Exploring the Future of KLM Commuter
Ground Handling Services
Exploring the Future of KLM Commuter
Ground Handling Services
“Assessing the impact of future technological support on workforce capabilities by an International Delphi Expert Panel”
Master Thesis
Author: Marius van der Ham
Student ID: S1322478
Supervisor: Mr. Drs. H.A. Ritsema
Co-assessor: Prof. Dr. L. Karsten KLM: Dhr. C. Swaanenburg
University of Groningen
Faculty of Economics & Business Department International Business and Management
Landleven 5a, 9747 AD, Groningen
The old Taoist story
This old Taoist story is about a farmer in a poor country village.
He was considered very well-to-do, because he owned a horse that he used for ploughing and for transportation. One day his horse ran away. All his neighbors exclaimed how terrible this was, but the farmer simply said “Maybe.” A few days later the horse returned and brought two wild horses with it. The neighbors all rejoiced at his good fortune, but the farmer just said “Maybe.” The next day the farmer’s son tried to ride one of the wild horses; the horse threw him and broke his leg. The neighbors all offered their sympathy for his misfortune, but the farmer again said “Maybe.” The next wee conscription officers came to the village to take young men for the army. They rejected the farmer’s son because of his broken leg. When the neighbors told him how lucky he was the farmer replied “Maybe.”
Preface
This thesis is written as a final requirement to obtain my Masters degree in International Business and Management at the RijksUniversiteit in Groningen. Throughout writing the thesis I have attempted to combine my interests in operational business issues and international strategic problems, together with a life long interest in the aviation industry. I hope that you will enjoy reading this thesis as much as I have enjoyed being inside the aviation industry at KLM Royal Dutch Airlines experiencing the fast and dynamic pace of the business.
My internship at KLM Royal Dutch Airlines has been an experience dominated by mixed feelings. On the one hand I have very much enjoyed being inside the industry and being able to experience and see a majority of all business practises in which KLM is active. On the other hand, problems occurring in my personal life and unexpected delays in the writing process have made it a long and sometimes difficult process for which it was, at times, hard to find the energy to continue. However, now, at the end I am proud of what I have accomplished and would like to use this opportunity to thank several people who supported me throughout the research. First of all I would like to thank Drs. H. Stek, my first supervisor who consistently tried to create more focus in my research and whose insights were very valuable. I sincerely hope that he will recover quickly and will be back to supervise others. Secondly I would like to thank Mr. Swaanenburg for his time and supervision from a KLM perspective and for all the fun and useful debates we had about modern aircraft ground handling. I also would like to express my gratitude to all KLM people and interviewees who have provided their advice and time to support me in my research, and in particular Ms. Karen Blanken who has given me valuable insights into the structure of my thesis as well as moral support when needed. Next I would like to thank Mr. Drs. H.A. Ritsema and Prof. Dr. L. Karsten for picking up the supervision and being very fast in finalizing the thesis process. Finally I would like to thank my parents, friends and girlfriend who were all supportive and critical when needed. I’m looking back at a wonderful six years in Groningen in which I have grown personally and academically, and in which I have had some amazing times. Now this phase of my life is completed and I’m very much looking forward to the next one.
Amsterdam, December 2008
ABSTRACT
The impact of technology can be assessed from many perspectives and on several different levels. Next to its impact on for example a country, an industry or an individual organization, it can also have an effect on consumers or employees (Littler, 1988). This study focuses on the impact of future new technology on the required capabilities of the workforce at the operational business unit SPL/KJ of the KLM Royal Dutch Airlines Group, which conducts an aircraft turnaround service for KLM Cityhopper (KLC). The relationship with KLC has not always been good and recently a Service Level Agreement has been developed to specify the different responsibilities of both parties. Technology and people have proven to be important variables in the process of KJ and thus in the relationship with KLC. Technology can support and improve the process, but influences the required capabilities of the workforce performing the tasks of that process. Following this line of reasoning KJs top management wants to create insight into possible new technologies that will be developed over the next twenty-five years and the impact they have on the required capabilities of the workforce. For this purpose this thesis makes use of an international Delphi expert panel consisting of ten industry experts to assess the future technological innovations. In addition the thesis uses two capability models to show the actual change in the required capabilities. The results show that economic, institutional and political factors will influence the development of new technologies particularly in the next ten years. The new to be developed technologies relevant the ground handling process will have a high technology complexity but with a low end user complexity making them easily to operate. Therefore it is unlikely that, at least in the next ten years, SPL/KJ top management team will have to change the required capabilities of their workforce.
