1. INSPIRE Maintenance & Implementation Framework Work Programme
Michael Lutz
MIG-P Meeting, 15 September 2014, Brussels

2. Overview Process for creating and updating the work programme
Comments received during the MIG-P consultation
Status MIWP tasks
Discussion

3. Creating the initial version of the MIWP
Summer 2013: 143 M+I issues submitted by MS
14 Oct 2013 (MIG kick-off meeting): clustering and prioritisation of issues
28 Nov 2013 (MIG telecom): discussion and prioritisation
16 Dec 2013: Initial draft of MIWP sent out for MS consultation
missing topics that should also be addressed
topics which your country would like to lead or in which you would like to participate, or
any potential funding sources and on-going projects or developments that we should take into account.
19 Feb 2014 (MIG telecon): Discussion of additional actions proposed during the consultation

4. Creating the initial version of the MIWP
28 Feb 2014: Draft of MIWP sent out to INSPIRE Committee / MIG policy sub-group
28 March: Presentation of MIWP in informal meeting of IC members
9+10 April: Further discussion in MIG-T meeting
Proposal to merge MIWP-13 and -14 and to create a new MIWP-21
18 June: Draft MIWP presented at the INSPIRE Conference
30 June: Final draft MIWP sent out to MIG-P members for consultation
5 September: Comments received from 7 MS (AT, CZ, DE, DK, EE, FI, FR)
15 September: Discussion and endorsement by MIG-P

5. Creating the initial version of the MIWP
“Laissez-faire" approach
include all activities that were proposed by MS (if MIG-T agreed)
No explicit selection criteria or cost-benefit or impact analysis
Don’t exclude issues that are (currently) of interest only to a few MS, if there is potential benefit for others
encourage sharing of good practices & learning from each other
Example: TJS
Prioritisation by "natural selection“
MS/EC/EEA will only invest resources in issues they find relevant
Can be observed now – several dormant issues
Endorsement not thought to be problematic
“Why should we keep enthusiastic experts from working on a topic?”
But this makes it difficult to see priority areas and to decide where to focus increasingly scarce resources

6. Consultation
Feedback only from 13 MS (AT, BE, CZ, DE, DK, EE, ES, FI, FR, PL, SE, SK, UK)
What is the opinion of the “silent” MS?
Endorsement
Yes (with comments): AT, BE, CZ, DE, DK, EE, ES, FI, PL, SE, SK, UK
No (with comments): FR
Some contradicting messages  discussion between MIG-T and MIG-P representatives and with national implementers?

7. Comments received
Thanks for putting together the MIWP (AT, FI, DK, CZ, DE, FR, EE, PL) and for the progress made (FR, SK)
Provide regular updates on the status and remaining work of the MIWP tasks (AT, FI, DK, DE, UK)
Regular update and review of the status of the MIWP every 6 months (DE,
Use standardized wording for status and timeline (DE)
Produce a management tool for MS to get a regular, quick and easily understandable view of how each work package is progressing as planned - or not (UK)

8. Comments received
Add an evaluation of the impact to task descriptions (what will happen if the task is done/not done?) (AT, DK, DE, SE)
Use standardized categories (DE, SE)
Add information on risk factors (level and description) (DE)
Add an estimate of required resources (manpower) and timeline for the execution to task description (FI, DE, SE)
Split estimate by profile (“manager”, “experts”, “editors”, …) (DE)
Ensure sufficient (EC) resources (CZ, ES)
Identify skill and resource gaps (UK)

9. Comments received
Evaluate potential synergies with other similar projects and programmes in order to avoid any redundant work effort (FI, DK, BE, SE)
Work on convergence of INSPIRE with other similar initiatives (BE)
See INSPIRE as part of other Directives & initiatives (SE)
Clarify governance – who is deciding what in the preparation of the MIWP (DK)
Add use case descriptions to MIWP task descriptions to make them more understandable for the wider community (AT, DK)
Clarify dependencies between work packages (UK, SE)

10. Comments received
Concentrate work on most important tasks (DK, FR, UK)
Devise criteria and a method under which each work package is given an objective priority rating (UK)
Clarify how much of the content of each work package has been agreed by the MIG (avoid 'pet projects' that are not critical to the success of INSPIRE) (UK)
Prioritisation and endorsement of MIWP is difficult when tasks are already ongoing (SE, BE, DE)
Current MIWP already contains only issues that were identified in the beginning as major and critical (SE, BE)
Include non-technical issues (organisation, governance) and discussion of complexity to MIWP (FR)

