS

ecur

ity

HS-

Fore

st

HS-

Prot

ecte

dAre

as

HS-

Urb

anPl

anni

ng

HS-

Urb

anA

tlas

HS-

Tran

sbou

ndar

yCat

chm

ent

HS-

Oce

an

Issu

e oc

curr

ence

Impo

rtan

ce o

f the

issu

e (%

)

• Problematic source data acquisition from other ministries (legislative, contracts)

√

√

√ 3 38

• There may be restricted exploitation of data from other agencies

√

√

2 25

• Some datasets could not be published due to legislative or ownership protection issues

√ √

2 25

• Impossibility of making public most data sets due to privacy or safety restrictions

√ √

√

√ 4 50

• Restricted exploitation of data from other agencies √ √ √ 3 38

• Problematic source data acquisition directly from sensor devices. Lag behind EU in field of integrated policy

√

1 13

• Lag behind EU in field of integrated policy √ √ √ √ √ 5 63

• Trans-boundary cooperation malfunction caused by hierarchal information flow

√

1 13

• Not coordination abroad √ √ 2 25

• Not clear (or not yet defined) rules for data sharing (payment, access rights etc.)

√ √

√

√ √ 5 63

• Unclear data property and copyright √ √ √ √ √ 5 63


√ √

√ 3 38

• Missing clear methodology in legislative documents √ √ √ √ √ 5 63


96


HS-

Atm

osph

ere

HS-

Bor

derS

ecur

ity

HS-

Fore

st

HS-

Prot

ecte

dAre

as

HS-

Urb

anPl

anni

ng

HS-

Urb

anA

tlas

HS-

Tran

sbou

ndar

yCat

chm

ent

HS-

Oce

an

Issu

e oc

curr

ence

Impo

rtan

ce o

f the

issu

e (%

)

• Missing implementation of INSPIRE norms/standards into amendment of the state law

√

√

2 25

• Pollution Report contents vary from one collating organisation to another due to the flexibility in the use of the Bonn agreement on Pollution Report

√ 1 13

• No clear commitment for (ocean) data sharing at downstream level (proprietary know how and ownership not protected)

√ 1 13

• Legal status of transformed and harmonised product not defined

√ 1 13

• Not clearly defined cross-thematic interoperable standards

√

1 13

• The data and SW managers at ministries are not well informed about INSPIRE.

√

1 13

• Limits of state financial sources √ √ √ √ 4 50


97

6.1.9.2 Opportunities expected to be reached

Data and metadata management - issues related to data formats, description of data layers, solutions for data storage and renewal procedures.


HS-

Atm

osph

ere

HS-

Bor

derS

ecur

ity

HS-

Fore

st

HS-

Prot

ecte

dAre

as

HS-

Urb

anPl

anni

ng

HS-

Urb

anA

tlas

HS-

Tran

sbou

ndar

yCat

chm

ent

HS-

Oce

an

Issu

e oc

curr

ence

Impo

rtan

ce o

f the

issu

e (%

)

• Diversity of data sources √ 1 13

• Exchangeable data format – better source exploitation √ √ √ √ √ √ 6 75

• Improved data quality, due to the HUMBOLDT harmonisation processes

√ √

√ √

4 50

• Standardised data structures and information models √ √ √ √ 4 50

• All metadata are prepared in compliance with INSPIRE metadata models

√

1 13

• A metadata profile for the scenario domain will be defined

√

1 13

• More efficient data management due to reduced data duplication

√ √ √ √

√ √

6 75

• Data management performed in an uniform manner √ √ √ √ 4 50

• The cost for data updating and maintenance may decrease after data harmonisation

√

1 13

• On-line updating of information √ √ √ √ √ 5 63

• New software development may provide better tools for data creation, consistency checks (data uniformity) and data validation

