· Web viewSorin Jose Ian Activity leader ++ Active participation ++ Task leader ++ Observer + No participation Progress per activity Activity 0: Project Management (NL) Task 0.1:

DATEX II PSA 2016-2020

PROGR ESS OF THE ACTION

MID-TERM EVALUATI ON

Version: 0.2

Date: 5th of July, 2018

WWW . DA T E X 2 . E U

We have received different views and concerns on the progress of the Action / future of DATEX II. We need to understand from what perspective concerns are raised, in order to be able to prioritize and address these. To this end, we’ve drafted a mid-term evaluation of the DATEX II PSA to gain more insight into the state of affairs of every activity as well as to gather feedback from SG members on issues.

This mid-term evaluation consists of:

- Chapter 1: Initial resource allocation at the start of the Action for reference.- Chapter 2: Description of progress and issues per activity. SG members are requested to

provide feedback on the questions raised in this chapter.- Chapter 3: Reflection on the Declaration of Utrecht.- Chapter 4: Reflection on the answers from Forum platoons.- Chapter 5: Reflection on the recommendations from the 2017 STAB meeting.

Deadline for providing feedback on the mid-term evaluation is the 1st of September 2018.

Pagina 1 | DATEX II PSA – PROGRESS OF THE ACTION | www.datex2.eu

1. INIT IA L R ES OU RCE ALLOCATION

AT BE FR DE IT NL PT RO ES SE UK GR

Project management + + + + + ++ + + + + + +

Martin Peter Loic Lutz Fabrizio Marjolein Ricardo Sorin Jorge Bo Steve Thanassis

A1: User Support ++ + ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++

More task leaders 1.1;1.2;1.4

David,

Martin?

Loic Josef Fabrizio

(based on

skill)

Bard Ricardo Sorin Jorge Jonas Ian Thanassis

A2: Data Profiles ++? + + ++ ++ ++ + ++ + ++ ++ +

David? Jörg Fabrizio Bard Sorin Jonas Ian

A3: Enhanced location

referencing

+ + ++ + + + + + ++ ++ +

Loic Jonas Ian

A4: Urban Dimension + ++ + ++ + ++ ++ ++ + ++ +

Peter Josef Tommy Ricardo Sorin Ian Thanassis

A5: Exchange + CIS + + ++ + ++ ++ ++ + ++ ++ ++ +

Loic Fabrizio

(CIS)

Bard Ricardo

(Exchange

)

Jorge Jonas Ian

A6: Enhanced usability + ? ++ ++ ++ + + ++ +

Josef Bard Bo

A7: C-ITS harmonisation ++ + ++ ++ + ++ + + +

David,

Asfinag

Loic Josef Tommy

A8: Maintenance and input to

standardisation

+ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++

Peter Loic Josef Ricardo Sorin Jose Ian


Activity leader ++Active participation

++

Task leader ++Observer +No participation

2. PROGR ESS PER ACTIV ITY

2 . 1 A C T I V I T Y 0 : P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T ( N L )

Task 0.1: Steering Group and day-to-day management

- Interim paymento A request for Interim Payment has to be submitted in February of 2019. This needs

to be accompanied with a technical report (the APR) and a financial cost statement of all beneficiaries.

o An information day will be organized in the Netherlands in early October for financial and administrative personnel responsible for drafting the individual cost statements.

Work planso Large differences were found between resources stated in the work plans and

resources provided by the SG. o Work plans are not delivered on time, incomplete or not delivered at all.o The work is not executed according to the actions detailed in the Work plan.o The coordinator proposes to draft one work plan for the period 2019 & 2020, in

order to have a clear overview of what we will do in the coming 2 years. To be completed and endorsed by the end of January 2019.

What are your suggestions on how to draft a realistic workplan (process and content)?

Please write your answer here …

More team management and team work, activity leaders are expected to make most of job, while a better collaborative and shared commitment could improve results and delivery.

How do you ensure sufficient commitment?


Make sure defined goals are in the real focus of most of beneficiaries so they allocate enough resources as voluntary job only partially co-founded.

