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

5. Value Attributes (1 of 2) Value AttributeDefinition PROFESSIONAL MEMBER VALUES Technical contentQuantity and quality of papers presented per conference Keynote speakers and plenary sessions Seniority/authority of speakers Special sessions (panels) Quantity and quality of panels, distinction of invited panelists, current relevance of topics ExhibitsMatch with technical topics and attendee interests Event locations/destinations Availability of transportation (to destination and mass transit at destination), entertainment, tours, family activities, cost of hotel/food Social/networkingQuantity and quality of networking opportunities Mix of attendeesStudents to senior professionals, researchers to program managers Relevance to professionGrowth 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

6. Value Attributes (2 of 2) Value AttributeDefinition CORPORATE/GOVERNMENT MEMBER VALUES Conduct businessOpportunities to meet privately to buy or sell Meet customersOpportunities to meet privately with customers Network with peersOpportunities to meet socially with peers from industry ORGANIZER VALUES Control over contentCall for papers, no. of paper and panel sessions, quality Control over venueTime of year, region, city, hotel Identification with conferenceSense 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. Four Event Models Assessed to Date NameDescription 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 elements Integrated Comprehensive, domain-focused Events providing integrated content ~4 Events spread over the year: R&D, Aviation, Space, and Defense Unified 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

10. 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

11. Structure and Notional Schedule: Consolidated (Example) JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSep GFY Q1 ASMDefense Strat/Tac Missiles WSE SSDM Adaptive Structures NDA Gossamer MDO Fluids AMT/GT AA ASE Flow Cont Fluid Dynamics PDL Thermophysics Aeroacoustics ICES JPC IECEC Hypersonics Space ICSSC Astrodyn ADS CASE Aviation ATIO LT Air Balloons Pwrd Lift AC noise GNC AFM M&S InfoTech CASE 11 Survey shows 1 st qtr of gov’t FY poor time for many Offers flexibility for packaging and scheduling the Event portfolio Alternate years

12. 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. 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

14. Structure and Notional Schedule: Integrated 14 JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSep 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 1 st 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. 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. 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. 17 Structure and Notional Schedule: Unified JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSep GFY Q1 Maximizes participants’ content return on investment Survey shows 1 st 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. 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

19. 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