National Academies Press: OpenBook

Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports (2010)

Chapter: Appendix A - Case Studies and Other Supplemental Information for Chapter 2

« Previous: References
Page 77
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - Case Studies and Other Supplemental Information for Chapter 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 77
Page 78
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - Case Studies and Other Supplemental Information for Chapter 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 78
Page 79
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - Case Studies and Other Supplemental Information for Chapter 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 79
Page 80
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - Case Studies and Other Supplemental Information for Chapter 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 80
Page 81
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - Case Studies and Other Supplemental Information for Chapter 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 81
Page 82
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - Case Studies and Other Supplemental Information for Chapter 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 82
Page 83
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - Case Studies and Other Supplemental Information for Chapter 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 83
Page 84
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - Case Studies and Other Supplemental Information for Chapter 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 84
Page 85
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - Case Studies and Other Supplemental Information for Chapter 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 85
Page 86
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - Case Studies and Other Supplemental Information for Chapter 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 86
Page 87
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - Case Studies and Other Supplemental Information for Chapter 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 87
Page 88
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - Case Studies and Other Supplemental Information for Chapter 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 88
Page 89
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - Case Studies and Other Supplemental Information for Chapter 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 89
Page 90
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - Case Studies and Other Supplemental Information for Chapter 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 90
Page 91
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - Case Studies and Other Supplemental Information for Chapter 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 91
Page 92
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - Case Studies and Other Supplemental Information for Chapter 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 92
Page 93
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - Case Studies and Other Supplemental Information for Chapter 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 93
Page 94
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - Case Studies and Other Supplemental Information for Chapter 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 94
Page 95
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - Case Studies and Other Supplemental Information for Chapter 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 95
Page 96
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - Case Studies and Other Supplemental Information for Chapter 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 96
Page 97
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - Case Studies and Other Supplemental Information for Chapter 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 97
Page 98
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - Case Studies and Other Supplemental Information for Chapter 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 98
Page 99
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - Case Studies and Other Supplemental Information for Chapter 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 99
Page 100
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - Case Studies and Other Supplemental Information for Chapter 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 100
Page 101
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - Case Studies and Other Supplemental Information for Chapter 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 101
Page 102
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - Case Studies and Other Supplemental Information for Chapter 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 102
Page 103
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - Case Studies and Other Supplemental Information for Chapter 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 103
Page 104
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - Case Studies and Other Supplemental Information for Chapter 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 104
Page 105
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - Case Studies and Other Supplemental Information for Chapter 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 105
Page 106
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - Case Studies and Other Supplemental Information for Chapter 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 106
Page 107
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - Case Studies and Other Supplemental Information for Chapter 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 107
Page 108
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - Case Studies and Other Supplemental Information for Chapter 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 108
Page 109
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - Case Studies and Other Supplemental Information for Chapter 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 109
Page 110
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - Case Studies and Other Supplemental Information for Chapter 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 110
Page 111
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - Case Studies and Other Supplemental Information for Chapter 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 111

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

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 P P E N D I X A Case Studies and Other Supplemental Information for Chapter 2 A-1

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 A P P E N D I X A 1 Case Study: Des Moines International Airport Small Airport on Approach to Common Use Des Moines International Airport

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.

A-4 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 P P E N D I X A 2 Case Study: Las Vegas McCarran International Airport Common-Use Leadership Las Vegas McCarran International Airport

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-

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. A-6 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports

A-7 A P P E N D I X A 3 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 Case Study: Orlando International Airport Common Use—International to Domestic Orlando International Airport

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.

A-9 A P P E N D I X A 4 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. Case Study: Seattle-Tacoma International Airport Approaches to Common Use Leasing Seattle Tacoma International Airport

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

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.

