1 / 32

NARTUS Public Safety Communication Europe Forum PSCE www.psc-europe.eu

NARTUS Public Safety Communication Europe Forum PSCE www.psc-europe.eu. walter.legrand@eads.com PSCE steering committee member VIENNA ESW October 2008 . Introduction: why the PSCE?. Existence of various competing technologies (and standards) in the Public Safety Communication domain

jewel
Download Presentation

NARTUS Public Safety Communication Europe Forum PSCE www.psc-europe.eu

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. NARTUSPublic Safety Communication Europe ForumPSCEwww.psc-europe.eu walter.legrand@eads.com PSCE steering committee member VIENNA ESW October 2008

  2. Introduction: why the PSCE? • Existence of various competing technologies (and standards) in the Public Safety Communication domain • Interoperability problems • Public Safety is traditionally considered as a national priority by EU member states • Complex new standards and technologies • Need of user education and increase of user awareness of new technologies (and standards) • Large EC investment in R&D in public safety with need of coordination between IST projects • Need of harmonized European user requirements -> new tech. /political harmonization • Need of European harmonization technologies and input into standardization

  3. PSC Europe Forum mission: The mission for the Public Safety Communication Europe is to foster, by consensus building, excellence in the development and use of public safety communications and information management systems, to improve the provision of public safety services and the safety of the citizens of Europe and the rest of the world No 13 of 16 slides

  4. …so the PSCE objectives: • Achieve consolidation of published user requirements into a high level European User Functional Specification • Improve public safety/civil protection service delivery to the public by the development and  promotion of a Road Map for future technological development • Advise policy makers, regulators and standard making bodies and improve international inter-operability • Maintain leadership in specification and provision of public safety and civil protection communications and information management systems

  5. PSC Europe Forum Tasks • Inform about, consolidate and validate user requirements • Raise awareness on technical solutions under development • Identify non-technological issues • Propose a RTD agenda (technological platform) • Contribute to standardization activities (e.g. interoperability of selected technical solutions) • Initiate discussions through working groups on main public safety communication topics, leading to conclusions and recommendations to be followed up, expanded and approved and issued as Memoranda of Understanding by the Forum No 14 of 16 slides

  6. …to break through the Technical maze… Reach the Reward ofInteroperable Systems

  7. …with the PSCE deliverables: • lead to convergence on user requirements, • propose solutions for inter-operability of communication systems among users, • supply an overview of available standards and technologies and assess how they match user requirements, • establish a R&D road map for future activities, • present guidelines for policy makers and regulators, indicating ways for the improvement of  global, European or national inter-operability through implementation of  harmonized  technologies  and/or approximation of legal environments.

  8. …with the PSC Europe Forum Members… 3rd October 2008

  9. …from different Countries of Europe …3rd October 2008 492 Members from 49 Countries

  10. …with an approved PrincipalPSC Europe Forum structure2009(Mid) -

  11. …and PSC Europe Forum roles • NARTUS • Responsible in 3 years for • Establishment of the Forum • Recruiting members • Steering Committee duties • Secretarial duties • Leading Working Groups • Consensus Building • Approval of • Forum Vision • Forum Development Plan • Election of Steering Committee • Memoranda of Understanding • Budget and Accounts • Annual Report PSC Europe Consortium • Responsible for • Operation of the Forum • Preparation of • Forum Cases and Documents • Appointment of • Working Groups NARTUS • Development of • Cases and Documents on all • technical and operational • issues dealt with by the Forum After 3 years take over the duties of the Consortium and function as Forum Secretariat

  12. …and PSC Europe development 1st Conference May 2007 2nd Conference November 2007 3rd Conference June 2008 4th Conference December 2008 5th Conference May 2009 Networking session November 2006 Project Start June 2006 Forum is constituted and new members of the Steering Committee elected New Steering Committee elected

  13. PSC Europe Forum Steering Committee Chairman 1st Vice Chair 2nd Vice Chair 3rd Vice Chair Secretariat Chairmen from active Working Groups Executives NARTUS Experts Industrials Cabinet Researchers Cabinet Users Cabinet Standard Makers Cabinet PSC Europe Forum Assembly PSC Europe Forum Working Groups WG 1 WG 2 WG 3 WG 4 WG 5 WG 6 WG 7 WG 8 WG 9 WG 10 WG 11 WG 12 WG 13 WG 14 WG 15

  14. PSC Europe Forum Steering Committee • The Steering Committee consists of three sections, and form the management • of the Forum and the Working Groups, and prepare the Forum tasks • The Executives, elected by each Cabinet, lead the Steering Committee and the • Forum, and each has specific duties, and they circulate for each Forum Meeting, • leading one Forum Assembly each in their voting period • The Secretariat is doing the administrative duties for the Forum and these duties • are taken care of by the NARTUS project until mid 2009 • The Chair of the different Working Groups form the experts section of the • Steering Committee. They are appointed by the Forum PSC Europe Forum Steering Committee Chairman 1st Vice Chair 2nd Vice Chair 3rd Vice Chair Secretariat All Chairmen from active Working Groups Executives NARTUS Experts

