Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 77
APPENDIX A
Case Studies and Other
Supplemental Information
for Chapter 2
Appendix A1 Case Study: Des Moines International Airport A-2
Appendix A2 Case Study: Las Vegas McCarran International A-4
Airport
Appendix A3 Case Study: Orlando International Airport A-7
Appendix A4 Case Study: Seattle-Tacoma International Airport A-9
Appendix A5 A Decision Maker's Guide to Planning and Change A-12
Appendix A6 Other Industries A-31
A-1
OCR for page 78
APPENDIX A1
Case Study:
Des Moines International Airport
Small Airport on Approach
to Common Use
Des Moines International Airport
Interview Participants
Craig S. Smith, AAE., Aviation Director
Tim R. Stiles, CPA, Deputy Director, Finance and Administration
Kevin Foley, Airports Properties Administrator
Bill Konkol, Chief Aviation Technical Systems Specialist
Summary
Des Moines International Airport is constantly striving to improve customer service and has
achieved one of the lowest security wait times in the nation as well as providing grab-n-go con-
cessions service for today's passengers who are in a hurry. Des Moines International Airport saw
a cost-effective opportunity to improve customer service by implementing a common-use system
during the airport's concourse remodel project to meet expanding flight services. This move was
intended to (1) reduce passenger congestion in the terminal by distributing airline services
A-2
OCR for page 79
Case Study: Des Moines International Airport A-3
better, (2) improve passenger processing time, and (3) consolidate services for ticketing and
ground equipment maintenance for the benefit of both customers and airlines alike.
Profile
Des Moines International Airport, begun as a sideline business for airmail planes in the mid
1930s, has grown into a modern enterprise with passenger terminal facilities, two full-service
runways, air cargo facilities, general aviation facilities, and a military base ready to meet the avi-
ation needs and challenges for central Iowa well into the 21st Century. The airport is a critical
component of the region's infrastructure for sustaining commerce, industrial activity, and
supporting household and economic growth. The Des Moines International Airport employs
1,391 persons with an estimated payroll of $36.15 million. Although a normal day consists of
2,700 enplaned passengers, the airport experiences an influx of nearly double that capacity during
the Iowa Caucuses.
Situation
Des Moines International Airport decided to implement a common-use system at the airport
in 2009 to improve overall customer service and to take advantage of timing and cost-saving
opportunities. For this small airport with limited funding for capital projects, this project is esti-
mated to save at least $5 million by installing common-use systems rather than building out six
additional hold rooms to meet expanding flight capacity needs. The timing of the project was
ideal because the airport could combine this project with the concourse remodel project, thereby
offsetting additional construction costs.
The Des Moines International Airport already maintains a telecommunication backbone and
provides common-use services on this backbone. The future common-use system will use the
installed backbone, thereby providing added benefit to the airport by using existing assets and
support capabilities. Phase I of the project will install the common-use core system and infra-
structure. Phase II will install the common-use system at all gates and most check-in counters.
The airport also plans on installing self-service kiosks in the lower level of the terminal and
the gate hold rooms. These self-service kiosks will allow passengers to check in for any carrier at
any counter or gate hold room. Plans may include curbside check-in. To support the common-
use system, the airport will employ properly trained on-site technicians. The intent is to ensure
problem resolution is immediate and effective. Today, when airline systems go down at the air-
port, proper technicians need to be called in for repairs, which results in much longer down time.
Des Moines International Airport believes that common use will provide flexibility for their air-
port gate operations, including handling seasonal air traffic more appropriately. Currently, their
12 gates are all operational, but are not efficiently utilized. For example, one gate is used by a sin-
gle airline that has two flights per day, while, seasonally, some gates are utilized at all on certain
days. Common use will provide flexibility to daily gate operations and during times of future con-
struction projects. For instance, when Des Moines International Airport needs to close portions of
the terminal for construction projects, common use will enable them to move airlines and passen-
gers away from the closed areas. Re-aligning airport gates with the common-use system should also
reduce passenger congestion in the airport by distributing airline services better throughout the
terminal.
Des Moines International Airport is considering the feasibility of consolidating services such
as ticketing and servicing ground equipment in the future. Common use can help this to become
a reality.
OCR for page 80
APPENDIX A2
Case Study:
Las Vegas McCarran
International Airport
Common-Use Leadership
Las Vegas McCarran International Airport
Interview Participants
Samuel Ingalls, AAE, Airport Information Systems Manager
Cecil Johnson, Assistant Director of Aviation, General Aviation
Bob Kingston, Assistant Director of Aviation, Facilities Division
Barbara Bolton, AAE, Aviation Business Manager
Randall Walker. Airport Director
Derrick Russell, Airport Ramp Management Supervisor
Summary
McCarran International Airport is owned and operated by the Clark County Department of
Aviation. To help accommodate the airport's limited gate capacity and other limited resources,
in the early 1990s, the Department decided to implement an airport-wide common-use system.
A-4
OCR for page 81
Case Study: Las Vegas McCarran International Airport A-5
Being a destination-based airport, with a fairly equal distribution of airline services, the Depart-
ment believed common use could provide much-needed facility flexibility.
Today, the entire culture of the Clark County Department of Aviation has changed from a
landlord mentality to one of common use. At every level of the airport, from the Director down
through all divisions within the Department, all employees focus on common use. Many of the
employees within the Department only have experience in a common-use environment. Because
of this pervasive view of common use, everything the Department performs and supports con-
siders how to operate within a common-use environment.