Monitoringo Due to the issues stated above, we cannot properly monitor and manage the

progress of the Action. We are late with repair actions, which also do not seem to have the desired effect.

How would you improve monitoring of substantive progress and deployment of resources?



Activity task and sub task reporting, activity list actions to be shared and deadlines to be reached, allow reviewing and rescheduling, support and decision to manage activity and tasks in physical meetings at TMG or besides.

How do you ensure that your deliveries and contributions are on time and of good quality?


Reporting, minutes of meetings and telco, sharing task and asking for committed resources.In case no resources are available of course we collect poor quality, in terms of consensus, maybe not committed resources as task are out of scope for some beneficiaries.

How do you ensure that your resources are spent in accordance with the commitment stated in the Grant Agreement?


Based on task definition and monitoring erogated effort.

How do you ensure that you can demonstrate that the costs you claim are eligible (according to the rules of the Commission)?


For each activity, the claimed costs are/will be divided in: · Personnel costs. They will be supported by timesheet, contracts, hourly rate computation, based on internal procedures aligned with EC rules, etc. · Travel and subsistence. For each trip wil be collected the agenda and minutes of the meeting, flight tickets and payment, invoices and correspondent payment. · External Assistance. Activities will be supported by contracts, invoices, evidence of the payments, reports on the work carried out, etc.

All documents necessary to certificate the claimed costs will be made available for consultancy to the auditors by the different Company’s sectors.

Annual Progress Report (APR)o Input provided by Activities for the APR needs to be better streamlined and

simplified by means of templates. These templates will be ready before the next SG meeting in September.

o We will ask the EC to change the APR reporting deadline to the 31st of March instead of the 31st of January (in line with most CEF ITS projects).


Involvement of deputies and TCCTo We’d like to increase involvement of the deputies and the TCCT in discussing the

future of the DATEX II PSA as well as in preparation of all SG meetings. o A TCCT meeting will be planned in the beginning of September in order to prepare

for the SG meeting.

Task 0.2: Stakeholder Advisory Board

Stakeholder Advisory Board (STAB)o A new STAB-meeting will be organized in October 2018. Invitations must be sent out

quickly.

Task 0.3: Technical Management Group

Having an overview / control on substantive progress is difficult.o Linked with Task 0.1 Monitoring and Work plans

TMG meetings become less efficient by discussing the work plans.Developments take place in domains that are related to DATEX II, but are rather new to us. It concerns domains like urban, logistics, multimodality, METR, UVAR. It is expected from the DATEX II organization to deliver user support for those new domains. We are lacking the necessary expertise from those new domains in the DATEX II consortium to be able to tackle this however.

How can we ensure that we deliver as we committed ourselves to in the GA?


Workplans and Monitoring activity is not time loss when done in an effective way and task leaders are to stick to shared mandate..

We are very expert on methodology and we can have commitment of stakeholders to take domain expertise if they are willing to have their domain well described in models and take advantage of standardisation. So take more commitment from stakeholders in new domain and act as methodology and standardisation expert ensuring a global vision to be kept and pursued.

Task 0.4: DATEX II Communication and Liaison

We need to make sure that all liaisons and promises we make are feasible and desirable for DATEX II. o To achieve our goal (to be THE European road traffic information model in 2020)

support is needed in the SG to use additional resources for new plans that are not necessarily part of the PSA as it was intended.

Our liaison activities have been successful. Because of this, the expectations from the outside world of DATEX II are increasing. This also comes along with unexpected extra work, which is hard to staff.

How do we deal with the increasing expectations and extra work related to these liaison activities?



As already stated: Real world objectives real world commitment! when having standardisation and common interfaces is a business achievement it will come, so stick most of all to stakeholder community real business, based on agreed vision and also strategies and policies.


2 . 2 A C T I V I T Y 1 : U S E R S U P P O R T ( N O O F F I C I A L A C T I V I T Y L E A D E R )

Not having an activity leader is no problem here, as long as there are dedicated task leaders for all tasks. The TMG can keep an overview of this activity.

