Ground handling services at European hub airports: Development of a performance measurement system for benchmarking

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2008.10.006Get rights and content

Abstract

The liberalization of ground handling in Europe forces airports to assess their performance relative to their competitors in order to remain competitive and sustain long-term competitive advantage. Together with main EU hub airports, action research was conducted for one year to develop a holistic performance measurement system (PMS) for ramp services. The resulting PMS entails a process-based perspective and reflects the supply chain of airport logistics. As the findings of an ex-post validation suggest, the system represents a suitable basis for competitive benchmarking activities.

Introduction

Today's aviation industry is characterized by a highly dynamic and volatile business environment (Doganis, 2001, Doganis, 2002). On the one hand it holds high growth potential (Air Transport Association, 2006; Bernabai, 2001), but on the other hand competition is intensifying (Garvens, 2005) and margins are decreasing (Francis et al., 2005).

Changes in the aviation business affect all members along the value chain (SAS, 2005). Competitive pressures not only occur on the “air side” of the value chain but are especially increasing on the “ground side” (Albers et al., 2005). In this context ground handlings’ logistics are one of the biggest challenges and a main factor that determines sustainable success (Gonnord and Lawson, 2000; Wyld et al., 2005). Efficient and customized processes in the field of passenger, baggage and freight handling are therefore gaining paramount importance for airports and other logistics service providers (Oum et al., 2003).

The ground handling market has been facing a trend towards liberalization, which was induced by deregulation mechanisms implemented at the European level, such as the EU (European union) directive 96/67/EC which increases competition and cost pressure especially in the ramp handling sector (Fuhr, 2006; SH&E, 2002).

Ramp handling, as a major part of ground handling, can be seen as one of the primary functions of airports, subsuming all handling activities on the apron. It encompasses the activities of loading and unloading aeroplanes as well as the transport of passengers, crew, baggage, freight and mail between aeroplanes and terminal buildings. It represents the interface to the airlines on the one hand and the interface to airports infrastructure on the other hand.

Historically, air transportation used to be a highly regulated sector. Mobility was regarded as a good of public interest and regulation by the state was considered necessary. EU directive 96/67/EG was the basis for today's market structure and was published in the beginning of the 90 s to liberalize air transportation in Europe. The main goal was to induce a step-wise liberalization and to achieve a unified regulation of ground handling, particularly affecting the air side, so-called ramp handling. By opening the market a further aim was to reduce operating costs of air transportation and improving the quality of aircraft handling. Today the EU directive determines the number of ground handlers, which have to be enabled to enter the market (Soames, 1997). It makes limiting the number of providers only possible in exceptional cases. Moreover, changes in line with the latest discussion about a revision of the EU directive (European Commission, 2003) will further enforce liberalization of the ramp handling market.

Due to this increased competitive pressure, ground handlers and in particular ramp handlers will also have to rethink their strategies and structures as well as their scope of work (Müller et al., 2005) in order to maintain or gain long-term competitive advantage. As seen in other liberalized markets, today's ramp handling organizations need to become more competitive, market-oriented and customer-driven (Chan et al., 2006).

Therefore, it is particularly important for them to improve their ability to assess their own performance relative to that of their competitors (Oum et al., 2003). To achieve this, performance measurement can be seen as an adequate approach that permits a holistic analysis of their efficiency and effectiveness (Kennerley and Neely, 2002; Neely et al., 1995). As a sole usage of a performance measurement system (PMS) would not be “[…] able to answer one of the most fundamental questions of all—what are our competitors doing?” (Neely et al., 1995), benchmarking is considered as an appropriate tool that should be combined with performance measurement for the identification of best practice solutions among the industry (Francis et al., 2002). As such, the performance gaps provide an initial basis for targeting radical changes, as well as continuous improvement, both aimed at providing a long term competitive advantage.