√ √ √

√

4 50

• All data available from their producer by using Web services

√ √

√

3 38


98


HS-

Atm

osph

ere

HS-

Bor

derS

ecur

ity

HS-

Fore

st

HS-

Prot

ecte

dAre

as

HS-

Urb

anPl

anni

ng

HS-

Urb

anA

tlas

HS-

Tran

sbou

ndar

yCat

chm

ent

HS-

Oce

an

Issu

e oc

curr

ence

Impo

rtan

ce o

f the

issu

e (%

)

• Integrated accessible data review - metadata linked to images

√

√ 2 25

• Implemented coherent and meaningful catalogue with easy discovery/assessment function

√ 1 13

• Development of new applications and better cooperation/feedback from end user’s side

√ 1 13

• Scenario prototype development and implementation, which helps to review and improve workflow processes in the scenario domain.

√ 1 13

Data and metadata access and sharing- addresses data access, data sharing, ontology, web services, information gathering, and issues related to exploitation of distributed systems.


HS-

Atm

osph

ere

HS-

Bor

derS

ecur

ity

HS-

Fore

st

HS-

Prot

ecte

dAre

as

HS-

Urb

anPl

anni

ng

HS-

Urb

anA

tlas

HS-

Tran

sbou

ndar

yCat

chm

ent

HS-

Oce

an

Issu

e oc

curr

ence

Impo

rtan

ce o

f the

issu

e (%

)

• Inter-organisational data exchange among departments √ √ √ √ √ √ 6 75

• Better exploitation of data sources √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 7 88

• Foundations for vertical and horizontal data sharing √ √ √ √ 4 50


99


HS-

Atm

osph

ere

HS-

Bor

derS

ecur

ity

HS-

Fore

st

HS-

Prot

ecte

dAre

as

HS-

Urb

anPl

anni

ng

HS-

Urb

anA

tlas

HS-

Tran

sbou

ndar

yCat

chm

ent

HS-

Oce

an

Issu

e oc

curr

ence

Impo

rtan

ce o

f the

issu

e (%

)

• New methods based on data sharing may be developed √ √ √ √ √ 5 63

• Data and information accessibility will be increased for all users

√ √

2 25

• Input and output data conformed to INSPIRE standards √ √ √ √ √ √ 6 75

• Continuity of observations and improved data interoperability

√ √

√ √ √ 5 63

• Interoperable environment will exist for harmonised data sharing

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 8 100

• Integrated search of accessible data across several sources

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ 7 88

• Products and services available publicly √ √ √ √ √ 5 63

• Risk of inaccessibility of data sources will be minimised √ 1 13

• Reciprocal data accessing through WMS and WFS – data preservation and up-dating

√

1 13

• A working transformation service (WCTS) √ 1 13

• Metadata browsing, downloading/uploading √ 1 13

• Semi-automated building of derivative information for end-users

√ 1 13


100

Exploitation and development- maintenance, software testing and updates, security issues, sustainability, new functionalities and data processing methods etc.


HS-

Atm

osph

ere

HS-

Bor

derS

ecur

ity

HS-

Fore

st

HS-

Prot

ecte

dAre

as

HS-

Urb

anPl

anni

ng

HS-

Urb

anA

tlas

HS-

Tran

sbou

ndar

yCat

chm

ent

HS-

Oce

an

Issu

e oc

curr

ence

Impo

rtan

ce o

f the

issu

e (%

)

• Chance for all users to employ the same version of the software

√ √

2 25

• Chance to exploit resources of other institutions √ 1 13

• Better investigation and analytic capabilities √ √ √ √ √ √ 6 75

• Increased trans-boundary collaboration in the field √ √ 2 25

• Build of new solution with the respect to standards √ √ √ 3 38

• Both technologies commercial and open source will use the same interoperable standards

√

1 13

• Assured continuity of observations and improved data integration and interoperability

