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?

The 7 habits of highly effective punctuality management

As soon as an airport or an airline has a punctuality record month, they publish press releases, they celebrate. But how sustainable is such a short-time success? If you check their performance from then on, you may find them falling back to the levels before.

Can on-time performance be actively managed? If you think it can't be managed or can only be resolved by others, the following 7 habits may present a different perspective. If you already manage punctuality, you can assess where you are in your quest.

Habit	Characteristics
Accountability	There is a sufficient number of delay codes to differentiate delay causer Each delay code (with sub-code) has an owner or responsible organization The delay code assignment process is clear and in place (assign, accept, reject, handling of disputes, final call). Secondary delays are allocated to the original causer Delay cost is calculated and assigned to the causer
Transparency	Delay code assignment and on-time performance of every organization is transparent to everybody. Data quality is high Share performance with other airports
Standardization	Only one definition of delay codes and delays across the airport based on IATA standard, incorporated in the Airport Handling Manual (AHM) Any non-conformance e.g. different reporting from an airline to its head office will be brought forward to the Governance Forum
Governance and Benchmarking	Multi-stakeholder Airport Operations Control Center to manage the daily operational on-time performance and escalations Has a Punctuality Manager Punctuality Board, chaired by the Airport's Punctuality Manager, with delegates from handling agents and airlines proposes and tracks actions Punctuality targets are defined and broken down to each stakeholder Maybe an award/penalty pool for on-time performance Benchmark against other airports
System Integration	Delay codes and delays are captured or integrated into one 'global' system. That system should also allow to automatically track issues of a flight which could have caused the delay in case of disputes.
Communication/PR	Constant, effective communication among all stakeholders Maybe an award for the best punctuality improvement program
Empowerment	Agree on challenging yet achievable goals but leave it up to the partners to implement sustainable improvement Provide sufficient resources for punctuality management and improvement programs

Why it is counterproductive to let passengers know how long waiting lines are

People say that knowledge is power. The more knowledge, the more power. Suppose you knew the winning numbers for the lottery?  What would you do? You would run to the store and mark those numbers on the play card. And you would win.

Same for airports? Suppose you knew the waiting time at checkpoints like at Dulles International Airport. What would you do? Experience shows that when there is not much waiting time passengers tend to dwell and get to the checkpoint later. Which may create a problem later. It also shows that when there is long waiting time passengers tend to go to the checkpoint immediately. Which increases the problem now.

I think that airports should endeavor to steer the passengers indirectly based on the information they have. They may wait to announce gates until they see that there is capacity at checkpoints. They may change gates of arriving flights or bring passengers to other arrival halls.

Airport business is full of decisions and judgements and guesses, and also looking outside of the box.

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.

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.

CDM lesson from the movie 'Men in Black 2'

We all agree on the expected benefits from Collaborative Decision Making (CDM), but not necessarily about what it really means and how to implement it. What I like about it is that people start thinking out of (their) box. CDM illustrates the benefits from avoiding silo thinking and silo decision making. The silos that still exist at many airports.

Rembember the movie 'Men in Black 2'? There is a race of minuscule extraterrestrials inside a storage locker at Grand Central Station, the locker encasing their whole world. At the end of the film, there is even a much larger locker in an enormous alien version of Grand Central Terminal which seems to contain the human world. What about the lockers at the airport?

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.

When to publish the gate information?

How many hours before departure should the gate information be published? Airports would usually publish this information at fixed times, maybe when the operational day starts, maybe a few hours prior to departure, depending on whether it is an international, regional or domestic flight.

I am sure airlines will want the airport to publish the gate information as early as possible because they want the passengers at the gate to make sure that there is no delay because of late passengers. Now here comes retail and tells operation to publish the gate as late as possible in order to keep the passengers shopping. In other words, to increase the dwell time.

