2(a).COLLABORATIVE DECSION MAKING
What exactly is CDM?
Collaborative Decision Making (CDM) is not a new concept. It is being practiced to a
certain degree both in the US and in Europe, focus being on en-route in the former and
airports in the latter. Mature as the concept may be, surprisingly we still see experts
who seem to believe that CDM is little more
than a few wise men sitting together and
deciding things for the benefit of the
community… Little wonder that they see a
role for CDM that is strictly limited to the
strategic planning phases. They seem to
hang on to this view even in the face of
actual CDM implementations at some
airports (e.g. Munich) which are anything but
limited to the strategic phase. So, what is
The concept of CDM is very simple.
Decisions on all levels must be made not in
isolation but based on a shared, common
view of the state of the ATM network with full
awareness of the consequences of the
decisions on every aspect of the operation. Collaborative in this context does not
necessarily imply people sitting together or working together remotely. A single person
can also make a collaborative decision if the decision is based on the shared
information provided by the partners and if it takes into account the impact of the
decision on those partners and the ATM network as a whole.
So, CDM starts with the sharing of information and then the making of decisions based
on the shared information. As we will see, this understanding of CDM opens up all kinds
of interesting possibilities for the future.
Collaborative Decision Making (CDM) History and current practice
The concept of Collaborative Decision Making (CDM) was originally defined in the
United States by a group of airlines, led by US Air, in response to what the airlines
perceived as inadequate co-operation between airports, the FAA and the airlines
themselves. They formed the so called CDM Group, members of which visited several
airports with traffic flow problems and analyzed the reasons.
Significantly, they discovered that in many cases the reasons were in fact quite trivial. In
one case, a missing telephone connection between the FAA tower and the Delta ramp
controller was found to be at the root of major departure delays; in another case the
“secret” nature of cancelled flights was found to be the cause of unused slots at an
otherwise seriously congested airport.
The CDM Group in its original reports had actually established three of the most basic
rules of CDM which remain valid to this day even if, unfortunately, in some cases they
are being ignored. The three rules are:
Most problems have simple causes with simple solutions
Better information sharing eliminates a very large proportion of the problems
CDM can only be successful if trust is established between the partners as the
Although the CDM Group did at first address problems at airports (Atlanta and
Philadelphia) when the FAA embraced the concept, they focused on applying it in the
en-route environment. This was a natural consequence of the US scene where capacity
constraints were present en-route while airports were almost all free flow at the time.
Nevertheless, US airports got involved in CDM early as a result of the FAA’s grounddelay concept. The value of information sharing was shown right from the start. Just by
being better informed, airlines were able to respond to the restrictions in a much more
efficient manner. The initiative in the early 1990s called FAA/Airline Data Exchange
(FADE), supported among others by Northwest
Airlines, can be seen as the direct forerunner of what
evolved into the US CDM project of to-day.
The CDM concept was brought to Europe by experts
of IATA and at first it was treated as a research topic
and as such, assigned to the EUROCONTROL
Experimental Centre. Several years passed and the
concept was stuck on the research agenda while the
need for better decision making grew every day. At
the time, also in Europe most of the delay problems
had their origins in the en-route environment and of
course the power of CDM could have brought the
same level of relief as it did in the US if only States had gotten together and
implemented CDM. But this did not happen in spite of repeated pleas by the airspace
CDM APPLICATIONS IN THE US AND EUROPE
EUROCONTROL and the FAA actively cooperate on many aspects of CDM. There are
several European ideas and procedures that are being considered for inclusion in the
US CDM projects, among them the better utilization of Target Off-Block Time (TOBT)
and next day planning. The US CDM project has several sub-teams and they manage a
range of CDM sub-projects, most of which are specific to the integrated US air traffic
management environment. It is important to note that the US CDM projects can benefit
from a lot of information sharing functionality already available in the FAA’s systems.
These capabilities are being delivered by the US System Wide Information
Management (SWIM) program which has as its main task the data level integration of
the legacy systems as well as the new system elements being implemented.
