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

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

Airlines, tell us your punctuality

The Association of European Airlines (AEA) used to publish the on-time performance (punctuality) of their associated airlines. It seems that their airline members would not allow this anymore. Certainly you can use Flightstats, however, the information may prove inaccurate and incomplete. Wolfram search has a nice feature to learn more about airlines (US only) delays. Just enter the search term 'causes of delay of delta airline' and you will find a nice summary of Delta's performance as an example.

In a bold new move, South African domestic carriers have agreed with Airports Company South Africa (ACSA) to publish their punctuality on the ACSA web site. Passengers can take this into consideration upon choosing their carrier and the Airport makes a clear statement about the strategic value of on-time performance.

I'd rather have this continuous level of transparency than campaigns of carriers or airports which coincidentially happened to be the most punctual recently - irrespective of their size, number of cancellations, and number of passengers affected.

Effective use of information

The difference in how airports are able to deal with their complexity is directly related to how well they manage and use information. In the words of the head of IT of a major European airport "It is not about measuring, it is about the use of information."

This reminds me of a discussion with an executive of an airport retailer. I had thought that they differentiate themselves from competitors by their shop concepts, by the range of products or in its collaboration with its brand and airport partners. Yet, he told me that the way they collect and use data about airport customers made the difference. Based on business intelligence they would know what to offer, when and where. Their key asset was not logistics but information about their customers.

What about airports and their knowledge about their customers? How well do airports use their information?

Only good news make it to the top

Every manager knows that there are processes of selective filtration which occur in information transmission in organizational hierarchies. In other words, good news travel in lightning speed, bad news are filtered out. In fact, in my experience, they are filtered out only until an underlying problem eventually escalates.

I am not an expert on organizational behavior. Research indicates that interpersonal factors like subordinate's trust in his superior, subordinate's perception of his superior's influence on his career and subordinate's career aspirations are factors influencing the upward communication. The first one seems to be most important.

I am sure we need to work on the trust thing. At the same time we need to make sure that management has access to action-relevant operational information in due time in a simple and straight-forward format. You will now shout 'dashboard' but be aware, dashboards tend to be either over-simplistic or too complicated. The trick might be a good mix of relevant performance indicators in a dashboard format with a filter on what is important and drill-down possibility.

In a later post I plan to write about dashboards, the difference of dashboards to scorecards and why you should not ask managers i.e. users what they should look like. Well, at least not in the beginning.

Get rid of long airport lines

I like the idea of either measuring queues or tracking passengers throughout the airport to monitor and respond to queues in real time, manage service levels and improve management of the terminals. This is to ensure that passengers have more time to spend in restaurants, bars and shops, as well as improve the overall passenger experience.

Let's take an example. You can check the queues and queuing times at security checkpoints or immigration in real time and allocate extra staff if queues are growing and reducing those working if the numbers of passengers waiting are low.

A few thoughts here. What if the staff at security checkpoints or immigration is not yours to control? Having read my blog you will know that I believe in the power of transparency. How can we make sure that passengers do not queue up in the first place? What about the static and dynamic information you provide to the passengers; they will always have an impact on passenger flows.

My point is, managing queues is (again) not about technology only. It is also about a cunning concept, smooth processes, engaged stakeholders and last but not least performance and responsibility again.

Accuracy of delay codes

Some airports call delay codes "lie codes". It is obvious that ground handlers will, in doubt, blame anybody else for delays because they may have service level agreements with their airlines. I have even come across airport where airlines insist on adjusting the off-blocks time so that they do not have to report a bad on-time performance to their headquarter.

How can this be changed i.e. improved? My little plan would include
- Accountability
- Transparency
- Standardization
- Governance
- System Integration

Accountability: Each delay code (with subcode) has an owner or responsible organization and the delay code assignment process is clear and in place (assign, accept, reject, handling of disputes, final call).

Transparency: The assignment and the on-time performance of each organization is transparent to everybody.

Standardization: There is 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: The Punctuality Board, chaired by the Airport's Punctuality Manager, with delegates from handling agents and airlines proposes and tracks action plans on punctuality. They define punctuality targets broken down to each stakeholder.

System Integration: Delay codes and delays are captured or integrated into one system. That system should also allow to automatically track issues of a flight which could have caused the delay in case of disputes.

Get passenger figures from airlines

You come across airports which say they are happy that they get the passenger numbers the next day. One airport thought this was real time. Another airport said they would have that data only up to 6 days after departure. This might be sufficient for billing purposes, but is it for operation?

I was not sure whether I should write about this in a blog. It is a delicate topic. Many airports strive for accurate passenger figures for billing purposes. And nowadays they would like to have booked and expected passenger numbers in order to plan and schedule resources accordingly.

You can imagine how tricky it is to get booked passenger figures from airlines when they are not even willing to share actual passenger numbers. There are a few options to get those data which are different for each airport. But, in my experience, even though it may take some time, you can get them.

Why I don't listen to final calls anymore

A 'final call' is a powerful instrument to motivate passengers to go to the gate. Not so long ago I was having a beer with a business partner at a bar at a 20m passengers airport. When we read the 'go to gate' information on the FIDS screen we swung down the beer and moved to the gate. Upon arriving at the gate they announced the final call for our flight. We were glad we had made it in time.

However, looking outside the windows we saw that our aircraft only just arrived. Even with zero turnaround time, the departure would be late. The only options we really were left off was to sit/stand at the gate and wait until boarding started or walk back all the way to the bars where you would not get further information because there had already been the last call.

Would you trust any information displayed at that airport?

The good, bad and ugly about transparency

We tend to broadcast positive news about us and our business immediately, in lightning speed, while we filter negative information. Anyone who has ever had a management position will be aware of this and the recurring escalations.

Full transparency about the production, the status and performance at an airport raises opportunities and threats. Transparency does, however, not mean to provide all data available. An understanding of the end-to-end process may actually provide more useful insight than numerous reports. And the transparency required by a duty manager may be different from that required by a baggage handler.

Good.Transparency exposes weaknesses and leads to rapid improvements in quality and efficiency driven by the managers in charge. It leads to more impartial discussions (forget about "always" and "never", we talk about facts). With more insight into the professionalism of the process owners, problems are better understood by others.There is less need for centralized command and control, because managers do it already for their part. The new culture of transparency ultimately saves money.

Bad. Transparency creates resistance. Some of the reasons mentioned against are "others could misunderstand it", "others don't need to know", "it provides us a competitive advantage", which is a good one, or, what I liked most, "it could show that we are not performing well". My argument against the latter is usually that it gives staff at all levels the opportunity to highlight what is going on, so that their management cannot stand back and wait anymore.

Ugly. Some managers still refuse to disclose information. While this stance precludes any degree of transparency, it may not be considered a showstopper. The motto to apply here is start with early adopters and then wait and see. They will come.