Icon Consulting Logo Management and Technology  Consulting
Managing ComplexityBusiness SectorsServicesOur ConsultantsStudy ReportsContactsNewsletters

After many months of "due process" we are delighted to announce that Icon Consulting Logo has been registered as a Community Trademark within the EU.

We set great store by our brand and are continually working to ensure that it is supported by the quality of work and integrity for which it was designed. This registration will help to ensure that we cannot be confused with other companies across the whole of the EU.

  {short description of image} NEWSLETTER - WINTER 2005  
{short description of image} IN THIS ISSUE...

{short description of image}Please note our new address:
2Fl, Berkeley Square House, Berkeley Square, London W1J 6BD

{short description of image}Articles

  • Management of Business Case EvidenceThe key element of a successful business case to justify major capital investment is the ability to demonstrate the benefits that can be derived from an economically viable solution.
  • Safety Culture Icon's report into changes in ATM Safety Culture as a result of new technology has now been published.
  • Noise With Directive 2002/30/EC now translated into law by Member States, airports are faced with a fresh set of challenges in balancing management of growing air traffic and better relations with their neighbours.

{short description of image} If you are interested in any of the issues and solutions discussed in this newsletter please contact us.

Should you not wish to receive future newsletters, please just return the e-mail and we will take you off our list .

{short description of image}Print Friendly Version



{short description of image}SEAP Business Case

Icon has now completed the business case for SEAP (Large Scale European ADS pre-implementation Programme). The main objective of SEAP is to extend the European ADS network to enable large scale Trans European trials involving fleet equipped aircraft. The main benefit identified for ANSPs was reduction in controller workload and the main benefit for airlines was an increase in flight efficiency.

Using a conservative set of assumptions, a strong case was established for the SEAP ANSPs to invest in ADS-B technology and implement the SEAP applications in the SEAP area. Provided ANSP benefits are passed onto airlines as a reduction in service charges, an attractive internal rate of return is also available for airlines. The study found that there is strong case for an incentive scheme that returns benefits selectively to those airlines that invest in the equipment and encourages early investment.

The following ADS applications will be implemented in the SEAP area.

  • ATC Surveillance in Non-radar Areas (ADS-B-NRA);
  • Enhanced Sequencing and Merging Operations (ASPA-S&M) ;
  • ASAS Applications in the Canary Islands Oceanic Airspace;
  • Enhanced Traffic Situational Awareness on the Airport Surface (ATSA-SURF);
  • ATC Surveillance in Terminal Areas (ADS-B-TMA)

The SEAP Business Case was evaluated using the EMOSIA methodology and ATOBIA mode,l and benefits were quantified using expert judgement.
Return to top of page

{short description of image}EMOSIA
The European Model for Strategic ATM Investment Analysis (EMOSIA) is a standard method for carrying out cost benefit analyses of ATM investments, supported by a tool based on the 'Decision Advisor' program. It is now the method of choice for Eurocontrol for the evaluations of investment options. ICON is a major practitioner in the use of EMOSIA. We have used it in the assessment of the SEAP business case. We will be also using it to carry out the Cost Benefit Analyses of DMEAN and C-ATM and A-SMGCS.

The EMOSIA method consists of three main elements:

  • Dialogue with stakeholders and experts in order to define the appropriate questions and assumptions for the economic evaluation;
  • Five stakeholder models a to evaluate the economic viability of an ATM improvement for ANSPs, Airports Operators, Airline Operators, the Military and General Aviation;
  • Standard inputs and a rolling baseline of traffic levels, delays, efficiency and other factors, taking into account the ATM improvements expected to take place in the absence of this investment.

Return to top of page

{short description of image}DMEAN
Icon has been awarded the contract to carry out a cost benefit analyses of DMEAN.

