| 1 THE iCENTRALE PROGRAMME · Publiek-privaat Plan van Aanpak fase 2 iCentrale | 1 ... Isolectra, W. Hulst, Managing Director MAPtm, Wim Broeders, Director Siemens, Leon Soulier,

| 1 Publiek-privaat Plan van Aanpak fase 2 iCentrale

Programma iCentrale / Blok I: Inleiding en samenvatting / Content and process outline

THE iCENTRALE PROGRAMME

iCentre Plan:An intrinsic and procedural plan for Smart Control Centres for local authorities and regions in the field of traffic, transport and safety & supervision from 2016 to 2024.

General detailsExecutive organisations: 13 private parties, 6 local authorities Administrator/director responsible: Jan-Bert Dijkstra/Caspar de Jonge (I&M)Project manager responsible: Contact person for local authorities and also secretary for theiCentre programme: Chris de Vries, Director of Management & Implementation for the province of Noord-Holland.Contact person for private parties: Jos van Kleef, Managing Director of Goudappel GroepOther organisations involved: Submitting private parties:

Arcadis, Harrie Kuijper, Divisional DirectorBe-Mobile, Steven Logghe, CEOBNV Mobility, Dirk Grevink, CEODAT Mobility, J.H. de Bruijn, DirectorGrontmij, Rob Althuisius, Head of MobilityImtech, G. Schelpe, DirectorIsolectra, W. Hulst, Managing DirectorMAPtm, Wim Broeders, DirectorSiemens, Leon Soulier, Business Unit Manager Technolution, Marcel Drukker, Commercial Director Tri-gion, M. Rotteveel, Director of Information & ICT Trinité, Frank Ottenhof, CEOVialis, Robin van Haasteren, Commercial Director

Submitting local authorities:Municipality of Almere, Tanja Newnhuyzen Dep. Director of Urban Management.Municipality of The Hague, Walter van Beuzekom, Director of Urban ManagementMunicipality of Rotterdam, Emile Klep, Director of Urban Planning.Province of Flevoland, Rob van der Werf, Head of Infrastructure.Province of Utrecht, Eric Diepstraten, Group Manager, Roads dept.Province of Noord-Holland, Chris de Vries, Director of Management & Implementation.

André Loos, Programme Manager for iCentre.

Date / version: - Haarlem, 14 November 2015, version 0.91

2 |

Appended documents

1. Folder “iCentre plan: an intrinsic and procedural approach for Smart Centres for local authorities and regions in the field of traffic, transport and safety & supervision for the period 2016-2024”.Drafted by the 13 private parties and 6 local authorities with substantive elaboration of the joint projects to arrive at concrete public-private propositions for central operation in the field of traffic, transport and safety & supervision. This folder comprises the following components:• Block I: Introduction and summary, with the (management) summary in text and sheets (now part of

the present proposal to I&M). • Block II: Policy and execution of control centres, containing a context description for (transitions in) cen-

tral operation in the various domains.• Block III: Future of control centres, environment and opportunities detailing the opportunities and tasks

that the public and private parties strive for with the transitions in their central operation on the basis of their own policy goals and roadmaps.

• Block IV: Content that contains the ‘real’ matter for Phase 2 in the form of propositions and projects (see also description in appendix 2).

• Block V: Preconditions and 1st implementation that describes how the iCentre programme will be orga-nised and examples of “iCentre-like” practical realisation that have already taken place and/or will lead to a (partial) result in 2016.

• Block VI: Accountability and appendices with information of the private and public parties that initiated the iCentre programme.

2. Coherent iCentre in which the structure of the iCentre Plan Phase 2 is illustrated, comprising:• 14 public-private propositions. These are the independent private services that private parties wish to

develop and will soon offer and which public parties will purchase as a service.• 3 Dominant possible choices. The propositions move along the three possible choices (axes) for road aut-

horities in respect of central operation:1. Go it alone or leave it to the market;2. One domain or a combination of multiple domains;3. For own road authority or region or together with other road authorities.• 3 Markets. The propositions apply to three markets:

• A1. New market, services for road authorities with own control centres;• A2. New market, services for road authorities without own control centres;• Old market, services to optimise public control centres.

• 40 Projects. To be able to develop the propositions. These projects form the content of the public-private iCentre Plan.

• 5 case studies. To take an initial step with the local road authorities in combining own tasks regarding central operation.

• Network of Living Labs. A large number of (international) private and public control centres made avai-lable by private and public parties to test propositions in practice and demonstrate their efficacy.

3. List of projects. All 40 projects that will be undertaken in Phase 2 are shown in one table, including

delivery milestones in 2016 and 2017.

4. Statement of intent and commitment from private parties whereby the directors of the private parties declare their active commitment, partly at their own expense, to realising an iCentre. After liaison with Beter Benutten a participant statement will follow.

5. Statement of intent and commitment from local authorities whereby the local authorities declare their active commitment, partly with own input, to realising an iCentre. After liaison with Beter Benutten a participant statement from the directors of the local authorities will follow.



1. What is the current situation regarding ‘central operation’ by local authorities

In the Netherlands local authorities currently operate control centres from around 150 locations. This invol-ves the monitoring and operation of tunnels, the (remote) operation of bridges and locks, central (regional) deployment of traffic management, central monitoring and regulation of urban access and management (normally referred to as camera surveillance centres) along with central operation to monitor and deploy emergency services and public transport. In the iCentre programme the first set of domains is under consi-deration. The other domains, emergency services and public transport are referred to where useful but are not specifically addressed (passive scope).

The term ‘central operation’ is understood hereafter to mean the totality of personnel, data, information, ICT systems and buildings. For most of these central operation activities by far, they:• are publicly realised and exploited, i.e., the building, technical systems, software and personnel are the

property of or are employed by a local authority ;• are geared to one domain, i.e., either the operation and monitoring of tunnels or the deployment of traf-

fic management, or urban camera surveillance, etc.;• are realised by and deployed for one local authority , i.e., within one province or municipality.It should be emphasised that not all the above applies to all the central operation by all the local authorities, but this is certainly unmistakeable in the greater picture. There is also quite a logical explanation why such a situation has arisen in recent years: authorities effectively adopt many (new) tasks, and the tasks of local authorities gradually expand whereby the ‘interlacing’ of a new task often proves difficult in technical, archi-tectural and organisational terms.

Another aspect to point out is that the initial steps towards more integration in central operation have already been taken in recent years: provinces reguulate the tasks of their municipalities, road authorities in a region cooperate on regional traffic management and commercial parties have developed services that are purchased by several different road authorities. These are the initial steps towards the transition tar-geted through the iCentre. Nationwide applications and rollout demand a substantial joint approach that both public and private parties are willing to take with the iCentre programme and whereby they can build on the steps already taken.

Figure 1: Overview of the (150 or so) locations for central operation in the Netherlands for the different domains (“that appear to develop likie toadstools”)

4 |

2. What is behind and what is the goal of a joint public-private iCentre programme

The broadly shared insight is that the current situation as described above can become (much) more effec-tive and efficient. In popular and oversimplified terms, it is not very efficient that the Netherlands has some 150 publicly funded locations where many public employees are ‘on standby’ until their often short-term deployment is needed. This broadly shared view was and is the underlying reason for the iCentre pro-gramme.

Greater integration and a different kind of implementation enable well-founded improvements to be made to the effectiveness and efficiency of the current central operation. These form the goal and task of the iCentre programme.

1. Better functioning network with improved performance.a. Collated management and coordination of implementation on the street to create mutual reinforce-

ment, such as opening a bridge in relation to traffic intensity and presence of public transport;b. Operational cooperation by jointly solving disruptions (occasional and unpredictable, incidents and

calamities);c. Strategic and tactical cooperation through comprehensive (work) agreements between domains

and agreeing on (aligning) comprehensive work processes.Experts of local authorities have estimated that their network performance can be improved by 5-15% through a more integrated central operation.

2. Lower costs of assets and better cost-effectiveness in the operation.a. Lower costs of assets. Fewer control centres (buildings) and fewer ‘duplicate facilities (furnishing, por-

ter, security, heating, etc.). Fewer central (ICT) systems (hardware and software). Concentrated orga-nisational development;

b. Better cost-effectiveness of the operation. Lower joint personnel costs through the smart combina-tion and integration of tasks and jobs. Jointly fewer personnel needed through the centralisation of tasks that now take place in several locations. Fewer own personnel needed through more market processes and tendering operational/low-level tactical tasks to the market. Jointly less ‘free operati-onal space’ needed for the each-man-for-himself absorption of peak deployment by smart mutual deployment and availability;

c. Concentrated organisational development. Knowledge and task implementation (incl. education, practice and training) is concentrated with venue, supervision, education and training concentrated (in the Netherlands, incl. certification) and not by organisational entity or organisation.

