RISE-MOTIIVE HAC-PB 6 June 2007, Brussels Data Harmonisation and Integration for Coastal & Marine Stakeholders Cost-Benefit Methodology Developments Workpackage 7 Roger Longhorn Director, GI Projects Office, IDG (UK) Ltd MOTIIVE Project Steering Committee Leader

RISE-MOTIIVE HAC-PB 6 June 2007, Brussels Data Harmonisation and Integration for Coastal & Marine Stakeholders Investigate the cost-benefit of developing fully integrated land-marine datasets, based on UK ICZMap findings. Look at the data standards and interoperability specifications that would help reduce costs in future initiatives such as this. Help develop or steer development of those standards and specifications, working within the ISO and OGC frameworks. Gather input from the coastal/marine community as to what they need in regard to such harmonised datasets. Do this by building on the earlier work of the MarineXML project. MOTIIVE Concept (Dec. 2003)

RISE-MOTIIVE HAC-PB 6 June 2007, Brussels Data Harmonisation and Integration for Coastal & Marine Stakeholders The MOTIIVE Cost-Benefit Analysis Methodology (M-CBA) A hybrid Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) methodology Costs (monetary) & Benefits (value based) Built on SDIGER Project cost analysis & NASA ROI GeoVMM (Value Measuring Methodology) MCA approach Spreadsheet(s) that can be used for project-based CBA – but (probably) not for SDI-level work. WP7 – Cost Benefit Analysis

RISE-MOTIIVE HAC-PB 6 June 2007, Brussels Data Harmonisation and Integration for Coastal & Marine Stakeholders  Traditional CBA methodologies and metrics are best suited to project justifications - not “infrastructures”.  The more complex is the target (an infrastructure versus a project), the greater are the number of assumptions made in performing the analysis.  Therefore, the less ‘believable’ is the result – especially by funding agencies.  Traditional CBA best for project work, where monetary figures can be assigned to costs & benefits.  CEA often used if CBA not suitable due to inability to monetarize all costs and/or benefits.  MCA much more flexible, more subjective, invites wider stakeholder participation. WP7 – Cost Benefit Analysis

RISE-MOTIIVE HAC-PB 6 June 2007, Brussels Data Harmonisation and Integration for Coastal & Marine Stakeholders  GeoVMM – Geospatial Value Measuring Method – used by NASA specifically for investigating Interoperability ROI.  Methodology is approved by US Government (recognized as “best practice” by OMB).  Captures expert input, as well a stakeholder input.  Allows for 'weighting' of value factors and benefits.  Takes account of risk factors.  NASA (Booz Allen Hamilton) study focused specifically on added costs and benefits of introducing interoperability technology to existing/new projects. Results were ‘normalized’. Current WP7 CBA (MCA) Approach

RISE-MOTIIVE HAC-PB 6 June 2007, Brussels Data Harmonisation and Integration for Coastal & Marine Stakeholders Direct User value Data availability Ease of use Broad data sharing capabilities Social Value Better decision making ability Extra-Governmental coordination Minimal barriers Institutional effectiveness Efficient use of taxpayer resources Government Foundation/Operational Ease of integration Intragovernmental collaboration Public participation and accountability Interagency collaboration Re-use, adaptation and consolidation Mainstreaming GIS IT performance GeoVMM CBA Methodology (1)

RISE-MOTIIVE HAC-PB 6 June 2007, Brussels Data Harmonisation and Integration for Coastal & Marine Stakeholders Government Financial Value Total cost savings Total cost avoidance Strategic/Political Value Close working relationships Support improved decision making GeoVMM CBA Methodology (2)

