“How to achieve aircraft availability in the MRO&U triad”

“How to achieve aircraft availability in the MRO&U triad”

An analysis of the relation between collaboration in the MRO&U triad and the performance objective aircraft availability

Proefschrift

ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor Aan de Technische Universiteit Delft,

Op gezag van de Rector Magnificus prof. Ir. K.C.A.M. Luyben, Voorzitter van het College voor Promoties,

In het openbaar te verdedigen op dinsdag 28 oktober 2014 om 15.00 uur Door Johannes Walterus Everardus Nicolaas KAELEN

Ingenieur Luchtvaart en Ruimtevaart Geboren te Uden

ii

Dit proefschrift is goedgekeurd door de promotor: Prof. Mr. Dr. Ir. S.C. Santema Samenstelling promotiecommissie: Rector Magnificus Voorzitter Prof. Mr. Dr. Ir. S.C. Santema Technische Universiteit Delft, promotor Prof. Dr. C. Peeters Universiteit Antwerpen Prof. Dr. H.A. Akkermans Universiteit van Tilburg Prof. Dr. Ir. T. Tinga Universiteit Twente Dr. W. Ploos van Amstel Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Dr. Ir. R.J. de Boer Hogeschool van Amsterdam Prof. Dr. Ir. J.M.P. Geraedts Technische Universiteit Delft Prof. Dr. H.M.J.J. Snelders Technische Universiteit Delft, reservelid

iii

Colofon Author : Johan Kaelen Lay-out by: Johan Kaelen Copyright: KD Innovatief Advies, Nieuwerkerk aan den IJssel ISBN/EAN: 978-90-8891-970-1 2014 KD Innovatief Advies, Nieuwerkerk aan den IJssel Alle rechten voorbehouden. Niets uit deze uitgave mag worden verveelvuldigd, opgeslagen in een geautomatiseerd gegevensbestand of openbaar gemaakt in enige vorm of op enigerlei wijze, hetzij elektronisch, mechanisch, door fotokopieën, opnamen of op enige andere manier, zonder voorafgaande toestemming van de samensteller en uitgever.

Content

Content ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................................................................... 4 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................... 5

1.1 Origin of the subject ................................................................................................................................................ 5 1.2 Research focus ........................................................................................................................................................ 6 1.3 The MRO&U process ............................................................................................................................................... 6

1.4 The MRO&U triad ............................................................................................................................................... 7 1.4.1 Maintainer ..................................................................................................................................................... 7 1.4.2 Operator ........................................................................................................................................................ 8 1.4.3 OEM ............................................................................................................................................................... 8 1.4.4 The interactions in the MRO&U process ........................................................................................................ 9 1.4.5 The different interests ................................................................................................................................. 10

1.5 The MRO&U performance objectives .................................................................................................................... 10 1.5.1 The MRO&U process outcome aircraft availability ..................................................................................... 10 1.5.2 The MRO&U process outcome airworthiness .............................................................................................. 11

1.6 The field of study ................................................................................................................................................... 12 1.7 Research aim and research approach ................................................................................................................... 12 1.8 Structure of the thesis ........................................................................................................................................... 13

2. The research approach ................................................................................................................................................... 15 2.1 Preliminary literature review ................................................................................................................................ 15 2.2 Aim and methodology of the preliminary literature review .................................................................................. 15 2.3 The performance objective availability ................................................................................................................. 15 2.4 Collaboration Theories .......................................................................................................................................... 16

2.4.1 The collaboration mechanisms .................................................................................................................... 16 2.4.2 The critical success factors .......................................................................................................................... 17 2.4.3 Summary on collaboration theories ............................................................................................................ 18

2.5 Summary on the preliminary literature review ..................................................................................................... 19 2.6 Research questions ............................................................................................................................................... 19

2.6.1 RQ1: What is the relation between collaboration in the MRO&U triad and availability? ........................... 20 2.6.2 RQ2: Which are the performance requirements applicable on availability? ............................................... 20 2.6.3 RQ3: Which collaboration mechanisms are suited to facilitate the collaboration in the MRO&U triad with the aim to achieve availability, and which are its functions? ......................................................................................... 20 2.6.4 RQ4: Which critical success factors are applicable on the availability collaboration mechanism? ............. 20

2.7 Research methodology.......................................................................................................................................... 21 2.7.1 Research approach ...................................................................................................................................... 21 2.7.2 The subjects of the literature study ............................................................................................................. 22 2.7.3 Applying the theory-in-use .......................................................................................................................... 22 2.7.4 Applying the qualitative research ................................................................................................................ 24 2.7.5 Developing a draft theory ............................................................................................................................ 25

2.8 Research structure ................................................................................................................................................ 25 2.8.1 Developing the availability conceptual model. ............................................................................................ 25 2.8.2 Identifying the performance requirements applicable on the performance objective availability .............. 25 2.8.3 Determining suitable collaboration mechanisms ........................................................................................ 26 2.8.4 Overview of the research structure ............................................................................................................. 26

2.9 Relevance .............................................................................................................................................................. 27 2.9.1 Society. ........................................................................................................................................................ 27 2.9.2 Science. ........................................................................................................................................................ 28

3 Literature study .............................................................................................................................................................. 30 3.1 Aim of literature study .......................................................................................................................................... 30 3.2 Methodology of literature study ........................................................................................................................... 30 3.3 Introduction. ......................................................................................................................................................... 31 3.4 The requirements applicable on the performance objective availability............................................................... 31

3.4.1 The requirements applicable on reliability. ................................................................................................. 32 3.4.2 The requirements applicable on maintainability. ........................................................................................ 33 3.4.3 The requirements applicable on supportability. .......................................................................................... 34 3.4.4 Summary on the requirements applicable on availability. .......................................................................... 34

3.5 Identifying the collaboration mechanism and its functions. ................................................................................. 35 3.5.1 The triad theory ........................................................................................................................................... 36

2

3.5.2 Alliance theory. ............................................................................................................................................ 37 3.5.3 Multi-lateral contracting ............................................................................................................................. 39 3.5.4 Types of multi-lateral contracts. .................................................................................................................. 39 3.5.4.1 Fixed price contracts. ................................................................................................................................... 40 3.5.4.2 Cost reimbursement contracts. ................................................................................................................... 40 3.5.4.3 Indefinite delivery contracts. ....................................................................................................................... 40 3.5.4.4 Time and material contracts. ...................................................................................................................... 40 3.5.4.5 Incentive contracts. ..................................................................................................................................... 41 3.5.5 Performance based contracting. ................................................................................................................. 41 3.5.6 Transaction cost theory ............................................................................................................................... 42 3.5.7 Vertical Integration ..................................................................................................................................... 43 3.5.7.1 The types of Vertical Integration ................................................................................................................. 43 3.5.7.2 VI and the balance of the alliance. .............................................................................................................. 45 3.5.8 Conclusion on the collaboration mechanism and its functions. ................................................................... 45 3.5.9 Discussion .................................................................................................................................................... 46

3.6 Identification of the critical success factors .......................................................................................................... 47 3.6.1 Aim of the study on critical success factors ................................................................................................. 47 3.6.2 The method of identifying the critical success factors ................................................................................. 47 3.6.3 Literature study on critical success factors .................................................................................................. 47 3.6.4 Conclusions on the critical success factors .................................................................................................. 49

3.7 Conclusion on the literature study ........................................................................................................................ 50 4 The theory-in-use ............................................................................................................................................................ 52

4.1 Aim of studying the theory-in-use ......................................................................................................................... 52 4.2 Methodology of studying the theory-in-use .......................................................................................................... 52 4.3 Airworthiness performance requirements ............................................................................................................ 55

4.3.1 Summary on airworthiness performance requirements .............................................................................. 58 4.4 The functions of the airworthiness method (what does it do?) ............................................................................. 58

4.4.1 To establish airworthiness. .......................................................................................................................... 59 4.4.2 To consolidate airworthiness. ...................................................................................................................... 60 4.4.3 To improve airworthiness. ........................................................................................................................... 61 4.4.4 Summary on the functions of airworthiness method................................................................................... 63

4.5 The critical success factors of the airworthiness method. ..................................................................................... 63 4.5.1 The research approach on the critical success factors ................................................................................. 64 4.5.2 Analysis of the airworthiness requirements on critical success factors ....................................................... 64 4.5.3 The cycle of coding and the critical success factors ..................................................................................... 66 4.5.4 Airworthiness as common performance objective ...................................................................................... 66 4.5.5 Measuring and control ................................................................................................................................ 67 4.5.6 Communication ........................................................................................................................................... 68 4.5.7 Penalty system ............................................................................................................................................ 69 4.5.8 A level playing field...................................................................................................................................... 70 4.5.9 Summary on critical success factors ............................................................................................................ 70

4.6 Discussion.............................................................................................................................................................. 71 4.7 Conclusions on the application of the theory-in-use. ............................................................................................ 74

5 The qualitative research ................................................................................................................................................. 76 5.1 The aim of the interviews with professionals ........................................................................................................ 76 5.2 Methodology of the qualitative research .............................................................................................................. 76 5.3 Interview design .................................................................................................................................................... 77

5.3.1 The interview questions ............................................................................................................................... 77 5.3.2 The respondents .......................................................................................................................................... 78 5.3.3 The collaboration agreements..................................................................................................................... 78

5.4 The quality of the qualitative research.................................................................................................................. 79 5.4.1 The number of interviews ............................................................................................................................ 79 5.4.2 The number of cases .................................................................................................................................... 81

5.5 The execution of the interview .............................................................................................................................. 81 5.6 Data analysis ......................................................................................................................................................... 81

5.6.1 The validation criteria.................................................................................................................................. 82 5.6.2 Coding of the interview transcripts ............................................................................................................. 83 5.6.3 The first cycle of coding ............................................................................................................................... 84 5.6.4 The second cycle of coding .......................................................................................................................... 85

5.7 The descriptive code “availability” ........................................................................................................................ 88 5.8 The Central Category “requirements applicable on the performance objective availability” ............................... 89

5.8.1 The Core Category “specific” ....................................................................................................................... 89 5.8.2 The Core Category “measurable” ................................................................................................................ 92

3

5.8.3 The Core Category “achievable” .................................................................................................................. 94 5.8.4 The Core category “relevant” ...................................................................................................................... 95 5.8.5 The Core Category “Time bound” ................................................................................................................ 96 5.8.6 Comprehensive conclusions on the Central Category “requirements applicable on the performance objective availability” ..................................................................................................................................................... 97

5.9 The Central Category “functions of the availability mechanism” .......................................................................... 98 5.9.1 The Core Category “Establish” ..................................................................................................................... 98 5.9.2 The Core Category “Consolidate” .............................................................................................................. 100 5.9.3 The Core Category “Improve” .................................................................................................................... 101 5.9.4 Comprehensive conclusions on the Central Category “functions of the availability mechanism” ............. 102

5.10 The Central Category “critical success factors” ................................................................................................... 103 5.10.1 The Core Category “Common objective” ................................................................................................... 103 5.10.2 The Core category “Communication” ........................................................................................................ 105 5.10.3 The Core Category “measuring & control” ................................................................................................ 107 5.10.4 The Core category “penalty and consultation” .......................................................................................... 108 5.10.5 The Core Category “level playing field” ..................................................................................................... 110 5.10.6 Comprehensive conclusions on the Central Category “Critical success factors” ........................................ 112

5.11 The different MRO&U triad situations ................................................................................................................ 113 5.11.1 The PBC1 triad ........................................................................................................................................... 113 5.11.2 The PBC2 collaboration ............................................................................................................................. 114 5.11.3 The traditional contract 2 .......................................................................................................................... 115

5.12 The quality of the interview answers .................................................................................................................. 116 5.13 Summary on the qualitative research ................................................................................................................. 117

6 Discussion and implications .......................................................................................................................................... 119 6.1 Research questions and research method........................................................................................................... 119 6.2 RQ1: The relation between the collaboration in the MRO&U triad and availability ........................................... 121 6.3 RQ2: The performance requirements of availability ........................................................................................... 121 6.4 RQ3: The collaboration mechanism of the MRO&U triad and its functions ........................................................ 122 6.5 RQ4: The critical success factors of the collaboration ......................................................................................... 124 6.6 The availability conceptual model ....................................................................................................................... 124 6.7 The relative weight of the factors of influence .................................................................................................... 125 6.8 The interests of the triad partners ...................................................................................................................... 127 6.9 Contribution to science ....................................................................................................................................... 129

6.9.1 Contribution to the alliance theory............................................................................................................ 129 6.9.2 Contribution to the triad theory ................................................................................................................ 129 6.9.3 Contribution to the transaction costs economics theory ........................................................................... 130

6.10 Limitations of research ........................................................................................................................................ 130 6.10.1 Limitation with respect to the literature study .......................................................................................... 131 6.10.2 Limitations with respect to the application of the theory-in-use ............................................................... 131 6.10.3 Limitations with respect to the case study ................................................................................................ 132 6.10.3.1 Data Collection ..................................................................................................................................... 132 6.10.3.2 Data analysis ........................................................................................................................................ 133 6.10.4 Assessment of limitations .......................................................................................................................... 134

6.11 Recommendations for further research ..................................................................................................................... 134 7. Researchers reflections ................................................................................................................................................. 137

7.1 A proposed preliminary formulation of a theory ................................................................................................. 138 7.2 Application of the model ..................................................................................................................................... 138

References: ............................................................................................................................................................................ 140 List of tables ........................................................................................................................................................................... 152 List of figures .......................................................................................................................................................................... 153 List of abbreviations ............................................................................................................................................................... 155 Annexes .................................................................................................................................................................................. 157 Abstract .................................................................................................................................................................................. 186 Samenvatting ......................................................................................................................................................................... 190

4

Acknowledgements

It was a pleasure for me to do research for almost four years and to write this thesis about it.

I learned a tremendous amount during this effort. The research and the thesis could only be

realized with the support of people around me. I like to thank in particular those people

without which I could not have completed the research and this thesis.

5

1. Introduction

1.1 Origin of the subject

As a Royal Netherlands Air Force (RNLAF) Officer I have been involved in aircraft maintenance for more than thirty years. In the different positions I held in the RNLAF I got the opportunity to look at aircraft maintenance from different perspectives, as a user, as a maintainer, as a purchaser and as a policy maker. From these different viewpoints I learned to appreciate the value of aircraft maintenance as well as the different interests of the parties involved in aircraft maintenance. I realized that the sole purpose of aircraft maintenance is to make and keep aircraft fit to fulfill the required operations: i.e. make them available for operations. To achieve this, the aircraft has to be constantly maintained, overhauled when needed, repaired if required and upgraded if outdated. The RNLAF purchases its aircraft from an international OEM and does most of the aircraft maintenance in-house. With the cutting of defense budgets, less aircraft are available for more complex operations, so aircraft availability becomes more important for Air Forces. In the RNLAF much effort is invested in optimizing the Maintenance, Repair, Overhaul and Upgrade (MRO&U) process with the aim to improve aircraft availability. As project officer I have been responsible for several MRO&U improvement projects. Hereby I used different improvement methods like six-sigma, lean, visual factory and value driven maintenance to optimize the internal Air Force MRO&U process. Over time I realized that the optimization of the MRO&U process was only possible within the boundaries of the internal RNLAF processes. External factors affecting the MRO&U process could not be included in the improvement effort, because they are outside the scope of control of the RNLAF maintenance organization. This is for instance true for availability of spare parts, the design maintainability, and the maintenance plan, which are the responsibility of the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM). But also for the aircraft usage, the support, the configuration management and fleet management, which are the responsibility of the operator. The RNLAF is operator and maintainer of its aircraft, which proved to be a basis for collaboration between the aircraft operators and maintainers with the aim to improve aircraft utilization. An example can be found in engine maintenance: by educating the operators with respect to the relation between engine cycles and engine maintenance, engine maintenance requirements could be reduced to less than one third, which significantly improved engine availability. Collaboration between the RNLAF and an aircraft OEM was for instance established when the F-16 fighter aircraft fleet needed an operational upgrade. The upgrade was a co-development between OEM and RNLAF. Besides operational upgrades, upgrades with respect to maintainability and supportability were developed and implemented. After the upgrade, the F-16 proved to have an improved maintainability and supportability, which led to improved aircraft availability. These two examples convinced me that to research the optimization of aircraft availability in the MRO&U process, the collaboration between the OEM, the maintainer and the operator would be a subject of research. My efforts to develop this collaboration were not always successful and stranded often on the different interests of the players. This was for me a reason to study literature on the subject. However, literature on this kind of collaboration is sparse and does not offer much guidance. In my view science can

6

contribute to improve aircraft availability by providing more insight in the mechanism of collaboration between the OEM, the maintainer and the user. With this research I try to contribute to the better understanding of the mechanism of collaboration between OEM, maintainer and operator with a focus on aircraft availability. Air Forces and commercial airliners, although different from nature, will both gain from a better understanding of the mechanism of collaboration in aircraft MRO&U. There are many more commercial airliners than Air Forces, and there are a significant number of commercial airliners that outsource their MRO&U to a third party, not being the OEM. In the latter cases the operator, the maintainer and the OEM are three different and independent parties. This forms an unbiased situation for the research on the collaboration between the parties in the MRO&U process. Therefor the collaboration in the MRO&U triad between the OEM, the maintainer and the operator of commercial aircraft with the aim to achieve availability is the scope of my research.

1.2 Research focus The financial crisis and the introduction of low-budget companies have brought major changes to the air freight community. Competition became stronger and cost control became more important (Yilmaz, 2008). This led to new ways of organizing support and maintenance, which became much more performance oriented. For the maintainers this meant that they had to change their way of working, their processes and their culture (Crispino, Flintsch, and Pozzi, 2008). The focus shifted to delivering performance. The concept of delivering performance has been studied using a relationship marketing perspective (Eggert, Ulaga & Schultz, 2006; Harmsen, 2012; Liu, Leach & Bernhardt 2005; Payne & Holt, 2001; Grönroos, 2004). Hereby performance realization within a partnership is stipulated, as opposed to transaction-based collaborations. This leads to co-creation of performance (Grönroos 2004) where entities work together through processes to achieve the optimum benefit for the operator (Ng and Ding, 2010). The achieved performances are related to aspects relevant for (commercial) airliners: creating shareholder value and comply with regulations: i.e. airworthiness requirements. To create shareholder value enterprises optimize turn-over and reduce costs (Rappaport, 1998). For the air freight community turn-over is generated by operating aircraft. Aircraft can only be operated if available. The aircraft MRO&U process is about preparing aircraft to be available (Boon Seh Choo, 2004), while complying with airworthiness regulations (Sakburanapech, 2008). The MRO&U process is discussed below.

1.3 The MRO&U process

If an aircraft operator requires new aircraft or aircraft parts, it will purchase these from a supplier. For complete aircraft this will usually be the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM), while for parts or components it is the OEM of the aircraft or the OEM of the part or component. Before purchasing an aircraft the operator performs an extended evaluation to select the best product to fulfill his needs (Suhir et al., 2012, Cassady et al. 2003). Part of that evaluation is the development of a sustainment strategy (supply chain counsel proceedings, 2003). Based on the information from the OEM, and transaction costs considerations (Williamson, 1985), a choice will be made

7

whether the operator will perform its own maintenance, repairs, overhauls and upgrades (MRO&U), or whether he will outsource these activities (Bintrup et al., 2009). The choices made are dependent on costs, the operator’s ambition, capabilities and capacities, as well as on the possibility to get access to the required information. In practice a mix of insourcing and outsourcing is common (Quinn and Hilmer, 1995). In these cases heavy maintenance, complex overhauls and upgrades are outsourced, while user maintenance and repair by replacement activities are performed by the operator. If the operator decides to outsource MRO&U activities, the next challenge is to select the maintainer to perform these activities (Vanneste, 1995). This is the OEM or an independent aircraft or component maintainer. Most of the time however the involvement of the OEM is required in one way or the other due to Intellectual Property Rights (IPR, Cole, 2001). With respect to maintenance, repair, overhaul and upgrades the OEM is involved, and relationships are embedded in the processes and interactions between the operator, the maintainer and the OEM over a length of time (Bolton, Lemon and Verhoef, 2008). For the current research the participants identified in the MRO&U process are: the OEM, the maintainer and the operator. The interaction between the participants involved to sustain an aircraft over time is referred to as the MRO&U process, see fig. 1.

Fig. 1 The MRO&U process The dotted arrows represent the movement of parts/aircraft, the black arrows the exchange of information

The participants in the MRO&U process, the operator, the maintainer and the OEM, are in the current research referred to as the MRO&U triad.

1.4 The MRO&U triad

The airworthiness requirement (FAA A, 2013) distinguishes three participants in the MRO&U process, which are;

- Maintainer; - Operator; - OEM.

The MRO&U triad participants are briefly discussed.

1.4.1 Maintainer

The maintainer is the entity that performs MRO&U and is responsible for compliance with, airworthiness requirements applicable on repaired aircraft and

Operator Maintainer OEM/supplier

8

components, safety, tracking&tracing of parts, configuration management and maintenance engineering (Persona et al., 2007). The maintainer focuses on internal maintenance processes to reduce costs and maximize turnover (Arbor, 2009). For the maintainer a well-established MRO&U process means minimized internal maintenance process costs and maximized maintenance revenues (in accordance with Wynstra et al., 2012). The turnaround time of aircraft undergoing maintenance is a result of the internal processes, more than it is a result of trying to accomplish the shortest possible turnaround time to maximize availability for the operator.

1.4.2 Operator

The operator is the entity that operates the aircraft and is responsible for user maintenance and the right usage of the equipment, and is responsible for maintaining the airworthiness and safety over the lifetime of the aircraft (Sakburanapech, 2008). The operators focus lays on safety and timely availability of aircraft. Furthermore, due to competition and profit (shareholder) considerations, the operator has an interest in optimizing turn-over and profit margins (Porter, 1985, 2001, Schilling et al., 2012). The operator shows a tendency to use its aircraft to the full extent and to stretch inspection intervals, to optimize the airlift service and to minimize turnaround times (Garni et al., 2007, Schilling et al., 2012). Aircraft availability has a direct influence on the turn-over and the profit margins of the airliner (Arbor, 2009). For the operator MRO&U process improvement means maximized availability with minimized cost, while maintaining required safety levels and fulfilling airworthiness requirements.

1.4.3 OEM

The OEM is the entity that has design responsibility for an aircraft and is responsible for the initial airworthiness and the safety as well as for the maintenance plans. The OEM focuses on its design and manufacturing processes. The design of an aircraft system is always a compromise between safety, weight, price, flight dynamics, flight economics, performance, payload and sustainability (Thokala, 2009). Engineers have traditionally designed systems that maximize performance while minimizing size and weight. During the design of a new aircraft or major upgrade of an existing system, the focus is on realizing or exceeding the functional performance requirements. The reliability, maintainability and supportability of the aircraft are minor considerations or not considered at all. This is shown by the absence of penalties for performance targets (agreed initial specifications) which are not met in the initial exploitation phase (Suwondo, 2007). It is generally accepted that between 70 and 80% of the Life Cycle Cost (LCC) of an aircraft is locked in during the design phase of an aircraft (Basten, 2009). Reducing the ultimate LCC may result in higher initial costs (thus a higher selling price), a higher weight (thus fewer payloads) and a more complex design. In order to find the optimal compromise in the design, maintainability, supportability and reliability are often sacrificed for price and weight benefits (Scalan et al, 2002). Building an aircraft system is a rather complex activity, the OEM will try to develop manufacturing procedures that simplify the building process as much as possible.

9

This also may result in compromising maintainability and supportability, for example the often poor accessibility of repair parts in aircraft or of service locations on the aircraft. If reliability, maintainability and supportability decrease, so does availability (Smets, 2009, Mulder et al., 2012, Ghobbar, 2008). The OEM is a key player with respect to maintainability, reliability, supportability and aircraft availability. Suwondo (2007), and de Jong (2010) have identified a fourth partner to play a role in the MRO&U process: the spare parts supplier. The spare part supplier is the entity that is responsible for delivering the required components, repair parts and consumables to the maintainer. OEM’s generally have a very high market share for replacement parts, typically 90% or more, but for the older, more mature equipment with significant surplus parts available, OEM market shares can be less than 70%. Usage of non-OEM PMA (Parts Manufacturer Approval) parts for component maintenance, currently 2% overall, continues to expand (aero strategy 2009), but is still marginal. Hence for this research the OEM and supplier are regarded as one.

The participants in the MRO&U process have mutual interdependencies (Araujo and Mota, 1998). The participants in the MRO&U process have, at the same time, different interests and a different focus (Jong, de, 2010). This is discussed in more detail below.

1.4.4 The interactions in the MRO&U process

An aircraft consist of up to 20.000 technically complex parts. Authorities require a guarantee that all these parts are airworthy and serviceable (Kobbacy, Kah and Jeon, 2001). All parts have an OEM and/or supplier and require a unique repair and overhaul capability (Wu et al., 2004). This implies that for every repairable aircraft part an OEM/supplier, a maintainer and an operator are identified. During the use of aircraft, parts fail and need to be replaced and repaired, overhauls get due and need to be performed, upgrades are required and need to be realized and maintenance needs to be executed (Sakburanapech, 2008). This requires collaboration between the parties involved in the sustainment of aircraft (Araujo and Mota, 1998). A practical example is a major overhaul of an aircraft propulsion system which is due for its cycles. An engine cycle is counted every time the throttle is moved from idle to maximum thrust. In the example the operator decides to outsource these activities to a maintainer, not being the OEM. All user data, configuration data, and maintenance history is transferred from the operator to the maintainer. In this example the maintainer needs technical data of the propulsion system, applicable service reports, configuration data and maintenance data from the OEM. If parts need to be replaced during the overhaul, the maintainer will exchange data with the supplier, and the supplier will need to provide tracking and tracing data for airworthy parts. After the overhaul the maintainer will provide maintenance history data, configuration data, and tracking and tracing data to the operator as well as to the OEM. All MRO&U triad partners contribute to achieve

10

availability and restore airworthiness. However, the interests of the MRO&U partners are different.

1.4.5 The different interests

Each of the participants of the MRO&U process contributes to the performance of the process. This contribution is based on the role that each of the participants plays in the MRO&U process and on the individual interests of the participants. The interests of the maintainer and the OEM are not necessarily aligned with the interests of the operator (Wynstra et al., 2012). This affects the performance of the MRO&U process with respect to the operator’s performance objective (van Rhee et al., 2008). Each of the participants in the MRO&U process has invested in its own internal processes. Optimization (which is cost- and process optimization) is the act of adjusting a process so as to optimize some specified set of parameters (Illes, 2009). In an ideal situation the performance of the internal processes of each participant is optimal. However seen in the integrated perspective of the performance of the whole MRO&U process these optimization efforts can be regarded as sub optimizations. The operator benefits from an optimized MRO&U process, where the performance objective is maximized (Ruiter, de, 2010). This raises the question how sub optimization can be avoided and how the outcome of the MRO&U process can be improved with respect to the operator’s performance objectives.

1.5 The MRO&U performance objectives

To operate an aircraft it has to be available and airworthy. Availability and airworthiness of aircraft are both performance outcomes of the MRO&U process. The performance outcome of the MRO&U process are in the current research referred to as the performance objectives of the MRO&U triad collaboration or as the MRO&U performance objectives. Both performance objectives are discussed below.

1.5.1 The MRO&U process outcome aircraft availability

Aircraft availability is the ratio of the actual operating time to the scheduled operating time. It is the probability of an aircraft to be in service when required (Locks 1995, Murty, and Naikan, 1995). Steady-state availability of an aircraft fleet, for a given period, is defined as the percentage of time during which the fleet is producing its designed output adequately (Romeu, 2004). Availability has always been a major concern of operators, and there is a tendency that availability considerations are becoming an ever more important aspect for operators. This forces OEM’s and maintainers nowadays to be more proactive in trying to increase availability, and is an incentive for all participants to collaborate in improving the MRO&U process with respect to availability (Basten et al., 2009). The performance of collaboration in the MRO&U triad determines the quality of the MRO&U process performance objective availability (Gregory, 1993). The focus of the current research is on the improvement of the performance objective availability for commercial aircraft by revising the collaboration in the MRO&U triad.

11

1.5.2 The MRO&U process outcome airworthiness

Airworthiness in the aeronautical world is important and a basis for safety. Safety is divided in safety of operations and safety of the aircraft (system safety). Safety of operations includes flight procedures, air traffic control procedures, and emergency procedures. Safety of operations is established and maintained by a broad range of procedures, guidelines, regulations and laws, with involvement of Governments, the National Airworthiness Authorities and stakeholders (FAA B, Continuous Operational Safety, 2013). Safety of operation encompasses all aspects of flying, but is not affected by maintenance or the performance of MRO&U. Safety of operations is outside the scope of the current research. System safety of the aircraft deals with the design, the maintenance and the support of aircraft. The design of aircraft is a responsibility of the OEM (Acar, Kale and Haftka, 2005). Providing maintenance is a responsibility of the maintainer and delivering support is a responsibility of the operator (Ghobbar et al., 2003). Safety of aircraft is established, consolidated and improved by means of the airworthiness requirements. The airworthiness requirements encompass, among others, design requirements, maintenance requirements and support requirements. A broad range of prescribed procedures, mandatory guidelines and regulations is used in the airworthiness requirements to secure safety. The requirements safety and airworthiness are intertwined: complying with airworthiness requirements is a solid basis for aircraft safety. Especially with respect to MRO&U, safety and airworthiness requirements do overlap each other (Dhillon and Liu, 2006). For the current research aircraft airworthiness is referred to as airworthiness and implies aircraft safety. Airworthiness requirements are extensively and detailed set in the National Airworthiness Regulations and managed by the National Airworthiness Authorities (NAA). The operator is responsible for securing the airworthiness of the aircraft. The issuing of the maintenance plan is a responsibility of the OEM (Sachon et al., 2000). The airworthiness of repaired aircraft is a responsibility of the maintainer (Sakburanapech, 2008). In the MRO&U process the operator, the OEM and maintainer have a (intertwining) responsibility with respect to airworthiness. Collaboration between the MRO&U triad partners with respect to airworthiness is in fact mandatory (FAA A, 2013). Achieving airworthiness is a condition sine qua non to operate an aircraft. The achievement of airworthiness is demonstrated with every flight of an aircraft. Detailed statistics about safety and airworthiness are available and accessible via public media (EASA B, 2013). The way airworthiness is realized by collaboration between the MRO&U triad partners is referred to as the airworthiness method. The airworthiness method is for the current research regarded as a successful method for achieving a performance objective by MRO&U triad collaboration. Airworthiness is, like availability, a performance objective of the MROU& triad collaboration. For the current research the airworthiness method is proposed to be a theory-in-use on how to achieve a performance objective by collaboration in the MRO&U triad.

12

1.6 The field of study In accordance with van Weele (2005) communication and interaction between the aircraft operator and maintainer is a requirement in order to achieve performance. Vandenbosch and Dawar (2002) demonstrated that managing interaction activities in the MRO&U triad is a strong source of achieving performance objectives. Ng and Ding (2010) and Ghobbar (2008) found that managing MRO&U relationship plays a role in improving the performance objective. Managing the relationship and improving the performance objective requires a form of contracting of which collaboration is the basis: the performance based contract (van Rhee et al., 2009). With these performance based contracts achieving availability is not a responsibility of the contractor alone, but becomes a shared responsibility of the operator and the contractors (Ng and Yip, 2009). This causes a reversal in the relation between operator and contractors, where they used to stand opposite to each other: they now have to work side by side (Ng and Ding, 2010). The changed relation between operator and contractors requires new ways of organizing and new types of performance based contracts. As found by Baker et al. (1993) the majority of the new operator – contractor relations is however not successful in the longer term, either because the performance is not met, or because the relation between operator and contractors brakes up. An important reason is that performance is difficult to measure. “Objective measures of performance are seldom perfect. In response, performance based collaboration often includes important subjective components that mitigate incentive distortions caused by imperfect objective measures.” (Baker, Gibbons and Murphy, 1993) Another reason is that the interests of the collaborating partners are not aligned (van Rhee et al., 2008). This raises the question how the triad collaboration in the MRO&U process can be organized to support aircraft maintenance and service activities in such a way that the operator gets optimized availability (based on Shapiro et al., 1993). This defines the field of study: “The field of study of this research is the aircraft MRO&U triad of commercial aircraft and the interaction between the MRO&U triad partners”.

1.7 Research aim and research approach

The objective of the current research is to contribute to the development of a theory on how to achieve the performance objective availability as performance outcome of the MRO&U triad collaboration. The first step in the research is to perform a preliminary literature review to define the research questions and to give guidance to the development of the research approach.

Fig. 2 Relation between the collaboration in the MRO&U triad and the performance objective availability.