A-12 Contents Introduction......................................................................................................................... A-13 Planning and Managing Change Framework..................................................................... A-13 Change Readiness Assessment ............................................................................................ A-14 Strategic Planning ................................................................................................................ A-17 Change Initiative Design and Implementation.................................................................. A-22 Continuous Improvement/Monitor Progress.................................................................... A-24 Stakeholder Engagement - Internal and External Communication ................................. A-27 Bibliography......................................................................................................................... A-28 A P P E N D I X A 5 A Decision Maker’s Guide to Planning and Change

A Decision Maker’s Guide to Planning and Change A-13 Introduction The air transportation industry is in a time of turbulent, pronounced change and needs to con- sider how best to position the organizations that work in this industry to excel. This is not unique to the air transportation industry—every critical infrastructure is affected: food and agriculture, energy, water, chemical, public health, emergency services, government, defense, telecommuni- cations, banking, manufacturing, and transportation. The following create a need for a fresh look at costs, resources, and activities: • Globalization of business creates increased financial, technical, and operational opportunities for growth, collaboration, and development. • Technological changes create opportunities for service delivery, including service optimization, communication, and customer service. • Competitive challenges, such as increased fuel costs, motivate the air transportation industry to seek greater efficiencies and cost-effectiveness. • Customers increasingly demand service that is responsive, customer-friendly, and available 24/7 with a certain degree of self-service capability. • Decreased funding, increased costs, and limited public resources drive the air transportation industry to optimize existing processes and alternative service delivery options. • Communications impacts (including the type, amount and availability of news coverage) matter because they influence customer perceptions and later the public’s expectations. Planning and Managing Change Framework “Creative destruction,” in contrast with management philosophies based on the assumption of continuity, is required of organizations seeking to sustain long-term performance.1 Foster and Kaplan’s research indicated that emphasizing continuity does not create value at a pace sustain- able with that of market changes. Similarly, maintaining the status quo often precedes a decline in performance. Organizations face dynamic conditions with accompanying opportunities and challenges. Characteristics of successful organizational change include the following2: 1. Change has top management support. 2. Change builds on the unique strengths of the organization. 3. Change specifics are not imposed from the top; all levels of the organization are involved in all stages of the effort. 4. Change is holistic and considers a broad range of factors. 5. Change is planned. 6. Change includes a re-evaluation of all aspects of an organization potentially affected, includ- ing authority, power, information access, and performance appraisal/reward systems. 7. Change is approached from a stakeholder’s perspective. 8. Change becomes ongoing and part of continuous improvement. The Planning and Managing Change Framework (see Figure A5-1) and guidance contained herein describes these eight criteria. In Task 1, Assess Change Readiness, the researchers consider whether an organization is ready to embark on or engage in a change initiative, including the criteria for determining readiness. In Task 2, Plan Strategy, the researchers develop a shared understanding of external and internal 1R.N. Foster & S. Kaplan (2001). Creative Destruction: Why Companies That Are Built To Last Underperform The Market, And How To Successfully Transform Them. New York: Doubleday, pp. 9, 10. 2Adapted from James O’Toole 1995 study as included in W.W. Burke (2008). Organization Change: Theory and Practice (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications, p. 279.

variables affecting the organization, envision a new future, and assess the gap between the current state and desired future. Within this gap are elements of a strategic plan. In Task 3, Design and Imple- ment Change Initiative, the vision and goals defined in Task 2 are translated into actionable, tac- tical plans for implementation. Task 4, Continually Monitor Progress and Improve, incorporates monitoring and measurement, data collection, analysis, and adjustments based on actual per- formance. The arrow from Task 4 to Task 1 signifies that, based on feedback, an organization may embark again on a change initiative. From start to finish, communication and engagement of internal and external stakeholders is key to a change initiative’s success. Change Readiness Assessment Key Questions • Is change needed? • Is the organization ready to change? Description Planned or unplanned, change constantly occurs internally and externally with varying effects on organizations. No one person single-handedly creates change because change takes the input, buy- in, and committed action of many. The role of the leadership team is to provide the direction needed to focus energies appropriately at the right time and in the right ways. Organizations often begin a change process with planning, skipping the important step of assessing change readiness. An often- used equation in organizational change literature3 is C ABD X= ( ) > A-14 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports 3See W.W. Burke (2008). Organization change: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications, p. 141. Figure A5-1. Planning and managing change framework.

