Getting the best out of your operations control - part 1

"You can’t motivate people, but you can create an environment that encourages them to be motivated." In his article Getting the Best Out of People in the Workplace, Les Landes covers a number of key areas to achieve that goal. What applies to the workplace in general, surely applies to operations control.

This first post about 'getting the best out of your operations control' addresses the operations control processes. Les Landers points out that "if people don’t have clearly defined processes for the tasks that they’re expected to do, they are likely to struggle with how to carry out the tasks." What follows is how a high-level model for an integrated operations control. Such a model should apply for each process being monitored and steered, whether the airport can manage the process directly or not.

Let us take an example of the passenger flow, specifically passenger screening. Flight schedule, resource allocation, capacity information and standard processing times can be used to predict expected passengers and expected waiting times. In the best case, booked passenger numbers are available from the airlines (split by transfer and local passengers). During the day, planned information is automatically and dynamically updated with status changes, such as cancellations, delays, passenger number changes, gate changes, etc. which make the predictions more valuable. Automatically triggered warnings alert coordinators in operations control about potential bottlenecks (e.g. expected waiting times even with all lines open). Pro-active actions can be taken like delaying gate information to passengers and changing the gate. An actual waiting time at a passenger screening, automatically detected or manually reported, will trigger an alert and associated action. Such an action can be, obviously, to open more lines. Another action, maybe not that obvious, would be to first provide a list of flights which are currently being processed at security screening and which maybe become critical to complete boarding in time. Then, passengers of that flight can be directly addressed at the screening point. The analysis and reporting does not only cater for statistics. It should also analyse how well the prediction was, in order to adjust the algorithm. And provide feedback to planning and scheduling.

Now apply the same approach and technology to other processes.

Let's see what will be in part 2 of the series on how to get the best out your operations control. Maybe about Constructive Accountability?

One year after go-live of their Airport Management Center, Moscow Sheremetyevo is the best ACI ASQ airport in Europe. Coincidence?

Lasting success is not a result of coincidence. It's the result of focused hard work.

When Moscow's Sheremetyevo International Airport established their Airport Management Center by the end of 2011 they endeavoured to achieve these goals:

• To consolidate the coordination, monitoring and control of the different airport-wide spread operations control centres
• To effectively manage the airport across organisations
• To significantly shorten reaction times on irregularities
• To improve the capacity and act with standard operating procedures at hand to provide excellent customer service from end-to-end

We are very glad to have been part of the project with our technology and business expertise.

One year after their go-live, ACI names Sheremetyevo the best European airport in service quality. The Airport Service Quality (ASQ) is one of the most prestigious research programs on Airport Service Quality involving 250 airports in 50 countries.

Is this coincidence? Maybe they collaborate better than before, internally and externally. Maybe they act more like a business and more performance oriented. Maybe there are less friction-losses between processes and organisations.

In the end, what counts, are the results. And this award is outstanding because it comes from the end-customer, the passenger.

The love-hate relationship between airport operator and hub carrier

There are mutual dependencies between an airport operator and a hub carrier. Both companies contribute to the overall product "Airport". In many subject areas, the interests of both parties are therefore identical. Different interests can occur in subject areas in which the airport operator represents the interests of all airport users and they do not meet the interests of the hub carrier, or where the airport is representing their own interests.

Different Roles

The airport operator is holding the concession to operate the airport and is therefore responsible that the infrastructure is used efficiently and suffices to accommodate future growth. The planning and the day-by-day management of infrastructural resources should therefore stay where the financial responsibility is located i.e. with the airport. Airports leaving the management of infrastructure to airlines will be faced with inefficiency and continuous demands for more and better infrastructure which produces higher costs (for example inefficient resource allocation and lack of control of slot adherence). A hub carrier is planning their network and schedule in order to satisfy the demand of passenger and cargo transportation and in doing so, to make as much profit as possible. For an airline, the planning of resources like aircraft and crews is their core competence and should not be handed over to an airport as the financial responsibility to shareholders lies exclusively with the airline.

Different Businesses

There is a big difference of the cost structure between airline and airport. An airline has 70-80% variable costs. In case of an economic downturn it will reduce costs by eliminating flights with a low profitability and can so reduce their main expenditures substantially and quickly. The planning horizon is usually 2 flight seasons except for fleet planning which is covering 2 to maximum 5 years. An airport has 70-80% fixed costs. The main cost factor, infrastructure, cannot be reduced quickly if revenues drop because airlines cut their flight schedule. Airports therefore tend to build functional infrastructure which is cheap to build and maintain. The planning horizon (master plan) covers often the best part of the concession period and can be as long as 30 to 50 years.

