Enhancing Process Maturity in SWIM Implementation

Explore the importance of process maturity in SWIM implementation through images that depict the need for interoperable services, streamlined focus on key stakeholders, and reliance on standardized processes like COBIT. Discover how using a proven model can help organizations assess and improve their process maturity levels effectively.

• SWIM Implementation
• Process Maturity
• Interoperable Services
• COBIT
• Standardized Processes

fpugh Follow

Uploaded on Sep 25, 2024 | 0 Views

Download Presentation

Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.

The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Presentation Transcript

1. SWIM Readiness Assessment Richard Williams Canso and Airways New Zealand

2. Interoperable services Like building blocks we require reusable services that are interoperable We all need to play with the same type of set

3. Simplified View GANP ASBU (Business Services) SWIM (Infrastructure Services) Infrastructure is useful as an enabler for the provision of customer valued business services. Without the business services there is limited value.

4. Presentation Focus Service Vendors National Regulators Airlines Military ASBU (Business Services) SWIM (Infrastructure Services) Weather Offices Airports ANSP s Other Stakeholders International Groups

5. Service creation requires more than concepts Concept Service Effective service creation is supported by Processes

6. Why Process Maturity? Processes provide standard methods for the co-ordination of people and technology to deliver business valued services. Process People Technology

7. SWIM relies on processes to: Govern, Design, Build & Operate Services COBIT provides a proven good practice model for process maturity assessment.

8. Process Maturity Where are you and where do you want to be? Optimised Managed Defined Repeatable Initial Non Existent

9. Exploratory Investigation Used COBIT as a foundation to investigate process maturity SWIM specific areas were added including Standards and Web service implementation. 15 Experts across 5 ANSP s were interviewed to understand current and targeted process maturity.

10. Overall Process Maturity Comparison against a common target shows process maturity gaps for all respondents.

11. We are a long way from where we want to be, our targets are different and so are our starting positions. Red = Current Process Maturity Blue = Gap to Target Process Maturity

12. SWIM Specific Processes Comparison against a common target shows no respondents are fully prepared for web service adoption.

13. Exploratory Investigation Preliminary Conclusions There are substantial gaps between current and target process maturity. All of the ANSP respondents have different levels of process maturity and immaturity. Each ANSP respondent has a different perspective of what level of process maturity is required. No ANSP respondent appears fully prepared for adoption of web services.

14. Further Discussion Raised Concerns Investment in infrastructure (SWIM) could be impacted by: Slow adoption by different parties Business service applicability Replacement Cycles (when we get funding) Scale of infrastructure required Risk appetite for adopting new ways of working Cost as a barrier to adoption These concerns need to be addressed by the IM Panel

15. Slow Adoption if no-one is prepared to adopt SWIM and use the services, why offer them? Military National Regulators Airlines ASBU (Business Services) SWIM (Infrastructure Services) Weather Offices Airports ANSP s Other Stakeholders International Groups

16. Business Service Applicability Some services are more applicable to different ANSP s 2 3 1 SWIM OR 4 5 6 SWIM e.g. NZ is geographically distant and has few flights, Europe has heavy volume and shorter distances, impacting the selection of which services to adopt and when.

17. Replacement Cycles When to transition to SWIM? Hard or soft transition? $ $ $ $$$$$$ OR $ $ $ $$$

18. ANSPs Need to Build Infrastructure to Scale - one size does not fit all What really matters is interoperability

19. The Interoperability Game Point to Point Existing systems do not work together effectively

20. SWIM - Interoperability ? Interoperable services through standards

21. Interoperability Models Fully compliant or Externally compliant External Facing Services Internal Facing Services Standard Full SWIM External Facing SWIM

22. Recommendations It is recommended the ICAO Information Management Panel: Note the differences between ANSP current and target maturity. Note the lack of respondent readiness to adopt Web Services. Use the proposed maturity model to assess a wider sample of ANSP current and future maturity across all ICAO regions Modify the model to assess current and future maturity for other groups including airlines, regulators, vendors etc. Discuss and address the conclusions and concerns raised in this presentation. Adopt the building block and domino interoperability models.

23. Thank You Any Questions? Special thanks to the CANSO Working Group CANSO Eugene Hoeven ATNS Lindi-Lee Kirkman FAA Jim Robb MLIT Tomoya Miyoshi NavCanada Bill Crawley Avitech Peter Rudolph Thales Laurent Benguigui