Author: Jim Clark
Several years ago, the FAA estimated that unapproved parts played a role in 174 U.S. aircraft crashes or less serious accidents between May 1973 and April 1996, causing 17 deaths and 39 injuries, although none involved a major airline. Every year, with the help of the industry, FAA finds "suspected unapproved parts" in the supply chain. While the number of unapproved parts flagged by FAA’s unapproved parts program is fairly small, how many counterfeit parts escape notice? How much damage do they cause? Because crashes frequently destroy the parts that fail, it’s hard to know.
We haven’t heard much about the counterfeit parts problem since 1995, when then-FAA Inspector General Mary Schiavo sounded the alarm and triggered Congressional hearings. Speculating about the threat of bogus parts isn’t a favorite talking point for manufacturers, airlines or the FAA.
We do know that counterfeit parts makers are getting more sophisticated. For instance, in 2007, FAA issued an "unapproved parts notification" regarding counterfeit tail rotor hanger bearings electro-etched with fake Bell Helicopter part numbers.
So what more can the industry do about it? Benjamin Jun, VP for technology at Cryptography Research, is suggesting a high-tech solution the company first developed to prevent counterfeiting of consumer products: embedding tiny, 1-millimeter square, tamper-resistant silicone chips that signal their authenticity into key parts, particularly in the avionics systems in aircraft. The San Francisco-based firm designs the core of these "CryptoFirewall" chips to withstand sophisticated attacks by professional counterfeiters.
Here’s how the system would work: Mechanics would be given hand-held verifiers that could communicate with the embedded chip, which would respond, confirming who manufactured it and that it was FAA certified. The verifier would communicate an unpredictable challenge to the chip and verify the authenticity of the chip’s response. In some ways, the system resembles complex systems to defeat hackers.
The chip might also signal other information, like when it was manufactured, when it was installed or how many times it has been used, so that it could flag when it needed to be replaced, the way cars remind drivers when they need service.
Cryptography Research has already marketed its CryptoFirewall embedded-chip technology to protect several consumer products from counterfeiting. For instance, a chip in satellite TV systems verifies that the customer is authorized to use the signal. Chips in lithium batteries verify that they are appropriate for the cell phone they power. Another chip prevents counterfeiters from cloning the cell phones themselves. And chips in smart cards verify the identity of parties making large financial transactions.
What would such a system cost for aircraft parts? The cost depends on part volume. For high volume parts, like the ones used in consumer products, the added cost can be as low as 20 cents per part, according to Jun. For aircraft parts, which are manufactured in lower volumes, he projects that the cost would probably be more like a dollar or two per part. For components that already contain application-specific integrated circuits (ASICS), manufacturers could add CryptoFirewall logic to those circuits, which would be cheaper than installing stand-alone chips.
Since the technology has proven worthwhile to protect against counterfeit consumer products, where potential counterfeiting damages may be only a few hundred dollars per unit, Jun expects it would be cost-effective to authenticate aircraft parts whose failure can cause crashes and lead to fatalities.
Some aircraft manufacturers already incorporate radio frequency identification devices (RFIDs) in aircraft parts. Although RFIDs can contain the same kind of information that could be included in CryptoFirewall chips, Jun says that counterfeiters have been able to copy RFIDs, as well as bar codes, holograms, and other passive security mechanisms. However, for non-security applications, Jun expects these technologies to remain popular since they can cost only a few cents per part.
Cryptography Research is just starting to explore the potential of the avionics market. Jun says that his firm hasn’t talked to the FAA yet. The company has not announced any deals with aircraft manufacturers, but then, it doesn’t usually disclose its customer base, giving an extra level of protection against potential counterfeiters.
According to Jun, it would probably take two to three years for a manufacturer to implement this embedded chip anti-counterfeiting technology.
Aircraft manufacturers could develop their own anti-counterfeiting computer chip systems without using Cryptography Research’s services and technology. But Jun cites several advantages of contracting out this specialized function, including Cryptography Research’s track record of security, bundled licenses for semiconductor security key patents, and faster time-to-market.
[Sourced by Kuttan from Aviation Today]
Jan 28, 2009
Practical Problems in Implementing Change
This is an article is written the customer perspective and gives good appreciation of their point of view [Sourced by Kuttan from e-bizarticles.com]:
We are dealing with some practical issues related to introducing change. Though there are many areas which require pragmatic solutions, but I am touching a specific issue related to ERP implementation.
Some facts which we need to know:
1 Main ERP brands in vogue are SAP, MS Dynamics, Ramco, Baan, Oracle, Sage - Accpac, etc. (please do not mind if your brand is not included here though yours may be much better than the ones listed)
2 Main implementation partners for these ERP license vendors are software companies. Their expert domain is software and not business process and laws.
3 Every software uses its own “best practices” to take the company through its working processes. They normally insist that their software has taken into account all that is needed by a business in terms of “ideal” processes.
4 Yet - most software will need some level of customization leading to use of specialized resources.
5 Two types of consultants form a team which will implement the software:
a. Technical consultants;
b. Functional consultants.
6 The areas of expertise of technical and functional consultants are too wide apart.
7 Functional consultants translate the business functions and processes into technical language and technical consultants amend the codes to deliver as per the needs of functional consultants.
