Final Report Cost Analysis of Entry- Exit & Registered Traveller Systems

Transcription

1 European Commission DG Justice, Freedom and Security Framework Contract Quality Assurance JLSB Service Order: so 30 EntryExit Costing Study Final Report Cost Analysis of Entry Exit & Registered Traveller Systems (CBESO30REP003) Abstract This document is the Final Report of the cost analysis of the EntryExit and Registered Traveller Systems Document information AUTHOR Unisys OWNER ISSUE DATE VERSION 1.30 APPROVAL STATUS Document History VER DATE AUTHOR DESCRIPTION ACTION* PG /01/10 Huijgens Initial draft /02/10 Huijgens Tavano Updated based on feedback from COM. Identified scenarios and described the methodology /02/10 Tavano Revised text, tables, pictures /02/10 Tavano Updated based on feedback from COM /03/10 Huijgens Tavano European Commission DG JLS Submitted Revised text, tables, pictures. Updated based on feedback from COM /03/10 Huijgens Revised text, tables, pictures /03/10 Huijgens Revised text, tables, pictures /03/10 Huijgens, Dalamanga, Wiersma /03/10 Huijgens, Dalamanga, Wiersma I U IR IR IR IR IR All All All All All All Final version IR All Final version addressing COM comments IR All, Printed 4/25/2012, p. 1/137

2 Final Report Cost Analysis of EntryExit & Registered Traveller Systems VER DATE AUTHOR DESCRIPTION ACTION* PG /03/10 Huijgens, Dalamanga, Wiersma Final version IR All /04/10 Huijgens Final version, removed disclaimer Changed Semi Automated to SemiManual Action: I = Insert, R = Replace R 3 Quality Assurance, JLSB , CBEso30REP003_1 30_Entry Exit Cost Study_Final Report.doc, p. 2/137

3 Final Report Cost Analysis of EntryExit & Registered Traveller Systems Contents 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7 2 INTRODUCTION 10 3 METHODOLOGY AND COST ANALYSIS STRUCTURE IDENTIFYING THE COST ELEMENTS TOOLS The Cost Model Function Point Analysis CostXpert Infrastructure Design and Sizing Accuracy 14 4 USE CASES THIRD COUNTRY NATIONAL BORDER CROSSING ENTRY THIRD COUNTRY NATIONAL BORDER CROSSING EXIT REGISTERED TRAVELLER BORDER CROSSING ENTRY REGISTERED TRAVELLER BORDER CROSSING EXIT REGISTERED TRAVELLER ENROLMENT DATA DICTIONARY TABLE OF INTERFACES 35 5 ASSUMPTIONS FOR SYSTEM AND COST MODELS GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS ANTICIPATED SYSTEM LOAD SYSTEM MODEL PARAMETERS AND ASSUMPTIONS 38 6 SYSTEMS ARCHITECTURE CENTRALISED SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE Member State Technical Infrastructure Central Technical Infrastructure DISTRIBUTED SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE Member State Distributed Technical Architecture 53 7 COST ANALYSIS HOW TO USE THE EXCEL COST MODEL Input Presentation Sizing Estimating costs using the Model COST ANALYSIS PRESENTATION Cost elements Costs General Remarks CENTRALISED SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE A1C CENTRALISED ENTRYEXIT SYSTEM, NO BIOMETRICS Scenario Parameters Cost Summary Tables A1D DISTRIBUTED ENTRYEXIT SYSTEM, NO BIOMETRICS Scenario Parameters Cost Summary Tables 69 Quality Assurance, JLSB , CBEso30REP003_1 30_Entry Exit Cost Study_Final Report.doc, p. 3/137