A lot of the US CDM activity is dealing with items that in Europe would fall under the
purview of the CFMU. Examples are the Integrated Collaborative Rerouting (ICR),
Airspace Flow Program (AFP) or the Unified Ground Delay Program (UDP). Others, like
the integration of the Traffic Management Advisor (TMA) and the Flight Schedule
Monitor (FSM) or the Control by Time of Arrival (CbTA) concept are more on the control
The US CDM scene is also influenced to a
large degree by the initiatives taken by some
airlines to improve their own operations. This is
a US peculiarity mainly because there is no
comparable operational density anywhere in
Europe. The Surface Management Systems
(SMS) used by UPS in Louisville and by FedEx
in Memphis hold a lot of important lessons that
can be utilized also at other airports.
CDM in the USA can be seen as encompassing
the whole operation and is not split into clearly
identifiable elements like airport CDM and network CDM. This is not surprising if we
consider that creating A-CDM in Europe was an artificial division to begin with.
In Europe, CDM is currently instantiated in the form of clearly defined concept elements
which are in fact applications that can be realized in software also. They cover areas
where a shortcoming had been identified and are meant to directly address those
shortcomings. In this way, we have CDM Information Sharing (the basis for everything
else), Variable Taxi Time Calculation but also Collaborative Flight Data Update which is
in fact a network CDM elements bringing the CFMU into the picture.
Unfortunately, information sharing in Europe is still in its infancy and the only real
islands of SWIM-like activity are the airports even if the information sharing practiced
there is local and a far cry from the flexible information sharing envisaged by the SWIM
concept. Nevertheless, airport level information sharing has shown conclusively the
power of shared information to improve decisions across the board.
Needless to say, the CFMU has several tools used to establish network demand and
capacity and to influence both. They do interact with both the users and the providers
but their activity is not fully recognized as part of the CDM concept. This should change
however as the CFMU moves progressively from a prescriptive to collaborative
approach to flow management.
CDM APPLICATION BENEFITS
In 2007-2008, EUROCONTROL had commissioned the production of CDM CBAs for
Barcelona, Zurich, Brussels and Munich. At the time, also a generic CBA was produced,
taking a typical EUROPEAN airport as the baseline. In 2008, a CDM CBA was also
ordered for Prague.
Originally it was the intention to show the benefits of CDM in general but also the
specific benefits attributable to the different CDM applications, like information sharing,
variable taxi time calculation and so on. This was meant to enable planners to set
implementation priorities and find the best possible combination of applications for any
given airport. At that time there was no airport where all the applications had been
implemented and so some of the work had to be undertaken using projections and wellreasoned assumptions based on interviews with operational experts.
The conclusions were predictable and not at all surprising as they lined up perfectly with
the most basic tenets of the CDM concept. In excess of 90 % of the benefits attributable
to CDM were in fact generated by information sharing. Other applications added only
small, incremental improvements and the order of implementation was also of little
impact on the actual benefit picture. It was therefore not possible to really quantify the
benefits of applications, or combinations of applications, beyond information sharing as
the additional improvements were well within the error range of the calculations.
Although EUROCONTROL has started to promote a more prescriptive approach to
CDM in recent years specifying the implementation order of CDM applications, the
fundamental benefit balance of those applications has not changed.
A new feature of CDM of course is the network version where several airports start to
collaborate with each other and the CFMU using information sharing and the other
applications. This kind of network CDM forms the basis of the SESAR concept of
In this context we must remember that information sharing as defined for CDM is in fact
an early instantiation of the System Wide Information Management (SWIM) concept and
at some point SWIM will overtake this aspect of CDM. The benefits will not diminish
since support for decision making and the current and future CDM applications will of
What is the scope of CDM?
The current practical scope of CDM came about mainly as a result of the ATM problems
prevalent in the environment in which the concept was first introduced. Getting
collaborative decisions on manipulating traffic flows was a natural in the US while trying
to sort out airport problems in Europe led to Airport CDM (A-CDM) as the first
manifestation on the European continent. Of course this division is not black and white.
A-CDM works together with the Central Flow Management Unit (CFMU), improving also
the en-route situation.
The overall scope is also influenced by the scope of the shareable data available. In
respect of A-CDM, this means activities on the airside of the airport.
Is this scoping correct and are the current limits inviolate? Certainly not as we will see.
Advantages to related parties (EUROCONTROL )
Enable the existing gates and stands are being utilized
effectively and efficient to enhance airport slots are
fully being operated most of the time.
Generate more revenue from airlines and passengers
due to the availability of flights increase at the airport.
Reduce time of airside mishandling and delays caused
by uncertainties from airside operators.