Experts of local authorities have estimated that their joint costs for central operation can be reduced by 40-60% through the smarter combination and integration of a central operation.

3. Better service provision to mobilists and citizens. a. Expanding the service provision to mobilists by connecting the existing non-24/7 services, like traffic

management (this is not yet 24/7 at many locations) and bridge operations with the statutory 24/7 tasks of tunnel operation and monitoring, or own camera monitoring initiatives (public order and safety issues). This comprehensive 24/7 service provision to mobilists and citizens is already feasible at no or little higher cost;

b. A better functioning network with higher performance levels improves the quality (journey time) and reliability of the journey due to (as a result of point 1 above);

c. New services to mobilists can be created by a collated interaction with commercial players, for

example, providing information and recommendations promptly and adjusted to individual needs on the basis of the availability of bridges, locks and tunnels along with the traffic management measures deployed. These are not core activities of the road authorities but may well generate commercial opportunities for the provision of extra information, services, quality, reliability, convenience or unburdening commuters and travellers;



d. More comprehensive and collated information and service provision to mobilists through coopera-tion throughout the mobility chain. The information and service provision are, moreover, more up-to-date through the clustering and concentration on the road authority’s side, which limits the ‘inter-mediate stages’ and collation.

Experts of local authorities have estimated that the service provision to mobilists and citizens can be improved by 5-15% through a more integrated central operation.

What is an iCentreGiven the goal and task described above, an iCentre can be defined as:• A way of smartly combining and/or integrating the components of a central operation - personnel, data,

information, ICT systems and buildings for several domains (wet/dry/safety/public order) and road aut-horities – with private parties in order to improve the overall quality of the service provision (to the cus-tomers and for the networks) and reduce the joint structural costs.

3. What do we want to achieve? A joint public-private transition

The roadmap ‘Better informed on the road’ contains the conviction by public and private parties that a more intensive, renewed collaboration between public and private parties offers opportunities to better serve mobilists and reduce the (public) costs of doing so. And the need for a joint programme of action to get this change effected. This fits in perfectly with the observations, ambition and collectivism of the iCentre pro-gramme. The conviction of all 13 private and all 6 local authorities as initiators of the iCentre programme is, therefore, that this will generate substantial contributions to the goals and a portion of the nationwide transitions in the ‘Better informed on the road’ roadmap.

3.1 What will the iCentre programme contribute to the goals of the roadmap ‘Better infor-med on the road’? The roadmap ‘Better informed on the road’ contains four goals to achieve the targets stated above. The iCentre programme is also geared to these four goals: 1. To contribute to the goals of accessibility, liveability and safety; The substantiated ambition of the iCentre programme is to improve network performance by 5-15%.2. To improve the service provision to travellers; The substantiated ambition of the iCentre programme is to improve the service provision to travellers by

5-15%.3. To improve the (cost-)effectiveness of public traffic management; The substantiated ambition of the iCentre programme is to reduce the public costs of central operation

by 40-60%.4. To strengthen the competitiveness of Dutch business and industry. The 13 private parties have co-initiated the iCentre programme because they are convinced that this will

help boost their international competitiveness. The 6 local authorities have expressed the explicit ambi-tion for the iCentre programme to contribute to making the (inter)national competitiveness of Dutch business and industry stronger.

3.2 How does the iCentre programme contribute to nationwide transitions?In the roadmap ‘Better informed on the road’ six nationwide transition paths are stated as being necessary to achieve the goals. The iCentre programme is also focused on most of these six goals but it supplements and extends the roadmap. The transitions in the roadmap are geared to influencing road users through measures on the roadside, in the vehicle and on personal devices. The iCentre programme focuses on the central operation (tunnels, bridges, traffic management, city access, (public order &) safety). While this is not yet part of the roadmap, the same considerations and transitions apply. 1. From collective influence to a smart mix of collective and individual services; See above. The iCentre programme is not geared to roadside systems or individual services to road users

but to central operation and thereby supplements and extends the roadmap.2. Changing role for roadside systems; See above.

6 |

3. From local/regional to national coverage of traffic information and traffic management; The iCentre programme targets the transition of central operation by/for separate local authorities to a

nationwide clustering and interpretation of central operation. 4. From business to government (B2G) to business to consumer (B2C) and business to business (B2B); The iCentre programme targets the transition from the current client-supplier roles to independent ser-

vices by private parties. Central operation is different from individual services to road users since it remains (largely) a public function.

5. From data ownership to maximum openness and availability of data (public and private); In the iCentre programme the data generated by private and public parties for and with the services for

central operation are made available as open data. To properly organise and safeguard this and other aspects concerning data & information, a separate key group ‘Data & Information’ has been established within the iCentre programme (see chapter 7).

6. From government steering to public-private partnership and alliances. The iCentre programme was established as an alliance of 13 private and 6 local authority parties based

on the conviction that only through common interest and a joint approach can robust transitions result that also continue after the temporary iCentre programme. Phase 1 of the iCentre programme, as descri-bed below, was implemented in 2015 in equal measure by the 13 private and 6 local authority parties. The intensive efforts of the private parties were not subject to any financial compensation: they contributed because the intended transitions are also part of their own private roadmaps.

In addition to the six nationwide transitions, the iCentre programme focuses on a transition from the sepa-rate central operation of individual domains to a smart mix of central operation for several domains

3.3 Why is an iCentre programme needed and will the transition not occur naturally?There is nothing wrong with the way local authorities have organised their central operation: it works well and does what it has to do. However, this is also a reason why, despite the broad insight that it can – and actually should – be done differently (better and cheaper), no initiative has been taken over the years to tackle things differently.

There is also a lot to be done: existing domains, multiple local authorities and multiple private parties need to be brought together to join forces to effect a change. And that is not simply a change:• In the past the domains tended to be developed rather separate from each other and organised per sec-

tor within most local authorities with responsibilities lying within different departments within which each central operation ‘stands alone’: own building, own systems, own personnel with occasionally a structural entry in the budget for operation, management and maintenance and replacement. This was hardly much of a spur to bring multiple domains together;

• Each local authority is (and remains!) responsible for its own central operation. Moreover, this relates to relatively new fields in which local authorities have furrowed away to get a handle on and whereby cen-tral operation is somewhat differently interpreted and organised by most local authorities. This has pro-vided little incentive, therefore, for local authorities to perform central operation in a joint approach;

• A local authority is (and remains!) responsible for central operation. In the past it was evident that own public responsibilities were performed independently – there were no alternatives, moreover. However, private parties are engaged or employed to contribute in part: as supplier to build control centres and deliver applications, systems and ‘hands’. Increasingly more sub-activities are being ‘outsourced’, whereby the authorities are the client and private parties the supplier. So for private parties there is little incentive to develop independent services for central operation (for multiple domains) that they can offer to different local authorities.

The above creates a chicken-and-egg situation:• There is not really any urgent need for the management and directors of local authorities to seize the

opportunities for central operation: there is nothing wrong with the current situation; • For private parties, in the current situation there is a lot of fragmentation between the local authorities,

central operation is still very much a publicly performed task and for the time being there is still enough of a market for the role of supplier. So, partly in view of this, there is not really any urgent need for to seize the opportunities for central operation.



Moreover, such a transition can only be achieved if multiple public and private parties take the initiative together. This is not self-evident. Therefore, a temporary joint public-private iCentre programme is needed to facilitate this transition, a notion that emerged out of the broad consultation undertaken in 2014 among around 50 public and private key players in the Netherlands and a survey of some 150 regional and (inter)national reports.

3.4 Why is ‘Beter Benutten’ being asked to contribute?Since nationwide transitions from the roadmap, including that the iCentre is focused, are not created by themselves, the partial goal of programmes like Beter Benutten (Better Utilisation) is to help accelerate the process. The scope of the transition is that car drivers will get more individual information in the car (con-nected, cooperative, autonomous) that will be supplied, in part, by private parties. In the case of the iCen-tre, this concerns the transition from less ‘self management’ to more ‘facilitation and intervention in the event of calamities’, whereby (more) functions of public control centres are provided in the form of integra-ted private services.

The private and public directors that have taken the initiative for the iCentre programme are committed to helping realise this acceleration. Since the ambitions, goals, approach and private and public stakeholders largely converge and reinforce each other, they are therefore asking for support from the Beter Benutten programme in three areas:• ‘Acknowledgement’ That the public-private initiative of the iCentre also contributes to the ambitions and transitions of Beter

Benutten, in part following up questions (also from administrators) about whether these are competing, overlapping or mutually reinforcing initiatives.

• Intrinsic alignment Since all public and (almost) all private parties in the iCentre programme also participate in the Beter

Benutten programme, they can intrinsically align their activities and thus create win-win situations for all those involved.

• Financial support The public and private parties in the iCentre programme contribute some of the funding themselves but

more funds are needed for the programme to be implemented well. These are being requested from the Beter Benutten programme in a similar way to other projects in the Beter Benutten programme whereby the State funds 50% and the regions and private parties the other 50%. Of course, the wishes and requi-rements of the Beter Benutten programme will also be incorporated in the iCentre programme. This Plan is expected for the main part to comply with these wishes and requirements.

8 |

4. What is the inviting prospect/ambition of the iCentre programme

The public and private parties in the iCentre programme apply the ‘inviting prospect’ as illustrated in the figure.

Figure 2: Inviting prospect/ambition of the iCentre programmeNB the red texts in the figure ‘Low-hanging fruit’, Case studies’ and ‘Propositions’ are explained in chapter 9.

A popular explanation for this inviting prospect is as follows. The 150 or so control centres in the Netherlands for central operation (tunnels, bridges, locks, traffic management, city access, urban management, emer-gency services, public transport) are currently nearly all in the public domain: buildings, things and people. Responsibility for these tasks remains public and (some of) the execution may be private. This offers possi-bilities to boost the quality (through the integration of domains) and reduce costs (through integrating the execution of tasks for multiple authorities). The transition as inviting prospect is “from many public control centres to zero public control centres”. Authorities make their own choice regarding how they ultimately set up their own central operation and with no obligations, but creating private possibilities for this transition is a public-private approach.

Three possible choices dominateIn the current situation the Netherlands has a multitude (some 150) of public control centres for central operation. In contrast to infrastructure the lifecycle of control centres is short (due to many vital ICT com-ponents). Over the next 7 to 8 years all these control centres will be in need of drastic maintenance or repla-cement. It is at such moments that the execution of these public tasks will have to be weighed up in the light of three dominant possible choices:1. Go it alone or outsource it (in part);2. Organise central operation for one domain (tunnel, traffic management, bridges and locks, urban

management, safety) of integrate two or more domains;3. Organise on a standalone basis or co-organise with other road authorities within or outside my own

region. These moments and choices may differ for all local road authorities but the considerations will always con-cern (at least) three dominant possible choices. The inviting prospect thereby is that the central operation will not have to be carried out in time by public parties themselves by private parties and that, in time, no public control centres will be necessary any longer. Influenced by the three dominant possible choices indi-cated, a local road authority can opt to continue doing (parts of) the central operation itself but the iCentre programme provides for attractive private alternatives. The private alternatives are detailed below in the



form of public-private propositions for private services with regard to central operation (in line with a caf-eteria model, whereby private parties offer services themselves from which public parties can choose based on their own wishes and needs).

5. What is the result of the iCentre programme

The result of phase 2 of the het iCentre programme is the assurance of attractive private alternatives (in terms of benefits, costs for investment and operation, risk, etc.) to implement central operation (for tun-nels, traffic management, bridges and locks, urban management and safety). To this end phase 1 of the iCentre programme contained agreement with public and private parties on a number of clearly formulated public-private propositions, or nationwide private services, for central operation (currently 14, see below).

The iCentre programme will ensure that the following results and products are delivered by the end of phase 2:

1. The (currently 14) public-private services tested and refined in practice (in various living labs) regarding content (exactly which service) and process (exactly which mutual agreements);

2. The services as independent nationwide services offered by private parties (because these fit their own roadmaps);

3. The local road authorities have provided indication for the period 2016-2024 as to when considerations will occur regarding their central operation and when which of these services will be taken into conside-ration;

4. The first iCentre service level agreements between local authorities and private parties for a number of these services.

6. How will the public-private propositions effect a transition from the current situation towards the ‘inviting prospect’?

In the transition from the current situation to the ‘inviting prospect’ the public and private parties differen-tiate two kinds of ‘market’, an ‘old market’ and a ‘new market’.

6.1 Three markets

‘Old market’ (B)The ‘old market’ concerns the local authorities that themselves currently have one or more control centres for central operation. This applies to all local authorities that are co-initiators of the iCentre programme. They have invested in physical control centres, ICT systems and personnel, and want to get more out of the investments they have made. Concrete wishes from their side are fewer of their own personnel, a connec-tion with what are currently separate domains and also carrying out services for and in adjacent municipa-lities.

These local authorities are leaders, and pioneering and innovating in recent years has made it clear what central operation involves, aspects like protocols, interfaces traffic definitions have become standardised, market volume has been created and market parties have emerged to offer ancillary products like network management systems for traffic management. These leaders have taken the initiative together with mar-ket parties for the transition to an effective and efficient central operation, benefiting in the short term by making what exists more effective and efficient, and thereafter through replacement being able to enter a “new market” – the short lifecycle of control centres quickly heralds the replacement of (parts of) existing control centres and the choice of ‘old/new market’, expected to be between now and 7-8 years). Small road authorities road authorities/non-leaders will benefit from this by being soon able to enter a ‘new market’ straightaway.

10 |

‘New market’ (A1 and A2)The ‘new market’ comprises (temporarily) two parts, A1 and A2. For the larger local road authorities there is a ‘new market’ as soon as the existing control centres are ready for drastic maintenance or replacement (expected to be between now and 7-8 years). This is ‘new market A1’. Intrinsically the ‘new markets A1 and A2’ do not differ, the private services are the same (as are the propositions) but in A2 there is also an explicit focus on ‘taking along’ or migrating the respective road authorities in ‘transferring’ their current tasks and items, such as the transfer of items with a year of assimilation and development.

The ‘new market’ also concerns the (smaller) local road authorities that currently have no control centres for central operation nor have any intention to realise them. This is ‘new market A2’. The iCentre programme and the propositions for central operation being developed, tested and demonstrated within it, provide a strong ‘push’ to the possibilities for traffic management by the smaller local road authorities throughout the Netherlands. Until now these smaller local road authorities had been more or less compelled to take on the execution of traffic management themselves or leave this to the larger road authorities to do, and within the frameworks and procedures of these larger road authorities. Once Phase 2 of the iCentre programme has been completed, these smaller local road authorities will be able to easily ‘step in’ and purchase the pri-vate propositions developed as a nationwide service. For Dutch business this will create a significant impro-vement in network performance since the smaller road authorities will now be able to intervene in traffic flow disruptions.

In the ‘new market’ local road authorities no longer have to invest themselves in physical control centres, ICT systems and personnel but can purchase a variety of relevant private services, depending on their situ-ation and need. The local leaders and market parties will jointly ensure that in the iCentre there is a mature and professional market for central operation in which it is straightforward for new road authorities and new market parties to enter and whereby the current “installed base” of the leaders can be effectively and efficiently utilised (until the end of the lifetime).

It should be emphasised that also in the ‘new market’ a local road authority can still opt to carry out (some of) the tasks of central operation itself but the iCentre programme ensures there are attractive private alternatives. Thereby it is important that the creation of a ‘new market’ is not hindered, for instance on a large-scale, and/or for a lengthy period if public parties continue to perform services for other public parties. The role of the larger local road authorities (that now have one or more control centres themselves) hereby changes from ‘go it alone’ to ‘facilitate’. Furthermore, what applies for a ‘professional market’ also applies for the ‘new market’, like trust, entry, market volume and monopolies. Getting to a ‘professional market’ stage is also part of the iCentre programme; a separate key group has been established for this (see chapter 7).

6.2 Public-private propositions as basisIn phase 1 of the iCentre programme the private and public parties have come up with the following con-crete public-private propositions, or nationwide private services for central operation:

B. Propositions for old market (for road authorities with their own control centres)1. Data from systems of multiple domains for more integral operation (active integration and push

information).2. Smart data analyses and processing for less acquisition and better (central) operation.3. Linking systems (with one high-level interface) for more integral (and therefore less) operation.4. Outsourcing operational and tactical activities (Managing Agent) within current context (road aut-

hority organisation, technique, buildings).5. Combining the existing operations and surveillance activities of multiple locations and road authori-

ties in a single location for better shared utilisation of full-time personnel capacity (and buildings and technical systems).

6. Standardised (and nationally accepted and certified) education, training and exercise for local central operations personnel for the domains (traffic, transport and safety & surveillance) separately but mainly combinations of two and more domains.



A1. Propositions for new market (for road authorities with own control centres)1. Deploy traffic control scenarios based on numbers, operation, monitoring and surveillance tasks per-

formed on the basis of numbers regarding procurement of operational activities, with acquisition of public systems.

2. Outsource operational and tactical activities (‘Managing Agent-like’) within current context, with transfer of organisation, engineering, buildings at private party.

3. Central operation based on performance agreements, for one or multiple domains at the same time, with transition (e.g. 1-2 joint (learning) years).

4. Central operation based on performance agreements incl. asset management, for one or multiple domains at the same time, with transition (e.g. joint year).

A2. Propositions for new market (for road authorities without their own control centres)1. Deploy traffic control scenarios based on numbers, operation, monitoring and surveillance tasks per-

formed on the basis of numbers regarding procurement of operational activities.2. Outsource operational and tactical activities (Managing Agent) within current context, with transfer

of organisation, engineering, buildings at private party. 3. Central operation based on performance agreements, for one or multiple domains at the same time.4. Central operation based on performance agreements incl. asset management, for one or multiple

domains at the same time.

These propositions have been formulated after much consideration by the private and public parties in phase 1 of the iCentre programme and are aligned with and supplement the public and private interests. It goes without saying that the propositions may be refined, modified or elaborated based on progressive insight gained during the implementation of phase 2 of the iCentre programme.

The 14 propositions can be regarded as a ‘cafetaria model’ or ‘menu’ with concrete tested and demonstrated private services that a local road authority can purchase. The execution of these services has been opti-mised by private parties in terms of effectiveness (performance) and efficiency (costs) and professionalised (a clustering of customers creates substantial mass for a private services supplier).

6.3 Relationship between the propositions and the three dominant possible choicesThe following roughly applies for these public-private propositions in relation to the three dominant possi-

ble choices:1. The propositions for the ‘old market’ mainly relate to the first dominant possible choice to perform the

tasks oneself or to outsource these (or parts thereof) to the market. The propositions are mainly geared to purchasing as a service the tasks that road authorities still perform themselves.

2. The propositions for the ‘new market’ for new road authorities mainly relate to the second dominant possible choice to set up central operation for one domain (tunnel, traffic management, bridges and locks, urban management, order and safety) or integrate two or more domains. The propositions are mainly geared to the process, intrinsic and (data and ICT) technical integration of multiple domains.

3. The propositions for the ‘new market’ for existing road authorities mainly relate to the third dominant possible choice to organise tasks for one’s own organisation to do this together with other road authori-ties, within or outside one’s own region. The propositions are mainly geared to arriving at organisational cooperation, both between public and private parties and between public parties mutually.

6.4 Gradual transition from the current situation towards the ‘inviting prospect’Met de benoemde 14 publiek-private proposities en de 3 dominante keuzerichtingen kunnen de volgende stappen worden onderscheiden in de transitie van de huidige situatie richting het ‘wenkend perspectief’. Benadrukt wordt dat niet elke transitie precies op deze wijze en in deze volgorde behoeft te gaan lopen en dat niet elke decentrale overheid tot en met de laatste transitiestap moet gaan: het gaat om het stapsge-wijs komen tot meer mogelijkheden die private partijen kunnen aanbieden en waaruit decentrale overhe-den (juist zelf) kunnen kiezen (een qua assortiment stapsgewijs uitbreidend cafetariamodel of menukaart). De aangegeven volgorde is vooral om te kunnen voortbouwen op ervaringen en deze steeds verder te kun-nen uitbouwen. Het (uiteindelijke) ‘cafetariamodel iCentrale’ of de ‘menukaart iCentrale’ zal een combinatie (kunnen) zijn van meerdere proposities.

12 |

With the aforementioned 14 public-private propositions and 3 dominant possible choices, the following steps can be distinguished in the transition from the current situation towards the ‘inviting prospect’. It should be emphasised that not each transition has to follow this manner and sequence and that not each local authority has to go right through to the final transition step: it is about gradually arriving at more pos-sibilities that private parties can offer and from which local authorities (themselves) can choose (gradual extension in terms of range of the cafeteria model or menu). The sequence provided is intended largely to build on and continually extend experiences. The (final) ‘cafetaria model iCentre’ or the ‘menu iCentre’ wil lor could be a combination of several propositions.

1. For dominant possible choice 1 (to perform the tasks oneself or to outsource these (or parts) to the mar-ket) the following successive transition steps can be distinguished, mainly geared to road authorities in the ‘old market’ and to purchasing as a service the tasks that road authorities still perform themselves:From: Own control centre, own systems, own personnel.Via: Own control centre, purchased systems, own personnel. Own control centre, purchased systems, hired personnel. Own control centre, systems-as-a-service, hired personnel. Own control centre, ‘managed service’. ‘Managed service’ by private control centre.To: Performance agreements with private service provider (with own control centre).

2. For dominant possible choice 2 (to set up control centre operation for one domain or integrate two or more domains) the following successive transition steps can be distinguished, mainly geared to road authorities in the ‘new market’ and the process, intrinsic and (data and ICT) technical integration of mul-tiple domains:From: Closed, domain-centred systems.Via: Access to existing systems. Data-acquisition. Data-processing and enrichment. Centralisation per domain. Training personnel and setting up team links to work across domains. Integral monitoring, operation and management. To: Coordinated area, network and corridor management.

3. For dominant possible choice 3 (organising tasks for one’s own organisation together with other road authorities, within or outside one’s own region) the following successive transition steps can be distin-guished, mainly geared to road authorities in the ‘new market’ and to arriving at organisational coope-ration, both between public and private parties and between public parties mutually:

From: Own management area, divided by domains. Via: Own management area, domains taken together. To: Management areas taken together and domains taken together.



7. Relationship between the propositions and the intrinsic elements in het iCentre programme: the intrinsic scope of the iCentre programme

The propositions derived from the transitions relate to all intrinsic elements of an iCentre (see also the defi-nition of an iCentre given in chapter 2). These intrinsic elements are shown in figure 3 and are:I Statutory and customer requirements that a control centre operation must comply with. This concerns

statutory requirements (as in tunnel monitoring and operation), customer requirements (for all other domains) and strategic requirements (by the authorities themselves). These concern the (social, policy) performance and goals the local authorities are striving to achieve with the networks, and to mobilists and citizens in the various domains. These requirements form the framework within which the control centre operation must be executed.

II. Personnel, processes, applications and the buildings for ‘control centre operation’. This is actually what you see of and in the control centres at the 150 or so locations already inventoried in the Netherlands.

III. Data & Information. This is the non-visible basis of the control centre operation: the actual situation is permanently monitored and the data combined and enriched to form the source on which people and applications make decisions. In addition to the data for the actual process of the control centre opera-tion, this also concerns data and information for (short-cyclical) evaluation and monitoring of the statu-tory and social requirements and goals as well as the accountability. By making such data broadly avai-lable as open data, other applications can be nourished.

IV. Engineering and ICT Systems. These are the technical systems in a control centre and also the (network) connections between objects (tunnels, bridges, locks, traffic management measures, city access, etc.) out on the street and the control centre itself. The objects themselves are not elements of control centre operation (because these can also function without control centre operation) and are thus not an ele-ment of the iCentre.

Figure 3: Intrinsic elements of an iCentre – thinking and working - in 4 connected layers.

On the basis of their core expertise the private parties participating in the iCentre programme are ‘assigned’

to one of these four intrinsic elements. This has led to the creation of four key groups:I. Key group 1 ‘Performance & Goals. This key group is formed by Arcadis, BNV Mobility and Trinité.II. Key group 2 ‘Control centre operation & Personnel’. This key group is formed by Grontmij, MAPtm, Isolec-

tra and Trigion. III. Key group 3 ‘Data & Information’. This key group is formed by Be-Mobile and DAT Mobility.IV. Key group 4 ‘Techniek & ICT-Systems’. This key group is formed by Dynniq, Siemens, Technolution and

Vialis.

Most of the private parties also have, in addition to their core expertise, expertise in other intrinsic elements (or key groups). Moreover, all propositions are created by the interplay and clustering of all the intrinsic ele-

City supervision Tunnels DVM StructuresHorizontal layer Appearance Public space Road Road/Water Water

1. Traffic flow

2. Liveability

3. Safety

4. Imago Tunnel legislation Machine directive (EU)5. Efficiency EU and NL Labour resources directive

1. M M I (visible)

2. Organisation (and type)

3. Personnel (fte's)

4. Contro l Centre

5. Location / building 4. T + S

1. Contro l Centre systemen

2. Connections

3. Roadside (systems)

4. Interface to key groups 1-7

M anagement requirements 1. Performance Management requirements Management requirementsManagement requirements Management requirements

2. Costs3. Risks

Type Control Centre (domain)

5. Environment and decisions2. Control Centre operation / Personnel

3. Data & Information

4. Engineering and (ICT) systems

Coherence and synergy in PNH Operational Contro Centres (current) (2 - 3/5 years)

iCentre7 Key Groups

1. Performance/ 'Goals'

6. (Social) costs and benefits 7. Professional Market

Engineering and (ICT) Syst ems

Dat a en Informat ion

Asset management basis

III

IV

I

II

Requirements- From the customer

- Statutory

Cont rol Cent re Operat ion- Functionality

to be decided to be decided

CCTR Tunnels Bridges/locks

KES KESKES

Data Data Data

DVM

KES

Data

Control Centre

Control Centre

Control Centre

Control Centre

14 |

ments, which is why structural interaction and cooperation is facilitated between the key groups and why the iCentre programme is a joint programme.

