Maritime Information Management Information services in port. Ørnulf Jan Rødseth, MSc MARINTEK, Project manager WP1.3

Transkript

1 Maritime Information Management Information services in port Ørnulf Jan Rødseth, MSc MARINTEK, Project manager WP1.3 1

2 Contents MarNIS Cluster 1 and WP1.3 The problems (some of them!) Some existing (part) solutions MarNIS approach 2

3 Cluster 1 - overview Maritime Information Management WP1.1: Preventive and safety related information management WP1.2: Information management for authorities with a degree of maritime responsibility WP1.3: Information services in port Duration: 18 months Effort: 152 PM (+5 for last 18 months) 14 partners 3

4 Cluster 1 - Partners AVV: Adviesdienst voor Verkeer en Vervoer (NL) AWZ: Administratie Waterwegen en Zeewezen (BE) CETEMAR: Centro Estudios Técnico-Maritimos S.L. (ES) EHMA: European Harbour Masters' Association (EU) IFN: Institut Francais de Navigation (FR) KSD: Koninklijke Scheepsagentuur Dirkzwager (NL) LogIT: LogIT Systems AS (NO) NCD: Norwegian Coastal Administration (NO) Portel Servicios Telematicos S.A. (ES) Sequoyah International Restructing N.V. S.A. (BE) SET: Sistemi e Telematica (IT) SINTEF / MARINTEK (NO) SMA: Swedish Maritime Adminstration (SE) SSPA Sweden AB (SE) 4

5 Cluster 1 work packages 5

6 Cluster 1 Information services overlap Information flows related to WP1.1: Preventive and safety issues, SafeSeaNet AIS and LRIT WP1.2: Other authorities, port clearance WP1.3: Commercial actors (port, pilots, cargo...) 6

7 Contents MarNIS Cluster 1 and WP1.3 The problems (some of them!) Some existing (part) solutions MarNIS approach 7

8 Information management for ships Comms R&D CRM Marketing Logistics Operations Accounting Reporting Invoicing Training Archive Personnel Iver Ships/Brostrøm, MariNet 8

9 Some other problems Resource management and better planning: Timely and correct information Timely and relevant information to flag and port state (certificates, inspections, dangerous goods...) More efficient information management (data stored in one place, availability...) Single Window for ship and ship owner Single Window for port organisations Exploit SafeSeaNet infrastructure, better use of AIS/LRIT 9

10 Contents MarNIS Cluster 1 and WP1.3 The problems (some of them!) Some existing (part) solutions MarNIS approach 10

11 EDI and EDIFACT Import Release Customs Import Payments Inland Transport Dangerous Goods Export Booking Customs Export Rotterdam E-I E p-i E-MI E Ep-I E Hamburg E e E E Felixstove E e E E E Antwerp E E E E Barcelona E E? E E? E Virtuele Haven, 1.5 March 2001: E EDI/EDIFACT, E-I - Internet/EDIFACT, p-i Proprietary over Internet E-MI E-I and WAP, e proprietary electronic solution, Ep-I e and EDIFACT 11

12 Benefits of EDI/EDIFACT Established standard Formally recognized XML is in many ways too open Significant installed base Many users exists Changes do not generate revenue in themselves 12

13 Drawbacks to EDI/EDIFACT High installation costs. Special software and hardware. High operational costs. EDI runs on private networks, the transaction costs of which can be significant. Requires dedicated services, which apart from installation costs consume considerable repeat expenditure by way of maintenance. More difficult to get persons with skills in EDI than in XML. XML has many companion standards as, e.g., XSL, XPath, XML schemas... EDI users represent 95% of revenue, but only 5% of companies 13

14 XML is being used and considered SafeSeaNet (EU) Vessel reporting systems (most European nations?) EPC2 (Singapore, Norway) China XML Port Manifest Project (TW) Port of Hong Kong National Vessel Movement Centre (USCG)... 14

15 Other electronic systems Web interfaces, interactive Text files over

16 Contents MarNIS Cluster 1 and WP1.3 The problems (some of them!) Some existing (part) solutions MarNIS approach 16

17 The cluster 1 full picture... 17

18 Main issues to be investigated Common to cluster: Information requirements One Window Concept Specific to WPs: 1.1: Port state control, flag/port state coordination, SafeSeaNet 1.2: Coordination of other authorities 1.3: Port resources, Architecture for one window concept Other clusters: VTM, Weather, ENC... 18

19 Solution: Cooperation Geographically oriented SoA collection Message flow requirements One window concepts and architectures Port planning tools Port inspection tools Cooperation between partners in cluster Regions/ports divided between partners 19

20 Use of workshops to analyze information Open to all participants KO PM SoA WS MW SoA Information req. Improve One Wind. arch. WP specific

21 Results? Yet another information flow analysis? Useful contribution to European maritime industry? or 21

22 Results? Yet another information flow analysis? or Useful contribution to European maritime industry? Good coverage in Europe International orientation (Shipping is international!) Knowledgeable partners Good cooperation in cluster Time is right 22