140917 atc global conference ralph riedle

7/25/2019 140917 Atc Global Conference Ralph Riedle

1/15

Measuring performance, benchmarking

and setting objectivesATC GlobalSession 3

Ralph RIEDLE

Chairman Performance Review Commission

17 September 2014


2/15

Measuring performance, benchmarking and setting objectives 2

Topics

ANS in the European aviation context

Performance oriented approach in ANS

ANS performance review examples

Conclusions


3/15


ANS in the European aviation context (1/2)

6% of Airlineoperating costs (Europe)

Air transport delay (2013)All 9 min. per flight

ANS-related 1 min. per flight

6% of aviation related CO2emissions (0.2% of total emissions)

Safety is the primary objective!No accident with ANS contribution since 2011

Reported incidents in 0.3% of flights

Although ANS is comparatively small in aviation context.

GDP from Air Transport

in EU $160 BSource: ATAG

Air Navigation Services $10 B

Safety

Cost-

efficiency

Capacity

Environment

European

IFR traffic


4/15


ANS in the European aviation context (2/2)

ANS generates.

Value.. Safety

Efficient flow of air traffic

Costs . Total economic cost $ 14 B (SES area)

Direct ANS provision costs (user charges)

Indirect service quality related costs

(delays, non-optimum flight profiles)

Airborne equipment costs to be added

Environmental impact

High penalties to economy if disrupted

Scope for improvements!

Total

economiccost

$14 B

Flight

efficiency

ANS related

delays

ATCO

costs

Other costs

DirectANSCost

$10 B

Support

costs

CAPEX

Indirectservicequalityrelatedcosts

$4 B

the stakes are high!

SES area


5/15


Performance-oriented approach in ANS (1/5)

You cant manage whatyou dont measure!


6/15



Objectives (What should be achieved?) Commonly accepted framework (What should be measured, targeted: KPAs, KPIs?)

Performance targets (How much should be achieved? When?)

Performance monitoring (Are we on track?)

Corrective measures (As necessary)

Strategy &

objectives(what must be done well to implement strategy )

Framework,

KPIs & PIs

(How success

should bemeasured)

Target setting(Quantification of what should be achieved)

Reporting,

monitoring

& analysis

(actual vs. targets)(understand achieved

performance)

Performance

ReviewVerified

Data


7/15Measuring performance, benchmarking and setting objectives 7


ECAC institutional strategy (1997)

Common ATM Performance strategy Focus on outcome, not only means (e.g. technology)

Independent Performance Review Commission (PRC) (1998) Independent Performance review

Light-handed regulation: objective information, recommendations

Single European Sky (SES II: 2009)

SES Performance scheme Enforceable performance targets (EU, national/FAB levels), incentives

Performance Review Body (PRB) advising the European Commission

ECAC Common

ATM Performance

strategy

PRC

1997 1998 2004

SES PRB

20102009

SES II

2012 2015

Start

RP1

Start

RP2

1990

Delay

crisis

Delay

crisis


8/15Measuring performance, benchmarking and setting objectives 8


Safety

Cost-effectiveness

Flexibility

ICAOhigh-level expectations of the ATM community

Access &Equity

Participation

Security

Efficiency

Predictability

Interoperability

Capacity

Environment

European focus

areas for targetsetting

Safetymanagement

Capacitymanagement

Costmanagement

Environmentalsustainability

European focus areas in line with the 11 Key performance areas (KPAs)defined in ICAO Global Air Traffic Management Operational Concept

Binding targets for Safety, Cost-efficiency, Capacity and Environment

Other KPAs measured


9/15


Over

TimeBenchmarking dimensions

Withinregion

Across

regions

Different dimensions of performance benchmarking enable to:

Understand and position own performance

Identify performance gaps and scope for improvement set ambitious but realistic targets

Well established publications on ANS performance in Europe:

Annual Performance Review Report (system view, all KPAs)

ATM Cost Effectiveness Benchmarking (ACE) reports (Economics)

Ad hoc reports (US/ Europe comparisons, etc.)9

European focus

areas for target

setting

Safety

management

Capacity

management

Cost

management

Environmentalsustainability

Measuring performance, benchmarking and setting objectives


10/15

Annual Performance Review Reports (PRR)

2,

2

2,

9

4,

5

2,

9

2,

5

1,

4

0,

9

0,8

0,

91,

01,

2 1,

4

0,

9

2,

0

1,

1

0,

63

0,

53

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Trafficindex(base:1997)

En-routeATFMdelay/flight(min.)

