The Digitalization of Copenhagen Airport
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Digitalization of Copenhagen Airport Type of Paper Master’s Thesis - CINTO1005E Degree | Department MSc in Business Administration and Information Systems | Department of Digitalization | Copenhagen Business School Authors Natascha Alicja Jespersen – 730 Alexandra Turianska – 107547 Supervisor | Institute Qiqi Jiang, Assistant Professor, PhD | Department of Digitalization Number of pages | Number of characters 96 | 21803 COPENHAGEN BUSINESS SCHOOL | Digitalization | Copenhagen Airport | 2018: 2 Abstract This paper strives to elaborate, how are group decisions interpreted and how do they occur in processes related to new technology implementation, specifically at Copenhagen Airport (CPH). The role of technology plays an important role in today’s world, especially in the aviation industry. It is, however, crucial to understand what implications can a change of technology cause, in regard to how do humans interpret such change, especially on a large scale and what business and economic advantages can changes of this kind bring. Sense making is a process that has been widely studied by various scholars and it is the most important component of this paper. Due to the fact, that Copenhagen Airport is deemed as a High Reliability Organisation (HRO), it is especially essential to understand how is consensus directly or indirectly reached among key stakeholders, in situations such as new technology implementation. Moreover, we endeavor to understand the overall implications of this change, with tangible evidence gained from Copenhagen Airport. Last but not least, apart from incorporating sense making, we additionally emphasize the role of evidence- based management, as we aim to justify that our collected information is valid and reliable. Hence, the aim of our Master’s Thesis is to answer the following research question: How did group decision making affect implementation of new technology at Copenhagen Airport (CPH)? COPENHAGEN BUSINESS SCHOOL | Digitalization | Copenhagen Airport | 2018: 3 Abstract 2 1. Introduction 7 2. Literature review 10 2.1 Part II 11 2.1.1Collaborative decision making 11 2.1.2 Multiple Criteria Decision Making 13 2.2.1 . Part II 14 2.2.2Sensemaking 14 2.4 Additions 18 2.5 Limitations oF the literature oF sensemaking 19 2.6 Part conclusion: 22 3. Theoretical Framework 23 3.1 What does ‘Sensemaking’ mean? 23 3.2 Sensemaking described by scholars 23 3.3 The cooperative role of Evidence-based management and Sensemaking 28 3.4 How to proceed with an Evidence-based management approach ? 29 3.5 Role oF InFormation Technology 30 3.6 Part Conclusion: 32 4 .Research Domain 33 4.1 Introduction to the Research Domain 33 4.2 High Reliability Organization (HRO) 34 4.3 Airport 35 4.4 Copenhagen Airport 35 4.5 Copenhagen Airport inFormation and data 37 4.6 The International Air Transportation Association (IATA) 38 COPENHAGEN BUSINESS SCHOOL | Digitalization | Copenhagen Airport | 2018: 4 4.7 Airports Council International (ACI) 39 4.8 Eurocontrol 40 4.9 Collaborative Decision Making (CDM) 41 4.10 Airport Collaborative Decision Making 41 4. 11 World Class Hub 2.0 42 4. 12 What is digital transformation? 42 4. 13 How was digital transFormation created at Airports? 42 4.14 Challenges connected to Digital TransFormation (DT) 43 4. 15Digital disruption 43 4.16 Successful strategizing 43 4.17 Part Conclusion 45 5. Methodology 45 5.1 Enactment Theory 45 5.2 Epistemology 47 5.3 Theoretical perspective 47 5.4 Interpretivism and Constructionism 47 5.5 Social constructionism 48 5.6 The Functionalist Perspective 49 5.7 Two types of social consensus 49 5.8 Qualitative research methods 50 5.9 Limitations 50 5.10 Inductive Approach 50 5.11 Semi-structured interviews 51 5.12 Documentation 52 5.13 Part conclusion 52 COPENHAGEN BUSINESS SCHOOL | Digitalization | Copenhagen Airport | 2018: 5 6. Analysis 53 6.1 Execution plan 53 6.2 A-CDM steps 54 6.3 Airport Collaborative Decision Making through the lens oF Evidence-based management 55 6.4 Evidence-based management analysis 59 6.5 Interviewees 60 6.6 Interview questions 61 6.7 Making sense of the A-CDM language 62 6.8 Being part oF something bigger 70 6.9 Discrepancies on a larger level 71 6.10 Contrasting opinions 72 6.11 mplementation guide 73 6.12 Part Conclusion 75 7. Discussion 75 7.1 Collaborating despite differences 75 7.2 Value in IT 77 7.3 A constructionist perspective 80 7.4 Thoughts on Collaboration 81 7.5 A-CDM Impact 82 7.6 EnForced implementation 83 7.7 Ex-ante implementation 84 7.8 Discoveries and achieving consensus 88 7.9 Suggestions For improvements 89 7. 