Collaboration in the MRO&U

triad

Performance objective

availability

13

The current research is according to Dul and Hak (2008) qualified as a theory-building research. The aim of the theory building research is to define the relation between the collaboration in the aircraft MRO&U triad and the performance objective aircraft availability (based on Dul and Hak, 2008)(see fig. 2). The relation is defined using a multi method research. A literature study on availability and on collaboration in the MRO&U process is performed. Based on the findings the collaboration in the MRO&U triad and availability are specified and factors of influence are identified. To test and complement the findings from the literature study, the airworthiness method is applied as the theory-in-use for collaboration in the MRO&U triad. The analysis of this theory-in-use provides additional insights in factors of influence of collaboration in the MRO&U triad. To confirm the validity of the factors of influence a qualitative approach is performed (Creswell, 2003). The qualitative research is executed by conducting interviews with professionals active in the MRO&U triad. These interviews deepen the understanding of the factors of influence and lead to the development of an availability conceptual model. This availability conceptual model defines the relation between the collaboration in the MRO&U triad and the performance objective availability. This relation forms the basis on which a theory is developed on “how to achieve availability in the MRO&U triad”. The research approach is depicted in fig 3.

Fig. 3. The research approach (based on Dul and Hak, 2008). The literature study, the application of the theory-in-use and the qualitative research are the elements of the theory building which is illustrated by

the overarching square.

1.8 Structure of the thesis

The research question is “how to achieve availability in the MRO&U triad?” The current research provides an answer to that question and contributes to the development of a theory on the achievement of availability as performance objective of the Maintenance, Repair, Overhaul & Upgrade (MRO&U) triad collaboration on commercial aircraft. The research and the results of the research are reflected in this thesis. The thesis is structured as follows: in chapter 2 a preliminary literature review is conducted. Based on the preliminary literature review the research questions are raised and the subjects of the literature study are determined. Furthermore the research methodology is elaborated upon. This chapter deals also with the research structure and the relevance of the research. In chapter 3 the methodology and results of the literature study are discussed. The different types of collaborations are analyzed and the mechanisms to facilitate these collaborations are identified. Furthermore the factors of influence applicable on the collaboration in the MRO&U triad are analyzed. This results in a preliminary availability conceptual framework.

Theory building

Literature study

Theory-in-use

Qualitative research

Theory Research Questions

Preliminary literature

review

14

In chapter 4 a theory-in-use with respect to collaboration in the MRO&U triad is defined: the airworthiness method. The airworthiness method is analyzed using the National Airworthiness Authorities requirements. The insight gained from the analysis of the airworthiness method are used to test and complement the findings from the literature study and to construct the availability conceptual framework. In chapter 5 the design of the qualitative research by interviews with professionals is described, and the results of these interviews. The results of the interviews are analyzed to gain more insight in the weight of and the relation between the factors of influence of the availability conceptual framework. This insight is used to complement the findings from the literature study and the application of the theory-in-use and to construct the availability conceptual model. In chapter 6 the results of the current research are discussed and assessed. Furthermore in chapter 6 the research limitations and recommendations for follow-on research are given. In chapter 7 the researcher’s reflections over the research are given and a theory on how to achieve availability in the MRO&U triad is formulated.

15

2. The research approach In the previous chapter the research subject was discussed. In this chapter the research questions are determined, as well as the research methodology and structure. Furthermore the relevance of the research is discussed. The relation between the collaboration in the MRO&U triad and the outcome of that collaboration, the performance objective availability, as illustrated in fig. 2, serves as a basis for the research approach.

2.1 Preliminary literature review To determine the research questions, approach and structure a preliminary literature review is conducted. In this preliminary literature review, a quick scan of literature related to the research subject is performed. The preliminary literature review serves as a preparation on- and to provide guidance to- the literature study as discussed in chapter 3.

2.2 Aim and methodology of the preliminary literature review

The preliminary literature review has the objective to identify the research fields in the literature that are related to the research problem and to position the current research within the identified fields. Additionally the preliminary literature review is to benefit from previous research and to narrow down the scope of the literature study of the current research and to determine the applicable research questions. There are two related fields of research that serve as departure points for the preliminary literature review;

- The performance objective availability; - Collaboration theories.

The preliminary literature review has a limited scope and is performed by;

- Using search engines like ScienceDirect, scholar Google and Google books; - Using the Delft University Institutional Repository; - Reading papers in on-line Journals like Maintenance online

(www.maintenanceonline.co.uk), aviation maintenance (www.avm-mag.com). The preliminary literature review and its results are discussed below for each of the fields of research.

2.3 The performance objective availability

According to Blanchard et al. (1995) availability measures the degree to which a system or machine is in an operational and committable state at the start of a mission at whatever time the mission is called for. To achieve availability is the aim of the collaboration in the MRO&U triad, as such availability is a performance objective. It was noted by Wirick (2009) and Wynstra et al. (2012) that to be achievable, a performance objective has to comply with performance requirements. However, no conclusive set of

http://www.maintenanceonline.co.uk/

http://www.avm-mag.com/

16

performance requirements for the performance objective availability could be found in literature. The applicability of the performance requirements on the performance objective availability is illustrated in fig. 4.

Fig. 4. The performance requirements of the performance objective availability

From this preliminary literature review it is concluded that performance requirements are applicable on the performance objective availability. To determine the performance requirements applicable on the performance objective availability is subject of the literature study in Chapter 3.

2.4 Collaboration Theories

Different theories, tools and methods are developed to manage inter-firm and intra-firm collaborations. The subject of the present research is the trilateral inter-firm collaboration between the OEM, the maintainer and the operator, with the aim to achieve availability. A source for bilateral inter-firm collaboration management models and theory can be found in alliance studies. Trilateral inter-firm collaboration is the subject of triad theory. A special form of inter-firm collaborations stems from outsourcing decisions. The cost based considerations of the decision to outsource (or insource) activities are reflected in the transaction cost theory. The preliminary literature review on alliance theory, triads and transaction cost theory with the aim to define the relation between the collaboration in the MRO&U triad and the performance objective availability is discussed below.

2.4.1 The collaboration mechanisms

Alliances can take a variety of forms. All the different forms of alliances are suited to facilitate the establishment and consolidation of inter-firm collaboration with the aim to achieve a collaboration outcome (Gates, 1993: Yoshino & Rangan, 1995). However, to establish, consolidate and enhance inter-firm collaboration with the goal to improve the performance objective as outcome of the collaboration, the Performance Based Contract (PBC) is suited (Johnson et al., 1996: Nooteboom et al., 1997: Parkhe, 1998: Luo, 2002). Wynstra et al. (2012) identify also the Performance Based Contract (PBC) between the triad partners as the collaboration mechanism that is best suited to support a triad collaboration. In Transaction Cost Economics (TCE) the decision between vertical integration (insourcing) and building an alliance (outsourcing) is taken on the basis of transaction cost considerations (Williamson, 1985). The focus of TCE is the

Performance objective availability

Performance requirements

17

assessment of different modes of coordination and the types of contracts associated for choosing the coordination mechanism which minimizes transaction costs (Williamson, 1999). This assessment is leading to the choice of the governance structure of a firm (van Meurs, 2010). The different forms of collaboration are in the current research referred to as collaboration mechanisms. The preliminary literature review on alliances, triads and TCE identifies different collaboration mechanisms with different functions. This is illustrated in fig. 5. However no unique collaboration mechanism for the collaboration in the MRO&U triad could be identified. The determination of the collaboration mechanism applicable on the collaboration in the MRO&U triad with the aim to achieve the performance objective availability is subject of the literature study in chapter 3.

Fig. 5. The collaboration mechanisms and its functions for the collaboration in the MRO& triad

2.4.2 The critical success factors

Alliance theory identifies factors which are relevant for achieving and improving performance objectives as outcome of bilateral collaboration. These factors are in the current research referred to as critical success factors. As noted by Anand and Mendelson (1997) performances of alliances improve if partners coordinate their activities and information is exchanged. Furthermore the efficiency of alliances improves if common interests are defined (Persona et al. 2007). Coordinating activities, exchanging information and a common interest are assessed to be critical success factors. Triad literature concludes that relationships developed between triad partners (Dwyer, Schurr and Oh, 1987, Dyer and Singh, 1998), affects the power balance in the triad (Wynstra et al., 2012), the exchange of information and the development of shared interest between triad partners (Tate et al., 2010). It is suggested that the shared interest will develop into a common performance objective for the triad as a whole (Peng et al. 2010) and the development of an inter-firm measurement system for performance (Neely, 2005). The power balance between the triad partners, exchange of information, a performance measuring system and a common interest are assessed to be critical success factors.

In TCE, the bilateral inter-firm governance structure is described by three dimensions (Gerybadze, 1995; Kornelius, 1999; Walters, 2002);

Collaboration in the MRO&U triad

Collaboration mechanisms

Functions

18

- the information exchange; - integration; - infrastructure of the collaboration.

From these dimensions De Jong (2010) derived the critical success factors for inter-firm collaboration:

- information exchange; - a measuring and control system; - a consultancy system.

The critical success factors found in alliance, triad and TCE literature are diverse and differ between researches and applied theories. No unique set of critical success factors applicable on the MRO&U triad collaboration could be found. The preliminary literature review on alliances, triads and TCE revealed that critical success factors affect the performance of the collaboration. This is illustrated in fig. 6. To determine the applicable set of critical success factors on the collaboration in the MRO&U triad with the aim to achieve the performance objective availability is subject of the literature study in chapter 3.

Fig. 6. The critical success factors applicable on the collaboration in the MRO& triad

2.4.3 Summary on collaboration theories

From the literature review on alliance, triad and transaction cost theories, different collaboration mechanisms are identified. It was found that the type of collaboration mechanism affects the performance outcome of the collaboration. In the different theories and different studies, different collaboration mechanisms and different critical success factors are identified, see fig. 7. The determination of the collaboration mechanism with its functions, and the critical success factors applicable on the collaboration in the MRO&U triad with the aim to achieve the performance objective availability is addressed in the literature study of the current research, see chapter 3.

Fig. 7. The critical success factors and the critical success factors of the collaboration in the MRO&U triad.


Collaboration mechanism

Functions

Critical success factors



19

2.5 Summary on the preliminary literature review Present theory-building research aims to contribute to the development of a theory on how to achieve availability in the MRO&U triad by specifying the relation between the performance outcome availability and the collaboration in the MRO&U triad (based on Dul and Hak, 2008). The preliminary literature review on the performance objective availability and on collaboration theories gave insight in the factors of influence which determine this relation. It was found that the performance objective availability is subject to performance requirement. The collaboration between the MRO&U triad partners is facilitated by a collaboration mechanism with certain functions, which effectiveness is determined by the presents of critical success factors. The relation between the collaboration in the MRO&U triad and the performance objective availability, as well as the applicable factors of influence are depicted in fig. 8, and is referred to as the initial preliminary availability conceptual framework.

Fig. 8. The initial preliminary availability conceptual framework.

The performance requirements of availability are yet undetermined, as are the applicable collaboration mechanism and its functions, and critical success factors applicable on the collaboration mechanism of the MRO&U triad. The research questions in the current research are developed to determine these factors of influence. This is discussed below.

2.6 Research questions

Specifying the relation between the performance objective availability and the collaboration in the MRO&U triad, contributes to the aim of the current research: modeling how aircraft availability can be achieved by collaboration in the MRO&U triad. From the preliminary literature review the factors of influence of this relation are identified, see also fig. 8;

- the performance objective availability complies with a set of performance requirements;

- collaboration in the MRO&U triad is facilitated by a collaboration mechanism with a set of functions;

- a set of critical success factors is applicable on the MRO&U triad collaboration.

Which performance requirements are applicable on the performance objective availability has to be determined. Which collaboration mechanism is suited to facilitate

Collaboration in the MRO&U triad Performance objective

availability



anism

Functions


20

the collaboration in the MRO&U triad has also to be determined, as well as its functions. Finally the applicable critical success factors have to be determined. This leads to the research questions:

2.6.1 RQ1: What is the relation between collaboration in the MRO&U triad and availability?

To answer this research question a model of the relation between the collaboration in the MRO&U triad and the performance objective availability is developed. The initial preliminary availability conceptual framework (fig. 8) as derived from the preliminary literature review serves as a starting point for the development of this model. The factors of influence identified in the preliminary literature review form the building blocks of the model. To develop the model, the factors of influence have to be defined. Hereto the following research questions are developed.

2.6.2 RQ2: Which are the performance requirements applicable on availability?

A literature study on the achievement of availability as performance objective is conducted. A well-defined performance objective is decisive for being achievable in the MRO&U process (Grinblatt and Titman, 1989). To define availability the applicable requirements on availability are identified in the literature study (chapter 3). This is realized by dividing availability in its constituent parts: reliability, maintainability and supportability (Smets, 2009, Kumar et al., 2000) and by studying the performance requirements applicable on each of these parts.

2.6.3 RQ3: Which collaboration mechanisms are suited to facilitate the collaboration in the MRO&U triad with the aim to achieve availability, and which are its functions?

The collaboration mechanism has to facilitate the collaboration in the MRO&U triad in such a way that the performance objective availability is achieved. This requires that a mechanism is in place which is functional and with which the process of achieving the performance outcome availability is controlled. The preliminary literature review identified different collaboration mechanisms. To assess which collaboration mechanisms is suited best, the literature on alliance and triad collaboration is studied as well as theory on transaction costs. The mechanisms identified to be suited are analyzed to determine their inherent functions.

2.6.4 RQ4: Which critical success factors are applicable on the availability collaboration

mechanism?

The preliminary literature study provides insight in applicable success factors on MRO&U collaboration. Different success factors are identified by different researchers (Tate et al., 2010, Wynstra et al., 2012, De Jong, 2010). To identify the critical success factors applicable on the availability collaboration mechanism, a throughout analysis of the potential collaboration mechanisms is made.

21

2.7 Research methodology The research methodology is determined by the research approach and the research structure. Both aspects are discussed in the following paragraphs.

2.7.1 Research approach

The aim of this research is to contribute to the development of a theory on achieving availability in the MRO&U triad, which categorizes this research as a theory-building research (Dul and Hak, 2008). To reach the research aim, the relation between the collaboration in the MRO&U triad and the performance objective availability is defined (in accordance with Dul and Hak, 2008). The preliminary literature review recognizes three factors influencing the relation between the collaboration in the MRO&U triad and availability. The research questions are designed to define these factors of influence and give direction to the research approach. The factors of influence are depicted in the initial preliminary availability conceptual framework, see fig. 8. This initial preliminary conceptual framework serves as a starting point for the follow-on research. The follow-on research aims at determining the specifics of the factors of influence of the framework, and to develop the framework into an availability conceptual model. This study uses a multi method research approach to determine the specifics of the factors of influence. The logic behind using a multiple method research is to secure an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon in question (Ng and Yip, 2009). The development of the framework into a model is done in three stages. In stage 1 a literature study is conducted on the factors of influence. The literature on performance objectives, collaboration in alliances, triads and TCE is studied. The literature study leads to the preliminary definition of the factors of influence, which are displayed in the preliminary conceptual framework. In stage 2 the theory-in-use is analyzed and the preliminary factors of influence are confirmed and complemented. This leads to the development of the availability conceptual framework. In stage 3 a qualitative research is conducted by interviewing professionals in the field of MRO&U. The results from this qualitative research are used to specify the relation between the factors of influence and complement the conceptual framework. This results in the development of an availability conceptual model. The three research stages, the used research strategies and the research aims are illustrated in fig. 9. The research strategies are discussed below.

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3

Fig. 9. The research approach

Initial preliminary conceptual framework

The preliminary conceptual framework

The conceptual framework

The conceptual

model

Literature study

Theory-in-use



review

22

2.7.2 The subjects of the literature study

The first step to be taken in a theory-building research according to Dul and Hak, 2008 is to explore theory for propositions. The preliminary literature review provides guidance for conducting the present research by identifying the factors of influence that determine the relation between collaboration in the MRO&U triad and the performance objective availability. These factors of influence are (see also fig. 8);

- the performance requirements of the performance objective availability; - the applicable collaboration mechanism and its functions; - the critical success factors applicable on the collaboration mechanism of the

MRO&U triad.

These factors of influence are proposed to define the relation between the MRO&U collaboration and the performance objective availability. As such the factors of influence are the subjects for a literature study conducted on availability, triads, alliances and transaction cost theory, see chapter 3.

2.7.3 Applying the theory-in-use

Additional insights in the factors of influence applicable on inter-firm collaboration in the MRO&U triad are derived from the assessment of the theory-in-use: the airworthiness method, as proposed in paragraph 1.5. The airworthiness requirements define airworthiness in specific terms and the airworthiness method in terms of functionality (what does it do) as well as in terms of critical success factors. The airworthiness method facilitates inter-firm collaboration between the three independent entities: OEM, maintainer and operator, and it establishes the conditions to realize airworthiness as performance outcome of the MRO&U process which improves over time. The airworthiness method encourages the MRO&U partners to comply with airworthiness requirements. The airworthiness requirements define airworthiness as the performance objective of the MRO&U process (EASA A, 2013). Basically the airworthiness requirements forces the partners to jointly achieve a minimum performance level with respect to airworthiness, irrespective of the effort and cost necessary to accomplish that performance level (EASA B, 2013). Fig. 10 indicates that the airworthiness method is effective to consolidate and improve airworthiness over time.

23

Fig. 10 Aircraft accident rate (Boeing Company 2010)

It is assessed that the airworthiness method is a sufficient condition (as defined by Dul and Hak, 2008) to provide airworthiness as outcome of the MRO&U process. This finding is daily tested and confirmed in practice. This leads to the following proposition:

“The airworthiness method provides a sufficient condition to achieve and improve airworthiness as outcome of the MRO&U process by establishing, consolidating and improving inter-firm collaboration between the OEM, the maintainer and the operator.”

The airworthiness method is defined by the relation between the collaboration in the MRO&U triad and the achievement of the performance objective airworthiness, see fig. 11.

Fig. 11 Relation between the collaboration in the MRO&U triad and the performance objective airworthiness.

The airworthiness method is not yet defined. To define the airworthiness method the applicable factors of influence are defined. To define the factors of influence applicable on the airworthiness method, a descriptive research on the airworthiness requirements is performed. The descriptive research is focused on;

- identifying and analyzing the requirements applicable on the performance

objective airworthiness; - defining the airworthiness method its functions; - identifying the applicable critical success factors.

Collaboration in the MRO&U

triad

Performance objective

Airworthiness

24

The airworthiness conceptual model encompasses the performance requirements of airworthiness, and the functionalities and critical success factors of the airworthiness method. This is illustrated in fig. 12.

Fig. 12. The airworthiness conceptual model.

The airworthiness conceptual model is applied as a theory-in-use to gain more insight in the relation between collaboration in the MRO&U triad and the performance objective airworthiness. This insight is then used to test and complement the findings from the literature study on the availability conceptual framework. This is described in chapter 4.

2.7.4 Applying the qualitative research

The qualitative research approach is used to validate the findings from the literature study and the application of the theory-in-use. There are a number of different methods to be used in qualitative research and it can be distinguished between four major methods: observation, analysis of texts and documents, interviews, and recording and transcribing (Ng and Yip, 2009). For the current research the methods of interviews is used. A semi structured interview is selected as the interviewing technique. The semi-structured interview provides the opportunity to develop predefined questions, and to include more open-ended questions, see chapter 5. The interviews focus on expressing and exploring the interviewees’ perspectives and experiences in relationship management of aircraft MRO&U and in achieving a performance objective by collaboration. The interviews are used to collect data with respect to the performance requirements applicable on availability, to identify the availability collaboration mechanisms and its functions, and to define the applicable critical success factors. Studying existing practical cases offer the opportunity to gain more insight in the factors of influence of collaboration in the MRO&U triad and in the mechanisms to achieve the MRO&U triad outcome: availability. As such, conducting interviews is an effective method of collecting the in-depth data required to understand the collaboration and the mechanisms in the MRO&U triad (based on Huberman & Miles, 2002). However no trilateral MRO&U collaboration could be found in practice. As a result interviews could only be held with professionals active in bilateral MRO&U collaborations, which limits the significance of the interview results. The target group for the interviews was found in aerospace and consisted of representatives from OEM’s, maintainers and operators. The availability of professionals in MRO&U collaborations proved to be limited, this restricted the number of interviews that could be held. Furthermore the interviewees were very reluctant in providing

Airworthiness method Performance

objective Airworthiness


Functions Critical success factors

25

information about the content of the collaboration contracts, which further restricted the scope of the interviews. Due to these restrictions, the outcome of the interviews provide no more than an indication of the validity of the applicability of the factors of influence. Nevertheless the interview results give insight in the factors of influence, as well as their weight and their relation. This is discussed in greater detail in chapter 5.

2.7.5 Developing a draft theory

The availability conceptual model is developed through the three stages of the research approach as described before. The availability conceptual model defines the relation between the collaboration in the MRO&U triad and the performance objective availability. The conclusions with respect to the availability conceptual model are discussed in chapter 6. The availability conceptual model serves as a basis for the formulation of a draft theory on “how to achieve the performance objective availability as an outcome of the collaboration in the MRO&U triad”. This is discussed in chapter 7.

2.8 Research structure

The research process is structured around the research questions and the research approach. This thesis is structured in an analog way. Each of the research questions is answered following the research approach: performing a literature study on the subject of the research questions, test the findings by the application of the theory-in-use: the airworthiness method, and validating the results by a qualitative research. If the research questions are answered, the topic of the current research is addressed: “How to achieve availability in the MRO&U triad” by developing a draft theory. The different steps are briefly discussed.

2.8.1 Developing the availability conceptual model.

The availability conceptual model describes the relation between the collaboration in the MRO&U triad and the performance objective availability. The factors of influence form the building blocks of this model. By specifying and defining the factors of influence, the relation between the collaboration in the MRO&U triad and availability is specified and defined and the availability conceptual model is developed. This provides an answer on the research question RQ1 “What is the relation between collaboration in the MRO&U triad and availability?”

2.8.2 Identifying the performance requirements applicable on the performance objective

availability

To identify the requirements applicable on the performance objective availability, a literature study is performed on availability and its characteristics. The findings from this study are tested by the applicable performance requirements of the theory-in-use: the performance objective airworthiness. Hereto the airworthiness requirements are studied. A further validation of the applicable performance

26

requirements is effectuated by interviewing professionals in the field of aircraft MRO&U (in accordance with Yin, 2009). As suggested by Eriksson and Kovalainen (2008) a semi structured interview is used to explore the performance requirements applicable on availability. The results of the interviews are used to validate and complement the findings from the literature study and the application of the theory-in-use. The complemented performance requirements are the answer to the research question RQ2 “Which are the performance requirements applicable on availability?”

2.8.3 Determining suitable collaboration mechanisms

To determine a suited collaboration mechanism and its functions, a multiple research approach is applied: literature study, application of a theory-in-use and a qualitative research by performing interviews (Cosley and Lury, 1987). The literature study is focused on identifying suitable collaboration mechanisms and its functions in collaboration theories on: triads, alliances and transaction costs. The theory-in-use approach is applied to test the functions of the collaboration mechanism. Semi structured interviews are held with MRO&U professionals, whereby interview questions are directed on identifying the collaboration mechanisms and its functions used in MRO&U collaboration. The results of the interviews are used to validate the findings from the literature study and the application of the theory-in-use. This research approach provides an answer on the research question RQ3 “Which collaboration mechanisms are suited to facilitate the collaboration in the MRO&U triad with the aim to achieve availability and which are the functions of this availability mechanism”?

To identify the critical success factors applicable on collaboration in the MRO&U triad a literature study is performed on the critical success factors of triads, alliances and TCE collaboration. The findings from this literature study are confirmed by a comparison with the success factors identified to be applicable in the theory-in-use: the airworthiness model. A further test of the validity of the success factors is performed by interviewing MRO&U professionals. Interview questions are dedicated to identify the critical success factors of collaboration in the MRO&U triad. The results of this approach provides an answer to the research question RQ5 “Which are the critical success factors of the availability mechanism”?

2.8.4 Overview of the research structure

The research structure reflects the research methodology in which the availability conceptual model is developed in steps, using a multiple method research approach. The initial preliminary conceptual framework as derived from the preliminary literature review is specified by the focused literature study. This results in a preliminary conceptual framework, which is tested using the proposed similarity with the theory-in-use: the airworthiness model. This leads to the development of the conceptual framework. The qualitative research, using interviews with professionals provides a test and a further specification of the

27

conceptual framework. This results in a conceptual model, which reflects the relation between collaboration in the MRO&U triad and the performance objective availability and forms the basis for the theory on how to achieve availability as outcome of the collaboration in the MRO&U triad. The steps in the development of the availability conceptual model are guided by the specification and definition of the factors of influence. The research questions RQ2, RQ3 and RQ4 are designed to identify, confirm and test these factors of influence. The research structure is illustrated in fig. 13.

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3

Fig. 13 Structure of the research

2.9 Relevance

The results of the current research are assessed to be relevant for society as well as for science. Both aspects are discussed.

2.9.1 Society.

The aerospace industry has gone through plenty of turbulence over the last few years. Following a period of crisis caused by an economic slowdown in the United States and amplified by the attacks of 9/11, the SARS epidemic and the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, air traffic began growing again in 2004. A major fall back occurred again in 2009 due to the financial Crisis. The airline sector is fragile and a jump in oil prices or new terrorist attacks could further put pressure on profit margins


review Chapter 2

Initial preliminary conceptual framework


availability


and functions


Literature study Chapter 3

Identified Performance requirements

availability

Identified collaboration mechanism

and functions

Identified critical success factors

Preliminary availability conceptual framework

Theory-in-use Chapter 4

Confirmed Performance requirements

availability

Confirmed collaboration mechanism

and functions

Confirmed critical success factors

Availability conceptual framework


Chapter 5

Validated Performance requirements

availability

Validated collaboration mechanism

and functions

Validated critical success factors

Availability conceptual

model

Theo

ry C

hap

ter 7

RQ1: What is the relation between collaboration and

availability?

RQ2: which are the performance requirements of

availability?

RQ3: Which is the collaboration

mechanism and its functions?

RQ4: Which are the critical

success factors

28

(Montreal Economic Institute, 2006). Airlines are operated in an extremely dynamic, and often highly volatile, commercial environment. Both opportunities and risks are part of everyday business for the company. As with any company, airline companies have sustainability risks (social, environmental, operational, threat, strategic and financial risks) that they have to deal with. Airline managers are responsible for the optimal decision-making about corporate sustainability risks in their daily business. Perhaps a more important risk, though, is the simple fact that companies are an airline. Past financial indicators have shown that members of the airline industry have been poor performers for shareholders because of risks involved (Southwest Airlines, 2008). The key issues facing today’s airlines are optimization, improved capacity, cost savings and the ability to react quickly to changes (Yilmaz, 2008). The present research contributes to the development of a theory on improving and optimizing the availability rate as an outcome of collaboration in the aircraft MRO&U triad. A well-managed aircraft MRO&U process results in improved output in terms a higher availability rate for commercial airlines. A theory on improving aircraft availability in the MRO&U process contributes to the increase of the turn-over per aircraft and hence the financial performance of airliners, which makes this research of interest for airliners. The theory also contributes to the understanding and improvement of collaboration in the MRO&U triad between the operator, on one hand and the OEM and maintainer on the other hand. As such the theory is interesting for operators as well as maintainers and aircraft OEM’s. The present research indicate that PBC’s are suited to improve availability as performance outcome of the MRO&U triad, if the factors of influence are complied with. Based on this assessment OEM’s, maintainers and operators can evaluate existing or new PBC’s on the potential to be or become successful. The assessment on Vertical Integration (VI) revealed that collaboration on the basis of VI is suited to facilitate intra-firm collaboration. Based on this assessment operators can evaluate collaboration options to select the most beneficial collaboration mechanism to optimize turn-over.

2.9.2 Science.

The research topic is: “Achieving availability in the MRO&U triad”. The research topic on aircraft MRO&U triads is consistent with the present interest in alliance building, triad management and transaction cost economics. Triads are increasingly prevalent phenomenon’s in the private sector as well as in the public sector (Wynstra et al., 2012). The MRO&U triad encompasses the collaboration and communication between the three entities involved: the OEM, the maintainer and the operator. A review of theory on triads revealed that this theory is mainly focused on buyer-supplier relations. Theory on triads with three different players with different roles is sparse, while theory on these kinds of triads in MRO&U is non-existing (Wynstra et al., 2012). The results of this research on MRO&U triads is therefore an addition to existing triad theories, hence a contribution to science with respect to triad theories. The establishment of inter-firm collaboration is covered in alliance literature. These theories are applicable on alliances between two independent entities. However no specific reference to an alliance of three independent entities on the basis of complementarity was found in literature. The

29

results of this research on MRO&U alliances between three independent firms’ forms a contribution to science by extending alliance theories. Transaction cost economics (TCE) provides a method to assess and support decision making with respect to outsourcing or insourcing. Outsourcing results in inter-firm collaboration, hence inter-firm collaboration is an area of interest of the theory on transaction costs. Transaction cost theory is well developed and extensively discussed in literature. However, in the literature on transaction cost theory, inter-firm collaboration between three independent firms is not extensively discussed, while theory on the aircraft MRO&U triad is lacking. The results of this research on the collaboration in the aircraft MRO&U triad therefor contributes to the extension of transaction cost theories. The theory developed in the current research is based on triad collaboration with the aim to achieve a performance objective. TCE is based on collaboration with the aim to reduce transaction costs. The different perspectives from the current theory and TCE provides a different perspective on TCE and contributes to the extension of TCE. The results of this research help managers in the field of aeronautics to establish and manage MRO&U triads and provide a scientific sound basis for a practical management theory on how to manage complex triads.

31

3 Literature study

3.1 Aim of literature study

The aim of the literature study is to define the relation between the collaboration in the aircraft MRO&U triad and the performance objective aircraft availability, by defining the factors of influence of that relation. The results of the literature study are used to develop a preliminary conceptual framework reflecting the relation between the MRO&U triad collaboration and aircraft availability.

3.2 Methodology of literature study

The findings from the preliminary literature review (see chapter 2) serve as a basis for the literature study. From the preliminary literature review it revealed that the relation between the collaboration in the MRO&U triad and availability is characterized by three factors of influence;

- The requirements applicable on the performance objective availability; - The collaboration mechanism and its functions; - The critical success factors applicable on the collaboration mechanism.

These factors of influence define the field of research for the literature study, whereby the following research approach is chosen;

- To identify the requirements applicable on the performance objective availability, JSTOR, Emerald Insight, Web of science, ScienceDirect (former Scirus), Wiley, Google, scholar Google, Google books and the Delft University Institutional Repository are searched on the terms: aircraft availability, aircraft performance objective, aircraft maintenance requirements and aircraft performance requirements. All hits are assessed for their relevance and if relevant, studied and added to the research archive. Furthermore the search method of backward chaining (looking up the cited references) is applied;

- To identify the collaboration mechanism, as well as its functions and the applicable critical success factors, the literature on triads, alliances and transaction cost economics is studied with a focus on collaboration mechanisms and their properties. To identify the applicable literature the internet databases mentioned in the previous sub paragraph are used, with the search terms alliance, triad, collaboration and TCE outsourcing. All hits are assessed for their relevance and if relevant, studied and added to the research archive.

The key words aircraft, availability, performance, triad, TCE, alliance and collaboration used to search the different sources of information led to an initial number of 6543 applicable books and journals. A further shifting was made by using the search terms outsourcing, maintenance and requirements, which led to a reduction to 2815 applicable books and journals. From these 113 books and journals are collected in the research archive and used as primary source of information for the current research.

31

The literature study is structured around the factors of influence. The performance requirements applicable on availability are studied to define the performance objective as outcome of the MRO&U triad collaboration. Potential MRO&U mechanisms are identified by studying the kind of contracts and agreements applicable in alliance and triad collaboration. Furthermore the kind of contracts for outsourcing in TCE are studied. The applicability of these contracts and agreements on MRO&U triad collaboration is assessed. After determining potential MRO&U collaboration mechanisms, the characteristics of these mechanisms are determined and the functions and critical success factors are identified.