√ √

2 25

• Improved data integration and interoperability √ 1 13

• Chance to use uniform database in management of state administration

√

1 13

• Market enlargement in terms of users and application developers

√

1 13

• Cost reduction due to simplified procedures √ √ √ √ √ √ 6 75

• Chance to achieve close cooperation with low cost and changes. Participation at international projects

√ √ √

√

√ 5 63

• Open source solution, which allows to build cost effective solutions for small municipalities

√

1 13


101


HS-

Atm

osph

ere

HS-

Bor

derS

ecur

ity

HS-

Fore

st

HS-

Prot

ecte

dAre

as

HS-

Urb

anPl

anni

ng

HS-

Urb

anA

tlas

HS-

Tran

sbou

ndar

yCat

chm

ent

HS-

Oce

an

Issu

e oc

curr

ence

Impo

rtan

ce o

f the

issu

e (%

)

• Making possible to provide a perennial infrastructure and to have sufficient long term data archiving

√ √

√

√ √ 5 63

• New or existing services, which will not require deep technological GIS knowledge

√ √

√

√ 4 50

• On-line data actualisation √ √ √ √ √ 5 63

• Better data operation – migration, actualisation and editing

√ √ √

√

√ 5 63

• Multilingual problems solved (interface, products, services, reports etc.)

√ √

√

√ 4 50

• Better software (as Open-Source pro-duct development goes faster usually)

√ √

2 25

• New technologies based on effective combination of commercial and open source solution can be introduced

√ √

√

√ 4 50

• Chance to keep continuity in implementation of advanced technologies

√

1 13

• Visualisation via WMS some problematic types of raster and vector files

√ 1 13

• Simplified system configuration and reconfiguration on system administrator's level

√ 1 13

• New thematic layers implementation √ √ √ √ √ √ 6 75

• Chance to establish common flexible teams and cooperation with the aim of better exploitation of experiences from different fields of the activity

√ √ √ √

√

5 63


102

Technical training- addresses possibilities to prepare personnel and availability of training courses, online training, distance learning; printed or e-learning material, etc.


HS-

Atm

osph

ere

HS-

Bor

derS

ecur

ity

HS-

Fore

st

HS-

Prot

ecte

dAre

as

HS-

Urb

anPl

anni

ng

HS-

Urb

anA

tlas

HS-

Tran

sbou

ndar

yCat

chm

ent

HS-

Oce

an

Issu

e oc

curr

ence

Impo

rtan

ce o

f the

issu

e (%

)

• Growth of new developers, who recognise new opportunities (potentially leading to improved harmonisation)

√ √

√ √ √

√ 6 75

• Interest of people to use new technology √ √ √ √ √ 5 63

• Support larger training initiative √ 1 13

• Grow and stabilisation of technically skilled employers √ 1 13

• Existing training platform for new methods of the work √ √

√

√

√ 5 63

• Training services which will not require deep technological GIS knowledge (end-user oriented solution)

√ √

√ √ √

√ 6 75

• Training platform quality enhancement and quality enhancement of the training materials

√

1 13

• Increasing activities, e.g.: edification, education, residency, praxis, guidance and tutorial activity, etc.

√

1 13


103

Legislative - issues related to local and international law, standards and regulations.


HS-

Atm

osph

ere

HS-

Bor

derS

ecur

ity

HS-

Fore

st

HS-

Prot

ecte

dAre

as

HS-

Urb

anPl

anni

ng

HS-

Urb

anA

tlas

HS-

Tran

sbou

ndar

yCat

chm

ent

HS-

Oce

an

Issu

e oc

curr

ence

Impo

rtan

ce o

f the

issu

e (%

)

• Standardise specific conditions of harmonised processes implementation

√ √

√

√ √ √ 6 75

• Support toward clear standardization √ √ 2 25

• Establish the conditions for optimal upgrade of the national law

√ √ √

√ 4 50

• Improved management of state administration, competence determination between departments of agriculture and environment

√

1 13

• Provide timely available information on oils spills and other sensitive and protected sites for a wide audience to inform environmental policy on a sea-basin scale

√ 1 13

• Improvement of chances in communication between Countries and with authorities of EU

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ 7 88

6.1.10 Collating WP2 and WP10 SWOT analysis results

Most important problems and expectations that were identified during SWOT analysis in WP2 are listed below. The statements which importance is confirmed in WP10 start with “+” sign, and other statements with “-” sign.