People that are working in this activity are not always professionally acquainted with the work that is required in this Activity. This causes the Activity to not work effectively or efficiently. The output is delayed or lacking. This Activity will benefit greatly from hiring the appropriate expertise.

We have a common obligation to deliver what we have promised together, both by signing the Grant Agreement, as well as the Internal Cooperation Agreement. We all have to take responsibility to spend the promised resources, reach our milestones and deliverables and be proactive.

What experts are you able to deliver?


All business related know how based on personal and companhy expertise and best practices ( run motorway: tolling, traffic management, traffic information services, related devices and systems, restricted urban areas; application development and running)

Is this Activity structured effectively?


I would like to rethink our act 1 offert based on user needs, take into account requests.We had planned forum, we should stress on this, improve communication to right target users to make them aware of our services, e,g, better inform for known stakeholders communities, make network.

Task 1.1: User guides (NL - ?)

The result of this task will end up in Task 1.3, meaning all user guides will end up in the Academy

A lot of documentation has been created for Version 3. It is still brief, and should be supplemented in order to meet the promises made in the Grant Agreement.

Who will now ensure that this documentation is elaborated and supplemented?


That's a very difficult question, documentation is valid when used and when done according to real experience and expertise, it should be wise to keep it at its lowest dimension and best efficacy, I would promote FAQ and best practices, we could build


documentation starting from what is best used and what is missed. And improve Academy and multimedia material.

There is a relation with Activity 8 (configuration items).

Task 1.2: Support EU deployment projects (No task leader)

User guides written specifically to support the delegated acts (how to use DATEX II in relation to a, b, c, and e). The result of this task will also end up in Task 1.3 (the Academy).

This task is related to the following EU EIP activities: Deployment guidelines, Harmonisation and Single Point of Access. The cooperation with EU EIP has yielded nothing up to now, meaning we have no input on requirements to fulfil this task.

o EU EIP has no resources available.o The corridor projects do not have clear DATEX II related assignments. Therefore,

there is no call for support from the corridors / projects / EU EIP.Only with regards to SRTI are we in the process of collecting requirements. A profile has also been created for this. Our solution for the missing input is to make recommendations to the outside world our self. We will create profiles for use cases that we know and that people can check for input. These are not standardized, which is why we also show where and how we deviate from other practices. The EC supports this approach.

o In the absence of input we cannot deliver more than we propose above.

Who will be task leader of Task 1.2 and who will contribute?


IT can manage some as active part in EU EIP harmonization based on previous explicited field experience.

Task 1.3: DATEX II Academy / Documentation portal (NL - Martin)

De library containing all user guides, tutorials etcetera: The docs portal.

Input is missing from Task 1.1 and Task 1.2.

Task 1.4: DATEX II RAV Centre (Reference Advice and Validation) (AT - Michael)

The RAV centre is a combination of a helpdesk, a reference tool for profiles, a validation check and expert advice and consultation.

The helpdesk and issue tracker are available.The reference tool is not finished yet (all conceived warnings are not yet given) and it is not available in Version 3.


How will we ensure the reference tool will become a valuable asset in the DATEX II toolkit and how will you contribute?


We do not see evidence about what the current tool provides, based on our understanding it is based on wrong assumptions and its outcome is senseless based on what we could expect from Reference Validation purposes.We have to state clearly what is validation and to what we advice reference and validate implementation. I start from personal experience, best practice and profile harmonisation work.

Task 1.5: Bi-Annual User Forum (NL)

Task 1.6: Information provision to community (ES - Gema)

Building the website, maintaining social media and provide news updates (strategic and technical).

Although delayed, this activity is now running. We must keep an eye on its progress.o A strategy must be developed for generating input from SG and TMG members as

well as Activity leads. o In addition, a content strategy must be developed.

The website is not yet fulfilling all requirements. More updates are needed before the end of 2018.

How can the team from Task 1.6 best approach you to gather input for news items?