8 Management has its own definitions of required processes for its different activities.
Having understood the above facts, let us address the common problems faced by customers (called management here) which need practical solutions:
a) Managements have to deal with software sellers and have to maneuver their way through the contours of a sellers’ greed and a buyers’ dilemma**;
b) Managements have to understand the pros and cons of various software products available and match their needs with performance parameters of the software;
c) The quality of people in the customer organization and their experience and skill levels also need to be seriously kept in mind while dealing with this decision process;
d) One time costs and recurring costs and annual operational costs must be kept at optimum levels. The technology up-gradation and obsolescence must be cost out by the management while deciding on this factor.
e) The ideal processes for the business activities should not be defined by the software - the problem faced by the management is that it is often softly forced into using the “Best Practices” defined by the software - which normally become long term obstacles. We are not clones so why should we clone our unique processes with others’ “Best Practices”?
f) The processes may actually be lying locked within the software, but there can be an instant where, the management is given the impression that the same process will require “customization”;
g) The functional consultants do not remain part of the team for long and leave midway. This causes interminable delays and at times leads to stiff resistance in the customers’ organization against the proposed change.
h) The theory of “Passage of Ice”** results in dilution of management requirement and ultimately the required reports do not reach the decision maker’s desks.
i) Technical and functional consultants have their own set of differences and the cost is incurred by the management.
Out of every 10 customers surveyed, 8 have faced problems with implementation of up to intense magnitude. Still we continue to ignore some basics!!
Jan 23, 2009
Segmenting Target Customers...
Which customers should you target? If you say "the most profitable ones," you're only half right. It's also important to attract buyers who will act as your company's growth advocates, encouraging others to buy from you. By assessing customer profitability and customer advocacy, you can tailor your strategies—and your investments—by segment:
- High-profit promoters. These are the customers you can't live without—your core. You want to design and deliver your offerings in a way that expands this group, and to target new buyers who share their characteristics.
- High-profit detractors. These customers, often as important a your "core," are sticking around because of inertia or because they feel trapped. They are profitable, attractive to your competition, and unlikely to suffer quietly. Losing them can dent your bottom line and your market share. You need to find out what's irking them and fix their problems fast.
- Low-profit promoters. These are diamonds in the rough—loyal customers whose current buying patterns leave money on the table. Tap into their advocacy by offering them additional products and services, but don't alienate them with heavy-handedness.
- Low-profit detractors. You can't please everyone. If there is no economically rational way to solve their problems, then help unhappy customers move to other providers.
We have found companies routinely surprised by which customers are high-profit promoters, how much potential for cross-sell exists among low-profit promoters, and how many detractors lurk in their portfolio.
- James Allen, Frederick F. Reichheld, and Barney Hamilton [appeared in "Tuning In to the Voice of Your Customer," Harvard Management Update, Vol. 10, No. 10, October 2005]:
Jan 15, 2009
Communication and Cultural change...
Following piece was sourced from a blog entry by VS, a management practitioner:
You can never over-communicate, more so if it concerns with building a cultural infrastructure to propel the organization towards its future goals.
You can never over-communicate, more so if it concerns with building a cultural infrastructure to propel the organization towards its future goals.
Here is a small piece of communication by a leader to emphasize the importance of desired cultural changes in his organization. The communication underlines and clarifies desired cultural undertones, which will help transform the unit.
Thanks to a close friend who worked in this reputed firm, who enriched my collection of great “leadership communications” in business organizations, with this wonderful piece, which I have always wanted to share with others. Next follows the text of the communication:
Some of you must have noticed fresh set of posters in the reception area and must be wondering -- why do we need them and what is it that they are trying to communicate? If you have not noticed them – don’t worry for they will be everywhere; Very soon they are going to become a way of our life.
For us to be positioned successfully for the future, we need to undergo a cultural transformation for we are in crisis. The biggest challenge(s) that we face today are “What do we want to be known for?” and “What is our future roadmap?” All of us need to step up to the challenge and be a part of the cultural transformation that will help us find answers to the above questions. The poster campaign is going to remind each of you every single day on what needs to be done, how can we reach there and who can take us there.
These posters communicate the following:
- Building our Identity
- Moving up the value chain
- Identifying the leader in you
- Creating a culture of Excellence through Focus Demonstrating CLR: Creativity, Leadership and solid relationships with our partners, peers and customers.
We need to make sure that we are focused on what ever we do; be it technology, processes, business knowledge and/or project. It is only through focus can we achieve excellence and excellence is what we require to move up to the next level.
Creativity: It is a process of developing and expressing novel ideas for solving problems or satisfying needs.
- Ask yourself how flexibly and imaginatively did you approach problems?
- Did your solution challenge the status quo?
- Ask yourself what could you have done better?
If you have an inner passion to solve the problem at hand then creativity will automatically get reflected in proposed solutions. Also, to be creative you have to be an expert – be it technical, procedural or intellectual knowledge.
Leadership: Leadership is not just about leading people, it is about:
- Being focused on getting short term results and at the same time not losing sight of long term needs
- Understanding the specifics of how things work
- Respecting the limits of what are the available resources
- Being compassionate and responsive to other’s needs and feelings
- Listening to other’s opinions and ideas
- Thinking broadly on how can we move up the value chain Making tough calls, taking stands and articulating reasons for taking stands clearly
Relationship: Last but not the least, any success that is achieved at the cost of relationships is not truly success. Make sure that your relationships with partners, peers and customer are stellar for then only will we be truly successful.
Go, take a lead in building a culture of excellence through focus and demonstrate CLR every single day to reach new heights!
