1 / 7

Cost assessment Marine Core Service

Cost assessment Marine Core Service. Assumptions. First assessment through BOSS4GMES Involvement of MyOcean core partners Observation infrastructure (space & in-situ) & their operation not considered

nasia
Download Presentation

Cost assessment Marine Core Service

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. Cost assessmentMarine Core Service

  2. Assumptions • First assessment through BOSS4GMES • Involvement of MyOcean core partners • Observation infrastructure (space & in-situ) & their operation not considered • Assessment applicable to “steady state” MCS, i.e. including costs not considered in the MyOcean project • R&D costs applied to MCS internal activities, including: • short-term research & development for TACs & MFCs • R&D for service evolution, i.e. medium term activities • Funding of MCS evolution shared between national & EU levels • Costs provided on yearly basis

  3. Cost assessment approach • Based on the current MyOcean structure for service provision, i.e.: • 5 Thematic Assembly Centres (TACs): Sea Level, Ocean Colour, Sea Surface Temperature, Sea Ice & Winds, In-Situ • 7 Monitoring and Forecasting Centres (MFCs): Global, Arctic, Baltic, Atl. NW Shelves, Atl. Iberia-Biscay-Irish area, Mediterranean, Black Sea • Central functions, inc. Management & Coordination and Service Delivery

  4. Cost assessment approach • Cost items for each production entity • Coordination inc. management, reporting, user feedback… • R&D inc. core system development, reanalysis development, delivery improvements… • Implementation & maintenance inc. upgrades, documentation, tools & software • Production inc. processing, networking, service delivery, storage, user support… • Cal/Val & quality control inc. Cal/Val plan, performance monitoring, validation for model & observing systems, QC of input data, service quality • Not directly applicable to Central Functions • “Metrics”: • Full Time Equivalent for staff • € for equipment, systems, … • Current Economic Conditions…

  5. Results (1st guess from B4G) • Grand total • Staff: 271 ± 91 FTE • Equipment: 5,6 ± 1,6 M€ →Full cost ~ 50 M€ (assuming 1 FTE = 0,15 M€) • With: ~ 55% for MFCs and ~ 35% for TACs including ~ 8% for coordination ~ 13% for R&D ~ 21% for maintenance & implementation ~ 40% for production ~ 18% for cal/val & QC ~ 10% for central functions (management, coordination & service delivery)

  6. Weaknesses & possible improvements • Discrepancies • Between production entities (especially MFCs) • Uncertainties: difficult assessment → Need for a common metrics • Overheads (inc. indirect costs) • What should be included? • Is there a “standard” EU approach? • Coordination • Estimated mainly for technical / scientific activities • Need to consider programmatic coordination linked to MCS governance, legal issues… • R&D • Only activities internal to MCS considered • What scope for future GMES R&D activities? • Infrastructures • In Situ observations, computing and other hidden costs (use of existing facilities). What do we measure (the total cost or the additional one)? Who does the consolidation ? • National vs. EU contributions • A major issue!! • What starting scheme & approach for MCS evolution? → Guidelines to be provided by EC

  7. Next step • BOSS4GMES study closed • Action taken at the MyOcean Board level to update it • Discussion planned with the MyOcean Advisory Committee

More Related