Event Model Descriptions and Assessment

Peter MontgomeryTom Duerr8 January 2012

Outline

• Team members• Purpose and approach• Event “value”• Event models and value assessment

2

Tiger Team Members

Facilitators: Basil Hassan, Tom Duerr, Peter MontgomeryWorkshop: Dimitri MavrisTechnical Groups: Kathleen Atkins, David Riley, Jim Neidhoefer, Ashwani Gupta / Jeff Hamstra, Neal Pfeiffer, Allen Arrington, Trevor Sorensen / Peter MontgomeryNew Initiatives:Jim Keenan PC Coordinator: Mark Melanson Public Policy Comm.: Carol CashYoung Professionals: Darin Haudrich Emerg. Tech Comm., TAC: Tony Gross AIAA staff: Megan Scheidt, Anna Kimmel, Craig Day, Betty Guillie

3

Purpose and Approach

• Purpose: Identify features that will improve value of AIAA Event portfolio

• Approach:· Identify stakeholder values (15 value attributes defined)· Develop alternative Event models· Assess strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats

(SWOT) for each Event model against each value attribute o SWOT x 15 attributes x 3 alternatives = 180 discrete assessments

· Synthesize net issues, benefits, and value score

4

Value Attributes (1 of 2)

Value Attribute DefinitionPROFESSIONAL MEMBER VALUES

Technical content Quantity and quality of papers presented per conferenceKeynote speakers and plenary sessions

Seniority/authority of speakers

Special sessions (panels)

Quantity and quality of panels, distinction of invited panelists, current relevance of topics

Exhibits Match with technical topics and attendee interestsEvent locations/destinations

Availability of transportation (to destination and mass transit at destination), entertainment, tours, family activities, cost of hotel/food

Social/networking Quantity and quality of networking opportunitiesMix of attendees Students to senior professionals, researchers to program managersRelevance to profession Growth potential into new areas; Event relevance as a whole to

attendee; attendee’s ease of "selling" need to attend; right mixture of above attributes that are applicable to my job

Parallelism vs conference length

Balance no. of parallel sessions against conference length; 3-4 days preferred according to survey

5

Value Attributes (2 of 2)

Value Attribute DefinitionCORPORATE/GOVERNMENT MEMBER VALUES

Conduct business Opportunities to meet privately to buy or sellMeet customers Opportunities to meet privately with customersNetwork with peers Opportunities to meet socially with peers from industry

ORGANIZER VALUESControl over content Call for papers, no. of paper and panel sessions, qualityControl over venue Time of year, region, city, hotelIdentification with conference Sense of community among peers; recognition for contributions to

conference; recognition at awards; working group level social/networking opportunities

6

15 value attributes derived from member survey and voiced concerns

Event Model Design Principles

1) Technical Strength: continue to count on the TCs and PCs to control the technical content

2) Relevance: multi-layered to attract a wider cross section of the aerospace community

3) Interaction: a spectrum of networking and exhibit opportunities

4) Engagement: other sectors of AIAA (Public Policy, Education, Standards, International, Corporate Members, etc.)

5) Growth: new technical or programmatic areas

7

Event Design Parameters

8

• Organization Duration Parallel sessions

• Content Technical scope Special sessions Plenary speakers Exhibits

• Venue Location Time of year

• Social Awards Meals Receptions

Event “models” integrate all design parameters to maximize value

Four Event Models Assessed to Date

Name Description

Current •Current portfolio with minor change, e.g., some co-location

Consolidated •Current larger Events (ASM, Fluids, JPC, Space, GNC, SDM) plus Aviation and Defense as centers of gravity for consolidating smaller conferences

•Augment with systems development/integration elementsIntegrated •Comprehensive, domain-focused Events providing integrated content

•~4 Events spread over the year: R&D, Aviation, Space, and DefenseUnified •Multi-domain, unified Events split between R&D and Systems

Engineering, Integration, and Test (SEIT)•One big Event for R&D (winter) and one for SEIT/programs (summer)

and a smaller Defense conference

9

Consolidated Event Model

10

• Leverage current larger Events (ASM, Fluids, JPC, Space, GNC, SSDM) plus Aviation and Defense as centers of gravity for consolidating smaller conferences

• Augment with systems development/integration elements

• Retains the traditional technical domains as the primary focus and alignment for Events

Structure and Notional Schedule: Consolidated (Example)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep GFY Q1

ASM Defense• Strat/Tac• Missiles• WSE

SSDM• SSDM• Adaptive Structures

• NDA• Gossamer• MDO

Fluids• AMT/GT• AA• ASE• Flow Cont• Fluid Dynamics• PDL• Thermophysics• Aeroacoustics• ICES

