IP04 survey A-CDM - Airport Collaborative Decision Making

3 rd Airport CDM Coordination Group 

Airport CDM European Airport Stakeholder - Survey 2009 

- Submitted by the Airport CDM team - 

European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation 

Rue de la Fusée, 96 B-1130 Bruxelles Tel.: + 32-2-729 90 11 Fax: + 32-2-729 90 44 Telex: 21173 EUROC B 

E U R O C O N T R O L 

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ 

Information Paper 

19-20 th Nov 2009 

INFORMATION PAPER 04 

SUMMARY 

A questionnaire on Airport CDM progress has been sent out to as many different airport 

stakeholders and locations. The purpose of the survey was to gain a better understanding 

of progress and possible reasons for Airport CDM implementation being delayed. 

The aim was to identify common trends on issues that may affect the timely delivery of 

Airport CDM implementation. 

For a quantitative assessment the results were not significant enough. As a qualitative 

survey the results are more useful. The main cause is the lack of priority to implement CDM 

by the stakeholders who would benefit from it. However the adjacent report demonstrates 

more challenges. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

The members of the Airport CDM Coordination Group are invited to note the content of the 

survey

- 2 - 

Airport CDM European Airport Stakeholder - 

Survey 2009 

Survey purpose 

The purpose of the survey was to gain a better understanding of progress and the potential 

blocking points in the implementation of Airport Collaborative Decision Making (A-CDM) 

and more importantly an insight as where the current A-CDM practitioners viewed the 

challenges ahead. The questionnaire was focused at a broad range of airport locations and 

stakeholders across Europe. The aim was to identify common trends on issues that may 

affect the timely delivery of A-CDM implementation. 

Airport CDM aims to enhance operational efficiency at airports through improved decision 

making capabilities and the integration of airport operations into the ATM Network by 

enhanced cooperation and coordination. It involves the sharing of accurate and timely 

operational data between Air Traffic Management, Aircraft Operators, CFMU, Ground 

Handlers, Airports and other service providers. Therefore, to better understand the 

current status of implementation enables all stakeholders to focus their efforts on the 

important issues and share common solutions to overcome any potential blocking points 

ahead. 

As part of the data gathering exercise, an online web page was developed so that 

respondents could answer the list of questions easily and anonymously. The individual 

results from individual stakeholders will remain confidential. A copy of the questionnaire 

can be found in APPENDIX A

The Survey details 

- 3 - 

• The questionnaires were sent to 27 Airport locations, representing 19 ANSP’s, 14 

Airlines, 17 airport operators, 2 ground Handlers and other stakeholders in mid 

2009. 

• The survey focused on identifying the current status of A-CDM roll-out across 

Europe and to test what was perceived to be the blocking points currently being 

experienced, and what could potentially frustrate the timely implementation of A- 

CDM. 

Analysis method 

• All responses to the questionnaire have been consolidated into a MS-Excel 

spreadsheet and formatted to improve the presentation and readability of the 

results. 

• In order to perform a detailed quantitative data analysis of the responses, each of 

the response criteria was assigned a number ranging from 1 to 5, as shown below: 

o 1: Fully disagree 

o 2: Disagree 

o 3: No opinion 

o 4: Agree 

o 5: Fully agree 

• Comments made in the ‘Other reasons’ field are helpful to better understand and 

add context to the rest of the answers and the current situation at the airport 

concerned. 

For the statistical analysis; see APPENDIX B

Survey Response summary 

- 4 - 

• An encouraging 35 responses were received in total from 19 different airport 

locations spread across Europe. 

• An ANSP responsible for 4 airports gave the same generic response for all 4 airports. 

• Two airport locations provided anonymous responses, however, it was confirmed 

that the information received was from the airport operator and an airline. 

• Only 3 airports were represented by 3 or more different types of partners. 

• 2 different replies came from the same airport partner at the same airport 

location. 

• 2 replies were received from participants claiming that they were representing all 

the partners of the Airport CDM project. 

