Progress on the activities necessary to complete Transformation Initiatives will be tracked using common program management techniques. The output of Initiatives will also be monitored to confirm that expected results are being delivered and to inform adjustments as necessary. The link between these outputs and Transformation Outcomes must also be monitored to validate the assumptions at the core of the strategy. This supplement to the CSP presents a starting point for monitoring the outputs of initiatives in this plan.
![]() | |
Output: Companies that demonstrate compliance maturity have more control over the certification process | |
Confidence in Industry systems | ![]() |
Scorecard to check consistency of engagement against the prescribed responsibilities in the Maturity Model | ![]() |
FAA involvement in tasks performed by Industry | ![]() |
Confidence in bilateral partner systems |
![]() ![]() |
Output: AIR involvement targets areas of highest safety risk across the lifecycle | |
Alignment between finding of compliance and safety risk management analyses | ![]() |
Discretionary level of involvement in all phases aligns with level of risk | ![]() |
![]() | |
Output: AIR involvement focuses on design related activities outside of the critical path | |
Confidence in Industry systems | ![]() |
Percentage of AIR activities outside (oversight, pre/post) the project phase | ![]() |
Confidence in bilateral partner systems | ![]() |
Output: AIR engagement with bilateral partners is focused on increasing confidence, resulting in reduced validation effort | |
Consistency in level of involvement decisions | ![]() |
Consistency in policy to incentivize Industry maturity | ![]() |
Percentage of projects with duplicate review by FAA and FCAAs | ![]() |
![]() | |
Output: Organizations proactively demonstrate compliance with regulations | |
Airworthiness noncompliance rates – ratio of discovered by AIR to self-reported | ![]() |
Number of companies with voluntary self-disclosure and correction | ![]() |
Output: Industry is collectively more committed to compliance, self-correction, and voluntary disclosure | |
Number of potentially unsafe features, Timeliness of the corrective actions | ![]() |
Consistency of compliance findings, safety risk models, and operational safety risk with the Safety Continuum | ![]() |
![]() | |
Output: Project schedules are more predictable | |
Percentage of projects with FAA involvement where early engagement occurred | ![]() |
Variance from PSCP schedule for project changes or delays per the original plan | ![]() |
Number of adjustments (issues, ELOS or SC actions) made after application | ![]() |
Output: Approvals of compliance assurance systems are more timely | |
Calendar days required to approve a compliance assurance system | ![]() |
![]() | |
Output: The regulatory framework takes less time to accommodate innovations | |
Number of identified prescriptive regulations or policies restricting innovation | ![]() |
Capture issue papers as policy for future actions | ![]() |
Scorecard for the adaptability of regulations and policy to innovative technology, production methods, and business models | ![]() |
![]() | |
Output: Duplication of international certification work is reduced | |
Percentage of tasks in Validation Approval that are duplicative of original certification efforts | ![]() |
Confidence in bilateral partners' systems | ![]() |
![]() | |
Output: Consistent decisions based on a transparent, documented approach informed by systems thinking | |
Consistency across similar decisions or rate decisions are upheld | ![]() |
Issues resolved by phase: early engagement, project, manufacturing, COS | ![]() |
Output: Regulations and policy better reflect safety risk assessments and insights on the effectiveness of safety controls | |
Consistency across similar decisions, or rate decisions are upheld | ![]() |
Output: The consistent, global application of the risk analysis governance reduces regulatory costs | |
Policy consistency with foreign CAAs in how risk analysis is performed | ![]() |
Consistency with timing of risk analysis application during certification | ![]() |
Consistency with timing of risk analysis application during oversight | ![]() |
Output: Resources are allocated consistently across the product lifecycle | |
Consistency with risk-based decision-making tools used at different phases of the product lifecycle | ![]() |
![]() | |
Output: Better-informed decisions enabled by greater access to information | |
Qualitative feedback on tools used, accessibility, user-friendliness and how well they meet the need for routine tasks | ![]() |
Output: Knowledge management adapts quickly to evolving needs | |
Utilization rates for knowledge and information resources access and use as signs of perceived usefulness | ![]() |
Time to deliver information management solutions to the workforce | ![]() |
![]() | |
Output: The work environment promotes appropriate authority, inclusion, and learning | |
Decision level variation from typical decision authority | ![]() |
Effective management of conflicts and crises | ![]() |
Scorecard on support for geographically dispersed teams and industry inclusion | ![]() |
Output: The roles and expectations for stakeholder engagements are clear | |
Earlier engagement for shared problem solving | ![]() |
Scorecard on team access, context, and information availability | ![]() |
![]() | |
Output: The work environment promotes appropriate authority, inclusion, and learning | |
Decision level variation from typical decision authority (e.g., division, branch, stakeholder, reviewed or over-ruled) | ![]() |
Upheld versus Overturned decisions after disposition using the Consistency and Standardization Initiative (CSI) Process | ![]() |
Output: The AIR workforce is empowered, capable, and knowledgeable about the most recent technological advances in the aviation industry | |
Workforce assessment of empowerment | ![]() |
Improved assessment of employee empowerment as measured by the FedView Survey | ![]() |