Jan 7, 2009
Traits of Best-In-Class ERP Implementations...
Based on an elaborate survey, Panorama Consulting group had published 2008 ERP Report. As per this report, just 57% of respondents are either very satisfied or fairly satisfied with their ERP systems. The others (43%) are either fairly dissatisfied, very dissatisfied, or not sure. Many organizations assume that this success or failure is attributed to the software itself, but our findings indicate that project success is largely attributed to the strategy and actions of the project team implementing the software.
Here are the key critical success factors observed in best-in-class ERP implementations, as per the Report:
1. Focus on business processes and requirements first. Too often, companies get tied up in the technical capabilities or platforms that a particular software system can support. More important are the identification of key business requirements and the proper alignment of software with business operations. Once these needs are defined, organizations can more effectively choose the software that fits its unique business needs and implement it in a way that does not require extensive customization.
2. Focus on achieving a healthy ERP ROI, including post-implementation performance measurement. This requires more than just developing a high-level business case to solicit approval from upper management or a board of directors. It also entails establishing key performance measures, setting baselines and targets for those measures, and tracking performance after go-live. This is the only way to truly realize the benefit potential and success of ERP software.
3. Commit strong project management and resources to the project. At the end of the day, a company implementing ERP owns the success or failure of the implementation, which should be managed accordingly. Whether positive or negative, these results must be managed accordingly by a team that includes a strong project manager and other “A-players” from several departments at the company.
4. Gain commitment from company executives. Any project without support from its top management will fail. Support from a CIO or IT director alone is not enough. No matter how well executed a project may be, obstacles will arise during the implementation. The entire executive staff needs to be involved to resolve issues as they occur.
5. Take time to plan up front. Companies must not jump right into a project without validating business requirements or the implementation project plan. The more time is spent ensuring these things are done right at the beginning of the project, the less time is spent fixing problems later. This also ensures that an organization has selected an ERP solution that is
well aligned with its business needs.
6. Focus on data. Data and re-engineered business processes deliver the benefits realization companies should need and expect. Many companies implement ERP systems because their ability to manage data has been greatly diminished by the confusion of redundant, invisible, and meaningless data spread across multiple systems. Businesses who understand this invest heavily in data cleansing, mapping, migration and verification.
7. Ensure adequate training and change management. ERP systems bring enormous changes to employees. The system - no matter how advanced - will prove to be ineffective if the staff does not understand how to use it. A focus on training, organizational change management,
job design, and other employee support measures is crucial to any ERP project.
8. Understand the purpose of ERP. Even if competitors are using cutting edge ERP solutions, it is more important for organizations to clearly define their purpose and requirements before moving forward with a new system. Otherwise, the technology is unlikely to be aligned with the company’s business needs.
Jan 2, 2009
Flight of Fancy?
Interesting insights from article titled, "Flight 100 - the next 100 years" By Max Kingsley-Jones
SOURCE:Flight International dated Jan 2, 2009
Flight's first editor Stanley Spooner had little trouble deciding what story would be the lead in our inaugural issue 100 years ago - "A Second Englishman Flies" was our first headline. But back in those pioneering early days, what would Spooner have predicted for the top aerospace story a century later?
Even the most enthusiastic aeronauts and aviators in 1909 would have struggled to believe the way in which powered flight would evolve during the magazine's first 100 years: that the aeroplane would be "going to war" within five years that passengers would be travelling in shirtsleeve comfort across the Atlantic at twice the speed of sound within 70 years or that within 80 years a winged spaceplane would be regularly blasting into orbit and returning to earth as a glider.
Predicting what lies in store over the next 100 years of aviation is just as challenging. The framework for the near term (the next 20 or 30 years) is already in place, with new airliner programmes such as the Airbus A350, A380 and Boeing 787 and military aircraft like the Lockheed Martin F-22, F-35A Joint Strike Fighter and Eurofighter Typhoon set to be with us well into the first half of the century. But surely some of the exciting new technology currently in the minds of the industry's boffins will lead to more imaginative creations appearing in the longer term?
There are some fundamental questions that must be answered when examining likely scenarios 50 to 100 years from now: how much oil will be left and how much will it cost? Will the green lobby - and any increasing evidence of serious climate change - have forced the way we travel by air to have to be reinvented? How will the threats to world security/peace influence military aircraft design? And how much of the space exploration dream will have become a reality?
CONSOLIDATION DRIVER
The driver for new airliners will be the shape of the industry that flies them. If today's drive for consolidation through alliances and mergers is allowed to run its course (assuming the regulatory environment is adjusted to permit it), then there could end up being just three major airline groups - perhaps one for each continent - "America Air", "Europe Air" and "Asia Air" - or three international global network carriers slugging it out through hubs in Europe, the Gulf and South-East Asia.
Extreme scenarios at each end could see passengers either travelling in ultra-fast and ultra-green jets, or facing a strict rationing of flying because of environmental concerns. The latter could also result in competition being eliminated and route duplication outlawed.
A European future-aviation think-tank, dubbed Out of the Box, is evaluating various "far-out ideas" that could address environmental concerns and enable the airline business as we know it to be sustained. By adopting ground-based power sources for take-off and landing, the aircraft's installed power and systems could be reduced with direct benefit to fuel consumption and weight. Ideas to propel the aircraft aloft include electrical, steam or magnetic devices using oil-based, nuclear or solar energy sources. For landing, aircraft weight could be reduced by eliminating the undercarriage with landings on water or on small cars using electro-magnetic fields to position the aircraft.
