AIAA Spring Business TAC Report from
New Initiatives Subcommittee
Jeff Laube – Chair
6 May 2015
Agenda
•
•
•
•
•
TAC Newsletter Status - Peter Hartwich
Status WorkshopExercise - Megan Scheidt/Robbie Robertson
Peer Reviewed Technical Papers Status - Tom McLaughlin
Assessment of Professional Interest Codes - Sophia Bright
Review of ITAR Process for Conferences - Sophia Bright
2
TAC Newsletter Status
Peter Hartwich
Topics for Next Newsletter
• Message from Our VP, TAC [Riley]
• Message from Our Director, Programs & Products
[Scheidt]
• Betty’s Corner
• Meet Your TAC Team: Achille Messac, (recently elected)
Director–Technical, Aerospace Design and Structures
Group
4
Topics for Next Newsletter (Continued)
• What’s News:
 Featured Region of the Quarter – Region 2 [Mark Whorton – also
recently elected]
 SciTech 2016 [Megan? ]
 2015 AVIATION [Megan to provide name]
 Possible articles on current efforts
– Peer-Reviewed AIAA Technical Papers
– ITAR Process for AIAA Conferences
– TAC Workshop = Next Steps
 3-Month Look Ahead [Megan, et al]
5
Final Comments from Peter
• In the 2015-Q1 issue, Peter asked for feedback in forms
of letters (e-mail) to the Editor.
 As Betty predicted, it’s been all crickets. Maybe we need an
ice breaker.
 Encourage attendees to NIS/TAC sessions to be the first to
send a comment, question, concern, … anything to
potentially get the ball rolling.
• Peter was still working to find somebody who agrees to
become co-editor of our TAC Newsletter
 At NIS meeting yesterday, Rob Vermeland volunteered.
6
Status of SciTech Workshop Exercise
Megan Scheidt/Robbie Robertson
2015 SciTech Workshop Background
• Following SciTech, Robbie took a cut at sorting
and categorizing the inputs
• Passed along to Megan for further assessment
• Checked to see if some of the ideas were
currently being worked… or could be worked into
existing efforts
8
Assessing the Workshop Output
• The four Managing Directors on staff have been
assessing the feedback
 The assessment involved looking at level of effort versus
level of impact for each item. In the attached file the
suggestions are categorized by high-impact items versus lowimpact items.
• Each item is mapped to the strategic plan objectives
 Strategic plan objectives key is presented in next chart
• It was noted whether the suggestion was an existing
activity or would be a new one,
 Whether the focus was tactical or strategic, which helps to
determine the implementation priorities.
9
Mapping Results to Strategic Plan Objectives
A. Develop and Expand our Community:
1.
2.
3.
Engage underrepresented constituencies and key technology areas
Increase our legacy technical and corporate members
Develop a comprehensive outreach and engagement strategy
B. Strengthen Our Existing Community:
1.
2.
3.
4.
C.
Institutionalize a prioritization methodology to align products, programs, and
services to Vision, Mission and goals.
Develop and institutionalize an adaptable and forward-leaning culture
Develop and implement responsive and collaborative governance structure and
staff-volunteer partnership
Sustain the institute with operational funds
Deliver Exceptional Results:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Leverage online infrastructure and technology assets.
Capture and/or develop new opportunities that impact our broad and missionbased focus.
Strengthen our core role as the premier aerospace technology clearinghouse
Strengthen our leadership relationships with Government, Industry and Academia
Suggestions from Workshop – High Impact
Suggestions from Workshop: High-Impact
Strategic Plan Objective
(bold for IDC priorities)
Status
Enhance Member Electronic Services
•Daily launch – use this to publish success stories on mentoring, up-coming events
A3
Existing
•Personal profile page – searchable, CVs, use this info to send out details on events, create communities of
interest using PC/TC information
•TEDx of AIAA – how-to links, Forum 360 events on-line, Forum discussions on-line
C1
Existing
C1
New
•On-line training – AIAA certification program
A2
New
•Public availability to parts of Forum
A3
Existing
•Press package (names, events, etc) – invite press members to forum
A3
Existing
•“Popular Science” type of magazine
A3
New
A1
Existing
A1
Existing
•Do a better job of transitioning students in full members - ramp-up of fees
A2
Existing
·Restructure membership fees: motivate members to renew
A2
New
·Restructure membership fees: “Rental” of technical information
C3
New
C4
Existing
A1
New
Increase Outreach/Visibility
Improve Forum Programming and Grow Audience
•Market to more to non-traditional people – program managers, systems engineers, acquisition personnel
•Continue strengthening of Forum 360 – links across all TCs/PCs and sections - emerging topics are not cross
collaboratively done across AIAA
Assess Membership Structure and Value
Other Suggestions
•Improved out-reach to small businesses – sponsor smaller events etc.