Create better airport reputation to customers
b.Air Traffic Control
Provide accurate information of runway capacity for
Reduce stress and workloads of controllers
Reduce apron and taxiway congestion
More flexible for controllers to pre plan departure schedule and increase their
c.Pilots and Airlines
Reduced fuel cost from unnecessary ground movements
Improve situational awareness especially during delays caused by uncertainties
Enhance fleet reliability of being on time for departure and arrival
Reduce delays and operational efficiency
d.Ground Handlers/ Ramp services:
Maximize the use of available resources to increase operational efficiency
Enhance better pre planning
Reduce lack of responsibility from ground operators to perform activities in a
e.CFMU and ATM relationship:
Provision of accurate estimated departure demand for future branch marking.
Improve flow of air traffic and maximize airport capacity
Reduce number of wasted slots
Reduce annoyed passengers from delays of flights.
Enhance services during disruption periods
It also provides a more environmental friendly aspect to airport and regions due to the
decrease of fuel being burnt by aircrafts on taxiways and apron waiting to depart. The
amounts of wasted water will decreased as aircrafts are being departed on time hence
reduce the need of re-de icing aircrafts. On the other hand, reduction of aircrafts being
held at holding points hence less noise pollution.
Munich Airport as an example of ACDM:
Munich Airport is an example of ACDM being implemented into the airport operation in
May 2004. The focus of ACDM for Munich Airport was to improve the turn round
process and the setting up of a pre departure sequence using the Target Off Block Time
( TOBT) procedure.
After a detailed gap analysis carried out by
EUROCONTROL, the project has been started
based on the existing procedure to improve the
arrival and departure information and providing a
pre departure sequence hence enhancing
efficiency of ground operation and air traffic
procedures (MUNICH AIRPORT,2010.
The ATM environment of the future
CDM will be called upon to deliver its benefits taking due account of the two main
characteristics of the future ATM system, namely net-centricity and trajectory based
The aim of net-centric operations is to increase the information available to the
participating entities and to ensure that data is usable by both anticipated and
unanticipated users assuming that they possess the requisite access rights.
Collaborative decisions are them made in the context of the interconnected community
of systems, applications and people, sharing a common situational awareness of the
past, present and future state of the ATM network.
Net-centric operations do entail a commitment from the participating entities to share
their information and to make use of the information shared by others. In the CDM
context, this commitment represents the key to achieving the necessary common
situational awareness, interactions between partners on the basis of this awareness and
decision making that considers all aspects and consequences of the decisions, not only
locally but in the whole of the net-centric environment.
Future of ACDM (EUROCONTROL,2010 )
The EUROCONTROL ACDM teams gather various airport operation procedures to
develop the best practical manual and new concepts to
accommodate different for different airports. Such project can
be affected by landside events, connection of land
transportations, security checks, check in system etc.
The following procedures will be improved and coordinated for
Pre- departure procedures, rules and processes for
aircraft start up and pushback for Departure manager.
Voice clearance delivery with ACDM requirements
Processes for alerts
ACDM processes for Departure Planning Information Message.
The need for a process based, service oriented view
Current CDM implementations and the concept itself are based on defined processes,
A-CDM being anchored in the aircraft turn-round process. Service orientation in air
traffic management is however new, as it is indeed new for the SESAR concept itself.
Service orientation is a
means of separating the
business aspects and the
enabling the business
aspects to drive IT rather
than the other way round
(as is often the case in
From the perspective of ATM and airport collaborative decision making, we might say
that there are two main processes to be considered. One process is the management of
the trajectory the other the management of passenger and baggage flow. From the
perspective of an airline or handling company, there are several other important
processes (like crew to aircraft, fuel and catering to aircraft, etc.) but from a CDM
perspective, these can be ignored. Their effects will be incorporated into the trajectory
management process in the form of eventual “distortions” to the trajectory (mainly but
not exclusively the time dimension).
In order to be executed, the operational processes require various services. They also
fall into several categories, related to one or the other (or several) of the processes
mentioned above. Later on in this document I will describe certain novel services that
will become possible as a result of the net-centric environment. Obviously, there are
certain services that exist already to-day (even if they are not called services in the
legacy environment) and even more services will be defined in the future as the full
power of the SWIM based net-centric environment takes hold.