1. Introduction ... 13
2. Problem statement ... 15
2.1 Background ... 15
2.1.1 KLM – Air France ... 15
2.1.2 Baggage Turnaround Services Platform ... 16
2.1.3 Ground handling process of BTS Platform at the Bravo Platform ... 16
2.2 SPL/KJ ... 18
2.2.1 Internal customer relationship ... 19
2.2.2 The workflow relationship KJ - KLC ... 20
2.2.3 Influencing the performance of KJ ... 21
2.3 Main research question and sub questions ... 22
2.3.1 General methodology issues ... 25
3. Analysis of the ground handling process at KJ ... 27
3.1 The ground handling process of KJ ... 27
3.1.1 The generalization of the process of KJ ... 29
3.2 Technology in turnaround processes ... 30
3.2.1 Knowledge technology ... 31
3.2.2 Hardware technology... 32
3.2.3 The generalization of technology characteristics... 33
3.3 Available alternative technologies ... 35
3.3.1 BTS Platform ... 35
3.3.2 Other Ground Handlers ... 36
4. Theoretical perspective on the development, impact and prediction of technology and capabilities ... 38
4.1 The development of technology ... 38
4.1.1 Economic factors ... 39
4.1.2 Institutional and Political factors ... 39
4.1.3 The development of knowledge technology ... 40
4.1.4 The development of hardware technology ... 40
4.2 The impact of technology ... 41
4.2.1 The technological impact on the process ... 41
4.2.2 The technological impact on required capabilities ... 41
4.3 The prediction of new technologies ... 44
4.3.1 Technological uncertainty ... 44
4.3.2 Technological forecasting ... 45
4.3.3 The Consensus method ... 47
4.3.4 The Delphi method ... 47
4.3.5 Structural modeling ... 48
4.3.6 Scenarios ... 48
4.4 Modeling required capabilities ... 49
4.4.1 The capability lifecycle ... 49
4.4.2 The two-by-two task matrix ... 50
4.5 Conclusion ... 51
5. Methodology of a Delphi type research method and capability models ... 54
5.1 The Delphi method ... 54
5.1.1 Selection of experts ... 55
5.1.2 Data collection ... 58
5.1.3 Questionnaires ... 58
5.1.4 Data Analysis ... 59
5.1.5 Consensus ... 60
5.2 Modeling the required capabilities ... 61
5.2.1 The capability lifecycle ... 61
5.2.2 The two-by-two task matrix ... 62
6. Results of the international Delphi expert panel ... 64
6.1 Questionnaire one: The determination of important issues ... 64
6.1.1 Factors influencing technology development ... 64
6.1.2 New knowledge and hardware technologies ... 68
6.1.3 Constructing questionnaire two ... 71
6.2 Questionnaire two: Reaching consensus on the identified imprtant issues ... 72
6.2.1 Factors influencing technology development ... 72
6.2.2 New knowledge and hardware technologies ... 74
6.3 Discussion of the international Delphi expert panel results... 76
6.3.1 Factors influencing technology development ... 76
6.3.2 New knowledge and hardware technologies ... 78
7.1 The two-by-two matrix ... 82
7.2 The capability life cycle model ... 84
7.2.1 Existing capabilities of the KJ workforce ... 85
7.2.2 Analyzing the capability gap over time ... 86
7.2.3 Process Communication Activities ... 87
7.2.4 Ramp Handling... 88
8. Conclusion ... 90
8.1 Research Conclusions ... 91
8.1.1 Factors influencing technology development ... 91
8.1.2 The development of new technologies ... 91
8.1.3 Technology and the influence of the required capabilities ... 92
8.1.4 Recommendations to KJ top management team considering workforce policies ... 93
8.2 Research quality issues ... 93
8.2.1 Validity and reliability ... 93
1.INTRODUCTION
This study focuses on the impact of future new technology on the required capabilities of the workforce at the operational business unit SPL/KJ of the KLM Royal Dutch Airlines Group. This operational sub unit of KLM Ground Services provides an aircraft turnaround service, or ground handling, for the KLM commuter airline KLM Cityhopper. The nature of the work done by the workforce of SPL/KJ has historically been low-skilled hard manual labor which is done by people with a low level of education. However, technological developments to support the flow of information and to support the physical aspects of the process have been developed and will continue developing to support the process. The aim of this study is to asses the emergence of new technologies over a period of twenty-five years (5x5 years) and the impact they may have on the required capabilities of the workforce of operational business unit SPL/KJ.
To assess the impact of new technologies on the required capabilities of the workforce this research makes use of a Delphi consensus technology forecasting method which advises an international expert panel in the field of ground handling to identify the most relevant influences and new technologies over the research timeframe. Following the new technologies are reviewed using a combination of capability models to assess the impact of the new technologies.
2.PROBLEM STATEMENT
2.1 Background
2.1.1 KLM – Air France
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (KLM) is a worldwide operating airline which forms the core of the KLM Group and includes the two wholly owned subsidiaries Transavia.com and KLM Cityhopper. KLM also has partial interest in Martin Air Holland and Kenya Airlines. Eighty-five years after the founding of KLM in 1919, KLM merged with Air France into Europeans biggest aviation group in 2004. The holding operates a unique business model in aviation: ‘one group, two airlines, three
core businesses’ (KLM, 2007). Exploiting the three core businesses, passenger
transport, cargo transport and aircraft maintenance, has directed the holding Air France – KLM into a global leading airline company. After the merger both companies have chosen to keep their own identity. The brand and brand-loyalty, customers and other associates are too valuable to give up. At the macro level though, the holding is working hard to integrate processes to create economies of scale so important to effectively cope with the high competition in the airline industry (KLM, 2007). Appendix A, chart A.1 shows an organizational chart of the holding Air France – KLM.
KLMs domestic market is limited and has directed KLM over borders. The need for expansion made Schiphol Airport into one of the most important European transfer airports. The merger with Air France and the accession into the SkyTeam alliance provides KLM with a high quality network which consists over more than 250 destinations worldwide. The dual-HUB strategy, operating from Schiphol (AMS) and Paris airport Charles de Gaulle (CDG), provides the base of the cooperation between Air France and KLM and intensifies the possibilities of the network (KLM.com, KLM, 2007).
partners and reducing costs. Next to these economic goals, KLM strives to be an environmental aware airliner and an attractive employer for all employees.
To try and create an insight into the scope of the business KLM is in, the next section provides some basic facts concerning the KLM group as stated online at klm.com.
• KLM currently employs 30.521 people of which 28.740 permanently.
• In the fiscal year 2005/2006 KLM carried 22 million passengers, more than 619.888 tons of cargo and provided engineering and maintenance work for over 100 airlines.
• KLM Group operates a modern fleet of 190 aircrafts.
• KLM Group realized an operating income for 2006/2007 of 616 Million Euro.
KLM is divided into the three core business plus two extra divisions responsible for the subsidiaries and low-cost carriers. Ground services are under the responsibility of Passenger Business and concerns all processes that affect flights and airplanes on the ground. An overview is given in appendix A, chart A.2.
2.1.2 Baggage Turnaround Services Platform
Baggage Turnaround Services Platform (BTS Platform) is the unit in KLM Ground Services that is responsible for the turnaround process of all KLM flights and partners. The turnaround process is the process which entails all tasks and processes needed to ensure an aircraft, after landing at Schiphol, is ready to leave again within the least possible time.
BTS Platform is divided into three departments which all handle a different region of the world and therefore different types of aircrafts. Departments SPL/KA and SPL/KD respectively deal with Intercontinental (ICA) and European (EUR) flights. The third department is the unit of research of this study SPL/KJ. SPL/KJ deals with the loading and unloading of the commuter airline of KLM, KLM Cityhopper (KLC). Appendix A chart A.3 and show the organization of KLM Ground Services.