•Assess whether Region VII should be broken up into Europe, Asia, etc. to better serve non-U.S. members
Suggestions from Workshop – Lower Impact
Suggestions from Workshop: Low-Impact
Strategic Plan Objective
(bold for IDC priorities)
Status
Enhance Member Electronic Services
•Forum: Presentations on-line – link to papers
C3
New
•Technical tours of facilities near Forum (pay extra)
A2
Existing
•Market to enthusiast
A3
New
•AIAA in movies, AIAA channel
A3
New
A3
Existing
·Restructure membership fees: Professional members versus other – no difference
A2
New
•Member activity score (as a means of enticing active participation)
A3
New
•Explore merchandising opportunities – ties, etc.
N/A
Existing
•Company-sponsored awards and scholarships
C4
Existing
•National and regional linking is lacking – critical for emerging technologies growth
B3
Existing
•UAV, rocket competitions
C2
Existing
C3
New
Increase Outreach/Visibility
Improve Forum Programming and Grow Audience
•Link to education/STEM in Forums (such as Education Alley, which was previously held at the SPACE
Conference)
Assess Membership Structure and Value
Other Suggestions
Enhance Member Electronic Services
•Forum: Presentations on-line – link to papers
Status of Workshop Output Assessment
• The presented list does not include feedback about the
suggestions from a member value perspective
 We would like to get an initial input during the NIS/TAC Exec meetings.
• Costs or resources needed to implement the suggestions have
not been scoped out
 Many of the suggestions involve areas of the Institute and will need buy
in/support from other Vice Presidents or Standing Committees.
• Hoping for guidance/suggestions from NIS/TAC on appropriate
next steps
13
Peer Reviewed Technical Papers Status
Tom McLaughlin
Regarding the Peer Reviewed technical papers:
• Some academics indicated that AIAA papers “don’t count”
because they are not peer-reviewed
• We are asking aero department chairs their views on making
our papers technically reviewed.
 There is conflicting information on whether this is of any value for
academic promotion
 Looking for a consensus on whether this is worth pursuing
 Survey sent out this week
• If a positive response is received, next step would be to
understand what it would take to implement the process.
• Until there is clarity that our members will benefit substantially,
there is little reason to pursue this with TCs and PCs.
15
Review of the Professional Interest Codes
(PIC) – Update to Jan 2012
Sophia Bright, NIS
NIS Meeting – May 2015
Recap of Jan 2012 Investigation (1/2)
• Jan 2012 the original workgroup consisting of Carlos Cesnik,
Peter Hartwich, Steve Rizzi, and George Lesieutre (Membership
Committee) reviewed the AIAA Interest Codes and determined
that:
 They were aligned with current TC/PCs
 It was possible to work to review/reorganize/change
 There were very little, if any, complications due to integration into various
AIAA areas such as membership upgrades, other areas
• PICs have been reviewed and they are mostly covering our
TC/PC membership
 As of 2010 membership data, 17% of AIAA membership has not indicate
a PIC
17
Recap of Jan 2012 Investigation (2/2)
• PICs used for:
 AIAA marketing (at what level?)
 Fellows distribution (according to main areas and % membership)
 Determine size of membership when considering new awards creation
• Opportunities for improvement
 New PICs could be created to best aligned TAC organization with AIAA
strategic directions
 Some PICs could be retired/consolidated – although keeping more does
not seem to hurt anything
• Recommendation from Jan 2012
 Should know what is the desired roles/usefulness of the PICs before
further action is warranted
18
Current Status
• Some action has been taken since reporting the findings of this
study
 “Other” has been made implemented as “I would like to suggest a new
professional interest” (See screenshot on next page)
 Unknown on how many have utilized this option
• There has been a significant decrease in the “None Specified”
category since the initial investigation going from 17% (2010) to
6% from Year-End 2014 membership data
• Still need to determine what the desired roles/usefulness of the
PICs before further action is warranted
19
Members Can Suggest a New Interest
20
Primary Professional Interest of Members
• Professional Interests remained largely the same from 2010
 Although there was an increase of 5% in the “Aerospace Sciences”
category and 11% decrease in the “None Specified” category
• Question remains are we aligned to our membership’s interests?