The DMEAN objective is to release latent ATM capacity by closer integration of a number of ATM areas such as Airspace Management and ATFCM as needed to meet capacity and flight efficiency requirements 2006-2009. Given these time scales, DMEAN will not depend on new technologies but will be based on an improved utilisation of the current ATM system. This will be achieved through enhanced collaborative processes, information exchange and other improvements that are required to balance demand and capacity in a more dynamic way.

The DMEAN CBA is to be carried out in two stages. The first it to look at short-term operational improvements for 2006/7, and the secod is to carry out a full assessment of the cost and benefits of the DMEAN CONOPs. More information on the DMEAN concept can be found on the DMEAN home page.
Return to top of page

{short description of image}Performance of Future Concepts
Icon has long been associated with the performance of air traffic management and we are currently looking at how the performance of future concepts should be identified. Given the intensive effort about to be put into SESAME, this work is of the essence. Our opening proposition is that the traditional approach to identifying new concepts by identifying potential changes to technologies and procedures is no longer appropriate. Future systems should be designed by identifying a target set of industry performance measures and then carrying out option appraisals to determine how best to achieve them.
Return to top of page

{short description of image}Going for S-CAT
UK Government is retendering the Frameworks through which it procures much of its management and IT consulting. ICON has joined with other small companies to bid. So far so good. We will continue to concentrate on our core expertise of strategic, policy and financial analyses, the use of future technologies and commercial, procurement and programme management in complex environments. If we achieve the success we are expecting there will be more opportunities for suitably qualified consultants. Please feel free to contact us if your expertise matches our services and you have an interest in working in UK Government organisations. We would be particularly interested in hearing from consultants who have current experience of this work.
Return to top of page

{short description of image}OGC Framework
We are delighted to announce that the UK Office of Government Commerce has appointed Icon as a supplier for framework reviews and consulting. Details of the OGC services may be found on http://www.ogc.gov.uk/index.asp?id=377 and http://www.ogc.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1000332 There is currently an open call for Gateway Review Team Leaders for all Sectors and for Gateway Team Members for Health. If you feel that you have the necessary expertise to carry out reviews please contact us.
Return to top of page.



{short description of image}Management of Business Case Evidence
The key element of a successful business case to justify major capital investment is the ability to demonstrate the benefits that can be derived from an economically viable solution. This can be difficult to achieve, especially when it involves the research, development and implementation of complex new concepts and products.

Validation is the process by which evidence is obtained that the "right" solution is being developed. It is part of classic system engineering lifecycles where validation is seen as one of the final activities to test whether a system meets the original user needs. In reality this is too simplistic a model because most complex systems and products are developed in an iterative and evolutionary way; therefore, validation should be performed throughout the lifecycle to support the go/no go decisions on further development. It is important to distinguish validation from verification, which is the process that tests whether a product has been built as specified in the design phase.

The term validation has slightly different meanings in certain industries, such as nuclear and healthcare, where it refers to formal processes, dictated by regulation, which lead to the certification of products to national and international standards, for example, the testing and trials of pharmaceutical products.

In general, evidence gathering and interpretation for business justification increases in complexity with the complexity of the product and concept. Evidence can be obtained from any point in the product development lifecycle, using a variety of techniques (e.g. paper based research, prototyping, simulations, in-vitro and in-vivo trials, pre-operational testing), each focusing on different aspects using different indicators and metrics to measure results. A huge amount of data can be generated from these activities, some of which is fully or partially overlapping in scope, can be contradictory and which may or may not be relevant for the business case. The data becomes even more voluminous and problematic when it has been generated in a multi-national, multi-partner environment.

Icon has been involved in developing methodical approaches to managing validation information to support decision making in exactly this kind of environment. For example, we have played a central role in the successful development and operation of the Validation Data Repository (VDR) for EUROCONTROL which has significantly improved the information management of validation activities in Air Traffic Management System development (see attached case study).

