titan turnaround integration in trajectory a network -...

Project co-funded by the European Commission and TITAN consortium.

TITAN Turnaround Integration in Trajectory And Network

Project Number: 233690

Name of the document

CLASSIFICATION: PU ISSUE: 1.0 DATE: 29/10/2010

DOCUMENT REFERENCE

Project Work Package Partner Nature Number

TITAN WP1 ISD DEL 03

TITAN Performance Framework Issue: 1.0

Date: 29/10/2010

TITAN: Turnaround Integration in Trajectory And Network of 43

DOCUMENT CHANGE LOG

Issue Date Author Affected Sections / Comments

0.6 25/10/2010 Rosana Casar Creation of the document

1.0 29/10/2010 Rosana Casar Acceptance by EC

DOCUMENT CONTROL

Responsible Organisation Name Date

Author ISD Rosana Casar, Ángeles Varona 22/06/2010

Partners involved CRI Susana Bravo, Eva Puntero 29/09/2010

INE Sara Luis, Ana Saez 29/09/2010

BRT Javier García 29/09/2010

SLO Noémi Kral 29/09/2010

BLU Steve Zerkovitch 29/09/2010

Reviewer INE Laura Serrano 18/10/2010

AENA Amalia Garcia 18/10/2010

ISD Vicente Bordón 18/10/2010

Approver INE Alvaro Urech 25/10/2010


Date: 29/10/2010


DOCUMENT DISTRIBUTION

To/Cc Organisation Name

To EC Stephanie Stoltz-Douchet

To INE Álvaro Urech

To INE Laura Serrano

To INE Ana C. Sáez

To INE Sara Luis

To AEN Amalia García

Cc JEP Alicia Grech

Cc JEP John Butcher

To CRI Nicolás Suarez

To CRI Susana Bravo

To CRI Eva Puntero

Cc ECO Robert Piers

Cc ECO Jolanta Rekiel

Cc ISA Ian Crook

To ISD Vicente Bordón

To ISD Rosana Casar

To ISD Mª Angeles Varona

To BLU Steve Zerkowitz

To BRT Javier García

To SLO Roland Gurály

To SLO Zoltán Bilácz

To SLO Noémi Král


Date: 29/10/2010


Cc RWT Sebastian Kellner

Cc SESAR JU Paul Adamson

Cc AENA/SESAR JU Alejandro Egido

Cc AENA/SESAR JU Francisco Javier Fernández de Liger


Date: 29/10/2010


TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 9

1.1 PURPOSE .......................................................................................................................... 9

1.2 INTENDED AUDIENCE ...................................................................................................... 9

1.3 CONTEXT AND STATUS ................................................................................................... 9

1.4 DOCUMENT STRUCTURE ................................................................................................. 9

1.5 ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTATION .................................................................................... 9

1.6 ACRONYMS ..................................................................................................................... 10

2. Methodology used ...................................................................................................... 122.1.1 Considerations about TITAN performance framework ........................................ 122.1.2 Considerations about turnaround process in TITAN ........................................... 13

2.2 PARAMETERS DEFINITIONS .......................................................................................... 14

3. Key performance areas identification ...................................................................... 163.1 PREDICTABILITY ............................................................................................................. 16

3.2 EFFICIENCY ..................................................................................................................... 17

3.3 COST EFFECTIVENESS .................................................................................................. 18

3.4 FLEXIBILITY ..................................................................................................................... 18

4. Focus areas identification ......................................................................................... 204.1 PREDICTABILITY FOCUS AREAS .................................................................................. 20

4.2 EFFICIENCY FOCUS AREAS .......................................................................................... 21

4.3 COST EFFECTIVENESS FOCUS AREAS ....................................................................... 22

4.4 FLEXIBILITY FOCUS AREAS .......................................................................................... 23

5. Key performance indicators identification ............................................................... 255.1 EFFICIENCY KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS ......................................................... 27

5.2 PREDICTABILITY KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS ................................................. 31

5.3 COST EFFECTIVENESS KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS ...................................... 34

5.4 FLEXIBILITY KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS ......................................................... 35

6. Influence diagrams definition .................................................................................... 376.1 METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................. 37

6.2 INFLUENCE DIAGRAM FOR EFFICIENCY OBJ ECTIVE ................................................ 37

6.3 INFLUENCE DIAGRAM FOR PREDICTABILITY OBJ ECTIVE ........................................ 40

6.4 INFLUENCE DIAGRAM FOR COST EFFECTIVENESS OBJ ECTIVE .............................. 42

7. Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 43


Date: 29/10/2010


LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Methodology .................................................................................................................. 13

Figure 2: High level influence diagram for efficiency ..................................................................... 38

Figure 3: Low level influence diagram for efficiency ...................................................................... 39

Figure 4: High level influence diagram for predictability ................................................................ 40

Figure 5: Low level influence diagram for predictability ................................................................. 41

Figure 6: Influence diagram for cost effectiveness ........................................................................ 42

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Acronyms ........................................................................................................................ 11

Table 2: Parameters definitions .................................................................................................... 15

Table 3: Predictability definitions ................................................................................................... 16

Table 4: TITAN understanding - predictability ............................................................................... 17

Table 5: Predictability performance objective ................................................................................ 17

Table 6: Efficiency definitions ........................................................................................................ 17

Table 7: TITAN understanding - efficiency .................................................................................... 18

Table 8: Efficiency performance objective ..................................................................................... 18

Table 9: Cost effectiveness definitions .......................................................................................... 18

Table 10: TITAN understanding - cost effectiveness ..................................................................... 18

Table 11: Cost effectiveness performance objective ..................................................................... 18

Table 12: Flexibility definitions ...................................................................................................... 19

Table 13: TITAN understanding - flexibility .................................................................................... 19

Table 14: Flexibility performance objectives .................................................................................. 19

Table 15: Predictability focus areas .............................................................................................. 21

Table 16: Efficiency focus areas ................................................................................................... 21

Table 17: Cost effectiveness focus areas ...................................................................................... 23

Table 18: Flexibility focus areas .................................................................................................... 24

Table 19: Milestones related to turnaround sub-processes definition ............................................ 26

Table 20: KPIs related to efficiency KPA and turnaround efficiency focus area ............................. 28

Table 21: KPIs related to efficiency KPA and temporal efficiency focus area ................................ 31

Table 22: KPIs related to predictability KPA and turnaround operations variability focus area ...... 33

Table 23: KPIs related to predictability KPA and knock on focus area .......................................... 33

Table 24: KPIs related to cost effectiveness KPA ......................................................................... 35

Table 25: KPIs related to flexibility KPA and turnaround flexibility focus area ............................... 35


Date: 29/10/2010


Table 26: KPIs related to flexibility KPA and service flexibility focus area ..................................... 36


Date: 29/10/2010


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Turnaround Integration in Trajectory and Network (TITAN) project directly addresses the airport operations focusing on the turnaround process. WP1 identifies the problems, user needs and expectations, set the performance target objectives and proposes an operational concept fully in line with SESAR concept of operations.

