Methodology to Support a Rationalisation of the Surveillance … · 2019-05-23 · Methodology to Support a Rationalisation of the Surveillance Infrastructure. Document information

Methodology to Support a Rationalisation of the Surveillance Infrastructure.

Document information

Project title Surveillance Infrastructure Rationalisation

Project N° 15.04.01.

Project Manager THALES

Deliverable Name Methodology to Support a Rationalisation of the Surveillance Infrastructure.

Deliverable ID D10-01

Edition 00.01.00

Template version 02.00.01

Task contributors

DFS, EUROCONTROL, THALES

Please complete the advanced properties of the document

Abstract

This paper forms part 1 of the final deliverable of the WP15.04.01 project. This report proposes a methodology for the rationalisation of an ANSPs surveillance infrastructure - a means to improve the ratio of performance versus cost of the infrastructure whilst also considering a range of pertinent Key Performance Areas. The approach adheres to tried and tested project management techniques – plan, do, review, act - supplemented with additional considerations pertinent to an adapting ATM environment.

Project ID 15.04.01. D10-01 - Methodology to Support a Rationalisation of the Surveillance Infrastructure. Edition: 00.01.00

2 of 40

Authoring & Approval Prepared By

Name & company Position / Title Date

Andrew Desmond-Kennedy / EUROCONTROL Project Member 19/10/2012

Reviewed By


Philippe Juge / THALES Project Manager 29/10/2012

Daniel Muller / THALES Project Member 29/10/2012

Thomas Oster / EUROCONTROL Project Member 29/10/2012

Christos Rekkas / EUROCONTROL Project Member 29/10/2012

Michel Borely / EUROCONTROL Project Member 29/10/2012

Marcel Sobottka / DFS Project Member 29/10/2012

Andreas Herber / DFS Project Member 29/10/2012

Roland Mallwitz / DFS Project Member 29/10/2012

Approved By


Philippe Juge / THALES Project Manager 29/10/2012

Andrew Desmond Kennedy / EUROCONTROL Project Member 29/10/2012

Marcel Sobottka / DFS Project Member 29/10/2012

Document History Edition Date Status Author Justification

00.01.00 19/10/2012 New Document

IPR (foreground) This deliverable consists of SJU foreground.

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2012. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. The opinions expressed herein reflects the author’s view only. The SESAR Joint Undertaking is not liable for the use of any of the information included herein. Reprint with approval of publisher and with reference to source code only.

SESAR Joint Undertaking Point of Contact

For further details regarding the SESAR Programme please visit www.sesarju.eu or for specific information regarding the WP15.04.01 please contact: [email protected] (Please ensure that the subject field of the mail contains the message: Query Regarding WP15.04.01)


3 of 40

Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... 6

1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................... 8

1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS PROJECT .................................................................................................................. 8 1.2 PURPOSE OF THIS DELIVERABLE ........................................................................................................... 8 1.3 INTENDED READERSHIP .......................................................................................................................... 8 1.4 INPUTS FROM OTHER PROJECTS ............................................................................................................ 9 1.5 ACRONYMS AND TERMINOLOGY............................................................................................................. 9

2 OBJECTIVE OF THE RATIONALISATION PROCESS ...................................................................... 10

2.1 WHAT IS MEANT BY ‘RATIONALISATION’ ............................................................................................... 10 2.2 WHY RATIONALISE? ............................................................................................................................. 11 2.3 ACHIEVING RATIONALISATION .............................................................................................................. 11 2.4 DEFINING RATIONALISATION OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................... 12

2.4.1 ATM Master Plan SESAR Performance Framework ............................................................ 12 2.5 ESTABLISHING THE CONTEXT OF RATIONALISATION ACTIVITIES......................................................... 13

3 METHODOLOGY FOR ENABLING SYSTEM RATIONALISATION ................................................ 14

4 STEP 1 – BASELINE AND OBJECTIVE DEFINITION ....................................................................... 16

4.1 STEP 1 OVERVIEW................................................................................................................................ 16 4.2 STEP 1 SCOPE...................................................................................................................................... 17

4.2.1 Establish Portfolio of Background Information....................................................................... 17 4.2.2 Objectives of the Rationalisation Exercise ............................................................................. 21 4.2.3 Identify the Metric for Success ................................................................................................. 21

4.3 STEP 1 KEY INPUTS AND OUTPUTS ..................................................................................................... 22

5 STEP 2 –RATIONALISATION SCENARIOS ........................................................................................ 26

5.1 STEP 2 OVERVIEW................................................................................................................................ 26 5.2 STEP 2 SCOPE...................................................................................................................................... 26

5.2.1 Selecting Which Rationalisation Scenario to Implement...................................................... 27 5.2.2 Cost Assessment ....................................................................................................................... 27 5.2.3 Transition Plan............................................................................................................................ 29

5.3 STEP 2 KEY INPUTS AND OUTPUTS ..................................................................................................... 29

6 STEP 3 – PREPARE A RATIONALISATION PLAN ........................................................................... 31

6.1.1 Step 3 Overview ......................................................................................................................... 31 6.1.2 Step 3 Scope .............................................................................................................................. 31 6.1.3 Step 3 Key Inputs and Outputs ................................................................................................ 31

7 STEP 4 – IMPLEMENT............................................................................................................................. 33


8 STEP 5 - VERIFY / VALIDATE ............................................................................................................... 34


9 STEP 6 - MAINTAIN. ................................................................................................................................ 35


10 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................................... 36

11 REFERENCED DOCUMENTS ............................................................................................................ 37


4 of 40

APPENDIX A ACRONYMS AND TERMINOLOGY ............................................................................... 38


5 of 40

List of tables Table 1: Step 1 Topics for Consideration..............................................................................................25 Table 2: Step 2 Cost Assessment Check List.......................................................................................28 Table 3: Step 2 Topics for Consideration..............................................................................................30 Table 4: Step 3 Topics for Consideration..............................................................................................32

List of figures Figure 1: Rationalisation Methodology Block Diagram ...........................................................................7 Figure 2: Rationalisation Methodology..................................................................................................14 Figure 3: Candidate scenarios - construction methodology..................................................................20


6 of 40

Executive summary Context:

The whole of ATM is experiencing rapid change and increasingly demanding challenges.

Surveillance, that is the accurate and timely determination of where an identified aircraft is, is at the heart of a safe, secure and efficient Air Traffic Management (ATM) system. Without surveillance ATM cannot function.

The demands being placed upon the surveillance infrastructure are many and varied. Some, such as reducing cost and improving efficiency, are not new. Others, such as increasing performance demands to support new ATC applications, responding to the introduction of new legislative instruments or an adaptation of the roles of stakeholders with an interest in ATM, have recently emerged.

Further developments to existing surveillance technologies can however improve the efficiency of techniques currently in use. These on-going developments offer a host of improvements including spectrum utilisation, cost reduction and improved performance. The emergence of new techniques offer similar improvements and present Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSPs) with additional tools in their portfolio however the foundations needed to support the diverse performance requirements for the future surveillance infrastructure are already available.

Unless one considers that the current surveillance infrastructure is already optimised it follows that improvements and efficiencies can be achieved by exploiting the benefits these new technologies can bring and by adopting a process of rationalisation against a range of parameters.

Applying a combination of the rationalisation methodology and an exploitation of the technological advances that are detailed within SESAR WP15.04.01 will ensure that the surveillance infrastructure can continue to meet the requirements placed upon it both today and into the future.

This document offers a methodology for rationalising an Air Navigation Service Providers surveillance infrastructure to ensure that the requirements of an increasingly demanding environment can continue to be met. It is supported by SESAR 15.04.01 Document D09-002 Evolution of the Surveillance Infrastructure (Ref Doc 1) which consolidates the findings of the WP15.04.01 project regarding the current status of the European surveillance infrastructure, the surveillance techniques used and proposes a roadmap towards a 2030 infrastructure.

Rationalisation:

Rationalisation, within the context of SESAR WP15.04.01, is taken to mean ‘to reorganise so as to eliminate uneconomic units and increase productivity/efficiency’. It is the on-going and continual refinement of the surveillance infrastructure to meet evolving needs and exploiting emerging opportunities.

Rationalisation activities should address a diverse range of possibilities and objectives – to focus solely on changes to achieve cost savings may be to the detriment of other key facets of the overall performance of the surveillance infrastructure.

Many rationalisation projects can be run in parallel and these can be focussed upon achieving short, medium or longer term improvements. The projects could be large strategic schemes requiring significant investment to ensure that long term objectives or improvements can be achieved or simple, initiatives aimed either at preventing waste, introducing cost savings or achieving improved efficiencies within a short ‘pay-back’ period.