The services in turn support end-user applications which are the operational interface to
the outside world (for humans) or other systems, as appropriate. Decision making and
two-way access to information is realized via the end-user applications enabled by the
Airside/landside division, does it make sense?
The airside/landside division at airports is not something that was introduced in reaction
to an operational need. It has everything to do with security, a vitally important aim in
itself but not something that should necessarily limit the scope of collaborative decision
making. The fact that the definition and actual location of the airside/landside boundary
changes from place to place, further (and unnecessarily) complicates things.
We will recall that currently A-CDM is limited to airside processes and there is
considerable opposition to considering what is happening on the landside. In other
words, an artificial, more or less administrative boundary is limiting the full exploitation
of CDM’s potential. This will have to change in the future for two reasons: in the netcentric environment there is no shortage of information from anywhere, including the
landside; secondly, as will be shown, the whole idea of airside and landside should be
made invisible from a CDM perspective.
Of the two main processes of concern to A-CDM, passenger and baggage flow extends
on both sides of the airside/landside boundary, irrespective of its actual location at any
particular airport. The processes require various services and we concerned with the
decisions associated with the delivery of those services. The sequence in which the
services are delivered does depend on local circumstances (e.g. the Passenger
Screening service may be applied to the passenger flow just after check in or shortly
before boarding) but the sequence is not necessarily affected by the location of the
The conditions and restrictions applicable to those delivering services may be different
depending on where the service is delivered but this does not affect the service itself.
It is evident that the existence of a designated airside and landside on any airport is of
no consequence for the processes CDM has to consider.
From the CDM perspective, the airport can be as a single
continuum in which the processes are executed through the
application of the required services, without the processes
and services being divided by an airside/landside boundary.
This “single airport continuum” approach does not preclude
the existence of an airside/landside boundary if maintaining or
establishing one is found necessary for other purposes but it
should never be allowed to be a limiting factor on the effective
execution of the various processes.
Mr. Smith proceeds to your gate or we will off-load your luggage
At many airports, the above text has become a mantra repeated endlessly and one can
only hope that the Mr. Smiths and others like him still listen to what is being said.
Clearly, the problem of passengers getting “lost” between check-in and the gate has
become a major issue.
True, you can always off-load the bags and leave the passenger behind but this is not
the most customer friendly solution not to mention the fact that even with a strict and
timely decision a departure delay is difficult to avoid.
For CDM aficionados however the above announcement indicates a brave new field
where CDM, building on the basically unlimited scope of SWIM, can introduce totally
new services, some of them completely automated, to get a better handle on the flow of
passengers and their luggage.
Part of the problem of straying passengers comes of course from a basic conflict of
interest between airports and their airline customers. With more and more of the airport
revenue coming from concessions and the supermarket and mall style shopping areas
popping up at airports everywhere, it in the airport’s interest to keep passengers in the
shopping areas for as long as possible in the hope of enticing them to spend money on
everything from expensive sunglasses to even more expensive sandwiches. And they
do, with passion and enthusiasm… so much so that a lot of them almost forget the
purpose of their coming to the airport in the first place… to catch an aircraft.
Airlines of course would like to see their customers come to the gate in a timely manner,
not too early but certainly not too late… things we humans are not that good in without
But if we go beyond the shopping mall and consider how many random events there are
potentially impact a passenger’s ability to arrive at the
airport on time (an accident on the access road,
industrial action of the train drivers, traffic jams caused
by ice on the road to name just a few), we might say it is
a wonder that so few of them arrive actually too late…
However, the fact remains that an airline has precious
little knowledge of, or control over, what its passengers
are doing until they discover that one or several of them
are missing when it is time to board. With home check-in
commonplace these days, the time span of the big
unknown has only increased.
Freeing CDM from its shackles and limited scope can help here and the result is a
major improvement of operational predictability and efficiency.
Embracing new CDM partners
The upwards open scope of SWIM should give us a hint as to how the scope of CDM
can also be seen as limited only by the actual need for decision making information.
To properly appreciate the potential of a true SWIM environment, we do need to adjust
our thinking. An information driven system needs a major
jump in how we see the world.
In this expanded scope CDM and SWIM environment, a
lot of new, raw data is suddenly available. On the user
end, we then have end-user applications that put the
data into context, creating information that we can use in
any number of ways.