Out of the Box also envisages large "cruiser" airliners, possibly nuclear-powered, remaining airborne almost indefinitely flying on circular routes connecting major population centres. Short-range shuttle aircraft would intercept the cruisers and land on or dock for the transfer of passengers and freight.
NASA is gearing its research effort to deliver novel solutions within three aircraft development generations. It has awarded 18-month study research contracts to six industry teams to study advanced concepts for subsonic and supersonic airliners with advanced airframes and propulsion systems.
Dubbed N+3, the concepts should be three generations beyond the current commercial transport fleet that could enter service in 25 to 30 years and able to overcome significant performance and environmental challenges.
AIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
Of course a vital element of future air transport will be a restructuring of air traffic management. While a globalised and seamless air traffic system might seem an unachievable dream, it has to be a target. The ongoing effort to create a "Single European Sky" should represent only the beginning, with new technology allowing a high degree of autonomy to enable individual aircraft make their own way through controlled airspace. Could this ultimately lead to pilotless airliners? Some airline chief executives would surely hope so.
The humans that get to keep their place at the controls can expect continuous improvements in the technology at their fingertips, even if the cockpit layout itself becomes much simpler thanks to greater automation. An obvious development would be for the head-up display to become standard, providing navigation data combined with synthetic and enhanced vision, while voice recognition will take care of switch inputs. Meanwhile, increasing automation of flight controls will see the pilot with less manual involvement in the flying - and taxiing - which should lead to an improvement in safety.
Ever-improving surveillance capability will enable satellite-based and real-time four-dimensional operations with constant dataflow between the air and the ground - the latter having the option to take control in an emergency. Such developments would pave the way for single-pilot operations of freighters and other non-passenger carrying flights.
ENGINE TARGETS
The development of engines in the near term will be targeted at lower fuel consumption and emissions, although achieving this in parallel with further significant noise reductions will be a challenge. Geared turbofans, advanced turbofans and open rotors may hold the answer in the shorter term, while efficiency could be improved through recuperation where heat energy is taken from the hot section.
But a clean-sheet approach to power will be needed eventually. The diminishing availability of oil will drive the development of engines compatible with non-fossil-based fuels - for example engines that are capable of direct burning of gaseous or liquid hydrogen derived from water.
Future engines could see on-board power generated directly from their shafts using electromagnets, eliminating the need for an accessory gearbox. However, in the medium term, fuel cells are more likely to provide an answer in the drive to reduce reliance on engines for all on-board power.
As part of the effort to reduce aircraft weight and boost efficiency, the more-electric concept will see electric actuators replace hydraulic systems throughout the airframe.
The JSF will make fifth-generation fighters a reality when it enters service in 2013, but it will still have a little pink body sat at the sharp end controlling it. The US Air Force is working on an "interim" next-generation bomber to augment the B-1B, B-2 and geriatric B-52, which will be also manned. This is notionally aimed for a 2018 debut, but it is more likely to arrive some time in the early 2020s.
As the successors to the Pentagon's original "black jet", the F-117A, the Raptor and F-35 represent the latest interpretation of stealth technology. Where this will go next is unclear - could the technology extend to areas like visual stealth, enabling the creation of 007-style "invisible" helicopters?
While no successor to the F-35 has yet been formally discussed, both the USAF and the US Navy have started talking about a "sixth-generation fighter" to replace F-15s and F/A-18s, starting around 2025. This could be a pilotless concept, taking the shape of an unmanned combat air vehicle like the Boeing X-45 or Northrop Grumman X-47, or a more conventional piloted design, for example a development of the F-22.
If the unmanned route is followed, could this ultimately lead to an autonomous aircraft controlled by an on-board computer that can mimic human cognitive reasoning? If that sounds too far-fetched, then perhaps at least consider that the stores the UCAV carries will be "intelligent munitions" with independent "loiter, search and destroy" capability.
RADICAL BOMBER
A more radical bomber design beyond the interim plan is proposed for 2037. So far there have been few clues on how it will be controlled and what it will look like, although hypersonic performance is clearly among the candidate capabilities.
At the other extreme, work is intensifying on the development of tiny "nano-technology" aircraft that can fly surveillance missions undetected to previously inaccessible locations. Lockheed Martin is already working on a remote-controlled nano air vehicle design under a $1.7 million contract from the US Department of Defense's DARPA research arm.
Beyond the horizon, military concepts could close the gap to spacecraft designs - as they did in the "Right Stuff" era of the X-15 back in the 1960s - leading to the creation of aircraft with hypersonic performance capable of sub-orbital flights. Such aircraft could use air-breathing hypersonic-cruise engines - possibly of all-composite structure - although such performance and technology is more likely to find an initial application on the next generation of air-launched missiles.
Back in the last century, the dawn of space weaponisation came close with US President Ronald Reagan's "Star Wars" plan. The prospect of such capability arriving in the next 100 years must be considered strong, perhaps in the form of a "directed-energy" weapon like a particle beam or laser - pure science fiction or future science fact?
In the military support arena, there may be some radical ideas for mega transports to succeed aircraft like the C-5 Galaxy in the troop transport role. These could take the form of huge blimps or aircraft - for example, a blended wing body design - capable of transporting hundreds of troops and their vehicles and equipment.
General aviation - as we would define it today - was where powered flight originated early in the 20th century, and the next 100 years should see increasing numbers of people being able to enjoy the pleasure of "personal aviation", thanks to the ever greater availability of small, inexpensive and flexible aircraft.
Flying cars transporting people along dedicated "highways in the sky" at low cost on high-volume routes similar to the railway networks operated today, could be the answer to growing road congestion. The new generation of very light and personal jets will become an increasingly viable alternative to the strict regime of commercial flying, at a fraction of the cost of today's business jets. This could fuel the growth of air taxi operations, which would become an integral part of the transport system and open remote and formerly inaccessible areas to businesses and individuals.
At the top end of the market supersonic business travel could become the norm for high net worth customers, as all the major corporate jet airframers develop designs capable of long range and very fast cruise speeds beyond the speed of sound.
Given that the space age was two years old when Flight celebrated its 50th anniversary in 1959, at that time our team of journalists could have been forgiven for making some quite ambitious predictions for interplanetary achievements through the next half century. But the reality has been that after a momentous start - man walked on the Moon the year we reached our 60th birthday - they would probably have expected much more than we have achieved since then.
Having made spaceplanes a reality in 1981 with the Space Shuttle, NASA has decided to return to Apollo technology for its replacement. Sir Richard Branson's efforts apart - he aims to operate his first Virgin Galactic space tourism flights this year - further progress in manned spaceflight will depend on what US president-elect Obama decides to do once he reaches office.
Among the decisions to be made are how and whether to continue with plans to return to the Moon - could an international lunar outpost become a reality in the next 20 years?
The International Space Station is likely to see another decade of service before it is de-orbited. Will its replacement - or the lunar outpost - be built with as much emphasis on commercial tourist flights as on scientific research? And could a manned mission to Mars be nearing reality by the middle of the century?
Longer-term space exploration will depend much on new propulsion technology, such as nuclear-electric "plasma" engines (also known as impulse drives) that could power robotic missions to the outer planets in the solar system. Using fission systems as their basis, such engines could reduce the travel time between Earth and Mars from the six months envisaged.
NEW ROCKET TECHNOLOGY
The xenon gas-powered plasma thrusters used on the latest satellites and interplanetary probes will gain increased power and specific impulse durations as their power source changes from today's solar panels to a simple nuclear device using the heat from a radioactive material, and eventually a fission nuclear reactor. New rocket technology to place spacecraft into orbit will see the slow phasing out of hypergolic propellants and replacement by a liquid oxygen/kerosene for the main engines (or LOx/liquid hydrogen where higher specific impulse is needed).
And lurking in the background throughout all this development will be the possibility that NASA and its partners may one day be called upon to develop a robotic mission to divert an asteroid on a collision course with Earth.
Much of these thoughts for the next 100 years of Flight may appear to be little more than science fiction. But then the same would have been true of the aviation feats that became realities during our first century, to the readers who picked up our inaugural issue in January 1909.
SOURCE:Flight International dated Jan 2, 2009
Flight's first editor Stanley Spooner had little trouble deciding what story would be the lead in our inaugural issue 100 years ago - "A Second Englishman Flies" was our first headline. But back in those pioneering early days, what would Spooner have predicted for the top aerospace story a century later?
Even the most enthusiastic aeronauts and aviators in 1909 would have struggled to believe the way in which powered flight would evolve during the magazine's first 100 years: that the aeroplane would be "going to war" within five years that passengers would be travelling in shirtsleeve comfort across the Atlantic at twice the speed of sound within 70 years or that within 80 years a winged spaceplane would be regularly blasting into orbit and returning to earth as a glider.
Predicting what lies in store over the next 100 years of aviation is just as challenging. The framework for the near term (the next 20 or 30 years) is already in place, with new airliner programmes such as the Airbus A350, A380 and Boeing 787 and military aircraft like the Lockheed Martin F-22, F-35A Joint Strike Fighter and Eurofighter Typhoon set to be with us well into the first half of the century. But surely some of the exciting new technology currently in the minds of the industry's boffins will lead to more imaginative creations appearing in the longer term?
There are some fundamental questions that must be answered when examining likely scenarios 50 to 100 years from now: how much oil will be left and how much will it cost? Will the green lobby - and any increasing evidence of serious climate change - have forced the way we travel by air to have to be reinvented? How will the threats to world security/peace influence military aircraft design? And how much of the space exploration dream will have become a reality?
CONSOLIDATION DRIVER
The driver for new airliners will be the shape of the industry that flies them. If today's drive for consolidation through alliances and mergers is allowed to run its course (assuming the regulatory environment is adjusted to permit it), then there could end up being just three major airline groups - perhaps one for each continent - "America Air", "Europe Air" and "Asia Air" - or three international global network carriers slugging it out through hubs in Europe, the Gulf and South-East Asia.
Extreme scenarios at each end could see passengers either travelling in ultra-fast and ultra-green jets, or facing a strict rationing of flying because of environmental concerns. The latter could also result in competition being eliminated and route duplication outlawed.
A European future-aviation think-tank, dubbed Out of the Box, is evaluating various "far-out ideas" that could address environmental concerns and enable the airline business as we know it to be sustained. By adopting ground-based power sources for take-off and landing, the aircraft's installed power and systems could be reduced with direct benefit to fuel consumption and weight. Ideas to propel the aircraft aloft include electrical, steam or magnetic devices using oil-based, nuclear or solar energy sources. For landing, aircraft weight could be reduced by eliminating the undercarriage with landings on water or on small cars using electro-magnetic fields to position the aircraft.
