3rd meeting COTS team April 25, 2007, Helsinki

AGENDA 9.00 Opening of meeting 9.05 Approval of agenda, minutes, Goal setting 9.15 Feedback on the specific actions 10.00 Questionnaire, planning of interviews 10.30 Coffee break 10.45 Finalisation of positions and recommendations 12.00 Discussion of strategy scenarios 13.00 Lunch. 13.30 Final report: structure etc.  14.30 Thee/coffee break 14.45 Final report: content 15.45 Next steps, allocation of tasks 16.00 End of meeting

Planning and progress Planning: June: Report ready September: Presentation in EB meeting Plan for today: finalise step 3, review the work done in de previous steps plan the activities needed to finalise the report

Expected results 3nd meeting Consensus about the final questionnaire, Consensus about conclusions and recommendations, including positions and actions Consensus about the structure, line of reasoning and tone of voice of the report Consensus about the Content: Reference Framework Quick wins and pitfalls Strategy scenarios Planning of activities to finalise the final report

Comments Paul Directors want to cooperate in procurement. COTS is an aspect of this. If we think that there are no possibilities for cooperation in procuring COTS we should say so Also give indications of long term possibilities Report should be sharp and very direct: it should get them out of their chairs

Questionnaire Actions: Agree on questions Plan interviews

Conclusions last meeting Strategy scenarios are part of the positions and actions We will first define the positions and recommendations This will lead to a better model And concepts for strategies

Positions & actions Different situations require different types of procurement Action: analyse further, differentiate between situations and procurement strategies Concentrate on roadside systems, they form largest part of budget. This is independent from procurement strategy Professionalising the procurement process and the implementation of the European Procurement Directives will lead to harmonisation of procurement strategies. Action: define procurement model reflecting different procurement strategies and NRA roles

Conclusions Procurement strategies determine the extent COTS products can be used NRA’s have different roles therefore may have different procurement strategies The trend towards using functional requirements and service contracts limit the options for specifying COTS products directly However COTS can be specified indirectly through the use of standards and common functional specifications. Existing technical specifications can be used to define common functional requirements NRA’s can use their influences in the national and European ITS organisations on the ongoing standardisation processes in the ITS industry

Some other conclusions Most countries do not have a formal procurement strategy. In some cases there are several formal and/or informal strategies that are used in parallel. There is no common architecture and it is doubted that there will be a common European one in the future that will be used in practice.

Reference framework Layer model Boston matrix variant Procurement model SWOT /PEST Model Analysis

Strategies Find out where your ITS budget is going and try to find out how you can reduce costs, risks and improve the implementation speed. Find out which small investments have huge impacts Three procurement strategies “Classical” procurement using mix of functional and technical specifications “Professional” procurement using functional specifications Procurement of service contracts Focus on maintenance Integral contracts Follow the trend of standardisation already going on in industry Approach COTS US report: define capability level NRA for each situation Role of NRA determines strategy: Manager of assets or manager of facilities, etc

Capability analysis

Final report Look and feel: Structure Line of reasoning Tone of voice Content Reference framework Quick wins and pifalls Strategy scenarios Attachements

Final report Structure: Executive summary Introduction COTS definition Reference framework Relevant issues Strategies Quick wins and pitfalls Conclusions and recommendations Positions Annexes

Relevant issues The procurement strategy of a NRA determines the extent COTS products can be used. The present trend towards the procurement of large projects based on functional specifications and service contracts makes COTS less relevant. The NRA can only benefit indirectly from COTS and should influence this through the specifications and requirements. In any case the use of COTS products should lead to lower costs, lower risks and faster implementations.. The ITS industry is innovative and presents continuously new ITS products to the NRA’s. It is a challenge for NRA’s and the market to fit these products into the ITS architecture used by the NRA.

Relevant issues The largest part of ITS budget is spent on just a few (COTS) products and services. Most budget is spent on roadside equipment. Share knowledge about lifecycle costs of ITS COTS products. Benchmarking The specific national role of a NRA determines the available competences within the NRA organisation, this in its turn determines the role the market will play. COTS products have specific application domains. Good products can be useless when used in the wrong situation.

Quick wins Use open standards for interface specifications: more suppliers, easier/cheaper maintenance. Develop common functional specifications Use industrial developed products with a large number of (configurable) interfaces. This makes that there is no need for a (single) standard. Use products that have been tested and implemented in another situation or country, these then become a COTS-product for you. Write tenders in international languages so to make it possible that “new” suppliers can enter your market

Pitfalls Over hasting in buying process Time to market reduces continuously, industry is bringing new product faster to the market so you must be aware that you are not part of the testing phase. Customisation as part of COTS is very expensive if you haven’t described it in the tender specifications COTS may work in one situation, but not in others Integrating COTS products may not lead to the required product, they may function very well individually but if you put them together it is not what you desired. If you cannot control COTS products you have a problem. Attractive all-in-one COTS solutions don’t exist. This is sales talk. Know the limits of each COTS product COTS products are designed for large markets. So maybe you pay to much for what you want because you get more functionality than you need. As a customer you are just a number if you have a problem with a COTS product, you have to take it (the COTS product) as it is.

Benefits of COTS COTS products are based on proven technology and can be implemented fast You can respond quickly to political questions and issues that need fast implementation COTS products are more easy to maintain, Standard spare parts, you don’t have to have your own stock of spare parts., you can just replace the defect parts. Low and high end solutions available/possible Feedback to industry makes products better Benchmarks possible when you compare the products in common situations You have less chance to forget anything in a specification, most of them are integrated in the COTS products anyhow. Quick delivery possible, you don’t have to reserve productions slots.