4 Final Report Cost Analysis of EntryExit & Registered Traveller Systems 7.6 A2C CENTRALISED ENTRYEXIT SYSTEM, WITH BIOMETRICS Scenario Parameters Cost Summary Tables A2D DISTRIBUTED ENTRYEXIT SYSTEM, WITH BIOMETRICS Scenario Parameters Cost Summary Tables A3C CENTRALISED ENTRYEXIT SYSTEM, BIOMETRICS ADDED LATER Scenario Parameters Cost Summary Tables A3D DISTRIBUTED ENTRYEXIT SYSTEM, BIOMETRICS ADDED LATER Scenario Parameters Cost Summary Tables B0 TOKENBASED RTS ONLY Scenario Parameters Cost Summary Tables B1C TOKENBASED RTS AND CENTRALISED ENTRYEXIT SYSTEM WITHOUT BIOMETRICS Scenario Parameters Cost Summary Tables B1D TOKENBASED RTS AND DISTRIBUTED ENTRYEXIT SYSTEM WITHOUT BIOMETRICS Scenario Parameters Cost Summary Tables B2C TOKENBASED RTS AND CENTRALISED ENTRYEXIT SYSTEM WITH BIOMETRICS Scenario Parameters Cost Summary Tables B2D TOKENBASED RTS AND DISTRIBUTED ENTRYEXIT SYSTEM WITH BIOMETRICS Scenario Parameters Cost Summary Tables B3C TOKENBASED RTS AND CENTRALISED ENTRYEXIT SYSTEM WITH BIOMETRICS ADDED LATER Scenario Parameters Cost Summary Tables B3D TOKENBASED RTS AND DISTRIBUTED ENTRYEXIT SYSTEM WITH BIOMETRICS ADDED LATER Scenario Parameters Cost Summary Tables C0 TOKENLESS RTS ONLY Scenario Parameters Cost Summary Tables C1C TOKENLESS RTS AND CENTRALISED ENTRYEXIT SYSTEM WITHOUT BIOMETRICS Scenario Parameters Cost Summary Tables C1D TOKENLESS RTS AND DISTRIBUTED ENTRYEXIT SYSTEM WITHOUT BIOMETRICS Scenario Parameters Cost Summary Tables C2C TOKENLESS RTS AND CENTRALISED ENTRYEXIT SYSTEM WITH BIOMETRICS Scenario Parameters Cost Summary Tables C2D TOKENLESS RTS AND DISTRIBUTED ENTRYEXIT SYSTEM WITH BIOMETRICS 116 Quality Assurance, JLSB , CBEso30REP003_1 30_Entry Exit Cost Study_Final Report.doc, p. 4/137

5 Final Report Cost Analysis of EntryExit & Registered Traveller Systems Scenario Parameters Cost Summary Tables C3C TOKENLESS RTS AND CENTRALISED ENTRYEXIT SYSTEM WITH BIOMETRICS ADDED LATER Scenario Parameters Cost Summary Tables C3D TOKENLESS RTS AND DISTRIBUTED ENTRYEXIT SYSTEM WITH BIOMETRICS ADDED LATER Scenario Parameters Cost Summary Tables SUMMARY TABLE COMPARISON OF THE COSTS FOR VIS COLOCATION (NO VIS CONNECTION) COMPARISON OF THE COSTS FOR VIS CONNECTION REFERENCE AND APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS REFERENCE DOCUMENTS TERMINOLOGY AND ANNEXES ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS ANNEX 1 COST MODEL BUILDING BLOCKS ANNEX 2 COST XPERT INPUT REPORTS 137 Quality Assurance, JLSB , CBEso30REP003_1 30_Entry Exit Cost Study_Final Report.doc, p. 5/137

6 Final Report Cost Analysis of EntryExit & Registered Traveller Systems Tables Table 1: Comparison of the costs VIS colocation (no VIS connection)... 8 Table 2: Comparison of costs VIS colocation... 9 Table 3: Costing Scenarios...10 Table 4: Cost Items vs. Solution Scenarios...11 Table 5: EES Anticipated System load...37 Table 6: RTS Anticipated System load...38 Table 7: Business parameters...38 Table 8: Cost Parameters...39 Table 9: Member State Technical Architecture Building Blocks...44 Table 10: Central Infrastructure Building Blocks...47 Table 11: Central System Building Blocks...51 Table 12: Distributed architecture building blocks...54 Table 13: Cost elements...61 Table 14: Cost parameters...61 Table 15: Example of MS Administrative Costs...64 Table 15: Comparison of the costs VIS colocation (no VIS connection) Table 16: Comparison of costs VIS connection Table 17: Applicable Documents Table 18: Reference Documents Table 19: Acronyms & Abbreviations Figures Figure 1: Spreadsheet Costing Workbook Structure...13 Figure 2: TCN Border Crossing Systems Map Entry...16 Figure 3: TCN Border Crossing Systems Map Exit...20 Figure 4: RT Border Crossing Systems Map Entry...23 Figure 5: RT Border Crossing Systems Map Exit...27 Figure 6: RT Enrolment...30 Figure 7: Centralised System Architecture...42 Figure 8: Member State Technical Architecture...44 Figure 9: Central Technical Architecture...47 Figure 10: Collaboration architecture...50 Figure 11: Base distributed system architecture...50 Figure 12: Central RTS system in distributed architecture...51 Figure 13: Member State distributed architecture...54 Quality Assurance, JLSB , CBEso30REP003_1 30_Entry Exit Cost Study_Final Report.doc, p. 6/137