2.1.3 Ground handling process of BTS Platform at the Bravo Platform
aircrafts at Schiphol Bravo Platform. Commuter aircrafts are generally defined through their aircraft specifications; especially number of passengers, less than 110 (van Amerongen, 2008). Commuter airlines operate on short haul routes that connect different airports to a HUB airport, mostly for transfer purposes. KLM Cityhopper (KLC) is KLMs commuter airline and the main customer of KJ. The KLC fleet includes the Fokker 100, 70 and 50, and coming in the end of 2008 the Embraer 190 (for specifications: Appendix B).
Table 2.1: Processes in ground handling at the Bravo Platform, Schiphol Airport
Process Company
Turnaround leader (TLO) KLM-KJ
Loading and unloading baggage, mail and freight KLM-KJ Baggage transport to and from baggage cellar KLM-KJ
Technical check and support NAYAK
Transport incoming and tail-to-tail crew Met & Co Transporting departure crew Met & Co
Passenger transport Schiphol/HTM
Cleaning services Kluh
Fuel services KLM-AS
Catering KCS
Water services KLM-KF
Pushback Martin Air
De-icing KLM-KF
The process is done when all tasks have been completed. The time needed for every individual process is based on research into the average process time of each task observed from a large amount of tasks per different aircraft type, called the norm time. Combining the norm times of each task forms a critical path of the ground handling process providing the minimal ground handling time per aircraft (van Amerongen, 2008).
2.2 SPL/KJ
Figure 2.1: Hierarchy KJ.
As their core business KJ provides a service to KLC at the operational level and can be typed a service operation (Mills & Moberg, 1982; Adam & Swamidass, 1989), which is characterized by the intangible nature of output, immediate consumption of output, conversion processes that require a great deal of labor and little equipment, direct customer contact, frequent customer participation in the conversion process, and simple measures for the conversion activities and outputs (Adam & Swamidass, 1989; Heskett, 1986). The processes of KJ fit these characteristics perfectly and can therefore be described as a service operation. However, it is important to realize that in practice most operations are a combination of manufacturing and service operations (Adam & Swamidass, 1989). Also for KJ many repetitive routine tasks, customary for manufacturing processes, characterize the service process.
2.2.1 Internal customer relationship
As mentioned KJs biggest client, generating 95% of all business is KLM Cityhopper. KLC has as sole purpose feeding the KLM network with transfer passengers. Some of the destinations flown by KLC are kept operational in favor of the transfer to a larger (intercontinental) flight. This relation between KLM and KLC explains the legitimacy of KJ, as a feeder of the KLM network in terms of transfer baggage, mail and freight from the KLC commuter fleet. This is an obligatory supplier - customer relationship
Unit Manager KJ
Sector Managers KJ
Team Leader Directors KJ
to provide the turnaround services now conducted by KJ and hence, KLC is an internal customer for KJ. The internal customer relationship is seen as a part of internal exchange, which refers to methods used to satisfy needs in the organization (Lusch et al, 1992). A part of internal exchange is services provided to internal customers. Scholars argue that organizations should provide a high quality service to their internal customers as it will lead to more effective performance and lower costs. In the end it can then be expected that this will also lead to improved external service quality (Heskett et al, 1994; Hart, 1995; Marshall et al, 1998). When dealing with internal services in literature it is usually supposed that managing internal services deal with the same problems as managing external services. For some organizations this is true, because the make-or-buy option always exists, but for others, like within KLM, the relation is imposed from higher up the decision chain (Strauss, 1995). Based on the work by Sayles (1964), Witt (1985, 1988) and Davis (1992, 1993) Strauss (1995) identifies two types of internal services: workflow services and support-advice services. Workflow services can be identified as specific support or staff units that provide a service to another department (Davis, 1992; Strauss, 1995). Workflow services are characterized by a high degree of customer evidence with a clearly determined supply situation and little internal segmentation, a highly evident offering, features which can be specified to a great degree, and the willingness of the internal customer to articulate satisfaction or dissatisfaction (Strauss, 1995). Support-advice services reflect a wide range of service operations, including highly standardized operations and highly customized.
The internal supplier-customer relation within KLM between KJ and KLC can be typified as a workflow service.
2.2.2 The workflow relationship KJ - KLC
relation, KJ management has as a goal to provide at least such a level of service as though KLC was an external customer and KJ the logical choice to provide the service. One initiative that was put in order, now under construction, is the formulation of a Service Level Agreement (KLM, 2008). This document specifies exactly what is expected from both parties. The SLA provides KJ with its expected costs and delivery performance relating to service processes specified in eight different categories.
2.2.3 Influencing the performance of KJ
As mentioned above the process of KJ is conducted by the workforce consisting of the team leaders (TLO) and the team members. These people are an important aspect influencing the performance of the process of KJ. The process of KJ is still very labor intensive and the process literally stops if not enough people are there to perform the tasks. The performance of the people depends on the skills they have to perform, their tasks and their ability to work with technology. These skills or the abilities to perform are often referred to as capabilities, which are the particular kind of knowledge and skills to perform a certain job or task (Loasby, 1998). If the workforce is not able to perform their task the performance is immediately negatively influenced.
Technology is another big influence on the performance of KJ because technology is very important in supporting the processes at KJ. For a smooth process a large amount of information is needed. The different teams working on the process receive information about the positioning of an aircraft, the amount of baggage that needs to be loaded or unloaded, and how much time there is to complete the service. All this information is processed through different information systems, like computer systems and mobile communication systems. Furthermore, karts, loading and unloading support, and driving mobile offices help the teams to get around physically on the platform and provide support in transporting the baggage, mail and freight.
The technology and capabilities of the people of the workforce are the two main factors ensuring a good process at KJ. These two factors have a mutual relation which influences the performance of the process.
to work with the technologies influences the performance directly. An example within KJ is that the process specified in the SLA determines that baggage has to be unloaded from an arrived aircraft. The task is then physically unloading each individual item of baggage from the plane and making sure it arrives at the baggage reclaim centre. To support the task special karts have been developed to carry the baggage to the centre. The process here has specified the task to be done and which technology can support it. The capability needed is that a member of the workforce needs to have the knowledge and skills to unload an item of baggage, but in addition the technology used to support the task influenced and increased the required capabilities in terms of knowing how to operate the kart.
Technology can improve the process by developing better and more efficient technologies (Littler, 1988; Machin, 2001; Piva et al, 2005). This idea was first developed by Collier (1985), arguing that improved technology in service operations can, besides replacing labor, gain strategic advantages in the form of improved delivery speed, increased quality and reliability, and increased new services that the customer could not have envisioned (Collier, 1985). The line of reasoning here is that a given process can be influenced by technology to ensure better results or a more efficient way of work. Technology development in this perspective can therefore influence the required set of capabilities.
