Event Model Descriptions and Assessment

1. Event Model Descriptions and Assessment Peter Montgomery Tom Duerr 8 January 2012

2. Outline • Team members • Purpose and approach • Event “value” • Event models and value assessment 2

3. Tiger Team Members Facilitators: Basil Hassan, Tom Duerr, Peter Montgomery Workshop: Dimitri Mavris Technical Groups: Kathleen Atkins, David Riley, Jim Neidhoefer, Ashwani Gupta / Jeff Hamstra, Neal Pfeiffer, Allen Arrington, Trevor Sorensen / Peter Montgomery New Initiatives: Jim Keenan PC Coordinator: Mark Melanson Public Policy Comm.: Carol Cash Young Professionals: Darin Haudrich Emerg. Tech Comm., TAC: Tony Gross AIAA staff: Megan Scheidt, Anna Kimmel, Craig Day, Betty Guillie 3

4. 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 SWOT x 15 attributes x 3 alternatives = 180 discrete assessments Synthesize net issues, benefits, and value score 4

5. Value Attributes (1 of 2) 5

6. Value Attributes (2 of 2) 15 value attributes derived from member survey and voiced concerns 6

7. Event Model Design Principles Technical Strength: continue to count on the TCs and PCs to control the technical content Relevance: multi-layered to attract a wider cross section of the aerospace community Interaction: a spectrum of networking and exhibit opportunities Engagement: other sectors of AIAA (Public Policy, Education, Standards, International, Corporate Members, etc.) Growth: new technical or programmatic areas 7

8. Event Design Parameters 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 8

9. Four Event Models Assessed to Date 9

10. Consolidated Event Model • 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 10

11. Structure and Notional Schedule: Consolidated (Example) Survey shows 1st qtr of gov’t FY poor time for many 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 • Aviation • ATIO • LT Air • Balloons • PwrdLift • AC noise • GNC • AFM • M&S • InfoTech • CASE • Space • Space • ICSSC • Astrodyn • ADS • CASE Alternate years Offers flexibility for packaging and scheduling the Event portfolio 11

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 Value Assessment • Scores relative to “Current” which is assigned “zero” • 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 Better than Current Worse than Current • Score ranges from “strongly supports” (+2) to “strongly opposes” (-2) the stakeholder values Value assessed for three stakeholder groups 12

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 13

14. Structure and Notional Schedule: Integrated 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 • Defense • Classified • Domain:Aviation, Missiles, Space • Audience:Intelligence, Defense, Gov’t, Military, Defense Contractors • 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 • Space • Domain: Space • 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 14

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 Value Assessment • Description • Comprehensive, domain-focused Events providing integrated content • ~4 Events spread over the year:  R&D, Aviation, Space, and Defense 15

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 16

17. Structure and Notional Schedule: Unified 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 • 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 Maximizes participants’ content return on investment

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 Value Assessment • 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 Better than Current Worse than Current

19. Assessment: Value Comparison • 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 Alternative Event structure can increase member value 19