This deliverable presents the definition of the Performance Framework. It identifies the Key Performance Areas and the related Focus Areas. It introduces the Key Performance Indicators of each Focus Area and Influence Diagrams, the aim of which is to graphically represent the relationships between the TITAN objectives and the defined Key Performance Indicators.

This document is aligned in terms of objectives and performance drivers with the definition of the Operational Concept and will serve as an input for the validation strategy.


Date: 29/10/2010


1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose The aim of this document is to develop the TITAN Performance Framework through the definition of the Key Performance Areas (KPA), Focus Areas (FA), Key Performance Indicators (KPI), performance drivers and performance measurements.

This deliverable has been aligned with work in WP1.4 (Definition of the TITAN operational concept) and will be taken as input in WP3.1 (Validation Strategy).

1.2 Intended audience This document is public and may be distributed freely, both within and outside the TITAN consortium.

1.3 Context and status The TITAN Performance Framework is based on the performance framework defined during the SESAR definition phase “Performance Objectives and Targets” (see ref [2]) and also taking into account milestones defined in the document Airport CDM Implementation Manual from EUROCONTROL (see ref [5]). It will consist of:

• The definition of a catalogue of common Performance Indicators (PIs) as references to ensure consistency and capture data about the influencing factors from exercises, and current and past studies;

• An understanding of the elements that contribute and influence the performance (Influence diagrams).

This catalogue of PIs will be used by the validation exercises contributing to the quantification of the performances. It provides “WHAT” will be measured.

1.4 Document structure Deliverable 1.3 is structured as follows:

• Section 1 introduces the TITAN project and the need of the research to optimize the turnaround process;

• Section 2 defines the Methodology used to reach the performance framework;

• Section 3 identifies the KPAs used for the analysis of the performance framework;

• Section 4 defines and identify the Focus Area for the Turnaround process;

• Section 5 identifies the Key Performance Indicator of the turnaround in the TITAN context;

• Section 6 definition of the Influence diagrams;

• Section 7 summarizes the main conclusions.

1.5 Associated documentation [1] Episode 3, “Performance Framework,” D2.0-03, April 2009


Date: 29/10/2010


[2] SESAR Definition Phase, Performance Objectives and Targets, RPT-0708-001-01-02, November 2007

[3] SESAR Project 6.5.1, Identification of Key Performance Areas and Focus Areas, Task 6.5.1 – T004, Ed 00.00.03, April 2010

[4] Eurocontrol, ATM Airport Performance (ATMAP) Framework, December 2009

[5] Eurocontrol Airport CDM Implementation, December 2008

[6] TITAN Description of Work, August 2009

[7] TITAN WP1, D1.1 Analysis of the current situation, v1.5, April 2010

1.6 Acronyms A-CDM Airport Collaborative Decision Making

AIBT Actual in-blocks time

AO Airport Operator

AOBT Actual off-blocks time

ARDT Actual ready time (for movement)

ASRT Actual start-up request time

ATM Air Traffic Management

ATMAP ATM Airport Performance Framework

ATOT Actual take off time

ATTT Actual Turnaround time

CSBT Coordinated Shared Business Trajectory

ECAC European Civil Aviation Conference

EIBT Estimated in-blocks time

EOBT Estimated off-blocks time

FA Focus Area

GH Ground Handler

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization

KPA Key Performance Area

KPI Key Performance Indicator

MTTT Minimum Turnaround Time

PD Performance Driver

PDI Performance Driver Indicator

PI Performance Indicator

SESAR Single European Sky ATM Research

SIBT Scheduled In-Blocks Time


Date: 29/10/2010


SOBT Scheduled Off-Blocks Time

TBD To be Defined

TMA Terminal Manoeuvring Area

TOBT Target Off-blocks time

WP Work Package

Table 1: Acronyms


Date: 29/10/2010


2. METHODOLOGY USED

2.1.1 Considerations about TITAN performance framework The Performance Framework is composed of different layers with increasing level of granularity, which are derived from the TITAN performance Objectives and Targets: Key Performance Areas (KPA), Focus Areas (FA), Key Performance Indicators (KPI), performance drivers and performance measurements.

The Key Performance Area layer provides a way to categorise performances related to high level ambitions and expectations. The KPAs will be identified from the KPAs defined by SESAR Safety, Capacity, Efficiency, Flexibility, Security, Environmental Sustainability, Cost Effectiveness, Predictability, Access / Equity, Participation and Interoperability.

The Focus Area layer identifies within each KPA a number of more specific areas in which there are potential intentions to establish performance management. For example, within the Capacity KPA one can identify airport capacity, airspace capacity and network capacity as Focus Areas. Within each Main Focus Area, a number of Lower Level Focus Areas may also be defined.

The Performance Driver layer describes how the objective can be achieved within each focus area corresponding to a specific Key Performance Area.

The Key Performance Indicators layer identifies what information must be obtained to reach the performance objectives previously defined. These indicators quantitatively describe the performance of the turnaround process to address a specific performance driver within a focus area related to a Key Performance Area. KPIs are also defined according to the performance objectives defined within the project. Normally, KPIs are not directly measured but calculated from supporting performance measurements according to clearly defined formulas. They will be defined at the end of the performance framework definition.

The Performance Measurement layer identifies how the measurement of each KPI is performed. In other words, they describe how the KPIs are calculated/obtained.

Note: where large-scale projects like SESAR (see ref [2]) and Episode 3 (see ref [1]) identified several PI layers with increasing level of detail (e.g. ECAC wide – Airport, TMA, En Route – Local), the TITAN Performance Framework will consist of only one layer of Performance Indicators, comparable with the Local PI layer of Episode-3 (see ref [1]).

Rationale for the identification of the different layers of TITAN performance framework is based on the results of related projects such as EUROCONTROL A-CDM, ATMAP, SESAR definition phase, and SESAR development phase (Project 6.5.1). Also the results coming from the TITAN WP 1.1 about the analysis of the current turnaround process are taken into account.

Figure 1 shows the structure of the methodology to be applied in the identification:


Date: 29/10/2010


Project targets

Identification of KPAs

Identification of FA

Definition of KPIs

Definition of performance measurement

Performance Drivers

Influence Diagrams

Prioritization

Figure 1: Methodology

2.1.2 Considerations about turnaround process in TITAN According to the Airport CDM Implementation manual of EUROCONTROL, the TITAN performance framework will consider the turnaround process as the sub-processes to be performed between the In-Block time and the Off-Block time: xTTT = xOBT-xIBT (where xTTT is the turnaround time).

Some considerations should be taken into account regarding the scope of the TITAN performance framework and the turnaround process:

• De-icing sub-process: Only on-stand de-icing will be considered within the performance framework definition. This sub-process will be performed between the AOBT and the AIBT timeframe.

• Towing sub-process: This one is out of the scope of the performance framework.

