← Case studies
Strategy / Advisory Strategy & recommendations Network planning Aviation

An AI strategy & roadmap.

A strategy engagement, not a build: I ran discovery and stakeholder interviews across an airline's network-planning organization, scored its capabilities against where it needed to be, and delivered a sequenced recommendation set, a technology roadmap, and a TCO analysis with the economics of ROI for each option.

Engagement
AI strategy & roadmap
Built at
IBM Consulting
Client
Major US airline (anonymized)
Scope
Network planning & operations
Deliverables
Gap analysis · roadmap · TCO
Outcome
Funded & in production

Confidentiality note. The client is anonymized and proprietary figures are withheld. Diagrams, scores and numbers shown here are sanitized recreations built for this portfolio, directionally accurate but not the client's actual data.

The engagement, at a glance
Illustrative · sanitized
6 wks
discovery to recommendations
20+
stakeholders interviewed
7
systems & capabilities assessed
3
roadmap horizons sequenced
$40M
5-yr TCO range modeled
a strategy deliverable: where AI pays, in what order, and what it costs to own — before a line of code is written

Network planning is one of the most complex processes in the business. Before anyone builds, the real question is where modernization earns its keep, in what order, and at what cost to own. That's what this engagement answered.

01 · Discovery

Start with the value assessment, not the technology.

I ran discovery across the network-planning organization, tracing the process end to end — demand forecasting, route building, constrained demand, fleet assignment, and spill & recapture — through its commercial solver core. The goal wasn't to pick a tool. It was to separate the problems AI should touch from the ones it shouldn't, and to put a number on each.

Every candidate was run through a value assessment and the economics of ROI: the cost of the status quo, the realistic upside of modernizing, the delivery risk, and the payback period. That turned a wish list into a fundable, sequenced argument leadership could act on.

each step scored: cost of status quo · upside · delivery risk · payback Demand fcst Route building Constr. demand Spill &recapture Fleet assign Crew legality Maintenance Decision UI orange = where the economics justified modernizing
The discovery scorecard. Most steps stayed as they were. Modernization was justified where the ROI was real: contextual demand forecasting, constrained demand, spill & recapture, and the planner decision layer.
02 · Stakeholder interviews

The bottleneck is rarely where the org chart says it is.

I interviewed more than twenty people across the function — leadership, revenue management, crew and maintenance operations, IT and data, and the frontline planners who run the schedule every day. The same themes surfaced from very different seats, which is how you know they're real.

VP, Network Planning

"When demand moves, the re-plan takes days. By the time it's done, the world has moved again."

Speed of re-planning
Revenue Management

"Spill & recapture is the number the whole revenue plan rests on, and it's the slowest thing we run."

Trust in the numbers
Frontline Planner

"I override the system by hand all day. It never learns from what I just did."

Tooling that fights you
IT & Data

"The network lives in a dozen systems. Nobody has it as one connected picture."

Fragmented data
Crew & Maintenance Ops

"Whatever you change upstream, our constraints can't bend. That's non-negotiable."

Hard constraints
Finance

"I'll fund it if someone can show me the payback. Nobody has put a number on it."

Economics of ROI

Five themes recurred: re-planning speed, trust in spill & recapture, tooling that ignores planner judgment, fragmented data, and unbending operational constraints — all underwritten by a finance team that wanted the ROI shown, not asserted.

03 · Gap analysis

Where the capability is today, and where it needs to be.

I scored each capability on a five-point maturity scale — current state in solid green, target state as an open ring — so the gaps that mattered were obvious and the conversation moved from opinion to evidence.

Capability
Current
Target
Demand forecasting
2
4
Spill & recapture
2
4
Disruption re-planning
1
4
Data & network graph
2
5
Planner decision tooling
2
3
Constraint integrity
4
5

The widest gaps — disruption re-planning, spill & recapture, and the data graph — lined up exactly with what stakeholders described. Constraint integrity was already strong and had to stay strong; nothing in the plan was allowed to weaken it.

04 · Recommendations

A sequenced set, ordered by return and risk.

Each recommendation carried an impact rating and an effort estimate, so leadership could fund the sequence rather than argue the parts.

01

Codify the network as a graph

One connected picture of every flight and airport that models can reason over — the foundation everything else depends on.

High impactMedium effort
02

Rebuild spill & recapture for speed

Reuse the base solve across thousands of scenarios in parallel, so a full-network re-evaluation runs in hours, not days — without bending a single constraint.

High impactHigh effort
03

Context-aware demand forecast

A forecast that adapts to planner overrides — a closed hub, a manual cut — instead of fighting them.

High impactMedium effort
04

Planner decision layer

Surface the model's reasoning where planners already work, so judgment and automation reinforce each other.

Medium impactLow effort
05

Modernize incrementally, keep the core

Wrap and replace around the commercial solver rather than a risky big-bang rip-and-replace.

De-risksOngoing
05 · Technology roadmap

Three horizons, each one fundable on its own.

The roadmap sequenced the recommendations into Now, Next and Later — each horizon delivering value by itself, so momentum and budget never depended on the whole program landing at once.

Now0–6 months
Network graph foundation
Unify flights, airports and constraints into one queryable model.
Spill & recapture prototype
Prove the parallel re-solve on one fleet, one day.
ROI baseline instrumented
Measure today's re-plan time and cost to prove the gain.
Next6–18 months
Spill & recapture in production
Full-network re-evaluation in hours, constraints intact.
Context-aware forecasting
Forecasts that adapt to planner overrides in real time.
Planner decision layer
Model reasoning surfaced inside existing workflows.
Later18+ months
Daily disruption re-planning
Same engine, turned on the daily operation, not just monthly.
Constrained demand modernization
Extend the approach across the remaining planning chain.
Self-service what-if
Planners run scenarios without engineering in the loop.
06 · TCO analysis

What it actually costs to own, over five years.

Finance wanted the payback shown, not asserted. I modeled the five-year total cost of ownership for three paths — keep buying the commercial suite, rip-and-replace, or incrementally modernize around the core — including license, infrastructure, build, and the people to run it.

Stay on suite
License the status quo
License
Infra
People
5-yr TCO$38M
Slowest to re-plan
Rip & replace
Big-bang rebuild
Build
Infra
People
5-yr TCO$41M
Highest delivery risk
Modernize core
Recommended
Build
License
Infra
People
5-yr TCO$26M
Best ROI · lowest risk
Build License Infrastructure People
~$12M
five-year saving vs. staying on the commercial suite
<18 mo
payback period on the modernization investment
hrs not days
re-plan speed the roadmap was built to unlock

The recommended path wasn't the cheapest line item or the flashiest rebuild — it was the one with the best economics of ROI and the lowest delivery risk. Leadership funded it, and the spill & recapture engine at its center is now flying the network in production.

Next · The build that followed
Fleet assignment under disruption