3.3 Introduction.

A literature study is an important means to acquire insight in the theoretical background of availability and MRO&U triad collaboration. The subjects of this literature study are the factors of influence depicted in the initial availability preliminary conceptual framework (fig. 8) as derived from the preliminary literature review. The findings from the literature study are discussed in the following paragraphs

3.4 The requirements applicable on the performance objective availability. As found from the preliminary literature review, Gerson (2006) concludes that to achieve a performance objective it needs to be specified in SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time bound) terms. Wynstra et al. (2012) and Wirick (2009) noted that, to be successfully realized, the performance objective should be acceptable and relevant for the collaboration partners and should be measurable. Wirick (2009) concludes that the performance objective should also be time bound. Based on the research of Gerson (2006), Wynstra et al. (2012) and Wirick (2009) it is found that a performance objective is defined in SMART terms. To test that the performance objective availability is also defined in SMART terms and to complement these terms, an analysis of the performance objective aircraft availability is made (in accordance with Suwondo 1999, 2007). Aircraft availability is defined as the combination of reliability (MTBF), maintainability (MTTR) and supportability (MTTS) (Smets, 2009, Rijsdijk et al., 2012), this is illustrated in fig. 14. The Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF), is associated to reliability which refers to the ability of a system or item to remain functional under given operating conditions in a particular environment (Mavris et al., 1998). Accordingly, the MTBF corresponds to the time that an aircraft is available for use. The Mean Time To Repair (MTTR) refers to maintainability which covers the ability of a system to be maintained, retained or restored (Smets, 2009). The MTTR corresponds to the time that an aircraft is not available for use, due to repair activities. The Mean Time To Support (MTTS) refers to supportability which encompasses the ability to provide the required resources to carry out service and maintenance actions. The MTTS corresponds to the time that an aircraft is not available for use, due to service activities.

32

Fig. 14 Availability structure (Smets, 2009, Mulder et al., 2012)

In fig. 14 the aspects of availability are identified, these are: reliability, maintainability and supportability (Smets, 2009, Mulder et al., 2012). Availability focuses on the total uptime of the component which is affected by reliability which focusses on the failure rate of the component, maintainability which focuses on the repair or maintain rate of the component, and supportability which focuses on the demand of the component for support. Smets (2009) and Rijsdijk et al. (2012) have developed a formulation to express the relation between availability (A), reliability (MTBF), maintainability (MTTR) and supportability (MTTS), see equation 1.

𝐴 = 𝑀𝑇𝐵𝐹

𝑀𝑇𝐵𝐹 + 𝑀𝑇𝑇𝑆 + 𝑀𝑇𝑇𝑅

Equation 1 (Smets, 2009, Rijsdijk et al., 2012).

Based on equation 1 it is concluded that the performance requirements applicable on reliability, maintainability and supportability determine the performance requirements applicable on availability. Literature on each of these parts is studied and analyzed to identify applicable requirements. These requirements are then analyzed and summed to form the requirements applicable on availability. The assessment of reliability, maintainability and supportability is discussed in more detail.

3.4.1 The requirements applicable on reliability.

For the operator, aircraft reliability is an important parameter, which affects aircraft availability and number of flight aborts (Mavris et al., 1998). The reliability of a system is defined as the probability that the system will perform its intended function for a predetermined mission period under a given set of environmental conditions (Gulati, 2009, Blischke and Murthy, 2000). A typical system (e.g., an airplane) consists of several heterogeneous components. For a system to function normally, it is important that all these components function well. For example, for an airplane to function normally, it is important that its structural integrity is intact, that its engines are functioning normally, that its communication system is functioning, and that the controlling software is functioning well (Ferregut et al, 2000). Reliability is initially dependent on the Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) of components and systems. A definition is:

Aircraft

availability

Reliability

MTBF

Maintainability

MTTR

Supportability

MTTS

33

“MTBF is an indicator of expected system reliability calculated on a statistical basis from the known failure rates of various components of the system” (Engineering dictionary, 2011).

From the definition, MTBF is specifically defined in failure rates and measurable to be statistically analyzed (Kuo and Prasad, 2000, Kuo and Wan, 2007): It is assessed that the MTBF is defined in specific and measurable terms. The MBTF is a design parameter (Kuo and Prasad, 2000 and Kuo and Wan, 2007). The OEM designs and provides an estimated MTBF for each critical part (Öner and Bachoe, 2010). The OEM is responsible for the initial design reliability of a system. If this MTBF is not achieved while in use, an upgrade to improve the MTBF is required. An upgrade is designed, issued and executed by the OEM. The OEM is responsible for- and capable of establishing and improving reliability (Öner, 2010). It is assessed that aircraft reliability is relevant and achievable for the OEM. After repair of a component or system, the MTBF is affected by the kind and quality of the maintenance performed. Ineffective maintenance creates malfunctions and aircraft delays and cancellations (Hessburg, 2000). Performing maintenance is a responsibility of the aircraft maintainer. To effectively maintain an aircraft and restore the MTBF, the maintainer needs to possess the means and capacity to do so. The maintainer is responsible for the continuation of the airworthiness, which is a relevant and achievable goal (Smets, 2009). It is assessed that aircraft reliability is achievable and relevant for the maintainer From the literature study on reliability it is concluded that reliability is defined in specific and measurable terms, and that reliability is relevant and achievable for the OEM and the maintainer.

3.4.2 The requirements applicable on maintainability.

Maintainability refers to the ability of a system to be maintained, retained or restored (Smets, 2009). “Aircraft design specifications include stringent quantitative maintainability targets which must be achieved during the design stage of a new aircraft program” (Serghides and Fielding, 1984) “The required maintenance elapsed time is an indication of aircraft maintainability and this can be reduced through a good design or by modifications during exploitation phase” (Suwondo, 2007) Maintainability is defined and measured in Mean Time To Repair (MTTR), and is quantifiable (Ghobbar, 2008). As such the MTTR is defined in specific and measurable terms.

34

Initial maintainability is a design parameter, and as such a responsibility of the OEM, and so are upgrades of maintainability. Maintainability is relevant and achievable for the OEM (based on Suwondo, 2007). During the exploitation of the aircraft, maintainability is affected by the quality of the maintenance performed, which is a responsibility of the maintainer. The maintainer is in the position to consolidate the MTTR. The maintainer possesses the capability and capacity to achieve the required level of maintainability. It is assessed that maintainability is relevant and achievable for the maintainer (based on Suwondo, 2007). The literature study on maintainability indicates that maintainability is defined in specific and measurable terms, and that maintainability is relevant and achievable for the OEM and the maintainer.

3.4.3 The requirements applicable on supportability.

Supportability is the inherent characteristic of an item related to its ability to be supported by the required resources for the execution of the specified maintenance task (Wu et al., 2004). Supportability refers for the current research to the ability to provide the required resources (people, equipment, spare parts, tooling, manuals etc.) to carry out line maintenance actions. This includes preventive maintenance as well as corrective maintenance. With respect to line maintenance and servicing, this maintenance is usually carried out by the operator. The supportability is expressed in Mean Time To Support (MTTS) (Smets, 2009). Supportability is initially a design choice and thus affected by the design choices made by the OEM (Jones, 2006) while the execution of support is a responsibility of the operator. The OEM is able to establish the initial supportability (Smith and Knezevic, 1996), while the operator possesses the resources to consolidate supportability. Furthermore Ghobbar (2008) concluded that supportability is time bound. In literature different definitions of MTTS are found (Smets, 2009, Ghobbar, 2008, Kumar and Knezevic, 1998). For the current research the definition as used by Smets (2009) in equation 1 is assessed to be applicable on aircraft supportability as studied in the current research, therefor this definition of supportability is applied.

From the literature study on supportability it is concluded that supportability is time bound and that the OEM and the operator are responsible for achieving supportability. As such supportability is relevant and achievable for the OEM and operator.

3.4.4 Summary on the requirements applicable on availability.

The requirements applicable on availability are derived from the assessment of the requirements applicable on reliability (MTBF), maintainability (MTTR) and supportability (MTTS). From the assessment of the MTBF and the MTTR it is concluded that the following performance requirements are applicable: specific, measurable, achievable and relevant for OEM and maintainer. The assessment of the MTTS revealed another applicable performance requirement: time bound. In

35

summary, it is concluded that the performance requirements applicable on availability as derived from literature study on MTBF, MTTR and MTTS, are defined in specific and measurable terms, and are achievable and relevant for the triad partners as well as time bound. The factor of influence “performance requirements applicable on the performance objective availability” is characterized by being SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time related). This complies with the findings from Gerson (2006), and is an extension of the findings from the preliminary literature review (see fig. 4). This is illustrated in fig. 15.

Fig. 15. The SMART performance requirements of the performance objective availability as extension of the findings from the preliminary literature review.

3.5 Identifying the collaboration mechanism and its functions.

A factor of influence of the relation between the collaboration in the MRO&U triad and availability is the collaboration mechanism. Theories on improving maintenance processes are found in literature (Suwondo, 2007). Furthermore theories (Value driven maintenance, integrated logistic support, six sigma, lean manufacturing, visual factory, just in time delivery etc. etc.) are developed to realize these improvements (Jones, 2006, Harry and Schroeder, 2007). At the same time theories on (supply)chain management and supply chain optimization (Li, 2012) are developed. However, theories addressing specifically the improvement of the inter-organizational MRO&U processes are sparse (Kinnison, 2004). Theory gives guidance with respect to chain management and improvement of supply chains, but not specifically to MRO&U triad management and improvement. Wynstra (2012), found that for triad inter-firm collaboration the Performance Based Contract (PBC) is suited while for bilateral inter-firm collaboration the PBC (Johnson et al., 1996: Nooteboom et al., 1997: Parkhe, 1998: Luo, 2002) is applicable and for bilateral intra-firm collaboration Vertical Integration is applicable (Al-Kaabi et. al, 2007, Contractor and Lorange, 1988). The current literature study is aimed at identifying the best suited collaboration mechanism for the MRO&U triad collaboration. To find the suited collaboration mechanism, the criteria for the collaboration mechanism are established. The MRO&U triad collaboration is in the current research defined as a collaboration between three independent entities. This is reflected in the first selection criterion for the collaboration mechanism: the collaboration mechanism facilitates the collaboration between three independent entities. The MRO&U collaboration in this research is aimed at jointly achieving a performance objective: availability. This leads to a second criterion: the collaboration mechanism is aimed at jointly achieving a performance objective. The goal


Specific Measurable Achievable Relevant

Time Bound


Performance

requirements

36

of studying the MRO&U triad collaboration is to enhance the collaboration in order to improve the performance objective availability. A third criterion is derived from this goal: the collaboration mechanism facilitates the enhancement of the MRO&U collaboration with the aim to improve availability. Three selection criteria are identified to search for a suited MRO&U triad collaboration mechanism;

- Criterion 1: the mechanism supports a collaboration between three independent entities: the OEM, the maintainer and the operator;

- Criterion 2: the mechanism facilitates the joint achievement of the performance objective availability;

- Criterion 3: the mechanism facilitates the enhancement of the collaboration in order to improve the performance outcome availability.

Based on these three criteria the theories on collaborations, triad theory, alliance theory and TCE are studied. The collaboration mechanisms found in this study are assessed, using these criteria. The mechanisms complying with the criteria are proposed to be suited to accommodate the MRO&U triad collaboration. For these mechanisms, the functions and critical success factors are determined. The process to identify the collaboration mechanism with its functions and applicable critical success factors is illustrated in fig. 16.

Fig. 16. The process of identifying the collaboration mechanisms and its functions and critical success factors from the theories on triads, alliances and TCE.

The study on the collaboration theories and the results of that study are described in the following paragraphs.

3.5.1 The triad theory

Researches have been triggered by the growing importance of triads and alliances (De Man, 2014, Duysters, 2001, Contractor and Lorange, 1988, 2002; Lorange and Roos, 1990; Lin et al., 2012; Ireland et al., 2002). The increased alliance activity underpins the necessity to investigate the critical aspects of alliance performance (Kanter, 1994, Lavie et al., 2012). As a consequence, literature on alliances and the realization of performance objectives has grown over the last decades. Alliance theories focus on bilateral collaborations. In recent year researchers show a growing interest in trilateral collaboration: the triad. Knowledge about trilateral collaboration management however is still sparse. Wynstra et al. 2012 note that no extensive studies are conducted on triads with three different entities with different roles. The

Triad

theory

Alliance

theory

TCE

theory

Collaboration

mechanisms Functions


37

MRO&U triad is characterized by the fact that each of the partners has an unique complementary function and by the fact that all three partners have a relationship with each other. This kind of triads is referred to as a transitive triad (Madhavan et al., 2010), but no studies on these kind of triads are known. Performance based contracts (PBC’s) are identified to facilitate a trilateral collaboration (Wynstra et al. 2012), and to effectively and efficiently attain the desired performance in the triad (Wynstra et al., 2012), as such the PBC complies with the selection criteria 1 and 2. The MRO&U triad however, differs from the buyer-supplier-customer triad, identified by Wynstra et al. (2012). Contrarily to the triad as defined by Wynstra (2012), in the MRO&U triad, the buyer of aircraft and maintenance services is generally identical to the customer (the operator), while the manufacturer of the aircraft (the OEM) is a triad partner. A study on MRO&U triads performed by van Rhee et al. (2007), identifies performance based contracting as a suitable instrument to enhance the collaboration in the MRO&U triad and to improve the performance outcome availability. As such a PBC complies with selection criterion 3. From this literature study on triads it is concluded that the PBC complies with the selection criteria 1, 2 and 3, and is suited to serve as the collaboration mechanism for a triad. However, the applicability on specifically the MRO&U triad with availability as performance objective could not be confirmed.

3.5.2 Alliance theory. The goal of the collaboration mechanism is to achieve availability as outcome of the MRO&U triad. Each of the three partners: the OEM, the maintainer and the operator contribute to reach that goal (based on Sullivan et al., 2004). This requires collaboration between the independent firms of the partners. Inter-firm collaboration is referred to as alliances (Killing, 1988). Studies on alliances generally center on intra-firm, and inter-firm or dyadic factors influencing alliance performance (Heimeriks, 2004; Walter et al., 2012). There are many studies on alliance factors and relationships (Whipple et al., 2006). However, the inter-firm factors of influence analyzed in this literature are often little specific as to how to develop successful alliances (Park and Ungson, 2001). To identify the alliance collaboration mechanisms that are suited to support MRO&U triad collaboration, the different alliance types are studied and assessed. Alliances can take a variety of forms (Gates, 1993: Yoshino & Rangan, 1995). To better organize the large collection of different alliance forms, theorists have proposed several typologies of strategic alliances (Dussauge & Garrette, 1995; Lorange & Roos, 1990; Oliver, 1990; Pisano & Teece, 1989). In most studies on alliances, structural choices are related to strategic alliances (Grant and Baden-Fuller, 2004) and have been based on the dichotomy of equity alliances versus non-equity alliances (Gulati, 1995; Osborn & Baughn, 1990; Tallman & Shenkar, 1990). Another approach for categorizing alliances is based on the purpose of the alliance: operational or strategic, and the parties involved. The partners and the purpose of the MRO&U alliance as studied in the current research are well defined: the achievement of availability by collaboration between OEM, maintainer and

38

operator. Therefor the categorizing based on purpose is used in the current research to assess the different alliance forms. Four types of purpose based alliances are distinguished;

- The Cartels; - Co-operatives; - Collaborative ventures; - Competitive alliances.

Cartels and Competitive alliances are collaborations between competitors and Collaborative ventures and Co-operatives are collaborations between non-competitors. Sheth and Parvatiyar (1992) performed a conceptual and empirical research, which led to the identification of the organizational properties of the different alliances. These are reflected in fig. 17.

Fig. 17 The grouping of purpose related alliances (Sheth and Parvatiyar, 1992).

Collaboration in the MRO&U triad is inter-organizational and takes place between the OEM, the maintainer and the operator. These are autonomous entities with different functions which are complementary, much more than competitive. Furthermore it is concluded that the collaboration is cross functional in kind. Finally the alliance is assessed to be directed to facilitate collaboration on an operational level. From fig. 17 it is derived that the co-operative alliance is the form of alliance that suites the MRO&U collaboration. Each type of alliance has its own unique set of behavioral, economic and managerial consequences. A co-operative alliance is characterized by low entry barriers and high exit barriers due to aligned operations of the participants. A successful co-operative alliance between non-competitors is characterized by a high degree of autonomy to the business alliance and cross functional collaboration and learning, and it is organized in such a way that it encourages free information exchange (Sheth and Parvatiyar, 1992). The management mechanism is a consortium or multi-lateral agreement (Sheth and Parvatiyar, 1992). A consortium is a mechanism that

Collaborative

Ventures

Cartels Co-operatives

Management control

Functional Specificity

Information control

Commitment

Asset Specificity

Context driven

Co-ordination

Asset Sharing

Ongoing interaction

Autonomy

Cross-function co-operation

Interorganizational learning

Competitive

alliances

39

establishes an inter-firm financial based strategic partnership. The MRO&U triad as studied in the current research however is assessed to be a performance based strategic partnership. Multi-lateral contracts are preferred if the partner firms primary resources in the prospective alliance are knowledge-based (Mowery et al., 1998). The resources of the OEM are partly knowledge based and subject to intellectual property rights (IPR) protection, however the OEM possesses also production and test facilities. The resources of the maintainer and the operator are partly knowledge-based as well. The MRO&U collaboration conditions are assessed to be suited to use multi-lateral contracts. The multi-lateral contract complies with the selection criterion 1: it facilitates multi-lateral collaboration. Whether the multi-lateral contract complies with the selection criteria 2 and 3 is dependent on the kind of multi-lateral contract in place. The different kinds of multi-lateral contracts are discussed below.

3.5.3 Multi-lateral contracting From the assessment of the purpose oriented grouping of alliances the MRO&U triad is characterized as a co-operative alliance for which multi-lateral contracts are a suitable collaboration mechanism. Different types of multi-lateral contracts are identified in literature, their applicability for facilitating the collaboration in the MRO&U triad is discussed in the following paragraphs.

3.5.4 Types of multi-lateral contracts. In literature different kinds of contracts are distinguished, based on their purpose and scope. Van Rhee et al, 2009, identify four major kind of contracts;

- Input driven, where the available budgets are decisive for the delivered results;

- Activity driven, where the activities performed and the materials used are paid for;

- Output driven, where the output of the activities is rewarded; - Outcome driven, where the delivered performance is rewarded.

Output and outcome driven contracts are referred to as performance based contracts or incentive contracts. The US government differentiates between (Federal Acquisition Regulations, 2012);

- Fixed price contracts; - Cost reimbursement contracts; - Indefinite delivery contracts; - Time and material contracts; - Incentive contracts. -

Each of these contract types is briefly discussed.

40

3.5.4.1 Fixed price contracts. Fixed-price types of contracts provide for a firm price or, in appropriate cases, an adjustable price. Fixed-price contracts providing for an adjustable price may include a ceiling price, a target price (including target cost), or both. Unless otherwise specified in the contract, the ceiling price or target price is subject to adjustment only by operation of contract clauses providing for equitable adjustment or other revision of the contract price under stated circumstances. This is an input driven type of contract. This type of contract is used when acquiring commercial items and is not suited for acquiring services on the bases of performance. This type of contract does not comply with the selection criterion 2 and is not taken further into account for the current research.

3.5.4.2 Cost reimbursement contracts. Cost-reimbursement types of contracts provide for payment of allowable incurred costs, to the extent prescribed in the contract. These contracts establish an estimate of total cost for the purpose of obligating funds and establishing a ceiling that the contractor may not exceed (except at its own risk) without the approval of the contracting agency. This is an input driven type of contract. This kind of contract is suited to contract services. These kind of contracts are input driven and not performance driven, so these kind of contracts are not compliant with the selection criterion 2 and are not considered applicable on the current research.

3.5.4.3 Indefinite delivery contracts. There are three types of indefinite-delivery contracts: definite-quantity contracts, requirements contracts, and indefinite-quantity contracts. This is an activity driven type of contract. The appropriate type of indefinite-delivery contract may be used to acquire supplies and/or services when the exact times and/or exact quantities of future deliveries are not known at the time of contract award. This type of contracts is not compliant with the selection criterion 2, since the performance objective as outcome of the MRO&U triad collaboration is well defined in services, quantities and times.

3.5.4.4 Time and material contracts.

This is an activity driven type of contract. A time-and-materials contract provides for acquiring supplies or services on the basis of;

- Direct labor hours at specified fixed hourly rates that include wages, overhead, general and administrative expenses, and profit;

- Actual cost for materials. For time and material contracts cost is the driving factor and not performance, therefore these kind of contracts are not compliant with the selection criterion 2 and not applicable on the current research.

41

3.5.4.5 Incentive contracts. Incentive contracts are appropriate when the required supplies or services can be acquired at lower costs and, in certain instances, with improved delivery or technical performance, by relating the amount of profit or fee payable under the contract to the contractor’s performance. Incentive contracts are designed to obtain specific acquisition objectives by;

- Establishing reasonable and attainable targets that are clearly communicated to the contractor;

- Including appropriate incentive arrangements designed to; o Motivate contractor efforts to improve; o Discourage contractor inefficiency and waste.

The US government recognizes two basic categories of incentive contracts: fixed-price incentive contracts and cost-reimbursement incentive contracts (Federal Acquisition Regulations, 2012). Fixed-price incentive contracts are preferred when contract costs and performance requirements are reasonably certain. Cost-reimbursement incentive contracts are used if available budgets are determining. For both contract types, the output of the contracts is decisive for rewarding the contractor. The incentive types of contracts are, contrary to the other types of contracts, characterized by the fact that they encompass a mechanism to achieve and improve the results. An incentive type contract has the potential to improve the outcome of the MRO&U process and to deliver the right number of serviceable aircraft at the moment the operator needs them (v. Rhee et al, 2009). The incentive type of contract complies as such with the selection criteria 2 and 3 as formulated in paragraph 3.5. It is concluded that the multi-lateral incentive type of contract complies with selection criteria 1, 2 and 3, and is suited to facilitate the performance based collaboration in the MRO&U triad, and to serve as the availability collaboration mechanism. This type of contract is relatively new and is in the current research referred to as a Performance Based Contract (PBC). The literature on PBC is studied to identify the functions applicable on PBC as collaboration mechanism.

3.5.5 Performance based contracting. The Performance Based Contract (PBC) was introduced to contract support and maintenance and to facilitate the collaboration between collaboration partners (Yilmaz, 2008). The PBC is characterized by the fact that the contractor is not paid for his activities or used material, but the contractor is paid for the performance delivered (Valk, v/d, 2010). Typical performance indicators for PBC’s are reliability and availability (Eckerson, 2006). The performance measurement provides motivation and inspiration to the provider in fulfilling the customer’s requirements and in improving the services delivered (Neely et al., 2005: Sparrow, 2003). This is confirmed by v. Rhee et al., (2009), who found that the PBC fulfills the customers’

42

requirements, initially and over time, and improve the requirements over time. From the finding of the study on PBC’s, the functions of the PBC are derived; to establish, consolidate and enhance collaboration with the aim to achieve and improve the performance requirements. The study on the theory on triads and the alliance literature is discussed in the previous paragraphs. From this study it was found that the PBC complies with the selection criteria 1, 2 and 3 and is suited to facilitate the collaboration in the MRO&U triad. However a third theory is studied to deepen the insight in collaboration mechanisms: the transaction cost theory.

3.5.6 Transaction cost theory

An additional theoretical basis for collaboration between different entities is found in the transaction cost theory. Transaction costs refer to the costs incurred in drafting, negotiating and safeguarding an agreement as well as the costs associated with managing the relationship with an external party, reaching such an agreement (Chen and Soliman, 2002). Transaction cost theory refers to the aspects relevant for the decision process with respect to insourcing or outsourcing of activities (Shelanski et al., 1995). The transaction costs theory compares between doing an activity in house and outsourcing the activity to a third party, taking relevant transaction costs into account (Williamson, 1975). Activities are outsourced if the transaction costs are lower than the cost for doing the activity in house. While activities are insourced if the in-house costs are lower than the transaction costs of outsourcing (Dahlman, 1979). The transaction costs literature argues that transaction costs can be minimized through insourcing by applying Vertical Integration (Rindfleisch and Heide, 1997: Williamson, 1975, 1985). Vertical Integration (VI) is an collaboration mechanism for intra-firm collaboration. Vertical Integration takes place if a company insources activities that used to be outsourced. Vertical Integration is identified as an instrument to improve the performance of the firm (Contractor and Lorange, 1988). As a result, firms are expected to have a tendency to rely on internal development of know-how rather than opt for inter-firm constellations (Duysters, 2001). From the literature available on aircraft MRO&U research, Sakburanapech (2008) noted that relationship management for aircraft MRO&U process collaboration has not been adequately addressed by recent transaction cost economics research. An example of research that relates to aircraft MRO&U collaboration is done by Al-kaabi et.al. (2007) who focuses on a strategic model of MRO&U outsourcing decision making. However, there is limited research into MRO&U process relationship management even though it contributes to successful collaboration (McIvor et al., 2003: Langfield-Smit and Smith, 2003: McFarlan and Nolan 1995). It is noted that TCE is focused on cost considerations. A specific aspect of TCE, the resource based theory or resource value theory is studied as well (Das et al., 2000). This theory takes not only the cost into consideration, but also the value (change) of resources due to insourcing and collaboration. The study of Silverman (1999) shows how a firm's resource base affects the choice of industries into which the firm diversifies. The study integrates principles from transaction cost economics into resource-based predictions concerning diversification. The findings point to circumstances where resources are exploited

43

through collaboration rather than through diversification. However, these findings are little specific about the collaboration mechanism to be used. Furthermore this theoretical approach is based on cost and resource value as the main driving factors for decision making, and not performance. In the current research the focus is on the triad performance. This shift in perspective from cost and value considerations to performance considerations as driving factor for collaboration affects the applicability of TCE as a theoretical basis for MRO&U triad collaboration. The assessment of the TCE theory leads to the conclusion that TCE based intra-firm collaboration is based on Vertical Integration as collaboration mechanism. For inter-firm collaboration the theory is less specific on the collaboration mechanism to be used. Vertical Integration is discussed below.

3.5.7 Vertical Integration

In literature Vertical Integration is related to market imperfections, while inter-organizational costs related to Vertical Integration are ignored (Grossman and Hart, 1986). There are many types of market imperfection that could lead transacting parties to turn to Vertical Integration as an alternative governance arrangement, recognizing that Vertical Integration is one of many governance alternatives to relying on anonymous spot market contracting. There is no shortage of theories identifying potential incentives for Vertical Integration (Joskow, 2003). This is not surprising. As long as it is assumed that there are no additional costs associated with the internal organization, almost any market imperfection necessarily becomes a candidate for creating private incentives for Vertical Integration. However, this approach ignores both the costs of internal organization and other costs of more complex contractual alternatives to either simple linear spot market contracts or Vertical Integration. There is no single unified theory of Vertical Integration that exists today or is likely to exist in the future (Joskow, 2003). Therefor for the current research a pragmatic approach is chosen: Vertical Integration is exclusively assessed in the context of the MRO&U triad.

Literature recognizes different reasons for Vertical Integration (Joskow, 2003). Vertical Integration could be a profitable response to costs of successive monopolies (Tirole, 1988), or it could facilitate price discrimination in a variety of different ways (Perry, 1978), or Vertical Integration could be used strategically to soften competition in the short run by raising rivals’ costs or in the long run by increasing the costs of entry to foreclose rivals that might otherwise enter the market (Aghion and Bolton, 1987; Ordover, Salop and Saloner, 1990; Hart and Tirole, 1990). The incentives for Vertical Integration are related to the market position, dependency, and transfering risks and benefits. In literature no reference to Vertical Integration in the MRO&U collaboration and the effect of VI on availability could be found.

3.5.7.1 The types of Vertical Integration

Two types of Vertical Integration are identified in literature: the up-stream and the down-stream Vertical Integration (Joskow, 2003). With up-stream vertical integration the operator is involving suppliers of intermediate goods and services in its

44

organization. For the MRO&U process this is the case if the operator performs its own maintenance (Lufthansa, KLM/Airfrance). Dennis Carlton (1979) has shown how the combination of uncertain demand for inputs and the failure of maintainers to be cleared by spot prices under some contingencies can create an incentive for operators to integrate backwards partially or fully for “supply security” reasons (Green, 1986; Bolton and Whinston, 1993). And there is abundant support in the business history literature for such a motivation for Vertical Integration (Chandler, 1964).

“The strong incentives for vertical integration arise because the vertically integrated operator is able to satisfy high probability demand by itself, and pass on the low probability demand to some other firm” (Carlton, 1979: p. 207).

With down-stream Vertical Integration the OEM is involving the purchasers of its goods and services. For the MRO&U process this is the case if the OEM performes maintenance on its own aircraft (Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Bombardier). The incentive for Vertical Integration is here the free rider problem associated with the provision of Intelectual Property Rights (IPR) information and maintenance service by competing downstream maintainers (Mathewson and Winter, 1986). If OEM’s cannot fully appropriate for themselves the benefits of maintenance service expenditures but instead see some of the benefits accrue to the downstream maintainers this “horizontal externality” (Tirole, 1988) will lead downstream maintainers to under-invest in maintenance service (at least from the perspective of the OEM). Vertical Integration is one potential solution to this problem. Aero engine OEM’s generate more than half of their revenue from aftermarket services, indicating the importance of MRO&U and Vertical Integration from an OEM perspective (Rakers, 2011). Vertical Integration leads to intra-organizational management of operations and maintenance (up-stream) or of manufacturing and maintenance (down-stream). Up-stream integration, where the operator manages operations and maintenance, facilitates collaboration between the maintainer and the operator. However, it does not facilitate the collaboration between the Operator/maintainer and the OEM. As such VI does not comply with the selection criterion 1 (see paragraph 3.5). Down-stream Vertical Integration, where the OEM manages manufacturing and maintenance, facilitates collaboration between OEM and maintainer, however it does not facilitate the collaboration between the OEM/maintainer and the operator. As such down-stream VI does not comply with selection criterion 1 for a MRO&U collaboration mechanism. However, the results of a study of Rothaermel, Hitt and Jobe (2006) provide strong support for the notion that carefully balancing Vertical Integration and strategic outsourcing helps firms to achieve superior performance. Furthermore, it was found from the literature study that VI is suited as a collaboration mechanism that improves intra-firm collaboration. These findings are considered to be the reason why VI is a common phenomenon in the field of aircraft MRO&U.

45

From the study on VI, it is concluded that down-stream VI facilitates and improves the MRO&U intra-firm collaboration between OEM and maintainer and up-stream VI facilitates and improves the collaboration between the operator and the maintainer. However, VI facilitates the intra-firm collaboration between two out of three triad partners. VI does not support inter-firm collaboration. So VI complies with selection criteria 2 and 3, but not with selection criterion 1.

3.5.7.2 VI and the balance of the alliance.

From alliance simulation theory (Kraines, 2000) it was found that if the position of the partners in an alliance is unbalanced, alliances are not stable. In the considered alliance theory strong pressure, where its level does not vary significantly between the alliance partners, stabilizes the possibility of forming an alliance (Rothaermel et al., 2006). On the other hand, an asymmetric, weak or moderate pressure does not provide an incentive for collaboration (L. A. Khodarinova et al, 2004). Symmetric pressure requires that the alliance partners are acting in a balanced force field. Vertical Integration is a mechanism to extent the span of management control of one MRO&U partner over more functionalities in the MRO&U process, and does create an asymmetric balance between the MRO&U partners. Down-stream and up-stream vertical integration are not contributing to a balanced force field and create asymmetric pressure and form not a solid basis for a stable alliance. This aspect of VI is considered and discussed later in this research.

3.5.8 Conclusion on the collaboration mechanism and its functions.

The aim of the literature study on collaboration mechanisms, is to identify the mechanisms suited to facilitate the collaboration in the MRO&U triad. Hereto three selection criteria are defined to identify the applicable collaboration mechanisms (see paragraph 3.5). Triad literature indicate that PBC’s are suited to serve as a MRO&U triad collaboration mechanism. In alliance theory, the collaboration in the MRO&U triad is categorized as a co-operative alliance. To manage a co-operative alliance multi-lateral contracting is identified as suitable collaboration mechanism. Multi-lateral contracts are categorized in input driven, activity driven and incentive contracts. It is concluded that multi-lateral incentive contracts (PBC’s) are potentially suited to establish, consolidate and improve the MRO&U triad collaboration. A PBC is a strategic alliance and is designed to facilitate a long term relationship, which complies with the three selection criteria. As such the PBC is found to be suited as a MRO&U triad collaboration mechanism in the context of the current research. From the TCE theory the intra-firm collaboration mechanism of Vertical Integration is identified. The assessment of VI revealed that this collaboration mechanism facilitates the collaboration between the two integrated entities, but not necessarily between all three MRO&U triad partners. Furthermore it was concluded that VI leads to instable alliances. As such VI is not considered to be suited as a collaboration mechanism for the MRO&U triad as studied in the current research.

