2014-00-001: Editable Form

Interview Status

PART I: General

Interview data

Position in value chain
Interviewer
Date Location
InterviewID

Experience with ACARE SRIA Vol.2, Cluster of enablers "Competitiveness"

1. Are you familiar with SRIA Vol.2, Cluster of enablers "Competitiveness"?
2. What do you think about the comprehensibility of the SRIA Volume 2 Cluster of enablers "Competitiveness"?
(In case not "excellent") Do you have suggestions to improve the comprehensibility of the SRIA (e.g. information restructuring)?
3. What do you think about the obtainability of the SRIA Volume 2 Cluster of enablers "Competitiveness"?
(In case not "excellent") Do you have suggestions to improve the obtainability of the SRIA (e.g. an instrument)?
4. Do you have a list of the achievements in the SRIA Volume 2 Cluster of enablers "Competitiveness" that are relevant for the RTD of your business (if so, this list could be used as basis for the interview in Part II)?
5. How easy was it to map your RTD activities on the SRIA Volume 2 Cluster of enablers "Competitiveness"?

PART II: Key questions w.r.t. gaps in research landscape

Framework programme mapping on SRIA Vol. 2, Cluster of enablers "Competitiveness"

6. Do you think the current H2020 Work Programme approach will ensure the coverage of SRIA Vol.2, Cluster of enablers "Competitiveness" (e.g. no gaps left)?
If no, please specify
7. Are there specific areas of the SRIA Vol.2, Cluster of enablers "Competitiveness" that are not covered by FP7/H2020 research projects (e.g. a clear gap is identified)?
If yes, please specify
8. Do you feel there are areas of SRIA Vol.2, Cluster of enablers "Competitiveness" where many FP7/H2020 research projects are focusing on?
If yes, please specify

Gaps with respect to SRIA Vol. 2, Cluster of enablers "Competitiveness"

Introduction

SRIA Volume 2 consists of a very large table. This interview is restricted to SRIA Vol. 2, Cluster of enablers “Competitiveness”. Below the header of the table and one line in SRIA Vol. 2, Cluster of enablers “Competitiveness” are shown to show the vocabulary used, including an example. For readability the one line from the table is split over three lines in this questionnaire. You can view the full SRIA Vol2 Competitiveness file here.

Enabler Capability Sub-Capability
Efficient Certification Virtual environment/simulation: accepted means of compliance
Domain Category R&I needs KPI
Policy As above
Achievements
2020 2035 2050
For aircraft structures, reduced pyramid of testing. Reduced requirement for tests at sub-element, element and component levels , by comparison with previous validated tests and validated methods of analysis. Other test for risk mitigation to be carried out at manufacturers discretion 75% reduction in cert test costs Only requirement to be full scale test and low level material property validation. All other tests to mitigate failure at full scale to be at manufactuers discretion. 50% reduction in cert test costs Fracture mechanics data and models of materials approved as the basis the airframe certification as above

Thinking about the RTD topics identified for your business in the last 3 years and looking at SRIA Vol. 2 Cluster of enablers "Competitiveness" (focusing on the part relevant for your business):

9. Are there any enablers/capabilities/sub-capabilities missing in the SRIA Vol. 2 Cluster of enablers "Competitiveness" (see the SRIA Vol2 Competitiveness_V4.xslx, tab Q9)?
If yes, please specify
10. Are achievements in the SRIA Vol. 2 Cluster of enablers "Competitiveness" missing (see the SRIA Vol2 Competitiveness_V4.xslx, tab Q10?
If yes, please specify
11. Are achievements in the SRIA Vol.2, Cluster of enablers "Competitiveness" still valid?
If no, please specify
12. Are the achievements in the SRIA Vol.2, Cluster of enablers "Competitiveness" sufficiently detailed or too much detailed (contents; steps in the roadmap 2020-2035-2050)?
13. Is the timing (2020, 2035, 2050) of the achievements in the SRIA Vol. 2 Cluster of enablers "Competitiveness" still valid?
If no, please specify suggestions for the update of the achievement or the timing
14. Do the KPIs in the SRIA Vol. 2 Cluster of enablers "Competitiveness" related to the specific achievements need to be updated?
If yes, please specify
15. Are there KPIs missing?
If yes, please specify
16. Who are the main parties to lead these achievements?
 Academia Research institutes Industry Policy makers Other
If other, please specify
17. Who are the main parties to reach these achievements?
 Academia Research institutes Industry Policy makers Other
If other, please specify

PART III: Key questions w.r.t. bottlenecks

18. Which bottlenecks (finance, regulation, institutional, political, technological) do you see to perform research or implement research results (e.g. market take-up) w.r.t. the gaps identified in Part II of this questionnaire?
19. Which bottlenecks (finance, regulation, institutional, political, technological) have emerged in the past 3 years to perform research or implement research results (e.g. market take-up) in line with SRIA (not only in relation to gaps as identified in Part II, but also SRIA wide)?
20. In case technologies are identified as bottlenecks, should there be reflected as updates to the achievements?
If yes, please specify
21. Do you expect specific delays in RTD achievements due to the bottlenecks you see?
If yes, please specify

PART IV: Key questions w.r.t. methodology

22. Would you recommend including the following questions in an updated version of the questionnaire?
At what (NASA) TRL level do you consider your organization for the achievements that are relevant for your business (0-9, per achievement)?
If no, please specify
In case of new achievements, what is the impact of these achievements on the costs of development, manufacturing, use and end of life (-2, -1, 0, 1, 2 / negative for a negative impact, positive for a positive impact, 0 if no impact)?
If no, please specify
23. Would you recommend having a pre-filled questionnaire (regarding rewording of achievements, completing roadmaps)?
If no, please specify
24. The IATA Technology Roadmap 2009 is a survey of a large set of technologies that could reduce the environmental impact of aviation. Annex 2 presents the IATA technology evaluation methodology and the resulting assessment matrices (page 71-82 of the iata-technology-roadmap-2009-annex.pdf, summary in the CAPP_IATA_Technology_Roadmap_summary.pptx). In this methodology the “goals”, “aircraft attributes” and “implementation criteria” are focused on environmental impact of aviation. The IATA technology evaluation methodology may be applied for “Competitiveness” by having “goals”, “aircraft attributes” and “implementation criteria” that are more focused to competitiveness.
To have a view on the usefulness of the IATA technology evaluation methodology, what do you think about having results for "Competitiveness" that are similar to the results (assessment matrices) in the Annex 2 of the Technology Roadmap 2009?
25. Do you have any other suggestions for CAPPADOCIA (e.g. comments on the methodology, the interview, etc.)?
26. What do you think about the questions of the questionnaire that have not been discussed during the interview?

Extra questions for the interviewer

27. Have you indicated in the Excel file (tab Q10), which achievements, enables, capabilities and sub-capabilities have been covered by the interview?
28. After the interview, did you map any identified gaps on the SRIA (i.e. identifying the relevant challenge, cluster of enablers, enabler, capability, sub-capability and achievements, as far as possible)?

Subscribe to our newsletter

This project has received funding from the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under grant agreement no 605414.

CAPPADOCIA focuses on research activities that address solely or mainly ACARE's SRIA goal of Cost-efficiency in Aeronautics and Air Transport.