Solving the Critical Communication Problem

Sharp Resources has teamed up with Board Advisory Services to solve the communication problem (or the lack of communication) that is causing great ideas, innovations or reports of problems not to get the desired responsible people.

The history of this project goes back to 2007. The catalyst for change was the growing legislation, worldwide, that holds executive officers and some board members personally liable for things they "should have known" but didn't. Sharp Resources, which is led by senior industry executives who have held both line and board positions in major industry organizations, began to look into the issue and found that it is true for both the good and the bad.

A senior executive is responsible to the shareholders for both profitability and governance. We found that senior executives lament they cannot hear all the good ideas from employees, just as much as they are concerned that bad acitivites do not come to light until a crisis.

Clearly executives cannot be expected to process hundreds of ideas or individual reports - we still need to digest the information and summarize it in a way they can act upon it. We needed a way to test the veracity of issues - and perhaps most importantly a way to continue dialog with the originator, even if it meant their identity had to remain anonymous throughout the process. Few, if any current systems and processes in place allow for this. It would need an anonymous conversation vehicle coupled with an artifical intelligence engine to produce viable reports, all integrated into workflow so that the right reports go to the right people.

How many of us remember the GE "Workout" process where a senior executive sat in a room of employees and over the course of 30 - 45 minutes had 60 seconds to decide yes or no to employee ideas. It was very effective, but why did it get to this in the first place? We all know how organizational issues restrict the flow of ideas and information - it is a by-product of everyone being busy in a complex organization. It's nothing sinister, but we need to get beyond it.

One CEO recently commented - "I wish I could find out what they really want to tell me when I visit the cafeteria".

We're developing a solution for just that and we need your help. Please post ideas to the blog, attend our free webinars or comment on the Aviation Integrity group on LinkedIn.

Project Effectiveness

We've been undertaking a study of project risk in airlines and airport projects. Not unusual you might say, however we're not looking at the specific risks of given projects - rather the nature of identifying systemic risks and how to identify them while you're in the project.

One of our findings is that the reporting chain from project members up to the project sponsor is a key cause of information not getting up to the sponsor. A process inhibiting exactly what it was designed to do! You're not shocked? No, we've all been there haven't we.

When looking at the phenomenon more closely, we found it has very little to do with wrong doing - intentionally hiding critical information. Most often, it's the summary reports and project reviews themselves that limit the effectiveness of risk assessment.

In one very clear case, we found a project review included twelve groups - and this was a very well-managed project. Each group understood their tasks, deliverable and due dates, dependencies of work among participants and the overall plan. However if one group was behind their own schedule, they didn't report it because they 'knew' another group in the chain would be hitting a delay and they'd have more time. What happened in this project was that when the final deliverable was going to be over 6 months late, a project audit found out that over 180 items was behind schedule and each of the 12 groups had significant delays.

We're working to develop a method to get objective reports from the entire project staff and help reduce this phenomenon substantially. We would be interested in any of your views?

Southwest - Frontier! What an Opportunity!

It is amusing to read the financial analysts take on the proposed buyout of Frontier Airlines by Southwest Airlines Co.. Even the pundits in the industry are hampered by the same lack of vision that the traditional carriers hold.

When I heard the news, my reaction was 'about time'. Partly selfishly of course with Southwest being my preferred US carrier and Frontier being a key link from my home to Denver. But there's more to this than meets the eye.

Southwest has never bought airlines to gain market share - they create their own market and always have. The closest to a me-too was the Morris Air acquisition. And would Southwest like to topple United? I'm not sure they care, so long as there is growth in their business model. They certainly won't want to fly Denver Tokyo, and quite frankly may eliminate Frontiers few international routes in favor of a Mexican low-cost carrier with whom they could partner (like the Westjet model in Canada).

You can look at this financially of course - the cost to access key gates at major airports that Frontier has is probably more than the entire cost of buying Frontier. They will get good prices for the A319 and A318s in Frontier's fleet. I would not be surprised if established carriers at current Frontier cities might be concerned - Atlanta perhaps?

When Frontier restarted a few years back, they were great. I became a top flier quickly and enjoyed their can do attitude. In the last four years they've gone so far downhill that I avoid them - even flying to Denver on United.

Overall, great business strategy for Southwest, great for travellers in and out of Denver. It just means that a few more of my trips will now operate on time.

Just Culture

It appears that the FAA is moving towards Just Culture at least as far as ATC is concerned. Hopefully this shift in Safety Culture will apply to all segments of the industry. However, it seems there is confusion about Just Culture non-blame and non-punitive aspects.
It does not mean if I report it I can get away with it. It was never meant to relieve people from their personal responsibility. It is meant to encourage people to report problems which are related to the organisation and the management system without fearing retribution, and it actually works.
There are several reasons why procedurers may not work, the most common is it was not communicated to everyone properly (training issue) or it could just be a bad procedure (wrong information, not effective, badly written etc..).

Just Culture will require extensive training at all levels for the cultural shift to happen. Mandating SMS (of which Just Culture is a part) will definitely help.

This will throw some light on the subject http://www.flightsafety.org/gain/just_culture.pdf

Transition from a Technical to a Management Position

This is a tough transition for all, I think the most important step one has to take is to move from micro managing a technical issue to macro managing the same issue. One needs to look at the big picture. One needs to restrain oneself from jumping in and fixing a problem for the team. How do you do that, listen to your team and to your peers, communicate what you want and need clearly and most importantly don't feel shy, it is your job. Most of all the team looks up to you to provide leadership and focus, to translate the company vision into a reality for them.

Having read a lot of management books since 1985, an individual's management style is the byproduct of his experiences both successes and failures alike (failures mainly, always look for the lesson learnt, and remember it). One has to find his own management legs so to speake.

Just be sensible, listen and communicate and enjoy the ride, you are in for the time of your life.

Auditing Suppliers

There are several types of suppliers in aviation (Service Providers, Parts Suppliers and Suppliers). The requirement to audit them is mandated by regulation. Basically, they should be an extension of one’s quality, safety and security requiements and processes.

In general all maintenance organisations are more or less certified and approved to the same standards. An operator's job is to make sure that they comply with the regulations and quality standards and where there are deficiencies bridge the gap.

As for aircraft parts suppliers and with the problem of Suspected Unapproved Parts (SUP), the main thing is “Know Your Suppliers” if the trust is there the job is much easier. SUP by definition may be a problem of lack of the correct paperwork or an actual replica. Proper certification paperwork is essential.

On the whole aviation maybe the easier sector when it comes to auditing because of the amount of regulations governing all its aspects

Safety and Production

Safety is a cultural issue and is an intuitive action in our personal life (crossing streets, driving, working at home etc...) which we tend to totally suppress when it comes to the workplace because we are busy doing something else (production). And of course it does not help much when senior management is more interested in production than its commitment to Safety (quality and trainning rank in the same category). Well as the saying goes if you think Safety is expensive, try the cost of an accident. Safety and Production are not necessarily at odds, and safety can be translated into production (less accidents, incidents, work stoppages etc..).
Safety Management System (SMS) is mandated across the aviation sectors in most countries whith remaining following within a few years. This is a traditionally "Safety" oriented industry but SMS formalises functions like risk assesments and mitigation and safety objectives, requiring a culture adjustment within the organisation. It will be very interesting to follow the implemetation of SMS and the organisational culture changes.