Clarify the goal of our communication: e.g. Have stakeholders informed of

o Specification o technological improvementso new development fieldso new work items to enable new services

other needs gathering expertise in fields from stakeholders


2 . 3 A C T I V I T Y 2 : D A T A P R O F I L E S

Task 2.1: Development of data profiles supporting EU regulation

The same applies here as explained under Task 1.2: We will create recommended minimum profiles and extended profiles per data category of the different actions.

This activity has just been started. It is unclear whether enough resources will be made available for T2.1 and T2.3?

Task 2.2: Development of data profiles supporting ITS corridor projects

No progress and due to the governance of the corridor projects there is no expectation of requests for support. This task is dormant.

Task 2.3: Development of documentation in applying and using the data profiles

See Task 2.1.

Task 2.4: “Standardisation” of EU profiles

To be addressed after profiles have been accepted.


2 . 4 A C T I V I T Y 3 : E N H A N C E L O C A T I O N R E F E R E N C I N G

Task 3.1: Consideration of streamlined location referencing options

Task 3.2: Improvement of Location Referencing in multiple systems

Task 3.3: Harmonisation with INSPIRE

No progress, however this is not a problem.


2 . 5 A C T I V I T Y 4 : I N T E G R A T E T H E U R B A N D I M E N S I O N O F I T S

We cannot meet the initial goals set for this activity with the available expertise. On the other hand, we see that in other organizations work is being done on the creation of profiles and the like. This means our work is no longer necessary in the way that we had previously envisioned for this Activity.

These organizations would like to share their results with us or at least cooperate. It is therefore no longer necessary for us to focus on the initial goal set for A4. Instead, we should focus on the opportunities provided to us by these organizations and work from there. However, Activity 4 is currently not equipped to make use of this opportunity.

How are we going to embrace this new “reality”?


Can't help so much: seen as a organisational matter how to deal in sharing visions, taking into account plural issues and take decision among competitive requirements

Normally out of scope for Motorway concessionaries but some activity should be seen of interest:

o Interurban-urban link collaboration for Traffic Management and information services

o Park and Ride / General Parking modellingo General device management modelling toolingo General Location Referencing

We will run into similar issues in relation to logistics, multimodal, METR, and so on. The integration with new domains of which we do not already have the knowledge is a problem. The consortium is not equipped for it.

How do we deal with this governance issue?


Can't help so much: seen as a organisational matter how to deal in sharing visions, taking into account plural issues and take decision among competitive requirements

Task 4.1: Traffic management

Task 4.2: Optimise location referencing for urban locations

Task 4.3: Urban logistics

Task 4.4: Alignment with other modalities to enable Multimodal information services

Task 4.5: Liaison with other groups


2 . 6 A C T I V I T Y 5 : E X C H A N G E A N D C O L L A B O R A T I N G I T S S E R V I C E S

There seems to be little interest in the work done in this activity, even by those organizations that will be affected by the choices made here. The validation of the choices made is therefore not managed well, risking that it might result in a set of standards that do not meet operational requirements, leaving the operational needs unstandardized.

Task 5.1: Development of PIM’s and PSM’s

Task 5.2: Collaborating ITS Services


2 . 7 A C T I V I T Y 6 : E N H A N C E D U S A B I L I T Y O F D A T E X I I

This activity is running. The European Commission has requested to keep the D2Light app operational during the lifetime of the PSA, instead of using it as a proof of concept.

What is needed to accomplish this?


Better define and delimit the scope of the activity ! I see the need not to develop from this a competitive standard.Usability may be enhanced in various threads: if this is OpenData access influenced it should be taylored better this for such usage, a common DATEX II profile could be the first step and we can have an extremely simplified model only for ad hoc scope. Instead if the scope is to deliver JSON make a full model extract to JSON for any usage instead of doing such only for a simplified model. Same for ASN.1

What do you think we should do with DATEX II Light?


For me the promotion of current DATEX II light is against DATEX development support

What will it be from a content perspective?


Better define how to enhance DATEX II profiling and language / location adaption / translation tables from a different approach than evolving not interoperable tools.

