Airport Incident Reporting Practices (2019)

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.

43 The literature search indicates that leading and lagging indicators need to be matched to each other when they are chosen. The Associated Builders and Contractors compiled a Safety Performance Report among its members and found that leading indicators had a positive impact on a company’s safety performance, as evidenced by fewer disrupted or lost lives and a safer, more productive jobsite regardless of the size of the company (Associated Builders and Contractors 2017). Their conclusion was that companies that engage in leading indicator use are, statistically, considerably safer than their peers. Theoretical models help describe or explain how things work or what has worked in practice. Indicators are usually a manifestation of those models, whether a safety model, enterprise risk model, or similar model type. For this reason, the selection of indicators requires a determination of the type and kind of incident data to be collected. Caution is noted in the literature research for ensuring an indicator is actually measuring and contributing to the improvement of safety or an organization in a sustainable way. Some indicators are best used for describing a safety or business process, while others are better at identifying threats or barrier penetration. The way that safety is understood within an organization strongly influences the selection and interpretation of safety indicators (Herrera 2012). ACRP Report 44: A Guidebook for the Preservation of Public-Use Airports (Thatcher 2011) found that over time a dwindling reduction of an airport’s available customer services was a clear and measurable precursor and indicator of increasing risk of airport closure. ACRP Report 44 also found reliable indicators that many airports do not have written airport business plans, and many others do not have effective business plans. The report concluded the absence of a realistic written airport business plan puts an airport business enterprise at risk. An internet search using the words “key performance indicator library” and “safety perfor- mance indicator library” will provide a number of different resource lists on KPIs and SPIs. Appendix D provides a list of metrics developed for the SMS at the Toledo Express Airport, Ohio, by SMQ Airport Services. A good resource for airport operators on ERM practices is ACRP Report 74 (Marsh Risk Consulting 2012). The report is a guidebook that summarizes the principles of ERM, its benefits, and how it applies to airports. A CD is provided with the report that can be used to support the ERM process, catalog identified risks in a risk register with expected likelihood of occurrence and expected severity of impact on the airport, and generate a risk score and a risk map. Resources The following are summaries of several reports and studies that provide in-depth information on various performance measures that can be used by airports. C H A P T E R 7 Research and Resources on Indicators and Metrics

44 Airport Incident Reporting Practices Key Performance Indicators 1. ACRP Report 19: Developing an Airport Performance-Measurement System (Infrastructure Management Group, Inc. 2010) provides guidance on how to develop and implement an effective performance-measurement system for airports. It identifies a useful set of airport KPIs, together with standard definitions and guidance on data collection and benchmarking issues. The guide addresses performance in nearly every functional area of an airport, including administration, human resources, properties, engineering, environment (noise/air/ water/sustainability), facility and infrastructure maintenance, finance, information technology, legal, marketing, public relations, operations (airside/landside), and public safety (police/ fire/security). An extensive list of KPIs is provided in both ACRP Report 19 and ACRP Report 19A: Resource Guide to Airport Performance Indicators (Hazel et al. 2011). ACRP Report 19 provides a compendium of key performance areas and indicators derived from workshops conducted by the authors. 2. ACRP Report 19A (Hazel et al. 2011) is a supplement to ACRP Report 19 and provides additional depth and detail on airport KPIs and SPIs that can be use in benchmarking and performance measurement. The performance indicators are categorized and sorted by functional type and their criticality to an airport strategic plan. More than 800 performance indicators are presented in the three main categories of (1) Core, (2) Key, and (3) Other (Figure 11). ACRP Report 19A adds to the compendium of indicators found in ACRP Report 19 by listing indicators and categorizing them by functional area and type. 3. ACRP Report 131: A Guidebook for Safety Risk Management for Airports (Neubauer et al. 2015) provides information on conducting safety assessments and tailors the information so that it can be scaled for smaller airports with fewer resources. SA tools and templates are provided in the appendices, to include typical accident and incident rates (Appendix C). ACRP Report 131 also contains an extensive preliminary hazard list. For those developing an incident report- ing system, the list includes all situations that could warrant an incident report, if properly discovered and found to be deficient. Lastly, ACRP Report 131 contains two lists (Part 139 and non–Part 139) of KPIs or potential KPIs airport organizations can consider for inclusion in an incident reporting system (Neubauer 2015, pp. 199–200). 4. Another resource containing a list of KPIs is the Airports Council International’s Guide to Airport Performance Measures (Oliver Wyman 2012). The ACI guide identifies measures for core activity, safety and security, service quality, productivity/cost-effectiveness, financial/ commercial, and environmental areas. Note: API = airport performance indicator. Figure 11. Main categories of airport performance indicators described in ACRP Report 19A. Source: Hazel et al. 2011. Used with permission.