7 Final Report Cost Analysis of EntryExit & Registered Traveller Systems 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The objective of this study was to carry out a thorough assessment of the costs connected to establishing an Entry/Exit System and a Registered Traveller System taking into account the various options and suboptions identified during the preparation of the legal proposals of the two systems. The study complements the Impact Assessments accompanying those proposals. The study was carried out based on the details in this document and, to a limited extent, on the Entry Exit Feasibility Study Final report 1. All cost estimates have been based on the documentary material provided by COM and the SPECIFICATIONS FOR A COST ANALYSIS STUDY as reported in the document _EES_RT_IA_Cost_ToR_lang. To correctly estimate the costs, various techniques were used: Sizing o Hardware sizing based on simplified process models from the Feasibility Study and forecasted numbers of Entries/Exits and RT travel events. o Software development sizing based on information in the Feasibility Study and completed with Function Point Analysis when necessary. o Network sizing based on predictions of the eventual expected system load Costing o Parametric cost analysis techniques were used to estimate development efforts and maintenance costs to support the introduction of a new software product. o Parametric cost estimation is based on the functional size of the solution, the level of reusability of existing products and the proportion of COTS products that are used. Obvious parameters are the hourly rates and skill levels of the development team at specified reference rates. Less obvious parameters are associated with the development environment and project governance. The parameters that we propose to use for the estimations have been discussed and agreed with the COM. o Estimates of the costs of third party hardware, software and network products were based on list prices of popular and appropriate COTS products. o For estimating operational costs, we assumed a harmonised model, in which we adopted the rates given in the specifications as average rates to be used across Member States. We also assumed the same business hours throughout the Union, as well as the same number of holidays. Planning o The initial planning was produced by the parametric costing tool (CostXpert). This includes specification, design, realisation, testing and implementation and the first phase of deployment, where any defects have been detected. o The manual intervention and adjustments of the schedule is necessary, as CostXpert assumes unlimited resources to be available, which means that the planning needs to be adjusted to make it fit the actual situation. Two basic architectures have been considered: Central architecture Distributed (fullmeshed) architecture. In addition to the above considerations, other features considered were the existence or not of a Registered Traveller System. Based on the analysis presented in the current study, the following tables present a summary of the costs for the different scenarios and for the two variables considered (colocation with VIS, VIS connection): 1 CAB38FR004, Quality Assurance, JLSB , CBEso30REP003_1 30_Entry Exit Cost Study_Final Report.doc, p. 7/137

