A Resolution to Aviation Management - Security Management System:

In order to reduce security hazards in a proactive manner

Security Management Systems (SMS) is a systematic safety management method that takes into account all organizational structures, processes, laws, and accountabilities. Safety Policy, Safety Assurance, Safety Risk Management, and Safety Promotion are the four pillars that make up SMS. One of the most important methods for assessing SMS efficacy in airport safety management is qualitative content analysis. The adoption of SMS requires correct standardization, inclusion of both moving and stationary regions, and cost implications analysis. To date, flying is considered as one of the safest modes of transport across the globe (Hulsey, 2012). Despite this, accidents in this sector still occur. There is need for stakeholders like managers in the aviation industry to come up with proper mechanisms of identifying security incidents before they accumulate to threatening levels. Safety Management Systems (SMS) enhance security in airports and other organizations in the aviation industry based on formalized and proactive approaches. The present study investigates the extents to which SMS implementation in the aviation industry will help in reducing the levels of security risks evident in the aviation sector based on its proactive nature with the aid of qualitative content analysis.

Literature Review

While the aviation industry has seen great advancements in its extents of technological reliability, it is a managerial concern that the levels of reliability of human activities and overall security systems in this industry have not progressed at a similar rate (Hulsey, 2012). The last two decades have seen an increase in the number of insecurity issues particularly in the transport sector. The aviation industry has not been spared either. This explains the reason why organizational security must be put into consideration by managers in the aviation industry. Safety Management System (SMS) has been looked at as the key managerial solution to the security issues in this industry.

An Overview of Safety Management Systems

Key stakeholders in the airline industry like regulators and associations have strongly advocated for the adoption of the concepts of system safety in the management of a variety of safety risks. Safety Management Systems provide a well-defined framework of safety and risk management. Like any other industry, the aviation sector is vulnerable to security hazards. This is despite the fact that it takes a series of events for an accident to occur in this industry; a phenomenon referred to as the snowball effect (Chang, Shao & Chen, 2015). SMS is defined as “a systematic approach to managing safety, including the necessary organizational structures, accountabilities, policies and procedures” (Hulsey, 2012). In this case, the role of SMS is to initiate risk management processes which are systematic and comprehensive. Therefore, the major goal of SMS is to lower the number of accidents in the aviation industry through increasing the levels of safety. Yuen, Bates & Murray, (2014) highlight the bases of SMS as

• Commitment of the management to safety
• Identification of hazards in a proactive manner
• Taking actions in risk management
• Assessment of safety actions

It is important for all organizational components to participate in the initiation of SMS. This includes its senior management. This is attributed to the fact that the management plays a significant role in initiating a culture of safety in their organizations. By doing this, the management ensures that the culture of safety is embraced by all stakeholders based on the fact that they adopt proactive approaches.According to Ferreira, Santos and Silva (2014), SMS is not supposed to be burdensome to an organization’s management because of its proactive nature.

Organizational Strengths of SMS

Hulsey (2012) explains that ”there will always be hazards and risks in the airport environment. Proactive management is needed to identify and control these safety issues before they lead to mishaps”. While airports all over the world have worked towards eliminating management-associated risks in their operations, the uncertainties of their operations make them vulnerable. This explains why they will be great beneficiaries of SMS implementation.First, SMS gives a clear framework to enable the analysis of accidents and incidents in the aviation industry and provides the desired feedback. This plays a significant role in advising the management on how to make improvements on airport safety and efficiency. According to Chang, Shao & Chen (2015), ”the SMS approach reduces losses, improves productivity, and is generally good for business”.

Second, implementation of SMS in airport settings goes a long way in reducing operational costs. As key planners of an organization, managers must take operational costs into consideration before they implement any initiative. While the initial costs of SMS implementation may be high, it plays a significant long term role in reducing the massive costs which may later be incurred in instances where security at the airport is compromised. According to Ferreira, Santos & Silva (2014), proper implementation of SMS leads to a significant reduction in the number of incidences and accidents. This is due to the fact that employees at the airport are acquainted with the skills of security awareness. Apart from this, an effective SMS is a significant contributor to effective communication and interpersonal morale. If such cues are embraced by the top management bodies of an organization, there is no doubt that a good company morale will be developed (Armstrong & Taylor, 2014).

SMS implementation in aviation settings allows entities like airports to formalize their processes. This is achieved through initiation of ”a safety culture by increasing airport staff awareness of safety and risk and allows for maximizing the effect of safety investments by ensuring that the highest priority needs are identified” (Yuen, Bates & Murray, 2014). Hulsey (2012) highlights other benefits of SMS implementation in the aviation industry as overall improvement of operational practices, learning from mistakes and nurturing the desire tradition of good safety practices.

Implications of the Four Pillars of SMS on Aviation Management

The Transport Research Board enumerates the pillars of SMS as:

• Safety Policy
• Safety Assurance
• Safety Risk Management
• Safety Promotion

All these components play important functions in ensuring a smooth flow of managerial functions in the aviation industry as discussed below.