YE 2014 Membership Data
2010 Membership Data
Source: AIAA – Professional Membership Demographics Report (Dec 2014) – K. Thomas
and “PIC Workgroup Report Jan ‘12 Final” report from S. Rizzi, et al.
21
75% of PICs map against PCs & TCs
• PC and TC populations drive AIAA activities and define intent and
character of AIAA
 Overall the membership engagement has increased significantly over the
past 4 years
– 8% in 2010 to 15% in Year-End 2014 of AIAA membership engages in PCs and TCs
– 89% in 2010 to 77% in Year-End 2014 of AIAA members are categorized as nonparticipatory
– Need to assess impact of Professional member reduction from 27,393 to 23,884
2010 Membership Data
YE 2014 Membership Data
Source: AIAA – Professional Membership Demographics Report (Dec 2014) – K. Thomas
and “PIC Workgroup Report Jan ‘12 Final” report from S. Rizzi, et al.
22
Primary Business (YE 2014) - Breakout of Industry
• 2014 data is expressed a little differently than the data shown on the next slide
for 2010 data
• Overall the amount of specification by membership is better than in previous
years
Source: AIAA – Professional Membership Demographics Report (Dec 2014) – K. Thomas
Primary Business (2010) - Breakout of Industry
Source: “PIC Workgroup Report Jan ‘12 Final” report from S. Rizzi, et al.
24
Primary Business (YE 2014) - Breakout of Manufacturing
Source: AIAA – Professional Membership Demographics Report (Dec 2014) – K. Thomas
Primary Business (2010) - Breakout of Manufacturing
Source: “PIC Workgroup Report Jan ‘12 Final” report from S. Rizzi, et al.
Updated Summary
• Can we tie the PICs into new initiatives within AIAA?
 TAC Workshop from 2015?
• Opportunities for improvement identified in 2012 are still valid
 New PICs could be created to best aligned TAC organization with AIAA
strategic directions
 Some PICs could be retired/consolidated
 When members become lifetime members, periodically ask them what
their interests are. Presently they are not contacted
• No change in Recommendation from 2012
 Should know what is the desired roles/usefulness of the PICs before
further action is warranted
27
ITAR Sessions for Forum Update
Sophia Bright, NIS
NIS Meeting – May 2015
Background
• In 2014, action given to NIS to investigate the process
for holding ITAR Sessions at AIAA Forums
• Findings at that time:
 A separate subteam was engaged by AIAA to address this
question led by Cathy Chenevey (AIAA – Events Staff)
 C. Chenevey had been heavily involved in the JPC/P&E
Forum for their ITAR sessions in 2013; this was expanded to
include Aviation 2014 and Space as an option for 2015
29
Current Status
• As of Jan 2015, C. Chenevey was working on the presentation of
ITAR Restricted Materials at the AIAA Forums
• Per email from C. Chenevey on April 29, 2015:
 The ITAR policies for presentation and attendance at sessions was set back in
2013 to allow AIAA to offer these sessions, and yet maintain accountability and
limit liability
 She is currently working with the Group Directors in terms of how we are
promoting the ITAR sessions at Aviation, Propulsion and Energy and Space,
based on their desire to be more involved and to appoint the ITAR chairs.
 The subteam led by C. Chenevey also been discussing the sensitivities toward
our international members and participants.
 The areas where AIAA felt the TC’s could assist was in identifying topic areas that
should/can be appropriate for this type of restricted session, recruiting abstracts
and papers, as well as create panel sessions (either with or without papers).
 ITAR sessions will be available in 2016 for Aviation, Propulsion and Energy and
30
Space.
Next Actions by NIS
• Continue to work with C. Chenevey to ensure that the guidance
for ITAR sessions at the Forums are understood by the Forum
Planning Committees and TCs involved
• No additional specific action recommended at this time for NIS
since this is already being worked by a different subteam
•31
Final Thoughts
• Continuing efforts? New efforts?
• Next in-person meeting will be at Space 2015
 Week of 31 August-2 September 2015 in Pasadena
• Next telecon in June
32
33