TITAN performance framework should be understood as complementary to those performance framework defined by other SESAR projects such as P6.5.1 Airport Operations Plan Definition , especially with respect to the airside sub-processes of the turnaround processes. However, the main objective of the TITAN project will be to complement the work done by SESAR with the turnaround sub-processes which are not covered by these projects, especially the landside ones.

Since the related projects (TITAN and P6.5.1) will run in parallel, the alignment between both projects will be detailed along the document to remark and identify the level of alignment reached.

According to the TITAN deliverable D1.1 “Analysis of the current situation” (see ref [7]), airside and landside turnaround sub-processes are defined as follows:

• Landside processes: Connection to the city, Check-in, Passengers Security process, Passport Control, Baggage processes, Stand/Gate Management. According to TITAN D1.1


Date: 29/10/2010


document, TITAN will consider Check-in, Security process, Passport control and Stand/Gate management processes as the sub-processes which will have a major impact in the turnaround sub-processes, in terms of delays and time constraints;

• Airside processes: They are divided in Passenger services, Cargo/baggage handling and Aircraft services. As it was mentioned before, the end of the turnaround sub-processes will be the moment when the aircraft leaves the stand (AOBT).

2.2 Parameters definitions The time identifiers used in this document are based on the ones defined in Airport CDM Implementation Manual document, also adopted in TITAN ConOps. Use of common nomenclature will facilitate the understanding of the turnaround concept in other related projects and initiatives trying to establish a baseline.

Name Definition

ACGT (Actual Commence of Ground Handling Time)

The time when ground handling on an aircraft starts, can be equal to AIBT (to be determined locally)

ACZT (Actual Commence of De-icing Time) The time when de-icing operations on an aircraft starts.

ADIT (Actual De-icing Time) Metric AEZT-ACZT

AEGT (Actual End of Ground Handling Time) The time when ground handling on an aircraft ends, can be equal to ARDT (TBD locally)

AEZT (Actual End of De-icing Time) The time when de-icing operations on an aircraft end

AGHT (Actual Ground Handling Time) Total duration of the ground handling of the aircraft. Metric ACGT-AEGT.

AIBT (Actual In-Block Time) The time that an aircraft arrives in-blocks. (Equivalent to Airline/Handler ATA –Actual Time of Arrival, ACARS = IN)

AOBT (Actual Off-Block Time) Time the aircraft pushes back / vacates the parking position. (Equivalent to Airline / Handlers ATD – Actual Time of Departure &ACARS=OUT)

ASRT (Actual Start-up Request Time) The time the pilot requests start up clearance

ATOT (Actual Take-Off Time) The time that an aircraft takes off from the runway. (Equivalent to ATC ATD–Actual Time of Departure, ACARS = OFF)

Delayed flight This is a flight in which the difference between ATOT (ATD) and ETD (Estimated Time of Departure) is bigger than 15 minutes.

EEZT (Estimated End of De-icing Time) The estimated time when de-icing operations on an aircraft are expected to end.


Date: 29/10/2010


EIBT (Estimated In-Block Time) The estimated time that an aircraft will arrive in-blocks. (Equivalent to Airline/Handler ETA –Estimated Time of Arrival).

EOBT (Estimated Off-Block Time) The estimated time at which the aircraft will commence movement associated with departure (ICAO).

ERZT (Estimated Ready for De-icing Time) The estimated time when the aircraft is expected to be ready for de-icing operations.

ETTT (Estimated Turnaround Time) The time estimated by the AO/GH on the day of operation to turnaround a flight taking into account the operational constraints.

MTTT (Minimum Turnaround Time) The minimum turnaround time agreed with an AO/GH for a specified flight or aircraft type.

SIBT (Scheduled In-Block Time) The time that an aircraft is scheduled to arrive at its parking position.

SOBT (Scheduled Off-Block Time) The time that an aircraft is scheduled to depart from its parking position.

TOBT (Target Off-Block Time) The time that an Aircraft Operator or Ground Handler estimates that an aircraft will be ready, all doors closed, boarding bridge removed, push back vehicle available and ready to start up / push back immediately upon reception of clearance from the TWR.

Table 2: Parameters definitions


Date: 29/10/2010


3. KEY PERFORMANCE AREAS IDENTIFICATION KPAs identification has been done based on the KPAs definition of different projects: SESAR Definition Phase, ATMAP and SESAR P6.5.1. Although different KPA definitions have been found, none of them take into account all aspects of the turnaround processes. Therefore the definitions of the selected KPAs for TITAN are adapted here, based on the turnaround concept and the high-level objectives defined for TITAN project.

The high-level objectives defined in TITAN project are:

• Increase of predictability (due to the turnaround process);

• Reduction of the operational costs (handling companies and airlines);

• Increase efficiency of airlines operations (punctuality).

Numeric values for these high-level objectives are given in Technical Annex (see ref [6]). According to these objectives, the following KPAs are considered for the TITAN project: Predictability, Efficiency, Cost Effectiveness and Flexibility.

Furthermore, although capacity might be enhanced by improving the efficiency of the Turnaround process, it is not an objective of the project to focus on the turnaround capacity. The reason is that the declared airport capacity is usually not limited by turnaround capacity but more by runway capacity. Nevertheless, although improvements on capacity are not initially considered, it can be inferred that the turnaround capacity will also be enhanced as a consequence of the efficiency improvements foreseen.

In the following sections, the definition of the TITAN KPAs is formulated. For each KPA the different definitions from the SESAR Definition Phase, ATMAP and SJU P6.5.1 Airport Operation Plan Definition are given first, after which the TITAN KPA definition will be given. The SJU P6.5.1 project is relevant because it is in charge of the definition of the performance framework of the Airport Operations Plan. Furthermore, for each KPA the performance objective is also provided.

3.1 Predictability PREDICTABILITY

Related Project Definition

SESAR Definition Phase

This KPA addresses the ability of the ATM System to ensure a reliable and consistent level of 4D Trajectory performance. In other words: across many flights, the ability to control the variability of the deviation between the actually flown 4D trajectories of aircraft in relationship to the Reference Business Trajectory.

ATMAP Predictability refers to the ability of the airspace users and air navigation service providers to provide consistent and dependable levels of performance.

SJU Operational Project

P6.5.1

This KPA addresses the ability of the airport to ensure a reliable and consistent level of 4D trajectory performance. In other words: across many flights, the ability to control the variability of the deviation between the ground segments of the actually flown 4D.

Table 3: Predictability definitions


Date: 29/10/2010


None of the three definitions could be adapted to the turnaround process and especially not to the landside part, although the P6.5.1 definition can be adapted making reference to the variability of the turnaround operations duration instead of referring to the 4D trajectory performance. This is the detailed definition of this KPA for TITAN project:

TITAN Understanding Predictability

This KPA refers to the ability of the airlines, airports, handling agents and air navigation service providers to provide reliable and consistent levels of performance of turnaround process and to control the variability of the deviation between the estimated performance of turnaround operations and the actual one.