Whilst a holistic or pluralist approach to the measures and objectives of the rationalisation exercise is advocated the same is foreseen regarding those parties involved in the task. More stakeholders than ever before have an interest in ensuring that a safe, capable and cost-effective surveillance service is provided. Their views should be considered within the exercise. Similarly, the responsibility for initiating, planning and conducting the improvements falls upon numerous parties ranging from an ANSPs senior managers and employees, manufacturers of surveillance sensors, potentially through to National Regulatory/Supervisory Authorities and Aircraft Operators – both civil and military. The early involvement of required parties is necessary to gain their commitment and support for the achievement of the exercise.


7 of 40

An accurate assessment of the local situation is vital – identifying the most appropriate Rationalisation Strategies will depend upon numerous factors including the local objectives, the existing infrastructure, current and future operational and regulatory requirements and the budgets and resources available. The Rationalisation Strategies are then elaborated into Rationalisation Scenarios reflecting a number of potential solutions. It is important to select the most appropriate scenario to implement. Some decisions may be simple and obvious. For more complex scenarios a number of programme management techniques are available to assist in the decision making process. The Multiple Decision Criteria Analysis method is a recognised programme management technique to use when presented with numerous viable alternatives to choose from, and with many different factors to take into account.

The rationalisation mechanism described in this document, see figure 1 below, outlines a robust methodology following well proven programme management principles of plan, do, review, act – with a feedback loop to ensure the iterative nature of the scheme.

No two ANSPS are the same – their existing infrastructure differs, their operational environment and requirements differ and their long term strategic goals differ – consequently rather than prescribing a rationalisation methodology the document describes a methodological process and supplements it with topics pertinent to the surveillance infrastructure that should be considered within the scope of the exercises being conducted.

Figure 1: Rationalisation Methodology Block Diagram

STEP 2: Identify the rationalised

scenario

STEP 3: Prepare a

Rationalisation Plan

Internal factors

External factors

Operational need and

performance

Cost Efficiency

STEP 1: Define the baseline

and objectives

STEP 4: Implement

STEP 5: Verify / Validate

STEP 6: Maintain / Adapt


8 of 40

1 Introduction

1.1 Purpose of this Project In recognition that the future surveillance infrastructure is to be leaner and more efficient in respect of a number of key performance indicators a key objective of the project was to detail a methodology that promotes a rationalisation and adaptation to the Surveillance Infrastructure.

A secondary objective of this project was to develop a roadmap (See Ref Doc 1) to support a transition to the future Surveillance Infrastructure – as envisaged in the ATM Masterplan (Ref Doc 2). The roadmap or strategy is to exploit the benefits that new and emerging surveillance techniques can bring whilst taking due cognisance of its context within the evolution of the wider Civil/Military ATM Infrastructure.

1.2 Purpose of this Deliverable This deliverable is a consolidation of the findings of the previous project activities that were addressing a Rationalisation Methodology and reflects their findings in an approach to improve the ratio of performance vs. possession cost whilst recognising the potential to achieve gains in a number of further Key Performance Areas. Its purpose is to provide an ANSP, civil or military, with a methodology they can consult when planning a rationalisation of their surveillance infrastructure. In particular, it addresses factors that should be taken into account before rationalising (i.e. baseline and objectives) and whilst assessing different rationalisation strategies and scenarios.

The information given is guidance and best practice rather than regulation or legislation.

If an ANSP is planning to conduct a major adaptation to their surveillance infrastructure then it is advised that this document should also be read in conjunction with documents such as SESAR 15.04.01 Document D09-002 Evolution of the Surveillance Infrastructure (Ref Doc 1) which describes how the European surveillance infrastructure is foreseen to evolve over the next 20 years or the SESAR ATM Masterplan (Ref Doc 2).

Whilst the focus of the methodology is directed towards Civil ANSPs the approach is equally applicable and transferable to Military ANSPs. It is recognised that additional performance metrics, considerations and National factors may need to be addressed when rationalisation is performed by a Military ANSP.

This deliverable is the subject of an open-consultation following which any comments received will be considered, incorporated as appropriate and released as a final deliverable of the SESAR15.04.01 project.

1.3 Intended readership The stakeholder groups considered throughout the scope of this project were:

• Aeronautics industry.

• Airport operators.

• Airspace users.

• Air Navigation Service Providers.

• EUROCONTROL Agency.

• International organisations.

• Regulatory bodies.

• Military Authorities in their different roles as regulator, ANSP, airspace user and airport operator.

• Non-ECAC Organisations.

• European Commission.

• SESAR Joint Undertaking.


9 of 40

Recognising the objectives of this deliverable the intended readers of this document include:

• The departments of the civil and military ANSP of ECAC countries who are responsible for procuring/designing, accepting, and maintaining ATM surveillance systems.

• The departments of the National Supervisory Authorities (NSA) or Civil Aviation Authorities (CAA) of ECAC countries who are responsible for verifying ATM surveillance systems. (Note that in this document the term NSA is used to denote the national regulatory authority).

• Non-ECAC organisations and Airspace Users wishing to understand European developments and how these are foreseen to evolve.

• International standardisation bodies.

• Industries responsible for developing ATM surveillance systems and/or their components.

• Organisations such as the European Commission, the SJU and Eurocontrol who will integrate the contents of this deliverable into their wider strategic perspective.

It should be noted however that many parties, at various levels and roles within an organisation, would be involved in system rationalisation activities. The document provides context for their activities and a common understanding of the methodology described would be useful to all parties.

Whilst the focus of this document is on surveillance aspects much of the methodology is equally pertinent to other systems – such as navigation or communication.

1.4 Inputs from other projects In addition to the information derived from the numerous supporting activities conducted within the scope of SESAR WP15.04.01 further influences also arose from:

• SESAR WP 15.04.05a Surveillance Ground System enhancements for ADS-B

• SESAR WP 15.01.06 Spectrum Management and impact assessment

• SESAR WP 9.47 re Hybrid Surveillance (ACAS and ADS-B)

• SESAR Masterplan Update Cycle and

• B4.3 project activities.

1.5 Acronyms and Terminology A comprehensive list of acronyms and definitions is provided in Appendix A.


10 of 40

2 Objective of the Rationalisation Process

2.1 What is meant by ‘Rationalisation’ Within the context of this document the term “to rationalise” is taken to mean ‘to reorganise so as to eliminate uneconomic units and increase productivity/efficiency’.

The aim of the rationalisation exercise can be summarised as establishing a means to achieve a surveillance infrastructure that not only meets the organisations objectives but also increases the performance of the surveillance systems when assessed against a range of Key Performance Areas.

Rationalisation is a crucial and valuable tool in these times of budgetary pressure. However efficiencies achieved through such a rationalisation process are not limited solely to cost in the strict sense of the term. In the context applied for this project it also embraces system resource efficiencies such as improved use of the RF spectrum, improvements to support operational requirements, a reduction in transponder occupancy, improved controller productivity etc.

Rationalisation is not a binary state – indeed the measurement or assessment of improvement is likely to be a complex matter. Introduction of a solution may only bring benefits in a gradual or an incremental way. Similarly ANSP’s may strive for cost efficiencies in the near future or, by investing in new technologies, take a longer term approach to the investment strategy. Cost savings need to be assessed over appropriate timescales e.g. spend to save as well as immediate savings. The key to an efficient rationalisation methodology is the ability to focus efforts to bring maximum benefit.

Rationalisation requires detailed local assessment – the scope of this project is to outline a methodology and to identify criteria for consideration by an ANSP when they are conducting their local assessments.

Rationalisation is a means to but not the same as optimisation but can be considered as a step along the path towards a more optimised configuration.

Rationalisation is not a one time event. There is a need to maintain the system in a rationalised state by periodically reassessing the strategic objectives of the service, the requirements and the costs etc. As the environment and business strategy change, so there exists a need to continually strive to adapt the infrastructure to ensure it remains efficient and capable of performing the required tasks.

Within the context of this paper the following terms are used:

• Rationalisation Objectives: These are the objectives that the rationalisation process is intended to achieve.

• Rationalisation Strategies: The initial ideas of how the objectives could be achieved.

• Rationalisation Scenarios: The developed ideas that are proposed for implementation.

• Rationalisation Plan: The project plan for the operational implementation of the selected Rationalisation Scenario.

It may be decided that there is a need to improve the effective use of the surveillance RF spectrum. (This would be the Rationalisation Objective). A Rationalisation Strategy could be to deploy new surveillance systems to achieve that Objective. However, adapting the settings of existing systems or utilising data from another ANSP could also be appropriate Strategies to achieve the same goal. Hence, multiple Rationalisation Strategies can exist in parallel. The numerous strategies can be further examined and refined and those that are selected for implementation are referred to as the Rationalisation Scenarios. In this example the possible deployment of WAM, ADS-B or SSR Mode S sensors could form various Rationalisation Scenarios to be examined further, subjected to a decision making process with a selected Rationalisation Scenario(s) agreed for implementation via the Rationalisation Plan.