{short description of image}If you are interested to find out more about how Icon could advise you on managing validation processes, please at contact us at enquiries@icon-consulting.com.
Return to top of page

{short description of image}Noise
With Directive 2002/30/EC now translated into law by Member States, airports are faced with a fresh set of challenges in balancing the management of increasing air traffic and better relations with their neighbours. National responsibilities under the Chicago Convention dictate that states cannot promote tougher noise standards for aircraft unilaterally. Long-established airports close to major cities may have already conducted major campaigns for insulation and even property buy out. Local or national land-use planning policies have been used to prevent inappropriate local developments, which might otherwise conflict with local housing, schools and hospitals. But the problem of managing a response to traffic growth remains, especially when most major airports in the EU are served with aircraft which already comply with the new ICAO Chapter 4 standards. Evidence is accumulating that noise certification levels are not always the most reliable guide to operational performance. The challenge is greatest at night when ambient noise levels may be much lower.

How aircraft are flown during approach and departure, and where, will be critical to controlling noise impact and curbing annoyance. Some practices such as noise preferential routes or appropriately glide slopes are widely used today. In future technology may allow specially tailored noise abatement procedures at each airport, purpose designed with the distribution and densities of local population in mind. But that is for tomorrow; today the paramount requirement for safety, through the frameworks provided by PANS-OPS and JAR-OPS, means the emphasis has to be on best practice. Working with ATC providers and airlines offers the opportunity to ensure that appropriate noise abatement procedures are used and complied with, without compromising safety. Airports should be actively considering adopting an audit of current practice to check that optimum benefits in terms of noise reductions are both available theoretically and delivered.

Readers may have noticed the publication of the following letter in Flight International (18th-24th October 2005), by an Icon associate, Martin Wright.

Chapter 4 is no panacea for today's airports in the EU (Airbus sounds out A300B4 for Chapter 4: Flight International 9-15 August p10). The ink is barely dry on Chapter 4 but the search to re-certificate types originally noise certificated to Chapter 3 over 30 years ago spells more trouble.

Most of today's production aircraft already meet Chapter 4. The expectation is that new aircraft will also operate for 30 years and more. Rapid growth of air traffic poses the threat of larger noise contours at airports where fleets are already wholly or largely Chapter 4 compliant. The noise certification regime also does not necessarily rank aircraft in terms of how much noise they make in normal operation.

Yes, aircraft have got quieter and considerable effort has been committed to squeeze out a few decibels here and there. But the plain truth is that technology has not delivered a step change to match that from the higher bypass ratio engines originally developed to power big airframes such as the Boeing 747. That change allowed ICAO to agree Chapter 3 and shrank contours, especially with concerted action to phase out non-compliant types. Permitting elderly, marginally compliant aircraft to operate, particularly in noise sensitive night-time settings, simply compounds airports' difficulties with their neighbours

Return to top of page

{short description of image} Safety Culture
Icon's report (prepared in association with HRA) into changes in ATM Safety Culture as a result of new technology has now been published.
This report describes a small-scale project about the impact that future ATM technologies may have on safety culture in ATM. The overall objectives of this project were to:

  • gather evidence for the impact of recently introduced systems on safety culture, and
  • examine the potential impact future ATM functions may have on safety culture that could potentially affect safety.

Changes in safety culture were discussed with regard to recently introduced technologies (such as OLDI, STCA, Human-Machine Interface) and future technologies (such as MTCD (medium term conflict detection), CORA (conflict resolution assistant), datalink and ASAS (airborne separation assurance system). The main findings suggest that teamwork and communication appear to be particularly vulnerable to change, although controllers also indicated that there is high chance that their understanding of the risks and their job satisfaction may change with new technology. Controllers trust in equipment, personal responsibility for safety and job pressure were also predicted to change with the implementation of new technology.
Return to top of page


Icon Consulting, 2Fl, Berkeley Square House, Berkeley Square, London W1J 6BD
tel: +44 (0) 207 494 9994 | email: enquiries@icon-consulting.com