More specifically, in 2003, executive management at Las Vegas McCarran International Air-
port had the vision and foresight to push for a complete overhaul of common-use standards at
airports. That year, Department leadership, in partnership with IATA, ATA, and ACI, helped
charter an industry-wide group, made up of airlines, airports, aviation information technology
developers, and manufacturers, to re-write Common-Use Terminal Equipment (CUTE) standards
that had not been updated since 1994. The outcome--the Common-Use Passenger Processing
System Recommended Practices (CUPPS RP)--was unanimously accepted by the IATA, ATA,
and ACI World Committees. As further testament to the airport's commitment to common-use
practices, Las Vegas McCarran International Airport is participating in the pilot phase of the
CUPPS RP program, which intends to prove the fundamental tenets of a true common-use sys-
tem: the ability to take an airline check-in application and run it on any platform.
Profile
Las Vegas McCarran International Airport began as a private airstrip and has grown to serve
approximately 44.1 million passengers annually. The airport generates nearly one half-billion dol-
lars in revenue annually, has an economic impact of nearly $30 billion on Southern Nevada, and
employs 18,500 people. Las Vegas McCarran International Airport plans to open a new Terminal 3
in 2012, despite the current slump in the aviation business. The airport plans to complete this
project so as to ensure the capacity the airport needs to best serve the community in the future.
Situation
The decision to implement a common-use system at Las Vegas McCarran International Air-
port began with the foresight of Aviation Department leadership. A top-down approach to pro-
moting common use at the airport has been successful because executives were able to embrace
the concept and promote it throughout the organization, effectively making it part of the air-
port's culture. Because common use was supported and promoted by airport executives, other
airport leaders were able to understand that common-use decisions are based on financial and
fiscal benefits, such that the systems will drive more efficiency through the facilities and keep
costs down through the reduction in capital. This knowledge has been necessary for airport lead-
ers to understand, and more importantly, communicate effectively to airlines, given that airline
buy-in was the primary factor in determining the success of the common-use implementation.
In choosing to install common use airport wide, the Department equipped all domestic and
international gates and check-in counters with common-use equipment. For self-service check-
in, the Department installed CUSS kiosks. Curbside and off-site check-in locations are also
equipped with common-use equipment. All IT infrastructure, including the telecommunica-
tions backbone and airport special systems, are installed and provided as common use. All major
facility assets (e.g., boarding bridges, baggage handling systems, and associated mechanical com-
ponents) are owned by the Department and provided as common use. Additionally, the Depart-
OCR for page 82
A-6 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports
ment services all common-use systems with internal staff and operates the ramp control in a
Department-controlled common-use approach.
Common use has been successful at Las Vegas McCarran International Airport for several rea-
sons. It has proven to provide maximum gate flexibility during times when airlines require spe-
cial considerations. For example, at one time, America West would typically run 140 flights per
day, needing 17 gates. Once the airline introduced a nighttime arrival package, America West
had a temporary need for up to 24 gates. The installed common-use system allowed the Depart-
ment to assign America West the gates used by Southwest during the day for their nighttime
operations. This provided the overflow gates needed by America West and provided additional
revenue to Southwest.
Common use has provided airport flexibility during times of both increased and decreased
passenger volume. For instance, the airport was designed to accommodate 40 million passen-
gers; however, they have reached capacity as high as 48 million passengers. Common use has
allowed them to achieve 10 to 20% more than design capacity. During recent times when the
Department was faced with closing a portion of their facility due to a 10 to 15% traffic decrease,
common use enabled the Department to reduce actual revenue losses to less than 3%. This
was accomplished by consolidating traffic around high-yield concessions, thus generating $1 to
$1.5 million in revenue, and by shifting airlines to locations where they could save operating and
maintenance costs.
Another benefit of common use has been improved ramp control efficiencies. When the
Department needed to rebuild the apron areas around the gates, the Department was able to move
airlines to other gates without affecting operations or incurring additional costs due to the move.
OCR for page 83
APPENDIX A3
Case Study:
Orlando International Airport
Common Use--International
to Domestic
Orlando International Airport
Interview Participants
Robert Pete, PE, Assistant Director, Maintenance Department
Robert Copeland, Assistant Director, Commercial Properties
Summary
In keeping with "one of the Airports best-liked by travelers," the Greater Orlando Airport
Authority seeks to maximize efficiency and use in the Airport, while adhering to reasonable stan-
dards and levels of customer service for the traveling public. The Authority's goal is to advance
Orlando and Central Florida as the Premier Intermodal Gateway for Global Commerce.
Orlando International Airport has always been at the forefront of new technology develop-
ment. To that end, the Authority has voluntarily participated in pilot programs, from airfield
infrastructure to safety and security projects, many of which have been adopted nationwide. The
A-7
OCR for page 84
A-8 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports
Authority is participating in the pilot phase of the Common-Use Passenger Processing System
Recommended Practices (CUPPS RP) program that intends to prove the fundamental tenets of
a true common-use system: the ability to take an airline check-in application and run it on any
platform. Current plans are to take this common-use technology in operation in the Interna-
tional Concourse and apply it to domestic gates to defer capital expenditures resulting from the
anticipated growth in air traffic over the next decade.
Profile
Orlando International Airport began as McCoy Air Force Base. It became Orlando Municipal
Airport in 1928 primarily because commercial aircraft had become large enough to require use of
the long runways that were already on site. Currently, the airport serves more than 35 million pas-
sengers annually and its four parallel runways allow for a triple-simultaneous operation. Its his-
tory and reputation are anchored in a foundation of vision and planning for the future. Its success
has been in the design and construction of a flexible landside and airside terminal complex that
reflects the community it serves while continuing to grow. Enhanced infrastructure and new tech-
nology will play key roles in the future development of Orlando International Airport.