Although benchmarking has been criticized to be limited Gregory (1993) and mainly provides information that helps to get on a par with other companies, it is an important method to take the first step in strategically positioning the company, identify the relative competitive position of a company (McIvor, 2003) and lay the foundations for a sustainable competitive advantage.

Within the scope of this article, performance measurement and benchmarking are seen as integrative approaches, whereby the PMS acts as the source of information for benchmarking activities. Nevertheless, such a system has not yet been developed for ramp handling businesses. Therefore, the research objectives of this article are twofold: The first objective is to develop an adequate PMS for analyzing the effectiveness and efficiency of ramp handling businesses. The second objective is to test its practical applicability for performing a benchmarking.

The next two sections provide a background on performance measurement, considering also the context of airport logistics. Based on this background, a conceptual PMS is presented. Then the action research methodology followed here is explained. The conceptually developed PMS was applied in a benchmarking study with several ramp handling organizations of EU hub airports. The article closes with a summary of the main findings, suggestions for further research and managerial implications.

Section snippets

The need for a ramp handling PMS

Although it has been put forward that a PMS is required, it remains unclear how ramp handling service business units can adapt and implement such a system to improve their efficiency. As ramp handling encompasses the activities of loading and unloading aeroplanes as well as the transport of passengers, crew, baggage, freight and mail between aeroplanes and terminal buildings, it can be classified as a logistics service. This service is provided by a third party ground handler, the airline (self

Conceptual background

The topic of performance measurement is often discussed but rarely defined (Neely et al., 1996). Performance can be seen in various ways, but there is a consensus that when evaluating performance, and also especially logistics performance, it can generally be distinguished between effectiveness and efficiency (Glaeson and Barnum, 1986; Neely et al., 1996; Rafele, 2004). Effectiveness refers to the extent to which customer requirements are met, whereas efficiency is a measure of how economically

Research design: action research

The literature review highlighted a lack of specific PMSs for ramp handling and the novelty of our research question for this field. According to Yin (2003), qualitative research methods should be used to answer “how”, “why” and open questions (Burrell and Morgan, 1985; Silverman, 2004; Yin, 2003). Furthermore, it is also a method, which helps to address research objectives within a natural setting, which would otherwise be expensive, difficult, or impossible to replicate in a laboratory

Development of the ramp handling PMS

The ramp handling PMS was developed in several steps, as explained in the conceptual background section. According to the action research method outlined in the previous section, expert workshops, site visits, document analysis as well as the literature review were all feeding into the development. In this process researchers worked with each hub airport for itself, but with the shared goal to come up with a single BSC for all participating airports.

Identification of performance gaps as a result of the measurement phase

After developing the final PMS, a benchmarking was performed using this system. Herein, the jointly developed measurement system was applied to all cases. The aim of this was to identify the biggest performance gaps among the EU hub airports and to guarantee a “[…] process of improving performance by continuously identifying, understanding, and adapting outstanding practices and processes found inside and outside the organization and implementing the results” (Jarrar and Zairi, 2001, p. 901).

Summary and conclusions

Noting the growing relevance of this topic in practice, and addressing a general research gap in airport logistics, we set out with the objectives of developing and applying a PMS for ramp handling businesses.

Based on a conceptual model of a phase-based framework of performance measurement, action research was conducted together with EU hub airports in order to determine how a PMS should be designed to ensure a holistic basis for benchmarking ramp services (summarized in Fig. 1). This PMS

References (111)

  • A. Kakabadse et al.

    Trends in outsourcing: Contrasting USA and Europe

    European Management Journal

    (2002)
  • J. Korpela et al.

    An analytic approach to supply chain development

    International Journal of Production Economics

    (2001)
  • J. Martin et al.

    An application of DEA to measure the efficiency of Spanish airports prior to privatization

    Journal of Air Transport Management

    (2001)
  • A. Neely et al.

    Performance measurement design: Should process based approaches be adopted?

    International Journal of Production Economics

    (1996)
  • S. Ottosson

    Participation action research: A key to improved knowledge of management

    Technovation

    (2003)
  • T. Oum et al.

