TR N

EWS

292

MAY

–JUN

E 20

14

54

Kenville is Professor andGraduate ProgramDirector, Aviation,University of NorthDakota, and Principal ofKim Kenville Consulting.Smith is principal,Smith-WoolwineAssociates, Floyd,Virginia.

Airport managers face unprecedented political,environmental, and economic pressures. Inthe past decade, new challenges have

included irregular operations, increased competi-tion, changing regulatory issues, and economic pres-sures.

These external pressures have triggered changesin operations; in some cases, changes in businessmodels and strategies have helped airports remainself-sustaining. Changing an organization’s structure,however, requires sound leadership and high-levelcollaboration. Many airports are examining theirinternal organizational structures to rebalance work-loads and identify outsourcing opportunities toimprove efficiencies. Some are finding that a com-plete overhaul of their original organizational struc-ture is warranted.

The Airport Cooperative Research Program(ACRP) undertook a synthesis study, which releasedACRP Synthesis 40, Issues with Airport Organization

and Reorganization.1 The guiding principle from theresearch findings is that a well-understood and effec-tive organizational structure can greatly assist an air-port in meeting strategic, operations, and businessgoals and facilitate the delivery of core services.

Study MethodologyThe synthesis employed a mixed methodology togain the most robust and useful information from air-port managers. A quick first step was to request elec-tronic copies of airport organizational charts;approximately 40 charts were received and cata-logued. The majority of the organizational chartsfocused on functions.

After the review of the organizational charts,researchers designed a questionnaire based on theThree Sigma Corporation’s indicators for change (seesidebar, page 55). Airport executives were asked toidentify their type of governance structure, their typeof organizational structure, the number of employ-ees in their workforce, which employees or job functions were outsourced, and how they defined

Issues with Airport Organizationand ReorganizationFinding the Perfect Organizational Structure for an Airport K I M B E R LY A . K E N V I L L E A N D J A M E S F . S M I T H

ACRP SYNTHES I S OF A I R PORT PRACT I CE

1 www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/169008.aspx.

Managers from ColoradoSprings Airport wereamong many whocontributed insights onorganizational structure,presented in ACRPSynthesis 40.

Case studies included small airports, as well as large,such as Salt Lake City International Airport.

PHOTO

: JAKEBARNARD, F

LICKR

PHOTO

: MICHAEL

SCHOEN

FELD, SALT

LAKE

CITY

DEPA

RTM

ENTOFAIRPO

RTS

TR NEW

S 292 MAY–JUN

E 2014

55

and determined organizational effectiveness and efficiency.

Twenty-two executives representing 36 airportscompleted the survey—a 100 percent response rate.The airports varied in size from 7 to 1,850 employ-ees and represented each type of governance struc-ture in each category of the Federal AviationAdministration’s National Plan of Integrated AirportSystems.

After an analysis of the survey data, researchersselected five airports for a qualitative, in-depth interview.All five airports had experienced a recent significantchange in organizational structure and were willing toshare lessons learned from the change, along withadvice to others initiating change in organizationalstructure and design. The five case study airports orairport systems were the Metropolitan Nashville AirportAuthority, Tennessee; Louisville Regional AirportAuthority, Kentucky; Salt Lake City International Air-port, Utah; Rapid City Regional Airport, South Dakota;and the Colorado Springs Airport.

Organizational ChartsNearly all the airports employed a functional orga-nizational structure, with jobs separated by depart-ments—such as operations, maintenance, finance,administration, and development—functioninglargely as independent silos. Represented graphically,these functions do not cross one another and haveclear lines of authority. Larger airports generally exer-cised larger spans of control.

The organizational structures affected the numberof full-time employees (FTEs). Nonhub and smallhub airports that have municipal governance struc-tures tended to purchase certain services such asaccounting, legal, aircraft rescue and firefighting, andlaw enforcement, reducing the number of FTEs. Thisoutsourcing allowed smaller airports more flexibilityin human resources and budgets; the organizational

A K-9 officer andexplosive detectioncanine perform a searchat San DiegoInternational Airport.Like many larger airportand port authorities, theSan Diego Unified PortDistrict has its own lawenforcement authority;smaller airports usecontractors.

Indicators for ChangeAccording to the Three Sigma Corporation, the following may indicate aneed for an organizational redesign:a

u Change occurs in the strategy or strategic direction of the organiza-tion;

u New skills and capabilities are needed to meet current or expectedoperational requirements;

u Accountability for results is not clearly communicated and measure-able, leading to subjective and biased performance appraisals;

u Parts of the organization are significantly over- or understaffed;u Organizational communications are inconsistent, fragmented, and

inefficient;u Technology and innovation are changing workflow and production

processes;u Significant staffing increases or decreases are under consideration;u Personnel retention and turnover are significant problems;u Workforce productivity is stagnant or deteriorating; andu Morale is deteriorating.

a www.threesigma.com/organizational_restructuring.htm.