46

The conclusion drawn from the literature study on the collaboration mechanisms and its functions is that the PBC is suited to facilitate the collaboration in the MRO&U triad, and has the functions to establish, consolidate and improve the achievement of the performance requirement. This conclusion complements the findings from the preliminary literature review, see fig. 5 and leads to an extension of the definition of the factor of influence: collaboration in the MRO&U triad. This is reflected in fig. 18.

Fig. 18. The collaboration mechanism PBC and its functions as extension of the collaboration in the MRO&U triad as identified in the preliminary literature review.

3.5.9 Discussion

Availability based PBC’s are rare and in practice, without exception, issued by down-stream vertically integrated OEM’s, which perform the maintenance and the support function. These PBC’s are bi-lateral contracts. Whether PBC’s are suited to facilitate the management in the MRO&U triad if the OEM is not vertically integrated, and the MRO&U partnership consists of three independent entities (OEM, maintainer and operator) is subject of the follow-on research. In spite of the increasing importance of PBC’s in especially the aerospace civil and defense aftermarket, there is currently a lack of empirical scientific research on the performance of PBC’s over traditional contracts (Rakers, 2011). Most quantitative research primarily originates from industry and is not based on rigorous analysis (Cachon, 2003). One of the few theoretical studies on the effect of contract type on product reliability (not availability!) in the civil aero engine aftermarket revealed a reliability increase in the range of 20 to 40 percent for engines covered by PBC’s (Guajardo et al., 2010). However, this finding was rejected by the research of Rakers, 2011, who found, on the basis of a model study, a decrease in reliability for engines maintained under a PBC. This contradiction is not yet explained or studied. Both studies, Guajardo et al. and Rakers are focusing on the contract form. However, not only the contract form, but also the quality of the PBC and the constitution and structure of the alliance (the level and kind of vertical integration) play a role. The quality of the PBC and the constitution of the alliance are not taken into account, this could affect the results of the studies of Rakers, 2011 and Guajardo et al., 2010, and could be the reason for the difference in findings. For the current research the constitution and structure of the alliance and the quality of the PBC are subjects addressed in the qualitative research, see chapter 5.


PBC

Establish Consolidate

Improve



Functions

47

3.6 Identification of the critical success factors

The inter-firm collaboration in the MRO&U triad is best facilitated by a Performance Based Contract (PBC), as concluded from the previous study on collaboration mechanisms. PBC’s are becoming more important in the aeronautical world, as well as in other sectors. However, to establish a well-functioning PBC shows to be a difficult and long-lasting process (DMO Discussion Paper, 2009). The changed relation between principal and contractor and the development of a comprehensive set of conditions are obstacles. The next step is to identify this set of conditions which determine whether the PBC supports the collaboration in the MRO&U triad in such a way that the performance outcome of that collaboration improves. This set of conditions is in the current research referred to as the critical success factors. The determination of the critical success factors from literature is discussed below.

3.6.1 Aim of the study on critical success factors

In the previous paragraphs PBC is identified as a collaboration mechanism for inter-firm collaboration. To support the MRO&U triad collaboration, the PBC has the functions to establish and consolidate the collaboration, but also to improve the collaboration in such a way that the performance outcome of the collaboration: availability, is improved. The next step in the study on the collaboration mechanism PBC is to identify the conditions under which PBC fulfills these functions. These conditions are in the current research referred to as the critical success factors.

3.6.2 The method of identifying the critical success factors The critical success factors are derived from a literature study on the PBC collaboration mechanism and on the conditions under which availability as a performance outcome of inter-firm collaboration is achieved. To identify the critical success factors, the research sources used in the current research are searched on the terms: performance objective, performance based, incentive based, PBC, performance based agreements and incentive based agreements. All hits are assessed for their relevance and if relevant, studied and added to the research archive. Furthermore the search method of backward chaining (looking up the cited references) is applied. The factors identified in the literature study are then compared, analyzed and grouped with the aim to achieve a consistent set of success factors.

3.6.3 Literature study on critical success factors The introduction of PBC in aircraft MRO&U caused a revolution among the service and maintenance providers. If committed, PBC’s can be very beneficial for principals as well as for contractors (Sakburanapech, 2008). Commitment can be reflected by the signed contract, incentive and penalty system (Henderson, 1990). The commitment, based on trust, ensures that both the contractor and principal will not exploit the relationship at the expense of the long-term collaboration (Chakrabarty et al., 2007; Zineldin and Bredenlow, 2003). In fact, commitment has to be made at all

48

levels of management from the contractor and principal especially at the beginning of the collaboration, thus leading to its success (McFarlan and Nolan, 1995). It should be emphasized that the involvement of the stakeholders from the strategic, business and operational levels of management is vital to create the agreement at the initial stage, and then to actually fulfill this agreement (Lasher and Ives, 1991). In particular, a commitment from the strategic level is crucial as it reflects the willingness and appropriateness in allocating resources required for the collaboration and in establishing the closeness and cohesiveness of the long-term relationship (McIvor et al., 2003). As the literature study shows, commitment is crucial for the success of PBC’s. Commitment is more a characteristic of the collaboration partners than a critical success factors of PBC. As literature indicates, commitment is developed if a trustful relation between the collaboration partners exists. From the literature study it revealed that trust is a result of communication, a shared interest and a measuring and control system, which are assessed to be critical success factors for a PBC (Persona et al., 2007, Bintrup et al. 2009). From a literature survey performed by Sakburanapech (2008) eight critical success factors for alliances are identified;

- mutual understanding; - clearly defined agreement; - commitment; - flexibility; - organizational linkage; - performance evaluation; - communication; - trust.

From a literature survey, Steiner (1968), distinguishes the following inter-firm collaboration critical success factors;

- an information exchange and performance measuring and monitor system to

create trust; - an common performance goal to create complementarily (Johnson et al.,

1996; Nooteboom et al., 1997; Parkhe, 1998; Luo, 2002); - a shared interest to create commitment (Medcof, 1997).

These factors have collectively been referred to as collaborative advantages (Kanter, 1994; Lavie et al., 2012) and relational advantages (Dyer and Singh, 1998). In particular, collaboration-specific benefits (Madhok and Tallman, 1998), relational benefits (Lane and Lubatkin, 1998), common benefits (Khanna et al., 1998) and relational capital (Kale et al., 2000) result from these advantages. To collaborate, interaction between the MRO&U partners is required (Sakburanapech, 2008). Timely, accurate and relevant information exchange is essential for managing and sustaining the inter-organizational collaboration (Chakrabarty et al., 2007; Bullington and Bullington, 2005; Lynch, 2004; Mohr and Spekman, 1994). If common communication methods and procedures are used jointly, this interaction is more effective (Cross and Parker, 2004). This is confirmed by research results from a study of Ng, Ding and Yip (2013), which concluded that the outcome of Performance based

49

contracts is dependent upon behavioral and information alignments between the collaboration (MRO&U triad) partners. Behavioral and informational alignments are stimulated by aligned interests. The study of Ng et al. (2013) was conducted in defense related industries tasked to achieve performance objectives instead of the traditional maintenance, repair and overhaul activities (e.g., power-by-the-hour engine service contract). Another finding of the research of Ng. et al. (2013) is that material & equipment alignment (i.e., joint supply chain) has no significant effect on the outcome of the performance based contract. Therefor this aspect is not further addressed in the current research. There are many different means to interact between triad partners (Jong, de, 2010). Van Rhee et al., 2008, identifies the following critical success factors for interaction and collaboration in the MRO&U triad;

- A common performance goal; - A measurement and control system; - A well-defined information exchange; - A consultation and penalty system; - A level playing field.

A study of the British government (Deloitte, 2011) identifies the following critical success factors for PBC’s;

- Contract fundamentals, which include a measuring and control system, a

SMART definition of the performance indicator (i.c. availability), and a common interest between partners;

- Unintended consequences, which include a communication (Bolton, Lemon and Verhoef, 2008) and consultancy system;

- Payment and performance, which include incentives for improvement and a reward and penalty system.

A San Diego State University studies (Sachs, 2004) and an Australian study (DMO, 2009) recognizes similar critical success factors for PBC’s.

3.6.4 Conclusions on the critical success factors From the literature study on the critical success factors applicable on PBC’s it is concluded that there are different views on the applicable critical success factors. From the different views a combined set of conditions is derived;

- A SMART defined performance goal; - The realization of the outcome is a shared interest of the contract partners; - A performance measurement and control system; - An information exchange/communication system; - Trust; - A performance reward system and a consultation system; - A level playing field.

50

Based on the literature study the following observations are made: the condition to define the performance objective in SMART terms is supported by the findings in the current research with respect to the performance objective availability (see paragraph 3.4). For the current research, the SMART definition of availability is treated as a characteristic of the outcome of the MRO&U triad rather than a critical success factor of the collaboration mechanism. Trust is either regarded as an outcome of communication and a shared interest (v. Rhee et al., 2008, Sakburanapech, 2008), or as a prerequisite for collaboration and information exchange (Persona et al., 2007, Bintrup et al. 2009). While a penalty system is either regarded as an incentive to perform better (Sakburanapech, 2008) or as a means which threatens a good relationship and undermines trust (Suwondo, 2007, de Jong, 2010). A level playing field is only identified by v. Rhee et al. (2008) to be a critical success factor. The critical success factors assessed to be applicable on the current research are used to extent the findings from the preliminary literature review (see fig. 6) as depicted in fig. 19.

Fig. 19. The critical success factors of the collaboration mechanism as extension of the findings from the

preliminary literature review.

However, the critical success factors for inter-firm collaboration found in different sources of literature are diverse and are partly overlapping and partly disputed. No uniform set of critical success factors could be identified in literature.

3.7 Conclusion on the literature study

In the literature study the requirements applicable on the performance objective, availability are identified to be defined in SMART terms. The Performance Based Contract is identified to be the collaboration mechanism best suited to facilitate the collaboration in the MRO&U triad with the aim to achieve availability as performance objective. Furthermore the functions of the collaboration mechanism PBC are identified: to establish, consolidate and improve the collaboration in the aircraft MRO&U triad. To make collaboration successful, conditions have to be supportive to realize the functions of the collaboration mechanism. These conditions are in this research referred to as critical success factors. A set of critical success factors is identified, however some factors are disputed in literature. The critical success factors identified in the literature study are;

- A common performance objective; - A measuring and control system;


Common objective Measuring&control

Communication Trust

Penalty&consultation Level playing field



51

- A communication system; - Trust; - A penalty and consultation system; - A level playing field.

Of these critical success factors the factors: trust and a penalty system are disputed, while the factor: a level playing field, lacks support from more than one source. The critical success factors contribute to the definition of the relation between the MRO&U collaboration and the performance objective availability. The critical success factors are illustrated in fig. 20, which is an accumulation of the fig. 15, 18 and 19. This extended framework is referred to as the preliminary availability conceptual framework.

Fig. 20. The preliminary availability conceptual framework.

The preliminary availability conceptual framework represents the relation between the collaboration in the MRO&U triad with PBC as a collaboration mechanism and availability as the performance outcome of this collaboration. The findings from the literature study on triads, alliances, TCE and PBC’s is used to construct the conceptual framework. The framework serves as a basis for theory building on how to achieve availability in the MRO&U triad. However, as noted, the findings from the literature study are not undisputed. Therefor an alternative research approach is applied to determine the relation between MRO&U triad collaboration and the performance outcome availability. This approach is the theory-in-use method and is discussed in the next chapter.


PBC



Time Bound


Improve


Communication Trust


52

4 The theory-in-use

From the assessment of the MRO&U triad collaboration in the current research (see paragraph 1.5), it was concluded that both, availability and airworthiness, are performance outcomes of collaboration in the aircraft MRO&U triad. Both performance objectives are characterized by the relation between the collaboration in the MRO&U triad and the performance outcome of that collaboration (see paragraph 2.7). Airworthiness is a condition that has to be met before every flight and achieving airworthiness by collaboration in the MRO&U triad is exercised numerous times a day (FAA C regulation, 2014). Based on the similarities between availability and airworthiness and the practical relevance of airworthiness, it is proposed to use the airworthiness method as a theory-in-use (in analogy with Dul and Hak, 2008) to test the findings of the literature study.

4.1 Aim of studying the theory-in-use The literature study on MRO&U collaboration resulted in the preliminary availability conceptual framework (see fig. 20), in which the three factors of influence are depicted: the requirements of the performance objective availability, the functions of the collaboration mechanism, and the applicable critical success factors. However, the literature study on MRO&U triad collaboration is not conclusive with respect to the applicability of the different factors of influence. To gain more insight in the factors of influence, the theory-in-use research approach was applied (Dul and Hak, 2008). The aim of using the theory-in-use research approach is to underpin the findings from the literature study (Guo and Ng, 2011) on MRO&U triad collaboration and to complement the preliminary availability conceptual framework (fig. 20).

4.2 Methodology of studying the theory-in-use The research approach to complement the theoretical findings from the literature study is based on the proposed “theory-in-use” (Dul and Hak, 2008): the airworthiness method. The analysis of the airworthiness method provides insight in the relevant performance requirements, collaboration functionalities and collaboration requirements for collaboration in the MRO&U triad with the aim to achieve airworthiness (see fig. 12). This insight in the airworthiness method provides a more in-depth understanding of the MRO&U triad collaboration. This insight is then used to complement the findings from the literature study. The airworthiness method is yet undefined. So the first objective of the study on the airworthiness requirements is to define the airworthiness method by studying the airworthiness requirements. The airworthiness requirements are imposed by the National Airworthiness Authorities (NAA like FAA and EASA). The airworthiness requirements cover all aspects of aircraft design, testing, maintenance, operations and training of aircrew and aircraft maintenance personnel (Kannan, 2007). For the current research the focus is on the airworthiness requirements with respect to MRO&U. From a comparison between the EASA (European) and the FAA (American) airworthiness requirements it was found that both sets of requirements are practically identical with respect to MRO&U requirements. For the current research the FAA requirements are used to analyze the

53

airworthiness method (www.faa.gov/regulations policies/advisory circulars/index.cfm /go /document.list/parentTopicID/105). As noted before, in the current research airworthiness is referred to as the system airworthiness of an aircraft or component. In literature no analysis of the airworthiness requirements with the aim to define the airworthiness method with respect to MRO&U could be found. The methodology used in the current research is characterized by a stepwise approach. The first step in the study is to assess which airworthiness requirements are applicable on operating commercial aircraft. Title 14 of the US Federal Regulations is applicable on “Aeronautics and space”. Sub chapter A “definitions”, Subchapter B “Procedural rules”, Subchapter C “aircraft”, Subchapter F “Air traffic and general operating rules” and Subchapter H “schools and other certificated agencies” are assessed to be applicable. In the second step the airworthiness requirements under Subchapter A, and Subchapter C, parts 21, 23, 25 and 39 are studied and are assessed to be applicable on system airworthiness. Next, the airworthiness requirements under Subchapters A, B, C, F and H are studied and grouped based on applicability on MRO&U. Subchapter C part 43 “Maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, and alteration” and Subchapter H part 145 “Repair stations” are assessed to be dedicated to MRO&U. In the fourth step the different parts of the airworthiness requirements are studied in detail to identify the requirements applicable on system airworthiness. In step five the functions and working of the airworthiness collaboration method and the requirements applicable on the collaboration method are assessed. From the findings, the airworthiness model is derived. The steps taken in the methodology are illustrated in fig. 21.

Fig. 21. The steps taken in the study of the airworthiness requirements.

The methodology developed under the grounded theory of coding (Flick, 2014) was used to identify the requirements of airworthiness and the functions and critical success factors of the airworthiness method. Coding is a cyclical process consisting of two cycles of coding: the First Cycle and the Second Cycle of coding (Saldaña, 2009 and Friese, 2011). The first cycle of coding is identifying the descriptive codes. A descriptive codes

Subchapters A, B, C, F

and H

Title 14 Parts 14, 21, 23, 25, 39

Parts 21, 23, 25, 43, 93 and 145

Coding airworthiness

method

Coding performance requirements

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

Step 4 Step 5

The airworthiness

model

http://www.faa.gov/regulations%20policies/advisory%20circulars/index.cfm%20/go%20/document.list/parentTopicID/105

http://www.faa.gov/regulations%20policies/advisory%20circulars/index.cfm%20/go%20/document.list/parentTopicID/105

54

describes the topic of the coded segment (Saldaña, 2009). The Second cycle of coding is about identifying the coding categories. For the coding of the airworthiness requirements the axial coding method is used (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). This method of coding involves clustering of the codes into groups. The codes are in the current research grouped based on defining and analyzing the airworthiness method. To define the airworthiness method, it is assessed that insight is needed in the previously identified three factors of influence;

- The requirements applicable on the performance objective airworthiness; - The functions of the airworthiness collaboration method (what does it do); - The requirements applicable on the airworthiness collaboration method (the critical

success factors).

Each of these factors of influence is selected to be a Central category.

As concluded by Gerson (2006), a performance objective needs to be specified in SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time bound) terms to be achievable. Each of these terms is in the current research assigned to be a Core category of the Central category “requirements of the performance objective airworthiness”, see fig. 22.

Central Category

Core Categories

Fig. 22. The categories of the properties of availability.

The applicable functions of the airworthiness method are derived from the airworthiness conceptual model (see fig. 12). Three functions of the airworthiness method are identified: establish airworthiness, consolidate airworthiness and improve airworthiness. Each of these functions is in the current research assigned to be a Core category of the Central category “functions of the airworthiness method”, see fig. 23.

Central Category

Core Categories

Fig. 23. The categories of the functions of the airworthiness method

The third Central category selected in the current research is “the critical success factors”. Each of these factors is assigned to be a Core category in the cycle of coding (Friese, 2011). However, the critical success factors of the airworthiness method are yet undetermined. The first step is to identify the success factors, which is followed by the

Requirements of airworthiness

Specific Measurable Achievable Relevant Time bound

Functions of the airworthiness method

mechanism

Establish Consolidate Improve

55

second step: the analysis of the success factors. This research approach is discussed in paragraph 4.5.

To determine the applicability of the different Core categories on the Central categories two selection criteria are identified; - Criterion 1: the number of assigned descriptive codes is in the current research

interpreted as an indication of the applicability of the related Core category; no assigned descriptive codes is interpreted as an indication that the related Core category is not applicable;

- Criterion 2: the frequency of occurrence of descriptive codes is in the current research interpreted as an indication for the relative weight of that descriptive code; the higher the frequency of occurrence, the higher the relative weight of the descriptive code and related Core category.

Additionally quotes from the airworthiness requirements are used to illustrate or elucidate the meaning and applicability of descriptive codes or Core categories. The method of coding is used on the requirements applicable on the performance objective airworthiness, as well as on the functions and requirements of the airworthiness method. This is discussed in the following paragraphs.

4.3 Airworthiness performance requirements

Airworthiness performance requirements are for the current research defined as the Central category, while each of the SMART terms is used as a Core category of coding (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). The descriptive type of codes are used (Saldaña, 2009). The airworthiness requirements are analyzed to identify the descriptive codes related to each of the Core categories. The number (criterion 1) and frequency (criterion 2) of assigned descriptive codes are interpreted as an indication for the applicability of the related Core category. The airworthiness requirements applicable on the performance objective airworthiness are given in the airworthiness requirements Title 14, Subchapter C parts 21, 23, 25 and 39. The Core categories and the related descriptive codes with their frequencies identified in these airworthiness requirements are depicted in table 1.

Core category


Descriptive codes

Specification

19

Measurable

3

Certificate holder

100

License

19

Time

27

Approval

103

Condition

57

Show/demonstrate compliance

10

Significant 8

Ensure compliance 4

Provide evidence 5

Certify

56

Table 1. The descriptive codes of the Central Category “performance requirements of the performance

objective airworthiness”

The Core category “specific” encompasses the descriptive codes “specification” and “approval”. The descriptive code “Specifications” is related to the design requirements of the aircraft(component) which have to be met to make the aircraft(component) airworthy. This is illustrated by the following quote from subchapter 21.31:

“The drawings and specifications, and a listing of those drawings and specifications, necessary to define the configuration and the design features of the product shown to comply with the requirements of that part of this subchapter applicable to the product”.

Another quote from subchapter 21.137 illustrates how nonconformity is related to design approval and specific design data.

“Require each supplier to report to the production approval holder if a product or article has been released from that supplier and subsequently found not to conform to the applicable design data”.

From the quotes, the number of assigned descriptive codes (criterion 1) and the frequency of occurrence of these descriptive codes (criterion 2) it is concluded that the Core category “specific” is applicable on the Central category “airworthiness performance requirements”.

The Core category “measurable” encompasses the descriptive codes “measurable” and “condition”, see table 1. The descriptive code “condition” is used to describe the technical status of the aircraft(component) in detail. This is illustrated by the following quote:

“New aircraft manufactured under a production certificate. An applicant for a standard airworthiness certificate for a new aircraft manufactured under a production certificate is entitled to a standard airworthiness certificate without further showing, except that the FAA may inspect the aircraft to determine conformity to the type design and condition for safe operation, whereby the FAA prescribes limitations and conditions necessary for safe operation”. (21.183)

Except for the descriptive codes used to describe the Core category “measurable”, numerous numbers defining technical requirements and limits are found in the airworthiness requirements.

10

Relevant 4

Must submit 6

Total frequency

103 60 100 66 27

57

The number of assigned descriptive codes (criterion 1) and their frequency of occurrence (criterion 2) are interpreted as an indication that the Core category “Measurable” is applicable on the Central category “airworthiness performance requirements”. This is underpinned by the numerous quantitative data found in the airworthiness requirements.

The applicability of the descriptive code “Certificate holder” for the Core category “achievable” is illustrated by the following quote:

“The system must identify how the type certificate holder will promptly identify problems, report them to the responsible FAA aircraft certification office, and propose a solution to the FAA to resolve each problem”.(21.4)

This quote illustrates that the airworthiness system identifies how the certificate holder realizes its mandatory tasks and whether these tasks are achievable for the certificate holder.

The descriptive code “certificate holder” was the only code that is found to describe the Core category “achievable” (see table 1). For the current research it is assumed that the number of assigned descriptive codes is an indication for the applicability of the Core category (criterion 1). However, the frequency of occurrence of the descriptive code “certificate holder” (criterion 2) is one hundred (100), which is for the current research interpreted as an indication of the weight of that descriptive code. Based on the relative weight of the descriptive code “certificate holder” the Core category “achievable” is concluded to be applicable on the Central category “airworthiness performance requirements”.

For the Core category “relevant”, eight descriptive codes are identified (criterion 1), see table 1. Each of the descriptive codes refers to the relevance to achieve airworthiness. The following quotes illustrate this:

The applicant must submit a report showing that the aircraft incorporating the modifications involved has been flown in all maneuvers necessary to show compliance with the flight requirements applicable to those modifications and to establish that the aircraft can be operated safely in accordance with the limitations specified”. (21.85)

“Test reports and computations necessary to show that the design of the article meets the airworthiness requirements of this subchapter. The test reports and computations must be applicable to the product on which the article is to be installed. If the design of the article was obtained by a licensing agreement, the applicant must provide evidence of that agreement”. (21.303)

The number of different descriptive codes (criterion 1) and the total frequency of occurrence of these codes (criterion 2) form a clear indication that the overarching Core category “relevant” is applicable on the Central Category “airworthiness performance requirements”.

58

For the Core category “time bound” only one applicable descriptive code (criterion 1) is identified: “time”, while the frequency of occurrence of this descriptive code (criterion 2) is twenty seven (27). For the current research it is assumed that the number of assigned descriptive codes and their frequency of occurrence are indications for the applicability of the Core category. Based on this assumption it is concluded that the Core category “time bound” is applicable on-, but less dominant for, the Central category “airworthiness performance requirements”.

4.3.1 Summary on airworthiness performance requirements

The analysis, using the coding methodology from the grounded theory, of the airworthiness requirements with respect to the performance objective airworthiness revealed that the performance objective airworthiness is expressed in SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time bound) terms. Furthermore it is found that time bound is the least dominant factor. The finding that airworthiness is expressed in SMART terms is in line with literature (Gerson, 2006), and in line with findings from the literature study on availability, where the performance objective availability was found to be expressed in SMART terms as well. The results of the analysis of the airworthiness performance requirements are compared with the findings of the analysis of the performance requirements of availability as illustrated in fig. 15. The comparison is depicted in fig. 24. From the comparison in fig. 24 it is concluded that the performance requirements applicable on availability are similar to the performance requirements applicable on airworthiness, and that the application of the theory-in-use on the performance requirements of the performance objective airworthiness confirms the findings of the literature study.

Fig.24. Comparison between the performance requirements applicable on availability and on airworthiness.

4.4 The functions of the airworthiness method (what does it do?) The next step in the research is the analysis of the method that is responsible for achieving airworthiness as outcome of the MRO&U triad. This method is referred to as the airworthiness method. The airworthiness method is based on inter-action between the three MRO&U stake holders: the operator, the maintainer and the OEM. According to the airworthiness requirements, collaboration between the MRO&U triad partners is mandatory to achieve airworthiness. The airworthiness method has proven to be effective for all different types of aircraft, airworthy systems and components, and was therefore regarded as a sufficient condition to achieve a desired level of airworthiness in

Performance objective airworthiness

Specific

Measurable Achievable Relevant

Time bound


Specific

Measurable Achievable Relevant

Time bound

59

the MRO&U triad. Managing the MRO&U triad outcome encompasses that airworthiness is established in a reproducible manner (Eichenberger, 1997). The triad outcome has to remain as advertised over time, so the triad performance has to be consolidated over time. Finally the aim of managing the triad with respect to airworthiness is to improve the airworthiness over time (FAA regulation, title 14, subchapter C, part 26, 2012). This implies that managing the triad also includes continuous improvement of the triad outcome. So managing the MRO&U triad means for the current research: being able to establish, consolidate and improve the MRO&U triad performance outcome: airworthiness. Each of these functions is assigned to be a Core category under the Central category “functions of the airworthiness method” in the cycle of coding and is covered in a specific part of the airworthiness requirements as discussed below.

4.4.1 To establish airworthiness.

To establish airworthiness is a design requirement and is described in the airworthiness requirements Title 14, subpart C, Subchapters 21, 23 and 25. Using the methodology based on the grounded theory (Saldaña, 2009) “to establish” airworthiness is defined as a Core category. The related descriptive codes identified in the airworthiness requirements are reflected in table 2, as well as the frequency of their occurrence.

Core category To establish frequency

Descriptive codes Establish 30

Product 182

Testing 75

Inspect 64

Total frequency 351 Table 2. The core category “to establish” and the related descriptive codes

The number of assigned descriptive codes (criterion 1) and total frequency of occurrence (criterion 2) indicate that the function “to establish” airworthiness is applicable on the airworthiness method (see table 2). The establishment of airworthiness by the OEM is well defined and regulated, as becomes clear from the following quote: “Each holder or licensee of a type certificate who manufactures a product under this subpart must provide, in a form and manner acceptable to the FAA, a statement that the product for which the type certificate has been issued conforms to its type certificate and is in a condition for safe operation.”(21.130) The airworthiness requirements to establish airworthiness are prescribed in Subchapter C, Parts 21 and 23 design requirements and aircraft, component and parts test requirements. In part 21 the requirements to acquire a type certificate for an aircraft are described. In part 23, Subchapter C the structural requirements for an aircraft are reflected. These requirements are mandatory for the OEM and are checked by the operator when accepting the aircraft, component or part. The

60

method to establish airworthiness is characterized by an extended system of requirements and tests to be realized during design, building and testing to ensure airworthiness of an aircraft, component or part (FAA regulations, title 14, Subchapter C, part 21, subpart B, 2014). This is illustrated by the following quote: “Each person manufacturing aircraft under a type certificate must establish an approved production flight test procedure and flight check-off form, and in accordance with that form, flight test each aircraft produced.”(21.127) This test system is designed to measure the compliance with the requirements. In this method, the OEM is responsible for establishing airworthiness (De Florio, 2006). The method is reflected in fig. 25: the OEM designs for airworthiness and delivers the aircraft to the operator, in a one way street relation. The OEM provides all related usage and design information to the operator.

Product

Fig. 25, Establishing airworthiness and the descriptive codes assigned to the Core category

“establish”.

From the analysis of these airworthiness requirements it is concluded that a function of the airworthiness method is to establish airworthiness.

4.4.2 To consolidate airworthiness.

The airworthiness requirements demand for strict conditions to maintain aircraft, components and parts airworthy. Part 39—“Airworthiness Directives” give guidance on how airworthiness of aircraft and components is safeguarded, while the parts 21, 43, 93 and 145 describe how to consolidate airworthiness whenever aircraft or component repair or servicing are executed. This is illustrated by the following quote:

“The applicant must establish an inspection and maintenance program for the continued airworthiness of the aircraft”. (21.85) The text of the airworthiness requirements is analyzed, using the methodology derived from the grounded theory (Flick, 2014). Hereto “to consolidate airworthiness” is assigned to be a Core category. The related descriptive codes are revealed from the airworthiness requirements as described in Title 14, Subchapters C and H, parts 21, 23, 25, 43, 93 and 145. The descriptive codes and their frequencies are depicted in table 3.

Core Category To consolidate Frequency

Descriptive code Continue 20

Maintain 34

Keep 6

OEM Establish Testing Inspect

Operator

61

In accordance with 99

Total frequency 159 Table 3. The core category to consolidate airworthiness and the descriptive codes

The number of assigned descriptive codes (criterion 1) and the total frequency of occurrence (criterion 2) indicate that the function to consolidate is applicable on the airworthiness method. This is also illustrated by the following quote: “Each person performing maintenance, alteration, or preventive maintenance on an aircraft, engine, propeller, or appliance shall use the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the current manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness prepared by its manufacturer, or other methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator.” (43.13) An aspect to consolidate airworthiness of aircraft, components and parts is the mandatory communication between the user and the maintainer, after repairs, upgrades and overhauls are performed (Tiffany, Gallagher, and Babish IV, 2010). This communication is structured and standardized using maintenance records and the maintenance forms. This creates a feedback loop between the user and the maintainer with respect to repairs performed and parts replaced. The method is reflected in fig 26: the OEM designs the aircraft to a prescribed level of airworthiness. This aircraft is delivered to the operator. The operator transfers the aircraft, when due for maintenance, to the maintainer. The maintainer restores the airworthiness and transfers the aircraft back to the operator. This occurs every time the aircraft is due for maintenance. This maintenance loop exists during the life time of the aircraft.

Continue

Fig. 26, Consolidating airworthiness and the descriptive codes assigned to the Core category “consolidating airworthiness”

From the analysis of the airworthiness requirements it is concluded that a function of the airworthiness method is to consolidate airworthiness.

4.4.3 To improve airworthiness.

Subchapter C, Paragraph 21.7 states:

“On or after December 10, 2007, the holder of a design approval and an applicant for a design approval must comply with the applicable continued airworthiness and safety improvement requirements of part 26 of this subchapter” (21.7) Paragraph 26 requires:

OEM In accordance

with

Operator Keep

Maintainer Maintain

62

“Continued airworthiness and safety improvements for transport category airplanes” (21.26)

The quotes illustrate how safety and airworthiness are continuously improved. The instrument used to improve airworthiness is structured and standardized by using discrepancy reports, engineering proposals and service bulletins. To analyze the airworthiness requirements, the method of coding is used (Flick, 2014). “To improve airworthiness” is assigned to be a Core category. The descriptive codes are retrieved from the text of Title 14, Subchapters C and H, parts 21, 23, 25, 43 and 145 of the airworthiness requirements. The Core category, the descriptive codes and their frequency of occurrence are given in table 4.

Core Category To improve Frequency

Descriptive codes Alteration 107

Improve 3

Exceed 7

Modify 1

Increase 6

Rebuilding 9

Total frequency 133 Table 4. The core category to improve and the frequencies of the descriptive codes

The number of assigned descriptive codes (criterion 1) and the total frequency of occurrence (criterion 2) of the core category “to improve” indicates that the function to improve is applicable on the airworthiness method. The airworthiness method creates a feedback loop where design and maintenance procedures are improved, if required, to meet or exceed airworthiness requirements. Furthermore the goal of the Airworthiness Authorities is to constantly improve airworthiness, and thus to adjust airworthiness requirements. This is reflected in the way the mandatory exchange of information between triad partners is organized. Analyzing the improvement method in the airworthiness requirements reveals that information feedback loops are established between OEM, maintainer and operator. The method is reflected in fig. 27: the OEM designs the aircraft to a prescribed level of airworthiness. This aircraft is delivered to the operator. If the operator encounters airworthiness design discrepancies or identifies possibilities to improve airworthiness by adjusting the design, the operator informs the OEM. The OEM will then upgrade the design to improve airworthiness. The operator transfers the aircraft, when due for maintenance, to the maintainer. The maintainer restores the airworthiness and transfers the aircraft back to the operator. If the maintainer encounters airworthiness design discrepancies during the performance of maintenance or identifies possibilities to improve airworthiness by adjusting the design, the maintainer informs the OEM. The OEM will then upgrade the design to improve airworthiness. If the operator encounters airworthiness discrepancies after maintenance or identifies possibilities to improve airworthiness by adjusting the maintenance procedures, the operator informs the OEM and/or the maintainer. The

63

OEM will then upgrade the design to improve airworthiness, or the maintainer will improve the maintenance procedures to improve airworthiness.