11 of 40

2.2 Why Rationalise? Strategically reviewing and aligning the surveillance infrastructure with the current and future/anticipated business and/or operational environment should lead to wide and substantial benefits for civil and military Air Navigation Service Providers. A rationalisation exercise represents a genuine opportunity to unlock in-efficiencies or savings in the organisation and improve the manner in which scarce resources are used.

2.3 Achieving Rationalisation All organisations, regardless of the business they are in and whether they are independent or state owned, want to deliver the required or even enhanced services to their ‘customers’, but more effectively – and to go on improving over time.

Achieving this objective will require an assessment of the current infrastructure, future needs and knowledge of the changes that are occurring either through parallel technological or legislative developments.

Organisations may struggle to understand which activities actually create value for stakeholders, and exactly what influences the costs of their processes. Without that knowledge, they cannot be sure what impact a change in one area of their business will have on activities elsewhere. As a result, ill-conceived cost-cutting projects risk damaging overall performance.

The key to a successful technology rationalisation is a holistic approach; too exclusively focus on cost-cutting may hinder the emergence of other substantial benefits created by streamlining systems to strategically align with the organisations needs and desires.

A decision-making framework that helps create cost reduction programmes that are both effective and sustainable, and which are delivered as part of a wider change management programme aimed at building organisational capability is required.

Armed with that knowledge, civil and military ANSP’s must then choose the right cost reduction strategies. It will be shown within the scope of these deliverables that rationalisation can be achieved in a number of ways – these include a simple removal of excessive or duplicated assets, an improvement in the manner that assets are used and the incorporation of more efficient or cheaper assets. It may also involve outsourcing i.e. purchasing radar data from a third party, rationalising applications to reduce support costs, or moving to a cheaper consolidated infrastructure.

Implemented properly, rationalisation can be an effective tool to achieve improved efficiencies and to reduce the amount of money spent on Surveillance by removing under-utilised, support-heavy or unnecessary infrastructure and services. On the other hand, if this technique is implemented poorly, an organisation could be exposed to legal, commercial and operational risks which have the potential to limit or potentially even eradicate the efficiencies or cost savings that the organisation was striving for in the first place.

The deliverables of this study are in guideline form. The solution adopted by an ANSP must be tailored to the specific shape, size and needs of the organisation. The proposals described in this document have no legislative background and are for guidance only. They will help identify areas with the potential for rationalisation and describe the potential benefits such an approach could bring.

The legal requirements placed upon ANSP’s to provide a safe service are recognised and it is essential that any rationalisation should not compromise acceptable levels of performance, safety nor security.

The PIR for SESAR WP15.04.01 (Ref doc 5) states that the project will only highlight problem areas or areas with potential for rationalisation. The steps to be taken to address local rationalisation criteria are too site specific for this study to consider in detail and can only be addressed at a local level.


12 of 40

2.4 Defining Rationalisation Objectives Measuring or quantifying how much rationalisation is needed or, if assessed after the event, how much rationalisation was achieved is a necessary step in the exercise.

Rationalisation activities may focus upon improving a whole range of Key Performance Areas.

There are currently no published standardised metric definitions or commonly agreed ATM performance figures for the surveillance infrastructure rationalisation.

Section 2.4.1 identifies all the SESAR Key Performance Areas. ANSP’s can assess their surveillance infrastructure against these generic KPA and define targets for their improvements that contribute to the overall ATM targeted improvement. Some of the generic KPAs are more pertinent to the exercise than others – for completeness all are listed below. In terms of rationalisation of a surveillance infrastructure the KPAs considered to be most appropriate are cost, performance and efficiency – although it is also recognised that each of these can be considered from different perspectives e.g. efficiency can be measured in terms of RF usage or ATC controller workload. A clear definition of the objectives and the measure is fundamental to conducting a structured rationalisation process.

SESAR 15.04.01 Document D09-002 Evolution of the Surveillance Infrastructure (Ref Doc 1) describes the foreseen evolution of the European surveillance infrastructure and points to the SES legislative package which is a driving force behind establishing system improvements to European ATM. Attributing the required improvements across the various components of the ANSPs entire ATM infrastructure, and more particularly in this context to the surveillance infrastructure, will be a local matter.

2.4.1 ATM Master Plan SESAR Performance Framework The SESAR Performance Framework (Ref Doc 7) is structured around the 11 ICAO Key Performance Areas (KPAs) as defined in ICAO Doc 9883 (Ref doc 6) plus an additional KPA relating to Human Performance.

The KPAs cover:

• Access and Equity

• Capacity

• Cost effectiveness

• Efficiency

• Environmental Sustainability

• Flexibility

• Interoperability

• Participation

• Predictability

• Safety

• Security

• Human Performance (Not detailed in SESAR D2)

Rather than focussing primarily upon cost it is proposed that these 12 criteria, or as certain KPAs are more pertinent to surveillance than others, an appropriate sub-set thereof, should be considered within the scope of any rationalisation exercise.

In the case of Military ANSPs different KPAs that are specific to military operations may also need to be taken into consideration.


13 of 40

2.5 Establishing the Context of Rationalisation Act ivities Prior to initiating any significant rationalisation activities an ANSP should have a detailed appreciation of:

• The potential impact of European Commission legislation upon the requirements and European operational environment (such as that detailed within Ref Docs. 3 and 4)

• Established (and anticipated) legislative requirements that are published by local National Supervisory Authorities

• The availability and suitability of new and emerging surveillance technologies,

• The impact of changes to the local operational environment and future changes to the nature and avionic equipage of the aircraft fleet.

and how these factors may influence how the generic and local environment could evolve over the coming years and impact upon the planned evolution of the local surveillance infrastructure.

Thus, if an ANSP is planning to conduct a major adaptation to their surveillance infrastructure then it is advised that this document should also be read in conjunction with others such as the SESAR 15.04.01 Document D09-002 Evolution of the Surveillance Infrastructure (Ref Doc 1) which describes in more detail how the European surveillance infrastructure is foreseen to evolve over the next 20 years and SESAR ATM Masterplan (Ref Doc 2).


14 of 40

3 Methodology for Enabling System Rationalisation This chapter describes the proposed methodology – one that promotes an adaptation of the surveillance infrastructure and which supports the rationalisation of the surveillance infrastructure from both a technical and an economic perspective.

The key to a successful technology rationalisation is a holistic approach; too exclusively focus on cost-cutting may hinder the emergence of other substantial benefits created by streamlining systems to strategically align with the organisations needs and desires. The guiding principle behind any rationalisation exercise for an organisation such as an Air Navigation Service Provider is ‘what can we reduce/rationalise and still achieve the required performance of the surveillance infrastructure’.

The development of strategies for extracting better value for money from surveillance can range from carrying out supply-chain rationalisation exercises (including Procurement methodology and Whole life cycle costing) through to detailed budget analysis and whole-life asset maintenance cost modelling.

The development of strategies for improving system efficiencies include an assessment of operational requirements and the mapping of the infrastructure to achieve this using the minimum of a range of valuable resources (e.g. money, RF spectrum, human resources etc.).

Rationalization exercises should follow a process or methodology. A 6 step process for Application and Infrastructure Rationalisation is proposed.

The steps are portrayed as sequential but in reality there will be a high degree of interfacing between the activities.

Figure 2: Rationalisation Methodology

Expanding upon the content of the six steps:

• Step 1: Define the baseline and objectives in terms of:

o Factors internal to the ANSP

o Factors external to the ANSP

o Lifecycle costs

o Operational needs and performance

o Efficiency

o Etc.

• Step 2: Identify and develop the Rationalisation Scenario(s) by:

o Prioritisation of the Step 2 objectives and identification of “no goes”,

o Building a set of candidate scenarios,

STEP 2: Identify the rationalised

scenario

STEP 3: Prepare a

Rationalisation Plan

Internal factors

External factors

Operational need and

performance

Cost Efficiency

STEP 1: Define the baseline

and objectives

STEP 4: Implement

STEP 5: Verify / Validate

STEP 6: Maintain / Adapt


15 of 40

o Evaluating the candidate scenarios

o Performing a safety analysis on the Rationalisation Scenario (if the nature of the scenario necessitates).

• Step 3: Prepare the Rationalisation Plan,

• Step 4: Implement,

• Step 5: Verify and validate,

• Step 6: Maintain and Adapt.

o Continuous effort is required to monitor the efficiency of the implemented rationalised scenario and update it as required to take into account external ATM evolutions or internal drift from the targeted implementation plan and objectives.