2.3 Main research question and sub questions
new technologies enables KJ to prepare and revaluate their workforce over time in order to provide a consistent high quality service to KLC. Therefore the aim of this research is to investigate new technologies which can support the process of KJ and the impact of these new technologies on the required capabilities of the workforce.
The above stated problem on the effect of new technologies on the required capabilities of the workforce of KJ is the main focus of this research. The following research question reflects the problem:
‘To what extent will new technologies supporting the ground handling process at KJ influence the required capabilities of the workforce to perform their jobs in the next twenty-five years?’
The main research question is divided into sub questions to provide the structure and line of reasoning to come to a main answer. The division of the main research question into sub questions structures the research into four main categories, which are the analysis of the operational sub unit KJ, a theoretical framework identifying the most important factors influencing the development of new technologies over time and an overview of different research methods, the methodology of the chosen research method, and the results.
The first set of sub questions relate to the analysis of the operational sub unit KJ. The analysis provides a structural overview of the current process of KJ to determine what exactly is meant by technologies, capabilities and their prediction over time. The analysis provides the focus which is needed to isolate the research issues to the level that they can be compared to other ground handlers and researchers.
1. What does the core process of KJ entail and who are the important actors in the process?
2. What are the relevant technologies for the process of KJ and what is their function?
In addition a review is needed of all current technological developments and alternatives which are available to KJ which may diminish the need to predict. First within KLM there is the possibility of alternative technologies and second outside the KLM.
4. What are relevant technological developments and alternatives for the technology supporting the process of KJ within KLM Ground services?
5. What are relevant technological developments and alternatives for the technology supporting the process of KJ at other ground handlers?
Since the goal of the research is to identify the effect of new technologies the second step in answering the main research question is determining what the literature already states on the development of new technologies and the impact of new technologies on the ground handling process and on the employees.
6. What are the factors which influence and impact the outcome of the development of new technologies for the process of KJ?
7. What are the possible effects of technological developments on the turnaround process?
8. What are the possible effects of technological developments on the capabilities of the workforce?
The third step in answering the main research question is assessing a method to predict future technologies supporting the ground handling process of KJ and assessing the impact on the required capabilities of the workforce.
9. How can future new technologies be predicted over time?
10. How can the impact of new technologies on the required capabilities be assessed?
occurs in the required capabilities of the workforce as a consequence of the implementation of new technologies.
11. Which new technologies become relevant for KJ over the twenty five year timeframe?
12. What are the new required capabilities of the workforce as a consequence of the implementation of new technologies?
13. What are the recommendations for the top management team of KJ to react to the future state of ground handling technology in terms of their workforce?
The different sub questions give an outline of the research conducted to answer the main research question. The first aim is to describe the process of KJ and the relevant technologies and actors that support the process. Next it is important to determine what technological developments and alternatives are relevant for the process of KJ. Then it is determined how technological change can influence the process and required capabilities of the workforce and what the consequences may be. To predict new technologies over time first the factors relevant to technological developments are identified and the methods are reviewed. Concluding the research this study aims to asses what the required capabilities are of KJ and what they will be as a consequence of a change in new technologies over time.
2.3.1 General methodology issues
Chapter five of this research focuses on the methodology of the chosen research method and on issues relating to the measurement of the change in required capabilities as a consequence of new technologies. Therefore the methodology section is not in a traditional sense an overview of the methodology used throughout the whole research. This small section will therefore provide the general methodology of this research.
To come to the main answer of the research question the research is divided nto an analysis part, a literature part, a methodology section and the results, as described above.
or are involved with the work done by KJ. In addition interview have been conducted with the four other ground handlers at Schiphol Airport Amsterdam, and additional scientific literature has been advised.
The following part of the research is used to identify all relevant issues already existing in the literature concerning the development of new technologies, the impact of new technologies on employees and research methods directed at technology forecasting. For this section numerous authors and their research are advised and compared to come to relevant issues for the purpose of this research.
The methodology section, as stated above, is used to elaborate on the chosen research method to forecast new relevant technologies over the research timeframe. In addition does this section also elaborate on the method to assess a change in required capabilities as a consequence of the development of new technologies.
3.ANALYSIS OF THE GROUND HANDLING PROCESS AT KJ
This section has as purpose to analyze the process of KJ, to identify the relevant factors and to generalize them to make it researchable. What kind of technology should be predicted over the twenty five year timeframe is hard to determine if it is not known what the function or role of technology is in the process and what the specifications of technology should be in the process. Therefore it should be possible to generalize the process and the function of technology in the process to determine what relevant technologies are available or what the developments are in the field of the specific technologies (Baccarini, 1996). To generalize a process or piece of technology researchers can view the subject under study at a higher level of abstract, only including the basic important factors needed for the research (Yin, 2003).
3.1 The ground handling process of KJ
As mentioned the Service Level Agreement specifies all tasks which together form the ground handling process of KJ which is, in more general terms, also reflected by the first three processes described in table 2.1. The process is the series of actions, changes or functions bringing about the result (Rosenblatt & Lee, 1986), in this case the series of actions to turn around an aircraft in terms of baggage, mail and freight, the overview of the process and the transport of baggage, also more commonly referred to as the turnaround process. The process is conducted by the workforce of KJ which is a combination of the team leaders (TLO), the team members (TM) and the baggage drivers (BD). The classification of the workers into the term workforce is in line with Zwieg et al (2006) who state that a workforce is a labor pool in employment generally used to describe those working for a single organization or industry. The term excludes employers or management and implies employees working in manual labor (Zwieg et al, 2006).