What will we do with the app? (organizations would like to have their data in the app as well)


Such app is only for technical evidence, I would not say it is manageable to use for Services ( language dependency of each flow). It's a demo of Traffic Information services implementability but much more work should be developed to have it for any purposes beyond technical ones. It also could be equivocated as a DATEX II flows viewer but it is a DATEX II Light viewer not a DATEX II one. Be very careful in avoiding wrong understanding and perception.

Task 6.1: Requirement collection from enhanced usability of DATEX II

Task 6.2: Support of Open DATA by DATEX II light

Task 6.3: Submodels and standardized profiles

Task 6.4: Requirements and impact analysis ASN.1 support



2 . 8 A C T I V I T Y 7 : C - I T S H A R M O N I S A T I O N

A new work plan was developed.

How should we approach the cooperation with C-Roads?


Can't help so much in this

Task 7.1: Incorporate C-ITS requirements into the DATEX II specifications

Task 7.2: Continuous liaison with C-ITS domain


2 . 9 A C T I V I T Y 8 : M A I N T E N A N C E A N D I N P U T T O S T A N D A R D I S A T I O N

Version 3.0 launched! On track with CEN schedule

Task 8.1: Maintenance CEN parts

Task 8.2: Maintenance non-CEN documentation and supportive tooling

Relation to Task 1.1 (documentation) and 1.4 (tooling). Task 8.3: Issue resolution

Task 8.5: Technical liaison


2 . 1 0 A C T I V I T Y 9 : M E T R

This new activity has been started by taking inventory of our objectives, what is happening around us, etcetera. A work plan will be delivered for 2019.


3. REFLEC TION ON DECLA RATION OF U TRECHT

Information exchange

DATEX II will aim towards future-proof information exchange. Standardized information exchange is needed to achieve interoperability and continuity of

traffic and travel information services. To this end DATEX II should develop common minimum profiles. Addressed in Activity 1 and 2.

DATEX II calls upon road operators and other data collectors to use the DATEX II standardised SRTI messages as they contribute to increased road safety.Outreach and knowledge dissemination.

Stakeholders and outreach

Addressed in all activities. It should be made more visible and we would benefit from a common liaison / outreach strategy for DATEX II.

DATEX II will further strengthen and expand the stakeholder community and work together.

DATEX II should connect, cooperate and align with adjacent information and technology domains.

DATEX II is an important backbone to enable C-ITS. Close cooperation is needed between C-ITS – DATEX II – OEMs in order to develop interoperable harmonized profiles. Start connecting to C-Roads.

The DATEX II organization is prepared and happy to support the urban domain to improve transport and make mobility future-proof.

Open data

DATEX II Light will improve innovation and accelerate deployment of end-user services driven by the open data community.DATEX II Light needs more focus: The SG needs to discuss Activity 6 in relation to DATEX II Light.

The DATEX II data dictionary should be published in a natural language. Addressed in Activity 6.

Support

DATEX II should enhance operational support to developers by stronger community support. Addressed in Activity 1. The SG needs to discuss how to achieve this goal.


4. REFLEC TION ON PLATOON ANSW ER S

Question 1: How to build a strong DATEX II community?

The platoons all advised us to put effort on communication. To share the aims, objectives, achievements and examples of implementations, via newsletters, the DATEX II website, an active online collaboration platform, an online forum. At this moment, the current webform does not fulfil this role and information is often too technical.

Task 1.6 is responsible for this. We need to make sure, regardless of the technical means, that information is regularly produced and circulated.

It was advised to also involve private companies to get the business view.

It was always assumed that all stakeholders are represented by the representatives of the Member States within the project. Is this really the case? Idea: support local workshops (in combination with SG/TMG meetings) within Member States to reach a broader set of stakeholders.

Question 2: What should DATEX II do to increase your willingness to use it?

The answers to this question all boiled down to: provide us with common minimum profiles. This guarantees a minimum harmonized quality level and also contributes to make DATEX II future proof. Guaranteeing that DATEX II is future proof increases the willingness to use it.

Addressed in Activity 1 and 2.