Apart from the four intrinsic key groups, there are a further (necessary) three key groups:V. Key Group 5 ‘(Governance) environment & Decision-making’. This key group focuses on engaging, in the

right way, the environment such as the other local authorities in the Netherlands, Rijkswaterstaat (see later), the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment (I&M) and the ‘Beter Benutten’ programme, the directors of the local authorities and the management and executive boards of these and other pri-vate parties. And getting decisions made among these and other stakeholders where necessary. This key group is led by the programme manager of the iCentre and all private and public parties are participants.

VI. Key Group 6 ‘Professional, (inter)national market (& revenue models)’. This key group focuses on realising the preconditions for a professional (inter)national market, such as trust, entry, market volume and monopolies and on the prerequisites for the private parties to arrive at independent revenue models, for which specific expertise is recruited and in which all private and public parties participate. This key group works explicitly on strengthening the competitiveness of Dutch business and industry, which is also one of the goals of the ‘Better informed on the road’ roadmap.

VII. Key Group 7 ‘(Social) costs and benefits’. This key group focuses on illuminating and substantiating the current costs of control centre operation and the (social) benefits and cost savings that greater integra-tion can generate. At the moment, the province of Noord-Holland has an extensive business case (by PwC) being undertaken into the cost (saving) of control centre operation in its own organization and is contributing this and the associated methodology to the iCentre programme.



8. What is the significance of the propositions for the interests of the public and private parties?

Because public-private partnership and working in alliances require clarity on the interests of the coopera-ting parties, the private and public parties in the iCentre revealed their (common and individual) interests in respect of the iCentre at the start of Phase 1.

8.1 Common public-private interests • Local road authorities have/own a number of sectoral control centres, with each control centre having

its own technical systems, goals, work processes and personnel. Tunnel monitoring and operation, remote operation of bridges and locks, traffic management, water management (supervising shipping), parking, city access (bollards) and city surveillance (management, safety and crowd management). It is logical that this has grown in such a way.

• Local road authorities see an increasing need for more synergy. They get more objects (remote control-led tunnels, bridges and locks, more traffic management), their control centre operating tasks are beco-ming more complex (tunnel legislation, bigger traffic control scenarios), and they are being given (imposed) tasks relating to (lower) costs and personnel (municipal coordination and/or coordinating organisations).

• Local road authorities thereby experience a need and opportunities for more synergy: more (of the same) for less. Difficult: how do you tackle this (alone), certainly when there is not yet anything (from market parties) ‘on the shelf’?

• Market parties see business opportunities here. Difficult: how do you deal with this with so many different road authorities, certainly when you can offer ‘only’ one piece of the jigsaw of control centre operation?

• Common iCentre interest: how do we organise together more (horizontal) synergy in control centre monitoring and operations tasks (and facilitating layers) for better control centre performance and effi-ciency?

8.2 Publieke belangen decentrale overhedenMunicipality of Almere• Currently three separate control centres (traffic management; parking; city surveillance city surveil-

lance). Task sharing is difficult given the different work processes. • Wish is better performance and relationship with public space, with the aim to reduce costs and own

personnel. ‘It helps’ to have increasingly more adjacent municipalities with DVM management and reali-sation (is available at excessive costs but otherwise ‘nothing’ happens). Wants (for itself and adjacent municipalities) far-reaching and as much integral ‘commercialisation’ as possible with the fewest possi-ble own personnel, with good SLAs and KPIs.

Municipality of The Hague• Currently two separate control centres (shipping supervision, tunnel operation, bridge operation, city

access; traffic management).• Wants through renovation of and new tunnels to have a combined control centre for safety and dry (effi-

ciency and quality boost, personnel is big gain). Is prepared to ‘share’ tasks (bridge and tunnel operation). Aims to get a strongly integrated final picture (sectoral approach is increasingly less socially justified), wants to continue being responsible for much of the traffic management and also serve the component municipalities.

Municipality of Rotterdam• Traffic management has also been added to the control room for urban management and surveillance

(camera surveillance, parking), as well as a wet traffic control centre (HBR), a separate control centre for the city tunnel and a control centre for the operation of bridges in the city.

• Wants a more integral approach and not unnecessarily tackle the problems by sector, partly in view of the efficient deployment of authority resources (money and personnel, municipality coordination).

Province of Flevoland• Has its own control centre for the operation of bridges and locks, is looking for more objects to operate.

Has consciously chosen not to have its own traffic control centre, with the management of provincial VRIs performed by Almere, employment of of traffic control scenarios by RWS (Velsen, Wolfheze, Utrecht) and incident report processing by RWS and/or police. This ‘organisational fragmentation’ is not so ideal.

• Wish is better performance for road and waterway users, without overcapacity yet ready for peak loads (for half a year) and connected to asset management.

16 |

Province of Utrecht• Working till the end of 2019 for traffic management from one regional control centre (with RWS and

municipalities), with own management control centre for regional VRIs (integral chain management) and control centre for tunnel operation (for the city of Utrecht/RWS). Sees scope defined up to traffic management and tunnel operation.

• Wants local approach to actively detail common integral local operation, independent of RWS, own cost reduction and joint cost reduction for local authorities. Sees major role in this for market parties.

Province of Noord-Holland• Has three control centres (traffic management, tunnels, bridges & locks). Manages own VRIs and of

component municipalities from own VM control centre. Works in tunnel control centre with a (private) Managing Agent and realises (from local to) control centre operation for structures (full outsourcing of personnel starting 2016), and wants to realise third control centre as ‘plug & play” and ‘moveable in 1 weekend’ (for transition to ‘integrated’).

• Own assets (and in local environment) require expansion with fourth control centre (bridges & locks). See need for a different approach given the high rising costs of operation and domain interconnection, with more (horizontal) synergy between the domains and a (much) greater role for market parties.

8.3 Private interestsInterests Key Group 1 ‘Performance / Doelen’• Want to offer (more) integral “control centre operation” services and (if necessary) also provision the phy-

sical control centre, personnel and engineering. A point on the horizon is that safety management, traf-fic management and asset management form an integral service provision product, at strategic (reallo-cation of roles & responsibilities), tactical (management based on SLAs with KPIs) and operational (operate and monitor) levels. Authorities do not need to have anything under ownership or in service and can put “control centre operation” across all domains entirely “in the market”. Maximum variant is making agreements based on social performance (social SLAs and KPIs), extended with execution of asset management (total cost of ownership / concessions). To this end authorities translate social perfor-mance to feasible market products (the KPIs). The provides maximum entrepreneurial scope, with maxi-mum opportunities for new revenue models for market parties and lowest costs for authorities. Other possible variants include: without asset management (no concessions), limited number of domains, less own freedom beforehand regarding social performance. Offers possibilities for maximum cost reduction for road authorities, with many new (specifically organisational) challenges.

Interests Key Group 2 ‘Control centre operation / Personnel’• Want to offer “traffic management as a service”. If local road authorities cater for (underlying) enginee-

ring (and physical control centre) (with certain guarantees), they do not have to worry about personnel. The more customers (local road authorities ) that request comparable services, the more domains and the smarter the engineering, the better and cheaper the personnel deployment offered. “Personnel” is the biggest cost for road authorities in respect of control centre operation and this offers good possibili-ties for road authorities that do not already have their own control centre. The challenge is integration among multiple existing control centres and integration of domains (with various primary processes).

Interests Key Group 3 ‘Data & Information’ • Want to cater for the entire data-acquisition and enrichment “to intelligent information” for control cen-

tre operation. Clustering means much lower costs regarding the current sectoral acquisition and the current acquisition with (frequently) outdated techniques. Road authorities are then no longer the only purchaser of this data, which can reduce the costs even more. Combined enrichment and fusion of data from multiple sources provides better insight in processing ‘the business’ (traffic, tunnels, shipping, city access, public space), which enables better performance. Together with “Engineering” and “Personnel” can add intelligence such that there is a need for fewer personnel (“people-less control centre”).

Interests Key Group 4 ‘Engineering / ICT Systems’• Want a shift from “engineering as a product” to “service for which engineering is deployed” and from

“tailor made” to “standardised technically linkable modules”. Requires professionalisation from both pro-viders of engineering and the road authorities purchasing it, based as much as possible on international standards. Other market parties are also likely to be direct customers of the “engineering service” (see Key Groups 1 and 2 in chapter 7). For existing control centres want to arrive at standardised interfaces to technically cluster domains and relieve road authorities of the worry of this engineering migration.