The whole process starts with making preparations for the coming day. The incoming flight service is mostly the responsibility of the team leader. It includes looking ahead at the incoming flights, dividing the pressure of work, and checking all material to be ready. Next, arrival services make sure that the incoming flight is checked for the amount of dead load (baggage, mail and freight) which is in the aircraft, dividing the tasks among the team members and making sure the platform is ready. Then when the aircraft comes in arrival services start. The aircraft comes to a complete hold when the anti-collision lights are out. This is the sign for the team members to connect a system cold the GPU (ground power unit), supplying the plane with electricity, placing wheel blocks by the wheels of the plane, and preparing the plane for handling. Now the core process of loading and unloading the plane starts. All incoming baggage is unloaded and separated into transfer baggage and arrived baggage, and is moved to the next plane or baggage cellar for reclaim. When the plane is empty the new baggage arrives for the departing flight. The load sheet is checked and calculated for the right load planning and load control, making sure the plane will not tip over. The departing baggage, mail and freight are loaded by the team members and the team leader makes sure all processes are done and the platform is cleared for take off. Next the departing service kicks in, including the removal of the GPU and wheel blocks, and monitoring the pushback service. Now the platform process is done and the flight is on its way again. Now starts the flight report which is done by the team leader evaluating the process and making a note of all what went good and bad. The team leader reports his findings back to the members as after flight service and makes sure to inform the sector managers about their shift. The following table shows the whole process and the responsible employee of the workforce.
Table 3.1: Processes and responsibilities of the KJ workforce
Category Responsible
Preparation service TLO
Flight preparation TLO
Arrival service TM
Incoming baggage TM + BD
Outgoing baggage TM + BD
Departure service TM + TLO
Flight report TLO
The TLO has the whole responsibility for all processes specified in the SLA. In addition, the TLO is also a main contact point for all other parties involved and for the time management of the turnaround process. Disturbance of the process is communicated to the Ground Service Coordinator GSC, who is in service of KLC and monitors the outgoing flights. When decisions on delaying a flight have to be made, the GSC has to contact the Duty Area Manager (DAM) in the control centre for the final decision. These communications are organized in communication triangles which show the responsibilities of communicating a particular process. For example the turnaround process is communicated through the TLO, the GSC and a gate agent (GA) who is responsible for the boarding process. Appendix C gives a complete graphical overview of the turnaround process at KJ and a detailed description of the individual tasks per category.
3.1.1 The generalization of the process of KJ
The above section has shown the process of KJ as specified in the SLA which KJ has developed in close cooperation with KLC. The identification of the process into these eight categories is very specific for the view KJ and KLC have on their processes. This limits the ability to compare the process with other ground handlers conducting a similar service for other commuter airlines because they may specify their process differently. An earlier research into the possibilities for a more efficient turnaround process for the KLM departments SPL/KA and SPL/KD by Roozen (2007) underlines this argument by acknowledging that different ground handlers often use different terminology for their processes. For this reason this research works to develop a more general categorization of the ground handling process of commuter airlines.
second category reflects all process concerning the communication of information through the whole process. This includes spreading relevant information on where the aircraft will arrive, progression of all processes, estimated time of arrival/departure, and weight of the dead load. In addition this category also includes all communication systems used to ensure good data distribution.
Figure 3.1: Division of KJs process into two general categories
arrival/ departure services & incoming/ outgoing baggage
Ramp Handling
preparation services, flight preparation, flight report & after flight
Process Communication Activities
3.2 Technology in turnaround processes
information to ensure a good process and on the other hand the technology supports the physical work done to ensure a good process. Thompson (1967) refers to the first form of technological support as knowledge technology. He argues that knowledge technology is a term used for the systems that create order in the great amounts of information that is usually generated in service operations and the communication of this information. The term knowledge technology provides a typology for the function of technology in supporting the process of KJ in terms of information flow. The physical support of the process is in literature commonly referred to as technology (Mills & Moberg, 1982; Johnston, 2005) or hardware technology (Orlikowski, 1992). To make a clear distinction between the technology which supports the flow of information and technology which physically supports the processes this research distinguishes between two types of technology. First the term knowledge technology as proposed by Thompson (1967) which refers to the flow of information. Second the term hardware technology which refers to the technology which physically supports the process.
3.2.1 Knowledge technology
Knowledge technology in the turnaround process has the goal to provide all relevant employees in the process with the right up to date information. The turnaround process is frequently disturbed by delays, missing baggage, missing passengers, or weather conditions. Here fore the process should be flexible and good communication systems provide the possibility to keep the process informed. Table 3.2 provides an overview of the current knowledge technology systems used in the process of KJ.
Table 3.2: Knowledge technology systems at KJ
Category Generalization Knowledge system
Preparation service Process Communication Activities FIRDA Flight preparation Process Communication Activities FIRDA
Arrival service Ramp Handling Walkie-talkie
Incoming baggage Ramp Handling Walkie-talkie
Outgoing baggage Ramp Handling Walkie-talkie
Departure service Ramp Handling Walkie-talkie
FIRDA is a KLM flight information system that allows KJ to see what flights are coming in, where they will be parked, and all relevant information concerning the baggage, mail and freight inside the incoming flight. FIRDA communicates with the Schiphol Airport systems to retrieve relevant information. In addition the walkie-talkies are used to inform all employees when disturbance in the process leads to changes and what these are. Key characteristics of knowledge technology in the process are the ability to provide timely and correct information in a flexible manner. Therefore is important for the systems to communicate wireless as the Bravo platform consists of unconnected gates and a large physical distance exists between the point information enters the process and were it is needed.
3.2.2 Hardware technology
The other type of technology, hardware technology, supports the process by offering relief in the physical aspect of the process. In the process now not as much physical support is available for the tasks concerning the loading and unloading of baggage, mail and freight, which as a consequence this is done manually. The physical support is much more available for the transport of the stream of baggage and employees. Figure 3.2 and Table 3.3 show all available hardware technology.
Figure 3.2: The four available hardware technologies à Kart, Mobile office, Spykstaal and Mulag
Source: KLM intranet (www.myklm.org)
Table 3.3: Hardware technology at KJ
Category Generalization Hardware technology
Preparation service Process Communication Activities N/A
Flight preparation Process Communication Activities Mobile office (bus)
Arrival service Ramp Handling Mobile office (bus)
Incoming baggage Ramp Handling Spykstaal/Mulag + karts
Outgoing baggage Ramp Handling Spykstaal/Mulag + karts
Departure service Ramp Handling Mobile office (bus)
Flight report Process Communication Activities N/A
The Mobile offices are equipped with the KLM flight information system FIRDA and are used to drive the team leader and the team members around the platform to the different VOPs. The Spykstaal, Mulag and karts are used to transport the items of baggage, mail and freight from and to the aircraft, from and to the baggage cellar and from and to the transfer flights.
