Analysis and Recommendations for Developing Integrated Airport Information Systems (2008)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

SECTION 2 RESEARCH APPROACH Working with the ACRP Staff and the Panel The panel and the ACRP Senior Program Officer, Mike Salamone, offered the team valuable experience and an objective sounding board for this project. Plans and work product were shared with the panel several times throughout the project and the resulting feedback and direction were invaluable. The panel offered a rich blend of airport operation and Information Technology experience. The panel members were: Scott Brockman. Panel Chair, AAE, CFO, Memphis Selby. Bradford S. Bowman. President, Bowman Group. Phillip D. Brodt. VP, GCR Associates. John K. Duval. AAE, Safety and Security Coordinator, Beverly Municipal Airport Anita Eldridge. Finance and HR, Sarasota Manatee Airport Kimberly Jones. Finance and Administration, Dane County Regional Airport Don Snider. IT/IS Manager, Wichita Airport Authority The team began by addressing the feedback that was received as a part of the Proposal Review Summary from the panel. This feedback addressed the initial Work Plan that was submitted as a part of the response to the RFP. An Amplified Work Plan that provided details for Phase 1 (Tasks 1 through 3) was built and submitted on August 15th, 2007. Time requirements, a detailed budget for Tasks 1, 2 and 3 and a project schedule were included. The budget and project schedule called for a meeting with the panel early in the project. A face-to-face “kick-off” meeting was held with the ACRP Senior Program Officer to review process and procedures. The panel participated in part of this meeting via a conference call. This personal visit by the Senior Program Officer was helpful in building a working relationship. Monthly and quarterly reports were submitted throughout the project to keep the Senior Program Officer informed of progress and any concerns that arose. Two team members met with the panel and the Senior Program Officer in Washington DC in September, 2007 to review the Amplified Work Plan. In order to maintain funds for other tasks in the project, the other members of the team participated via conference call. Approval to complete Tasks 1 and 2 was then received. Once the research involved in Tasks 1 and 2 was completed, a Detailed Plan was completed to address the processes needed to complete Tasks 3 and 4. A Detailed Plan summarizing the results of Tasks 1 and 2 was submitted to the panel and the Senior Program Officer in November, 2007. It included: • A summary of the methods, information processes and systems for each of the six functional areas identified in the project; • Generic descriptions of the systems used in each functional area; • A recap of aviation data sources; • The strategy for validation of the initial analysis, relying on the experience of the members and their many contacts throughout the industry;

• A list of interview candidates and the questions the team proposed to ask each candidate in order to validate the team’s research findings, which would eventually shape the Handbook; • A summary of the research conducted thus far; • Detailed spreadsheets of business-critical information and key data elements by functional area; and • Citations for some of the research material collected. In December 2007, the team discussed the systems aspect of the research with the Panel on a conference call. Since the project’s objectives centered on Integration and since the Handbook could not include anything that might be considered proprietary, an endorsement or lack of an endorsement, it was agreed that the Handbook would not include lists of the hundreds of IT systems that are available to airports. The validation steps in Tasks 3 and 4 were completed by interviewing aviation organization executives, managers at airports of various sizes and IT company leaders. An Interim Report was prepared and submitted to the panel. This Report included a sample of an airport “manager’s dashboard” and an annotated outline for the Handbook including a draft of some Handbook content. The panel provided helpful guidance concerning the Handbook draft’s style, format and language and a revised draft based on this feedback was submitted. Four team members attended a two-day meeting with seven panel members and the Senior Program Officer in California in mid-May, 2008. Over the course of two days, the panel provided feedback and guidance on significant issues such as the vision underlying the project, the audience for the handbook, an approach for the executive summary, use of a case study to provide context, and the desire for several additional “dashboards”. Building the Foundation of the Handbook The project began with the building of a comprehensive list of the business-critical information that team members relied on most heavily during their many years of experience running major airports. Since this data was valuable to the experienced members of the team, it was expected that it would be the information that other airport senior managers would find most useful. The team’s systems research identified data elements that the systems deliver and these elements were matched with the team’s in-house list. Next, key data elements that comprise this business-critical information were listed. Published lists of business-critical information or key data elements were not found during extensive research of industry papers, studies and presentations. Since these types of reference materials were not available, the team members’ knowledge and experience was relied upon to create these foundational lists. The lists were validated as a part of in-depth interviews with respected industry executives. There had been an expectation that the project would compile different lists of key data elements and business-critical information based on airport size. However, the research determined that, while airport operators often had similar needs for “core” sets of information, the size of the airport did not play a major role in establishing information needs. Rather, information needs were driven by the airport’s business issues and priorities. The final list includes 102 items of business-critical information and 376 key data elements that comprise the business-critical information. Then the following details were added for each of the items of business-critical information that were listed: functional area, division, metrics, data source, capture method, notification threshold, capture frequency, data uses, and regulatory requirements. Airport Functional Areas The business-critical information and key data elements were categorized by functional areas of an airport. It was recognized early in the project that judgments must be made about how airports are organized. Airports are organized to meet business needs and, since those needs differ from airport to airport, each airport organization is different. The subject of the “right way” to organize an airport is always sensitive so choosing