Safety Policy

The component of safety policy is founded upon three critical elements. They include organizational structure and procedures, its policy statement and procedures. Hulsey (2012) defines policy statement as a proclamation of the organization’s senior management and includes its commitment to effective initiation of the SMS, an assurance that all executives of the firm are dedicated to monitoring its performance, initiation of clear practices and acceptable behavior based on safety, proper encouragement of all stakeholders to report the areas requiring safety attention and its commitment to provision of enabling resources. In this case, the policy statement of SMS gives a detailed description of the organization as a whole. Such descriptions put into account the roles and relationships of each stakeholder in the organization. This makes it easy for the management to coordinate its activities without hitches. According to Chang, Shao & Chen (2015), the outright involvement of the top management of the organization is looked at as the key element of success for SMS. On the other hand, the policy statement of SMS gives a clear definition of departmental responsibilities and gives a procedural framework to enable all managerial operations.

As an element of the safety policy component, organizational structure plays a significant role in management. The Transport Research Board has it that at least one member must be appointed for the implantation of SMS to start in any airport. The appointed person(s) is supposed to oversee the initiative while ensuring that it is successfully implemented. The organizational structure embraced in the implementation of SMS plays a significant role in ensuring that all employees are allocated tasks and responsibilities that suit their qualifications. Therefore, it allows employees to embrace the desired organizational procedures of hazard identification and mitigation (Ferreira, Santos & Silva, 2014). On the other hand, the safety pillar embraces well defined procedures of identifying and dealing with security issues in the aviation industry. It makes it a requirement for effective communication of any SMS based organizational changes. This allows all stakeholders to acquaint themselves with ready information.

Safety Promotion

The Transport Research Board identifies safety promotion as the second component of SMS. Safety promotion is the ”combination of safety culture, training, and data sharing activities that supports the implementation and operation of an SMS in an organization” (Yuen, Bates & Murray, 2014). In this case, safety promotion looks into organizational culture, ways of communication and training. Based on this fact, it should not only be considered as a priority to the management of an organization but also its entire stakeholders. Therefore, an organization’s top management is faced with the role of advising the entire organization of its commitment to releasing its policy statement through proactive engagements. Such a move has direct impacts on the organization’s safety culture (Armstrong & Taylor, 2014). After this, the management needs to work towards coming up with a positive culture of safety. This is achieved through proper assessment of the organization’s current culture (Armstrong & Taylor, 2014). Such evaluations act as determinants of the directions the organization needs to follow for a positive future growth.

The pillar of safety promotion looks into the extents to which the management of an organization fosters a culture of safety. According to Chang, Shao & Chen (2015), this is one of the most challenging components in the implementation of SMS. For efficient implementation of this pillar, there is need for the management to assist all organizational stakeholders in changing their ways of working. According to Ferreira, Santos & Silva (2014), ”people are set in their ways and hate when something new comes in and changes it; the integration process of SMS will help with this”. Hulsey (2012) explains that no single employee has the zeal of working for a top management that lacks confidence in the programs it initiates. Armstrong and Taylor (2014) attribute this to the fact that all employees want to be attached to the proceedings of their organization. Therefore, the commitment of an organization’s management acts as a source of assurance to its employees.

Training is the second aspect of safety promotion in the implementation of SMS. Yuen, Bates & Murray (2014) explain that it is the most crucial component of safety promotion based on the fact that it gives the organization a platform of demonstrating its commitment to the implementation of SMS. All employees of an organization must be effectively trained on the policies of SMS, its procedures and the ways in which they will respond to emerging issues.In this case,training needs not to be done for the purposes of implementation alone but in a recurrent fashion.

Safety Risk Management

This is the third pillar of SMS. It gives a description of all departmental processes by identifying their key performance indicators. Risk mitigation initiatives are then put in place through regular assessments.According to Chang, Shao & Chen (2015) risk management is geared towards gaining a functional understanding of the operational systems of an organization. Safety risk management undertakes a critical analysis of the set systems demystifies possible risks then evaluates the associated hazards. As a pillar of SMS, safety risk assessment in the aviation industry is made up of the following elements.

• Hazard identification
• Risk assessment and analysis
• Risk control

Hazard identification in the aviation industry is one of the key managerial roles. It allows for proper scrutiny of possible hazards in airport settings. The management is advised to hire the services of external parties when auditing the hazard status of the airport as a way of avoiding possible biases. The Transport Research Board explains that all hazards identified in an SMS need to be well documented then analyzed. This acts as a guide on the steps to be undertaken for effective elimination of the existing or anticipated hazards.

Risk mitigation and tracking is considered to be the final component of safety risk management. Hulsey (2012) explains that there is need for thorough analysis of any hazard once it is identified and mitigated. According to Yuen, Bates & Murray (2014) such a move acts as an assurance that the hazard was mitigated based on its root causes. It is only through such an initiative that the management is assured of the fact that all hazards in their systems are neutralized; leading to high levels of operational safety. It is important to put into consideration the fact that the concerns of SMS are not only limited to the identification and mitigation of system flaws but also in tracking the errors to ensure that they do not recur. According to Chang, Shao & Chen (2015), there is need for systems to be monitored at a constant rate once they are fully functional. By doing this, there are high certainty levels that the initiated risk mitigation procedures will be effective.