PHOTO

: PO

RTOFSA

NDIEGO

TR N

EWS

292

MAY

–JUN

E 20

14

56

charts were more concise and focused on operationsand maintenance.

Conversely, authority-owned airports tended toassume all of the functional areas and therefore tohave less outsourcing and a higher number of FTEs.The correlation between authority and number ofFTEs prevailed regardless of the airport size.

Because most airports followed the functionalmodel, the majority of organizational charts did notcross over at certain levels of finance, administration,customer service, and human resources. For example,the operations department interfaces with accountingon purchases or with human resources for the evalu-ation, hiring, or firing of employees. This universal ele-ment of day-to-day business practice was seldomrepresented clearly in the airports’ organizationalcharts.

The typical organizational chart no longer suf-fices for most organizations. Many organizations areusing teams and structures without boundaries,which is difficult to represent. For example, Figure1 (left) depicts a team-based organizational struc-ture; the circles represent lines of business, areas ofwork, or functions, but the connecting lines are lessstrong; the chart seems to convey that the circlesmust encompass one another to work together; onmost functional organizational charts, these lineswould connect at the next level (Figure 2, belowleft).

Additional FindingsSeveral issues emerged: a clear vision and strategicplan was critical in driving any organizationalchange—strategy should drive structure. Endorse-ment from the governing entity was essential; the pri-mary role of the leadership was to involve keyemployees in determining the organizational struc-ture that would best serve the new strategic businessobjectives. An overarching theme emerged from thecase study interviews: initiating and implementingorganizational change takes time; patience must pre-vail; and celebrating the small successes along theway is advisable.

Neither the literature nor the data address assess-ment metrics. At first, the assumption was thatchanges in an organization would be data driven;some of the changes are difficult to measure, how-ever, or have no appropriate and accepted measure-ment. Airports often reported that no quantitativemeasurement was conducted before or after thechange; instead, they relied on a qualitative assess-ment indicating that the change was an improve-ment for the organization.

Self-reported assessments like these, however,lack the validity of an established metric. ACRPReport 19A, Resource Guide to Airport PerformanceIndicators, is a valuable, practical guidebook thatcould be used more widely in the industry to estab-lish a better understanding of how to measure andassess an airport’s performance.2

Organizational Structures The synthesis summarizes current practices in orga-nizational design, indicators for change, assessmentmetrics, and other industry trends in organizationalchange, including the barriers to change. The reportdescribes organizational structures that have evolvedin the past 100 years of management science andreviews the advantages and disadvantages of eachstructure, yielding useful approaches for airportmanagers who face structural change in their orga-2 www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/165238.aspx.

Superintendentleadership, vision, direction

Budget developmentCommunications and marketingCommunity outreach program

Human resources

Board ofCommissioners

setting policy direction

Administrationsupporting organization

service deliveryCustomer service

Finance information technologyRecords managementRisk management

Operationscaring for the physical system

Equipment and fleet managementForestry

MaintenanceNatural and water resource

managementPark police

Volunteer coordination

Recreationproviding user activities

AquaticsAthletic facilities

Recreation, cultural, and educationalprograms and activitiesRecreation facilities

Use and event permittingVolunteer coordinationYouth and adult sports

Planningdeveloping the physical system

Strategic planningDesign and project management

Real estate management

Headquarters

Research &Development

Production MarketingAccounting & Finance

FIGURE 1 Team-basedorganizational chart:Minneapolis ParksDepartment.

FIGURE 2 Functionalorganizational chart.

TR NEW

S 292 MAY–JUN

E 2014

57

nizations. The informal relationships within organi-zations and the impacts of change on organizationalculture are also discussed.

The main types of organizational structures iden-tified in the business literature range from conserv-ative, centralized, and hierarchical to free-flowing,decentralized, and collaborative; in graphic repre-sentations of the structures, boxes and straight linesyield to circles and arrows. Each structure on thespectrum, from functional to division based tomatrix, has advantages and disadvantages that air-port managers can consider when restructuring.

These organizational structures are detailed inACRP Synthesis 40. As organizations strive to repre-sent graphically the connections needed to carry outcore services, they are finding that conventional hier-archical structures often prohibit or confuse autonomyand teamwork both within and outside of the organi-zation. Figures 2, 3, and 4 (page 56 and this page) rep-resent organizational charts commonly found in theworkplace.

In summary, in the real world of airport manage-ment, a matrix-type structure is emerging (Figure4), with departments interacting with other func-tional areas to achieve organizational flexibility. Thedisparity between conventional organizational chartsand actual practice is driving much-needed change.The research indicates that an organization mustestablish a collaborative, cohesive culture, in whichwork groups function seamlessly.