Improve

Modify Improve Improve Rebuilding

Alteration Increase Exceed

Fig. 27. The airworthiness improvement method and the descriptive codes

From the analysis of the airworthiness requirements it is concluded that to improve airworthiness is a function of the airworthiness method.

4.4.4 Summary on the functions of airworthiness method

Fig. 27 reflects the airworthiness improvement process, but includes also the establishing of airworthiness (fig.25) and the consolidation of airworthiness (fig. 26). So all the functions of the airworthiness method are reflected in fig. 27. (Note the similarity with the MRO&U process as illustrated in fig. 1). The results of the analysis of the functions of the airworthiness method are compared with the findings of the analysis of the functions of the PBC for availability as illustrated in fig. 18. The comparison is depicted in fig. 28. From the comparison in fig. 28 it is concluded that the functions of the PBC for availability are similar to the functions of the airworthiness method, and that the application of the theory-in-use on the functions of the airworthiness methods confirms the findings of the literature study.

Fig. 28. Comparison between the functions of PBC for availability and the functions of the airworthiness method.

4.5 The critical success factors of the airworthiness method.

A third factor of influence of the airworthiness conceptual model is the set of critical success factors. To define the airworthiness conceptual model, the critical success factors have to be determined. The method used to identify the critical success factors and the results are discussed below.

Operator Maintainer OEM

Airworthiness method


Improve


PBC on availability


Improve

64

4.5.1 The research approach on the critical success factors The identification of the critical success factors is realized by a two-step approach. First the airworthiness requirements are studied and analyzed to determine the applicable success factors by reasoning and quoting. The findings from this analysis are then used in the second step as a basis for an analysis using the methodology derived from the grounded theory of coding (Flick, 2014). The two steps of the research approach are discussed in the following paragraphs.

4.5.2 Analysis of the airworthiness requirements on critical success factors

To establish and improve airworthiness is a costly affair. Special measures have to be taken and conditions have to be met. The airworthiness requirements assign responsibilities to the MRO&U partner that can best bear it and dictates the related communication between the MRO&U partners. In fact the airworthiness requirements define the conditions to manage the MRO&U process with respect to jointly achieving airworthiness. These conditions are for the current research referred to as critical success factors (Boynlon and Zmud, 1984). The FAA has the authority to inspect compliance of these conditions and to issue penalties in case of non-compliance:

“The FAA may assess a civil penalty against any person who knowingly commits an act in violation of 49 U.S.C. chapter 51” (FAA regulations, Title 14, part 13, Subpart C, 2013).

It is concluded that the airworthiness requirements incorporate a penalty system. A penalty system is in the current research assessed to be a critical success factor. Based on the penalty authority of the FAA, the airworthiness requirements are regarded as strong symmetric pressure on all MRO&U triad partners. External pressure, in terms of mandatory regulations with penalties and competition, makes airworthiness a common goal for the triad partners. All triad partners have to contribute to achieve the required airworthiness levels. This condition gives a strong positive impetus to MRO&U process management, since all triad partners invest in realizing their interests. MRO&U process management is a systematic, controlled concept for managing and developing a process and process related information (Saaksvuori and Immonen, 2008). A well-managed MRO&U process services the interests of the triad partners best at the lowest costs. This common interest makes it easier to align objectives (de Jong, 2010). Airworthiness is such an objective, which is for the triad partners the prerequisite to collaborate and to establish a managed MRO&U process (Roberts et al, 2002). It is concluded that the airworthiness requirements generate a common interest for the MRO&U triad partners. A common interest is in the current research assessed to be a critical success factor. Each of the partners has its own goals, but to manage the MRO&U process at least one common goal is required. In case of airworthiness this goal is clearly defined as a

65

performance goal and can be measured. Furthermore the contribution of each of the triad partners to realize this goal is clearly defined by the airworthiness regulations:

“Each person who applies under Part 21 for a certificate or change (MRO&U) must show compliance with the applicable requirements in this part” (FAA regulations, Title 14, Part 25, Subpart A, 2013).

Airworthiness conditions are expected to be met if it has been proven by tests, or if it is measured or if the procedure used to meet the conditions is approved, checked and has proven to generate a guaranteed quality outcome (FAA C, 2014). The conditions to be met are described in detail in the airworthiness requirements.

It is concluded that the airworthiness requirements define the performance objective in measurable terms, and that the FAA controls the compliance with these terms. It is in the current research assessed that a measuring and control system is a critical success factor. Initially the OEM is obliged to guarantee system airworthiness for newly manufactured systems, however as soon as in use: system airworthiness becomes a shared responsibility of OEM, maintainer and operator. Furthermore each of the MRO&U triad partners is obliged to take its own responsibility with respect to establishing, consolidating and improving system airworthiness, but also with respect to reporting violations or discrepancies of airworthiness requirements or FAA regulations (FAA regulations, 2013 Paragraph 21.3 for the OEM, Paragraph 39.7 for the operator and Paragraph 43.11 for the maintainer). Not complying results in penalties (Paragraph 13.1 and 13.5). It is concluded that the airworthiness requirements prescribe a mandatory information exchange between the MRO&U triad partners with respect to airworthiness. In the current research it is assessed that communication is a critical success factor. The mechanism of individual responsibility combined with a violation reporting and penalty system creates a level playing field whereby each of the triad partners is in the position to take the necessary actions to report or take away a violation of the airworthiness requirements. The reporting partner is backed by the FAA and law and regulations. A recent example of this mechanism is the grounding of the Boeing dream line aircraft by the Japanese operator All Nippon Airways, which was, despite objections from Boeing, followed by a global grounding issued by the FAA. This assessment leads to the conclusion that the airworthiness requirements establishes a level playing field for the MRO&U triad partners, and that a level playing field is a critical success factor.

From this assessment of the airworthiness method, it is concluded that the following critical success factors are applicable;

66

- An incentive for the MRO&U partners to achieve a common performance objective: airworthiness;

- A measuring and control system; - A communication system between the MRO&U partners; - A penalty system; - A level playing field between the MRO&U partners.

The critical success factors identified from the analysis of the airworthiness requirements, are used as Core categories of the Central category “critical success factors” in the cycle of coding as described in the grounded theory of coding (Saldaña, 2009), see fig. 29.

Central Category

Core Categories

Fig. 29. The Core Categories of the critical success factors

4.5.3 The cycle of coding and the critical success factors

Based on the subject the Central category of codes was determined to be “the critical success factors of the airworthiness method”. The Core categories of coding are derived from the critical success factors determined in the analysis of the airworthiness method (see previous paragraph). For each of these Core categories the related descriptive codes are found by identifying the key words in the airworthiness requirements. The coding process and the results hereof are discussed in the following paragraphs.

4.5.4 Airworthiness as common performance objective

A sub category of the Central category “critical success factors” is the Core category “common performance objective”. The descriptive codes related to this Core category are derived from an assessment of the text of the airworthiness requirements, dealing with airworthiness as common performance objective, Title 14, Subchapters A, B, C, G, H and K. However, from the assessment of the airworthiness requirements no reference to a common performance objective could be identified and no related descriptive codes (criterion 1) could be found. That implies that the Core category “common performance objective” does not comply with the selection criteria 1 and 2 (see paragraph 4.2). As such the Core category “common performance objective” could not be confirmed to be a critical success factor. An explanation could be that the FAA addresses only the individuals responsible for complying with the airworthiness requirements and not the

Critical Success Factors

Common

objective

Measuring &

Control

Communi-

cation

Penalty Level

Playing Field

67

combination of individuals. This is underpinned by the frequency with which the term person(s) occurs in the airworthiness requirements (178 times) and is illustrated by the following quote: “If the person performing any inspection required finds that the aircraft is unairworthy or does not meet the applicable type certificate data, airworthiness directives, or other approved data upon which its airworthiness depends, that persons must give the owner or lessee a signed and dated list of those discrepancies.”

Based on the assessment of the Core category “common performance objective”, it is concluded that a common performance objective could not be confirmed to be a critical success factor of the airworthiness method.

4.5.5 Measuring and control

Applying the methodology of the grounded theory of coding (Flick, 2014), leads to categorization based on the subject of research and the factors of influence. As such the Central category “critical success factor” is defined, and “measuring and control” is defined to be a Core category. The descriptive codes related to this Core category are derived from studying the text of the airworthiness requirements, Title 14, Subchapters A, B, C, G, H and K. The Core category “measuring and control” and its related descriptive codes with frequencies of occurrence are reflected in table 5.

Core category Measure and Control Frequency

Descriptive code Measure 22

Control 67

Standard 62

Comply 27

Limitation 38

Inspection 156

Total frequency 372

Table 5. The Core category measure and control and the descriptive codes with frequencies

The number (criterion 1) and total frequency of occurrence (criterion 2) of the descriptive codes related to “measuring and control” indicate that the Core category “measuring and control” is applicable on the Central category “critical success factor”. This critical success factor gives guidance to the OEM, maintainer and operator what to do to establish, consolidate and improve airworthiness, and it authorizes the FAA to measure and control whether the right actions are taken. This is illustrated by the following quotes. “Airworthiness directives specify inspections you must carry out, conditions and limitations you must comply with, and any actions you must take to resolve an unsafe condition.”(39.11)

68

“The FAA may prescribe the conditions, including any limitations, under which a certificated repair station must operate while it is changing its location, housing, or facilities”.(145.105) “Each applicant must allow the FAA to make any inspection and any flight and ground test necessary to determine compliance with the applicable requirements of this subchapter”. (21.33) From the findings on the Core category “measuring and control” it is concluded that measuring and control is a critical success factor of the airworthiness method.

4.5.6 Communication

The interface between organizations involved in distributed operations is based on information exchange (Gerybadze, 1995; Kornelius, 1999; Walters, 2002). For the MRO&U process the airworthiness requirements prescribe how and what information has to be exchanged between the MRO&U triad partners with the aim to maintain and improve airworthiness during the lifetime of aircraft, components and parts (FAA C regulations, 2014). Within the airworthiness requirements different means to communicate are defined (Taylor, 1990). Using the coding cycle (Saldaña, 2009), the communication means are identified as descriptive codes, related to the Core category “communication” as part of the Central category “critical success factors”. This is pictured in table 6, in which the Core category and the descriptive codes are given, as well as their frequencies of occurrence. The descriptive codes are identified by studying the airworthiness requirements as described in the Electronic Code of Federal Regulation (2014), Title 14, Subchapters A, B, C, G, H and K.

Core category Communication Frequency

Descriptive codes Manual 61

Records 56

Reports 68

Service Bulletin 1

Statistical analysis 3

Communication 66

Total frequency 255 Table 6. The Core category communication and the descriptive codes with their frequencies of

occurrence

The number of assigned descriptive codes (criterion 1) and the frequency of occurrence of the descriptive codes (criterion 2) related to the Core category “communication” is an indication that communication is a critical success factor of the airworthiness method. This is confirmed by the following quotes:

69

“A certificated repair station is authorized to report to the FAA a failure, malfunction, or defect under paragraph (d) of this section. A copy of the report submitted under paragraph (d) of this section must be forwarded to the certificate holder”. (145.221)

“A certificated repair station that performs maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations for an air carrier or commercial operator that has a continuous airworthiness maintenance program under part 121 or part 135 must follow the air carrier's or commercial operator's program and applicable sections of its maintenance manual”. (145.205) From the analysis of the Core category “communication” it is concluded that communication is a critical success factor of the airworthiness method.

4.5.7 Penalty system The Core category is defined as “penalty” and is a sub category of the Central Category “critical success factors”. The related descriptive codes are derived from the airworthiness requirements as described in Title 14, Subchapter C and H, Parts 13, 21, 23, 25, 39, 43, 93 and 145. The Core category and the descriptive codes and their frequency are given in table 7.

Core Category Penalty system Frequency

Descriptive codes Penalty 70

Enforce 18

Directive 45

Violation 91

Total frequency 224 Table 7. The core category “penalty system” and the frequency of the descriptive codes

The number of assigned descriptive codes (criterion 1) and the total frequency of the occurrences of the descriptive codes (criterion 2) of the Core category “penalty system” indicate that a penalty system is a critical success factor. More insight in the process of applying penalties is obtained by the following quotes: “Anyone who operates a product that does not meet the requirements of an applicable airworthiness directive is in violation of this section”. (39.7) “A civil penalty action is initiated by sending a notice of violation to the person charged with the violation. The notice of violation contains a statement of the charges and the amount of the proposed civil penalty”. (13.29) From the analysis of the airworthiness requirements it is concluded that a penalty system is a critical success factor of the airworthiness method.

70

4.5.8 A level playing field

Another factor of influence identified in the assessment of the airworthiness requirements is the level playing field. This factor was assigned to be a Core category in the cycle of coding as proposed by Flick (2014). The related descriptive codes are determined by studying the airworthiness requirements Subchapter C and H. The Core category with the related descriptive codes and their frequency of occurrence are given in table 8.

Core Category Level playing field Frequency

Descriptive Code Balance 6

Each person 32

Each holder 4

Authority 28

Authorized 39

Total Frequency 109 Table 8. The Core category “level playing field” and the related descriptive codes with their

frequencies.

The Core category level playing field is, based on the number of assigned descriptive codes (criterion 1) and the frequency of occurrence of the related descriptive codes (criterion 2), assessed to be a critical success factor of the airworthiness method. This is illustrated by the following quotes: “For progressive inspections, the following or a similarly worded statement—“I certify that in accordance with a progressive inspection program, a routine inspection of (identify whether aircraft or components) and a detailed inspection of (identify components) were performed and the (aircraft or components) are (approved or disapproved) for return to service.” If disapproved, the entry will further state “and a list of discrepancies and unairworthy items dated (date) has been provided to the aircraft owner or operator.”(43.11) “Each person performing maintenance, alteration, or preventive maintenance on an aircraft, engine, propeller, or appliance shall use the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the current manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness prepared by its manufacturer”. (43.13) From the analysis of the Core category “level playing field” it is concluded that a level playing field is a critical success factors for the collaboration in the MRO&U triad with the aim to achieve airworthiness.

4.5.9 Summary on critical success factors

The analysis of the airworthiness requirements revealed a set of critical success factors incorporated in the requirements. The “critical success factors” is defined as Central Category. Each of the critical success factors is defined as Core category. For each Core category the related descriptive codes are determined by studying the applicable text of the airworthiness requirements. The number of assigned

71

descriptive codes (criterion 1) and the frequency of occurrence of each of the descriptive codes (criterion 2) is measured and used as an indication whether the related Core category is a critical success factor of the airworthiness method. This research approach leads to a set of critical success factors for which it is concluded that they are applicable on the airworthiness method. These critical success factors are;

- Measuring and control; - Communication; - A penalty system; - A level playing field.

It could not be confirmed that a common performance objective for the MRO&U partners is a critical success factor. The results of the analysis of the critical success factors of the airworthiness method are compared with the findings of the analysis of the critical success factors for collaboration in the MRO&U triad with respect to availability as illustrated in fig. 19. The comparison is depicted in fig. 30. From the comparison in fig. 30 it is concluded that the critical success factors applicable on availability deviate from the critical success factors of the airworthiness method.

Fig. 30. The comparison between the critical success factors of the availability method and the

airworthiness method.

The differences between the findings from the literature study on the critical success factors, applicable on availability and the critical success factors of the airworthiness method are discussed in following paragraph.

4.6 Discussion.

“The theory-in-use is the knowledge of what works in practice, expressed in terms of variables and a practice domain” (Dul and Hak, 2008). The theory-in-use is applied in the current research to test the findings from the literature study on how to achieve availability in the MRO&U triad, the topic of the current research. Hereto the factors of influence of the theory-in-use are compared with those of the availability method with the aim to identify similarities and detect differences. Based on this comparison, conclusions are drawn with respect to the applicability of the factors of influence on availability.


Measuring&control syst. Communication system

Penalty system Level playing field



Communication Trust


72

The domain of the theory-in-use applied in the current research is the collaboration in the MRO&U triad with the aim to achieve the performance objective airworthiness. This domain overlaps the domain of the research on availability (see chapter 3), however the performance objective differs: airworthiness for the theory-in-use and availability for the research on availability. For the theory-in-use the relation between the collaboration method and the performance objective determines the airworthiness model. The factors of influence are the variables of this model and are identified to be; - A SMART definition of the performance objective airworthiness; - The functions in the airworthiness method to establish, consolidate and improve the

collaboration in the MRO&U triad; - The critical success factors;

- Measuring and control; - Communication; - A penalty system; - A level playing field.

These variables are compared with the variables of the availability method as derived from the literature study on availability, see chapter 3. The variables of the availability method are reflected in fig. 18 and are; - A SMART definition of the performance objective availability; - The functions in the availability mechanism to establish, to consolidate and to

improve the collaboration in the MRO&U triad; - The critical success factors;

- A common performance objective; - Measuring and control; - Communication; - Trust; - A penalty and consultation system; - A level playing field.

The performance objectives airworthiness and availability are defined in similar SMART terms. This is in line with theory “For achieving a performance objective it needs to be specified in SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time bound) terms” (Gerson, 2006). It is concluded that the finding from the literature study that the performance objective availability is expressed in SMART terms is confirmed by the results of the analysis of the theory-in-use. The functions of the airworthiness method and the availability mechanism are similar: both have the inherent goal to establish, consolidate and improve the collaboration in the MRO&U triad. This is in line with findings from theory that a collaboration mechanism aimed at achieving a performance objective needs to fulfill the customer’s requirements and improve the services delivered (Wynstra, 2012, Neely et al., 2005: Sparrow, 2003). It is concluded that the findings from the literature study that the

73

availability collaboration mechanism has the functions to establish, consolidate and improve the collaboration in the MRO&U triad is confirmed by the results of the analysis of the theory-in-use. The PBC as availability mechanism is identified to have these functions and is as such suited to serve as the availability mechanism, see chapter 3. The critical success factors of the airworthiness method and the availability mechanism (PBC) are overlapping for the factors: Measuring and control, communication, a penalty system, and a level playing field. This is interpreted as an indication that these critical success factors are confirmed by the application of the theory-in-use. The critical success factor of the availability mechanism “a common performance objective” is not confirmed to be applicable on the airworthiness method. The reason was found to be that the airworthiness requirements only addresses the responsibilities of the individual partners, and not of the joint MRO&U partners. Furthermore it was found that the airworthiness requirements are designed to generate airworthiness and that the MRO&U triad partners each have an interest in reaching that goal and contribute to reach that goal; in other words the MRO&U triad partners have a common performance objective: airworthiness. Based on this reasoning it is proposed that a common performance objective is a critical success factor applicable on the availability mechanism. The critical success factor: a consultation system is not identified as factor applicable on the airworthiness method. As reasoned by v. Rhee et al. (2009), a penalty system is only effective if a consultation mechanism is in place to avoid escalations and legal disputes. However, such a system could not be identified in the airworthiness requirements. A reason could be that the FAA has the authority to apply penalties on the MRO&U triad partners, while the FAA is also the authority which has the decisive voice to settle disputes. In such a setting, a consultation system appears to be superfluous. It is concluded that the airworthiness method deviates from the availability mechanism with respect to the need for consultation, and cannot be used to confirm the findings from the literature study on availability with respect to the critical success factor “a consultation system”. The critical success factor “trust” is either regarded as an outcome of communication and a shared interest (v. Rhee et al., 2008, Sakburanapech, 2008), or as a prerequisite for collaboration and information exchange (Persona et al., 2007, Bintrup et al. 2009). Trust as critical success factor of the availability mechanism is disputed. The critical success factor “trust”, was not identified as a factor applicable on the theory-in-use: the airworthiness method. This is interpreted as a confirmation that trust is an outcome of the collaboration process rather than a critical success factor of the availability mechanism. It is concluded that trust is not a critical success factor applicable on the availability mechanism. The results from the confirmation of the critical success factors applicable on the availability mechanism by applying the theory-in-use are illustrated in fig 30. It is concluded that the common critical success factors; measuring and control, communication, penalty system and level playing field are confirmed. On the basis of

74

reasoning it was concluded that the critical success factor “common objective” is not confirmed, but is applicable. While the critical success factor “consultation” could not be confirmed due to dissimilarity between availability method and the airworthiness method. The disputed critical success factor trust is not confirmed by the theory-in-use and is deleted.

+ =

Fig. 31. The results from the confirmation of the critical success factors by the theory-in-use.

4.7 Conclusions on the application of the theory-in-use.

The findings of the theory-in-use are used to test the results of the literature study on availability. Hereto the factors of influence of the airworthiness method and the availability method are compared. From this comparison it is concluded that both the performance objectives: airworthiness and availability are expressed in SMART terms. The functions of the airworthiness method and the availability mechanism are found to be similar: to establish, consolidate and improve the collaboration in the MRO&U triad. The following critical success factors of the availability mechanism could be confirmed by the findings from the analysis of the theory-in-use; - a common objective for the MRO&U triad partners; - measuring and control; - communication; - a penalty and consultation system; - a level playing field.

The critical success factor “trust” could not be confirmed by the results of the analysis of the theory-in-use and was deleted. The results of the application of the findings from the theory-in-use are incorporated in the preliminary availability conceptual framework as depicted in fig. 18, which led to the availability conceptual framework as pictured in fig. 32.


Common objective Measuring & control

Communication Penalty & consultation

Level playing field


Measuring&control Communication Penalty system

Level playing field



Communication Trust


75

Fig. 32. The availability conceptual framework.

The availability conceptual framework is an accumulation of the findings from the literature study on availability adjusted by the results of the analysis on the theory-in-use: the airworthiness method. To further improve the validity of this research, an additional research approach was chosen: the interview with professionals. This research approach is discussed in the following chapter.


Availability mechanism PBC



Time Bound


Improve

Common objective Measuring & control

Communication Penalty & consultation

Level playing field

76

5 The qualitative research The aim of the current research is to identify a method to achieve availability as performance outcome of the MRO&U triad collaboration. In the current research the strategy of the multi method research is chosen. The combination of types of data is believed to lead to an increased understanding of the research phenomenon and contribute to the overall research quality (Reunis, 2007). The multi method research comprises of a combination of literature study and the application of a theory-in-use and conducting a qualitative research. In this chapter the qualitative research is discussed.

5.1 The aim of the interviews with professionals

The literature study on MRO&U collaboration and the application of the theory-in-use resulted in the availability conceptual framework (see fig. 32), in which the three factors of influence are depicted; - Factor of influence 1: The performance requirements applicable on the performance

objective availability; - Factor of influence 2: The collaboration mechanism and its function; - Factor of influence 3: The critical success factors.

The aim of the qualitative research is to test the findings from the literature study and the application of the theory-in-use by validating the applicability of the three factors of influence. An additional aim of the qualitative research is to get an indication of the weight of the factors of influence and their relation. The means used are interviews with MRO&U professionals. The field of research for the interviews is the MRO&U triad. The subjects of the interviews are the three partners of the MRO&U triad: the OEM, the maintainer and the operator of civil aircraft. The interview results give more insight in the interdependency of the factors of influence, and in the weight of the different factors of influence. This insight in the interdependency of the factors of influence and their weight contributed to the further development of the availability conceptual framework into an availability conceptual model.

5.2 Methodology of the qualitative research

The focus of this research is an in-depth comprehension of the phenomenon of MRO&U triad collaboration and its context: the aerospace industry (based on Eisenhardt, 1989). A qualitative research strategy provides an opportunity to verify a number of variables and contextual conditions where there is, as in the current research, a deficiency of related theories (Hussey and Hussey, 1997). There are two types of qualitative research: single case study and multiple case studies. The multiple case study enables to gain a replication of results from a number of cases and then to confirm the theoretical framework as derived from the literature study (Yin, 1994), and the application of the theory-in-use. Moreover, the evidence from multiple cases is more compelling for theory building and accordingly the study is considered as being more robust (Herriot and

77

Firestone, 1983). The multiple case study strategy has been chosen because it allows for analyzing and contributing rich data to the existing knowledge using perspectives from different contexts (Dul and Hak, 2008; Eisenhardt 1989; Yin, 2003). Using several cases, several respondents, and various data gathering techniques at the same time increases the reliability of research results. In the current research we combine document analysis with interviews with various respondents from various firms. The qualitative study of the current research consists of thirteen case studies and a Cross-case analysis (Cosley and Lury, 1987). Interviews are conducted with eight different respondents from seven different firms. To control the quality of the data, three interviews are held with respondents from inter-dependent firms and one interview with two different respondents from one firm. The results of these interviews are combined and compared. The interview questions are kept the same for each of the respondents. There were three groups of respondents: OEM, maintainer and operator.

5.3 Interview design

The interview questions, the respondents and the applicable collaboration agreements are discussed in more detail.

5.3.1 The interview questions

The interview questions are developed with the aim to validate the applicability of the three factors of influence, as well as their effect on the achievement of the performance objective availability. The questions are related to existing agreements between MRO&U partners. To improve the validity of the interviews, where possible interviews about existing agreements are held with at least two out of three different partners in an agreement. Furthermore the questions are the same, but specified per group: there is one questionnaire for the OEM’s, one for the maintainers and one for the operators. The questionnaires start with identifying the collaboration agreements, the type of aircraft involved, and the OEM, maintainer and operator involved. Next, questions are asked about the definition of availability and the contribution of the firm of the respondent on the realization of availability. The following set of questions is dedicated to address factor of influence 1 (see paragraph 5.1): the performance requirements applicable on the performance objective availability. Hereto questions are asked to identify which performance requirements are applicable on the performance objective availability, and if and how these requirements affect availability. This is discussed in paragraph 5.8. The next set of questions is dedicated to assess factor of influence 2 (see paragraph 5.1): the collaboration mechanism and its functions. Hereto a question is dedicated to identify what type of contract is in place as basis for the collaboration. Furthermore a question is dedicated to the identification of the functions of the collaboration mechanism. This is discussed in paragraph 5.9.

78

The third set of questions is developed to assess the factor of influence 3 (see paragraph 5.1): the critical success factors. Questions are dedicated to identify which critical success factors are applicable, and how these success factors affect the performance objective availability. This is discussed in paragraph 5.10. The questionnaires for OEM, maintainer and operator are added as Annex A.

5.3.2 The respondents

All respondents are professionals in performing MRO&U or MRO&U contracting. Two respondents are employed by an OEM, two respondents are employed by an operator, and four are employed by a maintainer. One respondent is MRO&U contract manager, one is operational manager, one is sales manager, one is purchase manager, one respondent is maintenance manager, two are general manager, and one respondent is business executive assistant. This is illustrated in table 9.

Function/employer OEM Maintainer Operator

Contract Manager. 1

Operational Manager. 1

Sales Manager. 1

Purchase Manager. 1

General Manager. 2

Maintenance Manager. 1

Business Executive Ass. 1 Table 9. Overview of respondents

5.3.3 The collaboration agreements

Each of the respondents is involved in- or responsible for one or more collaboration agreements. During the interviews up to three collaboration agreements are discussed with one respondent. Some interviews are related to the same collaboration agreement, but from different perspectives i.e. different partners in the MRO&U triad. The total number of collaboration agreements discussed is thirteen (13). Of these thirteen collaboration agreements, six (6) are Performance Based Collaboration agreements (PBC), while the other seven (7) collaboration agreements are traditional collaboration agreements. Of one collaboration agreement respondents of all three triad partners are interviewed, while for two collaboration agreements respondents from two out of three triad partners are interviewed. Interviewing more than one triad partner for a certain collaboration agreement gives more insight in the consistency of the collaboration agreement conditions as interpreted by the different partners. Furthermore it provides insight in possible differences in perceptions between the MRO&U triad partners with respect to performances achieved and the quality of the collaboration. The relation between the interviewees and the collaboration agreements is given in table 10. The names of the collaboration agreements and firms involved is left out of the table on request of

79

the interviewees (Names and functions are known to and verified by the promoter of the thesis).

Interviewee

collaboration agreement

OEM1

OEM2

Oper.1

Oper.2

Maint.1

Maint.2

Maint.3

Maint.4

PBC 1 x x x x PBC 2 x x PBC 3 x PBC 4 x PBC 5 x PBC 6 x

Trad. 1 x Trad. 2 x x Trad. 3 x Trad. 4 x Trad. 5 x Trad. 6 x Trad. 7 x

Table. 10. Relation between respondents and collaboration agreements

Noteworthy is that of the eight respondents, seven have answered questions related to more than one collaboration agreement. Furthermore it is noticed that seven out of eight respondents answered questions about PBC’s and also seven out of eight respondents answered questions about traditional collaboration agreements. In total eight-teen datasets are collected of which ten are related to PBC’s and eight to traditional collaboration agreements (see table 10).

5.4 The quality of the qualitative research

The qualitative research is used to validate the findings from literature research and the application of the theory-in-use, in order to finalize the availability conceptual framework. The outcomes of the qualitative research lead to adjustments of the theoretically developed availability conceptual framework (see fig. 32). As such, the qualitative research has an effect on the outcome of the current research. The quality of the qualitative research is assessed using the interview quality criteria (Beverland and Lindgreen, 2010). The interview quality criteria are reviewed by assessing the number of interviews held, the selection of the respondents and the quality of the interview answers.

5.4.1 The number of interviews

Qualitative research has increased in popularity in the last two decades and is becoming widely accepted across most disciplines (Huberman & Miles, 2002). The data for qualitative research is collected through interviews and by analyzing written material, with interviews being the most common data collection method (Creswell, 1998; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). With the increased interest in qualitative research there were questions regarding methodological issues (Jones & Noble, 2007). In

80

particular, sample size and validity are the most often queried aspects of qualitative research (Thomson, 2011). The “Grounded theory” is a commonly used qualitative method (Creswell, 1998). The key to qualitative research and grounded theory is to generate enough data so that the illuminate patterns, concepts, categories, properties, and dimensions of the given phenomena can emerge (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). In the current research the patterns, concepts, categories, properties and dimensions of the phenomena researched are known from the literature study and the application of the theory-in-use. The qualitative research is used to validate the findings from the literature research and the application of the theory-in-use. It is assessed that it suffices to apply only the coding methodology of the grounded theory to interpret the interview results. In the case of interviews, there is no set number of interviews required (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). One of the aspects that affects the required sample size of the qualitative research is that the sample size depends on the research question (Morse, 2000; Sobal, 2001). A broader research scope will require far more data and thus require more data collection. In the current research the scope for the interviews is limited to validation of the findings from the literature study and the application of the theory-in-use as reflected in the availability conceptual framework, which is a narrow scope.

Another aspect which affects the sample size is the ability, experience or knowledge of the researcher (Morse, 2000). Researchers with more experience will require fewer participants as they can guide and encourage a participant to reveal data (Morse, 2000; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). The researcher of the current research has more than 30 years of experience in the field of research and is knowledgeable with respect to the research topic. Furthermore the quality of data can affect the sample size. The theoretical sampling procedure dictates that the researcher chooses participants who have experienced or are experiencing the phenomenon under study. To do so, the researcher has chosen professionals in aircraft MRO&U collaboration which are able to provide the best data (Corbin & Strauss, 1998; Glaser & Strauss, 1967). The interviewees selected are all qualified as professionals in the field of the current research. Finally the availability of respondents is an aspect which affects the sample size. The availability of the interviewees for this research proved to be very limited, while they were geographically wide spread. The latter aspect restricted the number of interviews to eight. This is further discussed in chapter 6. However because of the specific scope of the interviews, the experience and knowledge of the interviewer and by selecting professionals to be interviewed, the sample size is assessed to be sufficient to provide an indication of the applicability of the factors of influence of the availability conceptual framework.

81

5.4.2 The number of cases A total of thirteen (13) different cases are analyzed, three of them from more than one different perspective, which leads to a sample of eight-teen (18) datasets. Of the eight-teen datasets collected, eleven are based on a single interview with a single respondent (see table 10). A single source interview carries the risk of bias. However, four of these interviews are related to PBC’s and six to traditional contracts. By comparing the results of the interviews for both contract types, a validation of the results is performed. The value of the interviews is further increased by interviewing more than one stakeholder for three of the collaboration agreements. By interviewing two, or all three triad partners about a joint collaboration agreement provides insight in the differences in perception and experience with respect to the contract involved. Furthermore the text of the applicable agreements is studied to validate the interview results. Based on the redundancy included in the set-up of the qualitative research approach, eight-teen datasets are assessed to be sufficient to contribute to the confirmation of the validity of the availability conceptual framework.