• There was a good distribution between Airport Operators (13) and ANSPs (14), plus 

other responses from airlines (6), a Ground Handler and a Slot Coordination 

organisation. 

• The average of the answers to only 5 statements could be considered as significant 

indication: 

o To the statement ‘Possible reasons for Airport CDM project implementation 

Number of answers 

being delayed: difficulties establishing which partner will drive or lead the 

project’ the participants disagreed with the statement. 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

12 

Possible reasons for Airport CDM project implementation being delayed 

Political reasons 

9 

Fully disagree Disagree No opinion Agree Fully agree 

Type of answer 

1 

9 

2 

Difficulties establishing 

which partner will drive 

or lead the project

- 5 - 




being delayed: fear of confidentiality violation’ the participants disagreed with 

the statement. 

18 

16 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

8 



18 



1 

6 

0 

Fear of confidentiality violation 


14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

being delayed: lack of involvement of the higher management of your own 

company’ the participants disagreed with the statement. 

10 



13 

4 4 



2 

Lack of involvement of 

the higher management 

of your own company



- 6 - 


18 

16 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

being delayed: following implementation, data accuracy, timeliness and 

availability deteriorates’ the participants had no opinion on the statement. 

3 


Operational reasons 

9 



17 

4 

0 

Following implementation, 

data accuracy, timeliness 

and availability deteriorates 

The result may be explained by the fact that implementation is still ongoing 

at most of the respondent airport locations. 


10 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 

being delayed: unforeseen withdrawal of a major partner’ the participants 

disagreed with the statement. 


General reasons 

10 10 

9 

2 2 



Unforeseen withdrawal 

of a major partner

- 7 - 

• The following chart shows the distribution of the “agree” and “fully agree” 

responses to the proposed statements. It gives an indication of the most frequent 

reasons for delay in the implementation of Airport CDM: 

Distribution of the "Agree" and "Fully agree" responses to the proposed statements 


20 

18 

16 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

Project priority 

Costs not clear 

Benefits not clear 

Economic crisis 

Funding 

No MoU 

No Project Manager 

No partner leading 

Confidentiality violation 

Relations btw partners 

Higher mgmt involvmt 

Milestones & procedures 

Project mgmt issues 

Poor data sharing 

Poor data quality 

Procedures implementation 

Poor involvement of ops 

IT issues 

Poor commitment 

Poor awareness 

Conflicting priorities 

Partners not convinced 

Withdrawal of partner 

Fear of change 

Statements 

o The chart shows that budgetary reasons, lack of commitment and 

conflicting priorities are playing an important role. The current economic 

crisis affecting one or more of the airport partners and project funding 

issues were seen as delaying factors for A-CDM implementation. 

o It also seems that Airport CDM is not always considered as being a priority at 

the different airports, seeing the number of responses considering that the 

lack of Project Manager, lack of commitment and difficulties in convincing 

some partners to participate are issues. 

o Technical issues such as integration and development of systems also seem 

to cause difficulties. 

'Agree' & 'Fully agree' 

statements

- 8 - 

• Generally, a positive response and the comments appear to be well balanced and 

open to reflect the current challenges facing all sectors of the aviation industry. 

• 6 participants from 4 different airports considered that the project had been 

stopped vs. 29 from 17 different airports who considered that it had not. 

• There was a wide geographical spread in the responses and it is also representative 

of a range of airport sizes. 

• Inconsistencies in the replies at the same airport and sometimes within the same 

organisation were observed. In particular, inconsistencies have been observed in 

the start date of the project, implementation stage and whether the project has 

been stopped. 

Key findings (qualitative analysis) 

• There appears to be continued positive intent to implement A-CDM at a number of 

airports across Europe, with some States being more proactive and showing more 

progress than others. 

• For a number of reasons there are still some blocking points delaying the 

implementation process in other areas. From the comments written in the free text 

section, it seems that they fall mainly into three categories: 

o Lack of Commitment by some stakeholders (implementation only on 

voluntary basis) 

o Lack of awareness by some decision makers of the benefits 

o The current economical climate is challenging 

Commitment by some stakeholders 

• Whilst some elements of the Airport/ANSP/Airline tripartite organisation needed to 

implement A-CDM and are fully motivated and willing to participate, others are still 

not as committed or willing to contribute. 