Conflict 

Though the relationship between hub carrier and the airport is a symbiotic one there are conflicts in the one between hub carrier and hub airport. From the airport’s view, the hub carrier presents with its big market share a cluster risk and a danger to its independence. To attract other airlines is the sensible thing to do in order to mitigate those risks, at least from an economical and entrepreneurial point of view. This is a balancing act though, because the airport has to be careful not to cause a too competitive environment in order to prevent an adverse effect on its main customer. The hub carrier in turn expects from the airport a better and more exclusive infrastructure than the other airlines to get a competitive advantage. All this of course offered at costs which should lie considerably below the prices paid by competitors for less suitable facilities. And there should be no competition, even to destinations presently not served by the hub carrier.

Conclusion

This conflict exists at most of the hubs of this world. It should be addressed by airport and hub carrier in order to find a cooperation model without intruding into the partners business or responsibility. It should not be lopsided but serving both partners even if it means compromising. It should allow both, airport and hub carrier to grow and to conduct its business within limits to be agreed on in a memorandum of understanding, without interference of the partner.

The role of an Airport Management Center for efficient operations

It is certainly a challenge to improve or at least maintain on-time performance and service quality with a continuously growing number of passengers. Airports are establishing structures, processes and technologies to address the challenges of today and the future. Eurocontrol's initiative of Airport Collaborative Decision Making (A-CDM) aims at improving the airside process with a focus on the aircraft turnaround. What about the rest? What about structures, processes and technologies to address this area of business together with the airport partners?

Coordination on ground is a quite complex matter. There are multiple players with their own coordination centers providing disparate services. You will find many shared processes and responsibilities though. Service levels are not aligned and processes have many interdependencies. Even though there are infrastructure limitations, airport and ATC slots, winter operation or specific passenger behavior, you will find rarely a 'superordinated' coordination.

An Airport Management Center (AMC) can address this challenge. The airport operator manages the operation together with their partners. Supported by the top managers of all partners the common goal is operational excellence. The key services are coordinated in one room, moderated by the airport, based on a free flow of information. This will not only require a room but also efficient IT systems.

However, are you ready for this change of culture? The airport's top management must be convinced that this change is necessary in order to achieve its goal. Unfortunately, most of the time such a re-thinking is triggered only after a bigger or smaller crisis. The starting point is a paradigm shift from administrating to orchestrating the operation. There the airport operator takes a leading role in managing the airport operation. The next challenge will be internal shifts of power and responsibilities. This is usually where such projects fail because it may include organizational changes.

After having overcome the mostly internal hurdles, the airport will have to take the initiative and convince their partners to join the center, build the room, implement new IT systems, and to provide know-how transfer and training.

What are the main functions of an AMC? It is an information center which collects and disseminates information. It facilitates communication because peers are sitting in the same room and can talk freely and efficiently. Decisions are made in a collaborative and coordinated manner. Of course, it also creates goodwill amongst the airport partners and a community feeling. Eventually, efficient teamwork, control over operational activities and a leading role by the airport will be achieved.

Is your Airport Duty Manager a leader?

More and more I become aware of the importance of the Airport Duty Managers, in particular regarding Collaborative Decision Making (CDM). 

As the designated moderator of the CDM process he/she must be perceived and accepted by his peers as the informal leader. To achieve this status, however, behavior and especially communication of the Duty Manager are essential, as demeanor, appearance and communication triggers and determines human interaction. This interaction in turn is the key for collaboration. In addition to distinct management and leadership abilities, Duty Managers should have excellent communication skills.

I hope that none of the following issues do apply to your Airport Duty Manager(s):

• Work almost exclusively re-actively. They rarely manage (act proactively) and are therefore not perceived as leader.
• Do not prepare sufficiently for possible irregularity scenarios but leave managing (preparation for possible scenarios) to the “responsible functions” without being part of it.
• Lack additional area of responsibility they have to manage (improvements)
• Do not communicate on a structured, regular basis with their partners inside and outside of the organization.
• Are not perceived as leaders or moderators but as mere supervisors controlling the partners.
• Neither possess the necessary skills nor the authority to lead a group of people not subordinated to them.

Collaboration and performance at South African airports

Last week I was in South Africa visiting the Airport Management Centres at the airports Johannesburg and Cape Town. It has been more than two years since my last visit and I was wondering what their maturity level would be. It was simply great to see them continuously working on improving airport performance and collaboration. Just highlighting two areas: stakeholders and performance.