Table 4: TITAN understanding - predictability

Predictability in TITAN deals with the variability of operations around an average time. If it were possible to reduce the variability of the turnaround processes duration, the level of predictability would increase, with a positive impact on punctuality. This would in turn increase the utilisation of airport/airline resources, for instance, reducing the necessary buffers that are normally allocated for each turnaround service.

The performance objective for Predictability is extracted from the Technical Annex (see ref [6]):

High Level Objective Performance Objective (Quantification)

Increase of predictability (of the turnaround process)

The reduction of 15 minutes of the standard deviation of departure time due to turnaround process.

That is, the reduction from 18 to 3 minutes the standard deviation from the Scheduled Off-Blocks Time (SOBT).

Table 5: Predictability performance objective

3.2 Efficiency EFFICIENCY



This KPA addresses the actually flown 4D trajectories of aircraft in relationship to their Shared Business Trajectory.

ATMAP Efficiency is acting or producing effectively with a minimum of waste, expense or unnecessary effort (good input to output ratio).

SJU Operational Project P6.5.1

This KPA addresses the actually flown 4D trajectories of aircraft in relationship to their initial Shared Business Trajectory.

Table 6: Efficiency definitions

The second definition is slightly confusing because of using the term “effectively” to define efficiency. The first and the third definition are more appropriate for TITAN. However, some adaptation is necessary to include the landside and the airside parts of the turnaround process within the definition. Then, the KPA definition for TITAN project is the following one:

TITAN Understanding Efficiency

Turnaround efficiency refers to the compliance with the scheduled time for turnaround process avoiding delays which will make airlines to incur additional times.


Date: 29/10/2010


Table 7: TITAN understanding - efficiency

Efficiency in TITAN is related to the block-to-block duration: It is assumed that if the execution of turnaround sub-processes is improved, the delay in the estimated off-block time could be reduced.

The performance objective for Efficiency is extracted from the Technical Annex (see ref [6]):


Increase efficiency of airlines operations (punctuality)

Reduction of the total delayed flights by 9%.

Delayed flights are considered those flights with departure delay (AOBT) higher than 15 minutes.

Table 8: Efficiency performance objective

3.3 Cost effectiveness COST EFECTIVENESS



This KPA addresses the cost of gate-to-gate ATM in relation to the volume of air traffic that is managed.

ATMAP N/A


P6.5.1

N/A

Table 9: Cost effectiveness definitions

The only definition available comes from the SESAR Definition Phase, but it addresses the cost of gate-to-gate, so the turnaround process is not considered. The TITAN adaptation of the definition is as follows:

TITAN Understanding Cost Effectiveness

This KPA addresses the cost of turnaround operations in relation to the volume of air traffic that the airport manages.

Table 10: TITAN understanding - cost effectiveness

The performance objective for Cost Effectiveness is extracted from the technical annex:


Reduction of the operational costs (handling companies and airlines)

This reduction in the operational costs during turnaround should be 20%.

Table 11: Cost effectiveness performance objective

3.4 Flexibility FLEXIBILITY


SESAR Definition This KPA addresses the ability of the ATM System and airports to respond to unforeseen changes in the short-term in demand and


Date: 29/10/2010


Phase capacity: rapid changes in traffic patterns, last minute notifications or cancellations of flights, changes to the Reference Business Trajectory (pre-departure changes as well as in-flight changes, with or without diversion), late aircraft substitutions, sudden airport capacity changes, late airspace segregation requests, weather, crisis situations, etc.

ATMAP N/A


P6.5.1

This KPA addresses the ability of the airport to respond to “sudden” changes in demand and capacity: rapid changes in traffic patterns, last minute notifications or cancellations of flights, changes to the Reference Business Trajectory (pre-departure changes as well as in-flight changes, with or without diversion), late aircraft substitutions, sudden airport capacity changes, late airspace segregation requests, weather, crisis situations, etc.

Table 12: Flexibility definitions

Both definitions are very similar and the P6.5.1 is more adapted to the turnaround process, although an adaptation in the definition must be performed:

TITAN Understanding Flexibility

This KPA addresses the ability of the turnaround system to respond to “sudden” changes in demand and capacity: Accommodating new airspace user requests for turnaround process, late aircraft substitutions, sudden airport capacity changes, weather, crisis situations, etc.

Table 13: TITAN understanding - flexibility

The Technical Annex of TITAN does not provide a specific objective for this KPA, but due to the close relationship with the Efficiency and Predictability KPAs, Flexibility should contribute to reach the mentioned objectives defined for Efficiency and Predictability. In other words, unexpected events within the turnaround process should not increase the target number of delayed flights and they should be performed and scheduled to maintain the expected levels of predictability.

This is expressed in the following performance objective:


Compliance with objectives defined for Efficiency and Predictability

Unexpected events should be performed according to the targets defined for Predictability and Efficiency:

• Reduction of the total delayed flights by 9%

• Reduction from 18 to 3 minutes the standard deviation of departure time

Table 14: Flexibility performance objectives


Date: 29/10/2010


4. FOCUS AREAS IDENTIFICATION The identification of Focus Areas is done in the same way as the KPAs identification. In order to explain the rationale for the definition of the TITAN Focus Areas, a list of the focus areas defined within other projects is shown. Finally the definition of the Focus Area for TITAN project is detailed.

4.1 Predictability focus areas Project Focus Area Definition

SESAR D2

On-Time Operation This Focus Area covers the variability of the flight operation: departure (off-block) and arrival (on-block) punctuality, and the variability of flight phase durations (turnaround time, taxi time, airborne time).

Service Disruption

Effect

Focus is on the prevention and mitigation of the Business Trajectory effects of ATM service disruption. Such effects can take the form of departure/arrival delays, flight cancellations and diversions.

Knock-on effect Focus is on the impact of (a lack of) On-Time operation and schedule buffers on subsequent flights. Such impact takes the form of reactionary delays, and in more extreme cases may lead to flight cancellations.

P6.5.1

Flight Operation Variability

This Focus Area covers the variability of the flight operation: departure (off-block) and arrival (on-block) time variability, and the variability of operational phase durations (turnaround time, taxi time).

Service Disruption Effect

Focus is on the prevention and mitigation of the Business Trajectory effects of ATM service disruption. Such effects can take the form of departure/arrival delays, flight cancellations and diversions.

Knock-on effect Focus is on the impact of (a lack of) On-Time operation and schedule buffers on subsequent flights. Such impact takes the form of reactionary delays, and in more extreme cases may lead to flight cancellations.

TITAN

Turnaround operation variability

This Focus Area covers the variability of the turnaround operations, their impact in the departure (off-block) and arrival (in-block) time variability, and the variability of this whole operational phase duration (complete


Date: 29/10/2010


Project Focus Area Definition

turnaround time)

Knock-on effect This focus area covers the impact of a lack of on-time turnaround operation and schedule buffers on subsequent flights. One delay in the turnaround process of a specific flight can cause reactionary delays for other flights.