8.4 International interestsAll the activities undertaken in Phase 2 of the iCentre programme are also geared to offering the private services (propositions) to be developed on the international stage. This is facilitated by working everywhere with international standards, in alignment with international (European) legislation and frameworks, and also already during Phase 2 testing a number of propositions in practice in international Living Labs. Almost every private party also has interests in other countries and international applications are an integral fea-ture of their roadmaps.

The 13 private parties have co-initiated the iCentre programme because they are convinced that this will help boost their international competitiveness. The 6 local authorities, too, have expressed the clear ambi-tion to use the iCentre programme to contribute to strengthening the (inter)national competitiveness of Dutch business and industry. Jointly they are committed to strengthening the competitiveness of Dutch business and industry, one of the transitions contained in the ‘Better informed on the road’ roadmap.

9. How is it being implemented?

9.1 What has already been implemented?

Phase 0 Nationwide consultationPhase 0 of the iCentre programme was implemented at the beginning of 2014. This concerned the afore-mentioned broad consultation by the programme manager among some 50 public and private and key players in the Netherlands and of around 150 regional and (inter)national reports. The extensive report was given to the consulted key players only upon their request. The report synopsis, in which the findings are summarised in 10 observations and 7 recommendations, was widely shared and attached.

The main conclusions were:• For the coming years there will be an enormous (intended) rise in numbers of public ‘control centres’ in

the Netherlands;• The joint structural public (operating) costs (incl. asset and data costs) are substantial and considerably

underestimated;• This offers unmistakeably enormous opportunities for synergy: between authorities, modalities, private

and public parties and domains (like wet, dry and safety);• Strategies and investment possibilities, decision-making and implementation by public and private par-

ties in the same arena are often not aligned and therefore do not naturally converge.

The main recommendations were:• Arrive at a ‘movement’ and a ‘community’ whereby multiple public and private parties share the observa-

tions and in developing these together see the added value of them for their own organisations;• Start a taskforce together with these parties on the basis of their own interests and public-private road-

maps to jointly elaborate the approach in the form of a Plan and seek public and private sponsors to implement this joint approach;

• Implement this joint approach in multiple living labs based on appropriate and equal management based on alliances;

• Establish this regionally on account of the tangibility and practicability but ensure there are nationwide application possibilities to arrive at independent private services;

• Allow existing developments in particular to continue (and actively align with them): these offer short-term solutions for current problems and needs.

Phase 1 of the iCentre programme dealt with these recommendations.

18 |

Phase 1 Nationwide pre-qualification and public-private Plan Nationwide pre-qualificationPhase 1 began with a substantiated nationwide pre-qualification, in principle, of all private parties in the Netherlands according to the normal governing regulations:• Context and ambitions have been outlines, summarising the result of Phase 0.• Hereby a public and private consultation was undertaken to check out the initial willingness and support

among private and public parties. This turned out to be very positive and promising.• On 11 March 2015 a nationwide iCentre Orientation Meeting was organised with private parties in the

Netherlands, publicly announced to enable anyone, in principle, to attend. In the end, a very large num-ber of private parties attended who were potentially interested in participating in phase 1 of the iCentre programme at their own cost. During this iCentre Orientation Meeting the ambitions and consequent process were discussed and private parties were asked to say whether they would like to be invited.

• A limited number of private parties let it be known that they saw no possibilities or opportunities to par-ticipate at their own cost.

• The private parties who revealed an interest were invited to detail their contributions and interests for both the private party as a company and the nominated persons, also at their own cost:- Past performance;- Core competencies;- Own private roadmap.

The private parties were asked to register by domain “Dry”, “Wet” and “Safety”.• The registrations were evaluated by a review committee based on the aforementioned criteria, a key

criterion being whether the ambition of the iCentre corresponded with the roadmap of a private party, i.e. whether working on this transition was also actually part of the private party’s corporate strategy and thus a shared interest and not just simply ‘wanting to be in’. In total 13 private parties pre-qualified in a procedure that is in line with European regulations.

Public-private Plan – 40 interconnected projects detailed in factsheetsThe 13 pre-qualified private parties, at their own cost, worked with the 6 local authorities in 10 public-private sessions (each Wednesday every three weeks) to draft a public-private Plan. Between the sessions, too, a lot of work took place jointly. This Plan is based on the propositions the private parties want to develop (in Phase 2 of the iCentre programme) and ultimately offer local authorities as independent private services.

These are the 14 propositions referred to above and which the public parties indicated that these are aligned with their public interests and which they can plausibly be expected to purchase. The jointly produced ‘iCen-tre folder’ is the result of this joint effort and forms the public private Plan for Phase 2 of the iCentre pro-gramme.

In the iCentre Plan Phase 2 all the parts referred to above converge:• The 14 public-private propositions. The basis of the Plan is the 14 public-private propositions, which are

the independent private services that private parties want to develop and offer and which public parties will purchase as service.

• The 3 markets and the 3 dominant possible choices (axes). These public private propositions are related to the three distinct markets: new market for road authorities with their own control centres (A1), new market for road authorities without their own control centres (A2) and old market (B). These three mar-kets are also related to the three dominant possible choices: (1) go it alone or leave it to the market, (2) one domain or multiple domains and (3) for own road authority or region or with other road authorities. These three dominant possible choices or ‘axes’ lead to the aforementioned transition from many public control centres to zero public control centres.

• The 4+3 Key Groups. The four intrinsic key groups 1 ‘Performance & Goal’ (“the Framework”), 2 ‘Control centre operation & Personnel’ (“the What”), 3 ‘Data & Information’ (“the How”) and 4 ‘Engineering & ICT Systems’ (“the How”) target an intrinsic component of control centre operation and the propositions. In other words, each key group contributes to realising a proposition. In addition, there are the 3 conditio-nal key groups: 5 ‘(Governance) environment & decision-making, 6 ‘Professional, (inter)national market (& revenue models)’ and 7 ‘(Social) costs and benefits’.



This coherence is shown in the figure:• The key groups in the coloured columns (the conditional key groups in one column);• The transitions in the markets based on the dominant possible choices (axes) in rows.

The yellow numbers in the figure indicate the interconnected project needed to develop the propositions. In total there are 40 projects, which form the content of the iCentre public-private Plan.

Figure 4: Coherent iCentre Plan Phase 2 – Propositions and projects

Each of the 40 projects has been detailed according to a set format in a factsheet that contains the goal, the result, the approach, the planning, the connection with other projects and the resources required in terms of time and money. The factsheets are collected in a folder to which have been added the results of Phase 0 and Phase 1 along with further notes and arguments. The folder also has 4 case studies and ‘Low-hanging Fruit’ (see section 9.2).

This has resulted in the folder: “iCentre plan: an intrinsic and procedural approach for Smart Centres for local authorities and regions in the field of traffic, transport and safety & supervision for the period 2016-2024”.

Figuur 5: Map Plan van Aanpak iCentrale Fase 2

20 |

9.2 What will be implemented?The folder is the plan for Phase 2 of the iCentre programme.

Phase 2 Developing and testing private servicesThe 40 interconnected projects focus on the co-development with private and public parties of the propo-sitions and testing them in practice. The intended result at the end of Phase 2 is to have developed and tested the propositions such that private parties can and are willing to offer these propositions as indepen-dent private services and that local authorities are willing to purchase these private services from private parties.

The implementation of the plan has three lines.1. “Low-hanging Fruit”.These are activities that the local authorities have already programmed to implement in their own organi-sations and which relate to ‘control centre operation’ and ‘control centres’. These activities are necessary for the respective local authority and for which the requisite personnel and resources have already been set aside. These activities are inventoried per local authority and included in the plan and thus incorporated within the iCentre programme, including the requisite scheduled personnel and resources, for implementa-tion within the iCentre programme in an “iCentre manner”. This therefore sticks very close to the current needs of each local authority .

Concrete examples of “Low-hanging Fruit” at the Municipality of Almere are the replacement of VRIs on the Veluwedreef (6x) and the realization of new smart VRIs, for which it will be investigated whether these can be realized in an ‘iCentre-like’ manner.

Another concrete example of “Low-hanging Fruit” is a project in the programming of the Municipality of The Hague to develop education, training and practice for tunnel operators. This project can be undertaken within the iCentre to develop education, training and practice for tunnel operators that can be used by all local road authorities and in response to a future transition that also includes private provision.

For the Municipality of Rotterdam a concrete example of “Low-hanging Fruit” is the renovation of the Maas tunnel that poses considerable challenges to control centre operation and offers good opportunities for ‘iCentre-like’ solutions.

For the province of Noord-Holland concrete examples of “Low-hanging Fruit” are:• Asset management 5501 certification for transparent and verifiable (management) processes;• Traffic management as a reliable operational process for the next generation smart crossroads and smart iCentre(s); • Making 24-hour Control centre ‘Operation and Monitoring’ of structures (bridges and locks) iCentre-proof.