one organization was somewhat risky. However, the team believed that the development of the Handbook would be best served by setting one organization that would be used consistently throughout the Handbook After some discussion, an organization was defined that consisted of six functional areas with sixteen divisions. This organization encompasses all the responsibilities at an airport of any size. Team members’ broad and deep knowledge of airport operations was critical to defining this organization. The functional areas and divisions that are used throughout the Handbook are as follows: Finance/Administration. Finance, Human Resources, Information Technology and Telecommunications, Properties. Operations. Airfield Operations, Ground Transportation, Parking, Terminal Landside. Maintenance. Facility Maintenance, Fleet Maintenance, Maintenance Control, Materials Management. Engineering. Design and Construction, Environmental, Planning. Security. Public Relations. Assessing the Current State of the Industry Two major research tasks began early in the project and proceeded in parallel to gather the information needed to assess the current state of the industry: • Software systems that address an airport manager’s information needs were researched through a wide variety of sources. • Technical papers, studies and presentations that were in any way relevant to data integration in aviation and other industries were examined. Tentative conclusions were reached that would be relevant to airport operations and finance. The process for and the results of each of these research tasks are detailed below. Data Integration Documents The team worked on this phase of the project in a highly collaborative manner. This phase began with team discussions about the master plan for the research and individual research assignments were made. Initial results were discussed and categorized. The team conducted additional searches, revised the method of organizing the results, copied and stored some information on the ATCI network and added hyperlinks to the tables so that the information could be easily accessed. Software Systems The current state was established by identifying the systems that are available and commonly used at airports through research into software systems, web sites, technical papers, studies, reports, seminars, and other literature. These items were researched and organized by their main functions and key data elements. Other Literature Early in the research, a search was made to find documents that address system integration at airports. More than 200 documents on aviation information were found, read and organized. . In spite of this exhaustive search, there was limited success in identifying documents that would help the project in any of the following three key areas: • Best practice studies on airport IT systems integration

• Vital metrics • Key data elements that in turn comprise business-critical information While benchmarking and best practices studies were secured in other areas of airport performance, it became apparent that airport information processes have not been extensively studied or presented. Descriptions of business models were found during this research. However, they were limited to one or two areas of an airport and focused around particular software that the airport was implementing. These studies helped the team understand the progress that some airports have made and were discussed in interviews with airport executives. Some of these studies were validated during several in-depth interviews with respected industry executives. Interview Strategy Throughout the research effort, interviews were conducted with experts in various fields. The interviews had two purposes: • To validate the findings and tentative conclusions reached during the project. • To learn about other developments in IT from the working knowledge of respected industry executives. The interviews were focused on three groups of industry experts. The individuals were chosen based on industry reputation, personal relationships and information discovered during the research. The groups interviewed and the general objectives for the interviews were as follows: • National Aviation Organization Executives - This was a “big picture” overview to ensure that research results and the subsequent Handbook would be relevant to the industry. • Airport Executives – These interviews provided a managerial overview from executives at airports of different sizes and were particularly helpful to the project. These senior managers had stories of their successes and failures and their most important lessons in the field of systems integration. • Information Technology Industry Executives – Software vendor interviews were intended to obtain specifications on collecting data elements used to create business-critical information and to confirm the lists of business-critical information, key data elements and best practices. While not everyone returned calls when contacted, 90 percent agreed to be interviewed. The external validation interviews were concentrated on the what, the how and the why of IT integration, specifically: • Information flows through current systems within airports of various sizes; • Integration methods, processes, and potential pitfalls; • Assessing the current state of the industry’s integration efforts; and • The best practices used to integrate these types of disparate systems and data. Most of the interviews were conducted via conference calls. However, face-to-face meetings were held with the IT manager and division chiefs at one airport and with the Airport Director at another airport. The interviews began with a list of basic questions. The responses often opened doors to other subjects and prompted other questions. This flexibility enabled the interviewer to gather information that addressed basic concerns but also resulted in information that was unexpected and led to several important conclusions. Early in the interview process, the interviews sought different perspectives and understandings of why and how airport integration projects were undertaken. This was achieved by selecting individuals whose responsibilities ranged from the CEO level to IT Manager level. The visions, perceptions and lessons learned varied considerably depending on the individual’s duties and this added a rich mixture of insight for the Handbook. The interviews were conducted in stages so that the results could be collated, processed and analyzed at each stage. Executives with general duties within the aviation industry were interviewed first, followed by