11. Comments received
Restrict the options in TG and make them more pragmatic to achieve full interoperability (data, metadata, service, network, security, portal) (BE)
Ensure European-level coordination to improve consistency between existing solutions or with other standards (BE)
Number of tasks shows the complexity (SK)
Main outcomes of the INSPIRE mid-term evaluation should be considered (SK)
Support & promote cross border harmonization and capacity building (including stronger involvement of user side of communities) (SK)

12. Priority issues
No objective picture because of small sample (12) and lack of prioritization criteria
But still some trends emerge
Most important issues:
Validation
Registers
M&R
Identifiers/RDF
Thematic clusters
Pilots
Simplifying TGs
Licencing
Metadata TG
For many issues, disagreement about priority

13. Additional issues proposed
Task MS
related to
Flattening principles for INSPIRE data models BE
MIWP-18
Making INSPIRE requirements/documents more easily accessible
MIWP-1/15
How to use M&R indicators CZ
MIWP-16
Inventory of EU legislation requiring INSPIRE data DE
MIWP-21
Use cases / repository of use cases, applications, best practices...
DK, SK
MIWP-14/21
GML and INSPIRE architecture FR
MIWP-11/12/18
Methodology for governance & maintenance of INSPIRE resources
MIWP-5/7/18
Reducing complexity
several
Cross-border harmonisation SK
MIWP-14?
Support capacity building and community engagement

14. MIWP tasks – life-cycle
Identify issues
(stakeholders)
Propose new MIWP task for further investigation
(MIG-P/T)
Initial investigation (workshop, study, …)
Define workplan / ToR temporary sub-group (MIG-P/T)
Endorse inclusion of task in MIWP
(MIG-P)
Execute the task / address the issues (e.g. temporary sub-group)

15. Status MIWP tasks (September 2014)
no MIG activities yet
MIWP-2
started (FAQ collection)
MIWP-3
on-going (ARE3NA study)
MIWP-4
MIWP-5
started (ToR & work plan)
MIWP-6
MIWP-7a
on-going (ARE3NA study, ToR)
MIWP-7b
started (WCS workshop)
MIWP-7c
MIWP-8
MIWP-9
MIWP-10
almost completed
MIWP-11
started (GML workshop)
MIWP-12
MIWP-14
started (call for facilitators, platform set-up)
MIWP-15
no MIG activities yet
MIWP-16
on-going (active sub-group)
MIWP-17
MIWP-18
on-going (GML workshop, Annex I schema updates)
MIWP-19
MIWP-20
MIWP-21

16. Proposal – MIWP endorsement
Endorse initial version of the rolling MIWP (and update it following an agreed procedure)
Yes, it can be improved
Technical bias and no policy-related issues yet (e.g. outcomes/follow-up actions from mid-term evaluation)
Task descriptions can be improved (following the suggestions from the consultation), e.g.
stage in the life-cycle
Risks & impacts
Resource requirements
Dependencies and synergies
Some additional tasks may need to be added
… BUT we need to have some agreed basis for the further work of the MIG and its sub-groups

17. Proposal – Future MIWP updates
Aim for future updates: more consolidated MIWP (focus on fewer, but relevant tasks)
Follow life-cycle more strictly
MIG-T or MIG-P propose new tasks based on the input they received from stakeholders
MIG-P or MIG-T further investigate task and define workplan/ToR for a sub-group
MIG-P endorses the inclusion of the task in the MIWP
Endorsement (following standard rules of procedure for EC expert groups)
written procedure
Opinion by consensus or, if a vote is necessary, by a simple majority of the members

18. Proposal – Sharing good practices
Exchange of implementation experiences and good practices is an important goal of the MIG
Not much activity yet
If such activities are not explicitly included in the MIWP, we need alternative ways to increase activities in this area, e.g.
Share national/EC/EEA work programmes
Regular agenda point in all MIG-T and -P meetings
Separate webinars on specific topics
Discussion forums of thematic clusters
Others?

19. Proposal – Role of the MIG-P
Dual role
Propose additional issues to be addressed
Evaluate/endorse issues proposed for inclusion in the MIWP
Initial issues could already be identified at this meeting, starting from proposed additional actions
MIG-P working methods: meetings, tools, screening of new initiatives, dialogue with MIG T, etc.
Use same/similar working methods and tools as MIG-T?