Situation
In the late 1990s, the Authority procured and installed a common-use system throughout the
airport area. Currently, 36 domestic gates and 16 international gates are on the common-use sys-
tem. There are also 176 check-in counters for both domestic and international installed with the
common-use system. However, the number of common-use check-in counters is changing. As
the Authority upgrades the counters, they are installing common-use counters that have a
smaller footprint.
It is the Authority's responsibility to maintain the common-use computer equipment, includ-
ing monitors and keyboards at check-in counter agent positions, departure area check-in coun-
ters, and baggage recheck counters. Equipment includes check-in and boarding pass printers at
the check-in counters and boarding pass readers at the check-in counters. In addition, the
Authority provides the following other common-use-related systems: a local departure control
system; a passenger paging audio system; 30 CUSS check-in kiosks; a gate management system;
a premises distribution system (the IT backbone); and MUFIDS (Multi-User Flight Information
Display System).
The Authority is pursuing further installation of common-use technology in the domestic
gates because of expectations to exceed the designed capacity of their terminal under the current
proprietary-use model. Implementing common use in the domestic gates will enable the Author-
ity to defer construction costs of a new terminal building.
Because Orlando is a destination, vacation-based airport, it attracts air carriers who have
short-term or limited slot requirements. Therefore, the implementation of common use can be
an incentive to attract more of these types of airlines to the airport, because it reduces their
startup costs for limited service to Orlando. Common use may also attract additional inter-
national carriers wishing to start operations at Orlando.
OCR for page 85
APPENDIX A4
Case Study:
Seattle-Tacoma
International Airport
Approaches to Common
Use Leasing
Seattle Tacoma International Airport
Interview Participants
Louis Navarro, Manager Aviation Properties
Nick Harrison, Sr. Manager Airport Operations
Borgan Anderson, Manager Aviation Finance and Budget
Summary
The Port of Seattle owns and operates the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport and serves as
a fundamental facilitator of international trade, transportation, and travel to the Pacific North-
west. The vision of the Port of Seattle is to be the "cleanest, greenest, most energy-efficient port
in the nation." The tagline for the Port is "Where a sustainable world is headed." The Port views
the environmental programs as a competitive edge for their customers.
A-9
OCR for page 86
A-10 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports
One of the biggest continuous improvement goals for Seattle-Tacoma International Airport
is achieving high performance by establishing operational efficiencies. Operational efficiencies
gained at the airport have been realized through the use of new technology that has created a shared
terminal facilities operating environment. Shared facilities and equipment include a hybrid gate
leasing program, common-use terminal equipment (CUTE) and common-use self-service (CUSS)
kiosks for flight check in. This "Inspansion" focus, as the Port calls it, eliminates duplicate efforts,
conserves resources, and reduces airport expansion requirements, resulting in reduced operational
and capital development costs.
By negotiating a new agreement with airlines, which eliminated exclusive gates leases, this
arrangement allows both preferential and airport-managed gates to be shared among airlines
with relative ease. As a result, rates and charges now more accurately reflect actual airline use of
this limited resource. In addition, it has resulted in increased aircraft turns at many of its gates,
thus reducing the total number of gates necessary each day. This then translates directly into a
reduced capital need for additional terminal space and makes more efficient use of terminal facil-
ities such as the ticketing lobby, hold rooms, and concessions.
Profile
The Seattle-Tacoma International Airport has served the commercial aviation needs of the
Puget Sound region for over five decades. Ranked as the 17th busiest airport in the United States,
in 2008, it handled 32.1 million air passengers. In order to plan for continued projected passen-
ger growth, the Port just finished two major landside construction projects: a longer and wider
Concourse A and Gina Marie Lindsey International Arrivals Hall, which opened in the spring of
2004, and a new central terminal, which opened in the spring of 2005.
Situation
The Port chose to implement common use at its airport to support the long-term goals and
strategies of the airport. These include
· Ensuring Airport Vitality--common-use solutions provide the foundation for improvements
in operation and flexibility to handle the dynamic needs of the airport and airlines.
· Be a Catalyst for Regional Transportation Solutions--common use makes the most effec-
tive use of terminal facilities, supporting high-density development and enhanced customer
service.
· Be a Leader in Transportation Security--components of the common-use system provide for
barcode and passport reader scanning; a baggage sortation message generated by the system
provides airlines with tools for positive passenger/baggage matching.
· Be a High-Performance Workplace--common use enables integration of airport and airline
systems to achieve operational efficiencies and enhance management information for capac-
ity and financial management.
Seattle-Tacoma International Airport has 15 domestic common-use gates and 8 common-use
check-in counter positions in the Central Terminal building. There are 9 common-use gates and
30 common-use check-in counter positions for international flights in the South Satellite Ter-
minal. There is one common-use baggage system that serves 10 carriers and has 14 inputs and 8
makeup devices. Although the Airport has 90% connectivity between baggage systems, the Port
is working toward a greater level of connectivity in the future.
The Port's goal is to install common-use equipment at all 81 gates for cost and flexibility rea-
sons. The capital cost for the airport to own the common-use equipment is half of what the airlines
OCR for page 87
Case Study: Seattle-Tacoma International Airport A-11
would pay for owning it outright. Gate flexibility is paramount given that airline operations are
unpredictable and can result in merged operations, which can lead to costly gate changes.
