Preparing U.S. Airport Infrastructure for Weather Events (2026)
Chapter: Small-Group Facilitated Discussion: Problem Statement Poster Creation and Sharing
Small-Group Facilitated Discussion: Problem Statement Poster Creation and Sharing
Following the keynote speaker, the event transitioned to an interactive small-group facilitated discussion for participants to develop ACRP problem statements. Jordan Christensen provided an overview of ACRP objectives and problem statement criteria, and then participants broke into small groups. The groups identified a representative to report from their small group to the full group. The representatives shared their small group’s concept for a problem statement related to responding to weather events at airports.
Christensen shared that the objective of the Insight Event was to identify and develop problem statements for ACRP, which is an industry-driven research program that seeks practical solutions to airport challenges. ACRP provides free tools and guidance that result from research projects. Christensen explained that research projects begin with problem statements, which anyone can submit. Christensen encouraged participants to submit any ideas for problem statements following the event. ACRP extended the deadline for problem statements to May 7, 2025, to ensure that any ideas from the Insight Event were captured. Once a problem statement is submitted, it is then reviewed by the ACRP Oversight Committee to determine if it will be funded as an ACRP study. If a problem statement is chosen by the ACRP Oversight Committee, ACRP will convene a project panel and develop a request for proposals. Contractors can then submit proposals to conduct research and develop the report or tool.
Christensen covered the requirements of a problem statement, including a succinct title of fewer than 10 words. The background typically includes a few paragraphs covering the understanding of the problem, current practice, challenges to airports, and justifying the need for the research.
After Christensen set the stage, participants were broken into three groups of approximately 10 people each to begin brainstorming problem statements, drawing on themes and lessons learned during panel discussions and speaker sessions throughout the Insight Event. The small groups were facilitated by Converge Strategies LLC and HMMH teams.
The small-group ideas were captured in two facilitation methods: “What’s on Your Radar” and “Problem Statement Concept Posters” (see Figure 3 and Figure 4). In the What’s on Your Radar exercise, participants were encouraged to identify research gaps or ideas related to funding, policy, tools, people, airport planning, operations, public safety, and other areas. Participants wrote on sticky notes and pasted their ideas into the radar, a template of which is shown in Figure 3. Participants plotted ideas of primary importance closest to the center of the radar.
The small groups then discussed the ideas in the radar to come to consensus on which they preferred to build a problem statement around, ensuring it was a topic that had not been previously researched. Some ideas were combined into similar problem statement ideas, and then the groups moved forward to explore one problem statement in detail using the template in Figure 4.
The sections within the Problem Statement Concept Poster template were derived from ACRP problem statement requirements. The groups spent approximately 1.5 hours developing the problem statements. Finally, a representative from each small group reported to the larger group of participants on their group’s idea.
Next is a summary of each group’s problem statements.
Group 1 offered the following two ideas:
The first idea focused on “Financing Resilient Infrastructure.” The problem the project seeks to solve is to determine better tools for cost estimating and develop tools for communicating benefits of investing in resilience. The objective is to provide actionable guidance on how to calculate return on investment, conduct cost–benefit analyses, and develop cost-avoidance tools. The project would provide a synthesis of after-action reports and examples in which airports quantified costs avoided. Airport engineers and planners are the intended audience.
The second idea focused on “Operational Readiness for Unexpected Weather.” The resources would serve as a how-to manual for managing extreme weather events, including after-action reporting. It would provide examples from airports on resilience measures, preparations, and lessons learned. The document would describe procurement and contracting to prepare for weather events. It would also include a planning and design team checklist.
Group 2 offered the following idea:
The idea was titled “Life-Cycle Business Case for Mission-Ready Airport Infrastructure.” The research would develop an industry tool for developing a business case for resilient
infrastructure, including new infrastructure projects and rehabilitation of existing infrastructure. The resources would be used to drive C-suite decision-making for capital planning, including a return on investment calculator to justify investments and cost savings from resilient infrastructure. The research would develop a methodology to quantify the benefits of resilient infrastructure projects and bundle opportunities for resilience. The research would include a literature review, and the resulting products would be intended to be applicable to airports of all sizes and climate risks.
Group 3 offered the following idea:
The idea focused on “Practical Tools to Operationalize Resilience.” The guidance would emphasize how to help airports put resilience principles into action. Many barriers exist, and action to develop the business case and go against the status quo may be daunting. It may be difficult to justify investments, so the guidance could cover life-cycle analysis methodologies and how to obtain buy-in from various stakeholders. It could also include asset management planning. Case studies could include lessons learned from airports.