  15. PSC Europe Forum cabinets • A Global Forum with two Assembly Meetings each year, open for Personal • Membership, each Member with one Vote, and Issues are mostly decided • by Simple Majority, and with 75 % Majority on certain Forum Formal Issues • Consist of four Cabinets when Endorsing MoU’s, where each Cabinet has • Veto and decides Endorsement Issues with Simple Majority • Each Cabinet elects a Chair, Vice Chair and Secretary, for a two year • period, leading the Cabinet discussions, and the Chair is the elected Cabinet • representative executive (Executives) in the Forum and the Steering Committee Industrials Cabinet Researchers Cabinet Users Cabinet Standard Makers Cabinet PSC Europe Forum Assembly

  16. Let us focus on the ‘Standards makers’ cabinet • The cabinets are asked to work out a vision and activity plan for their stakeholder group in the Forum • Based on the above input from the cabinets and the working groups, the Steering Committee is asked to work out a vision and action plan for the PSC Europe Forum • The ‘standards makers’ cabinet positions are open…

  17. …some possible ‘Standards’ topics… • Common European Users subjects as: • Emergency ‘net centric’ approach in a System of Systems environment • BB (Broadband), ICT (InformationCommunication Technology) as TSO (Tactical Situation Object)… • InteroperabilitySOA, ISSI, ICMP… • ‘Audit’ of what is available and under development: • Standards roadmap ( wired, wireless, fixed and mobile) and maturity models • Standards Selection/recommendation • Gap analysis from the USERS requirements • Standardization proposal • ESW standards related issues… • This is OPEN!

  18. …knowing that Standards Alone may be not sufficient … • Usually no one Standard can be general enough to meet all needs of all operations QoS* Cost* Transfer Rate* Standard “A”attribute range For Technology X Standard “B”attribute range For Technology X Net Awareness* Security* Different Standards because Different operations Domains have Different Needs! Service Orientation* Autonomy* Power*

  19. …due to real world conditions… Performance “A” Standard“E” Standard“A” Standard“D” Standard“F” Standard“B” Performance “B” Standard“C” Performance“C” • Often the “BEST” Standard depends on the Operation • Real-World Condition! Often no “One Size Fits All” • Requires Guidance to select Consistent Standardsby Class of Operation

  20. …so the Roadmap must be clear…

  21. …to ensure Interoperability… Political Objectives Quality of Operation Services (QoOS) Harmonized Strategy/Doctrines Aligned Operations Aligned Procedures Quality of Information Services (QoIS) Knowledge/Awareness Technical QoS Drivers Information Interoperability Data/Object Model Interoperability Quality of Transport Services (QoTS) Network Interoperability Physical Interoperability

  22. …for a Net Enabled Emergency… Net-EnabledFuture Stovepiped Systems, Point-to-Point Networks 22

  23. …according to a vision: working together to provide a network centric environment where all classes of information systems interoperate by integrating existing and emerging open standards into a common evolving global framework that employs a common set of principles and processes.

  24. …to ensure information sharing. • An Effectively Networked OrganizationImprovesInformation Sharing • Information Sharing Enhances theQuality of InformationandShared Awarenessacross Distributed Teams • Shared Awareness EnablesCollaborationandTeam Understandingand Result inImproved Processesto Execute Quickly • These in Turn Dramatically IncreaseCompetitive Effectiveness Quality of Information Competitive Effectiveness Improved Processes TeamUnderstanding Networked Organization Information Sharing Shared Awareness Collaboration Cognitive Domain Information Domain Physical Domain

  25. PSC Europe Forum Working Groups • The Forum appoint the Chair of each of the different PSC Europe • initiatives, and the Chair form a Working Group of experts that prepare, • and conclude the initiative in a proposal, which is discussed by the Forum • and ultimately presented for the Forum in form of a MoU for endorsement • The WG’s report to the Steering Committee, who is administrative responsible • for all WG’s and their follow-up • The WG’s Chairs are appointed by the Forum to represent the different • WG’s in the expert section of the Steering Committee PSC Europe Forum Working Groups WG 1 WG 2 WG 3 WG 4 WG 5 WG 6 WG 7 WG 8 WG 9 WG 10 WG 11 WG 12 WG 13 WG 14 WG 15