Next to these hardware technologies no other technologies exists to support the heavy manual labor the team members of KJ have to perform while loading and unloading baggage, mail and freight. The main reason for this is that the alternative existing hardware technologies developed to support this specific part of the turnaround process do not fit the specifications of the types of aircrafts handled at the Bravo platform by KJ. An example is the use of baggage belts or high loaders in the turnaround process of the larger type aircrafts handled by SPL/KA or SPL/KD (Figure 3.3). These are developed to relief the physical restrain on the employees, to ensure a better and consistent quality of the process, and to save on costs by replacing labor or using labor more effectively. KJ has no such technologies at their disposal leading to more physical distress for the team members of KJ in comparison to other employees handling different types of aircrafts.
Figure 3.3: Alternative technologies used by departments KA & KD à High loader and Baggage belt
Source: KLM intranet (www.myklm.org)
3.2.3 The generalization of technology characteristics
are many different contexts for technology implementation, and there are many different jobs requiring different technologies. The complexity and the impact of technology make it hard to specify the characteristics (Liker et al, 1999). Fortunately, for the purpose of this study some of the complexity is gone, as it already has more of a focus. There are two general categories of processes identified which have a distinction in function between physical support systems or hardware technology, and communicational support systems or knowledge technology.
In more general terms it is possible to identify some broad characteristics of technology which may prove helpful in determining the direction of future technological change. Without going into the specific details of individual pieces of technology the broad characteristics can be determined from the function technology has in a process (Baccarini, 1996).
The turnaround process, as conducted by KJ, has been divided into two broad categories reflecting the general tasks of the process. Within the two broad categories two types of technology have proved to be important. The goal of the research is to identify future possible technologies within these categories which support the turnaround process of KJ and what the effect will be on the required capabilities of the workforce using them. Through the function technology has in the turnaround process the general technological characteristics can be derived.
For the Ramp Handling processes the (hardware) technology should be able to move, transport, or lift individual or grouped items of baggage, mail and freight, in order to be able to load and unload the different aircrafts with the right items of baggage. In the category Process Communication Activities the (knowledge) technology should be able to provide the most relevant information up to date at all times to the most relevant actors in the process.
Table 3.4: Technological characteristics of technology for each category
Category Type of technology Technological characteristics
Ramp Handling Hardware Ability to move, transport or lift individual or grouped items of baggage, mail and freight
Process Communication Activities Hardware/Knowledge Ability to ensure the fastest and most complete set of relevant up-to-date information to ensure the most effiecient ground handling process
3.3 Available alternative technologies
Now that a general function of the two types of technologies has been determined for the general form of a turnaround process similar to KJ, it is possible to research the possibilities of new technologies supporting such a process. A first important issue here is to asses whether other ground handlers already perform the process differently in terms of used technology which might be relevant. Therefore available alternatives are reviewed within the KLM and outside.
3.3.1 BTS Platform
Figure 3.4: The Rampsnake
Source: van Amerongen (2008)
In terms of knowledge technology also no improved technologies are available for the workforce of KJ to adapt. The main reason here is that KLM internally uses the same systems within BTS Platform to be able to communicate. However, some of the other departments responsible to Ground Services conducting a service in the turnaround process, like pushback services (which do not provide this service for KJ) make use of a knowledge technology system called CHIP. This system allows them to direct the workforce in an ad-hoc manner during the shift instead of dividing work before the shift starts. This system increases the flexibility of the process significantly as it allows directing the workforce where it is needed. This system is a real option for KJ to adapt and recent research (van Amerongen, 2008) has proven that the introduction of this system will lead to a more efficient division of work among the workforce of KJ.
3.3.2 Other Ground Handlers
Ground Services, together with SAS Ground Services as leading in the field of technological developments concerning ground service equipment and information systems.
4.THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE ON THE DEVELOPMENT, IMPACT AND PREDICTION OF TECHNOLOGY AND CAPABILITIES
This chapter of the research explains the theoretical background which should support the research by providing an abstractive structure which can be used to answer the main research question (Gill & Johnson, 2002). In chapter two the relation has been established that technology can improve the process of KJ, but has an influence on the capabilities of the workforce of KJ. Chapter three followed and described the process of KJ, specifically indicating what the function of technology in the process is and how to view both process and technology at a higher level of abstraction. This allows for a theoretical assessment of the possible effects of both types of technology on a process and the capabilities of the workforce. First the literature is advised to investigate the factors that influence the development of new technologies in general and specifically for knowledge and hardware technologies. Second it is important to asses the theoretical effects of new technologies on the process and the capabilities of the workforce. Finally the literature is advised to asses the different possibilities to predict future technologies and how to investigate the impact on the capabilities of the workforce.
4.1 The development of technology
factors influence the outcome of the development of new technologies (Geenhuizen et al, 2003; Geerlings & Rienstra, 2003).
4.1.1 Economic factors
Economic factors influence the new technologies because they should be sufficiently profitable, adding value by increasing quality, speed or reducing costs (Geerlings & Rienstra, 2003). Economic influences are often linked with the demand for technological innovations because of the pressures on the efficiency of the process. Increasing organizational costs or decreasing revenues lead the need for improvement of business operations to improve the competitive advantage of an organization. Technology is demanded to help create more efficient operations, higher quality or increased productivity (Porter, 1997; Piva et al, 2005). Furthermore, economic factors influence the development of technology through the balance between costs and expected performance of the new technology. Basically economic factors drive the demand for technological solutions to improve the process (Collier, 1985).
4.1.2 Institutional and Political factors
Institutional, as well as political factors also have their influence on the development of new technologies over time. Restrictions and laws administered by different national or local governments have an impact on the outcome of a technology development project. A fitting example is the increase in environmental policies to stop the further deterioration of the natural environment. As a consequence of these policies different organization might be restricted in the use of natural resources, power sources or waste. These factors influence the development of technology by restricting the possibilities of new technologies or by assigning minimal performance demands (Geenhuizen et al, 2003).
