Virtual Centre Tranche 2 programme

For Joël Jordan, Programme Director Virtual Centre Tranche 2 (VCT2), implementing the complex and radical VCT2 technology programme would only be possible if the company embraced a new, flexible approach to innovation.

Innovation, especially on such a great scale at VCT2, involves managing several layers of uncertainty and complexity. How was this challenge overcome?

Implementing a single, unified airspace in Switzerland posed many serious challenges. There are two operations centres but before VCT2 our architecture and technology were location-dependent and outdated in many ways. Modernization and harmonization were a huge innovation challenge for our company. We knew we would have to face many unforeseen challenges for both engineering and operations. So we had to develop a structure which would allow for flexible responses to address unexpected events but with intermediate deliveries built-in to gain confidence while reducing the risk of having nothing at all at the end of the programme, despite a considerable investment. We needed to create a new delivery machine, from the very top down to working levels. We had to be a change agent delivering new governance and work practices, not just technology. Air traffic control (ATC) tends to evolve in cycles of 25 years and we’ve now prepared for the next generation. This was the key part
of my mission: to create sustainable and solid foundations which will allow Skyguide to flexibly evolve its operations for the years to come.

How was VCT2 structured to ensure there was harmonization between new technology delivery and financial restraint?

We were inspired by the Agility mindset. We took an approach based on annual requests and reviews, with each request covering a calendar year with a fixed budget and a proposed scope with intermediate delivery objectives across the year. These intermediate delivery objectives resulted in real technical or operational capabilities. Atthe end of the year, we conducted a review to see what had been delivered and the lessons learned. Obviously, the classical approach – with a budget and promises of delivery at the end of five years’ work – was not what we wanted.

How was the change management organization structured?

The programme was based on a strong extra layer of transversal leadership supported by a strongly delivery-oriented Steering Committee, including all operational stakeholders. The programme team comprised dedicated, committed and recognized leaders. In terms of delivery, we had to start with a very broad range of initiatives. It was impossible for us to establish a sequential approach, so we organized “swim lanes” enabling parallel deliveries by autonomous teams. Because of the unavoidable inter-dependencies, the management of this process was a real challenge so we progressively adopted further Agile concepts and the Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe). We brought everything under the umbrella of an Agile Release Train (ART) programme and quarterly programme increments (PIs). These are very powerful instruments to creating ownership and autonomy and align deliveries at a very detailed level. They created a common goal for many stakeholders. We also formed a Business Change Delivery Unit responsible for activities outside implementation, such as training, safety and transition plans. We set up a system to ensure continuous requirement refinement and acceptance of the technology by air traffic controllers (ATCOs). Agile relies on a series of prototype demonstrations and active ATCOs provided us with their analysis of the potential safety impacts. The demonstrations were planned in short cycles which gave the ATCOs early and continuous views of what we were proposing

How was the VCT2 programme delivered?

There were three big blocks and an “add-on”. The first block provides the basic modern and location-independent infrastructure, which can deliver data and functions to an ATC centre over 300km away. This includes application upgrades and centralized hosting with transversal corporate services, secure operating systems and a common integration platform. The second block was the ATC operational layer. The One Airspace concept and our architecture-driven implementation approach required harmonized operations and the New Route Handling (NRH) concept provided a fantastic means of assuring this as it involved both Geneva and Zurich centres.

Originally, we intended to keep the Geneva Approach and Tower legacy Flight Plan Management application and create an interface with the new system. But doing so was not in the spirit of having only one national system. Skyguide then decided to extend the use of the new solution to the entire Swiss airspace. This add-on to the initial VCT2 plans is a challenging reverse engineering initiative.
The third block, integrated throughout the programme, required the adoption of new ways of approaching innovation – and this was the cultural imperative of adapting the scope as we went along, ensuring that safety and security remained the number one priorities but finding ways to deliver on our objectives without over stressing our colleagues. And this is, maybe, where the Swiss culture helped a little – through necessity finding ways to compromise to move ahead.