JPC• JPC• IECEC• Hypersonics

Space• Space• ICSSC• Astrodyn• ADS• CASE

Aviation• ATIO• LT Air• Balloons• Pwrd Lift• AC noise• GNC• AFM• M&S• InfoTech• CASE

11

Survey shows 1st qtr of gov’t FY poor time for many

Offers flexibility for packaging and scheduling the Event portfolio

Alternate years

12

Assessment: Consolidated Event Model

Issues•Continued internal competition for

keynote and panel speakers, exhibitors•Limited leverage to grow appeal to

currently underserved industry segments

Benefits•Easy migration path from current

portfolio•Somewhat improved professional and

corporate satisfaction

Description•Leverage current larger Events (ASM,

Fluids, JPC, Space, GNC, SSDM) plus Aviation and Defense as centers of gravity for consolidating smaller conferences•Augment with systems

development/integration elements

Value Assessment

Better than Current

Worse than Current

Scores relative to “Current” which is assigned “zero”

Score ranges from “strongly supports” (+2) to “strongly opposes” (-2) the stakeholder values

Value assessed for three stakeholder groups

13

Integrated Event Model

• Comprehensive, domain-focused Events providing integrated content • ~4 Events spread over the year: R&D, Aviation,

Space, and Defense• TCs/PCs may support multiple Events or choose

most relevant Event annually

Structure and Notional Schedule: Integrated

14

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep GFY Q1

Defense•Classified•Domain:Aviation, Missiles, Space

•Audience:Intelligence, Defense, Gov’t, Military, Defense Contractors

•Tracks:R&D, SEIT, Manufacture, Ops, Mgmt, Policy, Programs, Workforce

Space•Domain: Space•Audience: Commercial, Civil, Defense (public release), Potential US-only ITAR track

•Tracks:R&D, SEIT, Manufacture, Ops, Mgmt, Policy, Programs, Workforce

Aviation•Domain: Aviation•Audience: Commercial, Civil, Defense (public release), Potential US-only ITAR track

•Tracks:R&D, SEIT, Manufacture, Ops, Mgmt, Policy, Programs, Workforce

Provides flagship Events spread over the year

Survey shows 1st qtr of gov’t FY poor time for many

R&D•Domain: Aviation, Missiles, Space

•Audience: Commercial, Civil, Defense (public release), Potential US-only ITAR track

•Tracks: Science, Tech, Mgmt, Outlook, Workforce, Policy

15

Assessment: Integrated Event Model

Issues•Must manage to avoid conflicting,

parallel sessions

Benefits• The “must attend” Events in each

domain• Excellent draw for VIPs and exhibitors• Growth potential within each Event

without need for new conferences

Description•Comprehensive, domain-focused

Events providing integrated content •~4 Events spread over the year: R&D,

Aviation, Space, and Defense

Value Assessment

16

Unified Event Model

• Multi-domain, unified Events split between R&D and Systems Engineering, Integration, and Test (SEIT)• One big Event for R&D (winter) and one for

SEIT/programs (summer) and a smaller Defense conference

17

Structure and Notional Schedule: Unified

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep GFY Q1

Maximizes participants’ content return on investment

Survey shows 1st qtr of gov’t FY poor time for many

Defense•Classified•Domain:Aviation, Missiles, Space

•Audience:Intelligence, Defense, Gov’t, Military, Defense Contractors

•Tracks:R&D, SEIT, Manufacture, Ops, Mgmt, Policy, Programs, Workforce

Systems Integration

•Domain: Aviation, Missiles, Space

•Audience: Commercial, Civil, Defense (public release), Potential US-only ITAR track

•Tracks:R&D, SEIT, Manufacture, Ops, Mgmt, Policy, Programs, Workforce

R&D•Domain: Aviation, Missiles, Space

•Audience: Commercial, Civil, Defense (public release), Potential US-only ITAR track

•Tracks: Science, Tech, Mgmt, Outlook, Workforce, Policy

18

Assessment: Unified Event Model

Issues•Potentially excessive duration and

parallelism•Potentially too few opportunities annually

for member interactions•Exhibitor uncertainty over target market•Lack of control by Organizers over venue

Benefits•The “must attend” AIAA Events•Potential for more creative social and

networking activities•Content growth and flexibility

Description•Multi-domain, unified Events split

along R&D and SEIT•One big Event for R&D (winter) and

one for SEIT/programs (summer) and a smaller Defense conference

Value Assessment

Better than Current

Worse than Current

Assessment: Value Comparison

19

Alternative Event structure can increase member value

• All new Event models improve Professional Member and Corp / Gov’t satisfaction over Current portfolio• Integrated Model provides

greatest Professional and Corp / Gov’t value and limited risk to Organizer satisfaction

0 = Current