5.5 The execution of the interview

The preparation of the interviews started in February of 2013 with approaching the aircraft industry and formulating the interview questions. Due to the financial crisis, limited research funds and limited availability of valid interviewees it took until July 2013 before the first interview could take place. The last interview was held in October 2013. The interviews are conducted in Dutch or in English. One interview was held using a teleconference system. The interviews lasted from 60 to 120 minutes. The interviews are transcribed and send to the interviewees for validation. The interview transcripts are coded and categorized. Furthermore documentation about the KPI’s used in the collaboration agreements is used, as well as internet information about the performance of the companies involved, which completed the data collection (Yin, 2003).

5.6 Data analysis

For data collection purposes the methodology of the grounded theory of coding is used on the transcripts of the interviews. The activity of coding is the first step in data analysis (Miles and Huberman, 1994). A code in qualitative research is most often a word or short phrase that symbolically assigns a summative, salient, essence-capturing, and/or evocative attribute for a portion of language-based data (Saldaña, 2009). Developing the codes belongs to the First Cycle of coding. Saldaña, 2009 identifies five types of codes;

- Descriptive codes (describe the topic of the coded segment). Descriptive codes

usually require no interpretation; - Structural codes (are content-inferred, or conceptual codes). The codes can be

phrases that relate the coded data segment to a specific interview question. The structural codes form in this research the basis for categorization (Saldaña, 2009):

- In-vivo codes (code ‘Quotations’);

82

- Process codes (describe an observable human activity). No human observation has taken place, so these codes are not used in this research;

- Property codes (are general or specific properties of categories). The codes denote the location of a property along a continuum (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). The property codes can be attached to, or combined with any other code in order to make the meaning of the first code deeper.

In the current qualitative research the descriptive codes are used to identify the topic for each text segment. The structural codes are applied to define the Central categories in the second cycle of coding (see paragraph 5.6.4). The Central Categories correspond with the factors of influence from the availability conceptual framework (see paragraph 5.1). In-vivo codes (quotes) are used to illustrate and underpin findings from the assessment of the descriptive codes. The quotes are also used to validate the factors of influence. The property codes are used to group the descriptive codes into Core categories (see paragraph 5.6.4).

5.6.1 The validation criteria The qualitative research approach with interviews provides different sources of information which are used to evaluate the three factors of influence (see paragraph 5.1). The following sets of information stemming from the interview transcripts are determined;

- Answers on closed questions; - The number of descriptive codes assigned to a factors of influence. The more

descriptive codes that are assigned to a factor of influence the more attention that factor received from the respondents;

- The frequency with which descriptive codes occur in the interview transcripts. The higher the frequency of occurrence of a descriptive code, the more often a descriptive code was mentioned by the respondents;

- The quotes from the respondents. The quotes contain information about descriptive codes or factors of influence as experienced by the respondents.

To assess whether a factor of influence is validated by the qualitative research, these sets of information are used to define validation criteria. The information is also used to gain an indication of the weight of the factors of influence and their relation. The following validation criteria are defined;

- Criterion 1: Confirmative answers on a closed question. If a respondent

answers yes on a close question, it is assumed that the respondent confirms the applicability of the subject of that question;

- Criterion 2: The relative number of descriptive codes assigned to a factor of influence. The higher the number of descriptive codes assigned to a factor of influence the higher the relative weight of that factor of influence is assumed to be;

- Criterion 3: The relative frequency of occurrence of descriptive codes for a factor of influence. The higher the frequency of occurrence assigned to a

83

factor of influence, the higher the relative weight of that factor of influence is assumed to be;

- Criterion 4: Confirmative quotes from respondents. A quote in which a respondent confirms the applicability of a factor of influence is assumed to be a validation of the applicability of that factor of influence.

To assess whether a factor of influence is validated by the respondents, the criteria 1, 2, 3 and 4 are applied. If the factor of influence complies with one or more of these criteria, it is interpreted as an indication for the validity of that factor of influence.

To gain an indication of the weight of the factors of influence the criteria 2, 3 and 4 are applied. The number of descriptive codes assigned to a factor of influence (criterion 2) and the frequency of occurrence of descriptive codes assigned to the factor of influence (criterion 3) are interpreted as a measure for the weight of the factor of influence. The quotes of the respondents (criterion 4) are assessed to identify which factors of influence are emphasized and directly validated by the respondents. The indication of the weight of a factor of influence is established by applying the combination of these three criteria. This approach mitigates the effect of one respondent using a descriptive code numerous times.

To gain an indication of the relation between the factors of influence the criterion 2 is applied. If codes cannot be clearly assigned to one factor of influence or if the same codes are related to different factors of influence, this is interpreted as an indication of a relation between these factors of influence. Another source is the quotes from the respondents, validation criterion 4. The quotes are analyzed to identify relations between the factors of influence indicated by the respondents.

The validation of the factors of influence, as well as the determination of their relative weight and relation is discussed in paragraphs 5.8, 5.9 and 5.10.

Thirteen cases are studied in the current qualitative research. Of these cases the collaboration between MRO&U partners is in seven cases based on a traditional collaboration agreement and in six cases on a PBC (see table 10). From the literature study and the application of the theory-in-use it is concluded that to achieve availability by collaboration in the MRO&U triad, a PBC is the best suited collaboration mechanism. As a consequence it is expected that there is a difference between the traditional contract and the PBC with respect to the inherent capability to support the MRO&U triad collaboration. To determine if such a difference is present and to quantify the difference, a distinction is made in the coding and analysis between PBC’s and traditional contracts.

5.6.2 Coding of the interview transcripts

The coding consists of two cycles of coding: the First Cycle and the Second Cycle of coding (Saldaña, 2009 and Friese, 2011). The cycles of coding applied in the current research are discussed in more detail.

84

5.6.3 The first cycle of coding

The first cycle of coding is to identify the descriptive codes. Hereto the interview transcripts are analyzed to determine the descriptive codes. Since some interviews are held in Dutch and others in English, descriptive codes in both languages are identified. To assign all the codes in a uniform way, the Dutch codes are translated into English. The translation is given in Annex B. The descriptive codes in the English language are summed in Annex C. In total one-hundred-eleven (111) descriptive codes are identified. In Annex C also the frequency with which these descriptive codes occurred in the interviews is given. It is noted that the frequency of the occurrence of the descriptive codes varies, from one (1) occurrence for a descriptive code like “cancellations” to seventy-eight (78) occurrences for the descriptive code “performance”. If the frequency of a descriptive code is one (1), it means that one respondent used the descriptive code once in the interviews. While a frequency of seventy-eight (78) means that the descriptive code was mentioned seventy-eight times by different interviewees with respect to different collaboration agreements. This difference in frequency between descriptive codes is in the current research interpreted as an indication of the relative weight of that descriptive code: the higher the frequency of occurrence, the higher the weight of the descriptive code.

If a descriptive code is used in an interview question, it can be expected that the respondents are biased with respect to that specific descriptive code, which could affect the frequency of occurrence of that descriptive code. To assess the effect of the usage of descriptive codes in the interview question, a sample is taken. The frequency of occurrence of the key descriptive codes used in the interview questions: “availability” (frequency 48) and “collaboration” (frequency 34), are compared with the frequencies of descriptive codes not used in the interview questions: “turnaround time” (frequency 60) and KPI (frequency 54). This assessment is interpreted as an indication that although the respondents may be biased by the use of descriptive codes in the interview questions, the effect on the frequency of occurrence of those descriptive codes is limited and is not further taken into account in the current research. Availability is defined to be the performance objective in the current research. In the interview questions and the answers, the word “availability” is used as well (frequency 168, see Annex D). For the current research availability is assigned to be a descriptive code on its own and is separated from the other descriptive codes. To achieve the performance objective availability is interpreted as a measure of success for the collaboration in the MRO&U triad. As such the descriptive code (aircraft) availability is a representation of success of the MRO&U triad collaboration. The frequency of occurrence of the descriptive code availability is in the current research interpreted as an indication to what extent the respondents are aware of the performance objective availability as measure for success of the MRO&U collaboration.

85

5.6.4 The second cycle of coding

The Second cycle of coding is about identifying the coding categories. For the coding of the interview transcript the method of axial coding is used (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). This method of coding involves clustering of the codes into groups, based on the structural codes identified (Saldaña, 2009). The approach chosen is to group the descriptive codes into categories that are contained in a structural code that is related to the research questions (Saldaña, 2009). The first research question to which the descriptive codes are assigned is:

“Which are the requirements applicable on the performance objective availability? (RQ2)”

The structural code “performance requirements applicable on the performance objective availability” is selected to be a Central Category. From the literature study and the application of the theory-in-use it is found that the performance requirements applicable on availability are Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time bound (SMART). To assign the descriptive codes, the descriptive codes are linked to these performance requirements, which are identified to be property codes (Saldaña, 2009). Each of these performance requirements is selected to be a Core Category, so five Core Categories: Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time bound, for the Central Category “performance requirements applicable on the performance objective availability” are selected, see fig. 33.

Central Category

Core Categories

Fig. 33. The categories of the requirements applicable on availability.

The assignment of the descriptive codes to the Core Categories: Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time bound is depicted in Annex D. The assignment of the descriptive codes to the Core Categories “specific” and “measurable” proved to be challenging. A code suited to describe an output in a specific way, proved also suited to be measured. The distinction between “specific” and “measurable” was sometimes difficult to make, and arbitrary choices are made. This is illustrated by a quote (criterion 4) from Maintainer3 about PBC2 (see table 10):

“The OEM management system is used as a measuring instrument and the KPI’s are used as benchmark” (M3, PBC2).

It is noteworthy that fifty (50) descriptive codes are applicable on the Core Categories “specific” and “measurable” (validation criterion 2). The frequencies of the occurrence of these codes is three-hundred-eighty-two (382) which proved to be higher than that of the other codes (validation criterion 3). This is interpreted as an

Performance requirements applicable on the performance objective availability


86

indication that the Core Categories “specific” and “measurable” are important performance requirements applicable on the performance objective availability. The number of descriptive codes on the Core categories “specific” and “measurable” which occurred only once or twice in the interview transcripts are interpreted as an indication that different means of measuring and defining the performance objective availability are in use. For defining the time dependency of the performance objective however, all respondents used the same terms: “time” and “turnaround time”. The frequencies of the descriptive codes “performance” (91) and “KPI” (54) are noteworthy. These frequencies are regarded as an indication that these descriptive codes are meaningful for the respondents.

The second research question is about a suitable availability mechanism:

“Which collaboration mechanisms are suited to achieve availability in the MRO&U triad collaboration, and which are its functions? (RQ3)”

From the literature study and the application of the theory-in-use it is concluded that the Performance Based Contract (PBC) is most suited to act as the availability mechanism to facilitate the inter-firm collaboration in the MRO&U triad. Down-stream Vertical Integration is identified as a suited mechanism for intra-firm collaboration, or, if combined with a PBC, possibly for inter-firm collaboration. In that respect it is relevant to notice that OEM2 is down-stream Vertically Integrated with respect to PBC2 (www.nag.aero: NAG News for members 6-10-2011), while operator2 is up-stream Vertically Integrated with respect to traditional contract2, see table 10 (the reference site is not mentioned due to non-disclosure considerations). During the interviews held with the professionals, traditional contracts as well as PBC’s are discussed. The difference in appreciation of the respondents with respect to traditional contracts and PBC’s is assessed. To investigate this aspect, the descriptive codes as identified in annex C are linked to the answers with respect to PBC’s and the answers on the same question, but then related to traditional contracts. In Annex G the division of the codes between PBC’s and traditional contracts is given. For PBC’s one-hundred-two (102) out of the one-hundred-eleven (111) different descriptive codes are assigned, while to traditional contracts seventy-two (72) out of one-hundred-eleven (111) descriptive codes are assigned (validation criterion 2). The difference of number of assigned descriptive codes is assessed to be caused by the finding from the literature study that PBC’s address inherently more factors of influence, than traditional contracts do. As part of the qualitative research strategy, a numerical approach is applied on the frequency of occurrence (validation criterion 3) of the descriptive codes (in analogy with Flick, 2014). The frequency of occurrence of descriptive codes is different: seven-hundred-seven (767) occurrences for PBC’s versus three-hundred-fourteen (314) occurrences for traditional contracts. The largest relative differences are found for descriptive codes like “aircraft availability” with twenty-nine (29) occurrences for PBC’s and seven (7) for traditional contracts, “Collaboration” with thirty-one (31) versus three (3) occurrences, “Improvement” with thirty-one (31) versus eight (8),

http://www.nag.aero/

87

“Transparent” with twelve (12) versus one (1) and “Trust” with eighteen (18) versus two (2). The descriptive code “turnaround time” however occurred forty (40) times with respect to traditional contracts and twenty (20) times with respect to PBC’s. Differences in frequency of occurrence of descriptive codes like “collaboration” and “aircraft availability” are directly related to the aim of this research: “how to achieve aircraft availability by collaboration in the MRO&U triad”. The differences found between the descriptive codes and their frequency are analyzed in depth. The differences between traditional contracts and PBC’s is discussed in more detail in the following paragraphs.

The mechanism to achieve availability in the MRO&U triad is referred to as the availability mechanism. The factor of influence “Functions of the availability mechanism” is identified as structural code and is selected to be a Central Category in the code assigning process. From the availability conceptual framework, see fig. 32, it revealed that the functions of the availability mechanism are: establish, consolidate and improve of the performance objective: availability. Each of these functions is assessed to be a property code and selected to be a Core Category in the code assignment process, see fig. 34.

Central Category

Core Categories

Fig. 34. The categories of the functions of the availability mechanism

The assignment of the descriptive codes to the Central Category “functions of the availability mechanism” by the assignment of the descriptive codes to the Core Categories: establish, consolidate and improve, is given in Annex E. In this Annex the frequencies of the occurrence of the descriptive codes is given as well. The descriptive codes “improvement”, “improve” and “engineering” proved to have the highest frequency of occurrence compared to the other descriptive codes in this Central category. All three descriptive codes are assigned to the Core Category “to improve”. The frequency of occurrence of these descriptive codes is regarded as an indication that the Core category “to improve” represents the most important function of the availability mechanism (validation criterion 3).

The third and last research question to which descriptive codes are assigned is: “Which are the critical success factors applicable on the availability mechanism?” (RQ4) From the literature study and the application of the theory-in-use it is found that the critical success factors of the availability mechanism are;

Functions of the availability mechanism

Establish Consolidate Improve

88

- Shared interest to realize the performance objective i.e. a common objective;

- Communication; - Measuring and control; - Penalty and consultation; - Level playing field.

Each of these critical success factors is identified to be a property code and is selected to form a Core Category. This is reflected in fig. 35.

Central Category

Core Categories

Fig. 35. The Categories of the critical success factors

The assignment of the descriptive codes to these Core categories and the frequency of occurrence of the descriptive codes is depicted in Annex F. The descriptive code “consultation” is assigned to the Core Category “communication” and not to the Core Category “penalty & consultation”. This assignment of “consultation” is based on the analysis of the context in which the code is used. The code is uniquely used to describe the communication between the triad partners, rather than to refer to the penalty system. This is discussed in more detail in paragraph 5.10.

5.7 The descriptive code “availability”

The descriptive code “availability” is separated from the Central categories, due to the fact that availability is the performance objective central in this research and. Furthermore the level of availability achieved as outcome of the MRO&U triad collaboration is a measure for the success of that collaboration. The interview questions 1 and 2 are dedicated to define the requirements of availability (see Annex A). In table 11 the descriptive codes for “availability” and their frequency of occurrence are rendered both for PBC’s and traditional contracts.

Descriptive code Total frequency PBC frequency Trad. Frequency

Airc. Availability 36 29 7

Availabilty 48 36 12

Total 84 65 19 Table 11. The comparison for the codes and frequencies with respect to the descriptive code “availability”

The frequencies of occurrence of “Availability” and “aircraft availability” are: sixty-five (65) occurrences for PBC’s and nineteen (19) occurrences for traditional contracts. These figures comply with validation criteria 2 and 3 (see paragraph 5.6.1), and it is concluded that availability and aircraft availability play a role in defining the performance objective.

Critical Success Factors

Common

objective

Communica-

tion

Measuring

& Control

Penalty &

consultation

Level

Playing Field

89

The frequency of occurrences is higher for PBC’s, which is, based on validation criterion 3, an indication that the weight of this descriptive code is higher for PBC’s, which is interpreted such that in a PBC more focus is given to this performance objective: (aircraft) availability. The literature study indicated that this focus in PBC’s on achieving the performance objective availability results in better availability levels, i.e. that a PBC is more successful than a traditional contract. This is underpinned by a quote from maintainer4 about PBC1 (criterion 4):

“Under this PBC1 the aircraft availability has significantly improved compared with previous traditional contracts on the same aircraft” (M4, PBC1).

This finding is in line with the assessment from the literature study and is supported by another quote from operator2 with respect to a traditional contract2 where the achievement of availability is not the focus:

“Not aircraft availability is the most important parameter, but the right number of aircraft on the right location at the right time” (O2, TC2).

From the assessment of the descriptive code (aircraft) availability it is concluded that the descriptive code complies with validation criteria 2, 3 and 4 and as such it is validated to be a performance objective and performance outcome of the MRO&U triad collaboration.

5.8 The Central Category “requirements applicable on the performance objective availability”

The Central Category “requirements applicable on the performance objective availability” is divided into five (5) Core Categories: specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time bound. For each of the Core Categories the related descriptive codes are identified. To determine whether there is a difference between traditional contracts and PBC’s, the descriptive codes are assigned to both contract types separately. The in-vivo codes are used to complement or underpin the findings from the analysis of the descriptive codes. A third source of information is the analysis of the direct answers (yes or no) of the respondents on the interview questions (validation criterion 1). Next a comparison is made between the assigned descriptive codes (validation criterion 2), their frequency of occurrence (validation criterion 3), the direct answers on the interview questions (validation criterion 1) and the quotes made by the respondents (validation criterion 4) to identify differences between PBC’s and traditional contract and to analyze the reason for these differences. The analysis is used to contribute to the deeper understanding of the factors of influence of the availability conceptual framework, and to assess their validity.

5.8.1 The Core Category “specific”

In table 12 the assignment of the descriptive codes and their frequency of occurrence of the Core Category “specific” are given for PBC’s and traditional contracts. The interview questions 4 and 5 (see Annex A) are dedicated to address the performance requirement “specific”.

90

Table 12. Comparison of the codes and the frequencies of the Core Category “specific”

The total numbers of frequency of occurrence (validation criterion 3) in table 12 is interpreted such that compared to traditional contracts (77 occurrences), more attention is given in PBC’s (208 occurrences) to define the performance objective in specific terms. This finding is in line with theory (van Rhee et. al., 2008). In table 12 the descriptive codes “KPI’s”, “performance” and “reliability” have the three highest frequencies of occurrence in the interview answers for both contract types. This is interpreted as an indication that both contract types are focused on realizing KPI’s, reliability and performance. However, the frequency of occurrence of these codes is


A0 and D0 5 5 0

Airworthy 6 2 4

AOG 7 7 0

Cancellations 1 0 1

Deferred malf. 3 1 2

Down time 1 1 0

Extensions 1 0 1

FAA requirem. 1 1 0

Fail on fit 1 1 0

First time yield 2 2 0

Fit to fly 2 2 0

Fix time 1 1 0

Flight Worthy 1 1 0

KPI 54 41 13

Line maint. 4 4 0

Maintainability 4 3 1

Mission capable 7 6 1

MEL 3 3 0

No failures found 1 1 0

Nr replaced parts 1 1 0

Performance 78 54 24

Perf. Requirem. 14 11 3

Prev. maint. 4 4 0

Punctuality 3 3 0

Reliability 30 24 6

Repair time 1 0 1

Service 17 14 3

Suitable for ops 1 1 0

Supply 13 1 12

Supportability 4 3 1

TDR 9 8 1

UGT 4 2 2

Work seq. cards 1 0 1

Total 285 208 77

91

higher for PBC’s (119 occurrences) than it is for the traditional contracts (43 occurrences). This leads, based on validation criterion 3, to the conclusion that PBC’s are, compared to traditional contracts, more focused on the realization of these performance objectives. This is in line with theory that a PBC is characterized by the fact that the contractor aims to comply with performance objectives, because he is paid for the performance delivered (Valk, v/d, 2010). The KPI’s are a method to define performance objectives in specific and measurable terms. As such KPI’s are related to PBC’s. To confirm this, a second source is studied to identify applicable KPI’s of PBC contracts. This second source of information is the PBC1 contract text. The KPI’s from PBC1 are displayed in Annex J. These KPI’s are overlapping the KPI’s identified in the interviews transcripts with respect to PBC’s as depicted in table 12. The importance of KPI’s as performance indicator for PBC’s is further underpinned by the following quote:

“For this contract KPI management is executed, aimed at the realization of the KPI’s, even if that leads to inefficiencies” (M3, PBC1).

Remarkable is that the frequency of occurrence (validation criterion 3) of the descriptive code “supply” is higher in traditional contracts compared with PBC’s, which is an indication that this aspect applies more on traditional contracts. An explanation for this difference is that, contrary to PBC’s, in traditional contracts supplying parts is often a contract condition. Supplying parts is in a PBC an inherent aspect of the performance realization. A difference in kind and number of assigned descriptive codes (criterion 2) is noted between PBC’s (29 codes) and traditional contracts (17 codes). An explanation could be that different forms of PBC’s are used in practice. This is supported by the following quote (validation criterion 4):

“In this performance contract a service performance level is defined. The service level varies per customer and reaches from supplying parts to realize aircraft availability and providing 100% aircraft mechanical reliability” (OEM2, PBC2).

It is noteworthy that the frequency of occurrence of the code “reliability” is relative high for PBC’s. This is in line with findings from van der Valk (2010), who identified the typical performance indicators for PBC’s to be “reliability” and “availability”. As concluded previously in the current research, availability is defined as the sum of its constituent parts: reliability, maintainability and supportability (Smets, 2008, and Rijsdijk, 2012). This finding is confirmed by the fact that the codes reliability, maintainability and supportability are assigned to the Core category “specific”, see table 12. This is further supported by the following comment:

“Reliability, maintainability and supportability are the most relevant characteristics for availability. In practice the OEM searches for weight savings during the design of the aircraft, which often results in concessions with respect to maintainability, reliability and supportability” (O1, PBC1).

92

The total frequency of occurrences of the Core Category “specific” is higher than the total of the occurrences of descriptive codes in each of the other Core Categories. The Total frequency of occurrences (validation criterion 3) is 285 out of 683 as sum of the frequency of occurrences of all Core Categories. Based on the validation criterion 3 it is concluded that the Core Category “specific” has the highest weight of all Core categories. In summary: from the qualitative research on the Core category “specific” it revealed that “specific” complies with the validation criteria 2, 3 and 4 and is validated as the most important performance requirement applicable on the performance objective availability.

5.8.2 The Core Category “measurable”

In table 13 the assignment and frequencies of occurrence of the descriptive codes of the Core Category “measurable” are displayed for PBC’s and for traditional contracts. The interview question 7 (see Annex A) is developed to assess the requirement “measurable”.


Budget 5 0 5

Cost 15 10 5

Costing 1 1 0

Logistic backup 6 5 1

MBTH 1 0 1

Metrics 6 3 3

Milestones 2 0 2

MTBF 2 2 0

MTBUR 2 1 1

Pass. Satisfaction 1 1 0

Perform. Level 2 2 0

Perform. Metric 1 1 0

Turnaround 5 3 2

Usage numbers 2 2 0

Total 62 36 26 Table 13. The assigned codes and their frequency for PBC’s and traditional contracts for the Core category

“measurable”

The differences between the total frequencies of occurrence (validation criterion 3) of both contract types are limited (36 versus 26, see table 13). An explanation could be that both contract types used measurements to assess the realization of the contract conditions, however with different goals. This is confirmed by the following quotes (criterion 4):

“In the contract, performance requirements are incorporated like: mechanical reliability of the aircraft, reliability performance parameters for parts and systems

93

based on Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) and Mean Time Between Unscheduled Removals (MTBUR) requirements. These performance requirements are part of the warranty given by the OEM” (OEM2, TC3).

“The contract is based on the realization of performance requirements. However the level of performance varies per customer and depends on the relationship with the customer. In this performance program a kind of evolution can be noticed. The first step is that the OEM provides spare parts to a customer under the contract. Then if the collaboration works out well, trust develops between the OEM and the customer, and a relationship is build. Based on that relationship more service activities will be outsourced to the OEM which may in the end lead to a performance based contract where the OEM is responsible for the availability of the aircraft of that customer” (OEM2, PBC2).

“The traditional contract2 contains 9 KPI’s (operational and financial), an important KPI is ‘cost per flight hour’. Other KPI’s are the time of delivery and the UGT. However it is not a performance contract with respect to availability” (O2, TC2).

The frequency of occurrence of the descriptive code “cost” is higher for PBC’s, than for traditional contracts. From the literature study it revealed however that cost is the main driver for traditional contracts, and that cost is a constraint for performance contracts, but not the main driver (van Rhee et. al., 2008). An explanation could be that cost is in both contract types a factor of influence, but with different emphasis. This interpretation is supported by the frequency of occurrence (validation criterion 3) of the descriptive code “budget” in table 13: five (5) for traditional contracts and zero (0) for PBC’s. The following quote (criterion 4) further supports this interpretation:

“The interest of the customer is to operate the aircraft to the maximum extent to maximize its turn-over, so to minimize maintenance and service downtime and to avoid unscheduled maintenance. The interest of the OEM is that the OEM is paid per flight hour (in this availability contract), that the availability contract targets are met (no penalty) and that the maintenance and service activities are minimized (less costs), and that the reliability of spare parts is maximized (higher MTBF and MTBUR, so lower maintenance costs)” (OEM2, PBC2).

As noted before the assignment of codes to the Core Categories “specific” and “measurable” is challenging because it is found that a code that is specific turned out to be measurable as well. From the interview transcripts it appeared that the interviewees could not clearly distinguish between “specific” and “measurable”. This is confirmed by the quote (criterion 4):

“The KPI’s are used as measuring points and are weekly analyzed and discussed. The management of the maintainer is weekly briefed about the performance realized, and weekly a performance meeting with the operator is held” (M4, PBC1).

94

Based on this finding it is concluded that the Core Categories “specific” and “measurable” are intertwined. For the current research the Core Categories “specific”, and “measurable” are regarded as one Core Category “specific and measurable”.

5.8.3 The Core Category “achievable”

In table 14 the assigned codes and frequencies of occurrence are given for the Core Category “achievable”. Achievable in this context refers to the ability of the contractors to achieve the performance objective. The interview question 8 (see Annex A) is dedicated to assess the Core category “achieve”.


Analysis 15 12 3

Planning cards 1 0 1

Proactive 5 5 0

Third party 11 7 4

Total 32 24 8 Table 14. The codes and frequencies for the Core Category Achievable

From the table 14 and the application of validation criteria 2 and 3 (see paragraph 5.6.1), an indication is derived that for PBC’s making an analysis and acting proactive are relevant activities to assure that the performance is achieved. This is in line with theory, were it is found that in a PBC the achievement of the performance is a precondition to get rewarded (Suwondo, 2007). Furthermore the prescriptive codes “analysis” and “proactive” are interpreted as expressions of activities related to controlling a process. The frequencies of occurrence of these two codes is for PBC’s higher (12 resp. 5 in table 14) than for traditional contracts (3 resp. 0 in table 14). Based on the compliance with validation criterion 3 it is concluded that with a PBC more emphasis is given to analyze and proactively plan the process to achieve the performance objective than with a traditional contract. This conclusion is supported by the answers on interview question 8 (validation criterion 1): “Can you control the achievement of the performance?” For the respondents answering questions on PBC’s 7 answered “yes”, while for the traditional contracts only 3 respondents answered “yes”, and 4 answered “no” or “partial”. This finding is underlined with the following quote (validation criterion 4):

“The maintainer can achieve the performance requirements, however no formal relationship consists with the OEM” (O1, TC3).

Another aspect is the dependency on third parties to achieve the performance objectives. From table 14 it is derived that third parties play a role in achieving the performance objectives (validation criterion 2). This is supported by the answers on interview question 10 (criterion 1): “Do you need a third party to achieve the performance objectives?” (see Annex A): 6 times “yes” and 1 time “no” for PBC’s, and 5 times “yes” for traditional contracts. Another clue came from a quote (validation criterion 4):

95

“The third party would purchase the time due items, however the procurement department of the third party was not capable to achieve this in due time, which resulted in delays and which endangered the turnaround times” (M1, TC4).

And a quote indicating the dependency on third party support as well as the way this OEM deals with that issue:

“For performance requirements with respect to services and maintenance, the OEM depends on third party service and maintenance providers. These providers are selected and certified by the OEM and are incorporated in the OEM network. This mechanism enables the OEM to have control over their performance” (OEM2, PBC2).

In summary it is concluded from the compliance with validation criteria 1, 2, 3 and 4, that the Core category “achievable” is validated as a performance requirement of the performance objective availability. From the compliance with criterion 3 it is concluded that in PBC’s more attention is given to analyze and proactively plan the process of achieving availability, compared to traditional contracts. Furthermore from compliance with validation criteria 1, 2 and 4 it reveals that both contract types, traditional and PBC, have a dependency with respect to third party involvement.

5.8.4 The Core category “relevant”

The descriptive codes assigned to the Core Category “relevant” are presented in table 15. The Core category “relevant” is associated with question 9 from the interview, see Annex A. Relevant refers to the interest of the triad partners and to their ability to realize the performance objective with the means and capabilities at their possession.


Realized 21 15 6

To realize 20 17 3

Total 41 32 9 Table 15. The assignment of codes and the frequencies of the Core Category “relevant”.

The frequencies of occurrences of the descriptive codes is high (criterion 3). An explanation could be that the realization of the performance objectives is a concern of all MRO&U partners. Interview question 9 is dedicated to assess the Core category “relevant”. All respondents answered “yes” on interview question 9 (validation criterion 1): whether the performances could be realized for the PBC’s. However, for traditional contracts 2 out of 7 respondents answered “no, or hardly” on this question. It should be noted that all respondents were aware of the relevance of realizing the performance objective (according to validation criterion 3), however, apparently not all respondents were in the position to achieve this goal (according to criterion 1). The relevance of the ability to realize the performance objective is underlined by the following quote, demonstrating the obstacles for realization (criterion 4):

96

“It is hard to comply with the performance requirements, because of a lack of trained personnel and the high demands of the operator” (M3, TC7).

The following quotes illustrate how the performance objectives are realized by collaboration:

PBC3 “Through good collaboration with the OEM and the maintainer, the realization of the performance objectives is analyzed and measures are discussed to improve the performance. The triad parties are working very well together to achieve this” (O1, PBC3).

PBC1 “Using consultation the parties continuously strive to improve the performance. As a result the contract conditions are regularly adjusted to tighten the performance requirements” (O1, PBC1).

In assigning the descriptive codes to the Core Categories “achievable” and “relevant” a clear division between both descriptive codes was not always easy to make. For the division the answers to the interview questions 8 and 9 are used as guidance, however, the respondents proved to combine both Code categories in practice. This is underlined by the following quote:

“Starting point was that the KPI’s would be achievable and realistic for both parties. The bilateral trust build on previous contracts was essential to develop this contract” (M4, PBC1).

This leads to the conclusion that the Core Categories “achievable” and “relevant” should for the current research be treated as one Core Category “achievable and relevant”. In summary it is concluded from the compliance with validation criteria 1, 2, 3, and 4, that the Core category “relevant” is validated as a performance requirements for the performance objective availability, and that no clear distinction could be made between the Core category “relevant” and the Core category “achievable”, which are combined in the Core category “achievable and relevant”.

5.8.5 The Core Category “Time bound”

The two descriptive codes assigned to the Core Category “Time bound” and their frequencies of occurrence are reflected in table 16. The interview question 11 is dedicated to assess this Core category as well (see Annex A).