8 Final Report Cost Analysis of EntryExit & Registered Traveller Systems Table 1: Comparison of the costs VIS colocation (no VIS connection) Scenario, no VIS connection A1C Central EES no biometrics, no RTS, not connected to VIS, colocated with VIS, 5 year retention EU onetime costs MS onetime Costs EU in 2014 MS in 2014 EU in 2020 MS in ,028, ,216,654 6,202, ,063,562 6,467, ,626,820 A2C Central EES with biometrics, no RTS, not connected to VIS, colocated with VIS, 5 year retention 27,543, ,948,404 (3,335,536) 125,568,865 7,652, ,457,900 A3C Central EES with biometrics added later, no RTS, not connected to VIS, colocated with VIS, 5 year retention B0 TokenBased RTS, No EES, not connected to VIS, colocated with VIS, 5 year retention B1C TokenBased RTS, EES no biometrics, not connected to VIS, colocated with VIS, 5 year retention B2C TokenBased RTS, EES with biometrics, not connected to VIS, colocated with VIS, 5 year retention B3C TokenBased RTS, EES with biometrics added later, not connected to VIS, colocated with VIS, 5 year retention C0 TokenLess RTS, No EES, not connected to VIS, colocated with VIS, 5 year retention C1C TokenLess RTS, EES no biometrics, not connected to VIS, colocated with VIS, 5 year retention C2C TokenLess RTS, EES with biometrics, not connected to VIS, colocated with VIS, 5 year retention C3C TokenLess RTS, EES with biometrics added later, not connected to VIS, colocated with VIS, 5 year retention A1D Distributed EES no biometrics, no RTS, not connected to VIS, colocated with VIS, 5 year retention 27,790, ,491,869 (3,304,561) 125,516,924 7,683, ,405,959 21,028, ,216,654 6,202, ,063,562 6,467, ,626,820 25,042, ,809,796 6,633, ,293,997 6,897, ,857,255 34,686, ,186,811 (1,555,916) 129,580,236 8,260, ,773,514 34,940, ,763,172 (1,530,520) 129,537,872 8,285, ,731,150 30,255, ,713,446 (149,470) 129,367,775 11,006, ,787,550 34,454, ,635,674 (1,577,548) 129,625,122 8,175, ,018,098 34,454, ,641,325 (1,577,548) 129,865,124 7,790, ,377,884 34,719, ,198,498 (1,551,003) 129,820,841 7,816, ,333,601 13,320, ,488,995 4,755, ,907,808 4,979, ,338,725 A2D Distributed EES with biometrics, no RTS, not connected to VIS, colocated with VIS, 5 year retention 17,315, ,570,976 5,276, ,376,886 5,457, ,171,805 A3D Distributed EES with biometrics added later, no RTS, not connected to VIS, colocated with VIS, 5 year retention 17,884, ,425,584 5,333, ,262,347 5,457, ,171,805 Quality Assurance, JLSB , CBEso30REP003_1 30_Entry Exit Cost Study_Final Report.doc, p. 8/137

9 Final Report Cost Analysis of EntryExit & Registered Traveller Systems Scenario, with VIS connection A1C Central EES no biometrics, no RTS, connected to VIS, colocated with VIS, 5 year retention Table 2: Comparison of costs VIS colocation EU onetime costs MS onetime Costs EU in 2014 MS in 2014 EU in 2020 MS in ,708, ,508,919 4,548, ,969,552 6,549, ,841,787 A2C Central EES with biometrics, no RTS, connected to VIS, colocated with VIS, 5 year retention 27,477, ,948,404 (3,391,917) 125,568,865 7,538, ,457,900 A3C Central EES with biometrics added later, no RTS, connected to VIS, colocated with VIS, 5 year retention B0 TokenBased RTS, No EES, connected to VIS, colocated with VIS, 5 year retention 27,724, ,491,869 (3,360,942) 125,516,924 7,569, ,405,959 20,984, ,216,654 6,148, ,063,562 6,420, ,626,820 B1C TokenBased RTS, EES no biometrics, connected to VIS, colocated with VIS, 5 year retention 24,998, ,809,796 6,578, ,293,997 6,850, ,857,255 B2C TokenBased RTS, EES with biometrics, connected to VIS, colocated with VIS, 5 year retention B3C TokenBased RTS, EES with biometrics added later, connected to VIS, colocated with VIS, 5 year retention C0 TokenLess RTS, No EES, connected to VIS, colocated with VIS, 5 year retention C1C TokenLess RTS, EES no biometrics, connected to VIS, colocated with VIS, 5 year retention 34,627, ,186,811 (1,613,234) 129,580,236 8,146, ,773,514 34,881, ,763,172 (1,587,839) 129,537,872 8,172, ,731,150 30,207, ,713,446 (232,510) 129,367,775 10,651, ,787,550 34,395, ,635,674 (1,635,336) 129,625,122 8,062, ,018,098 C2C TokenLess RTS, EES with biometrics, connected to VIS, colocated with VIS, 5 year retention 34,395, ,641,325 (1,635,336) 129,865,124 7,677, ,377,884 C3C TokenLess RTS, EES with biometrics added later, connected to VIS, colocated with VIS, 5 year retention A1D Distributed EES no biometrics, no RTS, connected to VIS, colocated with VIS, 5 year retention A2D Distributed EES with biometrics, no RTS, connected to VIS, colocated with VIS, 5 year retention A3D Distributed EES with biometrics added later, no RTS, connected to VIS, colocated with VIS, 5 year retention 34,660, ,198,498 (1,608,790) 129,820,841 7,703, ,333,601 13,276, ,488,995 4,724, ,907,808 4,932, ,338,725 17,271, ,570,976 5,245, ,376,886 5,410, ,171,805 17,840, ,425,584 5,302, ,262,347 5,410, ,171,805 Quality Assurance, JLSB , CBEso30REP003_1 30_Entry Exit Cost Study_Final Report.doc, p. 9/137

