1. Critical Infrastructure Protection: STUDY MISSION TO THE ROAD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION CENTER IN TOKYO, JAPAN

2. THE ROADIC MISSIONARIES

3. Study Mission Team Dave DiSera EMA, Inc. St. Paul, MN Greg Duffy Woodfield Consulting Oakville, ON Pete Gomez Xcel Energy Denver, CO Bill Kiger PA One Call System, Inc. West Mifflin, PA Dave DiSera EMA, Inc. St. Paul, MN Greg Duffy Woodfield Consulting Oakville, ON Pete Gomez Xcel Energy Denver, CO Bill Kiger PA One Call System, Inc. West Mifflin, PA Dick Kuykendall Geospatial Leadership Coalition Gig Harbor, WA Karen Levy Newport News Water City of Newport News, VA Mike Parilac Underground Focus Magazine Lowell, IN Bob Samborski GITA Aurora, CO Al Stevens FGDC Washington, DC Dick Kuykendall Geospatial Leadership Coalition Gig Harbor, WA Karen Levy Newport News Water City of Newport News, VA Mike Parilac Underground Focus Magazine Lowell, IN Bob Samborski GITA Aurora, CO Al Stevens FGDC Washington, DC

4. ROADIC Study Mission City of Tokyo Bureau of General Affairs Disaster Prevention Center City of Tokyo Bureau of Waterworks Water Supply Operations Center City of Tokyo Bureau of Waterworks Water Quality Management Center City of Tokyo Bureau of General Affairs Disaster Prevention Center City of Tokyo Bureau of Waterworks Water Supply Operations Center City of Tokyo Bureau of Waterworks Water Quality Management Center City of Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department Tokyo Gas Company Center for Supply Control and Disaster Management Nippon Telephone & Telegraph Infrastructure Network Corporation City of Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department Tokyo Gas Company Center for Supply Control and Disaster Management Nippon Telephone & Telegraph Infrastructure Network Corporation Road Administration Information Center (ROADIC) Organizations Visited

5. ROADIC Study Mission Findings: Political, Jurisdictional and Legal Aspects Economic Considerations and Benefits Technology Issues Organizational Aspects StandardsFindings: Political, Jurisdictional and Legal Aspects Economic Considerations and Benefits Technology Issues Organizational Aspects Standards

6. Project Overview Background: ROADIC created in 1986 Response to major gas explosions Lack of knowledge of underground assets Background: ROADIC created in 1986 Response to major gas explosions Lack of knowledge of underground assets

7. Project Overview Background: Japanese Government realized need to  Develop approach to ensure public safety  Improve response to accidents  Coordinate road construction Background: Japanese Government realized need to  Develop approach to ensure public safety  Improve response to accidents  Coordinate road construction

8. Political, Jurisdictional and Legal Aspects Initial implementation in metro Tokyo in mid-1980s Expanded to 12 major urban areas (branches) throughout nation Branches coordinate with local governments and public utilities:  Gas, electric, water, sewer, trains, subways, communications Initial implementation in metro Tokyo in mid-1980s Expanded to 12 major urban areas (branches) throughout nation Branches coordinate with local governments and public utilities:  Gas, electric, water, sewer, trains, subways, communications

9. Economic Considerations Original Cost:  ¥ 9.5 Billion, or US$ 8.7 Million  National Government - 60%  Balance from interested local governments and utility companies Original Cost:  ¥ 9.5 Billion, or US$ 8.7 Million  National Government - 60%  Balance from interested local governments and utility companies

10. Economic Considerations 2003 Annual Operating Budget  ¥ 3.4 Billion, or US$ 3.1 Million  National Government – 50%  Local government entities – 10%  Private utilities and other organizations – 40% 2003 Annual Operating Budget  ¥ 3.4 Billion, or US$ 3.1 Million  National Government – 50%  Local government entities – 10%  Private utilities and other organizations – 40%

11. Economic Considerations Several benefits of ROADIC are associated with cost savings:  Utility and construction coordination and management  Time reduction for management of permit process Several benefits of ROADIC are associated with cost savings:  Utility and construction coordination and management  Time reduction for management of permit process

12. Technology Infrastructure

13. Technology Issues Other factors: Increased use of fiber optics to enhance communications and coordination No use of Internet  Members access database directly  Data restricted to members  Appropriate, but restrictive Other factors: Increased use of fiber optics to enhance communications and coordination No use of Internet  Members access database directly  Data restricted to members  Appropriate, but restrictive

14. Standards Not a major issue for ROADIC Total Utility Management System (TUMSY) is default standard  Original system for Tokyo Gas  Adopted by ROADIC Cultural difference in approach:  North America – focus on data standards and interoperability  Japan – Approach to interoperability is using one vendor Not a major issue for ROADIC Total Utility Management System (TUMSY) is default standard  Original system for Tokyo Gas  Adopted by ROADIC Cultural difference in approach:  North America – focus on data standards and interoperability  Japan – Approach to interoperability is using one vendor

15. Standards “Bottom-up” process vs. “Top-down” model in North America  Better result, but much longer implementation time Most advanced agencies lead standards process “Bottom-up” process vs. “Top-down” model in North America  Better result, but much longer implementation time Most advanced agencies lead standards process