Stakeholders: They have representatives from the airport, from the major airlines, from all three ground handlers, ATC and recently a fueling company (because of the current fuel issues in South Africa). Sure, there are still some issues with cooperation but can you imagine that a ground handler representative would pick up the telephone of his competitor while he is away? These things happen there.

Performance: Needless to say that they have improved their on-time performance and many other areas. They even publish the airline's performance on the Internet. With the airline's consent. And every morning they have a briefing with the airlines where each airline sets their punctuality target for the day (so does the airport). Every hour they check where they are.

I am sure we will hear many more success stories about ACSA. Particularly after ACSA has won a bid for the expansion, maintenance and operation of Guarulhos, Brazil's busiest airport, located at a suburb of the city of São Paulo.

The role of transparency in Airport CDM

How much transparency does Airport CDM consider when it wants to facilitate the sharing of accurate and timely information? Is sharing of EOBT and similar information addressing the real need of transparency?

Sharing operational data is, in my opinion, not sufficient. Only the sharing of problems, quality, output and performance will increase internal and external pressure for both managers and staff to act. And, it will make yourself more credible towards your partners.

Empower your Airport Duty Managers

Most often, operational problems are not caused by the airport infrastructure, but lie in the organization. You may find situations where daily operation is focused on airside and on troubleshooting only. Processes are hardly perceived as such and infrastructure and maintenance deficiences are considered to be issues of specialized services. Work is primarily reactive. Airport Duty Managers wait until a problem is reported and then try to resolve it or refer the caller to another department (maintenance & engineering, IT, cleaning, etc.). They do not feel responsible. The obvious reaction of the affected is to call senior airport executives instead to make things happen.

How can we empower our staff, intensify the dialogue with the airport partners and in particular implement a process focus?

1. Assign responsibility for each core process to an Airport Duty Manager which covers infrastructure and quality of that process.
2. Make sure that process weaknesses and infrastructure issues are continuously addressed in a structured manner.
3. Define, implement and monitor service levels with internal and external partners.
4. Discuss and implement contingency plans together with the partners.
5. Establish a dialogue with partners on each management level with a discussion about quality and performance.
6. Make partners aware of the issues and how you address them.

 And we may achieve

• Better cooperation with partners.
• Mutual understanding about each other's business and its issues.
• Partners become more aware of what the airport actually delivers, day by day.
• Airport users percieve the improvements in quality and performance and the image will improve.
• More airlines are attracted.

10 characteristics of Airport CDM culture

In their implementation manual Eurocontrol defines the requirements for an 'Airport CDM culture':

• Agreed relevant data should be shared between all partners involved
  at the right time.
• Data shared should be of sufficient quality to facilitate improved traffic
  predictability and planning capabilities for all partners involved.
• Decisions should be made by the partner best placed to make them.
• Decisions made should be shared with all other partners.

This sounds good, in theory. But how do we know? Here are 10 characteristics on how you can evaluate whether you have a CDM culture or not:

1. Complete openness (well, I understand if you want to keep your financial data privately, but airlines: what is the problem with sharing your pax figures?)
2. Admit your mistakes and errors (airport, please lead by example)
3. No finger pointing
4. Common and shared database (e.g. AODB as a central hub for flight information)
5. Mixed working groups and task forces, so everybody participates in finding a solution
6. Goodwill of all partners to find solutions
7. Joint design of measures for improvement
8. Experimental approach / test runs (do not underestimate the power of trials!)
9. Free discussion of findings (the goal is always the same: we want to improve)
10. Unbureaucratic implementation of measures

There is no such thing as 'Collaborative Decision Making'

Group Decision Making or Collaborative Decision Making (CDM) is about bringing people together to solve problems with the idea that they are more effective than individuals. But how are collaborative decisions actually made? By vote? By secret ballot?

When was the last time we actually made a 'collaborative decision'? Sure, we may have listened to arguments, we may have taken every possible information into account, we may have thought about all possible impacts of a decision. But in the end, for what is considered as my responsibilty and accountability, the decision will be mine. There is no such thing as 'Collaborative Decision Making'. There is information sharing, collaboration, decision making and performance.

Top performance with collaboration and leadership

Top performance in airport operation is not just a matter of chance. It is a combination of expertise and commitment in the front line, collaboration amongst various organizations and a leader who coordinates the efforts.

Every day a number of companies with disparate interests work together on one product, 'the airport'. How can this diversity of interests, tools, and processes build a unit? This is where airport operators can put efficient management and conflict resolution strategies, organizations, tools and processes in place, not only airside but also landside.