This report focuses on the first three steps of the proposed methodology , as Steps 4 to 6 pertain to the local application of the selected rationalisation scenario and are consequently linked to standard practices already established by the different ANSPs e.g. contract management, transition planning, deployment and acceptance etc. To that extent, only a short description of the key items covered by those steps has been given in this report.

A high degree of liberty is given to ANSPs when applying this methodology (choice of strategies and scenarios to be investigated, choice of the scoring mechanism1 and weighting of the criteria for the evaluation). As a consequence, the resulting Rationalised Scenario remains highly dependent upon the ANSP itself. ANSPs may also work together either in pairs or within a FAB to establish a common rationalisation plan.

Rationalisation Scenarios may require early collaboration between ANSPs (including Military ANSPs) and industries. The industry knowledge of its own systems (lifecycle costs/prices, availability on the market, deployment conditions...) should be complemented by the ANSP to develop the scenarios and design and use scenario assessment sheets.

This rationalisation exercise should also involve as early as possible all relevant stakeholders:

• Inside the ANSP, such as the senior management, the strategy team in charge of surveillance issues, the finance team, operational staff, the personnel in charge of the daily operations, of the acquisition of sensors, of their maintenance etc.

• Outside the ANSP, EUROCONTROL, neighbouring ANSPs (including Military ANSPs), the National Regulatory/Supervisory Authority, aircraft operators (civil / military / commercial / private) etc.

1 The reader is advised to familiarise themselves not only with the drivers, influences and foreseen evolution of the European surveillance infrastructure (see SESAR 15.04.01 Document D09-002 Evolution of the Surveillance Infrastructure (Ref Doc 1)) but also with a variety of programme management scoring/selection techniques and their relative merits and applicability to the rationalisation activities being proposed. Published literature or internet searches can provide a significant amount of information on tools such as grid analysis, quantitative strategic planning matrices, analytic hierarchy processes, decision trees etc. An explanation of such tools is beyond the scope of this study.


16 of 40

4 Step 1 – Baseline and Objective Definition

4.1 Step 1 Overview The purpose of Step 1 is:

• To establish the background data necessary to support subsequent assessments,

• To identify what is the objective of the rationalisation exercise, including identification of initial Rationalisation Strategies, and

• To identify the metric for success.

Without a clear view on such fundamental topics as where and when ‘surveillance’ is required, how ‘good’ it needs to be to support the applications performed and how much it costs to provide the service (and a perception of how much it should cost), it is not possible to ascertain if the current infrastructure is exceeding expectations nor the magnitude of the changes necessary.

Step 1 is about defining why there is a need to rationalise the surveillance infrastructure. Its objective is to provide senior management with supporting information to enable them to make appropriate decisions regarding the way forward. It provides the necessary data:

• To assess the current infrastructure, its strengths and weaknesses,

• To define the objectives that the ANSP needs to achieve by prioritising the identified goals and requirements,

• To motivate the ANSP to perform the subsequent rationalisation exercise.

The activities to be performed in Step 1 are to define the baseline and objectives in terms of:

• Factors internal to the ANSP (e.g. decommissioning roadmap, risk assessment, in-house competence policy, data sharing policy, Surveillance data format roadmap, ability to exploit new services, RF load due to ANSP systems,…) – supports the development of candidate rationalisation scenarios.

• Factors external to the ANSP (e.g. current Surveillance infrastructure, mandates, environment characteristics, SES and FAB impacts, traffic characteristics, aircraft equipage, RF load due to external systems, maturity of technologies,…) – supports the development of candidate rationalisation scenarios.

• Lifecycle costs (e.g. purchase, installation, validation, maintenance, upgrades, decommission, costs to be incurred by aircraft operators if additional equipage is required are also to be included in the considerations …) – support the selection of the scenario.

• Operational needs and performance (e.g. 3 or 5 NM separation, operational availability, volume of interest, probability of detection, accuracy, decode rate…) – support the selection of the scenario.

• Efficiency (e.g. coverage mismatch, spectrum aspects, controller workload…) – supports the definition and identification of candidate rationalisation scenarios.

The outputs of step 1 are a strategic baseline document – a description of the current user/operational requirements, the operational environment, the currently configured architecture, the cost and the performance levels achieved (against which the selected KPAs can be judged) and a list of candidate areas for rationalisation.

By the conclusion of Step 1 the ANSP should have developed a prioritised list of objectives against which the strategies developed later in the methodology could be scored, a documented high level timeline for targeted improvements and identified some high-level Rationalisation Scenarios which will be developed in subsequent stages.


17 of 40

4.2 Step 1 Scope Air Navigation Service Providers, as with all industries, need to address the balance between resources (expenditure and income or available budget in the case of military ANSP’s), requirements (performance, safety etc.).

Prior to conducting a rationalisation exercise it is necessary to know the baseline against which subsequent assessments will be performed.

The following topics could be considered when compiling the package of information that forms the strategic baseline document. (See Figure 3: Candidate scenarios - construction methodology)

4.2.1 Establish Portfolio of Background Information The initial activities performed support the compilation of a package of information that details the current baseline or reference against which the subsequent steps are planned and against which their efficacy will be measured.

4.2.1.1 Factors internal to the ANSP Before starting the rationalisation work, an ANSP may want to limit the field of possible scenarios to investigate. For that purpose, it needs to consider the following list of factors depending mainly upon its own policy2 and that may evolve along time:

• The area of interest. As a general rule, ANSPs should perform a global rationalisation over the widest possible relevant surveillance volume. Multiple local optimisations over too many segmented volumes (e.g. multiple neighbouring TMAs, multiple altitude layers…) may result in unnecessary coverage overlaps or duplications of assets,

• The decommissioning roadmaps of current sensors, to take into account for example expected changes to the operational environment,

• Its own risk assessment and uncertainties regarding estimations of costs and performance,

• The degree to which assets and activities are generally retained in-house, and as a consequence, the data sharing policy with other Surveillance data providers and the cross border clustering of SSR Mode S interrogators,

• The possibility of sharing data with other Civil and/or Military ANSPs.

• Its ability to handle a change on its business model (e.g. through data sharing…) or to handle administrative issues (e.g. to change radar allocation frequencies…),

• The Surveillance data format, such as ASTERIX, to be used in the future; in particular what additional data items will be necessary (e.g. ADD) and which could be beneficial,

• Its ability to adapt its current processes to the added value services brought by emerging technologies,

• Its own appreciation of when the emerging technologies will be available and dependable,

• Its current surveillance infrastructure strategy prior to the rationalisation exercise (or as a feedback loop from Step 6),

• To some extent, the yearly budget for Surveillance (for the timescale foreseen for the exercise).

2 Note that the description of the current infrastructure is not part of the “internal factors” topics to address since it can be considered as an external constraint on which the ANSP has no impact. In other words, changing the ANSP policy will not change the current infrastructure.


18 of 40

4.2.1.2 Factors external to the ANSP The purpose of this activity is to identify the external factors constraining or influencing the future Surveillance infrastructure, i.e.:

• The current Surveillance infrastructure3,

• The current status and evolution of international and local mandates,

o What are the current mandates and standards to which ANSPs must comply and how are these foreseen to evolve?

o What would be the cost and performance benefit of a local ADS-B mandate for the ANSP and what constraints would it impose on other stakeholders?

• The current status and evolution of external initiatives (SES, FAB),

o What are the cost and performance opportunities created by the SES and FAB initiatives (e.g. in terms of availability of emerging technologies, data sharing, cross border clustered Mode S sensors, joint procurement of sensors, data format use…)?

• The current status and evolution of environment characteristics,

• The current status and evolution of traffic characteristics.

o What is impact of the expected traffic evolution (incl. density, route complexity and aircraft equipage) on the Surveillance infrastructure?

4.2.1.3 Lifecycle costs Prior to rationalisation, a clear view of the current and targeted cost related to the Surveillance infrastructure is required. This view should encompass:

• An assessment of the factors considered as contributing to the total cost of providing the surveillance service should i.e. the cost structure and figures related to the current operations,

• The main constraints and objectives which have to be taken into account in designing the future surveillance scenarios,

• The value of the asset should be considered in terms of the benefits it brings to the operational requirements which include the system safety case. Users of assets are to be surveyed to identify the relative importance of assets to the mission of the organization and the income the asset supports,

• An assessment of any costs to be incurred by aircraft operators if additional equipage is required.

4.2.1.4 Operational needs and performance Prior to rationalisation, a clear view of the current and targeted operational needs and required performance is necessary. This view should encompass:

• What aspects need to be considered to characterise an operational need and the associated performance requirement?