Time 18 9 9

Turnaround time 60 20 40

Total 78 29 49 Table 16. The assignment of the codes to the Core Category “Time bound”

97

From table 16 it reveals that only two descriptive codes are assigned to the Core Category “Time bound”. However, the frequency of occurrence, especially of the descriptive code “turnaround time” is high compared with other descriptive codes (validation criterion 3). Remarkable is that, where most descriptive codes proved to have a higher frequency of occurrence in PBC’s, the descriptive code “turnaround time” has a higher frequency of occurrence in traditional contracts. An explanation could be that in traditional contracts the turnaround time of an aircraft in maintenance is often a contract condition, while in PBC’s the turnaround time is an inherent condition of achieving aircraft availability. The turnaround time is in these cases not assigned as a performance objective in the PBC contract. This difference between PBC’s and traditional contracts is also reflected in the total frequency of occurrences (validation criterion 3). This difference is illustrated by the following quote with respect to a traditional contract (validation criterion 4):

“Because this is a head-to-tail program, delays in the program affect the availability of the aircraft in the program, as well as the availability of the aircraft that are waiting to get into the program. Therefor the effect of the turnaround time on aircraft availability is big” (M1, TC4).

And for PBC’s by this quote:

“Especially the KPI ‘TDR’ is time critical” (M3, PBC1)

In summary: it is concluded from the application of validation criteria 2, 3 and 4, that both types of contracts are validated to be time bound. From application of validation criteria 3 and 4, it is concluded that traditional contracts are more sensitive to turnaround times than PBC’s.

5.8.6 Comprehensive conclusions on the Central Category “requirements applicable on the performance objective availability”

The Central Category “requirements applicable on the performance objective availability” as illustrated in fig. 33 consists of the Core Categories: “specific”, “measurable”, “achievable”, “relevant” and “time bound”. The development and assignment of the descriptive codes to each of these Core Categories reveals, that each Core Category is validated to be a performance requirement for the performance objective availability. Based on the assigning of the descriptive codes (validation criterion 2) and the analysis of the quotes from the related interview questions (validation criterion 4) it is concluded that for the current research the Core Categories “specific” and “measurable” should be merged, as well as the Core Categories “achievable” and “relevant”. In practice the respondents have apparently the perception that a performance outcome is only specifically defined if one can measure it, while a performance objective is only relevant if one can achieve it. The difference between “specific” and “measurable” and between “achievable” and “relevant” could therefore not clearly be made.

98

Furthermore it is noted that the Core Category “specific and measurable” is the largest Core Category with respect of the frequency of occurrences of the descriptive codes assigned to this Category (285 out of 683). Based on validation criterion 3, in the current research the Core Category “specific and measurable” was assessed to be important. The findings with respect to the Central Category “requirements applicable on the performance objective availability” are used to validate and complement the requirements applicable on the performance objective availability as derived from the literature study and the application of the theory-in-use and depicted in fig. 24. The revised performance requirements of the performance objective availability are depicted in fig. 36.

Fig. 36. The revised performance requirements of the performance objective availability.

The revised performance requirements of the performance objective availability reflects not only the performance requirements applicable on the performance objective availability, but it provides also insight in the relation between these performance requirements the as well as their weight (expressed by the use of bolt characters). This is regarded as a contribution to the development of the availability conceptual framework into an availability conceptual model.

5.9 The Central Category “functions of the availability mechanism”

The Central Category “functions of the availability mechanism” is divided into three Core Categories: establish, consolidate and improve (see fig. 34). Descriptive codes and the frequency of their occurrence are assigned to each of these Core Categories. The assigned descriptive codes and frequencies of occurrence are differentiated into two groups, the PBC related descriptive codes and frequencies and those related to traditional contracts. Based on the distribution of the descriptive codes (validation criterion 2) and their frequencies (validation criterion 3) over the Core categories and both contract types, complemented with the interview answers on the related interview questions (validation criterion 1), an assessment is made of the relation between the Core categories as well as their relative weight. Each of the Core Categories is discussed in the following paragraphs.

5.9.1 The Core Category “Establish”

This Core category concerns the establishment of the performance objective availability. The interview question 13 (see annex A) is dedicated to identify the


Specific & Measurable Achievable & Relevant

Time Bound



Time bound

99

related descriptive codes. The assignment of the descriptive codes and their frequency of occurrence is depicted in table 17


Adjusted 11 9 2

Investments 4 2 2

Organization 13 9 4

Procured 2 2 0

Right people, means, location

7 6 1

Total 37 28 9 Table 17. The assignment of the codes to the Core Category “establish”

The descriptive codes as identified in table 17 indicate that to establish the capability to achieve a performance objective requires an adjusted organization with the right people, means and location, and in some cases investments. From the literature study it revealed that the initial design availability is a responsibility of the OEM for which the OEM has to invest and to adjust his organization (Smets, 2009, Mulder et al., 2012). However, to establish the capability to accommodate new performance requirements, also the maintainer and the operator apparently have to adjust their organization. This finding is underlined by quotes illustrating the changes organizations have to go through (criterion 4):

“However, the collaboration has still to be improved, because the culture of the maintainer is not yet sufficiently developed to accommodate performance contracts: the information exchange, the transparency and the bilateral trust still have to improve. The organization is working on it, but it takes time to build trust” (O1, PBC3).

“Because of the proactive preventive maintenance system used by the OEM, the technical organization of the operator and the maintainer had to be adjusted to assure that the right people with the right means were available at the right time on the right location, to avoid AOG’s. The number of AOG’s has decreased significantly because of this” (O1, PBC3).

The answers on the interview question 13 (validation criterion 1) showed a difference between PBC’s and traditional contracts: all of the seven respondents who answered this question, confirmed that adjustments are made to the organization to accommodate a PBC. Of the seven interviewees that answered this question with respect to traditional contracts only three confirmed that adjustments to the organization are made, while four did not. This is underpinned by the following quote:

“No adjustments were made” (O1, TC3).

From the confirmative answers on the interview question 13 (validation criterion 1) and from the quotes (validation criterion 4) it is concluded that to establish the capability to achieve the performance objective is validated to be a performance

100

requirement for the achievement of availability in the MRO&U triad. This is in line with findings from the literature study that for PBC’s MRO&U partners had to change their way of working, their processes and their culture (Crispino, Flintsch, and Pozzi, 2008).

5.9.2 The Core Category “Consolidate”

This Core Category is about consolidating the capability to achieve availability in the MRO&U triad. The interview question 14 (see Annex A) is designed to assess consolidation. The assigned descriptive codes and the frequency of their occurrence are rendered in table 18.


Continuity 2 1 1

Continuously 5 2 3

Control 7 4 3

Image 7 4 3

Process 18 8 10

Total 39 19 20 Table 18. The assignment of codes and their frequency for the Core Category “consolidate”

The results in terms of total frequency of occurrence (validation criterion 3) in table 18 deviate from all other tables, because the frequency of occurrences of the descriptive codes is for PBC’s almost identical to that of traditional contracts. In all other tables the frequencies of occurrence between both types of contract differ. An explanation could be that consolidating the capability to comply with the contract requirements is equally important for both kind of contracts. From the results of the interviews it revealed that the total frequency of occurrences of the different descriptive codes is relatively low for this Core category compared with other Core categories (see table 18). This is interpreted such that consolidating the capability to comply with the performance objective is not experienced to be an issue. An explanation could be that to consolidate this capability requires no dedicated action, just the continuation of an existing process. This is confirmed by the following quote (validation criterion 4):

“An on-going engineering/logistic effort takes place to assure that the required performance levels are continuously met” (OEM1, TC1).

From the interview responses it showed that to consolidate the capability to achieve availability is not seen as a separate action and question 14 about the consolidation of the capability is in all cases answered in combination with interview question 13 about the establishment of the capability. This led to the conclusion that the Core Categories “Establish” and the Core Category “Consolidate” should be combined into one Core Category “Establish and consolidate”, see fig. 37.

101

5.9.3 The Core Category “Improve”

The aim of the current research is to identify how availability can be achieved in the MRO&U triad, with the goal to improve availability. The Core Category “Improve”, is related to this goal. Two interview questions, 15 and 16 (see Annex A), are developed to specifically assess the function of the availability mechanism “Improve”. The assigned descriptive codes and their frequency of occurrence in the interview transcripts are represented in table 19.

Table 19. The assignment of the codes and their frequencies for the Core Category “Improve”

The total frequencies of occurrence (validation criterion 3) in Table 19 indicate that the descriptive code improving has a relative high weight: improving is an important function of the availability mechanism. A PBC has a higher frequency of occurrence and is, based on validation criterion 3, more focused on improvements than a traditional contract. This is in line with findings from theory that a collaboration mechanism aimed at achieving a performance objective improves the services delivered (Wynstra, 2012, Neely et al., 2005: Sparrow, 2003). Another confirmation is found in the answers on the interview questions (validation criterion 1). On interview question 15: “Is there an improvement mechanism in place?”, seven out of seven respondents answered “yes” with respect to PBC’s and five out of seven answered “no” with respect to traditional contracts. On interview question 16: “Do you have an incentive to improve?” seven out of seven respondents answered “yes” for PBC’s, and four out of seven answered “no” for traditional contracts. This difference in “improvement power” between PBC’s and traditional contracts is underlined by the following quotes (validation criterion 4):

“Experiences with this type of aircraft has shown that the OEM is inclined to take specific customer requirements into account during the design and the construction of the aircraft. That same OEM however, is not inclined to implement improvements during the exploitation phase of the aircraft. Only after great pressure from a group of operators, the OEM was willing to develop and implement retrofits” (O1, TC3).

The effect of improvements on the aircraft availability in a PBC is illustrated by these quotes, also from operator1:


Engineering 21 15 6

Improve 21 17 4

Improvement 39 31 8

Improvement program

3 3 0

Improvement proposals

5 3 2

Retrofit 6 4 2

Total 95 73 22

102

“The collaboration between the OEM, maintainer and operator is established with the aim to improve aircraft availability. This has led to significantly better availability. Furthermore the performance contract proved to stimulate the continuous improvement of the performance objective: aircraft availability” (O1, PBC3).

“Because of the performance contract with the maintainer for this type of aircraft the punctuality went to 99,6 % till 99,8 % (aircraft available on due time). Under the previous, traditional contract, the punctuality was only 90%” (O1, PBC1).

This finding was further confirmed by OEM1, on the same PBC1:

“In this PBC1, the maintainer has evolved, which has led to a significantly better aircraft availability” (OEM1, PBC1).

Another quote from OEM2 on PBC2 is conclusive with respect to the importance of improvements in a PBC:

“The OEM has a direct interest to improve availability, if that is a performance requirements in the contract. The measures taken by the OEM aim at improving availability. Furthermore due to performance based contracts, improvement of aircraft availability is beneficial to the OEM. This is a stimulus for the OEM to develop innovative ways to improve the aircraft availability by improved reliability, improved maintainability and maintenance methods and procedures, and by improved supportability and service procedures and methods” (OEM2, PBC2).

From table 19 (validation criteria 2 and 3) and the answers to the interview questions 15 and 16 (validation criterion 1) it is concluded that to improve the performance objective is important for all the professionals interviewed. Furthermore it is concluded that PBC’s are better suited to facilitate the improvement of the performance objective: aircraft availability. The quotes (validation criterion 4) confirm this conclusion. This conclusion is in line with findings from the literature study: the PBC is designed to improve the realization of the performance requirements over time (v. Rhee et. al, 2009, Neely et al., 2005: Sparrow, 2003).

5.9.4 Comprehensive conclusions on the Central Category “functions of the availability

mechanism”

For this Central Category the descriptive codes and their frequencies of occurrence are assigned to the underlying Core Categories: establish, consolidate and improve. The analysis of the Core Categories reveals that the Core Category “consolidate” cannot be distinguished from the Core category “establish”. It is concluded that these two Core Categories should be merged into one Core Category “establish and consolidate”. From the compliance with validation criteria 1, 2, 3 and 4 it is concluded that the Core Category “establish and consolidate” is validated as a function applicable on the availability mechanism. Noteworthy is that more investments and adjustments have to be made to accommodate a PBC than to accommodate a traditional contract. Developing a PBC requires apparently more

103

effort from the organization and more adjustments of the way of working. This is in line with findings from the literature study (Lasher and Ives, 1991, McIvor et al., 2003). From the assessment of the Core Category “improve” it reveals that PBC’s are better suited to facilitate improvements than traditional contracts. On the basis of these findings it is concluded that PBC’s are suited as an availability mechanism with the potential to improve the performance. This validates the conclusions from the literature study and the application of the theory-in-use. The findings from the assessment of this Central category are used to adjust and complement the availability mechanism as illustrated in fig. 28. The availability mechanism now represents also the relative weight of- and the relationship- between the functions of the availability mechanism: PBC (see fig. 36). The weight of the function “improve” is higher than “establish&consolidate” (which is illustrated in fig. 37 by using bolt characters), while the functions “establish and consolidate” are assessed to be intertwined.

Fig. 37 Transition and adjustment of the functions of the availability mechanism: PBC

5.10 The Central Category “critical success factors”

The Central category “critical success factors” is divided into the Core Categories based on the critical success factors of the availability mechanism as identified in the literature study and the application of the theory-in-use: a shared interest i.e. a common objective, communication, measuring and control, penalty and consultation, and a level playing field, see fig. 34. As in previous paragraphs the assigned descriptive codes and their frequencies of occurrence are divided into two groups, the PBC related descriptive codes and frequencies and those related to traditional contracts. Each of the Core Categories is discussed in the following paragraphs. An assessment is made of the relation between the Core categories as well as of their relative weight.

5.10.1 The Core Category “Common objective”

From the literature study and the application of the theory-in-use, it revealed that to achieve aircraft availability as the performance objective outcome of the collaboration between the partners in the MRO&U triad, availability needs to be a common objective for the triad partners. In this respect a common objective is qualified as a critical success factor. To assess this critical success factors two interview questions are developed to be used in the interviews with professionals: the interview questions 18 and 19; 18: “Does the OEM/maintainer has an interest in


Availability mechanism: PBC

establish & consolidate Improve


Availability mechanism: PBC


Improve

104

improving the aircraft availability for the operator?” and 19: “Do you think that the aircraft availability is affected if the OEM/maintainer has an interest herein?” . Based on these interview questions and the transcripts from the interviews, descriptive codes are assigned to the Core Category “common objective”. The assigned codes and their frequency of occurrence are given in table 20.


Collaboration 34 31 3

Culture 8 5 3

Fixed price 7 5 2

Interest 5 5 0

Jointly 8 6 2

Soft time maintenance

2 2 0

Relationship 20 13 7

Total 84 67 17 Table 20. The assignment of the codes and their frequencies to the Core Category “shared interest”

The total frequency of occurrences of assigned descriptive codes in this Core Category (validation criterion 3) validates a common objective as a critical success factor of the availability mechanism. The higher frequency of occurrences of descriptive codes (validation criterion 3) for a PBC, compared with a traditional contract, is interpreted as an indication that a common objective is more important for a PBC than it is for a traditional contract. Especially the difference in frequency of occurrences of the descriptive code “collaboration” (31 versus 3) is in that respect meaningful. This finding is underpinned with the following quotes (criterion 4):

“A performance contract on the basis of collaboration was developed with the aim to improve aircraft availability. ‘Collaboration proved to be the strength” (O1, PBC3).

“This performance based contract is an important instrument to improve aircraft availability, because in this PBC the interest of the maintainer and operator are aligned, the communication, the consultancy and the transparency are stimulated and improved, while feed-back loops are developed and trust between the partners has improved” (O1, PBC1).

Another quote is:

“An optimized aircraft availability can only be realized if the OEM, the supplier, the maintainer and the operator have an interest to optimize availability and are incentivized to do so. A performance based contract is the answer on how to achieve that” (OEM2, PBC2).

An illustration of how a shared interest leads to a change in culture is formed by the following quote:

105

“The use of the ‘soft time maintenance’ concept leads possibly to over maintenance, but it results in better aircraft availability” (M2, PBC6).

An example of a traditional contract where interest are not aligned is given by operator2:

“Not aircraft availability is leading, but the maintenance planning is” (O2, TC2).

From the results depicted in table 20 with respect to assigned descriptive codes (validation criterion 2) and their frequencies (validation criterion 3) and the quotes from the respondents (validation criterion 4) it is concluded that a common objective (shared interest) is validated as a critical success factor for the availability mechanism. This is underpinned by the answers on the related interview questions (validation criterion 1). In this respect not only the interview questions 18 and 19 are regarded to be applicable, but also interview question 6 “Who determined the performance objective?” (see Annex A). This question is of interest to assess whether the performance objective is determined by the principal, or in conjunction between the principal and the contractor. The answers to interview question 6 are that for PBC’s in three cases the performance objective was determined by the principal and in three cases in conjunction. For traditional contracts the objectives are in four cases determined by the principal and in two cases in conjunction. There is no difference between traditional contracts and PBC’s as could be expected from the literature study. “Because of the PBC, the interest of the contractor shifted from optimizing activities to delivering performance: the interest of the contractor and the principal became aligned” (Sakburanapech, 2008). The answers on the interview questions 18 and 19 are more conclusive in that respect. On interview question 18 “Do you have an interest in achieving aircraft availability?”: four out of four professionals answered “yes” for PBC’s (the other respondents did not give an answer) and three out of five answered “no” on that question for traditional contracts (the other respondents did not answer this question). On interview question 19 “Does a shared interest in contracts affect availability?”, seven out of seven respondents answered “yes” with respect to PBC’s and only two answered “yes” with respect to traditional contracts. From the assignment of the descriptive codes (validation criterion 2), their frequencies of occurrence (validation criterion 3) and the answers to the interview questions (validation criterion 1) it is concluded that PBC’s facilitate the realization of a common objective and that a common objective affects aircraft availability in a positive way. This is a validation of the findings from the literature study and the application of the theory-in-use.

5.10.2 The Core category “Communication”

Communication is the linking pin to collaboration. The quality and intensity of the communication is a measure for the quality of the collaboration (Gerybadze, 1995; Kornelius, 1999; Walters, 2002). The interview questions 20, 21 and 22 (see Annex A) are assigned to assess the role of communication in collaboration in the MRO&U triad, and are used to assign the descriptive codes to this Core Category. The

106

assignment of the descriptive codes and the frequency with which the descriptive codes occurred in the interview transcripts is displayed in table 21.


Communication 36 23 13

Connectivity 1 0 1

Consultation 52 34 18

Discussion 1 1 0

Information 18 17 1

Meeting 1 1 0

Openness 1 1 0

Real Time 4 4 0

Transparency 13 12 1

Total 127 93 34 Table 21. The assignment of codes and their frequencies to the Core category “communication”

The one-hundred-twenty-seven (127) occurrences of descriptive codes (validation criterion 3) is interpreted as an indication that this Core Category is clearly validated as a critical success factor. Furthermore the differences between the frequencies of occurrences for PBC’s versus traditional contracts (validation criterion 3), are interpreted as an indication that communication is better served by PBC’s. This is a confirmation of the findings from the literature study (Ng and Xin Ding, 2010). A further confirmation of the difference between PBC’s and traditional contracts with respect to communication between the MRO&U partners is given by the answers (validation criterion 1) on the interview questions 21 and 22. (See Annex A). On interview question 21 “How is the quality of communication?”, for six PBC’s the answer was “good”, and for one PBC the answer was “adequate”. For the traditional contracts one answer was “good”, two “adequate”, and three “not good”, while the other respondents did not address this question. This trend is underpinned by the answers on interview question 22 “Does the communication contribute to achieve availability?”. For five out of five answers for PBC’s, the responds was “yes” (the other respondents did not answer this question). For traditional contracts the answers were three times “yes” and one time “no”, and six times no answer. The importance of communication is emphasized by this quote (validation criterion 4):

“Communication is key for this PBC, because it is the basis for the trust between the partners, which is needed to make this contract work” (M6, PBC6).

Another quote confirms this assessment:

“Communication is essential to realize a high aircraft availability. The operator facilitates the communication by creating maximized transparency, and provides real time access to its management information system for the OEM and the maintainer. The OEM and maintainer are real time informed about the status of the most important KPI’s. Weekly a consultation takes place about these KPI’s between the

107

triad partners, and jointly solutions to improve are developed. Because of this system the communication for this contract is optimal” (O1, PBC1).

For traditional contract the communication proves sometimes to be more cumbersome. This is illustrated by a quotes from Maintainer1:

“The communication could have been better if the liaison officer would had more authority. However its authority was limited due to cultural considerations. The lack of authority did hinder the achievement of high aircraft availability” (M1, TC4).

“The communication does not work well, because the contract managers of the principal are not familiar with the specifics of the activities performed by the maintainer” (M1, TC5). From the assigned descriptive codes (validation criterion 2) and their frequencies (validation criterion 3) it is concluded that the Core Category “communication” (see table 21) is clearly validated as a critical success factor for the availability mechanism, and is especially facilitated by PBC’s. This is underlined by the quotes from the respondents (validation criterion 4), and is in line with findings from the literature study in which information exchange is identified as element of a performance management system (De Jong, 2010; Gerybadze, 1995; Kornelius, 1999; Walters, 2002).

5.10.3 The Core Category “measuring & control”

The Core Category “measuring and control” has a link with the performance requirement “measurable” of the performance objective availability as discussed in paragraph 5.8.2. However, where the performance requirement “measurable” is more focused on the measurement of the performance, this Core Category “measuring & control” is more focused on the control of the realization of the performance. This is reflected in the descriptive codes assigned to this Core Category, as depicted in table 22. To identify the relevant descriptive codes the interview questions 23 and 24 (see Annex A) are developed.

Table 22. The assignment of descriptive codes and their frequency of occurrence for the Core Category “measuring & control”


AMOS 5 4 1

Dashboard 1 1

Fleet management

5 2 3

Net line 2 2 0

Network 8 8 0

Performance meeting

3 3 0

Report 17 11 6

Total 41 31 10

108

The total frequency of occurrence of the assigned descriptive codes (validation criterion 3) is higher for PBC’s than for traditional contracts. This is, based on the application of validation criterion 3, interpreted such that with PBC’s, measuring of the performances and control on performance objective compliance, is more important than for traditional contracts. This is in line with findings from the literature study, where it was found that with PBC’s in place, the contractor is paid for the realization of the performance objectives and not, like in traditional contracts, for activities executed. The performance realized becomes the measure for payment and is decisive for achieving profit margins. This puts major emphasis on the realization of performances and on controlling the realization of the performance, for the contractor and for the principal (van Rhee et al., 2009). This is underpinned by this quote (criterion 4):

“A precondition for this contract is that the maintainer is paid on the basis of a performance based contract on realized flight hours or aircraft availability. A PBC is most suited, because it facilitate and stimulates information exchange, transparency, the definition and creation of the proper measuring points and measuring moments, and the creation of feed-back loops” (O1, PBC3).

In traditional contracts, the measurements and control of the performance is not always a joint effort, as illustrated by this quote from operator2:

“The number of deferred discrepancies per aircraft is used as a measurement for the quality of the maintenance performed, many deferred discrepancies is seen as an indication that the planning of the maintenance process is too tight. Cancellations and the number of extensions requested are an important measure for the reliability of the maintenance performed. These quantities are measured by the OEM” (O2, TC2).

From the assigned descriptive codes (validation criterion 2) and their frequencies (validation criterion 3) it is concluded that the Core Category “measuring & control” is validated as a critical success factors for the availability mechanism (see table 22), which is mainly supported by PBC’s. This is underlined by quotes from the respondents (validation criterion 4), and is in line with findings from the literature study: “process management is a systematic, controlled concept for managing and developing a process and measure process related data” (Saaksvuori and Immonen, 2008).

5.10.4 The Core category “penalty and consultation”

The literature study gave a clear indication of the relevance of the penalty and consultation system (van Rhee et. al., 2009). Based on this finding and on the application of the theory-in-use, in which the penalty system played a meaningful role, the factor of influence “penalty and consultation” is adopted as a Core Category. The interview questions 25, 26 and 27 (see Annex A) are devoted to assess this aspect. The assignment of the descriptive codes and their frequency of

109

occurrence are based on the answers to these questions, and are represented in table 23.

Table 23. The assignment and frequencies of the codes for the Core Category “penalty & consultation”

Table 23 shows the distribution of frequencies of occurrence over the different descriptive codes. The descriptive code “penalty” has a higher frequency of occurrence (validation criterion 3) than all other descriptive codes in this Core category. The total frequency of occurrences of all descriptive codes is relatively low, which is interpreted as an indication that the weight of the Core Category “penalty & consultation” is limited, in accordance with validation criterion 3. The answers on the interview questions 25, 26 and 27 (validation criterion 1) illustrate the dualism that was already found in literature with respect to the effect of penalties and a consultation system. The answers on interview question 25 “Are penalties applicable?” show that five out of seven respondents answered “no” for PBC’s and seven out of seven answered “no” for traditional contracts. Also meaningful are the answers on interview question 27 “Do penalties stimulate the achievement of improved availability?” For the PBC’s four interviewees answered “yes”, however three answered “no”. For traditional contracts only one respondent answered “yes”, while three answered “no” and the rest did not address this question. More consensus is found in the answers on interview question 26 “Is there any consultation about the realized performance?” For the PBC’s seven out of seven respondents answered “yes”. While for traditional contracts four out of seven interviewees answered “yes”. The same dualism is also found in some of the quotes from the respondents. The following quote (criterion 4) is illustrative for the dualism:

“The communication, mutual trust and knowledge of each other’s capabilities is more important than penalties to realize improvements” (M2, PBC5).

Two other quotes further underpin this dualism:

“Notwithstanding that the contract contains penalties, in practice these penalties are never used. Problems are solved in close collaboration” (OEM1, PBC1).

“The lack of an active penalty system is not a loss. It is the collaboration that is important, and the collaboration is good. A penalty system can put pressure on the relationship. If one of the partners starts with applying penalties, chances are real


Contract Board 2 2 0

Malfunction list 1 1 0

Malfunction report

1 1 0

Penalty 24 15 9

Technical debrief 1 1 0

Warranty 5 1 4

Total 34 21 13

110

that the other party responds with other claims or penalties, which will in the end undermine the trust between partners” (OEM1, PBC1).

Apparently a penalty system is by the interviewees not always regarded as a means to improve the collaboration or to achieve the performance objectives. Other ways to deal with disputes and nonconformity with performance requirements are developed, as could be concluded from the following quotes:

“In case of disputes or escalation, the contract board becomes active. The contract board provides binding advices for the partners. The contract board is established for this PBC and consist of top managers of both partners” (M4, PBC1).

Another approach is found in a quote from operator1:

“Penalties are not used. If performance requirements are not met, the problems are solved in collaboration. The operator analyzes the causes together with the maintainer, and advises about possible improvements” (O1, PBC3).

From the answers on the interview questions (validation criterion 1) and the quotes from respondents (validation criterion 4) it is concluded that a consultation system is validated to be a critical success factor, however a penalty system is not. This results in the deletion of the Core Category “penalty and consultation”. Consultation is assessed to be a specific aspect of communication, which becomes manifest in the description of the Core category “communication” where the descriptive code “consultation” has the highest frequency of occurrence (see table 21). As such it is assessed to be the most dominant descriptive code for communication. The critical success factors are therefore moved from the Core Category “penalty and consultation”, which is deleted, to the Core Category “communication”, which is renamed in the Core Category “communication and consultation”

5.10.5 The Core Category “level playing field”

From the literature study and the application of the theory-in-use it revealed that a level playing field is relevant for the balance in the collaboration (Khodarinova et al, 2004). Theory predicts further that an unbalanced collaboration is unstable (Kraines 2000). For this reason a level playing field is assessed to be a subject for this research and is selected to be a Core Category. The interview questions 28 and 29 (see Annex A) are developed to assess this critical success factor. The descriptive codes assigned to this Core Category, as well as the frequencies of the occurrence of these descriptive codes is depicted in table 24.


Balance 3 2 1

Equal 9 7 2

Monopolist 2 1 1

Trust 20 18 2

Weight 5 3 2

111

Win-win 4 2 2

Total 43 33 10 Table 24. The assignment of the codes and their frequencies to the Core Category “level playing field”

The frequencies of occurrence of the descriptive codes for traditional contracts is relatively low compared to the frequency of occurrence of the descriptive codes for PBC’s. This is, based on validation criterion 3, interpreted as an indication that a level playing field is of less importance for a traditional contract than for a PBC. This is confirmed by the answers on the interview questions 28 and 29 (validation criterion 1). On interview question 28 “Do the partners have the same weight in the collaboration?”, for the PBC’s seven answered “yes”, while for the traditional contracts only one out of seven answered “yes”. This is seen as a confirmation of the findings from table 24: a level playing field is less relevant for traditional contracts. The answers on interview question 29 however leads to a different interpretation. On question 29 “Do you think it to be important that the partners have the same weight?”, five out of five answered “yes” for PBC’s, while for traditional contracts, five answered “yes” and two “not applicable”. So the respondents indicated that also for a traditional contract a level playing field is important, however at the same time these respondents noted that such a level playing field did not exist, except in one case. This is interpreted as an indication that the interviewees would prefer a level playing field, also for traditional contracts. This interpretation is supported by the following quotes from the respondents (validation criterion 4):

“In different cases where the weight of the partners was not balanced, this fact has led to major problems” (M2, TC6).

And another quote:

“To achieve satisfactory contract conditions a level playing field between OEM and customer is important” (OEM2, TC2).

The importance of a level playing field for PBC’s is underpinned by different quotes from MRO&U triad partners. A quote from OEM2:

“Aircraft availability depends on the balanced collaboration between the OEM, the supplier, the maintainer and the operator. All parties have to contribute, but also have to benefit (need an incentive). A level playing field provides the conditions to support the contributions and benefits of the players” (OEM2, PBC2).

Other quotes about all contracts:

“If a level playing field is not present, you do not get what you ask for, but you get what is offered to you” (O1, all contracts).

“If the contract partners do not have the same weight, the contract will not work on the long run” (M2, all contracts).

112

The importance and function of the level playing field is expressed in the following quote:

“The balanced weight between the contract partners: maintainer and operator, stimulates communication and collaboration, and creates trust. This leads to a joint effort to improve aircraft availability” (M3, PBC1).

From the answers (validation criterion 1) to the interview questions 28 and 29, and from the quotes (validation criterion 4) it is concluded that a level playing field is a critical success factor for the performance of the availability mechanism. However, it is also concluded that such a level playing field is not always in place, especially with respect to traditional contracts, while 7 out of 8 respondents assessed a level playing field between the contract partners to be important.

5.10.6 Comprehensive conclusions on the Central Category “Critical success factors”

From the analysis of the answers on the interview questions with respect to the critical success factors, it is concluded that the Core Categories “common objective” and “measuring and control” are critical for the functioning of the availability mechanism, and are facilitated by PBC’s. Of the Core Category “penalty and consultation”, it is concluded that the aspect of penalties is not undisputed. This is in line with the literature study which also indicated that a penalty system is disputed. In that respect it is concluded that penalties are not a critical success factor. Consultation is assessed to be a success factor and is combined with communication to form a new Core Category “communication and consultation”, while the Core Category “penalty and consultation” is deleted. The Core category “communication and consultation” has the highest frequency of occurrence (validation criterion 3) and is in the quotes assessed to be essential (Validation criterion 4). As such this Core category is assessed to be an important critical success factor. Based on the quotes from the respondents (Validation criterion 4), the Core Category “level playing field” is concluded to be an important success factor, however this is not supported by the frequency of occurrence of the related descriptive codes (Validation criterion 3). These findings are used to adjust the critical success factors as derived from the literature study and the application of the theory-in-use (see fig. 30). The findings from the interviews contribute to the further specification of the relationships between the factors of influence of the availability conceptual framework and their weight.

Fig. 38 The transition and adjustment of the critical success factors of the collaboration in the MRO&U triad


Common objective Communication &

consultation Measuring & control

Level playing field


Common objective Communication

Measuring & control Penalty and consultation

Level playing field

113

5.11 The different MRO&U triad situations

In the previous paragraphs, the assignment of the descriptive codes and their frequencies are described. In this paragraph the position of the MRO&U triad partners is analyzed in the different collaboration situations. The current research is about the achievement of availability in the MRO&U triad. As previously discussed the triad partners have different positions in the MRO&U triad (van Rhee et. al., 2008). The literature study revealed that a PBC leads to alignments of the interests of the triad partners, and to collaboration between the partners. Furthermore the literature study revealed that down-stream Vertical Integration leads to an unbalanced alliance (Kraines, 2000). Finally the literature study indicated that in a traditional contract the triad partners stood opposite to each other (Ng and Xin Ding, 2010). These three different situations are analyzed and assessed based on the interview results. Hereto the three different situations are identified and the interview results are correlated to these situations. The situations identified are; - PBC1 with availability as performance objective, and a triad consisting of an OEM,

a maintainer and an operator. All three triad partners are interviewed. From the maintainer two representatives are interviewed: maintainer3 and maintainer4 (see table 10);

- PBC2 with availability as performance objective, and a MRO&U collaboration consisting of an operator and a down-stream Vertically Integrated OEM, which performs maintenance as well. Hereto the OEM has subcontracted a maintainer. The OEM and the subcontracted maintainer are interviewed;

- Traditional contract2 with no unique performance objective. The triad consists of an OEM and an operator that performs maintenance on its own aircraft and is thus up-stream Vertically Integrated. The OEM and the operator/maintainer are interviewed.