With this “Low-hanging Fruit” the first cautious steps are being taken per local authority in a transition towards an iCentre. The aim is not to take too big a step but to take an initial step per specific local authority on the basis of current need and insofar as this is desirable and possible for its own organisation.

The folder contains a list of inventoried “Low-hanging Fruit” per local authority . The personnel and Financial resources already scheduled for this are shown in the list of resources for the iCentre (see chapter 12).

The “Low-hanging Fruit” targets implementation.

NB. The definitive list of “Low-hanging Fruit” was discussed in the public-private working sessions of 25 November.



2. Case studies.Based on the dominant possible choices a case study has been formulated for each local authority. This case study is aligned with the specific interest that each local authority has indicated in relation to the iCentre. The case stu-dies are explicitly per local authority to ensure that they are close to the interests of each authority itself and thus the case studies target two of the three dominant possible choices, namely (1) go it alone or leave it to the market and (2) one domain or multiple domains. The third dominant possible choice (3) for own road authority or region or with other road authorities is not addressed because this requires further co-development and real-life practice.

The following case studies are referred to in the plan:1. Case study 1: Social performance: KPIs and SLAs comprehensible and explicable. The aim of this case study is to test in advance how joint private and public agreements can be made in

practice in tendering, offering and purchasing services, for the purpose of supervision and the ability to always (publicly) intervene in the course of the process, retrospectively in terms of accountability and to evaluate it on the basis of social performance.

Questions to be answered in the case study are: what is desirable to agree or work with social services based on social performance, where do the business scope and private revenue models mainly lie, what conditions and flexibility have to be agreed, what risks are there for public and private parties and how can they be managed, how do you monitor, control and report, how does the first joint period work and how can you then ensure the transition and security?

The case study is being undertaken by the Municipality of Almere, province of Flevoland, province of Utrecht and province of Noord-Holland, in several variants (per local road authority) so that the implementation and elaboration are close to (the specific implementation and implementation methods of) the respective local road authority. Private parties realise aspects for engineering, data, education and organisation to enable this transition and to ensure that this also prepares a transition to a new market (private implemen-tation) for and on behalf of the entire iCentre programme team.

2. Case study 2: Image director for (city) camera surveillance and traffic management. The aim of this case study is to substantiate further cross-domain work (emergency room/traffic control

room) and to facilitate even further integration of domains. This concerns using camera images for (many) more applications and domains. This involves issues of engineering, process and legality (what is allowed and is possible). Part of the elaboration is also about the desirability of which domains to com-bine and (technically, organisationally, legally) what is possible.

The case study is being undertaken with the Municipality of Rotterdam. Private parties realise aspects for engineering, data, education and organisation to enable this transition and to ensure that this also prepares a transition to a new market for and on behalf of the entire iCentre programme team. This case study is especially geared to combining within the local road authority (the Municipality of Rotterdam) itself and so cooperation with private parties is not the order of the day in the first instance.

3. Case study 3: Smartly combining (tunnel) safety and traffic management. The aim of this case study is to look at how the two domains of tunnel monitoring & operation and traffic

management can be integrated in practice. European regulations require tunnel operation to be man-ned 24/7, and by also deploying these control centre staff for traffic management this can also be a 24/7 operation (instead of the extended office hours at many locations) thereby providing improved network performance. This requires alignment of manning, organisation, processes, information and education.

Questions to be answered in the case study are: how can you extend and combine tactical operational service tasks, how can you do so in a technically modular way (specifically for Hoofddorp with support from The Hague, and generically for all local authorities), how will the integrated operation appear in technical terms whereby one operator works on a single screen/desk and yet can perform every task, and how can you combine Education, Training and Practice?

The case study is being undertaken with the province of Noord-Holland and with cooperation from the Municipality of The Hague. Private parties realise aspects for engineering, data, education and organisation to enable this transition and to ensure that this also prepares a transition to a new market (private imple-mentation) for and on behalf of the entire iCentre programme team.

22 |

4. Case study 4: Orchestration and supervision: how can you deal with proximity and distance? The aim of this case study is to find out in practice how local authorities can focus more on orchestration

and supervision and private parties– within the parameters set by the local road authorities and jointly – can focus on implementation geared to effectiveness and efficiency. The more uniform the local road authorities can organise themselves, the more combination and synergy the private parties can offer across the road authorities to the benefit of the effectiveness and efficiency.

The case study is being undertaken with the local directors, a process that is for both the public and private parties largely in these domains, and thus ‘scary’. The aim of this case study is for local directors to test out things in practice and to experience what this demands and means.

Summary of the case studies and the implementing local road authorities:1. Case study 1: Social performance: KPIs and SLAs comprehensible and explicable. Undertaken with the

Municipality of Almere, province of Flevoland, province of Utrecht and province of Noord-Holland.2. Case study 2: Image director for (city) camera surveillance and traffic management. Undertaken with

the Municipality of Rotterdam.3. Case study 3: Smartly combining (tunnel) safety and traffic management. Undertaken with the pro-

vince of Noord-Holland with cooperation from the Municipality of The Hague.4. Case study 4: Orchestration and supervision: how can you deal with proximity and distance?

Undertaken mainly with the local directors.

In the iCentre folder (final version) there is a specific plan for each of these case studies drafted jointly by the public and private parties. The case studies are being undertaken by the private and public parties for and on behalf of the entire iCentre programme team.

The case studies are exploratory.

NB The definitive scope van the Case studies was discussed in the public private working session of 25 November.

3. Projects.This is the crux of Phase 2 of the iCentre and concerns the undertaking of the 40 projects explained in sec-tion 9.1. Private parties contribute to these financially by a significant reduction in their normal fees on the one hand and through making their own ‘Living Labs’ available on the other. The financial contribution of the public parties comes in the form of regional co-financing and also by making their own ‘Living Labs’ avai-lable. Beter Benutten has been ask to fund the remainder of the costs.

9.3 How will it be implemented?The case studies will be implemented through cooperation between the public and private parties, with the private parties only being eligible for the latter if they have pre-qualified and now participate in the iCentre programme. This approach has been facilitated by the broad pre-qualification at the beginning of 2015.

Mini-competitions to develop and test the propositions in practiceFor the development and real-life testing of the propositions, mini-competitions will be used among the pre-qualified 13 private parties that co-drafted the Plan for Phase 2 of the iCentre, in line with applicable European regulations.

Testing propositions and demonstrating their efficacy in a Network of Living LabsThe development and testing of the propositions will be in “Living Labs”. A Living Lab is often used in product and service innovation as a realistic but well-defined, real-life test and development environment. The pro-positions will be formed by a (large) number of projects. For each project a ‘statement of work’ will be draf-ted for the next step subject to approval by a review team (from the various key groups) and programme manager.

In the Living Labs in het iCentre programme the private and public parties will co-develop and test the pro-positions (and projects). The private parties will be able to demonstrate how the propositions perform in practice and that they do what they promise to do. For the public parties this provides insight into how the



service they are considering purchasing Works in practice, what it demands from them, what ‘guarantee’ they have that it will actually work and also give them an opportunity to practice with it. For the iCentre programme use will be made of the Living Labs that are already available in the Netherlands.

From the public parties the following Living Labs will be made available to test propositions in practice and to demonstrate that and how they work:1. Domain ‘Parking and city surveillance’, by the Municipality of Almere.2. Tunnel operation lab/control centre The Hague (from 2017), by the Municipality of The Hague;3. Traffic control room Rotterdam, by the Municipality of Rotterdam;4. Traffic management lab and tunnel control centre in Hoofddorp, by the province of Noord-Holland;5. Virtual Reality Simulator for operators, by the province of Noord-Holland;6. Traffic and management control centre Huis ter Heide, by the province of Utrecht;7. Domain ‘operation and monitoring’ of bridges and locks, by the province of Flevoland.

A (large) number of these Living Labs are day-to-day operational control centres. The participating authori-ties are willing to allow programme participants to use them for a limited number of moments as Living Labs (the conditions also for the operational processes are being detailed in Phase 2).