10 Final Report Cost Analysis of EntryExit & Registered Traveller Systems 2 INTRODUCTION Table 3 contains the identifications of all costing scenarios that are described in this document. For easy navigation, the references to the scenarios contain hyper links to the relevant sections. Table 3: Costing Scenarios EE No/Biometrics EE w/biometrics EE Later/Biometrics No EE Central Distributed Central Distributed Central Distributed No RTS N/A A1C A1D A2C A2D A3C A3D RTS Token Based RTS Tokenless 2 B0 B1C B1D B2C B2D B3C B3D C0 C1C C1D C2C C2D C3C C3D As described in the Terms of Reference [R1] document, the costs for the EntryExit System (EES) are estimated in two forms; as a centralised system with national interfaces and as a distributed system with a consultation mechanism active between Member States. These scenarios end up being remarkably different from a technical standpoint, making it appropriate to identify them as two separate alternatives, whereby 20 alternative scenarios are defined and analysed in total. 2 The tokenless and tokenbased Registered Traveller systems refer to centralised systems that serve all the Member States. Only the EES can be either centralised or distributed architecture. Quality Assurance, JLSB , CBEso30REP003_1 30_Entry Exit Cost Study_Final Report.doc, p. 10/137

11 Final Report Cost Analysis of EntryExit & Registered Traveller Systems 3 METHODOLOGY AND COST ANALYSIS STRUCTURE 3.1 Identifying the Cost Elements For each applicable scenario, cost elements as mentioned in the Terms of Reference [R1] are calculated, based on the expected yearly volumes of thirdcountry national (TCN) travellers. As several commonalities can be found among the various cost scenarios, it is therefore appropriate to introduce wellidentified cost building blocks to be reused in order to rationalise the cost model and reduce inherent complexity. Cost items pertain to the so called Central System (CS) scenario which is to be run by under responsibility of the Management Authority and to Member States distributed systems. For tangible cost elements such as hardware, networking, software and facilities costs have been estimated using a bottomup approach, detailing the actual a BillofMaterials (BOM) of each individual system component. Furthermore, cost values are projected over time up to 2020, so that estimates for 2013, 2015 and 2020 can be extracted as requested by ToR [R1]. Table 2 below provides a complete overview of all cost categories and applicable options. Table 4: Cost Items vs. Solution Scenarios Cost Category Hardware Software Other Capital Expenditure Project Management Quality Assurance Administration Training Central System Distributed System Options Development Operations Development Operations Purchase Maintain Purchase Maintain Deploy Grow Deploy Grow Purchase Maintain Purchase Maintain Develop Grow Develop Grow Deploy Deploy Purchase Deploy Provide Procure Contract Control Plan Deliver Maintain Grow Control Procure Contract Plan Deliver Purchase Deploy Provide Procure Contract Control Plan Deliver Maintain Grow Control Procure Contract Plan Deliver Operating Manage Manage Applicable options are: 1. Architecture a. EE is a selfcontained system, thoroughly independent from SIS/VIS b. EE is interfaced with VIS, leverages BMS features, including database and biometric matcher 2. Retention Time a. 1 year b. 5 years c. 1 year for EE details, 5 years for traveller details 3. RTS Enrolment site Quality Assurance, JLSB , CBEso30REP003_1 30_Entry Exit Cost Study_Final Report.doc, p. 11/137

