The words you are searching are inside this book. To get more targeted content, please make full-text search by clicking here.
Discover the best professional documents and content resources in AnyFlip Document Base.
Published by flipper3103, 2016-12-05 14:24:02

CI Proposals

CI Proposals

1 CI Proposals

As part of the Continuous Improvement contractual obligation, 2GETHER throughout the
Service Operations phase of the project, presents candidate improvement proposals in its
Continuous Improvement Proposals document [R15]. This proposals document serves as an
input to the members of the ASTAC in relation to the selection of the most suitable
Continuous Improvement initiatives (prioritisation), and as an initial input to this plan

The Contract objective is to generate improvements based on the Due Diligence findings and
on observations and reflections of the internal working processes of 2GETHER and/or
EUROCONTROL NTS. In addition to these sources of information, 2GETHER has also used
the Transition-to-Lot 4 [R4] findings and the NTS Strategic Process Improvement Roadmap
[R5] as references.

Improvements presented in this document cover four main categories:

1. NTS PROCESS IMPROVEMENT – Improvements which have been identified as well by
EUROCONTROL NTS, as strategic improvements [R5], and supported by
observations of 2GETHER during the Due Diligence phase or subsequent activities.

2. CO-SOURCING MODEL IMPROVEMENT – Improvements related to the co-sourcing model
2GETHER has deployed at EUROCONTROL NTS.

3. FIXED PRICE EVOLUTION – Improvements which will facilitate the evolution from Times
and Means work (Lot 2) to a Fixed Price modus operandi (Lot 4).

4. OTHERS – Improvements which benefit the Contract between 2GETHER and
EUROCONTROL but which cannot be classified in the first three categories.

These categories are not necessarily orthogonal but reflect the strategic directions expressed
in the Application Sourcing Contract.

2 Introduction to the Continuous Improvement Plan

2.1 Overview

Schedule C (Scope of Work) of the Contract between EUROCONTROL and 2GETHER
stipulates that the 2GETHER organisation responsible for Lot 3.2 will submit at least per
quarter one (1) Continuous Improvement proposal and an associated Continuous
Improvement plan. Refer to appendix A of this document for the associated text from the

Section 3.2 explains the approach taken by 2GETHER in relation to the Continuous
Improvement contractual objective. It in addition explains contractual coverage, SLA reporting,
the lifecycle for CI initiatives and Benefits Management of the CI initiatives.

Section 3.3 serves as an introduction to chapter 4 and aims to give an overview of the CI
proposals proposed to date, their categorisation and prioritisation as per ASTAC governance

2.2 Approach to the Continuous Improvement

2.2.1 Continuous Improvement proposal and plan
At the basis of the Continuous Improvement effort is a Continuous Improvement proposal. The
associated proposal document [R15] is submitted for review to the members of the Application
Sourcing Tactical Committee (ASTAC). The members of the ASTAC review and rank the
different proposals. 2GETHER and EUROCONTROL NTS have a similar weight in the ranking.

On the basis of the ranking, an initial Continuous Improvement Plan is created which lists the
main principles for the execution of the plan and provide the necessary information for each of
the associated plans in order of priority.

Continuous Improvement plans will then be executed with a budget, either via Lot 2.1
(2GETHER contributes under T&M and EUROCONTROL bears the cost) or via Lot 3.2
(2GETHER is responsible for the execution and management and will bear the cost).

In case a plan is executed under Lot 2.1, EUROCONTROL takes the responsibility for the
associated cost and, in accordance to the PDLC, an OTSP needs to be created and presented
for approval to the PMM. This process is further explained in the PDLC Project Management
process description [R-8].

The approach to continuous improvement is illustrated in the figure below.

Figure 1 – Approach to Continuous Improvement

2.2.2 Contractual modus operandi Contractual coverage of the CI plan
There will be three possible contractual coverage models for Continuous Improvement, which

1. The execution of the CI plan will be fully done by 2GETHER and covered by Lot 3.2 of
the Application Sourcing Contract. There is no incurred cost for EUROCONTROL. A
SOW however may need to be issued in the case 2GETHER offers a subject matter
expertise free of charge who will work on the EUROCONTROL premises and/or who
will work directly with EUROCONTROL resources (servers, etc).

2. The execution of the CI plan will be fully covered by Lot 2.1 of the Application Sourcing
Contract. EUROCONTROL bears the cost. A T&M SOW needs to be issued by
EUROCONTROL to 2GETHER. Associated daily rates are available in Schedule F of
the Contract between 2GETHER and EUROCONTROL.

3. The execution of the CI plan will be covered by both Lots 3.2 and 2.1 of the Application
Sourcing Contract. In relation to cost, refer to 1 and 2. SLM reporting
The performance of Continuous Improvement is measured as part of the SLA between
2GETHER and EUROCONTROL. The following KPIs are to be reported:

1. KPI 3.8 – CI Initiatives – Number of relevant opportunities (CI Initiatives) identified.
2. KPI 3.9 – CI induced cost savings.

Reporting of these KPIs will be done on a peridic basis in the 2GETHER SLM report.

2.2.3 Lifecycle of CI initiatives
CI initiatives are executed as projects. The following paragraphs give a high level overview of
the associated project lifecycle depending on the contractual approach. Lifecycle of initiatives executed under Lot 2.1
CI initiatives executed under project management of EUROCONTROL NTS are executed in
accordance to the PDLC [R-7].

The most relevant references for the PDLC are the “PDLC definition” [R-7] and the “Project
Management Process Definition” [R-8].

For further details, refer to the associated documentation. Lifecycle of initiatives executed under Lot 3.2
CI initiatives executed under project management of 2GETHER are managed either by the
Service Manager of 2GETHER, its deputy, or an appointed dedicated project manager.