+ Most metadata elements are free text, not code lists

+ Non interoperable standards and tools are in use

+ Uncertainty in the lineage of the data (processes being applied etc)


104

- Not clear responsibility for data management and updating

- INSPIRE compliant profile for metadata needs to be defined

+ Missing guides and tools for data management

+ Not interoperable solutions in many partner organisations

+ Not harmonised external data sets

+ Lack of interoperable external data sources

+ Needs for (new or more sophisticated) portal development (service integration)

+ Missing infrastructure in many organisations

+ Networking bandwidth issues - limitation in capacity for data transfer

+ Not existing interoperable components for solution of full data sharing

+ Insufficient operation of the portals due to limited budget

+ Mostly closed proprietary desktop/web solutions are in use in the scenario domain

+ Limited experience in using open source solutions

+ Pushing to change often the platforms due to fast development of technologies

+ The employees may not be willing to study new things

+ Limited usability of new training methods

+ Impossibility of making public most data sets due to privacy or safety restrictions

+ Lag behind EU in field of integrated policy

+ Unclear data property and copyright

+ Missing clear methodology in legislative documents

- Missing implementation of INSPIRE norms/standards into amendment of the state law

+ Limits of state financial sources

Comparison of the most important problems shows that vast majority (83%) of the statements did not lose their importance after more wide investigation made in WP10 was performed. This means important problems raised in WP2 were serving as good indicators for HUMBOLDT tools development. Nevertheless, it should be admitted, that investigation of bigger quantity of scenarios (eight versus three), highlighted bigger quantity of important issues which must be considered during further development of the framework.

Opportunities expected to be reached

+ Exchangeable data format – better source exploitation

+ Standardised data structures and information models

+ Better exploitation of data sources

- Data and information accessibility will be increased for all users


105

+ Interoperable environment will exist for harmonised data sharing

+ Integrated search of accessible data across several sources

+ Better investigation and analytic capabilities

+ Cost reduction due to simplified procedures

+ Chance to achieve close cooperation with low cost and changes. Participation at international projects

+ On-line data actualisation

+ Better data operation – migration, actualisation and editing

+ New technologies based on effective combination of commercial and open source solution can be introduced

+ Growth of new developers, who recognise new opportunities (potentially leading to improved harmonisation)

+ Interest of people to use new technology

+ Training services which will not require deep technological GIS knowledge (end-user oriented solution)

+ Establish the conditions for optimal upgrade of the national law

+ Improvement of chances in communication between Countries and with authorities of EU

Comparison of the most valuable opportunities shows that vast majority (94%) of the statements are confirmed in WP10. However, investigation of bigger quantity of scenarios highlighted much more expectations of scenario participants which should be taken into account for further developments.


106

6.2 Annex II: Questionnaires “SWOT check-list” filled by HUMBOLDT scenarios representing final state situation

6.2.1 HS-BorderSecurity SWOT check-list

Option “Fulfilled” means that HUMBOLDT solutions for the issue gave positive results already.

Option “Is going to be fulfilled” means that the issue is known and HUMBOLDT developers are going to propose/produce means for the solution.

Option “Remains unsolved” means that the issue stays without attention or is reported as impossible to solve in HUMBOLDT framework.

