Conceptos de valuación

The remote mode of round management is a relatively new approach to turn-round control; the factors that contribute to monitoring difficulty are now discussed:

• Number of turn-rounds: the total number of turn-rounds assigned to an individual controller determines the time available for monitoring each single turn-round process. A great difference could be observed in the number of turn-rounds which were assigned simultaneously to an individual controller among the different airlines where turn-round monitoring was observed,

Chapter 6: Field Observation During A-CDM Turn-Round

attention can be maintained to each individual turn-round, if the number of turn-rounds monitored by one controller in parallel exceeds a specific value and workload, whereat the workload again depends on a number of issues that have require attention (See chapter 2.5).

• Multiple parties with differing goals involved: Multiple parties responsible for the various supporting turn-round processes during a single turn-round process with each party having its own resource constraints and inherent intentional goals. However, understanding individual actors’ goals is necessary to establish a global goal among all participating actors and airport partners. It is also unlikely that in case of individual goal sets different from a global goal, actors will share their goals with others. Individual actors’ goals can range from personal interests to achieving advantages for the own company.

Therefore, in order to enable successful monitoring, it is necessary to identify the inherent goals and motivations of all participating operators and the constraints within the different domains during A-CDM. This information should then be used to identify and apply cooperation-building factors to day-to-day turn-round practices.

• Reliability of information: information provided by supporting actors is not always as available as required because of the different approaches and procedures towards information sharing established by the individual operators. Even when required, operational information from the action level is not necessarily available at the monitoring level due to the failure to establish standardised processes of information sharing, e.g. information about boarding status is not shared or actors forget to feed their data into the tools established for monitoring the flight/turn-round progress.

• Incomplete process status data: due to the complexity of the handling processes at some major airports, operators’ resource constraints or companies’

internal regulations, not all turn-round processes can be tracked automatically yet. As a consequence, required data for monitoring is not provided and turn-round controllers have to make decisions based on an incomplete picture of the situation.

Chapter 6: Field Observation During A-CDM Turn-Round

• Degree of automation support: ‘Self-procurement’ of data e.g. via telephone or radio is not only time-consuming, there is high risk of missing key indicators or focusing on minor items, while critical data is hidden within turn-round complexities.

• Cognitive demands: cognitive workload of controllers depends on the level of automation, individual knowledge, and workload regulation activities. While cognitive capabilities vary among controllers, workload regulation activities are used very much by controllers and so determine turn-round success. If the workload is too high, the possibility for controllers to develop their own regulation strategies is reduced.

• Feedback from actors: controllers require feedback from actors and operators on the ramp or terminal building for monitoring, e.g. about execution of services or availability of resources. No standardised feedback processes could be observed because actors’ individual goals do not necessarily correspond to the controllers’ need for feedback.

• Number of third-party providers: an increasing number of participating service providers also increases monitoring complexity. This in turn imposes a challenge for the turn-round controller to identify the service provider or actor who is involved in an individual turn-round process. As a consequence, the controller is not always aware who provides the turn-round service. If he requires process related data, he may have to contact several companies in order to identify the assigned actors.

• System complexity and reliability: Airport size, technological level, and cultural diversities also contribute to system complexity and monitoring difficulties. Monitoring solutions have to be adapted to local needs.

• Alarm system design: some monitoring tools have an automatic pop-up alarm for e.g. delays of flights with proceeding crews on board or delayed ground handling start. However, in all observed cases, the timing of the alarm was too late in order to initiate a corrective action able for avoiding a delay. Again, cognitive workload adjustment is applied by controllers and so far the only

Chapter 6: Field Observation During A-CDM Turn-Round

• Display and control design: The standard workplace of the turn-round controllers has five screens with functionalities selectable by controllers. The workplace also includes telephones with short dial-up options to all airport partners involved. However, controllers often have to switch between different scenarios or displays and a view of the overall turn-round process information showing all required data is not available.

• Sharing of Responsibilities: different actors have different levels of responsibilities for decision making. This information is not always shared with turn-round controller and therefore he has to contact multiple actors to identify the responsible function.

• Delay Code assignment: the turn-round controller assigns delay codes for the function that he considers to be responsible for the delay. However, this practice of delay code assignment challenges the whole ATM network philosophy of the A-CDM approach. Even though the turn-round controller often has to rely on information provided by third parties, this procedure is still seen as a punishment for operators’ behaviours and fosters the perception of a blame culture among participating actors. This however is counter to the idea of creating a cooperation building culture with mutual trust among operators.

Some of the challenges in turn-round monitoring mentioned here could be overcome through process reengineering, cultural change or technological progress.

As a next step in the research process, focus group discussions between turn-round controllers and other functions will be carried out to identify the potential for such alternative approaches towards turn-round management.