The Port is also moving to eliminate airline-exclusive gate leases in order to create operational
efficiencies. In the past, airlines treated exclusive gate leases as assets and paid rent on gates even
though they might be used infrequently. Control of gates enabled airlines to gain a competitive
advantage at airports where the supply of gates was constrained. This new arrangement is called
a Signatory Lease and Operating Agreement and combines residual and compensatory elements.
It allows both preferential and airport-managed gates to be shared among airlines with relative
ease and increases the number of flights that can be served each day at individual gates, reduc-
ing the need for constructing additional gates and associated terminal space. As a result, rates
and charges more accurately reflect actual airline use of this limited resource.
Seattle-Tacoma International Airport's hybrid gate leasing program reflects current trends in
the aviation industry to move from exclusive gates to common-use gates with shorter term air-
line agreements that allow airlines to re-evaluate use of their space. Under Seattle's program, gates
are allocated once per year, allowing month-to-month agreements for non-signatory airlines with
a 10% penalty on rates. Each year, airlines can give back gates or request the use of more gates.
The Port has set fees for gates at a set rate of six turns per gate. For standard gate equipment, the
Port has developed separate costs for loading bridges. Seating is built into the common-use rate,
not reconciled. At their current fee structure, up to a threshold, the Port is finding that airlines
would rather pay common-use charges, than lease an extra gate.
Benefits of the gate leasing program include the elimination of vacancy risks, the delineation
of how much the airport can spend without consulting with airlines, and ultimately greater con-
trol for the airport over its facilities.
OCR for page 101
A Decision Maker's Guide to Planning and Change A-25
Figure A5-3. Plan, do, check, act continuous improvement.
forth by W. E. Deming, incorporates performance measurement as a key factor in continuous
improvement.13
Performance management is the practice of actively using performance data to improve an
organization's operations and performance. This practice involves strategic use of performance
measures and standards to establish performance targets and goals. Performance management
practices can also be used to prioritize and allocate resources, inform managers about needed
adjustments or changes in policy or program directions to meet goals, frame reports on the suc-
cess in meeting performance goals, and improve quality.
Performance management includes the following components:
· Performance standards--establishment of organizational or system performance standards,
targets, and goals.
· Performance measures--development, application, and use of performance measures to
assess achievement of performance standards.
· Reporting of progress--documentation and reporting of progress in meeting standards and
targets and sharing of such information through feedback.
· Quality improvement--establishment of a program or process to manage change and achieve
quality improvement in policies, programs, or infrastructure based on performance standards,
measurements, and reports.
Examples of good measures14
· Drive performance improvements
· Actionable and relevant to work activities
· Can be updated regularly
· Clearly defined with targets
13
W.E. Deming. (1986). Out of the Crisis. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for
Advanced Engineering Study, p. 88.
14
EMA, Incorporated. (2005). Developing and Implementing a Performance Measurement System (Project 99-
wwf-7) Volume II. Washington, DC: Water Environment Research Foundation, p. 49.
OCR for page 102
A-26 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports
· Directly tied to objectives and goals
· Process based or initiative based
· Uses industry-comparable or standard measures
Checklist
Plan
Ensure an executive champion and sponsorship. If no clear champion exists, then consider
who should be and what steps you need to take to gain their sponsorship.
Ensure the management team demonstrates routine, visible commitment to a continuous
improvement program and its implementation.
Develop a policy statement regarding the commitment to and use of continuous improvement
within your organization.
Tie continuous improvement and performance measurement to incentive programs, especially
at the executive and senior levels.
Identify current processes for gathering feedback and measuring performance.
Define all change initiatives and/or continuous improvement efforts currently underway.
Link, align, and integrate performance measures with the organization's strategic plan and
change initiatives.
Develop measures and targets for each performance improvement goal and objective. Determine
where information currently exists, how it will be collected, the frequency of measurement,
and who is responsible for collecting data.
Conduct frequent sessions among stakeholders and employees to identify improvement
opportunities.
Communicate the purpose of continuous improvement and performance measurement broadly.
Do
Define roles and responsibilities for continuous improvement.
Create an ongoing education and communication program to enable stakeholders and
employees to understand the measures and involvement in continuous improvement. Pro-
vide education and training about
· Continuous improvement and performance measurement generally
· Specifics of the organization's continuous improvement program
· Alignment of performance measurement with organizational strategies
· Relationship of a person's actions on performance measures
Communicate the purpose of continuous improvement and performance measurement
broadly
Check
Gather performance data, measure, analyze, and adjust.
Report and communicate the results of the continuous improvement program.
Develop routine management analysis and review of performance data.
Determine whether stakeholders and employees understand specifically how what they do
relates to continuous improvement and related performance measures
Engage stakeholders and employees in analyzing and using data provided by the continuous
improvement system.
Revise measures and targets to reflect changes in the strategic plan, vision, and/or mission and
continuous improvement through changes.
Do
Take action and make adjustments based on performance measures.
Initiate change initiatives, as warranted.
OCR for page 103
A Decision Maker's Guide to Planning and Change A-27
Stakeholder Engagement--Internal and
External Communication
Key Questions
· Who needs to be informed?
· On what topics do they need information?
· How can the team engage them in the process?
Description
Broadly defined, a stakeholder is anyone who can be affected, either positively or negatively,
by decision making and actions.
· Employees are the most critical group of stakeholders because they can adopt, adapt to,
ignore, or obstruct any change initiative. Several different groups of employees should be
treated as distinct stakeholders--executives, managers, white collar workers, support and cler-
ical staff, blue collar workers, and union leadership.