Research and Resources on Indicators and Metrics 45 Safety Performance Indicators 5. The chemical industry has developed guidelines and best practices for safety performance indicators. The American Petroleum Institute has issued Recommended Practice (RP) 754 Process Safety Indicators for the Refining and Petrochemical Industries (American Petroleum Institute 2016). The recommendations contained in the standards are most applicable to fuel storage areas on an airport and to OSHA reporting requirements. 6. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development published a document on selecting metrics and SPIs for the chemical industry (OECD 2008). The document has application to other industries as well, including airports. The document assists organizations that wish to implement and/or review SPI programs. It is designed to measure the performance of the public authorities, including emergency response personnel, as well as organizations representing communities and/or the public. Leading/Lagging Indicators 7. Underwriters Laboratories (UL) developed a white paper that discusses the importance of leading and lagging indicators in effectively managing workplace health and safety issues, and provides a reporting framework for evaluating critical safety elements (UL White Paper 2013). The paper defines leading indicators and identifies the characteristics of good leading indicators. It then discusses the value of using leading and lagging indicators together to evaluate safety performance, and presents results from a UL survey of organizations that manage workplace safety using such indicators. The paper concludes with details about the UL Safety Scorecard, a template for tracking safety activities and performance results. A list of leading and lagging indicators for several common workplace safety elements can be found at https://library.ul.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/40/2015/02/UL_WP_Final_Using-Leading- and-Lagging-Safety-Indicators-to-Manage-Workplace-Health-and-Safety-Risk_V7-LR1.pdf. Culture 8. A good resource for helping establish a leading indicator program and for self-assessing an organization’s culture is the American Bureau of Shipping’s Guidance Notes on Safety Culture and Leading Indicators of Safety (American Bureau of Shipping 2014). While targeted for the commercial marine environment, it is a useful tool for adaptation to the airport environ- ment. It provides an outline and guidance on how to establish a safety system that includes surveys, self-assessment, leading indicators, and safety culture administration. The resource provides full details of methods, metrics tables, safety performance datasheets, normalization criteria, safety culture questionnaires, safety factors, tips on administering the survey, step-by-step guidance on statistical analysis, worked examples, and a list of desired activities, attitudes, and behaviors, together with a list of possible activities for improvement. Examples of leading indicators from the guidance document can be found at https://ww2.eagle.org/ en/innovation-and-technology/safety-human-factors-in-design/management-organization/ safety-culture-leading-indicators.html. Safety Management System and Safety Management Manual 9. The Safety Management International Collaboration Group (SMICG) is a joint cooperation between 18 global aviation regulatory authorities for the purpose of promoting a common understanding of safety management and SMS/SSP (state safety program required by ICAO) principles and requirements, facilitating their implementation across the international aviation community. SMICG has published guidelines to assist service providers in the

46 Airport Incident Reporting Practices definition and implementation of a set of SPIs (Safety Management International Collabo- ration Group 2013). Other beneficial publications exist under the categories of standards, promotion, guidance/tools, and resources. Environmental 10. Indicators used in the environmental management and reporting area can be found in a paper published by Hrebicek et al. (2011). It discusses the key performance indicators for environmental management systems certified by standard ISO 14001:2005. The areas covered include efficiency of material consumption, energetic efficiency, water management, waste management, biological diversity, emissions into the air, and other relevant indica- tors of the influence of the organization’s activity on the environment. 11. For environmental metrics, a study from the Global Environmental Management Initiative (1998) surveyed members on their environmental performance measurement systems. The results of the study were published as a primer discussing the considerations for designing a metrics program and providing a compilation of indicators used in the industry. Key con- cepts are also defined and explained, and the advantages and limitations of various metrics are discussed. Automated People Mover 12. An overview and specifics of performance measures for an automated people mover (APM) system is provided in ACRP Report 37A: Guidebook for Measuring Performance of Automated People Mover Systems at Airports (Lea+Elliott, Inc. 2012). ACRP Report 37A provides summaries of performance metrics for the airlines, transit, and highway indicators and their applicability to airport APM. The report also summarizes and suggests data collection methods that airports can use to measure and track incidents. Health and Safety 13. The National Safety Council (NSC) has created several guides on the use of leading indica- tors related to environmental health and safety. One in particular, titled Practical Guide to Leading Indicators: Metrics, Case Studies & Strategies, includes a menu list of metrics and leading indicators managers can choose from for their airport (Inouye n.d.) The list includes a large number of specific metrics for each of the following categories: – Risk assessment – Hazard identification/recognition – Preventive and corrective action – Management of change processes – Learning systems – Environmental health and safety management systems – Leadership engagement – Leading indicator component evaluation – Communication of safety – Safety perception survey – Training – Risk profiling – Compliance – Employee engagement and participation – Area observations/walk-arounds – Prevention through design

Research and Resources on Indicators and Metrics 47 – Equipment and preventive maintenance – Off-the-job safety – Permit-to-work systems – Recognition, disciplinary, and reinforcement program Security 14. In a white paper on metrics and analysis in security management, McIlravey and Ohlhausen (2012) synthesize literature on metrics and analyses in the security management field and describe the process of developing specific metrics, collecting and managing data, and performing useful analyses with incident management software. The white paper cites Campbell’s (2014) book on measures and metrics in corporate security and then provides examples of the several hundred possible security metrics that may be relevant to a com- pany’s cost, risk, return on investment, legal, policy, and life safety issues.