I  had a rather bad experience as a passenger last year in a shiny new terminal which seemed to be run by retail. There was no gate info available, neither on my boarding pass nor on the FIDS screens. This was not a problem, I was sure, I would get that information in due time. I used the time before the indicated boarding time to stroll around, maybe actually do some shopping. When the expected boarding time came closer, I noticed that I had changed my behaviour. I had started sneaking around a FIDS screen, hoping to get some update. Nothing. The expected boarding time passed by and we were getting towards the scheduled departure time. Now my comfort level dropped immediately. I started to check on other screens. The same. Then, right before the scheduled departure time, the gate was published and I was rushing to the gate. Upon arrival at the gate, the latest information there told me that the flight would be delayed by 20 minutes. Now, apart from this experience, do you think that the delay would only be 20 minutes without the boarding having started?

So, you have both extremes where the passenger already knows the gate upon check-in, and the other end where the airport waits until the latest possible moment which includes possible gate changes. Maybe the answer is something in the middle, where the gate is published based on the best information available, actually known as dynamic gate publication. In such an 'intelligent airport' the passenger will actually be steered through the terminal, i.e. the airport operation can direct the passenger flow. There is evidence that this works and even increases retail spend. See also this older post.

Useless application of video walls

There is an increase in the application of large screen presentations of process information in airport operations control rooms. In addition to the standard screens on the operators' station, the control rooms are equipped with one or more video walls or large sized screens, displaying a summary of the process being supervised.

Often these overview displays look impressive and sophisticated. They surely contribute to a high tech appearance of the control room. However, further consideration may reveal that an overview display is a costly, often quite useless addition to the standard desktop work stations. See the following example where the center video wall continuously shows a Windows error message.

To be fair, there are a few applications of video walls in airport operation control centers, like to provide a common situational awareness to both controllers and visiting public or to highlight an area to focus on an issue for a specific group. One of the key success factors will be the layout design and the information design on the video wall, both derived from what the control center is aimed at achieving.

Dashboards versus Scorecards

There have been ongoing discussions about the difference between scorecards and dashboards.

In the book Drive Business Performance the authors refer to Wayne Eckerson (Deploying Dashboards and Scorecards, July 2006) with a nice overview.

	Dashboard	Scorecard
Purpose	Measures performance	Charts progress
Users	Managers, staff	Executives, managers, staff
Updates	Real-time to right time	Periodic snapshots
Data	Events	Summaries
Top-level display	Charts and tables	Symbols and icons

Is it important to differentiate? Not really, both present a structured view of the goals and objectives for the organization. Key is to drive efficiency and help them focus on what matters.

Who should manage the airport operation?

I thought about starting a poll to ask who should be responsible for the airport operation. Suppose at a hub airport, should it be the airport operator or the hub carrier? Irrespective of the fact that a strong hub carrier will insist on being number one at the airport, operational decisions should not only be driven by the hub carrier. There are other airlines with interests which need to be catered, just look at stand allocation, for instance. And, decisions should be made value-based, creating the most value for the entire operation.

Prediction and responsibility

Weather, astrology, champions league final ... a number of areas call for predictions. When it comes to airport operation it is about air traffic demand/capacity and surface demand/capacity with runways, taxiways, ramp areas and parking bays. Same applies for passenger flows with car parking, check-in, security checks, and gates.

We would like computers to forecast operations. But how far should they determine plans and schedules for operations, in fact allocate resources? How much can or should we delegate to the computer? It depends on who is held responsible for the outcome of a decision. In theory, with the decision right you should also delegate the responsibility attribution (blame, praise).

In my observation, users use complex predictive models as an excuse for bad performance i.e. decision making. They will tell you that this and that factor has not been considered in the model. So, give them some prediction which can be easily understood and still make them responsible for their actions.

Culture of intelligent execution

I found this expression 'intelligent execution' in a book from Bruno Aziza and Joey Fitts. The title of the book is 'Drive Business Performance' and it is about the importance of business performance. It addresses organisation-wide cultural transformation as it relates to the adoption of performance management. This book illustrates that empowering individuals and holding them accountable is an absolute must.

Without going into the conceptual part of the book (there's a six phases approach), what I like about 'intelligent execution' is that individuals must have the capability and tools that they can make well-informed decisions where and when it matters. So, all great scorecards and dashboards with flashy graphs and charts are only as great as they deliver actionable information.