• What is the current and expected evolution of the operational need?

• What are the associated performance requirements?

3 The current infrastructure description is considered here as an “external factor” because it is not a leverage the ANSP can adjust when trying to build candidate scenarios. As such, it is to be interpreted as an external constraint on the ANSP rationalisation work, even though the Surveillance infrastructure is generally owned by the ANSP.


19 of 40

4.2.1.5 Efficiency Efficiencies, or conversely, inefficiencies, in a surveillance context, can be identified on the basis of a number of parameters, key of which include:

• The degrees of overlapping Surveillance coverage including an analysis of any areas where there is insufficient or no coverage in regions which could bring operational benefits either currently or in anticipation of future operational demands,

• The density of the RF environment based upon SSR interrogation rates (that may be impacting upon Surveillance performance due to transponder occupancy). (Note: If spectrum charging mechanisms are being introduced then the efficiency of the surveillance sensors in this regard should also be considered),

• ATC Controller workload (which could be improved through better quality and more comprehensive surveillance data).

Identifying areas where there is a perceived or actual need to improve efficiency is an important aspect of Step 1. It is necessary to obtain the views of numerous stakeholders to ensure that the consequences of inefficiencies are understood and can be considered within the context of the rationalisation exercise.


20 of 40

Figure 3: Candidate scenarios - construction methodology


21 of 40

4.2.2 Objectives of the Rationalisation Exercise The objective or end-goal of the rationalisation exercise is to be documented with regards to the strategic review and detailed regarding the system aspects that need to be aligned. The objective should make clear which specific KPAs or specific attributes the rationalisation exercise to be focussed upon improving (e.g. the efficiency KPA could include RF efficiency as a key attribute).

One of the benefits of considering a number of KPAs is to avoid concentrating solely on cost but to address other aspects as well.

4.2.2.1 Identify Candidate Rationalisation Strategi es An early step to be taken is to identify a list of possible candidate areas for rationalisation – these are referred to as Rationalisation Strategies. Such a list could include such high level strategies such as improve the RF environment or reduce the cost of the surveillance infrastructure. (This will then be refined in subsequent steps to develop specific scenarios for how to achieve the strategies).

An important activity in establishing a comprehensive baseline of information is to liaise with neighbouring ANSP’s (such as civil operators in the vicinity or even State authorities) to see whether their sensors may be able to provide the data required (and if they could provide it more cheaply and/or at a higher quality) and if so, at what cost. A review of the possibility of selling, trading or making freely available surveillance data, such as cooperative surveillance data to support local military applications, should therefore be undertaken within step 1. The recent introduction of Functional Airspace Blocks may have facilitated opportunities for system rationalisation that were not previously viable.

An additional benefit from a close relationship with nearby ANSP’s is the possibility to be able to conduct joint procurement activities and thereby benefit from some economies of scale. Such an approach can also address system fragmentation issues and support an integrated approach to the introduction of new surveillance technologies. (Distributed surveillance techniques such as WAM and MSPSR require significant spacing between the ground based constituent parts. This feature could be exploited by ANSP’s who each procure and site a proportion of their system in their territory with each sharing the data derived from the network of sensors).

The information compiled in Step 1 will be used when considering the impact of the proposed rationalisation activities upon the ability to meet current requirements and the numerous KPA.

The perspective taken by each ANSP is likely to differ as each will take different factors into account and prioritise in different ways.

To be more effective in the longer term, the ANSP’s may wish to make a distinction between ‘pure rationalisation’ i.e. looking to rationalise against only the current requirements and a rationalisation which introduces adaptations to the system which reflect anticipated changes in the local and wider environment and which may also take benefit of changes such as those introduced by European Commission Implementing Regulations.

4.2.3 Identify the Metric for Success Having detailed the objectives of the rationalisation exercise the next activity is to establish the degree of improvement - the ‘by how much’ and ‘by when’?

The target value and the timeframe over which the activities are to be realised can have a significant impact upon the cost of the exercise and upon the selection of which rationalisation scenarios to implement. The target values for the selected KPAs should be identified on a local basis.

The values may be ‘negotiable’ – achieving a 50% ‘gain’ for 10% of the cost may be an acceptable compromise. Consequently the figures should be taken as targets at this stage in the process unless definite values are required.

The cost of rationalising a surveillance system may be substantial and in some cases prohibitive. The objective should be for a cost neutral or cost beneficial solution over an identified timeframe – most probably a period of years – subject to local determination. The transition costs will depend critically on both the timing of the rationalisation measure (measures taken at the end of the life of the asset will generally cost less) and on the geographic location of the measure.


22 of 40

The tools / process for measuring the metrics should be agreed to ensure a common consensus.

4.3 Step 1 Key Inputs and Outputs The inputs to Step 1 are:

• The feedback on the results of previous rationalisation exercises,

• An assessment of the drivers for change that are now to be considered on a local basis.

The key output of Step 1 is the Strategic Review document - a consolidated set of data describing the current baseline of user/operational requirements, the current operational environment, architecture, cost and performance against which the success of the rationalisation exercise or KPAs can be judged. This is supplemented by a list of possible candidate high-level Rationalisation Strategies, the necessary background data to support the subsequent assessments and details of how these assets contribute to the services offered by the Air Navigation Service Provider. The target values for the objectives/KPAs should also be identified.

An indication of the availability of data from adjacent ANSP’s (Civil / Military) and/or an indication of their desire to share data is also seen as a key output.

Table 1: provides a high-level check list of topics for consideration although it is recognised that depending upon the nature of the exercise being undertaken a local checklist would be more appropriate. (The production of an exhaustive list of all possible factors on the ATM Surveillance infrastructure is beyond the scope of this project).


23 of 40

Step 1 (Define the Baseline and Objectives) Outputs Check List:

Current

Is the ANSP’s current Surveillance infrastructure documented and available? This could include, to an appropriate level of detail, the following:

• Scope, (i.e. are displays or multi-sensor trackers, data-links etc. included)

• Age of components,

• The currently foreseen decommissioning roadmaps including information regarding the date when the manufacturer no longer support each sensor,

• The locations,

• Sensor operating characteristics,

• The volumes of airspace requiring surveillance coverage,

• The safety case documentation for the current infrastructure,

• The current local surveillance strategy for the next years etc

• The current status and evolution of international and local mandates,

• The current status and evolution of external initiatives (SES, FAB) including:

o Evolution of airline routes,

o Cross border harmonisation of the operational requirements.

o Structural complexity (number of ascending and descending routes, of crossing routes and of variable speeds, spatial and temporal traffic variability),

• The current status of environment characteristics ,

• The current status of traffic characteristics including numbers, equipage etc.

Is the currently required performance of the Surveillance infrastructure documented and agreed?

Including details of any coverage mismatch:

• Adapt the operational need if:

o There is no operational consequence in not covering these gaps,

o The overlaps are unavoidable or needed to achieve a satisfactory continuity of service given recurrent issues with other sensors.

• Adapt the Surveillance infrastructure if:

o There is an operational need to cover the gaps,

The overlaps are unnecessary and more costly than another solution.


24 of 40


Future

Are the future performance requirements of the Surveillance infrastructure documented and agreed?

Is there an agreed need to supplement the current performance requirements?

Are the internal and external factors leading the evolution of the operational need and associated performance defined?

In recognition of the updated operational requirements, are the main aspects to consider when addressing cost and performance requirements documented and agreed?

Are environmental constraints and influences understood and documented?

This could include the location of planned wind farms, construction of new buildings etc.

Is the foreseen evolution of air-traffic (and equipage) understood and documented? This could include traffic complexity (density, air-lane complexity, radar cross section, use of secondary and tertiary airports etc.) Traffic mix (VFR vs. IFR, civil vs. military, manned vs. unmanned), aircraft equipage (including ADS-B and light-weight SSR transponders)

If appropriate, have alternative sources for surveillance data being contacted and are alternative approaches to sourcing surveillance data viable?

Such considerations could include:

• Who provides the information from these sensors: i.e. the ANSP, another ANSP, the military forces or any other third party

• If the sensor data come from an outside organisation,

o Is the quality of the data up to the required standard?

o Is it for a given fee? Against some other data? For free?

o Is it there a commitment to keep this agreement over a certain period of time?

• Increased coordination between stakeholders, through

o Data sharing with the Military, neighbouring countries or any third parties (about Surveillance data or any other data like windfarm fields),

o Ground-ground Interconnection with interrogator clusters in adjacent countries in order to reduce all-call Fruit,

o Harmonisation of the format of exchanged data (i.e. ASTERIX),

o Joint procurement of Surveillance sensors,

o Transition coordination in the Surveillance infrastructure roadmaps (incl. sharing of the decommissioning roadmap).