10 Part conclusion 91 COPENHAGEN BUSINESS SCHOOL | Digitalization | Copenhagen Airport | 2018: 6 8. Limitations 92 9. Conclusion 93 10. Bibliography 96 Journal articles 96 Online Resources 100 11. Appendix 104 COPENHAGEN BUSINESS SCHOOL | Digitalization | Copenhagen Airport | 2018: 7 “Technology is not destiny. We shape our destiny’’ (Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2014:114) 1. Introduction Technology is improving at an accelerating rate (Berman & Dorrier, 2016). As the strength of technologies increases, the external and internal environment of organizations adapt to these changes by altering the way they conduct their businesses. Stakeholders involved in any processes and transitions adjust their overall involvement in these processes based on the current trends, and expect the best possible outcomes for the organizations they are involved with. Information technologies are human creations that embody social purposes, and their potential to improve social conditions is enormous (Sahay & Robey, 1996:255). A social constructivist approach assumes that information technology does not directly ‘’impact’’ upon the social system in which it is developed and used. Rather, information technologies are subject to social interpretation by actors implementing and using them, and the social meanings of technology affect the manner in which they are implemented and used (Sahay & Robey, 1996:256). The usual expectations of companies are, that the use of new technology significantly improves the effectiveness and efficiency of their firm, with subsequent gaines in the competitive market as well as an overall improved strategy (Delaney & D’Agostino, 2015). Being up-to-date with newest trends is crucial for companies as the competition is fierce and customers in today’s world are more demanding as ever. It is however not solely technology that shapes today’s world. Social determinism is theory that claims that social interactions determine individual behavior as opposed to technological determinism where technology imposes rules on the society (techspirited, n.d.). We do lean towards the social COPENHAGEN BUSINESS SCHOOL | Digitalization | Copenhagen Airport | 2018: 8 deterministic view, as sensemaking and group decision making are phenomena we will mostly focus on in this Master’s Thesis. Karl E. Weick is a scholar who has been dedicating his attention to studying the theory of sensemaking in organizations. “Sensemaking involves the ongoing retrospective development of plausible images that rationalize what people are doing” (Karl E. Weick, et. Al. 2005:409). Hence, sensemaking allows us to understand the underlying meaning and assumptions of why is something done in a certain way. We will use the theory of sensemaking to help us analyze the following research question: How did group decision making affect the implementation of new technology at Copenhagen Airport (CPH) ? Copenhagen Airport has approximately two years ago implemented A-CDM, which stands for Airport Collaborative Decision Making (A-CDM). Copenhagen Airport has hence become one of the 26 airports in Europe that began using A- CDM (Eurocontrol, n.d.), and the implementation of this system changed the airport’s principle for communicating with aircrafts from “First come, first served’’ to “Best planned, best served’’ (Magnussen, L.T., 13:40). Even though A-CDM represents an opportunity to deal more efficiently with air traffic control, different obstacles currently prevent CPH from using the full potential of A-CDM for a truly environmentally friendly and hassle-free take-off, taxiing, landing, de-icing and communication between all stakeholders depending on A- CDM. Airports like cities are never static (Khairulfatin Zulhaimi M., n.d.). Therefore, it is crucial to assure that all stakeholders who have the power to handle processes at airports, get a common sense of understanding, what ought to happen in order to provide the best safety and day to day operations to clients. Stakeholders are defined as “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organisation’s objectives” (Mitchell et al. COPENHAGEN BUSINESS SCHOOL | Digitalization | Copenhagen Airport | 2018: 9 1997:856). Khairulfatin Zulhaimi has published a report about effective collaboration and cooperation among airport stakeholders, where the main points include the importance of ‘living the brand’ which refers to “establishment of internal branding where airport employees are seen as asset/product that aims at inculcating the brand identity to the employees” (Khairulfatin Zulhaimi M., n.d.). Figure 1 exhibits the necessary steps for successful engagement. Hence, keeping all aspects of the business operation in balance. The Malaysian Airports report provides an example of the key understanding of the importance of involving stakeholder satisfaction and unity for a successful airport management. Moreover, it is one of many reports, where scholars have been trying to understand ‘group