Table 15: Predictability focus areas

4.2 Efficiency focus areas Project Focus Area Definition

SESAR D2

Temporal Efficiency This Focus Area covers the magnitude and causes of deviations from planned (on-time) departure time and deviations from Shared Business Trajectory durations (taxi time, airborne time).

Fuel Efficiency This Focus Area covers the magnitude and causes of deviations from optimum fuel consumption.

Mission Effectiveness Following military trajectory models focus is to reflect the economic impact of transit times associated with military training activities.

P6.5.1

Temporal Efficiency This Focus Area covers the magnitude and causes of deviations from planned (on-time) departure time and deviations from the durations of the ground segments of the Initial Shared Business Trajectory (taxi time, turnaround time).

Infrastructure Efficiency

This focus area covers the magnitude and causes of deviations from optimal use of the airport’s infrastructure.

TITAN

Temporal Efficiency This Focus Area covers the magnitude and causes of deviations from scheduled (on-time) turnaround process.

Turnaround Infrastructure Efficiency

This focus area covers the magnitude and causes of deviations from optimal use of the airport’s resources (infrastructure and human) in turnaround operations.

Table 16: Efficiency focus areas


Date: 29/10/2010


4.3 Cost effectiveness focus areas Project Focus Area Definition

SESAR D2

Direct cost of

gate-to-gate ATM

This Focus Area covers the total direct gate-to-gate ATM costs incurred by ATM stakeholders (regulatory and governmental authorities, intergovernmental organisations, service providers, airspace users, Airport Operators etc.). It includes:

Geographically: en-route and terminal costs.

Service-wise: ATM/CNS costs, MET costs, payments made to regulatory and governmental authorities, European ATM design function costs (e.g. EUROCONTROL today).

From an organisational perspective: staff costs, infrastructure, equipment (ground,air and space based), software, maintenance, training etc.

Please note that this Focus Area addresses costs, not revenue and it is therefore not affected by charging policy.

Direct cost of ATM

providers

The part of the direct cost of gate-to-gate ATM which is borne by the service providers.

Indirect costs Indirect costs are attributable to non-optimal gate-to-gate ATM performance. The scope covers the extra costs incurred by airspace users through non-optimum performance in the Efficiency, Flexibility and Predictability KPAs. The environmental cost is not included at this stage.

P6.5.1

N/A N/A

TITAN

Turnaround operating cost

This area is focused on the total cost, both direct and indirect, incurred by the stakeholders involved in the turnaround processes. Direct costs include staff, infrastructure, equipment, software, maintenance, training, etc. Indirect costs are attributable to non-optimal turnaround process performance. The scope covers the extra costs incurred by users involved in the turnaround operations (mainly ground


Date: 29/10/2010



handling operators and airlines) through non-optimum performance in the Efficiency, Flexibility and Predictability KPAs. The monetised environmental cost i.e. the impact of emissions in economics terms using, for instance, existing Emissions Trade Schemes (ETS) is not included at this stage because of its complexity, small impact of turnaround improvements on the environment, and the lack of standardization to apply these ETS

Table 17: Cost effectiveness focus areas

4.4 Flexibility focus areas Project Focus Area Definition

SESAR D2

Business Trajectory update flexibility for scheduled and non scheduled flights

This Focus Area covers the ability of the ATM System and airports to accommodate airspace user requests for Coordinated Shared Business Trajectory (CSBT) or Reference Business Trajectory (RBT) updates of scheduled and non-scheduled flights, ranging from simple time translation (depart/arrive earlier/later) to full BT redefinition (changes to aircraft, route, vertical profile, destination, etc.)

Flexible access-on demand for non-scheduled flights

This Focus Area covers the ability of the ATM System and airports to accommodate non-scheduled flights.

Service location

flexibility

Focus is on the ability of the ATM System to make services available at (relatively) short notice in airspace and at airports where previously no service was available.

Suitability for Military requirements

Focus is to reflect the suitability of the ATM System for military requirements related to the flexibility in the use of airspace and reaction to short-notice changes.

P6.5.1

Business Trajectory Flexibility

This Focus Area covers the ability of the ATM System and airports to accommodate airspace user requests for Coordinated Shared Business Trajectory (CSBT) or Reference Business Trajectory (RBT) updates of scheduled and non-scheduled flights, related to the turnaround process (time translation of departure/arrival, change


Date: 29/10/2010



of aircraft type, etc)

Flexible access-on-demand for non-scheduled flights

This Focus Area covers the ability of the airport to accommodate non-scheduled flights.

Service flexibility Focus is on the ability of the ATM System to make services (de-icing, towing) available at relatively short notice at the airport where previously no or not sufficient service was available.

TITAN

Turnaround Flexibility Focused on the ability of the scheduled turnaround process to react to the usual changes in the different turnaround sub-processes at short notice, (changes not foreseen or expected), minimizing as much as possible the impact in the scheduled turnaround process.

Service Flexibility Focused on the ability of the turnaround process to provide special or additional services (services not included in the daily or normal turnaround process, i.e. lost passengers, gate changes, any service disruption that could happen) available at short notice.

Table 18: Flexibility focus areas


Date: 29/10/2010


5. KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS IDENTIFICATION KPI identification has been performed taking into account the TITAN objectives and the turnaround processes especially those described in the Airport CDM concept from the EUROCONTROL A-CDM project. The approach is as follows:

For each KPAs and Focus Areas the Performance Drivers are identified, indicating how to achieve the TITAN high level objectives. Next, the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and Performance Drivers Indicators (PDIs) are identified in order to define what information is needed to assess each Performance Driver. Finally, Performance Measurements are defined to state how to measure / calculate each KPI or PDI.

This approach ensures that the turnaround process is correctly mapped in order to comply with the performance objectives defined for TITAN.

For this purpose, the turnaround process has been divided into different sub-processes, in order to facilitate the identification of the main milestones that might have a major impact on the whole process. At this stage of the project, this identification is only based on the experience of the different stakeholders, and has only been done as an exercise to help the KPIs and PDIs extraction that follows hereafter. As a result, the following milestones were considered in document D1.1 (see ref [7]). Those milestones in yellow are related to the landside processes of the turnaround. The blue ones are related to the airside processes.

Milestone number Action(s) Result

M1 The check-in has started.

The security process of passengers has started.

M2 The aircraft has arrived to its stand.

The chocks are in (AIBT).

The passenger and the cargo doors can be opened.

M3 The check-in has closed. The actual passenger/bag configuration/number has been identified.

M4 Boarding bridge/stair are positioned.

Passenger doors are opened.

The de-boarding of the passengers can start.

M5 The de-boarding is finished. The aircraft services and the refuelling can start.

M6 The aircraft services (cleaning, catering, etc.) are finished.

The refuelling of the aircraft is finished.

The boarding of the passengers can start.