Is the policy regarding maintenance and servicing, sharing of surveillance data and capital assets documented and agreed?

Has an assessment of local or international mandates, such as the European Commission implementing regulation 1207/2011, which may place new requirements upon the surveillance infrastructure being conducted?

Data formats – agreed, ASTERIX, integration costs, benefits of ADDs etc for ATC,


25 of 40


Has an investigation into spectrum issues and known instances of congestion being performed and documented?

Financial

The cost baseline:

• Is it agreed which topics are included in the cost baseline (to ensure consistency when conducting later step activities)? Topics for possible consideration include man power related costs, the cost of data links, site rentals, integration costs, spectrum charging (if appropriate) etc.

• Is the attrition rate i.e. period of time capital investments are written off agreed?

• Is the basis upon which the cost for ‘surveillance’ will be calculated agreed? The cost effectiveness of providing a surveillance service could be declared/attributed in a number of ways including on a per aircraft basis, per sector, per km3, per controlled flight hour basis, the amount paid by the airspace user, the cost of the whole system (overall cost to the airspace user e.g. per seat mile), costs to be incurred by aircraft operators if additional equipage is required etc.

A more expensive ATC service is not necessarily counter productive if as a whole, the cost for the airspace users can be reduced and more expensive ATC (e.g. new technologies) function as enablers to support the introduction of other cost reductions.

Is the available budget for the future adaptations documented?

Rationalisation Objectives and Metrics for Success

Are the objectives of the rationalisation exercise clearly documented and agreed? (In terms of time, cost, required improvement (must achieves), desirable improvement etc.)

Is the mechanism against which adaptations to the surveillance infrastructure will be measured documented and agreed?

Has a candidate list of Rationalisation Scenarios being produced by multi-disciplined team and agreed for further consideration?

Have a set of assessment criteria and a proposed scoring system being developed and agreed? This will be used in later steps to refine and select from the initial set of proposed rationalisation scenarios. The plan should include one or more targets in terms of milestones (operational, economic etc.) and identify the tools that will be required to monitor progress in the rationalisation exercise.

Table 1: Step 1 Topics for Consideration


26 of 40

5 Step 2 –Rationalisation Scenarios

5.1 Step 2 Overview Within Step 2 the strategies or list of possible candidate areas for rationalisation identified in Step 1 are further developed and refined into Rationalisation Scenarios. These scenarios are then evaluated to determine the optimum approach using a Business Case approach (i.e. considering a combination of operational requirements, cost benefit analysis, portfolio optimisation, risk assessment, and financial impact) tailored to the ANSPs local environment.

Multiple rationalisation plans can, subject to appropriate coordination, be established to work in parallel. These may address short, medium or long term objectives.

It is important that the logic and benefits of the rationalisation activities are demonstrated to all affected parties and that they are committed to the Rationalisation Scenario.

Rationalisation should not impact detrimentally on the safety of the infrastructure. Consequently, before embarking further in developing and implementing a rationalisation plan assessments should be conducted to ensure that system safety and integrity is maintained.

In summary, Step 2 focuses on:

• Developing further the Rationalisation Strategies,

o Establish a broad set of possible scenarios without fine business model considerations,

o Develop the scenarios to a point at which they can be seen as viable and are supported with sufficient information to support the subsequent selection process.

• Evaluating the scenarios against the objectives identified in Step 1 to select Rationalisation Scenarios,

o Applying an appropriate decision making technique in line with the scoring system/metrics outlined in Step 1.

• Further refine the selected scenario(s) or Rationalisation Scenario(s)

o Performing a safety analysis on the scenario(s),

o Develop an implementation plan

o Develop a transition plan etc

5.2 Step 2 Scope The scope of the Rationalisation Scenarios that are developed in this step will depend upon the local environment.

A set of criteria will need to be identified along with a scoring system which will be used to prepare a short list of candidates for rationalisation. ANSPs will need to develop a mechanism most appropriate to their needs and the nature of the scenarios being assessed.

One of the metrics assessed should be whether the introduction of the Rationalisation Scenario would impact upon the existing safety assessment / safety case to determine whether or not changes to be introduced would be acceptable e.g. would the removal of a surveillance sensor compromise the levels of redundancy in the system?

This initial set of proposed scenarios is then assessed against the scoring system / metrics.

Once all the data is assembled, the scoring system established and the possible scenarios identified then the consequences of each are then to be assessed. If a scenario is found acceptable from a cost, an operational and from a safety perspective, then it is possible to move onto preparing for the introduction of the selected changes - the scope of which is contained in step 3.

The structured approach is designed to minimise the ANSP workload by avoiding unnecessarily developing scenarios that are not selected for implementation.


27 of 40

5.2.1 Selecting Which Rationalisation Scenario to I mplement Selecting which are the most appropriate Rationalisation Scenarios to implement is key to the success of the overall rationalisation process.

The nature of the decision to be taken will depend not only upon the Rationalisation Strategy and Scenarios in question but also upon a range of diverse factors including available budget, time pressures, resource constraints etc.

Numerous decision making tools and techniques have been developed to assist in this process. Common programme management techniques include Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis or grid analysis, Paired comparison analysis, Pareto analysis, decision trees etc. (Descriptions and supporting tools can be obtained from multiple internet sites). These may also have been supplemented by an ANSPs locally developed practices.

Each of these techniques has merits depending upon the nature of the decision to be made. Whilst it is beyond the scope of this study to detail such tools the Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis or grid analysis is understood to have been used in similar exercises in the past.

It should also be noted that an acceptable local strategy, such as regarding the deployment of WAM transmitters equipped with omni-directional antennas to address specific local requirements, may not be optimal for the whole region. The impact of a change should thus also be assessed from a wider perspective such as that for a region or within a FAB. Similarly other forms of proposed changes may be unacceptable not only for neighbouring ANSPs but also for the airspace users. Such aspects should be considered when compiling and scoring the scenarios.

5.2.2 Cost Assessment Each scenario should be characterised by a cost index assessing the total cost of ownership of the considered infrastructure over the considered planning period.

The considered cost index may be expressed either directly (in €) or as a ratio with a reference scenario depending on the intended usage and confidentially constraints.

Establishing an order of cost or an accurate figure for the Rationalisation Scenario will depend upon the nature of the task to be undertaken. It should be noted that the introduction of surveillance sensors that rely upon a distributed network of systems components geographically spaced (such as WAM) has changed the traditional procurement model for a surveillance sensor. An iterative approach is becoming common with greater involvement between ANSP and sensor manufacturers to reach an acceptable compromise between system performance and cost.

The cost of introducing a Rationalising Scenario may be substantial and in some cases prohibitive. The objective should be for a cost neutral or cost beneficial solution over an identified timeframe – most probably a period of years – subject to local determination.

Military ANSPs will need to develop and apply a different cost assessment and analysis process as their ‘business model’ differs from that of their civilian counterparts.

The following table identifies cost drivers that could be pertinent to a range of Rationalisation Scenarios.


28 of 40

Cost Assessment Check List (Note: The list is not intended to be exhaustive)

Were the following activities associated with the decommissioning of obsolete systems considered?

• dismantling of electrical and mechanical parts,

• dismantling of towers and buildings, …

Were the following Procurement activities considered?

• ANSP activities regarding the production of specifications, project management, acceptance, flight trials, training, integration etc.

• Electrical and mechanical parts of surveillance assets, including radomes,

• Civil works (towers, masts, buildings, roads, …),

• Ancillaries (lightning protection, de-icing equipments, …),

• Remote Control & Monitoring system,

• Communication infrastructures (wireless, sitcom, cable, fibre optics,…),

• Power supply infrastructures (connection to external network or independent power production system, back-up means, …)

• Spares and, if required, additional maintenance facilities.

Were the following Deployment and Commissioning activities considered?

• Initial site engineering and preparation,

• Transportation and site installation (wiring,… ) of surveillance assets,

• On–site system testing (including flight checks,…),

• Initial safety analyses,

• Initial training of Surveillance operators and maintenance teams,

• Deployment of maintenance sites (including initial spare lots).

Were the following System Exploitation activities considered?

• Energy expenses (electricity, fuel, …),

• Communication expenses,

• Estate and safeguarding fees,

• Spectrum usage license fees (if relevant),

• External surveillance data license fees (if relevant),

• Annual Operations and Maintenance Costs.

Were the following System Maintenance activities considered?

• Personnel & travel expenses for preventative and corrective maintenance,

• Software maintenance and upgrades,

• Hardware repair & replacement expenses,

• “mid-life” partial or total system overhauls.

