際際滷

際際滷Share a Scribd company logo

The case of the missing information - Communications in Public affairs

S
saragoldberger

This document summarizes the EUROCONTROL Overall ATM/CNS Target Architecture (OATA) project. OATA aims to develop a "plug-and-play" air traffic management system through integrating technology and operations across EUROCONTROL member states. The project involved several working groups that developed documents using UML, but the steering committee was not providing sufficient input due to the technical nature of the documents. This led project members to feel they were developing the system without proper guidance. To address this, a non-technical newsletter was created to engage the steering committee and stakeholders more effectively. This resulted in more timely and useful input for the project.

Convert to study materialsBETA

Transform any presentation into ready-made study materialselect from outputs like summaries, definitions, and practice questions.

1 of 22
EUROCONTROL Overall ATM/CNS Target Architecture The case of missing information
EUROCONTROL EUROCONTROL: the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation Intergovernmental organisation 39 Member States and the European Community
EUROCONTROL Overall ATM/CNS Target Architecture - OATA Plug-and-play management system Integration of technology and operations to simplify air traffic management in EUROCONTROL member states Several working groups One steering group Several working meetings per annum Four annual steering group meetings
OATA - Stakeholders
OATA Main working documents Concept of Operations (ConOps) providing detailed description of the Operational Concept for OATA Associated Operational Scenarios and Use Cases Logical model of the proposed Overall ATM/CNS Target Architecture Detailed specification of ATM 2000+ Strategy system enablers Architecture Evolution plan for European Civil Aviation Conference Transition plans for selected stakeholders Initial Validation, Safety, and Implementation Assessment reports
OATA Steering committee received all documents for review and input Steering committee supposed pass on the documents to senior engineers in their organisations for further review and input All developments were done in UML language Rational Rose
Rational Rose
Problem Project side Developments were advancing at a rather advanced pace Not enough input from steering group and corporate engineers Project members needed more input and reviews to ensure development were accurate Project members felt as they were developing in the dark
Problem Steering committee High-level engineers which hadn't worked with technical analysis for years 27+ nationalities, including the US and Japan Steering committee didn't provide necessary input Wasn't going to stand up in front of a large audience of international peers and admit that they didn't understand the information sent
Communications' situation Neutral position Not an engineers myself Can turn technical information into non-technical texts Senior managers felt they could speak to me without loosing face
OATA situation and problem to solve Steering committee didn't provide input Developers weren't certain the covered the ground they needed IF there was input the input came too late Corporate engineers complained about not being engaged enough in the process
OATA - communications With communications you start with the solution Here the solution was more and timelier input Preferably also more contacts with the stakeholders
OATA how to advance What would you do? Why? How?
Way forward and Findings Conducted several interviews 1-2-1 with steering committee members Unanimous result: couldn't read Rational Rose documents Management summary too long for the time steering group members could allocate to the documentation Didn't know whom to forward the documents too
Solution A newsletter of maximum three pages Written and produced by me in a non- technical language Received a lot of criticism from the project team for treating the readers as fools Web site Seminars, workshops etc.
Newsletter
Newsletter
Results - Readership They liked reading it Quick, simple and cheerful The readership (Steering committee) got document they could digest Based on its content they forwarded the programme documents in their organisation for evaluation and input
Results Programme group Necessary evaluation and input was received Better contacts with stakholder engineers and developers Better development as result Both groups Better co-operation
How do you learn this? Personality trait curious and want to know how things work Ask, ask, ask Learn to ask the right questions It's OK to be stupid Easiest way it to try to put yourself in the audiences shoes
Why do I think this fun? Engineers are solution minded Matter in our daily lives Look into the future Interesting to figure out how to sell technical concepts to a non- technical audience Actually make a difference in 100 years!
Questions? Sara Magdalena Goldberger, gold@goldkom.se

More Related Content

The case of the missing information - Communications in Public affairs

  • 1. EUROCONTROL Overall ATM/CNS Target Architecture The case of missing information
  • 2. EUROCONTROL EUROCONTROL: the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation Intergovernmental organisation 39 Member States and the European Community
  • 3. EUROCONTROL Overall ATM/CNS Target Architecture - OATA Plug-and-play management system Integration of technology and operations to simplify air traffic management in EUROCONTROL member states Several working groups One steering group Several working meetings per annum Four annual steering group meetings
  • 5. OATA Main working documents Concept of Operations (ConOps) providing detailed description of the Operational Concept for OATA Associated Operational Scenarios and Use Cases Logical model of the proposed Overall ATM/CNS Target Architecture Detailed specification of ATM 2000+ Strategy system enablers Architecture Evolution plan for European Civil Aviation Conference Transition plans for selected stakeholders Initial Validation, Safety, and Implementation Assessment reports
  • 6. OATA Steering committee received all documents for review and input Steering committee supposed pass on the documents to senior engineers in their organisations for further review and input All developments were done in UML language Rational Rose
  • 8. Problem Project side Developments were advancing at a rather advanced pace Not enough input from steering group and corporate engineers Project members needed more input and reviews to ensure development were accurate Project members felt as they were developing in the dark
  • 9. Problem Steering committee High-level engineers which hadn't worked with technical analysis for years 27+ nationalities, including the US and Japan Steering committee didn't provide necessary input Wasn't going to stand up in front of a large audience of international peers and admit that they didn't understand the information sent
  • 10. Communications' situation Neutral position Not an engineers myself Can turn technical information into non-technical texts Senior managers felt they could speak to me without loosing face
  • 11. OATA situation and problem to solve Steering committee didn't provide input Developers weren't certain the covered the ground they needed IF there was input the input came too late Corporate engineers complained about not being engaged enough in the process
  • 12. OATA - communications With communications you start with the solution Here the solution was more and timelier input Preferably also more contacts with the stakeholders
  • 13. OATA how to advance What would you do? Why? How?
  • 14. Way forward and Findings Conducted several interviews 1-2-1 with steering committee members Unanimous result: couldn't read Rational Rose documents Management summary too long for the time steering group members could allocate to the documentation Didn't know whom to forward the documents too
  • 15. Solution A newsletter of maximum three pages Written and produced by me in a non- technical language Received a lot of criticism from the project team for treating the readers as fools Web site Seminars, workshops etc.
  • 18. Results - Readership They liked reading it Quick, simple and cheerful The readership (Steering committee) got document they could digest Based on its content they forwarded the programme documents in their organisation for evaluation and input
  • 19. Results Programme group Necessary evaluation and input was received Better contacts with stakholder engineers and developers Better development as result Both groups Better co-operation
  • 20. How do you learn this? Personality trait curious and want to know how things work Ask, ask, ask Learn to ask the right questions It's OK to be stupid Easiest way it to try to put yourself in the audiences shoes
  • 21. Why do I think this fun? Engineers are solution minded Matter in our daily lives Look into the future Interesting to figure out how to sell technical concepts to a non- technical audience Actually make a difference in 100 years!