M7 The boarding has started.

M8 The boarding of the passengers is finished. The passenger door can be closed.

M9 The offloading of the cargo is finished.

The offloading of the baggage is finished.

The loading of the cargo and baggage can start.


Date: 29/10/2010


Milestone number Action(s) Result

M10 The loading of the cargo is finished.

The loading of the baggage is finished.

The cargo doors can be closed.

M11

The cargo and the passenger doors are closed.

Ask clearance to start up.

The chocks are out.

Ask clearance to push back.

Ask clearance to leave the stand.

The aircraft can leave its stand (AOBT).

Table 19: Milestones related to turnaround sub-processes definition

The KPIs and their corresponding performance measurement are identified considering two different approaches:

• Definition of the KPIs needed to assess the TITAN objectives: these KPIs will be marked in green colour;

• Definition of the TITAN Performance Drivers Indicators (PDIs) to monitor the turnaround process and support the decision-making to be done in order to improve this process. This definition is oriented to the turnaround sub-processes and is also aligned with P6.5.1 project of SESAR Development Phase. This level of coordination is shown at level of TITAN KPIs and PDIs, which try to complement those defined in P6.5.1.

The following sections include the proposed KPIs and PDIs for TITAN, together with their rationale, organised by KPA, Focus Areas and high level objective. KPIs are shadowed in green and have been directly related to the TITAN targets measurement. PDIs are related to the process performance monitoring and to the production of alerts to facilitate and drive the process enhancement.

Furthermore, Performance Drivers and Performance measurements are identified together with KPIs in order to detail how each KPI contributes to achieve the objective and how KPI can be measured respectively.


Date: 29/10/2010


5.1 Efficiency key performance indicators

KPA Efficiency

High level objective Increase efficiency of airline operations.

Focus Area Turnaround Infrastructure efficiency

Performance Driver Performance Indicator Performance measurement

Improve use of the airport infrastructure related to turnaround processes

Check-in scheduled duration

Planned duration (in minutes) of check-in sub-process:

Number of passengers to perform the check-in of any flight: Size of the queue to perform the check-in.

Throughput of the check-in desks of any flight (passengers per minute).

Number of the check-in desks available for any flight.

Security points scheduled duration

Planned duration (in minutes) for passengers to pass the security process in terms of:

Number of passengers to perform the security process: Size of the queue to perform the security process.

Throughput of the security desks (passengers per minute).

Number of the security desks available.

Passport control scheduled duration

Planned duration (in minutes) for passengers to pass the passport control in terms of:

Number of passengers to perform the passport control process: Size of the queue to perform the control passport.

Throughput of the passport control desks (passengers per minute).


Date: 29/10/2010


Number of desks available.

Passengers boarding scheduled duration

Planned duration (in minutes) for boarding passengers in terms of:

Average time per passenger for the on-boarding process per flight.

Number of expected passengers.

Aircraft Handling processes scheduled duration. Planned duration (in minutes) of the aircraft handling sub-processes in terms of the sub-processes related to aircraft handling.

GPU connection scheduled duration. Planned duration (in minutes) in which GPU connection is done.

Passengers De-boarding scheduled duration

Planned duration (in minutes) of the passengers de-boarding (in minutes) in terms of:

Average time per passenger for the de-boarding process per flight.

Number of expected passengers.

Fuelling scheduled duration Planned duration (in minutes) for fuelling.

Load/Unload scheduled duration Planned duration (in minutes) for baggage/cargo/mail sub-process from unloading to loading. It includes mail and baggage load/unload.

De-icing scheduled duration Planned duration (in minutes) for de-icing an specific aircraft on-stand.

Start-up/Off-block scheduled duration

Elapsed time in minutes from ready time (time in which the aircraft is ready to request the start-up, boarding closed and aircraft processes finished) until the reception of the ATC clearance to start-up engines and off-block.

Rationale

These indicators schedule the turnaround process and also the main sub-processes which have a major influence in it. They measure the estimated duration of the turnaround sub-processes given by the airlines or ground-handlers, assessing if the turnaround sub-processes are performed as they were planned/scheduled when they are compared with the actual ones.

Table 20: KPIs related to efficiency KPA and turnaround efficiency focus area


Date: 29/10/2010


KPA Efficiency

High level objective Increase efficiency of airlines operations

Focus Area Temporal efficiency


Increase of departure punctuality Off-Block Punctuality % of flights compliant with AOBT- SOBT <15 minutes. This indicator can be

measured in terms of Number of delayed flights and Total delay (in minutes).

Number of flights Total Number of departure flights per day in the airport.

Rationale These indicators will allow assessing the compliance with the TITAN objective of Punctuality of turnaround process, comparing the SOBT with the Actual one.

The target for Off-Block punctuality indicator is to reduce by 9% the total number of delayed flights.

Reduce the delays due to turnaround process Total Delay

Delay time in minutes per flight (AOBT-SOBT). This delay is conformed by:

Internal delays: Delays due to turnaround processes

External delays: Delays external to turnaround process

Rationale This indicator will allow obtaining the total delay, assessing the delayed flights in compliance with (AOBT-SOBT<15 minutes)

Reduce/Monitor delays in the sub-processes related to turnaround processes

Delay due to de-icing services. Measure in minutes of delays due to de-icing services: Measure: ARZT – ECZT.

Delay due to check-in. Measure in minutes of the delay related to check-in sub-process comparing the scheduled duration with the actual one.

Delays due to security control Measure of the delay (in minutes) related to the transit of passengers through the security control comparing the scheduled duration with the actual one.

Delay due to passport control Measure of the delay (in minutes) related to the transit of passengers through the passport control, comparing the scheduled duration with the actual one.


Date: 29/10/2010


Delay due to boarding passengers Measure of the delay (in minutes) of the passengers boarding sub-process,, comparing the scheduled duration with the actual one.

Delay due to aircraft-handling processes

Measure of the delay (in minutes) due to sub-processes related to aircraft handling process such as fuelling, service cabin, cleaning, cargo, boarding stairs, …), comparing the scheduled duration with the actual one.

Delay due to GPU connection Measure of the delay (in minutes) due to GPU connection sub-process, comparing the scheduled duration with the actual one.

Delay due to fuelling Measure of the delay (in minutes) due to fuelling sub-process, comparing the scheduled duration with the actual one.

Delay due to de-boarding Measure of the delay (in minutes) due to passengers de-boarding, comparing the scheduled duration with the actual one.

Delay due to loading Measure of the delay (in minutes) due to loading sub-process, comparing the scheduled duration with the actual one.

Delay due to start-up Measure of delay (in minutes) due to start-up sub-process from the moment the pilot requests it until the ATC approval is received and the aircraft starts moving (AOBT-ASRT).

Rationale

These indicators will not assess directly the objectives, but they will allow to monitor and assess the delays source and also to foresee future delays and detect where the improvements can be done.