    A comparative analysis of productivity performance of the world's major airports: Summary report of the ATRS global airport benchmarking research report—2002

    Journal of Air Transport Management

    (2003)
  • E. Pels et al.

    Inefficiency and scale economics of European airport operations

    Transportation Research Part E

    (2003)
  • J. Sandström et al.

    The problem of managing product development engineers: Can the balanced scorecrad be an answer?

    International Journal of Production Economics

    (2002)
  • J. Sarkis

    An analysis of the operational efficiency of major airports in the United States

    Journal of Operations Management

    (2000)
  • J. Schmitz et al.

    Supplier performance measurement: Indications from a study in the automotive industry

    International Journal of Production Economics

    (2004)
  • T. Soames

    Ground handling liberalization

    Journal of Air Transport Management

    (1997)
  • J. Ukko et al.

    Performance measurement impacts on management and leadership: Perspectives of management and employees

    International Journal of Production Economics

    (2007)
  • M. Abbott et al.

    Total factor productivity and efficiency of Australian airports

    The Australian Economic Review

    (2002)
  • Air Transport Association, 2006. ATA Economic Report 2006. Air Transport Association of America, Washington,...
  • H. Altrichter et al.

    The concept of action research

    The Learning Organization

    (2002)
  • B. Andersen

    Benchmarking

  • N. Ashford et al.

    Airport Operations

    (1995)
  • ATRS, 2003. Airport Benchmarking Report. Air Transport Research Society, University of British Columbia,...
  • M. Ballé

    The Business Process Re-engineering Action Kit

    (1995)
  • C. Bernabai

    Airports: An integral part of the air traffic management system

    Air and Space Europe

    (2001)
  • M. Bourne et al.

    Designing, implementing and updating performance measurement systems

    International Journal of Operations and Production Management

    (2000)
  • H. Bredrup

    Background for performance management

  • M. Brown

    Keeping Score: Using the Right Metrics to Drive World Class Performance

    (1996)
  • G. Burrell et al.

    Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis: Elements of the sociology of corporate life

    The International Journal of Logistics Management

    (1985)
  • C. Caplice et al.

    A review and evaluation of logistics metrics

    The International Journal of Logistics Management

    (1994)
  • F. Chan et al.

    An AHP approach in benchmarking logistics performance of postal industry

    Benchmarking: An International Journal

    (2006)
  • P. Checkland

    Systems Thinking, Systems Practices

    (1985)
  • P. Checkland et al.

    Information, Systems and Information Systems: Making Sense of the Field

    (1998)
  • G. Chow et al.

    Logistics performance: Definition and measurement systems

    International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management

    (1994)
  • Civil Aviation Authority, 2000. The use of benchmarking in airport reviews. Civil Aviation Authority,...
  • R. Doganis

    The Airline Business in the Twenty-First Century

    (2001)
  • R. Doganis

    Flying off Course: The Economics of International Airlines

    (2002)
  • Doganis, R., Graham, A., Lobbenberg, A., 1995. The economic performance of European airports (No. 3). Department of Air...
  • Dunn, S., Seaker, R., Stenger, A., Young, R., 1993. An assessment of logistics research paradigms. Working Paper, The...
  • S. Durst et al.

    Improving efficiency through internal benchmarking

    International Journal of Business Performance Management

    (2006)
  • European Commission, 2003. Ground handling market at community airports (revision on the directive 96/67/EC). Retrieved...
  • F. Fahrni et al.

    Erfolgreiches Benchmarking in Forschung und Entwicklung, Beschaffung und Logistik

    (2002)
  • Y. Fan

    Strategic outsourcing: Evidence from British companies

    Marketing Intelligence and Planning

    (2000)
  • G. Francis et al.

    An international survey of the nature and prevalence of quality management systems in airports

    TQM and Business Excellence

    (2003)
  • Fuhr, J., 2006. (De)regulation of European ramp handling market: Lessons to be learned from an institutional...
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text