A Decision Maker’s Guide to Planning and Change A-15 where C = Change A = Level of dissatisfaction with the status quo B = Clear future state D = Practical first steps toward desired future state X = Cost There has to be some level of dissatisfaction (A) for a change initiative to make sense. Goals (B) and some indication of practical first steps need to exist; otherwise, the cost may be viewed as too high. There must be a sense of need and direction combined with motivation to indicate change readiness. A change initiative is NOT right for an organization when • Only minor changes are warranted or desired, so there is no sense of urgency. • There is no champion or executive sponsor. • The leadership or management team is not fully committed. • Commitment cannot be secured from other key stakeholders. • Resources are not or cannot be committed up front. Assessing change readiness includes the following: • A sense of urgency and impetus for change. There needs to be a balanced understanding of (1) the necessity for change based on the current external realities facing an organization (e.g., customer and supplier needs, competitors’ strategies, industry trends, market challenges and opportunities, societal values, legislation and any other relevant consideration) and (2) current practices, technology, and organizational factors and their implication for changes being explored. When considering a change initiative, an organization needs to identify and understand forces driving the need for change and then link those drivers to potential effects on service provision, customers, and the organization. Critically consider and overtly identify the price of making no change versus the price of moving forward with a change. Develop a set of messages that describes this sense of urgency and compels others to action. • Executive champion and sponsorship. Without executive sponsorship, many good ideas die on the vine. Someone with power, authority, and influence must champion, commit to, and participate in a change initiative. Their willingness to back and support a change initia- tive communicates the importance of action. This person must “have the courage to initiate change and start moving obstacles and. . . the political skill to live and succeed in the real world where there are differing objectives and conflicting demands.”4 If a member of the organization has an idea and is not the executive champion, then the organization needs to consider who should be and what steps need to be taken to gain their sponsorship. • Clarify the change vision. Translate the sense of urgency or business case into a compelling picture that draws others toward the need for change. Define new people, process, and tech- nology requirements aligned with the strategy. Specify new behaviors for the future in a way that others can see themselves within that future. The vision needs to communicate the pro- posed change, why it is being proposed, the sense of urgency or why now, and the effects of not changing. • Buy-in by key stakeholders. This includes other leaders within the organization, the employees, and external stakeholders (e.g., customers, key business partners, vendors, and regulators). The time to engage stakeholders in conversation about factors affecting an organization is 4L.D. Goodstein, T.M. Nolan, J.W. Pfeiffer, J. W. (1993). Applied strategic planning: A comprehensive guide— how to develop a plan that really works. New York: McGraw-Hill, p 98.

early and often. This element often is met with resistance for various reasons. For example, the organization lacks information, or is afraid of revealing information about the business. Although these concerns are real and valid, they hamper change initiatives from moving for- ward. Stakeholders need to understand what is being suggested, why it needs to be done, and why now. Their input can provide important feedback and validate the necessity of change. Two-way engagement and buy-in align others with a shared understanding and ownership of the need for change. • Engage leadership at all levels. Identify leadership roles and behaviors required for success. Establish clear accountability for fulfilling responsibilities. Set strategies for existing support and leadership of key people and initiatives. Cascade responsibility for leading change throughout the organization. • Plan the change initiative. Develop a guiding team for the change initiative with deliberate selection of who should be involved. Determine what level of involvement stakeholders should have in planning and what their roles and responsibilities might be. Clarify the information people will need to make decisions. Define a preliminary schedule and timeline for completion. Obtain funding and resource labor commitments. Commitments to funding, time, and resource availability must be obtained before proceeding. • Communicate the change vision and purpose broadly. Use varied means to communicate throughout the entire organization. Hold leaders accountable for communication. Encourage two-way communication. Checklist ❒ Create a sense of urgency by identifying and clarifying basic, important issues facing the organization as a whole. Ask • What are areas of dissatisfaction for people in the organization? • How does the organization stack up competitively in the marketplace and why, including both customers and competitor factors? • Will this change initiative result in increased efficiency, improved quality, some sort of benefits, or cost avoidance or reductions? • How compelling is the cost of doing nothing? • Taken together, do the factors above outweigh the benefits of maintaining the status quo? ❒ Ensure an executive sponsor or champion exists with the power, authority, and influence to support change initiative in moving forward. If not, who should be engaged and what is the best way to gain sponsorship? ❒ Clarify the vision and purpose for the change initiative by asking • What do you hope to achieve with this change effort? • What needs to change in the organization for it to be successful in the future? • Why do these changes need to be made? What’s at stake? • What is the likely effect of doing nothing? • What is a preferred future for the organization? • How will the organization measure the success of the change effort? • Is there a clear and compelling reason for adopting this change program? • Is objective data available to convince skeptics? • Do people feel the urgency to change? ❒ Engage and obtain buy-in from key stakeholders (see Section 7). Ask • Are all stakeholders engaged in the change process? • Do stakeholders take ownership of the vision and goals? • Do the key individuals understand that a change needs to happen, agree that a change will be effective, and see its potential for success? • Is the organization defining the issues to address broadly enough to engage people across the entire organization and clearly enough to be able to act on them? A-16 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports

A Decision Maker’s Guide to Planning and Change A-17 Preliminary Considerations for Change Initiative ❒ Engage leadership at all levels. Ask • Who would need to be involved initially? • Who has the authority and influence to ensure a successful change initiative? • Who would need to be involved over time? • What specific mix of people would provide the most synergy for making positive changes? ❒ Determine the level of involvement and how much influence people need to have over development of new strategies. Ask • Who has the information and experience required to develop a sound strategy? • What level of involvement will people want and need in order to gain their support of and commitment to the proposed change efforts? • How much of the strategy is best developed by the top leadership and how much should be co-created by a broader involvement? ❒ Clarify information people will need to make wise decisions. Ask • What do people at different levels and functions in the organization currently know about (1) the organization’s position in the marketplace; (2) how their work affects the work of others and/or the services and products the customers receive; and (3) the organization’s overall strategic direction for the future. • What do people at different levels and functions need and want to know more about? • What will people need to know to make informed decisions? ❒ Plan the change initiative by asking: • Have any issues associated with organizational readiness been clearly identified (e.g., history of unsuccessful projects or significant organizational changes already underway)? • If significant issues exist, has a risk reduction plan been developed? • Is there sufficient time available to implement the change? • Are there sufficient financial resources available to implement the change? • Are there sufficient human resources available to advocate and support the change? • Are leaders and/or key stakeholders committed to the time, financial, and resource requirements? ❒ Communicate the change vision and purpose broadly to internal and external stakeholders. Solicit their feedback and concerns. Strategic Planning Key Questions • Where is the organization? • Where does the organization want to go? • What should the organization do next and why? Description Strategic planning is distinct from tactical planning in that strategic planning is directly aligned with an organization’s vision, mission, and objectives; whereas, tactical planning is oriented toward action and implementation. Strategic planning asks where an organization wants to go or where it needs to go and what it needs to do to get there; tactical planning, dis- cussed in Section 5, defines how an organization is going to get there. Both types of planning are required. Guidance provided herein is not representative of a linear progression. The reader might be wondering which comes first: assessing change readiness or strategic planning. This question