Note that:

- If the delays are calculated comparing scheduled durations with estimated ones, they will monitor the process and they could be used to make decisions to improve the turnaround process while it takes place.

- If the delays are calculated with the actual ones, these measures can be used to know the delay source and also to make decisions to allow recovering these delays (improving the subsequent sub-processes of the on-going turnaround process).

Absorb the delay due to factors external to current/on-going turnaround process

Accumulated delay

Measure of the delay (in minutes) gathered until the starting of the turnaround process which is going to be assessed. This delay is conformed by:

Internal delays: Delays due to other turnaround processes, due to knock-on effects coming from preceding turnaround processes.

External delays: Delays caused by external activities to turnaround process.


Date: 29/10/2010


Rationale This indicator will not assess directly the objective, but it will allow identifying the part of the total delay not due to the on-going turnaround process (turnaround process currently assessed).

Table 21: KPIs related to efficiency KPA and temporal efficiency focus area

5.2 Predictability key performance indicators

KPA Predictability

High level objective Increase predictability of the turnaround process

Focus Area Turnaround operations variability


Reduce the variability of the turnaround time duration Variability of the ETTT Measure the standard deviation of the difference between the ATTT and ETTT.

Rationale The target objective of the predictability is to assess the reduction of the departure time in terms of the variability of the turnaround duration from 18 to 3 minutes.

Reduce the variability of the scheduled turnaround duration Variability of the STTT Measure the standard Deviation of the difference between the ATTT and STTT.

Rationale This KPI is defined to assess the variability of the scheduled turnaround process durations stated before the estimated turnaround time (stated the day of operations taking into account the operational constraints) and it will give some information about the capacity of prediction during the medium-long term planning phase.

Increase TOBT predictability TOBT variability

Comparison of TOBT and AOBT at different flight stages. Measure standard deviation of these differences.

Measure the TOBT prediction horizon comparing the current EOBT with the AOBT.

Measure the stability of the TOBT prediction: Number of TOBT updates.

Rationale TOBT can be continuously updated along the turnaround process. Less updating of TOBT and more precise measurements of TOBT will improve the Predictability of turnaround processes.


Date: 29/10/2010


Reduce the variability in the different turnaround sub-processes

Check-in variability Measure the Standard deviation of the scheduled duration of this sub-process with the actual ones.

Security point variability Measure the Standard deviation of the scheduled duration of this sub-process with the actual ones.

Passport control variability Measure the Standard deviation of the scheduled duration of this sub-process with the actual ones.

Aircraft-handling sub-processes variability Measure the Standard deviation of the scheduled duration of this sub-process with the actual ones.

Boarding variability Measure the Standard deviation of the scheduled duration of this sub-process with the actual ones.

De-boarding variability Measure the Standard deviation of the scheduled duration of this sub-process with the actual ones.

Loading sub-process variability Measure the Standard deviation of the scheduled duration of this sub-process with the actual ones.

Fuelling variability Measure the Standard deviation of the scheduled duration of this sub-process with the actual ones.

GPU connection variability Measure the Standard deviation of the scheduled duration of this sub-process with the actual ones.

De-icing variability Measure the Standard deviation of the scheduled duration of this sub-process with the actual ones.

Start-up/Off-block variability Measure the Standard deviation of the scheduled duration of this sub-process with the actual ones.

Rationale Improvement of the general predictability will come from the individual improvements of the different sub-processes identified as critical points in the turnaround process. For this reason it is so important to identify individual variability and also problems can be identified and rapidly assumed by the rest of the turnaround process.

Improve airport slot adherence Airport slot variability • Compare AIBT to SIBT

• Compare AOBT to SOBT


Date: 29/10/2010


Rationale This KPI will assess the predictability of the airport slot and also the recovery delay capability when inbound flights are late.

Table 22: KPIs related to predictability KPA and turnaround operations variability focus area

KPA Predictability

High level objective Increase predictability of the turnaround process

Focus Area Knock-on Effect


Reduce the impact of turnaround delay in the subsequent turnaround process.

Process to Process Knock-on delay

This KPI measures the impact (in minutes) of the delay due to the turnaround process in the following one.

This delay will be calculated taking into account: AOBT T/SOBT and the delay recovery factor (see definition in the Flexibility Performance Indicators Table).

Rationale The target objective of this indicator is to foresee/calculate the delay in the following turnaround process to reallocate resources, re-scheduling sub-processes and related resources, trying to absorb that delay and minimizing its impact in the subsequent turnaround process..

Reduce the impact of any sub-process delays in the next one

Sub-process to Sub-Process Knock-on delay

This indicator measures the impact (in minutes) of the delay due to any sub-process in next one.

Rationale This indicator assesses the impact of the delay of any turnaround sub-process in the following one into the same turnaround process.

Reduce the impact of one sub-process delay in the following turnaround process.

Sub-process to process Knock-on delay

This indicator measures the impact (in minutes) of delay due to any turnaround sub-process in the next turnaround process.

Rationale This indicator assesses the impact of a specific turnaround sub-process in the following turnaround process.

Table 23: KPIs related to predictability KPA and knock on focus area


Date: 29/10/2010


5.3 Cost effectiveness key performance indicators

KPA Cost effectiveness

High level Objective Reduction of the operating costs (handling companies and airlines) by 20%

Focus Area Turnaround processes. Operating costs


Optimization of resources utilization in economics terms Cost Reductions Costs related to turnaround

Staff Cost Avoidance Number of persons Cost reductions / avoidance due to the automation/improvement of turnaround process.

Rationale This indicator will provide information and quantitative assessment on the number of persons and its implication in staff cost reductions/avoidance due to the improvements on the turnaround process.

Resources Optimization (utilization)

Number of resources required / used (passenger buses, fuelling, belts, gates, etc.). Buffer and Backup devices reductions

Cost of resources (per operation).

Rationale This indicator will provide information and quantitative value for the reduction of expenses achieved through the resources use optimization due to the improvements on the turnaround process.

Planning and Workload Improvements Time for planning activities / resource allocation Cost due to planning and workload improvements.

Rationale Turnaround process improvements are expected to reduce time for planning activities. This indicator reflects these reductions in terms of cost savings.

Indirect (administrative) Costs Reductions

Reductions in administrative costs Cost reductions.


Date: 29/10/2010


Rationale Turnaround process improvements are also expected to reduce administrative task. This indicator reflects these reductions in terms of cost savings.

Reduction of cost associated to lost, damaged and mishandled baggage Reduction of lost baggage Cost associated to mishandled baggage.

Rationale Turnaround process improvements are expected to reduce lost baggage associated expenses (including indemnifications and administrative expenses). This indicator covers this benefit in terms of cost savings.

Table 24: KPIs related to cost effectiveness KPA

5.4 Flexibility key performance indicators

KPA Flexibility

High level objective Improve predictability and efficiency of operations by increasing Flexibility

Focus Area Turnaround flexibility


Accommodate schedule changes without increasing delays.