individuals with more specific experience. Generally, this meant that industry organization executives were interviewed first followed by airport operators and IT company executives. Whenever possible, interviews with airport operators were conducted with individuals that have led or served on airport industry organizations. It was expected that these individuals would provide an overall view of the industry and also identify experts at other airports that should be interviewed. This approach worked well. To encourage participation, individuals were asked to participate in the interviews with letters from the National Academies. The letters were individualized and included the subjects that would be discussed in the interviews. In addition, calls to former associates were made on several occasions. Graphics and text that had been developed were sent in advance to show lists of business-critical information, key data, data sets and information processes. If appropriate to the interviewee, information on software was included. The airport executive interviews confirmed initial understandings of the current state of the industry. The key data, business-critical information and best practices lists were refined and expanded. Software solutions were identified and prioritized. This functional information resulted in several detailed questions and insights for software company interviews. The interviews with software companies were designed to validate architecture, compile lessons learned, and refine understandings of legacy systems and the methods of extracting information out of proprietary and legacy software. The interviewees’ experience in implementing airport system projects provided a view from the “outside” that was extremely beneficial. Appointments were made to conduct the interviews in all cases. The interviews often began with an eight slide PowerPoint presentation that introduced the project and its objectives, explained the purpose of the interviews, assured the interviewees of confidentiality and outlined how their comments would be used. GoToMeeting was used for conference call services. Basic confidentiality was promised to the interviewees, who were assured that names would be published to thank the participants but information given or quotes made would not be attributed to individuals. Thus, the Handbook takes the form of “one major airport IT director said x, y, and z” or “a major hub airport reported a, b, and c.” Being “off the record” allowed the interviewees to be candid and forthcoming about lessons learned, difficulties seen, and mistakes made. Further, this approach resulted in a higher level of synthesis for the research findings, combining insights from various interviewees much more smoothly. Reality Checks The interviews tended to include a high level of detail, which required stepping back from those details to maintain a larger perspective. To do this, responses were analyzed and the validation strategy or individual questions or both were sometimes revised. All results were sorted and reviewed to determine what was useful. The team’s Principal Investigator reviewed the results from interviews with aviation industry and airport executives in order to refine the software company questions and interview strategy. Software companies were interviewed in much the same manner as airport executives and the Principal Investigator reviewed these responses from an integration perspective. This accomplished a reality check on the technical side to determine whether the interviews captured the right information and whether the project’s larger objectives were still in focus. The Handbook is intended to be readable and user-friendly. It underwent several editing iterations so that it would be presented in a usable format and become and asset for airport operators. This phase of the effort is where much of the collaboration took place. Once studies had been collected and reviewed, interviews had been conducted, and information had been analyzed, the goal was to achieve a high-level view of the issues. Best Practice Steps A list of best practices was started early in the project and was continually revised and expanded throughout the research and interview stages. Team member collaboration was at a premium while building this list. The experience and knowledge of the team members was used throughout these stages and successful

methods and practices were solicited from many of the industry executives that were interviewed. The best practices list comprises a large portion of the Handbook and is a testament to collaboration and interviewing skills.