  26. WG 8: Operational Scenarios WG 9: Security WG 10: Public Safety Communication Research WG 11: Spectrum Harmonization WG 12: IP Based Public Safety Communication WG 13: Government Public Safety Initiative WG 14: Victims Safety Initiative WG 15: PSC Europe Forum Rules and By-laws WG 1: Operational Interoperability Challenges WG 2: Broadband Challenges in Europe WG 3: Terminology WG 4: Public Safety Communication Policy WG 5: Satellite for Emergency Communications WG 6: Emergency Telecommunications for Citizens WG 7: Authority to Citizens Emergency Communications PSC Europe Forum Appointed Working Groups PSC Europe Forum Working Groups WG 1 WG 2 WG 3 WG 4 WG 5 WG 6 WG 7 WG 8 WG 9 WG 10 WG 11 WG 12 WG 13 WG 14 WG 15

  27. PSC Europe Forum Endorsement Procedure Thematic Topics MoU’s PSC Europe Forum Steering Committee A P P R O V A L S P R O P O S A L S P R E P A R A T I O N S I N I T I A T I v E S PSC Europe Forum Assembly PSC Europe Forum Working Groups No 11 of 16 slides

  28. PSC Europe Forum Officers Research Cabinet: • Chair: Guy Weets, Belgium, guy.weets@skynet.be • Vice Chair: Martin von Bergh, Germany, mail@m-vb.de • Secretary: Cathrine Bodeau Pean, France, catherine.bodeau-pean@wanadoo.fr Industrial Cabinet: • Chair: Eric Davalo, France, eric.davalo@eads.com • Vice Chair: Jeppe Jepsen, Belgium, jeppe.jepsen@motorola.com • Secretary: Harold Linke, Luxembourg, harold.linke@hitec.lu User Cabinet: • Chair: Egil Bovim, Norway, egil.bovim@kokom.no • Vice Chair: Carlo Simon, Luxembourg, carlo.simon@ccg.etat.lu • Secretary: Håkan Marcusson, Sweden, hakan.marcusson@srv.se Standard Maker Cabinet: Candidates will be searched for and elected at the next PSCE meeting

  29. Steering Committee Executives: • Chair, Guy Weets, Researchers Chair, Belgium, guy.weets@skynet.be • 1st Vice Chair, Egil Bovim, Users Chair, Norway, egil.bovim@kokom.no • 2nd Vice Chair Eric Davalo, Industrials Chair, France, eric.davalo@eads.com • 3rd Vice Chair: Manfred Blaha, Austria, manfred.blaha@gmx.net Active Working Group Chairs: • Walter Legrand, Interoperability WG, France, walter.legrand@eads.com • Jeppe Jepsen, Spectrum Harmonization WG, Belgium, jeppe.jepsen@motorola.com • Felipe Fernandez, Terminology WG, Spain, felipe.fernandez@es.bosch.com • Vania Conan, Broadband WG, France, vania.conan@fr.thalesgroup.com • Mark Wood, Authority to Citizens Emergency Communications WG, UK, mark.wood@engineer.com • Latif Ladid, IP Based Emergency Communication WG, Luxembourg, latif@ladid.lu • Martin von Bergh, Victims Safety WG, Germany, mail@m-vb.de • Adrian Boukalov, Safety Research WG, Luxembourg, adrian.boukalov@uni.lu • Carlo Simon, Government Public Safety WG, Luxembourg, carlo.simon@ccg.etat.lu • Matteo Berioli, Satellite for Emergency Communication WG, Germany, Matteo.Berioli@dlr.de Secretariat: • NARTUS Project until end May 2009

  30. Example: Resolution 1PSC-Europe endorsement of Spectrum Petition Public Protection and Disaster Relief is a priority subject for the citizens, the National Governments and the European Union and that effective communication are an essential element for Public Safety operations. Public safety services bring value to society by creating a stable and secure environment; that this can only be done by building robust, secure and reliable, modern Public Safety mobile communications networks. To fulfill this requirement, it is essential for Public Safety services to have access to appropriate spectrum in all parts of the territory sufficient to meet their evolving operational needs. Building these modern essential services requires a long project lead time, for example, today’s national digital radio system for emergency services, often part of Critical National Infrastructure, typically take 10 years in planning before they are operational. The mandatory services and facilities required by public safety organizations can only partially be provided on networks designed for commercial use. There remains a critical need for dedicated Public Protection and Disaster Relief networks and spectrum to support future operational requirements which will now include video and other picture applications. Resolution for consideration by Members The PSC Europe Forum Assembly Meeting11th June 2008 expressed support for spectrum to be allocated from the Digital Dividend for PPDR Services for the European Union.

  31. Conclusion • The PSCE: the new Public Safety Communications Europe forum for Users • Includes a ‘Standards makers’ cabinet with an iportant role for key issues • Inter-operability • Net centricity… • Roadmaps… • Maturity models… • Strong link to ESW issues

  32. Valabre (Aix en Provence), France, 1st – 2nd December 2008 Czech Republic in 2nd Q 2009 Luxembourg in 3rd Q 2009 (NARTUS Project end) Sweden 4th Q 2009 www.psc-europe.eu NEXT PLANNED PSC EUROPE MEETINGS THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION

More Related