Number of changes incorporated to schedule without increasing delays

Compare scheduled and operated flights.

Compare delays with reference to the schedule changes.

Rationale This KPI allows knowing the capacity of the turnaround management to absorb changes in turnaround sub-processes.

Reduce the delays due to late changes in the scheduled turnaround sub-processes.

Recovery delay factor

% of time recovered from the change timestamp until the AOBT. For instance, generally, when a sudden change in the turnaround sub-process happens, it causes a delay in the current turnaround process (and maybe in the following one). But this delay could be absorbed improving the management of the turnaround activities.

Rationale This KPI allows knowing the capability of recovery from delays caused by late changes in the turnaround sub-processes, even when delays are foreseen.

Table 25: KPIs related to flexibility KPA and turnaround flexibility focus area


Date: 29/10/2010


KPA Flexibility

High level objective Improve predictability and efficiency of operations by increasing Flexibility

Focus Area Service flexibility


Improve the process of gate reallocating at short notice

Recovery delay factor upon gate reallocation. % time recovered from the gate reallocation timestamp until the AOBT

Rationale This KPI allows knowing the capability of recovery when changes in the gate allocation happen in short notice.

Improve the process of lost passengers in which baggage should be unloading from aircraft.

Recovery delay factor when lost passenger is identified % time recovered from the lost passenger timestamp until the AOBT

Rationale This KPI allows knowing the capability of recovery when lost passengers are identified.

Improve the process when infrastructure/resources are not available at short notice

Recovery delay factor when unavailability of any service is detected

% of time recovered from the unavailability timestamp until the AOBT

Rationale This KPI allows knowing the capability of recovery when service/resources are not available in short notice.

Table 26: KPIs related to flexibility KPA and service flexibility focus area


Date: 29/10/2010


6. INFLUENCE DIAGRAMS DEFINITION

6.1 Methodology Influence diagrams offer an intuitive way to identify and display the essential factors that have an impact either positively or negatively in the achievement of a given objective.

For the purpose of TITAN project, the following influence diagrams intend to support the Operational Concept definition and also the TITAN model development. They have been conceived as a graphical representation of the relationship between the previously mentioned TITAN objectives and the already selected KPIs that have been presented in chapter 5 of the current document. . At this stage of the project, these influence diagrams have been built upon the consulted stakeholders’ expertise on the current turnaround operations. So, as they have not been quantified nor validated through simulation, they have been aligned with the Operational Concept definition. Also, they will serve as an input for the TITAN Turnaround Model requirements (WP2.1).

The influence diagrams have been made in two steps, to ease readability:

• The first one is a high-level diagram or summary in which the main influencing factors to achieve the objectives are shown. This diagram shows, from right to left, the general parameters which influence in each TITAN objective;

• The second diagram is aligned with the previous one, but it reflects the relationships between each defined KPI and the TITAN objective to which achievement the KPI contributes to. It facilitates the identification of parameters that measure the objectives.

The following sections include the Influence Diagrams for the three main objectives of the TITAN project: Efficiency, Predictability and Cost Effectiveness. Although the Flexibility KPA has also been included in the TITAN performance framework, due to the fact that its objective is directly expressed as the achievement of both the Efficiency and Predictability targets, its KPIs have been included in both diagrams through the Recovery Delay Factors and the Knock-on Effects respectively.

6.2 Influence diagram for efficiency objective The Efficiency diagram shows that the main influencing parameter which impacts on the reduction of the delayed flights are the delays themselves (coming from the turnaround process or external to it) and the recovery delay factor which will affect to the reduction of the different delays. All the delays (internal and external) are included in the assessment of this objective because the main goal is to reduce the total delay in order to limit it to 15 minutes by improving the turnaround process.


Date: 29/10/2010


Figure 2: High level influence diagram for efficiency

The second diagram (Figure 3) is a deployment of the previous one in which the sub-process that causes each delay is taken into account in order to assess the possible mitigating processes to be implemented.


Date: 29/10/2010


Figure 3: Low level influence diagram for efficiency


Date: 29/10/2010


6.3 Influence diagram for predictability objective The Predictability objective is assessed in terms of the individual variability of each turnaround sub-process and the knock-on effect which measures the impact of previous turnaround delays in the following ones, excluding the rest of delays produced by other ATM processes. So, the variability will be calculated assessing the real impact in the predictability, only taking into account the effects of the turnaround sub-processes and not other external delays which cannot be managed by the turnaround stakeholders. This is graphically summarized as follows:

Figure 4: High level influence diagram for predictability

Again, the following diagram deploys the previous one to better relate the KPIs with the final Predictability objective.


Date: 29/10/2010


Figure 5: Low level influence diagram for predictability


Date: 29/10/2010


6.4 Influence diagram for cost effectiveness objective The Cost-Effectiveness Objective is assessed through the accountability of direct (human resources, equipment and infrastructure optimization and less time for planning and other management activities) and indirect costs (lost baggage handling and administrative expenditures). It is expected that the improvements and enhancements achieved in the global turnaround process will give a positive result in cost reduction.

Direct Cost Savings

Indirect Cost Savings

Turnaround Operating

Costs Savings

Equipment Optimization

Savings

Management Savings

(Planning and workload Reduction)

Staff Cost Savings

AdministrativeSavings

(Lost baggage handling

& other costs)

Improve Cost Effectiveness:Reduce 20%

TA Cost

Cost effectiveness

Figure 6: Influence diagram for cost effectiveness


Date: 29/10/2010


7. CONCLUSIONS The aim of this WP was to define the performance framework and influence diagrams, identifying the relations between the KPIs of the FA and KPAs selected for the TITAN project to achieve the objectives established in the Technical Annex (see ref [6]).

To achieve this aim, the first step was to define a clear sequential methodology (see Figure 1) in which the upper layers was the identification of Key Performance Areas (KPAs) and Focus Areas (FAs) and its applicability to the TITAN project.

The next step was the definition of performance drivers and the identification of the KPIs for each KPA. To perform this task, it was necessary to analyse the turnaround process to detect the main sub-processes that can affect the overall performance (in terms of KPIs) and to notice the impact of any change implemented during real-time operation. This analysis was based on D1.1 (see ref [7]).

Finally, three influence diagrams were developed to represent the relationships of the KPIs identified in each KPA and their contribution to the achievement of each project objective. The main conclusions of this task are summarized as follows:

• In the Efficiency diagram, the reduction of the delayed flights must be achieved by the monitoring of each sub-process delay (caused by the turnaround process itself or external to it) and the implementation of recovery delay factors;

• The Predictability is highly influenced by the knock-on effect, and the variability of the duration of each turnaround sub-process;

• The cost effectiveness must be assessed by the close monitoring of both direct and indirect cost savings related to the turnaround process.

Although an influence diagram for the Flexibility KPA has not been developed as there was no project objective associated to it, its KPIs have been considered in the Efficiency diagram as shown in Figure 3.

titan turnaround integration in trajectory a network -...

Documents