Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
10 3 Idea Identification and Prioritization This section describes the stakeholder outreach process used to identify additional research ideas, and the methods used to prioritize the topics. 3.1 Stakeholder Engagement and Idea Identification Process The research team completed outreach to key stakeholder groups to identify research gaps, and to solicit specific input on possible future ACRP research projects to be conducted in the area of airport operations and maintenance. The research team sought out representatives of stakeholder groups that could effectively identify knowledge gaps from a cross-discipline perspective, and identify emerging topics that will impact airport O&M, even if those challenges are not traditionally considered within the O&M field. The stakeholder outreach process included multiple forms of communications: large group webinars, individual and small group teleconferences, and in person meetings as well as conference and committee presentations. At the outset, many stakeholder conversations were introductory in nature. During these events, the research team provided a briefing on the project, including: the purpose and objectives of the roadmap; the preliminary topics and themes identified through the review of existing research and prior industry knowledge; and how the roadmap will integrate with ACRPâs IdeaHub. The research team held several of these introductory briefings, and subsequently scheduled follow-on outreach meetings or calls designed to get a more in-depth understanding of stakeholdersâ research needs. The research team made a concerted effort to gain a broad view of the field by engaging with a number of stakeholders from groups that identified as having an interest in and/or ability to contribute to the research roadmap. In total the research team conducted approximately thirty outreach activities (webinars, interviews, meetings, teleconferences and conference presentations) to groups ranging in size from one to over fifty participants, including the following groups: ⢠ACI-NA Committees: Operations and Technical Affairs Committee (including the Facilities & Maintenance, and Construction and Project Delivery working groups) Small Airports Committee, Business Information Technology Committee, and the Environmental Affairs Committee Sustainability working group ⢠AAAE Committees: Operations, Safety, Planning and Emergency Management (OSPEM) and Facilities and Technical Services (FATS) Committees ⢠ACC Committees: Advocacy and Finance & Project Delivery; Engineering; Terminal and Facilities Planning and Environment; and Security Committees ⢠FAA Office of Airports Planning & Programming, Office of Airport Safety & Standards, Airport Engineering ⢠The Volpe National Transportation Systems Center ⢠TRB Aviation Subcommittees: Airport Terminal and Ground Access, Committee Research Coordinators Council, Environmental Impacts of Aviation, and the Airfield and Airspace Capacity and Delay Committees ⢠National Association of State Aviation Officials (NASAO) staff and individual members from FL, MA and LA ⢠International Facilities Maintenance Association (staff and airport members) ⢠RTCA (formerly the Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics) staff ⢠ACRP researchers on related projects ⢠Airline representatives ⢠Individual airport representatives from a range of airport sizes and locations ⢠Individual consultants
11 In general, the research team found that the stakeholders largely concurred with the high level topics identified through the literature review and our own understanding of the topic areas. The research team developed or collected over seventy individual research ideas through the literature review, stakeholder outreach and IdeaHub entries. This input was consolidated and refined, and categorized into the high level themes and specific sub- topics. We also added an additional, higher level of organization for each idea in the Research Idea Database (as a result of stakeholder input) in order to demonstrate how the ideas aligned with one of three overarching industry and FAA goals: 1) Enhancing customer / passenger travel experience; 2) Ensuring a safe and secure air transportation system; and 3) Enabling capacity enhancement and growth. As previously discussed, the research team is also developing ACRP 11-02/Task 30, âResearch Roadmap in the Area of Design and Construction of Airport Facilities and Infrastructureâ. Since both projects are on a concurrent schedule, much of the stakeholder outreach was conducted for both projects simultaneously. This resulted in several benefits. In some cases (particularly for small airports or trade association staff) the relevant stakeholders for each roadmap are the same individuals. Therefore it was helpful to discuss both roadmaps at the same time to be efficient with participantsâ time. For smaller airports in particular, staff often are responsible for multiple duties and therefore are able to provide input on both roadmaps. By holding discussions on both roadmaps simultaneously, the research team was able to identify topics that are cross-cutting and thus should appear on both roadmaps. Two prominent and oft-repeated examples of cross-cutting topics are the rise of connected technologies (i.e. the âinternet of thingsâ [IoT]) and the attraction, retention and development of airport staff. Both issues are important to airports and span the needs of multiple departments. While not all outreach was dual-purpose, it did produce some interesting findings, aided in identification of common themes and created efficiencies for both the research team and participants. The stakeholder outreach process resulted in a number of contributions to the roadmap, including: 1) confirmation of the research teamâs findings from the literature review on high-level themes of interest; 2) contribution of additional research ideas to the database; and 3) identification of high priority issues that cross ACRP topic areas. 