Safety Assurance

Safety assurance is defined as the functions of process management implemented with the aim of increasing the levels of confidence among consumers based on the extents to which the goods and services of a company meet certain set requirements of safety. Based on this definition, safety assurance acts as a morale booster. This is due to the fact that it guarantees the organization that their initiatives of risk identification; tracking and mitigation are yielding the desired fruits. There is need for the organization to come up with proper managerial procedures which will work towards ensuring that its set goals of safety are attained. In this case, safety assurance plays a critical advisory role to the organization based on the fact that gives the desired information to aid in decision making.

Safety assurance is made up of three core components. These components are: external audit, corrective action and internal audit. There is need for the airport safety auditor to undertake both formal and informal audits across all organizational departments. According to Ferreira, Santos & Silva (2014), such audits need to be done on a regular manner. To achieve this, the management should create enabling environments that allow for both scheduled and nonscheduled audits (Hulsey, 2012). Internal audits play a significant organizational role based on the fact that they allow the management to use their workmanships in completing their analysis. By doing this, the employees are acquainted with the necessary information to enable them identify any organizational hazards. Further, internal audits give all organizational stakeholders an opportunity to familiarize themselves with the newly upheld procedure. On the other hand, internal audits may be faced with a number of deficiencies. One of the greatest pitfalls of such audits emanate from the fact that employees tend to embrace biased perceptions of the diverse organizational processes. Hulsey (2012) explains that this may pose security dangers to the enterprise based on the fact that employees may overlook key hazards in airport settings.

External audits are meant to check the security loopholes left by internal audits. As the second pillar of safety assurance, external audit needsto be conducted by an external organ enjoying high levels of independence. This acts as a way of coming up with proper identification of organizational risks and expenses from an unbiased perspective. According to Cheng, Shao & Chen (2015), there is need for stakeholders in the aviation industry implementing SMS to seek the services of external auditors based on the fact that they clearly identify some security issues not recognized by the organization in their previous checks.

Corrective action acts as the third and last component of safety assurance. Hulsey (2012) defines corrective action as an element that seeks to bear the consequences of the entire system. On the other hand, Yuen, Bates & Murray (2014) demystify that corrective action checks and balances the measures and outcomes of SMS. Corrective action gives the remedies of any process flows; including the infliction of punishments to noncompliant segments in instances where accidents and incidents take place. According to Ferreira, Santos & Silva (2014), the corrective action element plays a significant role in ensuring that any hazard or security issue identified is addressed through the right mechanisms.

Conclusion and Recommendations

To date, flying is considered as one of the safest modes of transport across the globe (Hulsey, 2012). Despite this, accidents in this sector still occur. However, the implementation of SMS in the aviation industry is considered to be one of the key solutions to the problem of airport security. SMS brings a change in the perceptions of airport security from the traditional address of technical issues like repairing aircrafts to a more diversified approach in which human performance is analyzed as a key resource to the management of an organization. While the implementation of SMS does not give a total assurance of perfect systems based on their affectivity, it gives a proactive approach to safety in the aviation industry. SMS plays a great role in reducing the number of hazards taking place in airport settings based on the fact that it instills a culture of safety among all stakeholders of the aviation industry. This paper makes the following recommendations for firms in the aviation industry willing to implement SMS:

• Proper implementation of SMS needs to take place with high levels of standardization in all airports. This would eliminate the present regional variations in airport regulation evident in the aviation industry.
• The implementation of SMS in all airports needs to put into consideration all movement and non-movement areas. This is attributed to the fact that while it is already implemented in most movement areas it is set to benefit the non-movement areas even more because these areas (non-movement) are less regulated.
• While the initial cost of SMS implementation may be high, there is need for stakeholders to put into consideration the fact that its implementation will go a long way in cutting down the statistical rates of accident occurrence through mitigation of hazards. This will play a significant role in mitigating hazards; an aspect that will save the industry a lot of finances in the long run.

References

Armstrong, M., & Taylor, S. (2014). Armstrong’s handbook of human resource management practice. Retrieved on August 8, 2017 from https://otgo.tehran.ir/Portals/0/pdf.Armstrong%27s%20Handbook%20of%20Human%20Resource%20Management%20Practice_1.pdf

Chang, Y. H., Shao, P. C., & Chen, H. J. (2015).Performance evaluation of airport safety management systems in Taiwan.Safety Science, 75, 72-86.

Ferreira, R., M., Santos, G., & Silva, R. (2014).A generic model for integration of quality, environment and safety management systems.The TQM Journal, 26(2), 143-159.

Hulsey, A. L. (2012). Safety Management Systems: Anticipated Impacts on Aviation Stakeholders (Doctoral dissertation, Middle Tennessee State University).

Yeun, R., Bates, P., & Murray, P. (2014).Aviation safety management systems.World Review of Intermodal Transportation Research, 5(2), 168-196.