12 Final Report Cost Analysis of EntryExit & Registered Traveller Systems a. Consular post b. At Schengen border control points (BCP) c. Both a) and b) above 4. Border Control mode for RTS users a. Fullyautomated b. Semimanual 5. Housing of EES / RTS a. Colocation with SIS / VIS b. Location independent from SIS / VIS 3.2 Tools Actual costs are calculated by identifying the elementary cost units that are specific or typical of each cost category, such as: Development / Management / Administration o Labour Facilities o Required space o Power o Bandwidth Operations o HW Maintenance o SW Maintenance / Licensing o Labour The Cost Model Microsoft Excel is the tool of choice for elaborating the cost structure that eventually allows calculating solutions cost for the various scenarios. This structure is designed topdown, starting from the ToR [R1] and the supporting documentation. Starting from the business requirements, that quantify system functionality and behaviour, the mostlikely solution architectures have been determined inclusive of technical and software elements based on the findings of [R6] and also taking into account further developments since the publication of that report. The sizing of the system infrastructure is calculated from the expected system load. Sizing in this context comes down to actually determine which of building blocks are required for which scenarios, thus calculating the actual horsepower needed to meet the required performance. Business requirements per se are necessary but not sufficient in order to be able to properly size the solution. In fact, detailed technical assumptions are made to achieve this goal. The starting point is that most costs were as far as possible estimated irrelevant of any particular commercial product. However, infrastructure cost estimates were based on average list prices for popular products, such that cost values are as realistic as possible and drawn from public sources. All relevant assumptions are duly documented in this report, the technical assumptions required for system sizing being implemented as variable parameters in the Excel structure so that they can be changed if and when necessary. Quality Assurance, JLSB , CBEso30REP003_1 30_Entry Exit Cost Study_Final Report.doc, p. 12/137

13 Final Report Cost Analysis of EntryExit & Registered Traveller Systems Actual costs are calculated bottomup, aggregating all costs that are captured for each building block. Aggregation to conform to scenarios is then done via the optionbased scenario specifications. Figure 1 shows the spreadsheet workbook structure. EES/RTS Costing Study Final Report Business Requirements (ToR) Feasibility Study Legal Draft etc Costing info Business requirements sizing Scenario parameters Technical Parameters Design assumptions Unisys Team General parameters General Parameters Assumptions Scenario Costs BOM Specification Costs EESRTS Scenario XnC/D EESRTS Sizing EESRTS Parameters Scenario Parameters Building Block info Building Block info Scenario Parameters Building Block info Scenario Parameters Building Block info Scenario Parameters Building Block Building Block Building Block Building Block Pricing details Pricing details Pricing details Pricing details Public Domain Figure 1: Spreadsheet Costing Workbook Structure Function Point Analysis FunctionPoint Analysis (FPA) was used to estimate the effort required to develop the custommade software components. FPA is a wellknown and accepted technique that allows estimating the functional size of the system, describing it as a number of Function Points. In summary, the technique is based on analysing the data that is stored and managed by the system, its interactions with the users and other systems that store external data. The level of complexity of the data to be handled and the required operations on the data represent a reliable measure of the functional size of the system. As system sizing is fully based on system functionality as perceived from the user s perspective, this technique is well suited for this cost analysis as only the functional behaviour of the EES and RTS systems are known at this time. The results from FPA do not represent cost, or project schedule. They are treated as input data into the CostXpert cost analysis tool (see below). For each required scenario, an FPA estimation was performed, which led to a single spreadsheet containing the results and documenting all parameters. Quality Assurance, JLSB , CBEso30REP003_1 30_Entry Exit Cost Study_Final Report.doc, p. 13/137