6.2.1.1 Issues expected to be solved


- issues related to data formats, description of data layers, solutions for data storage and renewal procedures

Category: Variety of data formats and access methods

• Big amount of not harmonised external data sets

Fulfilled Is going to be fulfilled Remains unsolved

• Most metadata elements are free text, not code lists




• Non interoperable standards and tools are in use


Category: Insufficient data quality

• Insufficient data quality (including metadata quality)



107

• Multiple versions of external data


• Data incongruity


• Some data sets with unknown origin


• Datasets are not up to date


• Missing/lacking metadata information


Category: Unclear responsibilities, organisational and policy difficulties



Category: Knowledge and experiences



Category: Lack of services and tools or limitations in existing IT infrastructure

• Too big diversity of data sources


• No tracking of data changes



108

• Missing guides and tools for data management



- addresses data access, data sharing, ontology, web services, information gathering, and issues related to exploitation of distributed systems


• Overviews of existing external data are not available




• Non interoperable standards


• Not harmonised external data sets


• Lack of interoperable external data sources









109




• Missing data sources and data gaps






• Missing infrastructure in many organisations




• Security of products and services is an issue






• There is no metadata discovery service implemented yet



110


- maintenance, software testing and updates, security issues, sustainability, new functionalities and data processing methods etc.


• Restrictions form developer’s side








• There is no institutional assurance of elimination of possible duplicity and development without coordination at some areas










111



• The end users use GIS technologies for short time.


• The end users are not able to exactly define their needs.






• There is no possibility to exploit, get to know the security systems in big details due to their secured character




• Need of permanent experts/advisors to develop






112

• Non-availability of tools to implement standards


• Lack of extensive catalogue of services


Technical training

- addresses possibilities to prepare personnel and availability of training courses, online training, distance learning; printed or e-learning material, etc.

Category: Willingness and motivation



• The staff might not be motivated


• Limited interest to use new methods of training


Category: Training material and methodics issues

• Limited usability of new training methods




• Time limits for online courses to learn new methods.



113

Category: Personnel



• Missing advanced GIS users


Legislative

- issues related to local and international law, standards and regulations

Category: Existing restrictions







• Restricted exploitation of data from other agencies


Category: Lags in coordination between EU states

• Lag behind EU in field of integrated policy


• Not coordination abroad



114

Category: Demands for new standards and enactments



• Unclear data property and copyright




• Missing clear methodology in legislative documents


Category: Other






Category: Improved and increased use of the information

• Exchangeable data format – better source exploitation


Category: Information of high quality



• Standardised data structures and information models



115



Category: Reduced cost



• Data management performed in an uniform manner


Category: Flexible, convenient and reliable services

• On-line updating of information











• Inter-organisational data exchange among departments



116

• Better exploitation of data sources


• Foundations for vertical and horizontal data sharing


• New methods based on data sharing may be developed



• Input and output data conformed to INSPIRE standards









• Products and services available publicly








117


• Better investigation and analytic capabilities


• Build of new solution with the respect to standards





• Cost reduction due to simplified procedures









• On-line data actualisation





118

• Multilingual problems solved (interface, products, services, reports...)


• Better software (as Open-Source product development goes faster usually)




• New thematic layers implementation


Category: More skilled employees

• Chance to establish common flexible teams and cooperation with the aim of better exploitation of experiences of the experts from different fields of the activity


Technical training





• Interest of people to use new technology



• Existing training platform for new methods of the work



119



Legislative











120

6.2.2 HS-UrbanPlanning SWOT check-list








• Non harmonized data















121





















• No clear legislation for data sharing



122



• Insufficient financial funding





















123
























124


• Current applications are not efficient






Technical training














Category: Personnel and users




125

Legislative













Category: Other

• Limits of state financial sources












126

























127








• Chance to exploit resources of other institutions
















128






Technical training










Legislative



• Support toward clear standardization





129








130

6.2.3 HS-Forest SWOT check-list





















• Data incongruity


131










• Changes in data structure may not conform to standards






• Insufficient qualification of operating personnel due to increasing demands







132






















133





• Some internal data only available through old DOS-based systems



















134













- maintenance, software testing and updates, security issues, sustainability, new functiona-lities and data processing methods etc.