This document serves as the project management plan for these initiatives.

2.2.4 Benefits of CI initiatives - Balanced scorecard approach

A benefit is defined as “the measurable improvement resulting from an outcome (change)
perceived as an advantage by one or more stakeholders.”

For each identified CI initiative, 2GETHER assesses its benefits on the basis of the Balanced
Scorecard Approach which aligns CI initiatives with four typical organisational strategic

These directions are:
1. Financial – Encourages the identification of a few relevant high-level financial
2. Internal Business Processes – Encourages the identification of measures that
answer the question “What must we excel at?”
3. Learning and Growth – Encourages the identification of measures that answer the
question “How can we continue to improve and create value?”
4. Customer – Encourages the identification of measures that answer the question “How
do customers see us?”

Figure 2 illustrates these four quadrants of the Balanced Score Card.

For each of the CI initiatives, 2GETHER has assumed a number of benefits associated to
these BSC quadrants and these serve as input to the project plan either of EUROCONTROL

The assumed identified benefits will be documented for each CI initiative. As a follow-up step,
these benefits need to be measured at the different stages during the project and after the
project to assess the success of these CI initiatives and serve as input to KPI 3.9 (refer to
paragraph When possible, quantitative metrics, such as defined scores, budget
changes, etc. are preferred over qualitative metrics such as surveys, questionnaires, etc.

The follow-up, monitoring and control of benefits will be referred to as Benefits Management
and this is an important activity in the overall management of the CI programme for the
Application Sourcing Contract.

Benefits will be measured on a simple ordinal scale which contains the following values:
1. Noticeable – Negative: Benefits materialised in opposite direction. CI may have to be
reviewed, modified or even cancelled.
2. Not noticeable yet or not measured yet: No objective measurement to report.
3. Noticeable – Indifference: Benefits neither positive nor negative. This could also
result from a changing organisational context. CI may have to be reviewed, modified or
even cancelled.
4. Noticeable – Positive: Benefits experienced as positive. To be further exploited to
reach its full potential.
5. Noticeable – Good: Benefits experienced as expected. Expectations met. To be
further enhanced if possible.
6. Noticeable – Excellent: Benefits exceed their expectations.

Chapter 4 of this CI plan contains an overview of the benefits and their status.

Figure 2 – Balanced Scorecard approach

2.2.5 Governance
Governance of Continuous Improvement will manifest itself on different levels.

For projects executed under project management of EUROCONTROL, to which 2GETHER
may contribute via Lot 2.1, the oversight of the project lies with the PMM whilst the Project
Manager is responsible for the planning, implementation, tracking, and closure as per PDLC.

The members of the ASTAC are informed of its progress and consulted in case this is deemed
necessary, e.g. in case of constraints, dependencies, risks and/or issues.

For projects executed by 2GETHER under Lot 3.2 of the Contract, the 2GETHER Service
Manager is responsible for the project management. There is no involvement of the PMM.

The members of the ASTAC are informed of its progress and consulted in case this is deemed

The ASSC (Application Sourcing Steering Committee) is informed on a quarterly basis on the
status of the CI initiatives and may be consulted in case of escalated issues.

In case of issues, the escalation path follows the described levels of escalation which reflects
the governance schedule (Schedule B) in the Contract between 2GETHER and

2.3 Overview of the Continuous Improvement Proposals

2.3.1 History first year of Service Operations - 2012
On the 5th of April 2012, a dedicated ASTAC meeting was held in the context of Continuous
Improvement. During this meeting the Continuous Improvement proposals issued prior to the
meeting were presented, discussed and eventually ranked. This corresponds to step 3 in figure
1 (refer to section 3.2.1 of this document).

On the basis of that ranking, the CI proposals document was baselined for 2012 and issued to
the members of the ASTAC on the 20th of April 2012. CI proposals and their ranking

The following table contains the ranking of the CI proposals by the EUROCONTROL members
of the ASTAC [R6] in combination with the 2GETHER members of ASTAC ranking.

proposal Ranking ASTAC ranking ranking
#2 - Front-Office Back Office score
interface 14 52
#8 - Increase efficiency timesheet 44 41
reporting to 2GETHER 40 22 41
#3 - Contribute to improvement of 37 93
Requirements Development 36.5 31
#1 - Dedicated infrastructure for CI 36 45 N/A
and idea management 34.5 5 N/A
#5 - Evaluation of GIT as an 29 63 93
alternative to CC Tools 7 N/A
#4 - Continuous Integration 21 N/A
#6 - Creation of a roster 84
scheduling tool for 12  4
#7 – Agile coach for CSI projects

Table 1 – Combined ranking of the ASTAC members

Based on the information in the table above the final ranking by all members of the ASTAC is
given in the following table:

Proposal Category Combined
#3 - Contribute to improvement of NTS Process Improvement ranking
Requirements Development
#8 - Increase efficiency timesheet 2GETHER PMO Process 1
reporting to 2GETHER Improvement
#2 - Front-Office Back Office interface Lot 4 preparation 1
NTS Process Improvement
#4 - Continuous Integration Other 2
#1 - Dedicated infrastructure for CI and 3
idea management
#7 - Agile coach for CSI projects 4

Table 2 – Combined ranking of the CI proposals

An overview of the proposals for 2012, per category is given in the figure below. For each of
the defined categories, the subsequent proposals are from top to bottom in order of priority.
The CI proposal identifiers, e.g. #1, indicate the overall priority in accordance to the ASTAC

Click to View FlipBook Version
Previous Book
Noviembre Morado
Next Book
SLM Reporting