3.2 Research Prioritization Overview To assist in the categorization and prioritization of research ideas, the research team conducted a literature survey to determine the process by which other industry organizations have prioritized research projects, and the guidelines and methodologies that they have developed for evaluating potential projects. One important finding is that most research organizations have not adopted a single, consolidated prioritization methodology. Instead, they apply a set (or sets) of key principles when evaluating research ideas. This allows the organization(s) to prioritize research projects based on their unique needs or interests. The research team has adopted a similar approach for the research roadmap, whereby we have identified a set of key principles for evaluating ideas that mirror ACRPâs own set of criteria for evaluating submitted problem statements. 3.2.1 Prioritization Criteria The research team identified a set of key prioritization criteria. The prioritization of research ideas is both subjective, based on the knowledge and experience of research team and Project Panel members, and objective where possible (for example is the idea duplicative). The research team developed a simple scoring mechanism for each prioritization criteria based on the process ACRP uses to rank submitted problem statements. The methodology was then applied to each research idea through a survey of Project Panel members. The methodology is intended to serve as a high-level screening tool for determining priority of ideas relative to one another, and not to indicate a specific year in which the research should take place. The scores from each criteria were added up for each idea, and used to rank order the research ideas relative to one another. 1) Avoidance of Duplicative Efforts This criteria was applied to ensure that the proposed research ideas have not been, nor are currently being addressed by ACRP or other research institutions. Ideas that are duplicative will not be included in the roadmap unless the information in existing sources is out of date and an update is warranted.
12 2) Applicability This criteria refers to the approximate portion of the airport industry that could potentially benefit from the results of the research. Some ACRP research projects have been geared specifically to small airports for example, while others have been more applicable to large airports in practice. This criteria recognizes the importance of ACRP selecting research projects that are not so narrowly tailored as to be beneficial to only small sub-sets of airports. 3) Timeliness This criteria addresses the timeliness of the research problem, essentially determining if sufficient data exists to conduct research, or if additional time is necessary for impacts of the problem/challenge to be understood. For example, the number of autonomous vehicles in use at airports currently is very limited, so there may not be enough data to examine their impact on airport operations and maintenance needs for several more years. Research ideas that address a current or urgent challenge to the industry and for which data exists rated higher in this category than research ideas which were not as urgent or was too new of a challenge to have sufficient data available to conduct research. 4) Understandable and Implementable This criteria is based on what ACRP has in their own prioritization criteria, and refers to whether or not the research idea is understandable and logical. This criteria also addresses whether results will be implementable (i.e. the research is applied and is likely to result in information, data, or a tool that can used by the aviation industry). 5) Collaboration and Coordination Lastly, based on feedback from stakeholders, it is clear that a number of their interests are cross-departmental or multidisciplinary (for example, the interconnectivity of building systems and components, or the âinternet of thingsâ). At the same time, stakeholders identified a need to attract the interest of airport executive leadership to these cross-departmental research needs, as airport leadership have the responsibility for and the authority to empower their organizations to work collaboratively as opposed to strictly independently. This criterion was added to the prioritization scheme because it reflects this need and involves assessing whether or not the research addresses the integration of cross-departmental issues. 3.3 Application of Prioritization Methodology Based on the application of the scoring methodology described in the previous section, the assessment of the research team and the Project Panel, the list of ideas for inclusion in the roadmap was refined and prioritized. The database represents our best understanding of the challenges and issues of interest in the area of airport O&M in the present. While the high-level themes are not anticipated to change over the next five years, individual research ideas may change, rise or fall relative to each other in priority. Additionally, new research ideas will arise and others may become irrelevant as conditions and technology change. The prioritization methodology can likewise be updated over time as new information becomes available.
