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.