really has no definitive answer. An organization’s strategic planning efforts may reveal areas in which a sense of urgency is created, in which case that organization will want to assess change readiness. On the other hand, the organization may be evaluating a proposed change and real- ize it does not have the sense of urgency necessary which leads to strategic planning. In simple terms, strategic planning involves (1) planning to plan, (2) planning, (3) imple- mentation, and (4) monitoring improvement. To begin a strategic planning effort, consider the following. Planning to Plan • Ensure an executive champion and sponsorship. As with assessing change readiness, some- one with power, authority, and influence must champion, commit to, and participate in a strategic planning effort. If an organization wishes to pursue strategic planning and there is no executive champion, the organization needs to consider who should serve in this role and what steps need to be taken to gain their sponsorship. • Define a team for the strategic planning effort and define their roles and responsibilities. Define who should be involved in the planning, their level of involvement, and what their roles and responsibilities should be. • Confirm the purpose of the strategic planning effort. The purpose of the strategic planning effort drives the selection of methods, the level of participation and involvement, the dura- tion, and the cost. • Identify stakeholder groups and define their role in strategic planning. Determine what level of involvement stakeholders should have in planning and what their roles and responsi- bilities might be. • Select a strategic planning method. Strategic planning has a future focus that includes analy- sis and formulation of strategies to reach a desired objective. To that end, it is challenging to identify a specific strategic planning approach because there are many different models. An overview of 17 different strategic planning models is presented in Table A5-1. • Communicate the strategic planning purpose broadly. Use varied means to communicate throughout the entire organization. Hold leaders accountable for communication. Encourage two-way communication. Primary criteria for selecting a strategic planning method include the organization’s purpose, the desired level of internal and external stakeholder involvement and participation, the com- fort level with ambiguity and facilitation, assumptions about participation, experience with strategic planning, expected duration, and budget. Questions to Consider • What is the organization trying to accomplish? Ask this question first and then review the methods to determine which method might be most appropriate. • What level of involvement is warranted based on the organization’s purpose? Determine the level of stakeholder involvement. Methods have differing underlying assumptions about levels of participation. For example, the applied strategic planning method recommends a smaller team of higher level managers, whereas, the large group intervention recommends the inclu- sion of many stakeholders. • What is the organization’s comfort level with ambiguity and/or its skills as a facilitator? Low- ambiguity readiness and fear of managing large numbers of people may sway an organization and/or a facilitator to a more linear method such as applied strategic planning. • What are the organization’s assumptions about participation? The methods presented represent a continuum of thinking from small, leadership-only to large-scale participative. Traditional A-18 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports

Model Select if, an organization’s purpose is to Applied Strategic Planning5 Envision the future and develop the procedures and operations to achieve that future Scenario Planning6 Systematically raise people's understandings of their environment and of each other and foster people’s questioning of assumptions and perceptions Scenario Planning7 Create a set of stories about environmental elements that are critical to business success to generate insight into strategic possibilities Scenario Planning8 Set strategic direction, catalyze bold action, and accelerate collaborative learning, and alignment and visioning Large Group Intervention9 – Search Conference Identify, plan, and implement a shared future vision through people working to make the desired future happen, emphasizing a strong oral culture Large Group Intervention – Future Search Explore possible agreements between people with divergent views and interests and do consensus planning Large Group Intervention – Real Time Strategic Change Engage the whole system in planning for change Large Group Intervention – ICA Strategic Planning Process Maximize the participation of people in taking responsibility for the societies, communities, and organizations in which they live and function Large Group Intervention – Conference Model Redesign how work gets accomplished with consideration for people, processes, and technology Large Group Intervention – Fast Cycle Full Participation Redesign how work gets accomplished with consideration for people, processes, and technology Large Group Intervention – Real Time Work Design Redesign how work gets accomplished with consideration for people, processes, and technology Large Group Intervention – Participative Work Design Create a bottom-up approach to redesign how work gets accomplished with consideration for people, processes, and technology Large Group Intervention – Simu-Real Perform real-time work on current issues, test future designs, and learn about the system Large Group Intervention – Solve problems Large Scale Interactive Events Identify problems and improve processes Large Group Intervention – Work Out Discuss and explore system issues Large Group Intervention – Open Space Technology Appreciative Inquiry10 Describe the purpose of an organization to identify a collectively desired future Table A5-1. Overview of strategic planning models. 5Goodstein, op cit., 6P. Schwartz. (1996). The art of the long view: planning for the future in an uncertain world. New York: Currency Doubleday. 7G. Brauer (Summer 2000). Scenario planning: Springboard for strategic innovation. Journal of Innovative Management, 5(4), 23–30 8D. Scearce,K. Fulton, K., & G.B.N. Community. (2004). What if?: the art of scenario thinking for nonprofits: Global Business Network. 9For large group interventions see B.B. Bunker & B.T. Alban. (1997). Large group interventions: Engaging the whole system for rapid change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 10D.L. Cooperrider, D. Whitney, & J.M. Stavros. (2003). Appreciative Inquiry Handbook: The First in a Series of AI Workbooks for Leaders of Change. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