Out of the Box also envisages large "cruiser" airliners, possibly nuclear-powered, remaining airborne almost indefinitely flying on circular routes connecting major population centres. Short-range shuttle aircraft would intercept the cruisers and land on or dock for the transfer of passengers and freight.
NASA is gearing its research effort to deliver novel solutions within three aircraft development generations. It has awarded 18-month study research contracts to six industry teams to study advanced concepts for subsonic and supersonic airliners with advanced airframes and propulsion systems.
Dubbed N+3, the concepts should be three generations beyond the current commercial transport fleet that could enter service in 25 to 30 years and able to overcome significant performance and environmental challenges.
AIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
Of course a vital element of future air transport will be a restructuring of air traffic management. While a globalised and seamless air traffic system might seem an unachievable dream, it has to be a target. The ongoing effort to create a "Single European Sky" should represent only the beginning, with new technology allowing a high degree of autonomy to enable individual aircraft make their own way through controlled airspace. Could this ultimately lead to pilotless airliners? Some airline chief executives would surely hope so.
The humans that get to keep their place at the controls can expect continuous improvements in the technology at their fingertips, even if the cockpit layout itself becomes much simpler thanks to greater automation. An obvious development would be for the head-up display to become standard, providing navigation data combined with synthetic and enhanced vision, while voice recognition will take care of switch inputs. Meanwhile, increasing automation of flight controls will see the pilot with less manual involvement in the flying - and taxiing - which should lead to an improvement in safety.
Ever-improving surveillance capability will enable satellite-based and real-time four-dimensional operations with constant dataflow between the air and the ground - the latter having the option to take control in an emergency. Such developments would pave the way for single-pilot operations of freighters and other non-passenger carrying flights.
ENGINE TARGETS
The development of engines in the near term will be targeted at lower fuel consumption and emissions, although achieving this in parallel with further significant noise reductions will be a challenge. Geared turbofans, advanced turbofans and open rotors may hold the answer in the shorter term, while efficiency could be improved through recuperation where heat energy is taken from the hot section.
But a clean-sheet approach to power will be needed eventually. The diminishing availability of oil will drive the development of engines compatible with non-fossil-based fuels - for example engines that are capable of direct burning of gaseous or liquid hydrogen derived from water.
Future engines could see on-board power generated directly from their shafts using electromagnets, eliminating the need for an accessory gearbox. However, in the medium term, fuel cells are more likely to provide an answer in the drive to reduce reliance on engines for all on-board power.
As part of the effort to reduce aircraft weight and boost efficiency, the more-electric concept will see electric actuators replace hydraulic systems throughout the airframe.
The JSF will make fifth-generation fighters a reality when it enters service in 2013, but it will still have a little pink body sat at the sharp end controlling it. The US Air Force is working on an "interim" next-generation bomber to augment the B-1B, B-2 and geriatric B-52, which will be also manned. This is notionally aimed for a 2018 debut, but it is more likely to arrive some time in the early 2020s.
As the successors to the Pentagon's original "black jet", the F-117A, the Raptor and F-35 represent the latest interpretation of stealth technology. Where this will go next is unclear - could the technology extend to areas like visual stealth, enabling the creation of 007-style "invisible" helicopters?
While no successor to the F-35 has yet been formally discussed, both the USAF and the US Navy have started talking about a "sixth-generation fighter" to replace F-15s and F/A-18s, starting around 2025. This could be a pilotless concept, taking the shape of an unmanned combat air vehicle like the Boeing X-45 or Northrop Grumman X-47, or a more conventional piloted design, for example a development of the F-22.
If the unmanned route is followed, could this ultimately lead to an autonomous aircraft controlled by an on-board computer that can mimic human cognitive reasoning? If that sounds too far-fetched, then perhaps at least consider that the stores the UCAV carries will be "intelligent munitions" with independent "loiter, search and destroy" capability.
RADICAL BOMBER
A more radical bomber design beyond the interim plan is proposed for 2037. So far there have been few clues on how it will be controlled and what it will look like, although hypersonic performance is clearly among the candidate capabilities.
At the other extreme, work is intensifying on the development of tiny "nano-technology" aircraft that can fly surveillance missions undetected to previously inaccessible locations. Lockheed Martin is already working on a remote-controlled nano air vehicle design under a $1.7 million contract from the US Department of Defense's DARPA research arm.
Beyond the horizon, military concepts could close the gap to spacecraft designs - as they did in the "Right Stuff" era of the X-15 back in the 1960s - leading to the creation of aircraft with hypersonic performance capable of sub-orbital flights. Such aircraft could use air-breathing hypersonic-cruise engines - possibly of all-composite structure - although such performance and technology is more likely to find an initial application on the next generation of air-launched missiles.
Back in the last century, the dawn of space weaponisation came close with US President Ronald Reagan's "Star Wars" plan. The prospect of such capability arriving in the next 100 years must be considered strong, perhaps in the form of a "directed-energy" weapon like a particle beam or laser - pure science fiction or future science fact?
In the military support arena, there may be some radical ideas for mega transports to succeed aircraft like the C-5 Galaxy in the troop transport role. These could take the form of huge blimps or aircraft - for example, a blended wing body design - capable of transporting hundreds of troops and their vehicles and equipment.
General aviation - as we would define it today - was where powered flight originated early in the 20th century, and the next 100 years should see increasing numbers of people being able to enjoy the pleasure of "personal aviation", thanks to the ever greater availability of small, inexpensive and flexible aircraft.
Flying cars transporting people along dedicated "highways in the sky" at low cost on high-volume routes similar to the railway networks operated today, could be the answer to growing road congestion. The new generation of very light and personal jets will become an increasingly viable alternative to the strict regime of commercial flying, at a fraction of the cost of today's business jets. This could fuel the growth of air taxi operations, which would become an integral part of the transport system and open remote and formerly inaccessible areas to businesses and individuals.
At the top end of the market supersonic business travel could become the norm for high net worth customers, as all the major corporate jet airframers develop designs capable of long range and very fast cruise speeds beyond the speed of sound.
Given that the space age was two years old when Flight celebrated its 50th anniversary in 1959, at that time our team of journalists could have been forgiven for making some quite ambitious predictions for interplanetary achievements through the next half century. But the reality has been that after a momentous start - man walked on the Moon the year we reached our 60th birthday - they would probably have expected much more than we have achieved since then.
Having made spaceplanes a reality in 1981 with the Space Shuttle, NASA has decided to return to Apollo technology for its replacement. Sir Richard Branson's efforts apart - he aims to operate his first Virgin Galactic space tourism flights this year - further progress in manned spaceflight will depend on what US president-elect Obama decides to do once he reaches office.
Among the decisions to be made are how and whether to continue with plans to return to the Moon - could an international lunar outpost become a reality in the next 20 years?
The International Space Station is likely to see another decade of service before it is de-orbited. Will its replacement - or the lunar outpost - be built with as much emphasis on commercial tourist flights as on scientific research? And could a manned mission to Mars be nearing reality by the middle of the century?
Longer-term space exploration will depend much on new propulsion technology, such as nuclear-electric "plasma" engines (also known as impulse drives) that could power robotic missions to the outer planets in the solar system. Using fission systems as their basis, such engines could reduce the travel time between Earth and Mars from the six months envisaged.
NEW ROCKET TECHNOLOGY
The xenon gas-powered plasma thrusters used on the latest satellites and interplanetary probes will gain increased power and specific impulse durations as their power source changes from today's solar panels to a simple nuclear device using the heat from a radioactive material, and eventually a fission nuclear reactor. New rocket technology to place spacecraft into orbit will see the slow phasing out of hypergolic propellants and replacement by a liquid oxygen/kerosene for the main engines (or LOx/liquid hydrogen where higher specific impulse is needed).
And lurking in the background throughout all this development will be the possibility that NASA and its partners may one day be called upon to develop a robotic mission to divert an asteroid on a collision course with Earth.
Much of these thoughts for the next 100 years of Flight may appear to be little more than science fiction. But then the same would have been true of the aviation feats that became realities during our first century, to the readers who picked up our inaugural issue in January 1909.
Dec 19, 2008
On Managing Complexity...
By Ian Whittingham, PMP in Gantthead
They are emblematic of the challenges of creating massive computational power, of visionary ambition thwarted by technological insufficiency. Debates over why they were never constructed and assembled during their designer’s lifetime break between the limits of manufacturing competency and the novel intricacy of their technical design. But in the end, it was a lack of sponsorship and the withdrawal of government funding that relegated an innovative turning point in the history of computing to a tantalizing “What if…?”
Today, however, if you are anywhere in the vicinity of
A combination of political, financial, engineering and legal issues are generally held to have been responsible for preventing Babbage--apparently a difficult man to work with--from constructing those steam age ancestors of today’s silicon chip computers. But through the sponsorship of another computer visionary (Nathan Myhrvold), a working version of Babbage’s Difference Engine No. 2 has now been fully realized and is on exhibit to the public at the Computer History Museum until May, 2009.
Many moving parts
Watching the highly synchronized movements of the many moving parts in Engine No. 2 is a mesmerizing experience, its 8,000 components the very image of mechanical order triumphing over mathematical complexity. In the world of computing, managing complexity at the machine level is something we all take for granted. But in the world of project management, it is something we are confronted with in a variety of hidden guises.
“Many moving parts” is an apt description of what complexity feels like for many project managers. Although it is difficult to pin down exactly what it is, we know it when we see it. We often experience it in the sometimes-chaotic juggling of requirements, resources and timelines that a particular project seems to create in its wake. Complexity manifests itself in many different ways, and there is a growing body of literature and research devoted to the understanding and modeling of how complexity impacts projects.
For the most part, complexity in projects--certainly where IT is concerned--tends to be synonymous with technological complexity. Even the historical example of Babbage’s difference engines appears to confirm that assumption. For many years, the failure of Babbage to actually build one of his engines was attributed to the limitations of Victorian technology.
The blueprints for the engines’ components called for a degree of manufacturing precision that was not possible to achieve with contemporary mechanical processes. Thus, excepting some partial mechanisms, none of the engines was ever fully manufactured and assembled. However, it was not simply the complexity of the engines’ technological requirements that sank Babbage’s grand project. Other factors were at work, too.
But before we look at those, how do we recognize that complexity, in general, might be present in a project we are working on? How does complexity manifest itself in a project that has many moving parts? While there is no single complexity indicator, complexity creates effects that ripple through a project in perceptible ways, of which the most common is ambiguity.
In general, ambiguity usually signals that there is some element of complexity present in a project. If you look at project planning and control techniques, one way of describing their purpose is the purging of ambiguity from the project and replacing it with clarity and certainty. (In fact, one way of viewing the process of progressive elaboration--of “developing in steps and continuing by increments”, emphasized in the Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge--is as a general purpose technique for driving out ambiguity from projects.)