· Vendors, consultants, and contractors, though often overlooked, provide critical operational
support and may provide a source of valuable ideas and feedback.
· Governing boards and community leaders include those from which the organization
derives power and authority (e.g., the mayor, city council, county commissioners, city man-
ager, state legislature, state regulators, and federal regulators).
· The Public includes any other group or agency that might have an interest in the organization's
activities. For example, economic organizations (e.g., business groups, property owners,
and managers), consumers (e.g., ratepayers), and civic/community or media organizations
(e.g., print, radio, and television).
· Airlines are key stakeholders in an airport and will be most affected by any decisions to change
passenger processing, boarding, ramp areas, or operating areas of an airport.
Benefits to engaging stakeholders early and often in the spirit of participatory collaboration
include the following:
· Reduced suspicion and fear
· Increased awareness and commitment
· Allowance for differing perspectives
· Integration of the creativity, knowledge, and experiences of diverse stakeholders
· Increased likelihood of buy-in, ownership, and acceptance
· Acknowledgment of the unique needs, situations, and interests of diverse stakeholders.
Start Here
Checklist
Identify internal and external stakeholders who may influence or be influenced by the out-
comes of this change initiative.
Establish objectives for stakeholder outreach and involvement.
Review existing information from customer and public opinion surveys and other research,
if applicable.
Develop a focus group of key stakeholders from a cross section of the stakeholder types
identified.
Develop a questionnaire for in-depth interviews with the focus group. Schedule and conduct
interviews.
OCR for page 104
A-28 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports
Synthesize input from focus group interviews to inform the change initiative, particularly the
planning, design, and/or implementation processes.
Hold small group meetings with internal and external stakeholders to confirm the organiza-
tion's vision, mission, and goals, and to explain the strategic planning process.
Share the preliminary results of focus group sessions and to invite comment on preliminary
potential options.
Once implementation plans have been drafted, invite review and comment from the focus
groups.
Engage stakeholders in closing projects, identifying lessons learned, and in identifying con-
tinuous improvement areas.
Communicate, communicate, communicate explain the process, stakeholder involvement,
and how stakeholder concerns were addressed in the final product.
Bibliography
Abell, D. F. (1999). Competing today while preparing or tomorrow. Sloan Management Review, pp. 7381.
AECOM Consult Team, United States Department of Transportation, & Federal Highway Administration.
(2007). User guidebook on implementing public-private partnerships for transportation infrastructure proj-
ects in the United States, final report work order 05-002. Retrieved August 19, 2008, from www.fhwa.dot.gov/
ppp/ppp_user_guidebook_final_7-7-07.pdf
Agranoff, R. (2006). Inside collaborative networks: Ten lessons for public managers. Public Administration
Review, pp. 5665.
American Productivity & Quality Center. (1998a). Community relations: Unleashing the power of corporate cit-
izenship. Consortium benchmarking study: Best-practice report. Retrieved August 19, 2008, from http://www.
apqc.org/portal/apqc/ksn?paf_gear_id=contentgearhome&paf_dm=full&pageselect=detail&docid=100613
American Productivity & Quality Center. (1998b). Strategic collaboration for new product and service develop-
ment. consortium benchmarking study: Best-practice report Retrieved August 19, 2008, from http://www.
apqc.org/portal/apqc/ksn?paf_gear_id=contentgearhome&paf_dm=full&pageselect=detail&docid=102815
American Productivity & Quality Center. (2004). Secondary research: Technical services/global shared services.
Retrieved August 19, 2008, from http://www.apqc.org/portal/apqc/ksn?paf_gear_id=contentgearhome&
paf_dm=full&pageselect=detail&docid=142948
Ansoff, H.I. (1957). Strategies for Diversification. Harvard Business Review, pp. 113124.
Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, American Public Works Association, American Water Works Asso-
ciation, National Association of Clean Water Agencies, United States Environmental Protection Agency, &
Water Environment Federation. (2008). Effective utility management: A primer for water and wastewater
utilities. Retrieved August 19, 2008, from http://www.watereum.org/
Baschab, J., & Piot, J. (2003). The executive's guide to information technology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Beer, M., Eisenstat, R. A., & Spector, B. (1990). Why change programs don't produce change. Harvard Business
Review, pp. 158166.
Black & Veatch, Stanford Bishop Consulting, Charles E. Day and Associates, & AWWA Research Foundation.
(2001). Best practices for a continually improving customer responsive organization.
Bloomfield, P. (2006). The challenging business of long-term public-private partnerships: Reflections on local
experience. Public Administration Review, pp. 400411.
Brauer, G. (Summer 2000). Scenario planning: Springboard for strategic innovation. Journal of Innovative
Management, 5(4), 2330
Bridges, W. (1991). Managing transitions: Making the most of change. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Buchel, B. (2000). Framework of joint venture development: Theory-building through qualitative research.
Journal of Management Studies, 37(5), 637661.
Bunker, B. B., & Alban, B. T. (1997). Large group interventions: Engaging the whole system for rapid change. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Burke, W. W. (2008). Organization change: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Center for Digital Government. (2006). Service-oriented architecture: Making collaborative government work.
