Experts are impressed with the systems and air traffic management
are confident that it can be done, but could Government pressure to
meet the 2001/2002 deadline be counterproductive? Tony Collins
reports
If ever an organisation was willing to stake its honour and
reputation on meeting a deadline for the introduction of new
systems, it is National Air Traffic Services (Nats).
After six years of delays in the 1990s, Nats today says that its
new air traffic control systems "will become operational in the
winter of 2001/2002".
Its confidence is not in the least dented by the communications
problems that were highlighted by Computer Weekly this week. "It's
a somewhat marginal issue in safety terms," said a spokesman. "We
are going to fix it. We will find a technical solution to it before
'O' [operational] date - we're certain we can do that and indeed we
have a solution in sight. It's an issue but we are confident we can
crack it."
Usually in the computer industry the deadlines for large-scale
projects are known to be as flexible as putty. Not in this case.
The credibility of the current Nats management appears to ride on
the system going into operational service on time.
And, after conducting an independent audit of the management and
computer systems at the New En Route Centre at Swanwick in
Hampshire, the highly respected Defence Evaluation Research Agency
said in a report that the systems will work.
The agency gave its endorsement of the winter 2001/2002
deadline. So did independent financial auditor Arthur D Little,
which was appointed by the Department of Transport to conduct a
financial audit of the systems at Swanwick.
Independent IT specialists have also endorsed the quality of new
software, and attacked critics who suggested that the winter 2001
deadline may not be met.
Computer Weekly staff who have visited Nats have been impressed
with the commitment and technical and managerial expertise of the
senior management. But some independent observers wonder whether
the Government is putting Nats management under too much pressure
to meet the 2001/ 2002 deadline.
Without such pressures Standard Life Bank, for example, was able
recently to defer the operational start of its Internet systems.
Although the systems were ready, it said that it wanted to allow
more time to detect any of the residual operational issues that
could cause "the sort of problems that afflicted the launch of
Egg".
This luxury of spare time does not appear to be available to
Nats. A further challenge for Nats is managing expectations at a
particularly sensitive time.
On the one hand it needs to show its critics, the Government and
prospective bidders in the sale of Nats that it is on top of the
problems, so open discussion of technical difficulties may be seen
as unhelpful. It could be argued that, because 5% of shares in Nats
will be sold to directors and staff, they will have a financial,
emotional and career interest in the well being of the
organisation, an integral part of which is the systems.
Unflattering media articles are anathema to senior executives at
Nats, and government advisers who wish to obtain the highest
possible price.
On the other hand, the organisation needs to encourage criticism
because it is a prerequisite to good project management. This was
emphasised last year in a report on the Swanwick IT project by
Arthur D Little.
The report praised many of the improvements that have taken
place under the direction of the current chief executive Bill
Semple. However, it added, "Whilst recognising the progress that
has been made over recent years, we believe that further efforts to
encourage a more open management culture within Nats at the senior
and middle management levels."
It said that achieving a management culture where there is
openness and receptivity to challenges on key assumptions is
"critical". "Nats should take further proactive measures to ensure
that remaining barriers preventing a more open management culture
are identified and overcome," said the report.
Yet the proposed sale of Nats, and the pressure to be seen to be
making unfettered progress towards meeting the operational deadline
may be said to conflict profoundly with the requirement for
openness.
"We also acknowledge that changes have been made by the current
CEO since 1997 to promulgate a more open management style," said
Arthur D Little. "Neverthe-less, it was reported to us in the
evaluation that 'fiefdoms' may be said still to exist within Nats
which are again indicative of cultural barriers."
Today, Nats is still highly sensitive to criticism. After a
Sunday broadsheet newspaper reported that a "radar" glitch was
threatening an early sale of Nats, the chairman Roy McNulty replied
in writing that the article was wrong. His letter went on to stress
that the operational date of 2001/2002 for Swanwick is on track,
and he made no mention of the technical problems the project is
facing.
But, aside from the pressures and counter pressures on openness,
there is a further potential problem for Nats.
Experience of government IT projects shows that they sometimes
stand or fall on whether they are introduced at the same time as
other major changes within an organisation. In particular, the
utilities sector has discovered that the sale of a company at a
time when new systems are being introduced can lead to the
abandonment of costly and large-scale projects.
Is it wise therefore, to sell Nats to the private sector at a
time when Swanwick's new systems are undergoing the final phases of
implementation?
As the date for the sale appears to have been cast in stone,
this is problem which, at this stage looks insurmountable.
Yet all independent specialists who have examined the systems
have been impressed with the progress made by the current
management. And so far Nats has shown itself capable of
successfully absorbing every punch that comes its way. Also, there
are still two years to solve the remaining bugs and the current
communications problem.
"We know we've been optimistic in the past," said a Nats
spokesman. "But this time we really believe we're on track to meet
the deadline."
Nats: key events
- 1992: System contract for new air traffic control system let to
IBM Federal Systems. Target operational date is 1996
- 1994: Loral acquires IBM Federal Systems
- 1995: US version of the system is abandoned. The Federal
Aviation Authority "ran into considerable difficulties with the
project"
- 1996: Joint Nats-Loral re-plan. Operational date deferred until
December 1997
- 1996: Lockheed Martin acquires Loral
- 1996: Operational date is delayed to March 1998 after problems
with a simulation of the operational system
- 1997: Operational date delayed until December 1999
- 1998: Formal acceptance of the system from Lockheed Martin,
which had already received £216.9m. It was promised more work on
the system worth an anticipated extra £100m
- Jan 1999: Defence Evaluation Research Agency said system should
work. It endorsed new operational date of 2001/2002
- Winter 2000: Bidders for Nats are due to see the system in
simulated live running but not operational use
- First quarter 2000: Training of air traffic controllers on the
new system begins. A 51% share in Nats is due to be sold
- November 2001: Projected operational date of new
system