The relation with neighbouring standards (such as NETEX and TN-ITS) is also an element in here.

We need to show how neighbouring standards relate to each other. We need to agree on how the standards relate to each other and make sure we share the same message.

Question 3: What does DATEX II need to be future-proof?

DATEX II should ensure that future requirements are identified in the right time so that future changes remain relevant to customers. A strong community is needed to achieve this.

We have to manage expectations from both the road traffic management and travel information domain and “new” domains. Liaison activities is one way to manage this (external stakeholders). With regards to the road TM and TI domain, requirements will come forward from internal discussions and SG / TMG meetings.


Also, the cooperation with other standards and managing any possible overlap was mentioned as an important issue.

We need to show how neighbouring standards relate to each other. We need to agree on how the standards relate to each other and make sure we share the same message, in consultation with CEN.

The third element that was suggested here was to promote DATEX II as an open standard.

To be addressed in communication activities.

Question 4: How to connect new domains to DATEX II?

The platoons started with the warning that DATEX II should have a clear scope and should not aim to include all domains. Start with easy domains/standardization communities and show added value. Show how we can connect with other existing standards. In doing this, combine information to have less data (smart data instead of more data), making it easier to use.

Focus on those domains that are adjacent to our scope. DATEX II Light focuses on making data easier to use.


5. REFLEC TION ON RECOMM ENDATIONS STAB ‘17

5 . 1 U R B A N

The STAB recommends the DATEX II community:

#1: to better involve cities by describing and providing the urban domain with use cases (on RTTI or parking for example). The RTTI delegated act is mentioned as a starting point.

The SG has set the goal to find interlocutors within cities (people that represent cities on a national level), who are able to promote DATEX II results in deployment as well as to gather requirements from the urban environment. The goal is to understand the needs of cities, find communalities and develop from there.

Use-case driven profiling is addressed in A1 and A2.

To start this action, SG members are asked to actively reach out to cities and promote their participation in the DATEX II Forum 2018.

Cities were not well represented at the Forum.

#2 to work closely together with WG17 of CEN TC278, where standardisation of urban ITS requirements takes place

In September 2017, the TMG chair already attended a WG17 meeting of CEN TC278, to discuss further cooperation. The SG agreed that TMG will continue to attend the WG17 meetings in order to continuously strengthen the liaison with WG17.

In progress.

5 . 2 C - I T S


#3 to work on a hybrid profile for Day 1.0 services. The DATEX II community is to define minimum profiles per use case. The Joint Working group of DATEX, TISA and the Amsterdam Group should be used to take care that the profiles of each are developed and aligned which ensures interoperability of information.

The Joint Working Group of DATEX II, TISA and the Amsterdam Group will be used to work on a hybrid profile for Day 1.0 services. The Amsterdam Group already confirmed that they will provide experts to perform this task. The C-Roads task force will also be included in this work.

Connecting to C-Roads (and Car-2-Car) is a priority to be able to start this work.

#4 to actively provide them to the community instead of leaving people searching for information. The aim here is to ease the use of DATEX II.


This recommendation will be tackled in Activity 1: User Support. Activity 1 consists of several tasks, focused on providing the community with user guides, support for EU deployment projects, the organization of the DATEX II Academy, the DATEX II RAV Centre, the User Forum as well as the actual information provision to the community. In the coming year the focus will be on providing useful documentation to target groups in an intuitive way. The goal is to update the knowledge database and at the same time make information more easily available (on the website).

Addressed in Activity 1.

5 . 3 S C O P E A N D C O N T E X T O F D A T E X I I


#5 The STAB recommends the DATEX II organisation to reconsider its responsibilities in the entire value chain.

The DATEX II SG will organise a joint SG/TMG workshop to elaborate on this issue.

How to ensure that the DATEX II information model is safeguarded. This requires a strategic discussion with a number of stakeholders, like the EC, SG beneficiaries, etcetera.


Documents

· Web viewSorin Jose Ian Activity leader ++ Active participation ++ Task leader ++ Observer + No participation Progress per activity Activity 0: Project Management (NL) Task 0.1: