ICUAS’20 Hybrid Event

The 2020 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS’20), initially scheduled to run on June 9-12, finally took place on September 1-4 in Athens, Greece. It was a ‘hybrid’ conference allowing for virtual (video playback and remote-live) and physical onsite presentations. This year, 2020, marks the first time the annual conference left the United States, going international to Athens, Greece.

The COVID-19 pandemic forced the Organizing Committee to delay the conference from June (ICUAS is normally held in June, annually) to early September. This decision was a justified and well-thought one. It was based on continuous monitoring of the world situation in terms of how the pandemic was spread, but also on how Greece handled the pandemic taking very strict measures to contain it, well in advance. But in late April / early May, it was obvious that the only viable solution for the conference to actually occur, was to move it to September, hoping at first for a ‘physical presence only’ conference. Regardless, pandemic challenges forced us to adopt the ‘hybrid’ structure conference.

Throughout this very dynamic planning phase, the Organizing Committee kept on informing attendees and authors on a regular basis, always keeping IEEE in the loop (Ms. Kelly Smith and her group). We also kept under the microscope all other sister conferences either sponsored or supported by IEEE, which allowed us to acquire valuable information concerning alternatives to run the conference. In addition, every time the Greek Government announced new measures to contain the pandemic, this information was immediately forwarded to the participants. It is very important to emphasize that the Organizing Committee members, the Advisory Committee members in Greece, along with local and state authorities and the hotel management team corresponded regularly for a period of five months, from April to late August (!), with the aim to capitalize on, and overcome, any possible, yet inconceivable, challenges. In late August, the meeting space in the venue was completely reconfigured for safety and social distancing; the hotel safety protocols were e-mailed to all participants; during the conference, every morning, each physical participant was offered a ‘personal safety kit’ with a mask, hand sanitizer, pen, notebook, and energy bar. The social agenda events took place in open space only – the roof garden pool of the hotel – with no more than 50 people present in a dedicated area. Therefore, it is not a surprise that the conference was successful even under such adverse conditions.

The Organizing Committee worked very closely with Dr. Pradeep Misra, particularly after the decision for a ‘hybrid’ conference. There was no delay in producing the augmented Digital Proceedings that included all pre-recorded and uploaded video presentations, including poster paper video presentations.

A full three-day highly technical program was composed. Tutorials were canceled due to the pandemic, but the tutorial lecture notes were distributed to all registered attendees, gratis. The technical program also included three keynotes. The keynote lectures were attended by about 120 attendees, split 50%-50% between physical and virtual participants.

The Zoom platform (through the University of Denver) worked well throughout the conference. It was used for all presentations, physical, virtual-passive (video playback), and virtual-live (remote but live), with no problems.

The way ICUAS’20 ran, allows for several observations that may help the organization of future events, particularly if such events are of hybrid nature. Obviously, these may be thought of as just ‘subjective opinions’; so be it. We simply offer a point of view tailored to a 300-participant conference.

• The number of physical participants, on average, was 50 (about 17%)
• The number of virtual attendees was between 50 – 80 (between 17% to 27%)
• Keynotes were attended by about 100 – 120 physical and virtual participants (between 33.3% – 40%)

One major, and perhaps the most logical, reason for the limited virtual attendance was the time zone differences. A second possible reason may be the fact that once the video presentation was uploaded and scheduled to be played back in the session, ‘the job was done’ – no need even for the corresponding / presenting author to be online. Moreover, since Conference Proceedings include all videos, everyone and anyone who is interested in the presentations may look at the proceedings.

The most unusual components of this conference were the obvious lack of networking, socialization, and collegiality aspects, the vivid conversations among individuals, the technical discussions, and the possible formation of new partnerships and teams for research and projects of common interest. For those of us who have participated for years in IEEE conferences, we always felt, and still feel, that these components were an integral part of the overall conference. Even the Q&A part after each presentation seemed to be different, not engaging, although interactive to some level, and yet not bad.

One point that needs following up and should perhaps be discussed by the supporting societies and IEEE is that of video quality. We realize this is new to all of us. But as we have a template for conference paper submission and well-established standards, we should develop the same for video presentations. Granted, authors knew that they needed to use mp4, the aspect ratio, maximum size, etc. However, a more detailed framework may be needed to make sure all videos are top-notch.

Feedback from participants

To learn from our mistakes and to make sure that future conferences are of the highest possible quality, the Organizing Committee members requested feedback from the physical and virtual participants. Collectively, the following issues were raised, which need to be considered from now on:

• It is best if the Session Chair or vice-chair is onsite to monitor and coordinate paper presentations and Q&A. This facilitates Q&A from onsite participants.
• Video and physical paper presentations must be kept precisely on time. This means that video presentations must be exactly 18 minutes for a 20-minute interval per paper. This allows for normal flow and helps virtual participants switch from session to session.
• It should be made clear to the presenter/corresponding author that s/he must be online during the video presentation to answer any questions. This is obviously challenging due to the time difference.
• Video presentations must be reviewed before final acceptance to guarantee quality – hence the template may help.
• The ‘hybrid’ nature of the conference limits interactions, particularly since most virtual presentations were video playback.
• It will be beneficial if, from now on, the remote presenter ‘sees’ the actual session in real-time. This may be achieved either using another platform, or using cameras in each session, connected to the zoom platform.
• Independent of the pandemic, it may be beneficial to consider the possibility of virtual attendance with a reduced registration fee.

Summary

In summary, despite all challenges, ICUAS’20 was a successful conference. Attendees were very pleased, understanding, and accommodating. We believe we have learned a lot; we have grown wiser with respect to accounting for and overcoming unforeseen events; we feel ready to capitalize on this year’s outcome and organize a better conference next year.

Kimon Valavanis

Anthony Tzes

Youmin Zhang

September 13, 2020