Objectives

1. Review Group 175Encouraging participation in the elective DM Regime- Potential Models 22 November 2007

2. Objectives • To develop a number of business models to support/enhance the DM elective regime • Identify process flow owner and draft obligations – using a top down approach • To enable Advantages/Disadvantages to be identified for each business models • Enable preferred business model to be identified

3. Current Situation • Transporter responsible for and maintains device • Charges applied • Device provides reading direct to Transporter • Transporter validate information and provides reads to Shippers/suppliers • Obligations are on the Transporter • Estimates

4. Current Situation

5. Current Situation

6. Current Situation

7. Current Situation

8. Current Situation

9. Current Situation

10. Current Situation

11. Model 1 – Minimum Change Transporter Retain obligations • Shipper responsible for and maintains device • Device provides readings direct to Transporter • Transporter validate information and provides reads to Shippers/suppliers • Obligations are on the Transporter as now • Estimates • Device provides additional stream of data direct to shipper and/or customer

12. Model 1 – Minimum Change Transporter Retain obligations

13. Model 1 – Minimum Change Transporter Retain obligations

14. Model 1 – Minimum Change Transporter Retain obligations

15. Model 1 – Minimum Change Transporter Retain obligations

16. Model 1 – Minimum Change Transporter Retain obligations

17. Model 1 – Minimum Change Transporter Retain obligations

18. Model 1 – Minimum Change Transporter Retain obligations

19. Model 1 – Minimum Change Transporter Retain obligations

20. Model 1 – Minimum Change Transporter Retain obligations

21. Model 2 : Shipper takes obligations • Shipper responsible for and maintains device • Device provide readings direct to Shippers • Shipper validate information and provides reads to relevant Transporter • Obligations are on the Shippers • Estimates

22. Model 2 : Shipper takes obligations

23. Model 2 : Shipper takes obligations

24. Model 2 : Shipper takes obligations

25. Model 2 : Shipper takes obligations

26. Model 2 : Shipper takes obligations

27. Model 2 : Shipper takes obligations

28. Model 2 : Shipper takes obligations

29. Model 2 : Shipper takes obligations

30. Model 3 – Competitive Data Collector • Device owned and maintained by Shipper • Appointment and de-appointment of Data Collector (DC) required by shipper • RGMA type process? • Device provides readings direct to Data Collector • Data collector validate information and provides reads to Shippers/Transporter/Customer • Read Obligations are on the shipper, discharged to the Data Collector (DC) • Device maintenance obligation on Shippers, May be discharged to the DC

31. Model 3 – Competitive Data Collector

32. Model 3 – Competitive Data Collector

33. Model 3 – Competitive Data Collector

34. Model 3 – Competitive Data Collector

35. Model 3 – Competitive Data Collector

36. Model 3 – Competitive Data Collector

37. Model 3 – Competitive Data Collector

38. Model 3 – Competitive Data Collector

39. Model 3 – Competitive Data Collector

40. Model 4 – Single Data Collector • Shipper responsible for and maintains device • Data Collector (DC) Appointment by Transporter • Device provide readings direct to Data Collector • Data collector validate information and provides reads to Shippers/Transporters/Customers • Read Obligations are on the Transporter, discharged to the data collector • Device maintenance obligation on Shippers

41. Model 4 – Single Data Collector Note: Same process as in model 3

42. Model 1(Minimum Change) – Evaluation

43. Model 2 (Shipper Obligation) – Evaluation

44. Model 3 (Competitive Data Collector) – Evaluation

45. Model 4 (Single Data Collector) – Evaluation

46. Questions / Areas to Consider • Initial Preferences? • Can any models be immediately excluded? • Other models to consider? • More evaluation required of costs and benefits