14 Final Report Cost Analysis of EntryExit & Registered Traveller Systems CostXpert 3 CostXpert is a parametric tool capable of estimating development costs and planning of a software development project. The tool relies on industry best practice data that are gathered by researchers in this area. The Cost Xpert Tool Suite represents the latest standard of the Integrated Methodology driven Estimation (IME) and is an intuitive operated standard tool for the realistic estimation of effort, time, resources and cost to complete a project, as well as an estimate of potential risk, defects, and documentation page count for the entire IT application life cycle. Our solution is based on scientifically published methods and models, industry standards and best practice approaches. It is the most comprehensive approach, covering any project situation no matter if it is feasibility phase, development or maintenance. The intelligent consideration of all relevant elements including project types, process models, hard facts, soft facts, quality and risk factors and constraints ensures the accurate estimation. The intuitive workflow and precalibrations of our expert system, as well as a wizard guided assessment enables the effective use of methods even without the necessarily need to become a methodology expert first. 4 CostXpert supports a wide variety of estimation algorithms and methods. One all important input parameter is the actual size of the solution, but the tool also caters for such characteristic elements as the development environment, development methodology and maturity and quality of the development organisation. CostXpert also provides a highlevel project plan, inclusive of a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS), estimating the project s efficiency and throughput time. Based on proper hourly rates, it can thus provide a reliable estimate of development costs. Lastly, it is worth observing that the calculated values include costs associated with the early phase immediately following the system s deployment, as the model also allows estimates of the number and nature of system infancy defects and incidents that need resolution Infrastructure Design and Sizing Designing the system infrastructure is mandatory, as it is needed to estimate infrastructure costs and also to understand the impact in terms of required storage space, network capacity and power. This design was done assuming an Enterprise Data Centre Architecture (EDCA) model, while using Queuing Theory to estimate the physical size of the infrastructure in combination with the expected system loads. Again, a spreadsheet was used to capture all this information Accuracy Given the many assumptions made given the level of uncertainty on the final solution, and the many options proposed the described approach led to estimates that we consider realistic, if not real, as we consider overall accuracy to fall in the surroundings of 20% to 30%. This is well in line with industry s best practices and historical data. In fact, the relevant amount of options, alternative scenarios and undefined constraints make it impossible to provide estimates much closer to the final figures. Therefore, all cost values in the following of this report should be considered a median value, considering circa 25% as confidence range, plus or minus. 3 The Estimation Company. 4 Quality Assurance, JLSB , CBEso30REP003_1 30_Entry Exit Cost Study_Final Report.doc, p. 14/137

15 Final Report Cost Analysis of EntryExit & Registered Traveller Systems 4 USE CASES The Use Cases that are described in this section represent the basis for estimating the functional requirements of the solution system(s). These requirements serve then as an input to the FPA phase. These Use Cases are examples of the information that is presented in the Technical Feasibility Study [R6] and in the proposal for the foreseen implementation [R5], though the information from these sources is used to perform the analysis. The described processes are without prejudice to the final technical implementation at central or national level. 4.1 Third Country National Border Crossing Entry 5 CONTEXT BRIEF DESCRIPTION ACTORS STAKEHOLDERS & INTEREST PRECONDITIONS TCN travellers crossing external EU borders to enter the Schengen area This process is triggered when a TCN Traveller wishes to cross the border to enter the EU Schengen area He/she must undergo a border check procedure. Border Officer National Border Check System (NBCS) TCN Traveller The stakeholders are the EES, VIS, SIS, other national systems/databases The interest of these stakeholders is to support the border check procedure and, for EES, to record the entry record of TCN travellers BCP is open and accepting travellers Border Officer is available TCN Traveller presents herself at a border checkbooth 5 Note that this use case does not take into account RTS, which is described in section 4.3. Quality Assurance, JLSB , CBEso30REP003_1 30_Entry Exit Cost Study_Final Report.doc, p. 15/137

16 Final Report Cost Analysis of EntryExit & Registered Traveller Systems Figure 2: TCN Border Crossing Systems Map Entry Quality Assurance, JLSB , CBEso30REP003_1 30_Entry Exit Cost Study_Final Report.doc, p. 16/137