Table 2: Step 2 Cost Assessment Check List


29 of 40

5.2.3 Transition Plan A transition plan to focus on how to introduce the selected rationalisation scenarios is to be developed. The transition plan will include, as appropriate, back up mitigations, procurement activities, acceptance plans (approvals, flight trials and certification), revised safety case, training plans, integration and interface planning, security risk assessments, amended operational procedures etc. An estimated cost to implement is also required.

In order for the ANSP to decide on the strategy to be adopted regarding the transition plan, the main aspects that need to be considered are:

• The targeted long term surveillance infrastructure and associated performance,

• The maturity of the surveillance technologies (and the ANSP own experience of these),

• The current third parties surveillance data availability and yearly planned evolution,

• The spectrum related issues (external constraints and ANSP own policy),

• The ANSP ability to adapt its current processes to the added value services brought by emerging technologies (e.g. staff training, data format compatibility, ATC upgrade to display new functionalities…),

• The current local mandates and yearly planned evolution,

• The current infrastructure,

• The decommissioning roadmap,

• The current objective performance and yearly planned evolution, which on turn depends on:

a. The yearly budget planning,

b. The planned evolution of the traffic characteristics (including the availability of ADS-B / Mode S avionics on board aircraft),

c. The evolution of the Surveillance mandates and standards,

d. The SES and FAB impacts.

5.3 Step 2 Key Inputs and Outputs The key input to Step 2 is the comprehensive document package produced in Step 1 along with the candidate Rationalisation Scenarios.

A decision making mechanism based upon the system assessment criteria and the proposed scoring system developed in Step 1 is a key output from Step 2. This is used to refine the initial set of proposed Rationalisation Scenarios.

The outputs from this step is a portfolio of endorsed Rationalisation Scenarios that are constructed and evaluated on the basis of cost, asset values, asset usage, financial return, strategic importance, safety and/or other defined objectives and that are considered to be the most effective. The strategies should include one or more targets in terms of milestones (operational, economic etc.) and identify the tools required to monitor progress in the rationalisation exercise.

Note that multiple schemes can be introduced in parallel – some may not be selected for this round but retained for future re-assessment.

The following table provides a high-level check list although it is recognised that depending upon the nature of the exercise being undertaken a local checklist would be more appropriate. (The production of an exhaustive list of all possible factors on the ATM Surveillance infrastructure is beyond the scope of this project).


30 of 40

Step 2 (Identify the Rationalised Scenario) Outputs Check List:

Do the proposed Rationalisation Scenarios impact upon other stakeholders? (Other ANSPs, Civil/Military/Private/Commercial airspace users, operational staff/ATC etc.)

If so, have they been consulted?

Do the proposed Rationalisation Scenarios require additional legislative tools?

If so, have the NSA been consulted?

Do the proposed Rationalisation Scenarios include, if required, sufficient time for aircraft operators to configure their aircraft?

Have the reasons behind why scenarios that will not be implemented being documented?

Has the cost of implementing and maintaining the scenario being estimated? This could include cost of purchase/acquisition cost, cost of maintenance, cost of decommissioning and running costs. (See Table 2: Step 2 Cost Assessment Check List)

Have the following aspects been considered:

• The degrees of overlapping Surveillance coverage?

• The density of RF pollution based upon SSR interrogation rates?

• Impact upon controller workload?

Were all appropriate means to minimise RF pollution considered and introduced as appropriate?

Have supplementary benefits being considered e.g. the use of ADDs?

Have all surveillance technologies being considered?

If retaining SSR Mode A/C systems, were justifications documented?

Have investigations being conducted to minimise a fragmented approach to surveillance infrastructures within the State and within the FAB?

Have the necessary activities to demonstrate that the proposed scenarios are safe being conducted?

Are the tools to monitor the progress of the implementation agreed and available?



31 of 40

6 Step 3 – Prepare a Rationalisation Plan

6.1.1 Step 3 Overview The tasks performed in Step 3 cover the preparation of a plan to introduce the endorsed Rationalisation Scenarios to bring about the rationalisation objectives in terms of efficiencies, cost savings and other KPA improvements.

6.1.2 Step 3 Scope For each of the endorsed Rationalisation Scenarios produced in Step 2 it is necessary to plan at a practical level of detail for how to introduce the change.

The rationalisation plan can be characterised by a yearly description of:

• The operational need,

• The surveillance data sharing status,

• The technology to be used,

6.1.3 Step 3 Key Inputs and Outputs The input is a list of selected Rationalisation Scenarios, the supporting documentation and details of the benefits they are to bring (the output of step 2). The purpose of step 3 is to develop the plans that will support the operational introduction of the change to achieve these end states.

The outputs of Step 3 will include, for each of the endorsed Rationalisation Scenarios:

• A plan to support the operational introduction of the selected Rationalisation Scenario.

• Amendments, if necessary, to local AICs/AIPs regulations required to support the changes,

• The key output is management agreement to implement the selected rationalisation strategies, scenarios and their deployment plans.

The following table provides a high-level check list although it is recognised that depending upon the nature of the exercise being undertaken a local checklist would be more appropriate. (The production of an exhaustive list of all possible factors on the ATM Surveillance infrastructure is beyond the scope of this project).


32 of 40

Topics For Consideration Within Rationalisation Pla nning

Establishing Operational Introduction

Is an agreed transition plan published?

Are appropriate back up mitigations established?

Are acceptance plans (approvals, flight trials and certification) published and available?

Are training plans agreed and published? (Ensuring that sufficient staff remain in post during training courses)

If changes to the local AICs/AIPs regulations are required and these necessitate changes to avionic equipage then has sufficient time being allowed to enable civil and state aircraft operators to schedule the upgrades in the most cost effective manner?

Has an assessment of operational procedures being conducted and, if required, have amendments being agreed and published?

System Integration

Do system interfaces need to be adapted? If so have resources being scheduled?

Are system integration plans agreed and published?

Has a security risk assessment being conducted, agreed and published?

Has a revised safety case (more detailed than the preliminary safety analysis of performed in Step 2) being conducted and accepted?

Financial Schedule

Has the procurement documentation including scheduling of payment milestones being agreed and published?

Are sufficient funds committed to meet the estimated cost and finance schedule (including payment plans)?

Have the contractual aspects of existing contracts being assessed prior to changes or terminations?



33 of 40

7 Step 4 – Implement

7.1.1 Step 4 Overview In simple terms the activities performed in Step 4 are to implement the endorsed Rationalisation Scenarios in the manner defined in the transition plans.

The implementation will be conducted in accordance with an ANSPs local practices, policies and procedures.

As noted previously, this report focuses on the first three steps of the proposed methodology. Steps 4 to 6 pertain to the local application of the selected rationalisation scenario and are consequently linked to standard practices already established by the different ANSPs e.g. contract management, transition planning, deployment and acceptance etc. To that extent, only a short description of the key items covered by those steps has been given in this report.

7.1.2 Step 4 Scope The scope of the activities performed in Step 4 is dependent upon the nature of the rationalisation strategies and scenarios selected to be introduced. Some may be relatively simple – such as re-negotiating the cost of the communication lines. Others, such as replacing elements of the existing surveillance infrastructure or introducing complex technical solutions will require considerably more effort.

7.1.3 Step 4 Key Inputs and Outputs The key input(s) are the portfolios of the selected Rationalisation Scenarios and their transition/implementation plans. The output is an adapted system with amended system documentation (Safety Cases, regulatory approval etc.)


34 of 40

8 Step 5 - Verify / Validate

8.1.1 Step 5 Overview In adopting a systematic approach to the rationalisation exercise it is necessary to ‘close the loop’ and verify the results of the actions performed to see if savings/efficiencies were achieved, to assess where there were departures from expectations and to introduce a means of feedback for subsequent activities.

The verification/validation will be conducted in accordance with an ANSPs local practices, policies and procedures.

8.1.2 Step 5 Scope Where appropriate the impact of the Rationalisation Scenarios upon the Key Performance Areas or objectives should be measured and the efficacy of the measure assessed over an appropriate period of time.

For qualitative parameters, such as environmental sustainability or interoperability, the trend should be monitored.

Actions should be taken to verify those assumptions and criteria that were used in the scoring metrics. The reasons behind departures from estimates should be investigated and if necessary, the scoring metrics and other documents produced in Step 1 adapted accordingly.

If the Rationalisation Scenario did not achieve the required objectives then the possibility of introducing adaptations to ensure that the required improvement is achieved can be feedback into the beginning of the sequence.

It may also be necessary to inform other stakeholders of benefits achieved if it is considered that they could benefit from the improvements introduced e.g. could improved surveillance performance contribute to a reduction in separation minima and thereby lead to increased capacity.

8.1.3 Step 5 Key Inputs and Outputs The input to Step 5 is a system amended in the manner detailed in the Rationalisation Scenario and implementation plans.