Just imagine that you have the railway company, the taxi
companies, the police, the motorway maintenance outfit,
the GSM operators, the airport parking garage, etc., etc.
all on board as CDM partners, sharing their data. Enduser applications of the airport, of airlines or the taxi folks
themselves, are constantly shifting through the
information and draw the appropriate conclusions… Lots
of GSM calls going to a single airline number? Fewer than
average taxis heading to the airport at a given moment?
Parking garage full? Or just empty??Trains running
late?Queues unduly long at the security check point? Or
there is no queue at all when in fact there should be one?
It is possible to deduce a lot of planning information from
these seemingly disconnected elements and if they are
available, there will be developers who create the
applications needed. The nice thing about this is that we
are not talking about a one way street here. If a given
conclusion is strong enough and there is still time,
passengers can be warned via sums and push email to
come earlier or do other things to ensure proper flow
towards the aircraft. Some airlines already offer a sums
warning when check in opens for their flight home. The
new CDM scenario will open a much more effective range
of interaction with the passengers.
The future system must embrace all CDM partners who have useful information to
share, regardless of how close or apparently remote they are from traditional ATM.
Examples of novel services
In the following a number of novel services will be described without any claim of being
comprehensive or thoroughly validated. They are given here as examples which may
very well be implemented in the not too distant future. The selection focuses on
passenger flow. Similar services could be defined for example for the luggage flow also.
Airport Status Report Service
Under trajectory-based operations (TBO) it is no longer sufficient to have an indication
of when delays are likely. A delay is the representation of only one aspect of the 4D
trajectory (time) and distortions in the other dimensions may be even more important
under certain circumstances. The Airport Status Report Service provides a trigger that
can be graduated to represent potential trajectory distortions in different dimensions or
combinations thereof and as such, is a much finer tool to trigger intervention than simple
congestion warnings. The benefits would appear even during the transition period
towards full TBO, an important consideration in the quest for early benefits.
This service is coupled with the Airport Operations Plan where available and is also
feeding into the Network Operations Plan.
The Airport Status is an index developed on the basis of appropriate algorithms taking
present and future circumstances into account, each having a weight attached to it.
Each index/airport combination indicates the degree to which the known business
trajectories would suffer an impact. The indexes are updated dynamically but with
sufficient latency to ensure stability of the system.
The index can serve as the primary trigger for users of the airport to consider eventual
collaborative modifications to their trajectories. The modifications are coordinated and
agreed through the planner end-user applications. These facilitate real collaborative
decisions on the most effective, minimum impact changes.
.The agreed changes are published and the Queue Management Service evaluates
their impact. The aim is to achieve, if at all possible, a new index for the airport,
representing a lower level of overall trajectory distortion.
The Airport Status Report Service would be subject to all the characteristics and
limitations that its users agree to, including for instance the maximum acceptable
distortion to any one trajectory.
Timely Passenger Delivery Service
Passengers who fail to arrive at the
boarding gate on time are a
significant source of disruption
especially if checked luggage needs
to be off-loaded as a result. Even if a
given late passenger has no checked
luggage and hence the flight can
depart without him without delay, the
resulting situation of an irate
reaccommodated is something that is
Innovative information management techniques, building on the net-centric
environment, can be used to motivate passengers to proceed to the boarding gate in a
timely manner. The means available to influence behavior (both desired and incidental)
while the passenger is in transit from his or her off-airport departure location are limited.
The means expand however once the passenger is on the airport and in particular when
he or she enters the passengers-only area.
The business model of most airports prefers to keep passengers in the concession
areas to maximize revenue from the concessions. This preference also helps in
managing passenger flow towards the gates, avoiding congestion in the gate areas. The
tools used to influence passenger behavior are rather simple, usually not being more
than posting the departure gate numbers a short time before the designated boarding
time. Passengers do not receive an active reminder that the gate has been posted. The
result is often missing passengers at the gate.