ATC Other (strike, equipment, etc.) WEATHER

OTHER (Spec ia l event , mil itary, e tc .) IFR Tra ff ic

Average en-route ATFM delay per flight

source: Network Manager

4,9

1

4,8

7

4,8

6

3,3

1

3,2

0

3,1

4

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

5,5

6,0

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Flight Plan (KEP) Actual trajectory (KEA)PRU analysis

inefficiency(%)

2009/10 KEA data based

on regression analysis

Verified facts and performance indicators

Independent critical analysis (wide spectrum)

Recommendations to decisions makers

SAFETY: Review of safety incident evolutionin order to identify trends (RI, SMI, etc.)

COST-EFFICIENCY: Analysis of ANS unit costsund underlying drivers

ENVIRONMENT: Monitoring of flightefficiency en route and in terminal areas;

CAPACITY: Evaluation of ANS related en routeand airport delays and constraining factors;

Safety Cost-efficiency

CapacityEnvironment

European

IFR traffic



11/15

ANSP benchmarkingACE reports

ATM Cost Effectiveness Benchmarking (ACE) reports

Widely accepted performance framework (ICAO Doc 9161)

Verified data, official performance indicators and metrics

Factual analysis at European level, within region, over time

Purpose: Inform decision makers, support target setting within SES, etc

Safety Cost-efficiency

CapacityEnvironment

European

IFR traffic

11Measuring performance, benchmarking and setting objectives


12/15

Global perspective: US-Europe comparison

2012/2013 Europe USAUS vs.

EuropeGeographic Area (million km

2) 11.5 10.4 -10%

Nr. of civil en route Air Navigation Service Providers 37 1

Number of en route centres 63 20 -43

Number of APP units (Europe) and terminal facilities (US) 260 163 -97

Number of fully trained Air Traffic Controllers (ATCOs in Ops.) 17 200 13 400 -22%

Total staff 58 000 35 500 -39%

Controlled flights (IFR) (million) 9.6 15.1 +57%Flight hours controlled (million) 14.3 22.4 +57%

Average length of flight (within respective airspace) 551 NM 515 NM -7%

Relative density (flight hours per km2) 1.2 2.2 x1.7

Share of General Aviation 3.9% 21%

Facts

Similar conditions (geographical area, average flight length)

US controls more IFR traffic (+57%) with fewer staff (-39%),including ATC Controllers (-22%)

What are the underlying drivers of performance?



13/15

Reactive policy in the 90s: delays go up while costs go down, and vice versa

As of 1998, performance-oriented approach and improved capacity management

contributed to reduction of both delays and unit costs

Enforceable SES performance targets apply from 2012 onwards

Performance in capacity and cost-efficiency

Traffic index

En routedelay



14/15

5.42 5.385.18 5.15 5.11

3.29 3.17 3.12

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

routeextension(%)

Source: PRU analysis

Target RP1 Targets RP2

Environmental performance

Filed flight plan

Flight efficiency first measured in 2006: continuous improvement since then

Good routing efficiency of ANS (3%) compared to other transport modes Yet significant economic impact (fuel burn, flight time) Impossible to reach 0% with full civil-military traffic load

SES targets on Environment set for 2014 (FPL), 2019 (Actual, FPL)

Improved flight-efficiency compensates for air traffic growth

Carbon-neutral growth of aviation (due in 2020)

already being met as far as European ANS is concerned!

Actual flowntrajectory

ENVIRONMENT:

Performance targets onen route flight efficiency

within SES scheme



15/15

Conclusions

Performance is the bottom line for ANS policy Impact on more than $14B p.a. in EU, while ensuring safety

European Performance-driven strategy delivers,

but margins for significant further improvements remain Independent Performance review since 1998 (PRC)

Stronger regulation under SES II (enforceable targets, regulations) EUROCONTROL supports both PRC and EC/PRB

Global benchmarking reveals best practices, weaknesses

EUROCONTROL willing to engage with benchmarking partners

More details in workshop Driving excellence in ATM

performance ( Workshop theatre, 19 Sep. , 10am)

Reports available at http://www.eurocontrol.int/prc/publications


140917 atc global conference ralph riedle

Documents