Retrieved August 19, 2008, from http://www.centerdigitalgov.com/story.php?id=98218
Center for Digital Government. (2007a). Next move for government networks: Convergence. Retrieved August
19, 2008, from http://www.centerdigitalgov.com/story.php?id=104169
Center for Digital Government. (2007b). Service-oriented architecture: Simple, open and affordable, SOA's
inherent flexibility helps government automate and collaborate. Retrieved August 19, 2008, from http://www.
centerdigitalgov.com/story.php?id=105830
OCR for page 105
A Decision Maker's Guide to Planning and Change A-29
Center for Digital Government. (2008). Staking its ground in the funding challenges ahead. Retrieved August
19, 2008, from http://www.centerdigitalgov.com/story.php?id=107407
CH2M Hill, & AWWA Research Foundation. (2003). Balanced evaluation of public/private partnerships, #455.
from http://www.awwarf.org/research/TopicsAndProjects/projectSnapshot.aspx?pn=455
CH2M Hill inc., AWWA Research Foundation., American Water Works Association., & Honolulu (Hawaii).
Board of Water Supply. (2003). Development of a strategic planning process. Denver, CO: AWWA Research
Foundation: American Water Works Association.
Cole, T. (2002). Herding cats: Coordinating stakeholders in 15 jurisdictions to reach one successful outcome,
WEFTEC 02. Chicago, IL: Water Environment Federation.
Cooperrider, D. L., Whitney, D., & Stavros, J. M. (2003). Appreciative Inquiry Handbook: The First in a Series of
AI Workbooks for Leaders of Change. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for
Advanced Engineering Study.
Edison Electric Institute. (2005). Electric utilities and energy efficiency: Coalitions expand the industry's effective-
ness. Retrieved August 19, 2008, from http://www.eei.org/search/index.htm?search=Electric+utilities+and+
energy+efficiency%3A++coalitions+expand+the+industry%27s+effectiveness
Eger, J. M., & Becker, A. M. (2000). Telecommunications and municipal utilities: Cooperation and competition
in the new economy. Retrieved August 19, 2008, from http://www.appanet.org/utility/index.cfm?ItemNumber=
9999&navItemNumber=21089
EMA, Incorporated. (2005). Developing and implementing a performance measurement system (Project 99-wwf-7)
volume II. Washington, DC: Water Environment Research Foundation.
EMA Incorporated, & AWWA Research Foundation. (2004). Strategic planning and organizational development
for water utilities, #2849. from http://www.awwarf.org/research/TopicsAndProjects/execSum/2849.aspx
Ernst & Young LLP, & American Productivity & Quality Center. (1997). Reshaping the corporation: Emerging
best practices in shared services. Consortium Benchmarking Study: Best-Practice Report Retrieved August 19,
2008, from http://www.apqc.org/portal/apqc/ksn?paf_gear_id=contentgearhome&paf_dm=full&pageselect=
detail&docid=102827
Fontaine, M. A., Parise, S., & Miller, D. (2004). Collaborative environments: An effective tool for transforming
business processes. Ivey Business Journal, pp. 110.
Foster, R. N., & Kaplan, S. (2001). Creative destruction: Why companies that are built to last underperform the
market, and how to successfully transform them. New York: Doubleday.
Goodstein, L. D., Nolan, T. M., & Pfeiffer, J. W. (1993). Applied strategic planning: A comprehensive guide - how
to develop a plan that really works. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hagler Baily, Inc., EMA Services Inc., Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies, & Association of Metro-
politan Water Agencies. (1998). Thinking, getting, staying competitive: A public sector handbook. Washington, DC.
Hagler Baily Inc., EMA Services Inc., Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies, & Association of Metro-
politan Water Agencies. (1999). Creating high performance business services: A public sector handbook. Wash-
ington, DC.
Halvey, J. K., & Melby, B. M. (2000). Business process outsourcing: Process, strategies, and contracts. New York:
John Wiley.
Isabella, L. A. (1990). Evolving interpretations as a change unfolds: How managers construe key organizational
events. Academy of Management Journal, 33(1), 741.
Jacobi, J., Nishtala, S., Pearman, S., & Sequeira, J. (2006). Merging two generation organizations. Retrieved August
19, 2008, from http://www.eei.org/search/index.htm?search=Merging+two+generation+organizations
Jacobs, R. W. (1994). Real time strategic change: How to involve an entire organization in fast and far-reaching
change. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Kadvany, J., & Clinton, T. (2002). A decision analysis toolkit for engineering and science based stakeholder processes,
WEFTEC 02. Chicago, IL: Water Environment Federation.
Kanter, R. M. (1994). Collaborative advantage: The art of alliances. Harvard Business Review, pp. 96108.
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Kotter, J. P., & Schlesinger, L. A. (2008). Choosing strategies for change. Harvard Business Review, pp. 130139.
Kramer, R. J., & Beeson, J. (2007). Designing organizations that execute new strategies and create capabilities for
change. Executive action series, no. 240 Retrieved August 19, 2008, from http://www.conference-board.org/
publications/describe_ea.cfm?id=1334
Mattessich, P. W., Murray-Close, M., Monsey, B. R., & Amherst H. Wilder Foundation. (2001). Collaboration:
What makes it work (2nd ed.). Saint Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation.
National Association of State Chief Information Officers. (2006). Keys to collaboration: Building effective public-
private partnerships. Retrieved August 19, 2008, from www.nascio.org/publications/documents/NASCIO-
Keys%20to%20Collaboration.pdf
National Council for Public-Private Partnerships. (2008). How partnerships work. Retrieved August 19, 2008,
from http://www.ncppp.org/howpart/index.shtml
OCR for page 106
A-30 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports
Nicola, R. M. (2005). Turning point's national excellence collaboratives: Assessing a new model for policy and
system capacity development. Journal of Public Health Management & Practice, 11(2), 101108.