The private parties are making the following private Living Labs available to test propositions in practice and to demonstrate that and how they work:1. Traffic control centre in Utrecht, by MAPtm;2. Traffic control centre in Uithoorn, by Trinite Automation;3. Bridge management and Blue Wave control centre in Gouda, by Technolution;4. Trajectory planner for Shipping management in Gouda/Newgein, by Technolution;5. Managing Agent live-lab. in Hoofddorp, by Arcadis;6. Traffic management platform in Gouda, by Technolution;7. Domain and lab. Parking in Amsterdam, by BNV Mobility;8. Tunnel demo centre (in relation to the LTS) in Zoetermeer, by Siemens;9. Latest generation ‘domain’ Water traffic management in Maasbracht, by Siemens (state owned);10. ‘Dry and wet’ control centre / lab. in Zoetermeer, by Imtech;11. Alarm Service Lab. in Schiedam, by Trigion;12. Tunnel (organisation) lab. in Terneuzen of the NV Westerschelde bv / BNV;

Many of the private parties participating in the iCentre programme already work on an international scale and on the basis of this work can also make a number of private control centres available as private Living Labs to test propositions in practice and to demonstrate that and how they work. The private parties are making the following international private Living Labs available for use in the iCentre programme:13. Traffic information Control centre Touring Mobilis in Brussels, by Be-Mobile;14. Control centre coordination of motorways and management and maintenance Lisbon, by Brisa / BNV Mobility.15. Control centre for traffic information (and traffic management) in Berlin, by Siemens.

Finally, the Traffic Innovation Centre in Helmond will be part of the Network of Living Labs of the iCentre programme. Talks on this are ongoing between the programme manager of the iCentre and the director of the Traffic Innovation Centre. Earlier talks discussed useful possible relationships and it is expected that these opportunities can also be realised: therefore the Living Labs figure incorporates the Traffic Innovation Centre/2 desks.

Together these private and public Living Labs form a “Network of Living Labs”, an important foundation to be able to actually co-develop, test and demonstrate the propositions in the iCentre in practice.

With the foreign private Living Labs the iCentre programme can make a good contribution to strengthening the international competitiveness of Dutch business and industry, one of the transitions in the ‘Better infor-med on the road’ roadmap.

NB The definitive scope of the Living Labs and the Network of Living Labs which they form together was discussed in the public private working session on 25 November.

24 |

Figuur 6: Het Network of Living Labs, privaat en publiek én internationaal dat beschikbaar is voor Fase 2 van het programma iCentrale voor het in de praktijk beproeven van proposities en het aantonen hoe en dat deze werken



9.4 When will it be implemented (planning)?The start of the implementation of Phase 2 of the iCentre programme is scheduled from 1 January 2016 run-ning for two years through till the end of 2017.

All three Lines begin at that moment.• The implementation of the “Low-hanging Fruit” starts from 1/1/2016 and will be completed by mid 2016,

with extension till the end of 2016 in line with the current planning of these activities in the public pro-gramming.

• The implementation of the case studies starts from 1/1/2016 and will be completed at the end of 2016.• The implementation of the 40 projects starts from 1/1/2016 and will be completed at the end of.

Detailed planning for the case studies is given in the plans for these case studies. A detailed planning for the propositions and projects is given in the project factsheets.

10. How will we organise this?

The specific organisation structure will be shaped jointly by:• The public directors;• The private directors;• The programme director and programme manager of Beter Benutten;• The programme manager of the iCentre programme.

It will also be discussed and decided with them how to deal with the monitoring and evaluation and what decision moments will be employed and on which criteria the decisions will be based.

26 |

11. What are the main opportunities, challenges and risks?

Opportunities• A major opportunity is that iCentre programme is an initiative of 13 private and 6 public parties, who

themselves are convinced that control centre operation in the Netherlands and internationally has to be different and can and will actively work on facilitating this transition.

• The iCentre programme will enable concrete contributions to be made to the transitions stated by public and private parties in the ‘Better informed on the road’ roadmap.

• The public private propositions developed and tested in the iCentre programme will help bring to a bet-ter functioning network improved performance, lower costs of assets and better cost-effectiveness of the operation as well as better service provision to mobilists and citizens.

Challenges• A major challenge for the iCentre programme is to get the local authorities ‘on board’. They have already

heard ‘nice stories’ from market parties and want to ‘see before they believe’. Moreover, the local autho-rities are expected to ‘let go of’ a number of their current tasks. This challenge is being tackled through the “Low-hanging Fruit”, the case studies, the Living Labs and the joint approach from the outset. But it remains a challenge.

• Another challenge is for private parties to focus less on orders and the role of supplier and more on inde-pendent services in the form of services provider, for which they will have to let go of the current fre-quently comfortable situation of a large order portfolio (business to government, B2G). They will only do this if there is some prospect of a sufficient market for purchasing such control centre operation services. This challenge is being addressed in the programme.

• A challenge also lies in the fact that the jointly defined propositions are always an interplay of multiple disciplines supplied by multiple private parties, so the private parties also have to look to each other when services and products are offered and purchased (business to business, B2B) and that is new for many of them. This challenge is being addressed in the programme.

Risks• There is a risk that such a complex public-private transition will be tackled in too limited and ‘small’ a

fashion, which will lead to failure and lead to both the public and the private parties having no more faith in it for the coming years. In such an event, the iCentre programme will do more bad than good. There-fore, the programme has a solid foundation, the private and public parties contribute to it and it is sup-plemented by contributions from Beter Benutten.

• Sometimes it is suggested that the non-participation of Rijkswaterstaat and the Municipality of Amster-dam in the iCentre programme is a risk, but at this stage this is a conscious and logical choice. Both Amsterdam and Rijkswaterstaat have stated their support for the iCentre concept and acknowledge that the control centre operation is going in the right direction, and that this also applies for their own organisation. However, they are currently focusing on ‘aligning’ the control centre operation within their own organisations due in part to the scope, multiplicity and general diversity that control centre opera-tion entails. Then they can target a transition as pursued by the iCentre. There has been a lot of contact with Rijkswaterstaat and Amsterdam about this during Phase 0 and Phase 1 and this contact will be continued in a structural way during Phase 2. Once Rijkswaterstaat and Amsterdam deem it appropri-ate, participation in the control centre can be considered.

• And there is a risk that the propositions being developed and tested in the iCentre programme remain an ‘intrinsic exercise while it also demands a transition from the organizations themselves. A good deal of explicit attention within the programme is focusing on ‘harnessing’ all the public and private organisati-ons (in a specific key group (Governance) Environment & Decision-making).



12. What are the costs?

The costs for Phase 2 of the iCentre programme comprise the following components:1. Costs for undertaking the 40 projects in the project factsheets required to develop the propositions.2. Costs for implementing the 4 case studies.3. Costs for the programme organisation.

The local authorities contribute the following to the costs:1. Input of the Low-hanging Fruit, in personnel and funding.2. Input of the public Living Labs.3. Input of own personnel deployment.

The private parties contribute the following to the costs:4. Input of the private Living Labs.5. Reduction in hourly fees for the private personnel deployment.6. Input of projects in 2016 – 2017 within the ‘iCentre concept’.

The province Noord-Holland specifically contributes additionally to the costs for the organisation with the following:

7. Programme manager for the iCentre programme and secretary on behalf of all parties. 8. Controller for the iCentre programme.

The public-private parties already contribute the following to the costs:1. The public-private costs for implementing phase 1. 2. The costs of the public-private consultation round in the Netherlands during phase 0.

28 |

13. What is the return?

To gain a very rough (!) indication of the potential market for the propositions being developed in the iCentre programme, a very tentative (!) picture has been drawn of the costs in the Netherlands of the four intrinsic components of control centre operation, i.e. the four interconnected layers (see also figure 3).

Since no substantiated overviews exist for this, it can therefore only be based on a large number of assump-tions that cannot be built on solid ground. One key assumption is the ‘toadstool map’ with the 150 or so locations for control centre operation in the Netherlands in the different domains (see figure 1). Other key input used to arrive at this indication is the extensive (non-public) business case that the province of Noord-Holland had implemented (by PwC) related to the iCentre programme.

Based on assumptions, we arrive at the following rough and tentative (!) insight into the costs (annual, for the whole country) for the layers of control centre operation:• Statutory and customer requirements concerning control centre operation: approx €5 million • Personnel, processes, applications and buildings for control centre operation: approx €150 million• Data & Information for control centre operation: approx €5 million• Engineering and ICT Systems for control centre operation: approx €50 million

The rough picture is therefore one in which approx. €210 million per year is spent in the Netherlands on con-trol centre operation.

Experts of local authorities have estimated that they can reduce their joint costs of ‘control centres’ by 10-20% (by integrating domains and between road authorities and by public private interaction). This means that (in time, with a maximum rollout of the iCentre propositions) approx. € 20-25 million can be saved each year in the Netherlands. Until that time and thereafter the market for private parties for control centre ope-ration will remain significant.

In addition, the integration of the control centre operation of multiple domains will improve the network performance and service provision to mobilists and citizens (see chapter 2).



14. Statement / signature

Position Name Signature Date

Name and signature of responsible parties

Beter BenuttenPrivate directorsPublic directors

30 |

Documents

| 1 THE iCENTRALE PROGRAMME · Publiek-privaat Plan van Aanpak fase 2 iCentrale | 1 ... Isolectra, W. Hulst, Managing Director MAPtm, Wim Broeders, Director Siemens, Leon Soulier,