While the interests of the airlines and the airports appear to be at odds in this context,
the net-centric environment and its expanded partner scope offers a service based
solution to the problem. Reconciling the difference in a sensible manner is important
also because time spent in the concession area is an important part of the passenger
experience and keeping it pleasant while also ensuring timely departures is in the airline
The Timely Passenger Delivery Service is a service to be offered by the airport operator
to airlines on terms to be agreed locally. It is an example of the practical application of
the collaborative decision making principles in the expanded scope of CDM in the
With this service, the airport undertakes to introduce and maintain effective, agreed
measures designed to motivate passengers to move towards the boarding gate on a
timely basis, the motivation being unobtrusive but geared to the urgency of the
In practical implementation, an airport providing this service would need to make full use
of the net-centric environment to gather information from hitherto uninvolved partners
like the Passenger Screening services (queue situation), concession operators, etc. The
airport would need to ensure their becoming partners in the net-centric environment and
also the definition of hitherto unused dynamic information items (e.g. flights closing
The measures that can be taken as part of the
content of this service might include:
• Individual tagging (RFID) of passengers and
personalized voice and visual announcements
Scanning the boarding passes at the entrance of
major concessions (something usually done on exit
anyway) and generating an immediate warning to
the passenger if flight departure is within a set time
Having dedicated displays showing those flights still missing passengers and which will
be closing soon
The list of flights to which passengers need to hurry or risk being left at the airport and
having their luggage off-loaded can then be used in several innovative ways (some of
which were listed above) to trigger the passengers to move. The same information with
slightly different time horizon can be used to even catch passengers who have not yet
arrived at the airport. A generic version of this type of service is available already where,
on request and on passenger cost, a text message is sent on status changes of the
flight concerned. The Timely Passenger Delivery Service is more targeted, focusing on
ensuring on-time departure rather than just providing raw information.
In support of this service, the concept of Control Over Passenger Behaviors Points
could be defined. The parts of the passenger flow process, delimited by these points,
are designated according to the level of uncertainty of the passenger position along the
process and the level of influence the provider of the service has on the behavior of the
passenger. This latter is dependent also on the means available in the particular
circumstances for exerting the required influence. As an example, the period while the
passenger is in transit to the airport is considered as being of high uncertainty/low
influence/few means. A passenger in the concession area is on the part of the process
that is considered as being of medium uncertainty/high influence/multiple means. The
points delimiting the sections are identified and agreed by the CDM partners.
The concept of Control Over Passenger Behavior Points enables the provider of the
service to properly estimate the effectiveness and cost of the service required along
different parts of the passenger flow process and to generate an offer accordingly. The
users of the service can then decide on an agreed, common basis whether the service
is cost effective for them and which part(s) of the service they want to sign up for.
Passenger Flow Information Service
The passenger flow process is subject to several possible disturbances at different
points of the flow. The effects of a disturbance depend to a large extent on the
organization of the process which determines where the source of the disturbance is
located along the process. Tightened security or a scanner failure will impact the
process differently if the passenger screening is centralized or boarding gate based.
With the expanded scope of future CDM, influences as diverse as airport access road
conditions and train driver industrial action can be included to generate a good picture
of the evolution of the passenger flow
The time scope is not limited to the
present or immediate future. Planned
industrial action several weeks or even
months in the future are also considered
In terms of granularity, the service aims
primarily to generate state (current and
future) information based on the global
aspects of the passenger flow process.
This means that the basic Passenger Flow Information Service does not differentiate
between the effects on the operation of individual partners. Only the (potential) global
distortions are signaled. There is no reason however why a partner should not request a
more detailed version of the service and why it should not be provided under the right
The information generated by this service is published into the shared information space
to be made use of by different end-user applications.
The Passenger Flow Information Service will require the implementation of facilities that
can monitor the passenger flow at different, required points, correlating the movement
data and trends to generate the appropriate conclusions.
It is important to remember that passenger tracking may involve issues related to the
need for protecting personal data. Such issues will have to be addressed and properly
It is a fallacy to pretend that the predictability of ATM operations is not affected by
events, information and processes that have hitherto been disregarded for various
reasons. The current land-side services are among those that are meeting opposition
when it comes to defining future CDM developments.
At the same time, the fine tuning of CDM in the traditional sense will soon reach the
area of diminishing returns and hence further improvements will not be found in those
areas. Expanding the scope is the most efficient manner of finding new improvement
We have seen that SWIM and net-centric operations open up a whole new stage for
CDM enhancements. Even the classical airside/landside division may very well
disappear from the CDM perspective as it has no usable meaning in an information
CDM is a very powerful concept and has no built in limitations. If information is made
available from traditional as well as new partners, quality decision making can grow in
line with the growth of the partner scope. The net result is much improved overall
decision making in ATM itself.