Post on 06-Feb-2016
description
Perf
orm
ance
Rev
iew
Com
mis
sion
Perf
orm
ance
Rev
iew
Com
mis
sion
16 July 2012
Keld LudvigsenChairman Performance Review CommissionMember of Performance Review Body
Total Economic Value (TEV) Symposium
2
Performance Review Commission
A well known concept
‘To reduce the direct and indirect ATM-related costs per unit of aircraft operations.’Air Traffic Management Strategy For The Years 2000+ , Approved January 2000
3
Performance Review Commission
Context & background
The Total Economic Value (TEV)
•Is an attempt to monetarise direct and indirect ANS costs borne by airspace users
•Provides a consolidated view of estimated ANS-related costs
•Does not include safety in the calculations
4
Performance Review Commission
6.8 6.9 6.7 6.9
1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4
3.9 3.5 3.7 3.7
1.91.2 2.2 1.5
10.1 9.89.59.4
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
2008 2009 2010 2011 (P)
Billi
on [€
2010
]
En-route & airport ATFM delays (Capacity)ANS-related inefficiencies gate-to-gate (Environment)Terminal ANS provision costs*En-route ANS provision costs Source: PRC analysis
Estimated ANS-related economic costs to airspace users (gate-to-gate)
ANS-provisioncosts
ANS quality of service related
costs Flight inefficiencies(taxi-out, en-route, terminal)
ATFM delays
Terminal charges
IFR flights (M)
* Note that terminal ANS provision costs only refer to 21 States
En-route charges
ANS-related economic costs
5
Performance Review Commission
The performance process and KPAs
6
Performance Review Commission
The PRB use of TEV so far
Target setting
Partially done for RP1 targetsNo specific KPIs targets on TEVNot mature for target settingWould blur accountability
Assessment of PPsWas taken into account during first loop of PPs assessmentPartially done in the second loop of PPs assessment
Monitoring PPsOverall economic performance of service provisionPerformance of one KPA/KPI deteriorates but overall performance improves
7
Performance Review Commission
What are the advantages of using the TEV?
• Consolidated view, easy to understand
• Enables to express all KPIs in monetary terms (except Safety)
• Visualises the relative weight of the different KPAs and priorities of policy objectives
• Provides a high level framework to illustrate interdependencies and trade-offs among KPAs over time
• Genuine opportunity for a State/FAB to contribute to the overall performance improvements while taking local circumstances and priorities into account.
8
Performance Review Commission
Methodological issues related to the TEV
• No commonly agreed methodology
• The TEV calculation is: • dependent on exogenous factors outside ANS control • relies on assumptions for the monetarisation of ANS related
inefficiencies
• Limitations in measuring precisely some ANS-related indirect costs
• Flight efficiency is primarily a network issue
• En-route KPIs are well established but ANS performance at airports is still a relatively new area
9
Performance Review Commission
Ability to drive the “right” behavior?
• Could reduce clear accountabilities for achieving performance improvements
• Could lead to the misconception that improvements in one area have to come at the detriment in another area
• Might lead to trade-offs between KPIs with different user groups
• Might be misused as a justification to trade-off between KPIs with ‘hard’ incentives and KPIs without ‘hard’ incentives
10
Performance Review Commission
Way forward
• A potential useful and powerful tool
• Need to better frame the TEV concept
• Build trust amongst all stakeholders
• Evolution not revolution
11
Performance Review Commission
Any questions?