planning methods such as applied strategic planning view the source of information as largely internal, limited to specific units or divisions, and driven by senior management. With these methods, the leader is elevated and responsible for envisioning and defining strategy. In con- trast, large-group interaction events are driven by open systems theory, where the source of knowledge is within the whole organization, external stakeholders, and senior management. In this case, the whole system is responsible for creating and analyzing data. Appreciative Inquiry is based on the assumption that every organization has something that works well and that these strengths are the starting point for creating positive change. When using appreciative inquiry, all employees envision and co-create an organization’s future. • What is the expected time frame or duration? The planning process may take from 1 day for some of the problem-solving methods to 1 year for scenario planning. • What is an organization’s experience with the process or approach? The processes vary for each method. At a high level, each includes some level of assessment and analysis of the organization’s situation. This includes internal and external factors, the organization’s sense of future direction, or simply envisioning what is possible. Alternatives are considered and then action or imple- mentation occurs. • What is the budget? Extended duration and/or high levels of involvement have a greater cost associated with them. • Does the organization need outside assistance? Consultants can be a valuable planning resource by providing expertise, facilitation, and a sounding board for ideas. The Planning Effort Specific processes to be followed vary depending on the strategic planning method selected. A high-level overview of each strategic planning method is provided. For additional guidance on a specific method, consult the associated reference for that method. Strategic planning typically includes the following activities: • Developing a vision. Developing a vision includes asking what one should be doing that one is not with an eye toward the future. A vision builds on dreams for the organization. To develop a vision, ask others to describe their dreams for the organization. The way one asks such questions is very important. When people dream, they describe and engage their passion toward the organization. • Formulating a mission statement. The mission dictates the organization’s direction and its functions, provides focus for the future and a guideline for decision making, and shapes the strategy. Questions to ask include: What function(s) does the organization perform? For whom does the organization perform this function? How does the organization fill this function? Why does this organization exist? • Defining goals and objectives. Goals and objectives describe what the organization is striving to accomplish. Goals describe the general programmatic outcomes, while objectives specify more specific outcomes. Defining goals and objectives provides the criteria for evaluating the gap between the current situation and the desired future and in assessing and prioritizing options. • Gathering data and identifying the current situation. Perform an external review of variables to determine potential effects and influences on the organization. Collect data on factors that influence the organization such as – External factors (e.g., social and societal factors, economics, politics, technology, and reg- ulatory and environmental factors). – Industry characterization (e.g., structure, financing, degree of governmental presence, typical marketing, and service delivery strategies). – Competitive trends (e.g., changes in competitor profiles, market segmentation profiles, and demographics). A-20 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports

A Decision Maker’s Guide to Planning and Change A-21 – Internal lines of business and associated business processes, organization structure, leader- ship style, communication decision making, and underlying values (e.g., personal values, organizational values, culture, and operating philosophy). – Stakeholders (e.g., demographics, trends among, their perceptions and satisfaction). • Analyzing gaps. Ask what the difference is between where the organization is and the vision? Can the gap be closed? If so, how? One method commonly used in gap analysis is the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis where strengths are attributes that are helpful to achieving the objective; weaknesses are attributes that are harmful to achiev- ing the objective; opportunities are external conditions that are helpful to achieving the objective; and threats are external conditions that could do damage to the organization’s performance. The questions then become how strengths can be capitalized upon, how weak- nesses can be improved, how opportunities can be leveraged for benefit, and how threats can be mitigated. • Developing high-level strategies for accomplishing the vision, mission, goals, and objectives. Historically, strategic planning focused largely on strategic diversification11 or the movement of current or new products and processes to new customers, clients, and relationships. Current thinking and analysis considers a much broader focus encompassing products, services, processes, technology, and organization (see Figure A5-2). Strategy development systematically identifies those strategies necessary to achieve the mission and reach the vision, taking into account the current situation and/or SWOTs that either promote or impede reaching the goals and objectives. • Developing a strategic plan. Identify the vision, mission, goals and objectives, and strategies. • Communicating the strategic planning results broadly. Use varied means to communicate throughout the entire organization. Hold leaders accountable for communication. Encourage two-way communication. Figure A5-2. Strategic diversification today. 11 H.I. Ansoff. (1957). Strategies for Diversification. Harvard Business Review, pp. 113–124.