Key outputs from Step 5 include:

• Assessment of the impact of the changes introduced within the Rationalisation Scenario,

• Proposals for amending the documentation produced in Step 1


35 of 40

9 Step 6 - Maintain.

9.1.1 Step 6 Overview There is a need to maintain the system in a rationalised state by periodically reassessing the strategic objectives of the service, the requirements and the costs etc. As the environment and business strategy change, so there exists a need to continually strive to adapt the infrastructure to ensure it remains efficient and capable of performing the required tasks.

The Rationalisation Scenarios and Strategies are to be tracked and kept up-to-date using an ongoing management and governance approach.

In Step 6 the metrics defined in the early stages of the rationalisation exercise are tracked (benefit realisation capture / project scorecards) and eventually feedback into the 1st steps to support the on-going rationalisation tasks.

9.1.2 Step 6 Scope Steps 5 and 6 are performed to assess the efficacy of the rationalisation scenarios that were conducted. Together they establish an input into Steps 1 and 2 and should thus address the impact achieved upon the user and operational requirements, the operational environment and the regulatory issues. The information will be used to refine the metrics for subsequent rationalisation activities.

Using an ongoing lifecycle and governance approach Rationalisation Scenarios and Strategies are tracked and kept up-to-date.

Local NSAs should work with their ANSP’s and airspace users to ensure that local mandates can be published if necessary to support means such as ADS-B which can lead to improved system efficiency, enhanced capabilities and reduced through life costs.

9.1.3 Step 6 Key Inputs and Outputs Inputs to Step 6 include the documentation produced in previous Steps, which were used to develop the rational, justification, targeted performance and achieved results of the Rationalisation Scenarios that were conducted.

The outputs of Step 6 are:

• A set of refined metrics and those parameters that contribute to them,

• Contributions from the ANSP to the local Regulatory Authority to ensure that AICs/AIPs reflect appropriate airspace avionic requirements.

Using an ongoing lifecycle and governance approach, the rationalisation effort and production are tracked and kept up-to-date.


36 of 40

10 Conclusion Rationalisation in the context of this document is taken to mean: ‘to reorganise so as to eliminate uneconomic units and increase productivity’ and the objective of the rationalisation process outlined in this project reflects this.

The aim of the rationalisation exercise can be summarised as establishing a means to achieve a surveillance infrastructure that not only meets the organisations objectives but also increases the overall value derived from the surveillance systems. Achieving this objective will require an assessment of the current infrastructure, future needs and knowledge of the changes that are occurring either through parallel technological or legislative developments.

In basic terms, rationalisation:

• Is a crucial and valuable tool in these times of budgetary constraint.

• Is not a binary state.

• Requires detailed local assessment.

• Is not the same as optimisation but can be considered as a step along the path towards a more optimised configuration.

• Is not a one time event.

Improvements achieved through a rationalisation process are not limited solely to cost. In the context applied for this project it also embraces system efficiencies such as RF spectrum and the potential for reduced controller workload.

The scope and breadth of topics for rationalisation range from simple renegotiation of the costs for data-link or power supplies through to the deployment of a network of surveillance sensors.

Regardless of the size and complexity of the task, rationalization exercises should follow a process or methodology. The methodology proposed in this paper is based upon well proven Plan, Do, Review, Act cycle identified in existing Quality Assurance processes (such as ISO 9000) with the need to continue to repeat the process until the system has improved to the point of satisfaction.

A process is described but the true value comes when it is supplemented with detailed local assessments e.g. to assess whether there is an excess of surveillance coverage. It is considered that maximum benefit is derived when a holistic/pluralist approach is adopted – involve stakeholders with different perspectives and do not focus solely on one benefit such as cost.

A wide and diverse range of factors must be considered within the scope of the rationalisation exercise. Some of these will depend upon the suitability of new surveillance technologies or upon the framework and influences stemming from the SES II legislative package, the Performance Review Board or the Network Manager. The reader is advised to familiarise themselves not only with the drivers, influences and foreseen evolution of the European surveillance infrastructure (see SESAR 15.04.01 Document D09-002 Evolution of the Surveillance Infrastructure Ref doc 1) but also with a variety of programme management scoring/selection techniques and their relative merits and applicability to the rationalisation activities being proposed.

The emergence of new techniques and improvements to existing technologies offer improvements and present Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSPs) with additional tools in their portfolio.

The cost of rationalising a surveillance system may be substantial and in some cases prohibitive. The objective should be for a cost neutral or cost beneficial solution over an identified timeframe – most probably a period of years – subject to local determination. The transition costs will depend critically on both the timing of the rationalisation measure (measures taken at the end of the life of the asset will generally cost less) and on the geographic location of the measure. The study does not address transition costs.

Neither civil nor military ANSP’s and their surveillance infrastructure work in isolation. Decisions taken and the manner in which systems are configured can impact upon the system performance of ANSP’s many miles away. The topics addressed in this paper are neither new nor radical however it is believed that by applying them the European surveillance infrastructure can be made more efficient and contribute to the goals of the Single European Sky.


37 of 40

11 Referenced Documents

Ref Title Latest version / date

1 SESAR 15.04.01 Document D09-002 Evolution of the Surveillance Infrastructure

Edition 00.02.00 May 2012

2 European Air Traffic Management Master Plan

(Note: This edition is currently undergoing a major review that is scheduled for publication in 2012)

Edition 1.0 March 2009

3

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1207/2011 laying down requirements for the performance and the interoperability of surveillance for the single European sky. (Informally known as the SPI IR)

Version published 22nd November 2011

4

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1206/2011 laying down requirements on aircraft identification for surveillance for the single European sky. (Informally known as the ACID IR)

Version published 22nd November 2011

5 SESAR Project Initiation Report Technical Project 15.4.1 Surveillance Infrastructure Rationalisation

Edition 01.01.01

January 2011

6 ICAO Operational Concept Document / Manual on Global performance of Air Navigation Service Doc 9883 First Edition

2007

7 SESAR D2 Air Transport Framework – The Performance Target Ref DLM-0607-001-02-00a

Version 2.0 November 2006

8 European Commission Regulation No 550/2004 – on the provision of air navigation services in the single European sky (the service provision Regulation)

Version published 10th March 2004


38 of 40

Appendix A Acronyms and Terminology Term Definition

ACAS Airborne Collision Avoidance System

ACID Aircraft Identification

ADD Aircraft Derived Data

ADS-B Automatic Dependant Surveillance - Broadcast

AIC Aeronautical Information Circular

AIP Aeronautical Information Publication

ANSP Air Navigation Service Provider

ASTERIX All-purpose Structured EUROCONTROL Surveillance Information Exchange (formerly "All-purpose Structured EUROCONTROL Radar Information Exchange")

ATC Air Traffic Control

ATM Air Traffic Management

ATS Air Traffic Services

CAA Civil Aviation Authority (plus note that NSA is the term used within this document to describe the Regulatory Authority)

CNS Communications, Navigation and Surveillance

DAP Downlinked Aircraft Parameter (see also ADD)

EASA European Aviation Safety Agency

ECAC European Civil Aviation Conference

ELS Elementary Surveillance (as in Mode S ELS)

EHS Enhanced Surveillance (as in Mode S EHS)

ES Extended Squitter

EU European Union

FAB Functional Airspace Block

FRUIT False replies unsynchronised in time

GAT General Air traffic

GPS Global Positioning System

IC Interrogator Code


39 of 40

Term Definition

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organisation

IFR Instrumented Flight Rules

IR Implementing Rule

JAA Joint Aviation Authorities

MOPS Minimum Operational Performance Specification

MSI IR Mode S Interrogator Code Allocation Implementing Rule

MSPSR Multi-Static Primary Surveillance Radar

MSSR Monopulse SSR

NM Nautical Mile

NSA National Supervisory Authority. The responsibility of the NSA’s is as described in European Commission 550/2004 Article 2(1). (See ref doc 8)

OAT Operational Air Traffic

PRF Pulse Repetition Frequency

PSR Primary Surveillance Radar

SESAR Single European Sky ATM Research Programme

SESAR Programme The programme which defines the Research and Development activities and Projects for the SJU.

SJU SESAR Joint Undertaking (Agency of the European Commission)

SJU Work Programme The programme which addresses all activities of the SESAR Joint Undertaking Agency.

SPI Special Pulse (Position) Identification (SSR)

SPI IR Surveillance, Performance and Interoperability Implementing Rule

SSR Secondary Surveillance Radar

STCA Short term Conflict Alert

TCAS Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (see also ACAS)

TMA Terminal Manoeuvring Area

VFR Visual Flight Rules

WAM Wide Area Multilateration


40 of 40

- END OF DOCUMENT -