Padgett, S. M., Bekemeier, B., & Berkowitz, B. (2004). Collaborative partnerships at the state level: Promoting sys-
tems changes in public health infrastructure. Journal of Public Health Management & Practice, 10(3), 251257.
Prosci. (2000). Best practices in change management.
Prosci. (2002). Best practices in business process reengineering and process design.
Robinett, C., Gamble-Risley, M., & Center for Digital Government. (2006). Essential partnerships: A guide to
the successful creation of public-private partnerships. Retrieved August 19, 2008, from www.nicusa.com/pdf/
CDG_Essential_Partnerships.pdf
Scearce, D., Fulton, K., & Community, G. B. N. (2004). What if?: the art of scenario thinking for nonprofits:
Global Business Network.
Schein, L., & The Conference Board. (2001). Managing culture in mergers and acquisitions. Retrieved August 19,
2008, from http://www.conferenceboard.ca/documents.asp?rnext=857
Schwartz, P. (1996). The art of the long view: planning for the future in an uncertain world. New York: Currency
Doubleday.
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. (2008). Guidebook on promoting good governance in public-
private partnerships: United Nations.
United States Government Accounting Office. (1997). Privatization: Lessons learned by state and local govern-
ments. (pp. 48).
United States Government Accounting Office. (1998). Privatization: Questions state and local decision makers used
when considering privatization options, GAO/GGD-98-87 (pp. 20).
United States Government Accounting Office. (1999). Public-private partnerships: Key elements of federal build-
ing and facility partnerships, GAO/GGD-99-23 (pp. 60).
United States Government Accounting Office. (2002). Highlights of a GAO forum: Mergers and transformation:
Lessons learned for a department of homeland security and other federal agencies, GAO03-293sp (pp. 14).
United States Government Accounting Office. (2003). Results oriented cultures: Implementation steps to assist
mergers and organizational transformations, GAO03-669 (pp. 37).
Ward, J., & Peppard, J. (2002). Strategic planning for information systems (3rd ed.). New York: J. Wiley.
Water Environment Federation, & Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies. (2004). Continual improvement
in utility management: A framework for integration. Retrieved August 19, 2008, from www.p2pays.org/ref/
32/31304.pdf
Weeks, M. R., & Davis, K. J. Achieving innovation in an outsourcing environment: Creating a model for success, A
Global Look at Accelerating Positive Forms of Leadership Development. Washington, DC: Gallup Leadership
Institute.
Westerhoff, G. P., & Mannion, J. B. (1998). The changing water utility: Creative approaches to effectiveness and
efficiency. Denver, CO: American Water Works Association.
OCR for page 107
APPENDIX A6
Other Industries
Business Functions and/or Processes
Numerous industries have or are engaged in creative re-thinking and decision making relative
to service provision and delivery. At its core, these decisions involve a recognition and determi-
nation of the core business and/or services and trying to determine the best ways to continue and
move forward. Industries responsively considered alternative service delivery or provision options
and optimization in response to an ever-changing business environment.
Research indicates that the term "common use" is not readily used outside of the aviation
industry, however, there were many examples of industries implementing common-use type
arrangements and actively considering alternative service delivery options. These arrangements were
typically described in terms of contractual language and ranged on a continuum from outsourcing,
strategic partnerships, collaborative partnerships, strategic alliance, inter-organizational relations,
collaborative entrepreneurship, coalitions, joint ventures, inter-agency, inter-regional, and shared
services. These arrangements also include public private partnerships of which there are many
forms, including contract operations, concession, design-build, design-build-operate, build own
operate transfer, asset sale, etc.
Optimization efforts were often more internally focused on specific business functions and/or
processes. Formerly known as reengineering, optimization has arisen as the means to balance
process requirements, outcomes, and associated costs. Many variables were considered including
the following:
· Labor allocation and skill level
· Work force consolidation and cross training
· Operations and maintenance procedures and practices
· Energy and chemical consumption
· Equipment application and performance
· Process control and SCADA (supervisory control and data acquisition), automation and tech-
nology implementation
· Process improvements, asset management, and inventories
· Support systems and services
· Purchasing requirements
· Integration of SCADA and other applications
· Selective outsourcing
Business functions and/or processes often subject to optimization and/or opportunities for
enhancement:
· Outline and centralized work processes and monitoring procedures
· Optimized chemical consumption
A-31
OCR for page 108
A-32 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports
· Optimized energy consumption
· Effective maintenance management
· Staff training and development
· Integrations of operations and maintenance functions
· Adding operational and maintenance capabilities
Attention was paid to organizational considerations such as organizational structure, staffing
and staff allocation, incentive programs, budget structure and policies, political drivers, union
and civil service issues, capital improvement programs, administrative policies, and procedures.
Maintenance and rehabilitation was key and considered factors such as condition assessment
of infrastructure; bases for repair versus replacement decisions; evaluate maintenance practices;
planning systems for maintenance; develop information systems and applications; measure and
improve performance; implement employee involvement and development activities; establish
financing plans and strategies.
Technology Types and Role
Business Driven
Define and refine processes including interfaces, analysis and reporting needs, and select/
leverage technology applications to support optimized business practices. This strategy
reinforces the critical need to identify overarching programs, philosophies, and supporting
business processes and then select technology and/or leverage existing technology that best sup-
ports business requirements. Benefits of a business driven strategy include the following:
· Ease of business solution integration in support of well defined business processes and
expectations.
· Reduces frustration of and delays with software adoption because a clear rationale exists for
how software will benefit and integrate with actual work and decision making.