17 Final Report Cost Analysis of EntryExit & Registered Traveller Systems A Border Officer gathers information from the TCN s travel document and inserts it in the NBCS Source Interface Input Data Process Output Data Interface Storage Hyperlinks Travel Travel MRZ Scan MRZ_Validity_Status_OK Credential Credential Reader MRZ Read Pax_Details Travel_Credential_Details Pax_Details Travel_Credential_Details Write Entry_Data_Record INBCS NBCS B NBCS interrogates various databases (EES, SIS and national databases, possibly in parallel) to confirm document validity validate the travellers identity help assess her entry eligibility Specifically, EES confirms that TCN Traveller has not previously overstayed, returns the allowed number of days for the present stay and sends the result to the NBCS NBCS returns any relevant information found SIS ISIS Entry_Data_Record Check Blacklist SIS_Entry_Status INBCS NBCS EES IEES Entry_Data_Record Check EE History EE_Entry_Status INBCS NBCS Other Syt s IOthers Entry_Data_Record Check Blacklist Other_Sys_Entry_Status INBCS NBCS Other Syt s IOthers Entry_Data_Record Check Other_Sys_Entry_Status INBCS NBCS NBCS *_Entry_Status Assessment & Clearance Entry_Status_OK Display NBCS C Border Officer helps and supervises the traveller while capturing her fingerprints NBCS verifies the quality of the fingerprints and stores them temporarily for later processing Border Officer allows the TCN to enter the Schengen area and inserts his decision in the NBCS Traveller Fingerprint Fingerprints Scan Fingerprint_Image INBCS NBCS scanner Fingerprint_Template NBCS Fingerprint_Image Check Quality Level Fingerprint_Quality_Status NBCS Fingerprint_Template NBCS INBCS Fingerprint_Quality_Status *_Entry_Status Decision on Entry Decision_on_Entry_OK Border Officer Interactive Dialogue Procedural_Q&A Decision on Entry Decision_on_Entry_OK INBCS NBCS Quality Assurance, JLSB , CBEso30REP003_1 30_Entry Exit Cost Study_Final Report.doc, p. 17/137

18 Final Report Cost Analysis of EntryExit & Registered Traveller Systems D NBCS creates an EES record, inclusive of biographic and biometric data gathered earlier in the process NBCS purges any temporary data stored Source Interface Input Data Process Output Data Interface Storage Hyperlinks NBCS Pax_Details Write EE_Data_Record IEES EES Fingerprint_Image Fingerprint_Template Decision_on_Entry_OK Date&Time_Stamp BCP NBCS *_Temporary_Data Delete If TCN holds a valid entry visa, the following event applies. E Border Officer additionally gathers information from the visa sticker and inserts it in the NBCS NBCS additionally interrogates VIS to validate the traveller s identity and visa to help assess eligibility to entry Source Interface Input Data Process Output Data Interface Storage Hyperlinks TCN Visa Visa Reader Visa_Data Scan Visa_Data INBCS NBCS VIS IVIS Visa_Data Check Visa Validity Visa_Validity_OK INBCS NBCS In case TCN needs to be redirected to secondline checks, the following event applies. Border Officer cancels the procedure F NBCS purges any unneeded information TCN is directed to secondline checks Source Interface Input Data Process Output Data Interface Storage Hyperlinks NBCS Interactive *_Temporary_Data Delete In the case the TCN is not granted entry to the Schengen zone, the following event applies. Quality Assurance, JLSB , CBEso30REP003_1 30_Entry Exit Cost Study_Final Report.doc, p. 18/137

19 Final Report Cost Analysis of EntryExit & Registered Traveller Systems G Border Officer enters recording of refusal of entry in the national system (This point is referred here for completeness, but is out of scope for the current cost study). Source Interface Input Data Process Output Data Interface Storage Hyperlinks Refuse_Entry Write Interactive NBCS Quality Assurance, JLSB , CBEso30REP003_1 30_Entry Exit Cost Study_Final Report.doc, p. 19/137

20 Final Report Cost Analysis of EntryExit & Registered Traveller Systems 4.2 Third Country National Border Crossing Exit CONTEXT BRIEF DESCRIPTION ACTORS STAKEHOLDERS & INTEREST PRECONDITIONS TCN travellers crossing external EU borders to exit the Schengen area This process is triggered when a TCN Traveller wishes to cross the border to exit the EU Schengen area He/she must undergo a border check procedure. Border Officer National Border Check System (NBCS) Automated Exit Gate (egate) TCN Traveller The stakeholders are the EES, VIS, SIS, other national systems/databases The interest of these stakeholders is to support the border exit procedure and, for EES, to record the exit record of TCN travellers BCP is open and accepting travellers Border Officer is available, or Automated Gate (egate) is available under Border Officer supervision TCN Traveller presents herself at a border checkbooth Figure 3: TCN Border Crossing Systems Map Exit Quality Assurance, JLSB , CBEso30REP003_1 30_Entry Exit Cost Study_Final Report.doc, p. 20/137