Checklist Planning to Plan ❒ Ensure an executive sponsor or champion exists with the power, authority, and influence to support change initiative in moving forward. If not, who should be engaged and what is the best way to gain sponsorship? ❒ Define a team for the strategic planning effort and define roles and responsibilities. • Who has the information and experience required to develop a sound strategy? • What level of involvement is expected and warranted, given the preliminary purpose of the strategic planning effort? • How much of the strategy is best developed by the top leadership and how much should be co-created by a broader involvement? ❒ Confirm the purpose of strategic planning effort. ❒ Engage and obtain buy-in from key stakeholders. Ask • Who should be involved? • Who has an interest in the purpose and/or outcomes of this strategic planning effort? • What should their level of involvement be in this strategic planning effort? • What is the best way to engage stakeholders in the process? ❒ Select a strategic planning method by asking • What is the organization trying to accomplish? What is its purpose? • What level of involvement is warranted based on the organization’s purpose? • What is the team members’ comfort level with ambiguity and/or their skills with facilitation? • What are the organization’s assumptions about participation? • What is the expected time frame or duration? • What experience do the team members have with the process or approach? • What is the budget? • Does the organization need outside assistance? ❒ Communicate the strategic planning purpose broadly to internal and external stakeholders. Planning ❒ Develop a vision. ❒ Formulate a mission statement. ❒ Define goals and objectives. ❒ Gather data and identify the current situation. ❒ Develop high-level strategies for accomplishing the vision, mission, goals, and objectives considering the current situation and the SWOT analysis. ❒ Develop the strategic plan. ❒ Communicate the strategic plan broadly to internal and external stakeholders. Solicit their feedback and concerns. Change Initiative Design and Implementation Key Questions • What is the best approach? • How do we implement strategies? Description A goal of change initiative design and planning is to translate strategies identified during the strategic planning effort into actionable implementation plans. The goal is to move the organi- zation from its current situation to where it wants to be. A-22 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports

A Decision Maker’s Guide to Planning and Change A-23 Underlying many change initiatives is the notion of changing culture, a particularly challeng- ing endeavor. Culture provides shared meanings and norms for appropriate behavior. Often overlooked, cultural differences are the most ingrained and resistant to change. According to The Conference Board12, certain fundamental issues must be addressed: • The importance of individuals • The behaviors that are assessed to determine reward and promotion • How recognition for good work is distributed • Interpersonal relationships • The style of leadership and how power is managed • The commitment to training • The pathways of communication and the consistency of messages • Orientation to the customer • Boundaries of innovation and nonconformity • How to deal with crisis and change These considerations should be factored into any design and implementation planning efforts. The word “project” as used herein refers to a change initiative design and implementation effort, regardless of purpose or scope. A project plan translates an organization’s strategies into an actionable implementation plan. A project consists of action steps to be performed to accomplish a specific set of objectives. Each project should include the following information: • What actions or changes will occur • Who will carry out these changes • By when they will take place and for how long • What resources (e.g., money and staff) are needed to carry out these changes • Communication (who should know what?) Projects typically follow a sequence of initiation, planning, execution, monitoring and con- trolling, and closeout. Checklist Project Initiation ❒ Ensure there is an executive champion and sponsorship. Someone with power, authority, and influence must champion, commit to, and participate in the project. Their willingness to back and support a change initiative communicates the importance of action. If an individual has been tasked with designing and implementing a project and no clear champion exists, then consider who should be and what steps are needed to gain their sponsorship. ❒ Develop preliminary project purpose. The purpose of this project is to:_______________________. ❒ Ensure buy-in by key stakeholders. ❒ Communicate the project purpose broadly. Project Planning ❒ Develop a statement of work. Provide a description of the needs the project will satisfy, a description of the scope, and the relationship to the strategic plan. ❒ Develop a detailed project implementation plan, including the following: • Identify project goals and objectives. The project goal is a clear, concise statement of the project’s purpose and desired results. Project objectives are concise statements of what the project must achieve to realize the project goal. 12L. Schein & The Conference Board. (2001). Managing culture in mergers and acquisitions. Retrieved August 19, 2008, from http://www.conferenceboard.ca/documents.asp?rnext=857, p. 9.