Real Time
Enable real-time information access across organization. This strategy recognizes the
increasingly dynamic and uncertain business environment facing the organization and how
information is critical to being able to operate in an agile and customer focused manner. To
be of value, information must be accurate, timely, and highly available across all levels of the
organization. Benefits include the following:
· Increased agility in sensing and responding to changing business and market conditions.
· More informed decision making and at all levels within the organization.
· Engages each person in decision making.
· Drives continuous improvement by enabling measurement.
Mobile
Drive mobile application deployment. This strategy advocates greater reliance on mobile
solutions to achieve higher performance by enabling transparency between the operations and
the field, operations and the customer. It stresses a common mobile computing architecture to
support business and operational functions. Benefits include the following:
· High value on the timely capture of information at the source.
· Increased Information access.
OCR for page 109
Other Industries A-33
· Improved productivity and customer service.
· Eases application interoperability across all wireless devices.
Integrated
Anticipate and integrate access to data to facilitate management analysis and reporting.
This strategy recognizes increasing demands for access to data stored in multiple systems in real
time to support routine analysis, decision making, and reporting. Benefits include:
· More proactive and agile decision making.
· Quicker diagnosis, troubleshooting, and response to service disruptions.
Secure
Design and consider technology and data security. This strategy acknowledges the urgency
of an information technology security to effectively protect information assets, intellectual prop-
erty and customer privacy. This strategy also recognizes that other strategies suggest a broader
and comprehensive approach to cyber security. Benefits include the following:
· Prevention of business and operational disruption due to cyber security incidents.
· Protection of information assets and customer privacy.
To address these strategies, organizations begin to question the following:
· Application Coverage What software applications are currently in place to support the busi-
ness needs? How well are those applications supporting business functions and/or providing
critical information on demand?
· Application Sophistication How well do existing software applications position us for mov-
ing forward? How well do software applications support data sharing, historical trending, data
analysis, and reporting?
· Staff Capabilities What types of skill sets do we currently have? What types of training is rou-
tinely provided? What types of skills do we or will we need in the future?
· Data Ownership Are the roles and responsibilities for data ownership clearly defined and in
practice? Typically, data ownership, report content, and how software is used to support busi-
ness processes resides with those responsible for the data, report, or business process.
· Process and Data Integration Do we understand the inter-relatedness of business functions
and/or process and technology use or do we operate in a siloed way?
· Data Sharing, Analysis and Reporting There often is much data that is shared or that is
desired to be more accessible that resides in multiple systems. Examples include:
Operational data
Asset and maintenance management data
Budget, cost, and other financial data
Project management data
Employee data (in PeopleSoft or Kronos)
Customer data (enQuesta)
Documents and documentation
Organizations examine whether data sharing, analysis and reporting is largely a manual
process with data being dumped into spreadsheets, emailed to the requestor, and the requestor
performing additional aggregations and/or calculations to use the data.
· Architectural framework/infrastructure Does the infrastructure support the volume and
demands required? Does the infrastructure support data sharing so that data access and shar-
ing is controlled, consistent, and flexible.
OCR for page 110
A-34 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports
Decision Making Framework and Considerations
An Effective Improvement Process
· Demonstrate the imperative for change.
· Develop an effective process for involving the organization and other stakeholders in the
improvement process.
· Assess the gap between current and desired performance.
· Develop a process for more detailed functional assessments and a plan of action for the over-
all improvement process.
· Implement, monitor, and modify the plan.
Consider Change Management Principles
· Establish a sense of urgency. Examine the market and competitive realities. Identify and dis-
cuss crises or opportunities.
· Create a guiding coalition. Executive sponsorship is paramount. Participation of external
stakeholders is key.
· Develop a vision and strategy. Create a vision to help direct the change effort. Develop strate-
gies for achieving that vision.
· Communicate the change vision. Engage external stakeholders.
· Empower broad-based action. Get rid of obstacles. Change systems or structures. Encourage
risk taking and non-traditional ideas.
· Generate short-term wins. Plan for visible improvement in performance. Create wins. Visibly
recognize and reward people.
· Consolidate gains and produce more change. Use increased credibility to change all systems,
structures, and policies that don't fit new vision.
· Anchor new approaches in the culture. Create better performance through customer- and
productivity-oriented behavior, more and better leadership and more effective management.
Articulate connections between new behaviors and organizational success. Develop means to
ensure leadership development and succession.
Assessment
· Get the organization and key stakeholders involved with the gap analysis and its ramifications;
· Ask employees and stakeholders to identify the functions and activities where improvements
are possible and where performance gaps are greatest;
· Survey customers to determine what is important to them, how they view your performance,
and what they believe are the performance gaps relative to expectations;
· Compare your organization with competitors and peers;
· adopt a common functionally based framework and accounting system;
· Choose the relevant set of performance measures;
· Make comparisons to others in comparable circumstances;
· Choose appropriate referents.
Strategic Planning
Through assessment, industries determine where they are relative to where they want to be.
Strategic planning defines their vision, mission, values, goals, strategic plan, strategic objectives,
action plan, and evaluation process. Implementation tools then become the strategic plan, a
communication plan, accountability and mechanisms, and ongoing mechanisms for employee
involvement and training, and systems integration and management.
OCR for page 111
Other Industries A-35
Tools for Improvement
· Strategic planning
· Customer service surveys
· Internal capabilities and performance including evaluation of core competencies and con-
tracting opportunities
· Uncovering span of control issues
· Performance measurement framework, metrics comparison.
Factor in implementation issues discusses political concerns, legal and financial issues, conflict
of interest, and regulatory agency considerations.