135





• No coordination among ministries/departments and/or foreign authorities
















136







• Heterogeneity of the information systems









Technical training








137








Category: Personnel





Legislative












138













Category: Other










139























140























141





• Risk of inaccessibility of data sources will be minimised




• Metadata browsing, downloading/uploading












• Increased transboundary collaboration in the field



142















• Chance to keep stability and continuity in implementation of advanced technologies







143




Technical training







• Grow and stabilisation of technically skilled employers










144

Legislative
















145

6.2.4 HS-ERiskA SWOT check-list























146








• Datasets are not up to date












• Till now there is almost no metadata based on ISO 19115 (INSPIRE directive) in the state at all



147

• Changes in data structure may not conform to standards











• Too big diversity of data sources











148




















• Harmonization aspects for environmental indicators



149























150













• There is no metadata discovery service implemented jet


• Data availability is not guaranteed 100%


• Missing transformation services upon access (cf. format change, filtering, smoothing, thresholds, and confidence)



- maintenance, software testing and updates, security issues, sustainability, new functiona-lities and data processing methods etc.


151






















152

• The end users are not able to exactly define their needs.






















153

Technical training

- addresses possibilities to prepare personnel and availability of training courses, online training, distance lear-ning; printed or e-learning material, etc.






















154

• Training material actuality


• Prerequisites of a training course




Category: Personnel





Legislative












155














Category: Other







• Diversity of data sources



156























157























158







• A working transformation service (WCTS)

















159



• Improved data integration and interoperability



















160















Technical training





• Support larger training initiative



161

• Grow and stabilisation of technically skilled employers











Legislative









162

6.2.5 HS-Ocean SWOT check-list








• Big amount of not harmonised external data sets









• Pollution Report data is not in a machine readable format for some organisations





163






• HW and SW evolution for metadata collection, partially centralised partially distributed


• New methodology and new habits for data collection and data management should be developed











• Unsolved ‘configuration step’, which is needed for the oil spill scenario



164























165











• There is no metadata discovery service implemented yet


• Missing transformation services upon access (cf. format change, filtering, smoothing, thresholds, and confidence)










166























167






• No current coherent framework for three type of products: thematic from a provider point of view, thematic from a user point of view, and reference static data








• Problems with visualisation of vector data like shape files


• Insufficient visualisation of ocean currents


• Missing hierarchical expandable presentation of metadata (similar to layers)



168

Technical training









Category: Personnel and users







Legislative








169

















• Pollution Report contents vary from one collating organisation to another due to the flexibility in the use of the Bonn agreement on Pollution Report


• No clear commitment for (ocean) data sharing at downstream level (proprietary know how and ownership not protected)



170





Category: Other



















171






















172























173







• A working transformation service (WCTS)




• Semi-automated building of derivative information for end-users













174





• Improved data integration and interoperability

















175











• Chance to keep stability and continuity in implementation of advanced technologies












176

Technical training














Legislative








177




• Provide timely available information on oils spills and other sensitive and protected sites for a wide audience to inform environmental policy on a sea-basin scale






178

6.2.6 HS-ProtectedAreas SWOT check-list
























179







• Little experience of organisations in working together

















180

Technical training








Legislative

















181






















182






















183

Technical training










Legislative









184

6.2.7 HS-TransboundaryCatchments SWOT check-list





















• Little experience of organisations in working together



185









Technical training



• Training material actuality


• Prerequisites of a training course


Legislative



• Transboundary cooperation malfunction caused by hierarchal information flow






186
























187























188

Technical training





Legislative









189

6.2.8 HS-UrbanAtlas SWOT check-list























190




• No diversity of data sources

















• Harmonization aspects for environmental indicators



191
























192














Technical training










193



Legislative






















194
























195























196


















Technical training






197










Legislative










title: a10.5 evaluation of benefit analysis - esdi … · title: a10.5 evaluation of benefit...

Documents