• Identify project assumptions and constraints. An assumption is a circumstance or event outside the project that can affect its success. Constraints are restrictions or boundaries on the project that may limit or impede implementation. • Identify deliverables. Prepare a cross-referenced list of tasks, deliverable names, and brief descriptions. • Identify internal and external stakeholders or people with an interest in or influence over project work and results. Indicate how stakeholders might be affected and how they will be engaged during the project. • Identify desired project outcomes and how those outcomes will be measured. • Identify any risks associated with project implementation. • Develop a detailed schedule with completion milestones. • Develop a detailed cost estimate. ❒ Obtain any approvals for a detailed project implementation plan. Project Execution ❒ Develop the project team. Part of forming a team is considering ground rules for behavior and interaction. Provide necessary training to support project implementation. ❒ Hold a project kickoff to align the team with the project plan and its execution. Monitor and Control Project ❒ Develop and implement processes for change requests, evaluations, and dispositions with regard to project implementation. ❒ Develop and implement processes for performing quality assurance and other checks on implementation and quality. ❒ Develop and implement routine processes for using statistics and forecasting, analyzing, and reporting project progress, including task progress, cost expenditure, quality, and schedule. Close Project ❒ Develop and implement closure procedures that consider final approval of deliverables and changes and project completion or exit criteria. ❒ Analyze project success and failures. ❒ Measure stakeholder satisfaction with project implementation and results. Continuous Improvement/Monitor Progress Key Questions • Is the organization achieving the results it expected? • How can the organization be more effective and efficient with greater quality? Description Continuous improvement programs focus attention on key issues, clarify expectations, facil- itate decision making, and emphasize learning and improving. A successful continuous improvement framework is holistic, with appropriate consideration for improving business practices, organizational strategies, and operational decision making. Measuring performance provides the means for assessing change and growth in each of these areas. To improve, an organization has to know where it is today and where it wants to go, a target measure. Taking action, analyzing, and making adjustments facilitates movement toward goals and the future vision. The Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) framework (see Figure A5-3, put A-24 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports

A Decision Maker’s Guide to Planning and Change A-25 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 Figure A5-3. Plan, do, check, act continuous improvement. 13W.E. Deming. (1986). Out of the Crisis. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Advanced Engineering Study, p. 88. 14EMA, Incorporated. (2005). Developing and Implementing a Performance Measurement System (Project 99- wwf-7) Volume II. Washington, DC: Water Environment Research Foundation, p. 4–9.

• 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. A-26 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports

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.

❒ 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. 73–81. 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. 56–65. 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. 113–124. 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. 158–166. 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. 400–411. Brauer, G. (Summer 2000). Scenario planning: Springboard for strategic innovation. Journal of Innovative Management, 5(4), 23–30 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), 637–661. 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 A-28 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports

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. 1–10. 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), 7–41. 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. 96–108. 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. 130–139. 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

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), 101–108. 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), 251–257. 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. A-30 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports

A-31 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 P P E N D I X A 6 Other Industries

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.

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.

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. A-34 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports

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.

Next: Appendix B - Supplemental Information for Chapter 3 »
Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Report 30: Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports is designed to assist airports and airlines exploring the possibility of and evaluating the appropriateness of integrating “common use” in their operations. The report’s accompanying CD-ROM provides an alternative source of and approach to the information found in the reference guide and includes spreadsheet models that can be used in analyzing and evaluating how to integrate common use.

“Common use” most generally refers to a technological method that airlines use to process passengers: at the ticket counter, at self-service kiosks, or at the gates. In this report, however, “common use” is also discussed as an operating philosophy that an airport can use in managing and administering the airport--representing a paradigm shift in the traditional tenant-landlord relationship.

The CD-ROM is also available for download from TRB’s website as an ISO image. Links to the ISO image and instructions for burning a CD-ROM from an ISO image are provided below.

Help on Burning an .ISO CD-ROM Image

Download the .ISO CD-ROM Image

(Warning: This is a large file that may take some time to download using a high-speed connection.)

View information about the February 9, 2010 TRB Webinar, which featured this report.

The October 2013 ACRP Impacts on Practice explores how the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority applied ACRP Report 30 to develop new business models for common use systems at its airport.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!