16. Business Drivers Critical Infrastructure Protection Little concern about terrorism CIP driven by natural phenomena (earthquakes, tsunami, floods, volcanic activity) Not mandated, but ROADIC data could be used for CIP Enables increased coordination, data sharing to support disaster planning and recovery Critical Infrastructure Protection Little concern about terrorism CIP driven by natural phenomena (earthquakes, tsunami, floods, volcanic activity) Not mandated, but ROADIC data could be used for CIP Enables increased coordination, data sharing to support disaster planning and recovery

17. Business Drivers Productivity and ROI ROI/cost benefit not original driver  Crisis management (earthquakes) was Increasing in importance Benefit to cost ratio due to improved access to other utilities’ data: ~ 10 to 1 Productivity and ROI ROI/cost benefit not original driver  Crisis management (earthquakes) was Increasing in importance Benefit to cost ratio due to improved access to other utilities’ data: ~ 10 to 1

18. Primary Benefits of ROADIC Safety Critical Infrastructure Protection Common Standards Risk Management Coordinated Activities Enhanced Effectiveness Shared Reduced Costs Safety Critical Infrastructure Protection Common Standards Risk Management Coordinated Activities Enhanced Effectiveness Shared Reduced Costs

19. Primary Benefits of ROADIC Enhanced Effectiveness Greatly improved collaboration and coordination among cities and utilities Result:  Minimized disruptions  Increased accident prevention  Reduced overall planning and construction costs Enhanced Effectiveness Greatly improved collaboration and coordination among cities and utilities Result:  Minimized disruptions  Increased accident prevention  Reduced overall planning and construction costs

20. Key Observations The Japanese national government recognized need and took action A consortium of public and private entities successfully created a land database – it can be done! The ability to build and maintain a common database for data sharing is crucial in establishing data sharing partnerships The Japanese national government recognized need and took action A consortium of public and private entities successfully created a land database – it can be done! The ability to build and maintain a common database for data sharing is crucial in establishing data sharing partnerships

21. Key Observations Difficulty in providing incentive in the U.S. for municipalities and utilities to participate voluntarily Crisis management is the driver in Japan; very different than the philosophy in the U.S. where ROI is the driver ROADIC provides an example that indicates that utilities don’t have to share data completely to be able to accomplish worthwhile mutually beneficial activities Difficulty in providing incentive in the U.S. for municipalities and utilities to participate voluntarily Crisis management is the driver in Japan; very different than the philosophy in the U.S. where ROI is the driver ROADIC provides an example that indicates that utilities don’t have to share data completely to be able to accomplish worthwhile mutually beneficial activities

22. Going Forward… Major Issues Facing ROADIC Reducing cost of programs and services Data and system maintenance are major cost components Increasing ease of use Expanding membership  Data/Security concerns Major Issues Facing ROADIC Reducing cost of programs and services Data and system maintenance are major cost components Increasing ease of use Expanding membership  Data/Security concerns

23. Going Forward… Implications For Replication in North America Liability Issues Utility companies in North America have not proactively responded to data sharing activities at this level Proprietary agreements are the standard method of sharing data Implications For Replication in North America Liability Issues Utility companies in North America have not proactively responded to data sharing activities at this level Proprietary agreements are the standard method of sharing data

24. Going Forward… Potential Next Step:  Design and conduct a pilot study for a national geospatial initiative for critical infrastructure protection  Pilot in several North American locations  Partner with federal agency(ies), local and state governments, utilities, other stakeholders Potential Next Step:  Design and conduct a pilot study for a national geospatial initiative for critical infrastructure protection  Pilot in several North American locations  Partner with federal agency(ies), local and state governments, utilities, other stakeholders Courtesy of OGC

25. Going Forward… Annual Conference in Seattle – April 24-28  CIP Seminar – “Critical Infrastructure Protection”  CIP and Federal tracks  Closing plenary panel – “Homeland Security: Protecting our Critical Infrastructure” Annual Conference in Seattle – April 24-28  CIP Seminar – “Critical Infrastructure Protection”  CIP and Federal tracks  Closing plenary panel – “Homeland Security: Protecting our Critical Infrastructure”

26. Going Forward… GeoIntelligencia at GEOBrasil  GITA Brasil 2004 Annual Conference  International Security Week Defense First Responders  GLC partners FGDC, IAEM, OGC, One Call Systems International GeoIntelligencia at GEOBrasil  GITA Brasil 2004 Annual Conference  International Security Week Defense First Responders  GLC partners FGDC, IAEM, OGC, One Call Systems International

27. Going Forward… National Geospatial Initiative for Critical Infrastructure Protection  City/County of Honolulu Operational CIP Pilot Utilities, emergency management, first responders, military, state and federal agencies  Objective: to develop a framework for sharing CIP data Model data sharing agreement Standards for sharing data National Geospatial Initiative for Critical Infrastructure Protection  City/County of Honolulu Operational CIP Pilot Utilities, emergency management, first responders, military, state and federal agencies  Objective: to develop a framework for sharing CIP data Model data sharing agreement Standards for sharing data

28. Thank You! www.gita.org