Flight Plan for ChangeDrawing on findings from the organizational charts,

the survey of airports, and the case study interviews,along with the literature on organizational design,structure, and strategy, researchers developed a flightplan for airport executives. Following are the stepscritical for a cohesive organizational change; theprocess is not immediate and—as shown in some ofthe airport case studies—may require up to fiveyears.

1. Review the airport’s vision, mission and busi-ness strategy—its strategic objectives—and deter-mine its core services.

2. Define what is triggering the need to change.3. Determine what needs to be changed—or val-

idate the current structure.4. Gain support and endorsement from the gov-

erning entity to proceed.

President

Product ADivision

Product BDivision

Product CDivision

Product DDivision

Administration& FinanceDivision

Research &Development

Research &Development

Research &Development

Research &Development

HumanResources

Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Procurement

Accounting/Finance

Accounting/Finance

Accounting/Finance

Accounting/Finance

Accounting/Finance

Marketing Marketing Marketing MarketingPR/

Communications

Customer Service Customer Service Customer Service Customer Service Training/Safety

Legal

FIGURE 3 Sampledivisional organizationalchart.

FIGURE 4 Sample matrixorganizational chart.

President

Director ofProducts

ProductManager A

ProductManager B

ProductManager C

ProductManager D

VPDesign

VPMfg

VPFinance

VPMarketing

HumanResources

TR N

EWS

292

MAY

–JUN

E 20

14

58

5. Develop a strategic vision for the change witha realistic time frame. Case studies indicate thatminor changes take approximately one year andmajor changes take approximately 3 to 5 years. Con-sult informally with airport managers.

6. Choose a metric for the assessment of condi-tions before and after the change. Describe the cur-rent organizational culture, to facilitate assessmentafter the change. For guidance in applying airportperformance indicators, refer to ACRP Report 19A.

7. Assemble a team for the redesign. An externalfacilitator or organizational consultant may offer afresh perspective; a realistic, objective assessment;and robust experience. Involving key staff from dif-ferent levels of the organization can encourage orga-nizationwide buy-in and expand awareness of theinformal organizational structure. Two of the casestudies indicated that employee teams can be usedeffectively in the change process, and the surveyrevealed that a yearly internal organizational analy-sis was common; both resources can help in deter-mining the need for developing new processes andprocedures. Inform and educate key staffers who arenot on the design team about the communicationprocesses, the informal organizational structure, thetime frame for change, the expected outcomes, andorganizational culture.

8. Review types of organizational structures withthe design team (for example, see Figures 1–4).

9. Determine which organizational structurewould be most suitable and identify changes to bedeveloped and assignments to be divided among theemployee groups. Review the literature, the criticalconsiderations identified in the survey and case stud-ies, and the administrative and the organizationalbarriers, formal and informal, to implementation.

10. Implement the change, focusing on the mis-sion and vision; celebrate small successes.

11. Develop or redesign processes and proceduresto facilitate organizational changes.

12. Continue training and education for staff.13. Assess the culture and establish a feedback

loop from employees.14. Revisit the triggering variable and apply the

chosen metric to evaluate the change.

Designing a New StrategyACRP Synthesis 40 provides airport managers withimproved tools to help their organizations meet thechanging needs of the airport industry. The synthesisexamines relevant organizational design in the aca -demic literature, along with current trends and prac-tices in airport management. A discussion andsynthesis of the literature with real-world experience,along with a flight plan for a successful strategy, aimsto support airport leaders in aligning personnel andthriving in a rapidly changing environment.

Clearly, no “one size fits all” approach is applica-ble. Managers cannot simply copy and apply anotherairport’s organizational chart. They need to create astrategy for their organization that optimally alignsthe airport’s core services and competencies andplaces employees to make a meaningful contributionto the organization.

Great pressures call for great measures. Airportmanagers can be proactive in the face of rapidchange. A focused review of current practices,together with a thoughtful analysis of internal andexternal organizational issues, can help airport man-agers create organizations that will meet today’sknown challenges and be prepared for the unknownchallenges of tomorrow.

PHOTO: JIM

MYEMERSO

N, FLIC

KRRapid City Regional

Airport in South Dakotawas presented as a casestudy in ACRP Synthesis40.

For more information onACRP Synthesis 40, visitwww.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/169008.aspx.

Miami–Dade Aviation Director Emilio T. Gonzálezmeets with high-level officials to share informationabout major capital projects at Miami InternationalAirport. Communication from airport leadership iskey during reorganization and large projects.

PHOTO: M

IAMID

ADEAVIATIO

NDEPA

RTM

ENT