First name

Last name

We tend to focus on the here and now, with only the bandwidth to deal with daily operational challenges.

We have some knowledge of what is coming but have no plan to deal with likely changes.

We understand what change is likely and are developing an understanding of how this will impact us.

We are actively engaged in dialogue with stakeholders/ regulators/ industry bodies, have a clear understanding of what’s coming and have a plan in place to deal with change.

It’s all a bit of a mystery, I’m sure there is a strategy or plan but not everyone knows what it is.

I’ve seen it but it doesn’t really relate to me or translate to tangible activities, plans or allocated actions

Everyone knows about it, and some have very clear tasks aligned to deliver.

It’s there, it’s measured and progressed and we can see results delivered.

Not process driven – take every day as it comes – we have to react to events – there are no levers to pull to do things differently.

Often reactionary but we make efforts to ensure lessons are learnt.

Efforts made to prepare for and respond to peaks in demand, although plans not always executed or effective.

Data rich processes – regular scenario planning and testing of our capabilities.

We can close the airport/ airspace safely but otherwise have no ability to continue to operate in the event of a major loss.

We have a plan but no funding to implement.

It depends on the infrastructure – but generally we can cope with much reduced traffic levels.

We have in place an independent continuity mode of operation to agreed business service levels which we can switch to immediately in the event of a loss.

We traditionally sweat our assets beyond service life with little understanding of the risk involved.

We do our best to priortise what funding we do have but we still carry risk of losing operational capability with business knock on effect.

We have a plan to upgrade our estate but is running behind need.

Our investment plan is agreed and funded with projects scheduled to replace/upgrade assets over the next 3 to 5 years.

We don’t really plan for this and when stuff happens it is usually a reaction to something or other.

We have time and budget avilable but it tends to be driven by the individual.

Generally ok – our people are assessed and have development targets but occasionally business as usual gets in the way.

We’re really hot on this, it’s a core value of our business.

We have no additional capacity and unplanned events have a severe impact on our performance.

We have limited additional capacity but it is a scramble to deal with events, can be stressful for the team and relies on individuals to step up.

We have enough flex to deal with 90% of events without impacting service provision but occasionally pick up delays that are attributable to us.

We have designed this into our concept of operations and have regular exercises to test and improve our actions.

Our infrastructure is in many places at or beyond the asset lifetime, as a result we have challenges to maintain and repair equipment and face challenges sourcing parts.

Our infrastructure is a mix of new and old, with some assets approaching end of life and likely to be extended in service, as a result we have concerns on our ability to maintain and repair equipment prior to replacement assets/alternative technology procurement.

In general we’re in good shape, the CAPEX plan is there but occasionally shifting priorities mean deferring investment but confident we can cope..

The CAPEX plan is secure, resourced and fit for the future.

We’re not. We lag behind industry norms and utilise outdated systems and assets, including a constant challenge to find spare parts.

We implement enhancements only when forced to so (e.g. by regulation).

We’re not first adopters and tend to cherry pick solutions when we come to replace assets.

We have a roadmap in place linked to strategic objectives, modernisation and performance enhancement.

Not great, we have a high staff turnover and struggle to attract new staff.

We tend to lose people over pay and conditions to competitors.

We have a stable team with HR closely involved in the selection process and exit interviews.

We have a loyal team with personal development, growth and retention objectives in place.

Not process driven – we have limited view of what capacity is required and struggle to plan and deliver resources that will be required as we go forward.

We have a process but it doesn’t get enough attention in the planning cycle which causes us problems downstream when we try to flex capacity.

Planning generally ok, minor issues getting approvals to recruit/source additional resources but manageable with local work arounds.

Proactive planning with consideration not only of demand/capacity potential but also what operational efficiencies can be implemented to provide greater robustness to service delivery.

Not process driven – take every day as it comes – we have to react to events – there are no levers to pull to do things differently.

Often reactionary but we make efforts to ensure lessons are learnt.

Efforts made to prepare for and respond to peaks in demand, although plans not always executed or effective.

Data rich processes – regular scenario planning and testing of our capabilities.

We do things because “we’ve always done it this way”.

A focus on safety first, service is less important.

Good balance of safety and service but team performance depends on who is in charge.

I fully understand my role, and the performance expected of me, and how it helps the organisation achieve its aims.

I’m only interested in doing my own job – it doesn’t matter what others do or how they do it.

My job would be a lot easier if other teams/ departments/ sections did their jobs better.

Good coordination exists with other stakeholders although sometimes behaviours could be improved.

We are an important cog in a wider system of stakeholders and service providers.

We are always reacting to outages.

Some maintenance planning in place but too reliant on suppliers.

Mean Time To Repair/ Service Level Agreement targets generally achieved.

Data monitoring and feedback processes in place to assess performance and correct issues.

Constantly needing to get involved to sort out problems.

Generally works but surprises catch us out and requires reprioritisation or unplanned involvement to keep activities on track.

Pretty good really, occasional minor issues but they get resolved with minimal involvement.

Suppliers completely involved with service delivery, measures are acted on and tie in to wider business functions.

Not applicable

We dread regulatory audits and are often on the hook to subsequently implement urgent changes.

Some issues needing higher management involvement to resolve, not critical but worrying.

Regulator trusts us to do our job.

Not only does the regulator trust us, but we are really engaged within the industry, contributing to debates in wider forums.

I just do what my boss tells me.

I think we have performance measures but we’re all too busy to pay attention.

There are measures in place but no evidence that they are used for anything.

Measures are in place – as is senior management monitoring – used as a way to share best practice.

We generally comply but occasionally you find a maverick staff member or dodgy piece of kit.

We comply with all mandatory reporting requirements if there are any.

Non conformances are actively recorded but not sure what they do with it.

We identify issues in our processes, culture, training etc and have action plans in place to prevent future issues.

We don’t have the staff so have to outsource almost everything.

We have the staff but don’t have the skills so rely on external support too much.

Regular reviews of outsourced services in place to ensure quality of delivery, though not quite sure why we originally outsourced.

Services only outsourced to achieve clear business goals – regular market testing to ensure best pricing.

We look for new kit or services whenever something breaks or the contract is due for renewal.

We have a good handle on defining requirements but the procurement team don’t understand our specific needs.

We generally get the service we ask for but sometimes need to make change requests to get it just right.

Contract providers are fully aligned to our needs and act as part of our team.

We don’t have or can’t release SMEs so we always need to bring in consultants for projects.

We struggle to hit milestones due to lack of staff or capability.

We know how to deliver projects but sometimes the rest of our organisation isn’t aligned with what we are trying to do.

Joined up approaches across the whole organisation – good monitoring of progress and openly addressing any issues.