Ambiguity is present when requirements are being interpreted in multiple ways or appear fuzzy and fluid in their definition. Or the sequence and order of project tasks keeps changing or appears disjointed. Or the objectives of the project itself are unclear or, even worse, unknown. Or at the participant level, when you find yourself in a project meeting and you have no idea what anyone is talking about or why you are there.
Ambiguity, incomprehension, opacity…these are some of the effects of complexity. (They can also arise in badly managed projects where the root cause is often discovered to be some element of complexity.) So, if these are representative of what the effects of complexity feel like, where do we locate the source of complexity that gives rise to these effects?
Accounting for the moving parts
Evaluating projects for sensitivity to complexity is not generally performed, either during project initiation or at post mortem reviews. There is no PMBOK knowledge domain that is devoted to complexity. The argument for supporting the view that no such special treatment is required is that complexity can be effectively analyzed and managed through the standard project knowledge domains: scope, time, cost, quality, risk, etc. Integrate these elements effectively, and you can manage any complexity that the project may create (so runs the logic of this argument).
However, I know that when assigned to a new project, many project managers like to ask the reasonable question: “Just how complex is the delivery of this project?” Intuitively, we know that complexity is the biggest constraint on project execution, and our instinct to account for it cannot always be satisfied by the standard project measures of time, scope and cost.
Failure to manage complexity implies a level of risk to completing a project successfully. Thus, how complexity impacts a project is usually represented in terms of ability to influence and control the impact in the same way that risk management assessments weigh the probability of the risk event occurring and the severity of its impact should it occur. A similar weighting approach can be applied to evaluating complexity.
The objective of such an assessment is to identify where a project may be most sensitive to the effects of complexity--that is, what aspects of project execution are likely to be most challenging to achieving the project’s desired results? The criteria that are applied in the evaluation, and how each criterion is weighted for sensitivity, should be determined by the needs of the performing organization, as appropriate to its own project management methodology. The table below provides some sample criteria that might be used to perform a typical complexity sensitivity assessment.
Table 1: Complexity Sensitivity Assessment
| COMPLEXITY CRITERIA | Example of low IMPACT | L | 2 | 3 | 4 | H | Example of high IMPACT |
| Technology Assets and Standards | Technical work required to achieve results reuses pre-existing capabilities and core technologies. Strong adherence to standards and policies. Process and methodology are well understood. | | X | | | | Work required is technically difficult and is new to the company. Technology is immature. New or multiple interdependent capabilities will need to be developed and deployed. Tactical workarounds may be required to bridge gaps while strategic solution is developed. |
| Organizational Complexity | Work can be achieved with a small group of geographically co-located staff, reporting to the same management group and adopting common working practices. | | | | X | | Many different parts of the organization will need to be engaged. Delivery depends on integrating many geographically and functionally dispersed groups. There may be conflicting priorities. Working (cultural) practices may be very different between groups. |
| Organizational Stability | There are existing groups in place who are responsible for delivering the components of the project solution. They can commit experienced and knowledgeable resource at the right time. | | X | | | | The delivery groups are in transition (onshore vs. offshore). Accountability and control may be an issue during the life of the project. Shortage of experienced or knowledgeable resource may constrain deliverables. |
| 3rd Party Involvement | This is an internal project, wholly under the control of internal and directly contracted resources. | | | X | | | A number of external parties are involved in delivery, either through partnership, recent acquisition or purchase of technology or services. An acquisition is anticipated during the life of the project. |
| Managing Expectations | There is some degree of flexibility in meeting the end date of the project. Trade-offs between functionality, quality and cost can be made without compromising the expected project deliverables. | | X | | | | There is an immovable, hard end date that must be met. The date is unrealistic. Quality, functionality or performance will be significantly compromised to meet the target end date. |
| Project Duration | This is a 6-month project and therefore would expect little impact from major, external change factors. | | X | | | | This project is expected to last more than 2 years and is therefore likely to be subject to major external change impacts that are not known and cannot be accounted for at the start of the project. |
| Sponsorship and Priority | Clearly sponsored by a single group or individual who has the ability to supply funds and resources and maintain priority. Project has a recognized and acknowledged priority within the company. | | | | | X | Sponsorship is ambiguous with several interested parties, none of whom have this as their top priority. Project has no company mandate or priority and is subject to discretionary funding, ad hoc resourcing and arbitrary decision making. |
| Dependencies | The project has no external, in-bound dependencies. | | | X | | | The project is dependent on multiple external projects run by different groups whose goals and priorities are not aligned with this project’s objectives. |
Another way of looking at each of the complexity criteria selected is as a barrier to achieving the project’s goals. A low barrier may be negotiated without significantly impacting project performance. A high barrier represents a potential roadblock that needs to be removed, through adjustment to the project schedule, resourcing, funding, organizational structure or whatever combination is required to manage the sensitivity of the criterion’s impact on project execution. But the most important part of this kind of analysis is to ensure that all factors that may introduce complexity into the project are included in the scope of the evaluation.
Construction of the Difference Engine No. 2 in 1991 by
With rigorous exactitude, Babbage accounted for the many moving parts that his calculating machines required in order to operate and function correctly. Unfortunately, in his visionary zeal he neglected to account for the complexity of those other moving parts on which so many projects depend for their delivery and success.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)