4.1.3 The development of knowledge technology
A primary function of knowledge technology is to complement the process by delivering relevant information (Thompson, 1967; Oliner & Sichel, 2003). For the purpose of this study the definition of Thompson (1967) has been adopted stating that knowledge technology has the purpose to create order in large amounts of information generated in processes and the communication of this information. The process of KJ has shown that the specific knowledge technology relevant for this study needs to have the ability to ensure the fastest and most complete set of relevant and up-to-date information to ensure the most efficient ground handling process. The biggest development in the field of knowledge technologies which have had an enormous impact on operation processes has been the rise of wireless communication systems (Rappaport et al, 2002; Willing et al, 2005). The ability to communicate relevant information has made processes much more flexible and efficient in terms of information. In addition, knowledge technology systems have become more powerful over time, being able to process more information in less time (Willing et al, 2005). Rappaport et al (2002) identify these two aspects as most important in the development of knowledge technology; the ability to communicate wireless and the ability to process more information in less time with smaller devices. Towards the future of knowledge technology the focus on the ability to process more information faster in smaller devices will be the most important since the ability to communicate wireless already exists and it is not possible to communicate information more wireless than is currently already done (Rappaport et al, 2002).
4.1.4 The development of hardware technology
able to diminish human errors and improve speed, quality and consistency (Cichocki et al, 1998).
4.2 The impact of technology
4.2.1 The technological impact on the process
As stated above the development of new technologies has become vital for the survival of many companies (Dierkes et al, 2001). The dependency on technology for the survival of a company can be attributed to the positive effects of improved and good technology on the operational process (Anderson et al, 1989).
The impact of technology on operational processes can be manifold. The technology may replace or complement current process in order to create efficiency, consistency and higher quality (Collier, 1985; Cichocki et al, 1998; Autor et al, 2003). The first major impact of technology in an operational process has been the replacement of mostly routine, non analytical jobs. The effect of automation has been that less human factors (and errors) are involved in the production process which has led to faster production with higher quality and consistency, often used in manufacturing companies.
When a certain job or tasks in a process is too complex to be performed by a single piece of technology, technology can assist or complement the task by for example relieving the physical aspect of a hard manual task like lifting heavy weight. This effect of technology is called complementation (Cichocki et al, 1998). The impact of technology is very dependent of the type of process it is needed for (Bartel et al, 2007).
4.2.2 The technological impact on required capabilities
the workforce required capabilities. On the other end is the up-skilling perspective which argues that due to the implementation of new technologies lower skilled workforce members are replaced by less, higher skilled workforce members more able to operate the new technologies (Spenner, 1983).
This early studies have mainly focused on theory building rather than actual empirical research. More recent studies have tested and contributed to these early researchers and found that the up-skilling perspective has proven to be most influential over time with evidence in the adoption of the Skill Biased Technology Change (SBTC) hypothesis in relation to the increased implementation with knowledge technologies. Results for testing this hypothesis has shown and proven a close relation between new knowledge technologies and a raise in the demand for higher skilled workers (Machin, 2001; Bartel et al, 2007; Piva et al, 2005; Autor et al, 2003).
Bartel et al (2007) conclude that an increase in machinery and hardware technology that decrease the need for an operational workforce has also led to an increase in the demand for higher skilled workers or a relative decrease in lower skilled workers. The explanation is the diminished need for a workforce who is able to perform the routine jobs which are replaced by machinery and technology. On the other hand, new technologies have not replaced workforce members already performing more non routine jobs because machines cannot replace them, but rather complemented their jobs by making it easier (Levy & Murnane, 2004). These non routine skills reflect mostly expert thinking or the expert recognition of patterns too complex or subtle for a piece of technology to identify.
It seems therefore that the effect of new hardware or knowledge technologies in an operational process is determined by the nature of a workers job. When the job has a routine and manual nature it is more likely to be replaced by hardware technology, in comparison to a job with a non routine cognitive nature which will be complemented by knowledge technology.
4.2.3 Technological complexity and the effect on required capabilities
who need to work with the machine or system. Dalmazzo (2002) divides the level of technology complexity and end user complexity by the three levels high, medium and low. He states that often in a manufacturing process automation has led to the development of machinery and systems with a high level of technology complexity and with a low level of end user complexity. The main reason is to save costs by internally training the employees to handle the machine or systems instead of needing to hire an entire new workforce. However, depending on the required technology it is not always possible to create this ideal situation and therefore the need increases for higher skilled workers (Dalmazzo, 2002). The levels high, medium and low in relation to the complexity of the actual technology inside a machine or system is fairly straight forward, however the meanings for the end user complexity differ. According to the work of Kelley (1990) in combination with Dalmazzo (2002) it is possible to identify a high end user complexity as the ability a user needs to independently use and understand the technology which is being operated without the help of others in a problem situation. The medium level of end user complexity means that an individual is able to operate a piece of technology and is able to solve minor and often occurring problems. The final and last level of low end user complexity means that an individual is able to operate the machinery without needing to have the abilities ascribed to the high and medium levels of end user complexity.
4.3 The prediction of new technologies 4.3.1 Technological uncertainty
Technology uncertainty means the extent to which different new technologies can be predicted or completely understood over a period of time (Song & Montoya-Weiss, 2001; Stock & Tatikonda, 2008). Following this definition implies that easily predicted and understood technologies have low technology uncertainty, and hard to predict and understand technologies have a high technology uncertainty. Two factors influence the level of technology uncertainty; technological complexity and time.
The development and implementation of new technologies often occur in the form of technology projects. These projects can be labeled within a two-dimensional typology matrix of projects based on the level of technology uncertainty and technology complexity proposed by Raz et al (2002). They identified four types of projects which are shown in the following table.
Table 4.1: Technology uncertainty and the degree of complexity of projects
Complexity
LOW Low-tech projects Medium-tech Projects
Techn. Uncert. HIGH High-tech Projects Super High-tech Projects
LOW HIGH
Source: Raz et al, (2002)
Low and medium technology projects refer to technologies which already exist or refer to technologies which are modifications to old technologies. High and super high technology projects refer to technologies which do not exist or which are never used before in a certain function or industry (Raz et al, 2002).
within the transport sector refer to different levels of technology uncertainty and even propose which method best fits the degree of uncertainty. Table 4.2 provides a list of different degrees for technology uncertainty and their timeframes.
