1. Member-Driven Activities Resources Working Group Stakeholder Information Briefing
Tom Duerr
January 2017

2. Purpose of Resource Working Group (RWG) Approach Stakeholder Survey
Outline
Purpose of Resource Working Group (RWG)
Approach
Stakeholder Survey
Next Steps
Additional information
Current budgeting process
RWG member details

3. Purpose of Resources Working Group
Chartered by James Maser, AIAA President, under Governance Transition efforts
Purpose: clean-sheet budgeting process design
Enable funding of innovative, strategic activities beyond traditional items
Develop a process and guidelines to budget, allocate, and manage expenditures
Scope: Member-Driven Activities
Technical Activities Committee (TAC)
Region and Section Activities Committee (RSAC)
Aerospace Interests Committee (AIC)
Communities of Interest (COI)
Output: Recommendations
Process and guidelines draft document
Summary briefing to BoT
Example Traditional Expenses
TAC
Meals
A/V support at meetings
TC/PC initiatives
RSAC
Social events
STEM activities
Define new, enabling funding process for TAC, RSAC, AIC, & COI

4. Approach – Assessment of Alternatives
Review legacy budgeting and monitoring processes
Develop statements of objectives in three areas
Why fund member-driven activities?
How should the budgeting process work?
How should the expenditure management process work?
Research and generate process alternatives
Assess alternatives with respect to objectives
What activities to fund – prioritized to support “why” objectives
Budgeting and expenditure management – ranked by support for “how” objectives
Develop a recommendation – why, what, how

5. Stakeholder Survey – Step 2
RWG drafted objectives in all three areas in Step 2
Requesting input from Member-Driven Activities stakeholders: TAC and RSAC Directors and Deputy Directors, and TC, PC, and Section Chairs, in consultation with their committees
Rate importance of each draft objective
Add objectives we may have missed
Your objectives ratings will weight the objectives to support the assessment of process alternatives
Survey will be ed after SciTech – return requested by 3 March
Example Objective and Rating Options
Objective
Definition
Strongly Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
No Opinion
Somewhat Agree
Strongly Agree
Maximize strategic value to the Institute
Strategic value as expressed in the Strategic Imperatives in the AIAA Strategic Plan.
Your input will help shape the future process

6. Prioritize objectives March
Next Steps
Prioritize objectives March
Develop preliminary process recommendations April
Obtain stakeholder feedback May
Test and refine draft process July
Develop final recommendations August
April
May
June
July
August
March
September
Prioritize
Objectives
Preliminary
Recommendations
Stakeholder
Feedback
Test Events
Final
Reco’s
BoT
@ SPACE

7. Additional Information
January 2017

8. RWG Members (1 of 2) Name Employer & Location Region AIAA Experience
Andy Amram
Associate Fellow
Software Engineering Institute
Carnegie Mellon University
Los Angeles, CA VI
Lifetime member (1995-present)
Management TC- Chair and Vice Chair
Led Programs subcommittee
Various roles from 2002 to 2015
Troy Downen
Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation
Savannah, GA II
Chair, General Aviation Technical Committee,
General Chair, 2010 Region V Student Paper Conference, April 2010
Deputy Director, Region V Technical Activities,
Chair, Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Technical Committee,
Chair, Wichita Section,
Chair, Student University of Kansas, 1993
Tom Duerr (RWG Chair)
The Aerospace Corporation
Chantilly, VA I
Lifetime member (1995–present)
Deputy VP, Technical Activities (2011–2016)
TAC Public Policy Coordinator (2008–2011)
AIAA and National Security Space Office (NSSO) ITAR Working Group (2009)
Technical Director, Space and Missiles Group (SMG) (2005–2008)
Deputy Director, SMG and TAC New Initiatives Subcommittee (2000–2005)
Missile Systems Technical Committee (1997–2000)
David Elrod
Jacobs Technology
Tullahoma, TN
Management TC (Vice Chair, Chair, led Membership subcommittee, etc) various roles from 2002 to 2016
Jeff Laube

9. RWG Members (2 of 2) Name Employer & Location Region AIAA Experience
David Levy
Associate Fellow
Sierra Nevada Corporation
Andover, KS V
Sandy Magnus
Executive Director, AIAA
AIAA
Reston, VA I
Andrew Neely
University of New South Wales
Australian Defence Force Academy
Canberra, Australia
VII
Shamim Rahman
NASA Johnson Space Center
Houston, TX IV
Student chapter at Texas A&M Univ. in early 80s.
Professional chapter activities (Los Angeles, New Orleans, Houston)
Conferences - Joint Propulsion Conferences, Space Conference, Sci Tech
Other - Two Terms at the Board of Directors (Director at Large, for International)
Jayant Ramakrishnan
Bastion Technologies, Inc.

10. Institute Operations Budget
AIAA has three “colors” of money – Operations, Portfolio, and Foundation
BoT authorization is required for transfers between Operations and Portfolio
BoT may authorize donation to Foundation, may not pull funds out of Foundation
Operations budget and expenditure “rules”
Institute Operations should be self-sustaining
The Institute Portfolio will not be used to meet any annual Operations shortfalls
Operations revenue and expenditures must balance every year
Starts at $0, ends at $0
No carryover (loss or gains) from fiscal year to fiscal year
Once Operations budget approved, no changes permitted
Expenditure and revenue variances from the budget are highlighted and explained
Provide financial status to Board of Trustees every meeting (three times per year)
Report to Finance Committee six times per year
January, February, May, July/August (Budget), August/September, December

11. Overview – Legacy Budgeting Process
RSAC allocations
Rebate based on membership numbers
Further sub-divided by RSAC
TAC allocations
1 meal per TC/PC and audio/video support at face-to-face meetings at Forums
Comparatively small TAC discretionary fund
Process origins and rationale undocumented

12. Region and Section Rebate Calculation
For FY17:
RSAC Rebate Budget = $214,644
Based on 17,887 prof members $12.00 per member
Category II: Section Awards
$28,000
Category III: Regional Directors Funds
$20,000
Category IV/V: VP Member Services
$4,000
YP Section Event Funds
$2,000
Category I: Section Funds
$160,644
Total
$214,644

13. FY17 TAC/TC Committee Budget
FY17 Budget
FY16 Budget
FY15 Actuals
FY14 Actuals
FY13 Actuals
TAC Discretionary Funding
$20,000 0*
$14,236
Audio/video
$34,000
$48,000
$34,780
$31,599
$42,408
Food
$184,400
$160,200
$141,299
$157,484
$239,662
Total
$238,400
$228,200
$176,079
$189,083
$296,306
Food budget is based on attendance trend in TC meeting requests and charges at meeting venue
In FY17, we have budgeted for 1,820 meals to cover one meal for TCs, PCs, Group Directors and the TAC meetings
* No TAC discretionary funding allocation in FY14 and FY15