RISE-MOTIIVE HAC-PB 6 June 2007, Brussels Data Harmonisation and Integration for Coastal & Marine Stakeholders Drawbacks exist, as with any CBA methodology:  An expensive methodology to follow – use of experts plus lots of stakeholder time required if the weighting factors, etc. are to be acceptable to stakeholders and funders.  Doesn't overcome problem with assigning monetary values to intangible benefits – this is still required and leads to assumptions.  As presented by NASA (BAH), looks mainly at the IT issues relating to interoperability – this seems not to interest many (most?) of the stakeholders in the marine/coastal research and management community.  They are concerned with cost:benefit of project activities, not interoperability issues, i.e. cost of beach nourishment versus benefit to tourism industry, not how the data was collected or harmonised. GeoVMM CBA Methodology

RISE-MOTIIVE HAC-PB 6 June 2007, Brussels Data Harmonisation and Integration for Coastal & Marine Stakeholders SDIGER Project Cost Analysis (Actual Cost Categories Used) Initial System Study Data architecture Network architecture Security considerations Accessibility considerations Pre-implementation Work Application scenario development Data and Metadata modelling Metadata profiling Metadata editing tool(s) development Thesaurus / controlled vocabulary development Gazetteer development (content) Web applications abstract model development

RISE-MOTIIVE HAC-PB 6 June 2007, Brussels Data Harmonisation and Integration for Coastal & Marine Stakeholders SDIGER Project Cost Analysis (Actual Cost Categories Used) Hardware & Software Acquisition & Maintenance Hardware, assessment Hardware, acquisition and upgrades Hardware, maintenance & insurance Software, system tools Software, development tools Software upgrades & annual licenses Development Support Training, technical support staff Training, users External experts / consultancy Create infrastructure (install DBMS, GIS, etc.)

RISE-MOTIIVE HAC-PB 6 June 2007, Brussels Data Harmonisation and Integration for Coastal & Marine Stakeholders SDIGER Project Cost Analysis (Actual Cost Categories Used) Development Develop search client, generic Develop search client, thematic (1, 2, 3, …) Develop gazetteer client Develop map viewer Develop Web Applications Web application for scenario 1 Web application for scenario 2 Web application for scenario n Handling Legacy Data Re-engineer & load data set 1 Re-engineer & load data set 2 Re-engineer & load data set n

RISE-MOTIIVE HAC-PB 6 June 2007, Brussels Data Harmonisation and Integration for Coastal & Marine Stakeholders SDIGER Project Cost Analysis (Actual Cost Categories Used) Setting up (new) System Re-engineer web application data Re-engineer gazetteer data Re-engineer thesaurus data Collect/enter metadata for/from legacy datasets Configuring catalog services Configuring gazetteer services Configuring portrayal services Configuring thesaurus services

RISE-MOTIIVE HAC-PB 6 June 2007, Brussels Data Harmonisation and Integration for Coastal & Marine Stakeholders SDIGER Project Cost Analysis (Actual Cost Categories Used) On-going Data Related Costs Data acquisition Data conversion Creating/entering standard metadata Data entry/update/loading all datasets On-going General System Costs Programme/Project management Operations Security Helpdesk Training Other operations

RISE-MOTIIVE HAC-PB 6 June 2007, Brussels Data Harmonisation and Integration for Coastal & Marine Stakeholders SDIGER Project Cost Analysis (Actual Cost Categories Used) Other Specific Project Costs (non-IT / non-Info) Cost Type 1 Cost Type 2 Cost Type 3 Cost Type 4 Cost Type n Total non-IT / non-Info Project Costs = Total Project Costs Analysis = Information + Other

RISE-MOTIIVE HAC-PB 6 June 2007, Brussels Data Harmonisation and Integration for Coastal & Marine Stakeholders  D12 – CBA “Projection” for a GSE project (or 2) to be replaced with use of GeoVMM methodology if we can find a suitable candidate project – the hunt is on.  Preparing a practical “how to” manual for the MOTIIVE (M-CBA) approach for use by other coastal/marine projects.  Workshop where the method is applied at CoastGIS’07 Conference in Santander, Spain (October 2007)  Promulgation of the M-CBA methodology via EUCC – The Coastal Union – newsletters, list and web site. WP7 – Cost-Benefit Methodologies – next steps