• Conflicting priorities have been amplified especially due to the current state of the 

aviation market. 

• The challenge of changing organisational cultures and working practices is too great 

at this time. 

Lack of awareness by some decision makers of the benefits 

• Whilst there is a positive outlook towards A-CDM, the full benefits to some are still 

an unknown entity and difficult to quantify.

- 9 - 

• There is still a question of ‘why change’ when the current system works. 

• Some organisations are still focused on their internal priorities. 

The current economical climate 

• Whilst there are recognised benefits from A-CDM, there is a lack of willingness to 

expend funds on what can be seen as not a core or mandated project. 

• With current pay freezes, staff reductions and general staff relations being tested, 

there may be a reluctance to implement an operational change process that could 

be seen as a transformation of working practices. 

• With most airports experiencing a significant down turn in traffic demand and 

revenues, any additional funding or allocation of resources is unlikely to be 

approved. 

Conclusions 

• Given the volume of the responses there is obviously a great interest to still pursue 

the implementation of A-CDM at many airports, even if other projects take a higher 

priority. 

• The challenge of implementation and the introduction of new processes, 

collaborative working practices and general cultural changes are still seen as a 

major obstacle for some organisations. 

• The awareness of the operational, financial and probably more importantly the 

environmental and sustainable development benefits are still unclear for many. 

• With the general on-going delays in implementing A-CDM across Europe there is a 

Next steps 

growing risk to achieving the SESAR baseline expectations for Airports. However, 

with reduced traffic at a majority of airports, there is currently a good opportunity 

to implement A-CDM and be better prepared for when growth in demand returns. 

• EUROCONTROL will carry out a strategic review of the communications strategy for 

A-CDM in Europe 

• EUROCONTROL will increase the awareness and link with existing regulations (A- 

CDM Community specifications) and other potential existing regulations 

• EUROCONTROL will provide greater clarity of the predicted and actual benefits 

gained at airports where A-CDM is operational or is being rolled out.

- 10 - 

• EUROCONTROL will develop stronger links to the airports currently in the process of 

implementing A-CDM, this could be in the form of direct support to project or 

governance meetings on an ad-hoc basis 

• EUROCONTROL will develop and publish a quarterly newsletter, highlighting 

progress towards the SESAR IP1 expectations and timescales.

APPENDIX A 

- 11 - 

Questionnaire submitted to the airport stakeholders

- 12 -

APPENDIX B 

Statistical methodology 

- 13 - 

• For each statement presented, the average of the answers has been calculated. 

• For each statement the standard deviation of the answers has been calculated. A 

low number indicates that the distribution of the answers is narrow. Consequently, 

all the answers are close to the average. A high number indicates that the answers 

are widely spread around the average. 

• For each statement, the P parameter of the one sample t-test has been calculated. 

The one sample t-test is a statistical hypothesis test, which compares the mean 

score of a sample to a known value, usually the population mean. It allows the 

determination of the significance of the mean score of the tested sample. In the 

particular case of the questionnaire, the aim was to know if the hypothesis ‘the 

average of the answers to each statement is significant’ was true. This hypothesis 

was tested with the one sample t-test against the ‘null hypothesis’ (i.e.: ‘the 

average of the total population of participants is 3’). If the P parameter of the one 

sample t-test for the tested hypothesis was smaller than 0.05 then the hypothesis 

was accepted, which means that the average of the answers of the tested 

statement was significant. If the P parameter was greater than 0.05, the hypothesis 

was rejected, which means that the average of the answers to the tested statement 

was not significant. 

• For each statement, the ‘median answer’ has been calculated. For example, a 

median of 4 indicates that half of the answers to the statement were equal or 

greater than 4 (“agree” or “fully agree”). This was the case for the questions “lack 

of commitment” and “conflicting priorities”.

IP04 survey A-CDM - Airport Collaborative Decision Making

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?