Table 4.2: Relation between research timeframe and the degree of technology uncertainty
Timeframe Degree of uncertainty Type of prediction
1 to 7 Y Low Exploration
5 to 15 Y Medium low Expectation
> 20 Y Medium high Forecasting
> 30 Y High Backcasting
Source: Geerlings & Rienstra, 2003
The research timeframe for this study is set to twenty-five years which relates to a medium high technology uncertainty according to table 4.2. Medium high technology uncertainty indicates that over the timeframe of twenty-five years new technologies are hard to predict or understood. This degree of technology uncertainty therefore, according to Geerlings & Rienstra (2003), is best approached with a forecasting method.
4.3.2 Technological forecasting
developments as technology forecasting (Littler, 1988; Jantsch, 1967; Lemos & Porto, 1998; Slocum & Lundberg, 2001).
Forecasting is the term used to describe mans wish to know in advance how things will be in the future to anticipate this future state (Lemos & Porto, 1998). Forecasting has been widely adopted in different disciplines of the academic spectrum and has a dominant presence in the field of technology research and development (Martino, 1972). Ralph Lenz, a pioneer on the technological forecasting subject defined the concept as “the prediction of the invention, characteristics, dimensions, or
performance of a machine serving some useful purpose” (Lenz, cited by Martino,
1972, p. 13). Martinez (1993) took a similar perspective and defined technology forecasting as the “determination of the possible future evolution of the technical
dimensions of a certain material, product, process or service” (Martinez, cited by
Lemos & Porto, 1998, p. 331). The second definition is adopted for this research as it broadens the scope of technology forecasting from a machine perspective to a wider use. An important notion is to be made when dealing with technology forecasting projects. Some short term forecasting projects are designed to specifically predict the characteristics of some sort of technology, however in general it is not possible to specifically predict because of the factors technology complexity and technology uncertainty. Therefore many forecasting projects have a focus on predicting general trends and creating consensus about these trends (Okoli & Pawlowski, 2004).
exploratory or normative technology forecasting methods. Exploratory technology forecasting starts with current knowledge and trends and seeks to predict what will happen and when. Normative technology forecasting starts by defining the goals of a society or an organization and works backwards to identify those new technologies and developments which are most likely to lead to the desired outcome (Jantsch, 1967; Littler, 1988). The most identified technological forecasting methods or techniques are the consensus method, the Delphi method, structural modeling and scenarios (Littler, 1988; Lemos & Porto, 1998; Slocum & Lundberg, 2001).
4.3.3 The Consensus method
This method is based on the principle of asking the expert with the assumption that the experts base of experience and education is sufficient, in a particular field, to predict or forecast the future (Okoli & Pawlowski, 2004; Slocum & Lundberg, 2001). To forecast, the method makes use of a panel of experts who meet in a face-to-face debate over the subject of research. The advantage of the method is that the various opinions of experts help to formulate more correct technology forecasting. It is also a fast method which has relatively low costs. The big disadvantage is that the strong personality of some experts may influence the others. Furthermore group fatigue can influence the forecast (Lemos & Porto, 1998). The consensus method can be used for both exploratory and normative studies.
4.3.4 The Delphi method
reliable consensus of a group of experts (Dalkey & Helmer, 1963). The subject matter being investigated with a Delphi method has often been technical and the method is widely used in medical, nursing and health services research (Preble, 1984; Hasson et al, 2000). The method is considered useful for selecting and collecting expert opinions whenever there is a lack of viable or practical statistical techniques (Armstrong, 2006). The advantage of this method is that it surpasses the disadvantage of the previous method and the anonymity of the experts increases the forecast outcomes. A disadvantage is the time it takes to conduct such a research due to the sometimes long response time (Lemos & Porto, 1998). The Delphi method can be used for either exploratory or normative studies.
4.3.5 Structural modeling
Structural modeling attempts to develop an analytical or mathematical model to accomplish the forecast. The purpose of structural modeling is to identify key elements, identify the functional aspects of those elements and express them mathematically (Slocum & Lundberg, 2001). Its advantage is that is eliminates subjective factors out of the forecasting process. The disadvantage is that structural models tend to be abstractions and the forecast generated may be to simplified (Lemos & Porto, 1998). Structural modeling methods are in particular useful for normative studies.
4.3.6 Scenarios
4.4 Modeling required capabilities
Attempting to measure a change in required capabilities has always been a problem in assessing the effect of new technologies. Sampson and Fytros (2008) argue that a main argument for the difficulties in measuring capabilities is in the lack of a general definition of the term capabilities and a measuring model. In their paper Sampson and Fytros work to find a general definition and a way to model capabilities. Based on different definitions of more than thirty years of scholars they identify capabilities on three core dimensions which are summarized in the definition that: “capabilities are
the particular kind of knowledge and skills to perform a certain job or task at a certain level in a certain context” (Sampson & Fytros, 2008, pp. 11). The first
dimension includes the individual’s characteristics such as knowledge, skills and attitude. The second dimension refers to an individual’s capability proficiency level which is used to classify the capabilities at specific levels. The last dimension entails the context in which the individual’s capabilities are applied (Sampson & Fytros, 2008). This definition greatly complements the general definition by Loasby (1998) who does not include the proficiency level or specific context of capabilities.
Different scholars have worked to develop capability models which can be used to measure and enhance capabilities in organizations, industries or countries. Two important models are the capability lifecycle (Sinott et al, 2002) and the two-by-two task matrix (Autor et al, 2003).
4.4.1 The capability lifecycle
To measure required capabilities over time Sinott et al (2002) have developed the capability lifecycle which aims at the continuous enhancement of an individual’s or a group’s capabilities. There are five different steps in the development of the capability lifecycle which ensures the recognition of changes in the required capabilities over time.
1. The creation of a capability model through the identification of required tasks and relevant capabilities.
2. The assessment of the existing capabilities.
4. The definition of capability development programs or higher required capability entry levels to minimize the gap.
5. The continuous performance monitoring and assessment to confirm improvement.
Gera et al (2001) contribute to the above modeling of capabilities by arguing that capabilities, when measured or modeled, should best be categorized in the dimensions educational level, on-the-job training and work experience. The advantage of the categorization is that it can be seen which capabilities are an entry level requirement (education), which capabilities can be developed when doing a certain task (work experience), and which capabilities can be developed next to the task (on-the-job training). The categorization also shows what should be the focus of the organization when required capabilities are changing (Gera et al, 2001). For example when a group of employees have to develop a job specific capability due to new technology which is not learned in prior education, the organization might need to focus on the development of training programs (Kelley, 1990).
4.4.2 The two-by-two task matrix