The analysis of the three situations is based on the assignment of the descriptive codes (validation criterion 2) and their frequencies of occurrence (validation criterion 3). The differences between the three situations and between the assignments of the descriptive codes to each of the partners is used to analyze the various situations. The assignment of the descriptive codes and frequencies are represented in Annex H. For each of the categories the assigned descriptive codes and their frequency is given for each of the partners for the three different situations. Each of the situations is briefly discussed.

5.11.1 The PBC1 triad

The PBC1 collaboration is between three independent entities: OEM, operator and maintainer. The collaboration is on the basis of two performance based contracts with aircraft availability as performance objective. One contract is between the operator and the OEM, the other contract is between the operator and the maintainer. The operator coordinates the collaboration with the OEM and the

114

maintainer as well as between the OEM and the maintainer. As such the operator manages the collaboration between the tree independent entities with the aim to establish aircraft availability. The PBC1 Collaboration is an example of a PBC in the MRO&U triad with the aim to achieve aircraft availability. PBC1 is as such a typical example of the kind of MRO&U triad collaboration as addressed in the current research. PBC1 is about aircraft availability, which is a KPI and a performance objective. From Annex H, table H-1 and H-2 it shows that all four representatives OEM1, operator1, maintainer3 and maintainer4, from the three triad partners of PBC1, expressed their interest in the aspects, (aircraft) availability, KPI and performance. This is concluded on the basis of the relative high number of occurrences of the related descriptive codes in the interview answers (validation criterion 3). This finding is in line with the theory for PBC’s (Neely et al., 2005: Sparrow, 2003) and is interpreted as a confirmation that the focus of the MRO&U triad partners is on the same performance related aspects of the performance requirements of availability. Table H-4 indicates that turnaround times are not regarded applicable on PBC’s. This is in line with the results of the current research on the Core category time bound: turnaround times are related to traditional contracts. However, for PBC’s time is relevant, this is concluded from table H-4 and is confirmed by the following quote (validation criterion 4):

“Time is relevant, especially for the KPI: TDR” (M3, PBC1).

Table H-5 indicates that “establish and consolidate” the capability to achieve the contract requirements, is equally important all partners. Table H-6 show that operator1 has higher frequencies of occurrences of the descriptive codes assigned to this Core Category than the other MRO&U triad partners (validation criterion 3). An explanation is found by reasoning that the operator is the partner with the most interest in improving the collaboration to achieve higher aircraft availability. The same typical pattern can been seen from table H-7 till H-9 of the Central Category critical success factors. The operator is the most important stake holder for this Central Category and could be expected to promote it. Nevertheless all partners have a substantial interest in this Central Category. It is concluded that the PBC aligns the interests of the partners in such a way that all MRO&U partners have an interest in the Central Categories “functions of the collaboration mechanism” and “critical success factors”. From the findings of this analysis of the responses of the MRO&U triad partners on PBC1, it is concluded that the finding from the literature study with respect to the alignment of interests of the MRO&U partners by a PBC’s is confirmed.

5.11.2 The PBC2 collaboration

The PBC2 collaboration is between an OEM, which offers also maintenance services, and an operator. As such it is an example of an OEM that is down-stream Vertically Integrated. The OEM does not use its own capabilities to perform the maintenance, but hires a maintainer to do maintenance on his behalf. The maintainer is a subcontractor of the OEM. In Annex H, Tables H-1, H-2, H-6 and H-7 show a difference in occurrence of the assigned descriptive codes (validation criterion 3) between the OEM and the maintainer. This is interpreted as an indication that the

115

interests of the OEM and the maintainer are not aligned and that both parties put emphasis on different aspects of the collaboration. This is in line with the previous finding in the current research. Theory predicted that down-stream Vertical Integration would lead to unstable alliances, no clear indication could be found to confirm this finding. However, some quotes from the respondents address this point. A quote (validation criterion 4) from operator1 (see table 10):

“The recent developments where the OEM offers also maintenance services, I see problems for the independence of the maintainer, which is not a preferred development because the essential level playing field will be lost” (O1, PBC2).

And a quote from OEM1:

“Programs in which the OEM is also the maintainer and in which flight hours or availability are offered to the operator have as a consequence that the operator becomes dependent from that Vertically Integrated OEM/maintainer. That is not preferable for the operator” (OEM1, PBC2).

Table H-6 reveals another aspect of this kind of collaboration: Literature study revealed that PBC’s are designed to facilitate improvement of the performance objective (Lasher and Ives, 1991; McIvor et al., 2003). This is supported by the relative high frequency of occurrence of the codes “improvement” and “Improve” for the OEM in table H-6. However, from table H-6 it also becomes clear that the maintainer is not incentivized to improve. It is therefore concluded that this PBC2 leads to less improvements than PBC1 with respect to achieving availability in the MRO&U triad. This provides an answer to a question that derived from the literature research on PBC’s and down-stream VI:

“Is the combination of down-stream Vertical Integration and a PBC more beneficial than a PBC between three independent entities?” (see paragraph 3.5).

The findings from this analysis does not indicate that this is the case.

5.11.3 The traditional contract 2

This traditional contract is about the collaboration between an OEM and an operator which is up-stream Vertically Integrated. The operator has its own maintenance organization and maintains its own aircrafts, as well as third party aircrafts. From the tables in Annex H it is concluded that the operator has a higher interest in all aspects of the collaboration in the MRO&U triad. Theory showed that collaboration in the MRO&U triad has the potential to improve aircraft availability (Yilmaz, 2008), which is a main interest for the operator. The main interest for the OEM however is to sell the aircraft. This difference in interests is clearly expressed by the differences in occurrences of the assigned codes (validation criterion 3) in the Core Categories of Annex H. It is concluded that with traditional contracts the interests of the MRO&U partners, OEM and operator, are not aligned.

116

5.12 The quality of the interview answers

Seven of the respondents have answered the interview questions regarding more than one collaboration agreement. An indication of the quality of the answers is found by comparing the answers of one respondent with respect to two different collaboration agreements. Based on the tables in Annex H, the answers of OEM2 and of maintainer3 are analyzed. For this analysis the frequencies of occurrence of descriptive codes (validation criterion 3) per Core Category are compared for both agreements. The answers of OEM2 are related to agreements: PBC2 and traditional contract2 (see table 10), while the answers of maintainer3 are related to collaboration agreements: PBC1 and PBC2. The results of the analysis are given in table 25.

Core Category PBC2 Trad.2 PBC1 PBC2

Spec&measure 70 24 34 10

Achiev&relevant 5 2 11 3

Time dep. 0 0 1 2

establ&maint 3 5 5 2

To improve 10 3 12 0

Shared inter. 12 1 8 2

Measure&contr 4 0 5 0

Comm&consul 1 3 11 5

Level playing field

3 1 3 0

Table 25. The frequencies of occurrence of codes for the Core Categories for OEM2 with respect to PBC2 and traditional contract2, and for maintainer3 with respect to PBC1 and PBC2

Table 25 shows the differences between the frequencies of occurrence of assigned descriptive codes to the two different collaboration agreements of the same respondent. The difference for OEM2 between PBC2 and traditional2, expresses the difference between a PBC and a traditional contract, and is in line with previous findings in the current research. The difference between PBC1 and PBC2 as indicated by maintainer3 could be explained by the fact that for PBC1, maintainer3 is a full partner in the MRO&U triad and bears as such its own responsibility for availability. In PBC2 however, maintainer3 is the subcontractor of OEM2 in a down-stream Vertical Integration construction. As such maintainer3 bears no direct responsibility for availability. This difference in appreciation between PBC1 and PBC2 by maintainer3 is in line with previous findings in the current research. This is interpreted as an indication that the respondents have different views on both collaboration agreements. It is concluded that the respondents not only recognized the difference between both collaboration agreements, but are also willing to share that insight. This is seen as an indication of the quality of the interview answers. Based on this assessment it is concluded that the quality of the interview answers is alright.

OEM2 Maintainer3

117

5.13 Summary on the qualitative research

In this thesis the coding categories are divided into three Central Categories, which represent the factors of influence from the availability conceptual framework. The creation of Central Categories is guided by the research questions of this research, the availability conceptual framework and how the Central Categories link up to the original data (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). The interview questions are based on the findings from the literature study and the application of the theory-in-use. The opening questions of the interviews are designed to define the context of the different collaboration agreements: the MRO&U triad collaboration partners, the type of aircraft involved, and the kind of contract in place. Furthermore the definition used for aircraft availability and the contribution of the respondent to achieve availability are discussed. The core of the interviews is focused on identifying whether the applicability of the factors of influence of the availability conceptual framework could be validated. The factors of influence in the conceptual framework are divided into the following three Central Categories (based on Strauss and Corbin, 1998);

- The first Central Category: SMART performance requirements applicable on the performance objective availability;

- The second Central Category: the functions of the availability mechanism; - The third Central Category: the critical success factors.

To validate the applicability of the factors of influence, four validation criteria are identified;

- Criterion 1: Confirmative answers on an closed question; - Criterion 2: The relative number of codes assigned to a factor of influence; - Criterion 3: The relative frequency of occurrence of codes for a factor of

influence; - Criterion 4: Confirmative quotes from respondents.

The compliance with the four validation criteria is used to assess the validity of the factors of influence as defined in the Central categories. The compliance with the validation criteria 2, 3 and 4 is used to determine the weight of the factors of influence: the higher the relative number of assigned codes and their frequencies, the higher the relative weight. The compliance with the validation criteria 2 and 4 was used to determine the relation between the factors of influence. From the literature study it revealed that the kind of collaboration agreement is decisive for the applicability and effect of the factors of influence. To analyze this aspect, a distinction is made between both contract types: PBC and traditional contracts. For each of the Central Categories interview questions are assigned, and the given answers are analyzed and interpreted. The interview questions are depicted in Annex A, the results of the coding are displayed in Annexes B till H. In general, the answers on the interview questions confirmed the findings from the literature study and the application of the theory-in-use, as well as the content and structure of the availability conceptual framework (fig. 32). The results found

118

contributed to the further development of the availability conceptual framework into an availability conceptual model. The model deviates from the availability conceptual framework. In the Central Category “performance requirements of performance objective availability” the requirements “Specific” and “Measurable” are assessed to be intertwined, which leads to the conclusion that these performance requirements should be combined into one Core Category. The same is valid for the Core Categories “Achievable” and “Relevant”, which are combined into the Core Category “Achievable&Relevant”. In the Central Category “the functions of the availability mechanism”, the respondents did not distinguish between “establish” and “consolidate”. This is the reason for combining these Core Categories into one Core Category “Establish&consolidate”. In the Central Category “critical success factors” the respondents are equivocal about “penalties”. This is the reason to delete the Core Category “penalty and consultation”. The codes of this Core Category are assigned to the Core Category “communication”, which is renamed in “communication&consultation”. This leads to an adjusted availability conceptual framework, in which the relation between the factors of influence are reflected as well as their weight, based on the assessment of the interview results. The framework is renamed in availability conceptual model, see fig. 39.

Fig. 39 The availability conceptual model

A high relative weight of Core categories is expressed by the use of bolt characters. The availability conceptual model is the basis for a theory on how to achieve availability by collaboration in the MRO&U triad. This is discussed in chapter 7.


The availability mechanism



Time Bound

To establish & consolidate

Improve



Level playing field

119

6 Discussion and implications

In this chapter the discussion and conclusion of the current research, drawn from the findings are discussed. It also elaborates on the contribution to science of the current research as well as its limitations. Hereto the research findings are summarized and discussed in order to answer the Research Questions. The four Research Questions are addressed in turn. Practical considerations about applying the availability conceptual model are discussed as well as the contribution to knowledge. The chapter concludes with an acknowledgement of the limitations and suggestions for further research.

6.1 Research questions and research method The operational cost and quality of airline operations is related to the availability of the aircraft, as an available aircraft contributes to the business value of an airline. In the operational phase of an aircraft, maintenance is an important aspect of availability, as the aim of maintenance is to restore availability. The OEM is responsible for the initial availability. The operator is responsible for keeping the aircraft available. The maintainer performs the maintenance on the aircraft. The process to establish and continue aircraft availability is referred to as the Maintenance, Repair, Overhaul and Upgrade (MRO&U) process. It needs collaboration between the parties involved, OEM, maintainer and operator, to effectuate availability. We call this the MRO&U triad in the aerospace industry. The MRO&U triad is for this research defined as the industrial network of one aircraft Manufacturer (OEM), one aircraft maintainer and the aircraft operator (airline). The MRO&U triad is responsible for the performance of the MRO&U process. The performance of the MRO&U process affects aircraft availability. Availability has always been a major concern of airlines. This forces OEM’s and maintainers to be more proactive in trying to increase availability, and is an incentive for all participants to collaborate in improving the MRO&U process with respect to availability. To achieve availability communication and interaction between the operator, OEM and maintainer is required. Traditional transaction based contracts are settling the relation between parties. To realize the desired collaboration, the contract parties have to work together, based on the same goal. This requires a different form of contracting of which reaching collaborative goals is the basis. The performance outcome becomes a shared responsibility of the operator, the OEM and the maintainer together. This causes a reversal in the relation between parties in the triad, they now have to work side by side. This leads to the main Research Question (RQ): “How to achieve availability in the MRO&U triad”. The aim of the current research is to come up with a model that enables the improvement of availability in the MRO&U triad through an enhanced collaboration between involved parties. To develop this model the relation between the collaboration in the MRO&U triad and the performance outcome of that relation:

120

availability, has to be established. Achieving availability in the aviation MRO&U triad is not researched before. From the findings of the literature study the preliminary availability conceptual framework is constructed. This framework represents the factors of influence for the relation between the collaboration in the MRO&U triad and the outcome of that collaboration: the performance objective availability. To test and complement the findings from the literature study the research approach of the theory-in-use is applied. The achievement of airworthiness is identified to be a method to achieve a performance objective by collaboration between the MRO&U triad partners and as such as a theory-in-use for achieving availability. The results of the analysis of the theory-in-use are incorporated in the preliminary availability conceptual framework, which resulted in an adjusted availability conceptual framework. The focus of the research is on an in-depth comprehension of the phenomenon of MRO&U triad collaboration and its context: the aerospace industry. To improve the validity and credibility of the literature study and the application of the theory-in-use, a third research approach is applied: the qualitative research. For this qualitative research data is collected from multiple sources. The qualitative study of the current research consists of thirteen case studies and a cross-case analysis. Hereto interviews are conducted with eight different respondents from seven different firms. The results of these interviews are analyzed and combined and compared with the results from the literature study and the application of the theory-in-use. The relation between the factors of influence and their weight is determined by the qualitative research. This information is then used to complement the availability conceptual framework into an availability conceptual model. This methodology is applied to answer the main research question. To answer this main research question more insight is required in the factors of influence which determine the relation between the collaboration in the MRO&U triad and the performance outcome availability. To gain the insight in the factors of influence, research questions are developed to analyze those factors of influence, using the research methodology as described. This leads to the following derivative research questions;

- RQ1: What is the relation between collaboration in the MRO&U triad and availability?

- RQ2: Which are the performance requirements applicable on availability? - RQ3: Which collaboration mechanisms are suited to facilitate the

collaboration in the MRO&U triad with the aim to achieve availability and which are the functions of that mechanism?

- RQ4: Which critical success factors are applicable on the availability collaboration mechanism?

The research findings on each of these research questions is discussed in the following paragraphs.

121

6.2 RQ1: The relation between the collaboration in the MRO&U triad and availability From the literature study it is found that the aircraft MRO&U triad consists of three independent firms: the aircraft OEM, the maintainer and the operator. These firms are interrelated, and have to work together to achieve availability. The proposition of the current research is that by revising the collaboration between the three firms, availability can be improved. However, this proposition assumes a relation between the collaboration and availability. To find out whether this relation exists and what it looks like, the relation is studied. The findings from the three methods of research, the literature study, the application of the theory-in-use and the case study, recognize a relation between the collaboration in the MRO&U triad and the outcome of that collaboration, the performance objective aircraft availability. In particular the factors of influence of that relation are recognized to be;

- the performance requirements of availability; - the type of collaboration agreement and its functions; - the critical success factors.

The research indicates that the presence of these factors of influence determine the quality of the collaboration in the MRO&U triad as well as the quality of the outcome: availability. The triad partners must be aware of these factors of influence when establishing a collaboration. Especially for the operator it is important to recognize the effect of the presence of these factors on aircraft availability. The operator is the purchasing party for new aircraft and for maintenance on the aircraft. The OEM and maintainer are the contractors which are paid for by the operator. As such the operator affects the contract conditions and can negotiate the applicability of the factors of influence to improve aircraft availability. To achieve the optimal aircraft availability the operator should develop incentives in the collaboration contract for the OEM and the maintainer to continuously improve availability. By designing the aircraft, the OEM determines the initial availability. Also to consolidate and improve availability over the life time of the aircraft, the involvement of the OEM is essential, as is the involvement of the maintainer. If achieving availability is a performance objective for the OEM and maintainer, which is dependent on the kind of contract in place, then it is in the interest of all parties that the factors of influence are covered in the collaboration agreement.

6.3 RQ2: The performance requirements of availability The literature study, complemented with the findings from the application of the theory-in-use and the results of the case study, reveals that the performance requirements applicable on availability are;

- Specific and measurable; - Achievable and relevant; - Time bound.

122

From these performance requirements, “specific and measurable” is found to be more important than the others. The literature study indicates that the performance requirements applicable on a performance objective like availability are SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time dependent). However, the case study indicates that in practice no differentiation is made between “specific” and “measurable”, since everything that is measurable has to be specifically defined. The same kind of pragmatic reasoning is found for “achievable” and “relevant”: an objective is only relevant if it is achievable. For case studies with respect to performance objectives, the pragmatic approach found in the current case study is assessed to be applicable. To achieve the performance objective availability the MRO&U triad partners need to be aware of the performance requirements which are applicable on availability. Especially the operator, as purchaser of new aircraft and maintenance services, must define the performance objective in such terms that the OEM and the maintainer can comply. The performance requirements identified in the current research define these terms. For the OEM and maintainer it is important that the performance objective is specifically defined and measurable to be able to realize and control the performance objective: they have to know what performance they are expected to realize and should be in the position to control whether they are realizing it. Furthermore the realization of the performance objective should be within the capacity and capability of the OEM and maintainer and should fit in their portfolio.

6.4 RQ3: The collaboration mechanism of the MRO&U triad and its functions From the literature study it reveals that the Performance Based Contract (PBC) is best suited to facilitate the performance based collaboration in the MRO&U triad. This finding is tested by the application of the theory-in-use and by the case study. From the case study clear indications are found that the application of a PBC leads to improved availability compared with traditional contracts. However, all PBC studied proved to be bilateral, no PBC is found between three independent entities. Furthermore it is found that bilateral PBC’s are hard to establish, which raises the question whether trilateral PBC’s on aircraft availability are feasible at all. To answer this question follow-on research is required. In the case study of the current research one case is studied (PBC1 in table 10) where two bilateral PBC’s are in place which cover one MRO&U triad: one PBC between the operator and the maintainer and one PBC between the operator and the OEM. In this case the operator manages the PBC’s and facilitates the collaboration, not only between the operator and the OEM, resp. maintainer, but also between the maintainer and the OEM. As such a collaboration between the three MRO&U triad partners is established. Furthermore the main performance objective of these PBC’s is aircraft availability, the topic of the current research. From quotes with respect to PBC1, it becomes clear that all three MRO&U triad partners are positive about the development of the collaboration under the PBC and all three recognize an improved aircraft availability as result of this enhanced collaboration.

123

“The operator facilitates communication by creating maximized transparency, and provides real time access to its management information system for the OEM and the maintainer. The OEM and maintainer are real time informed about the status of the most important KPI’s. Weekly a consultation takes place about these KPI’s between the triad partners, and jointly solutions to improve are developed. Because of this system the communication for this contract is optimal” (O1, PBC1).

“Because of the performance contract with the maintainer for this type of aircraft the punctuality went to 99,6 % till 99,8 % (aircraft available on due time). Under the previous, traditional contract, the punctuality was only 90%” (O1, PBC1).

“In this PBC1, the maintainer has evolved, which has led to a significantly better aircraft availability” (OEM1, PBC1).

“The collaboration is very good, the three parties respect each other and realize that they need each other to achieve improved aircraft availability” (M3, PBC1). This assessment of the collaboration in PBC1 and the results thereof, indicate that the effect of two bilateral PBC’s between operator and maintainer and between operator and OEM leads to a comparable effect, as assumed to be achieved with a trilateral PBC, if the operator, as main stakeholder, coordinates and facilitates the collaboration between the three partners. This combination of two PBC’s might be a more feasible basis for MRO&U triad collaboration than a trilateral PBC, which is assumed to be difficult to establish, and for which no practical examples could be found. Some PBC’s found in aerospace MRO&U are bilateral between a down-stream Vertical Integrated (VI) OEM/maintainer and an operator (Boeing “Goldcare”, Lockheed Martin “contracting for availability”). From the literature study it is found that this kind of bilateral PBC’s would be susceptible to an unbalance between collaboration partners, which would affect the stability of the collaboration. The quotes on “level playing field” from the case study of the current research confirm this finding. The VI OEM’s are striving for acquiring a share of the maintenance market by offering maintenance services for their aircraft to operators. For operators the findings from the current research are important when considering a collaboration with a VI OEM, while OEM’s must be aware of destabilization which may occur in collaboration if the OEM is down-stream Vertically Integrated.

In the literature study different collaboration mechanisms are identified. Al these mechanisms have the inherent property to establish collaboration. From the theory on alliances and TCE, collaboration mechanisms to consolidate collaboration are identified. However, the aim of the current research is to come up with a model that enables the improvement of availability in the MRO&U triad through an enhanced collaboration between involved parties. This leads to a third required function of the collaboration mechanism, to improve the collaboration. Only a PBC with aircraft availability as performance objective is identified to inherently have this function. This finding is confirmed by the case study, which indicates that the MRO&U partners

124

need to have an incentive to improve. To improve the performance objective these incentives have to be incorporated in the collaboration agreements. The case study reveals that no difference is made between the establishment and the consolidation of the collaboration. The reasoning behind it is that to establish a collaboration, without consolidating it is meaningless and a waste of effort. However, in the literature more attention is given to the establishment of a collaboration than to the consolidation of a collaboration. While even less attention is given to improving a collaboration. Follow-on research on revising collaboration with the aim to improve the outcome of that collaboration is needed to further address this aspect.

6.5 RQ4: The critical success factors of the collaboration The literature study reveals six applicable critical success factors (see paragraph 3.6), of which “penalty” and “trust” are found to be disputed, while for the factors “a level playing field” only one source is found. The application of the theory-in-use confirms the applicability of “penalty”, but does not confirm the applicability of “consultation” and “trust”. The case study provides insight in the applicability of the factors, as well as in their relation and their relative weight. The factor “trust” is not confirmed, while the factor “level playing field” proved to be relatively important, and the factor “penalty” is disputed. Based on the literature study, the application of the theory-in-use and the case study four critical success factors applicable on the collaboration in the MRO&U triad are identified;

- A common objective: achieving aircraft availability; - Measuring and control of the performance objective; - Communication and consultation between the MRO&U partners; - A level playing field between the MRO&U partners.

For the MRO&U triad partners the findings from the current research are important, as they provide insight in the critical success factors that have to be covered in the collaboration agreement to develop a successful performance based collaboration.

6.6 The availability conceptual model

From the literature study, the application of the theory-in-use and the case studies, the relation between the collaboration in the MRO&U triad and the performance outcome of that collaboration is established by determining the factors of influence as well as their relation and relative weight. The findings are reflected in the availability conceptual model, see fig 40 (identical to fig. 39). The model represents the method to achieve availability by collaboration in the MRO&U triad. As such the model provides an answer to the main question of this research “How to achieve availability in the MRO&U triad”. The model serves as the basis for a theory on how to achieve availability in the MRO&U triad, which is discussed in chapter 7.

125


6.7 The relative weight of the factors of influence

From the literature study and the application of the theory-in-use, no clear indication about the weight of the factors of influence of the conceptual model is derived. The weight of the factors however is relevant when designing a collaboration agreement. From the interviews with professionals information about the weight of the factors is gained. The frequency of which the different codes are used in the interview is regarded as an indication of their weight. The relative weight of the factors is expressed by bolt characters in fig. 40. To validate the finding as reflected in fig. 40 the relative weight of the factors for one representative case is determined. The PBC is identified as the best suited collaboration mechanism. To get an indication of the relative weight of the factors of influence the interview results concerning a PBC are taken into account. As discussed, the PBC1 is the only PBC of which representatives of all contract partners are interviewed. Furthermore PBC1 is identified to be the PBC that best reflects the collaboration as studied in the current research. The PBC1 case is used to confirm the relative weight of the factors of influence for a PBC collaboration between an aircraft OEM, a maintainer and an operator. The interview results as reflected in Annex H for PBC1 serve as basis for the assessment of the relative weight of the factors of influence. From table H-1 to H-10 table 26 is derived. Hereto the frequencies of the Core categories on PBC1 from Annex H are used, whereby the average of the frequencies of occurrence of the descriptive codes as mentioned by OEM1, operator1, maintainer 3 and maintainer4 is calculated and used as average frequency.

Central Category Properties of availability Average frequency

Core Category Specific and Measurable 32,50

Achievable&Relevant 8,00

Time Bound 2,00

Central Category Functions of mechanism

Core Category Establish&Maintain 4,75

Improve 13,50


The availability mechanism



Time Bound

Establish & consolidate

Improve



Level playing field

126

Central Category Critical Success Factors

Core Category Common objective 11,25

Communication&Consultancy 15,25

Measuring&Control 6,50

Level playing Field 5,00 Table 26. The relative weight of the descriptive codes for PBC1

From table 26 it is concluded that the most relevant factor of influence for the definition of the performance objective is that the performance objective is defined in specific terms and is measurable. This is in line with the findings in the previous chapters. It also is in line with the reasoning that the realization of the performance objective is the basis on which the contract partners are rewarded. To avoid disputes which would undermine the collaboration the reward terms have to be specific and measurable. When designing a PBC, much attention should be given to the development of specifically defined performance objectives and the system to measure the realization of the performance. The KPI’s related to the performance objective have to be well chosen, well-defined and measurable. Another finding from Table 26 indicates that the function “improve” is most relevant in a PBC. This is in line with findings in the previous chapters and indications from the literature study where a PBC is identified as a means to innovate (van Rhee et al., 2008). When designing a PBC much attention should be given to the development of an improvement mechanism. Hereto the partners should be incentivized to innovate and improve performance. To innovate and improve, contract partners have to invest in new developments and techniques. To create sufficient time to facilitate a return on these investments, the contract duration of a PBC has to be relatively long. With respect to the critical success factors the “common objective” and “communication and consultation” proves to be more important than the others (see table 26). As discussed before, the common objective is an inherent consequence of a performance based contract: the achievement of the performance objective is the basis for rewarding the contract partners, and as such the partners have a shared interest to realize the performance objective. When designing a PBC, the choice of the performance objective is crucial. The contract partners are incentivized to achieve the chosen performance objective, and will invest in the means to realize this objective. A poorly chosen performance objective leads to a waste of resources and money and to disputes and frustration among partners. The conceptual model is developed to facilitate the achievement of the performance objective availability by collaboration in the MRO&U triad. As discussed, the achievement of the performance objective requires a joint, coordinated effort from the contract partners. To coordinate the activities of the partners communication is essential. If partners have a dispute it will affect the performance of the collaboration. Partners have an interest in solving disputes as soon as possible. Consultation is a means to settle disputes. The contribution of “communication and consultation” for a PBC is reflected in the high relative weight of this critical success

127

factor in table 26. When designing a PBC the development of a communication and consultation system is important. A communication system should be part of the PBC and could consist of regular meetings on management, operational and contract management level. Furthermore a consultation mechanism should be included in the contract, whereby an escalation scenario is used. In major contracts the use of an independent committee of arbitration should be considered. During the interviews the importance of a level playing field is stressed by almost all respondents. This is however not reflected in the results from table 26. This is regarded as in indication that only the frequency of occurrence of the descriptive codes might be not sufficient to assess the weight of the descriptive codes and factors of influence. It is concluded that further research is required to assess the relative weight of the factors of influence of the conceptual model.

6.8 The interests of the triad partners As discussed in the previous chapters, the triad partners have initially different interests. A PBC is designed to align the interests of the triad partners with respect to realizing the performance objective. However, it should be recognized that the triad partners have other interests as well, which are not necessarily aligned. To design a PBC, insight in the interest of the partners is relevant. To get an indication whether partners have different interests and to what extent, an assessment is made of the difference in interest of the partners in a PBC. Hereto the results as depicted in Annex H are used with respect to PBC1 and PBC2. PBC1 is a PBC in which all three partners are incentivized to achieve aircraft availability (the performance objective). PBC2 is a PBC in which the OEM is incentivized to achieve aircraft availability (the performance objective), but the maintainer3 is a subcontractor of the OEM and is incentivized to comply with the contract conditions. The frequency of occurrence of the descriptive codes of the Core categories as given in Annex H are interpreted as an indication for the level of interest of the partner involved. For PBC1 the average of the frequencies of maintainer 3 and maintainer4 is used, since both maintainers are employees of the same maintenance organization. The results are reflected in table 27.

Core Category OEM1 Oper.1 Maint.3/4 OEM2 Maint.3

Specific&measurable 34 44 26 56 9

Achievable&Relevant 3 11 9 5 3

Time bound 1 3,5 6 3

Establish&Maintain 4 5 5 3 2

Improve 10 27 8,5 10 0

Common objective 9 28 9 12 2

Measuring&Control 3 11 6 4 0

Communication& Consultation

11 27 11,5 1 5

Level Playing Field 5 8 3,5 3 0 Table 27. The relative interest of the triad partners

PBC1 PBC2

128

For PBC1 in table 27 the frequency of occurrence for the maintainer3/4 is higher for all factors of influence than the frequency of occurrence for the maintainer3 for PBC2. This is interpreted that the maintainer 3/4 has for the PBC1 a higher interest in realizing the factors of influence than the maintainer3 with respect to PBC2. The frequency for the OEM1 and the Operator1 with respect to PBC1 indicates that both entities have an interest in realizing the factors of influence with exception of the factor “time bound”. It is also noted that the frequencies of the codes are higher for the operator compared to the OEM and the maintainer. This is obvious with respect to the function “improve”, and the critical success factors “common objective” and “communication & consultation”. This function and these critical success factors are previously identified to be important for the success of the PBC based collaboration. It is concluded that the stakes of a successful collaboration are higher for the operator than for the OEM and maintainer. The turn-over generated by the operator is directly dependent on the achieved aircraft availability. This explains the difference in interest between the operator and the OEM and the maintainer. When designing a PBC the difference in level of interest between the partners should be taken into account. The partner with the highest level of interest in a certain factor of influence is most likely the partner that will emphasize upon that factor. The partners that have a lower level of interest in a certain factor of influence have to be incentivized to increase their interest in that factor. For PBC1 the OEM and the maintainer have to be incentivized to improve performance, and to extent the communication and consultation. Furthermore it is concluded that PBC1 does not provide sufficient incentive for the OEM and the maintainer to strive for optimized aircraft availability at the same level as the operator does. For PBC2 in table 27 the difference between the OEM and the maintainer is obvious. The relative low frequencies for all Core categories indicate that the maintainer has only limited interest in realizing the factors of influence. It is concluded that the contract partners of PBC2 have different interests. The maintainer is not sufficiently incentivized to serve the interests of the OEM. To realize an optimized aircraft availability is the main interest of the operator. To achieve this, all the factors of influence of the conceptual model have to be complied with. If the maintainer is not sufficiently incentivized to comply with these factors, the pursuit for an optimal aircraft availability will be jeopardized. This is interpreted as a clear indication of the effect of a PBC issued by a Vertically Integrated OEM, whereby the maintainer acts as subcontractor of the OEM. This interpretation is based on one case only, which is insufficient to draw conclusions. Further research is required to confirm this interpretation. Since more OEM’s are offering a total package to the operator when purchasing an aircraft, a growing number of operators are confronted with OEM’s offering maintenance as well. The position of the operator and the level of performance that is achieved are relevant and present-day issues which deserve attention from science.

129

6.9 Contribution to science

The current research provides a model of the relation between the collaboration in the MRO&U triad and the performance outcome availability. It has made four primary contributions to the body of knowledge, which are discussed below.

6.9.1 Contribution to the alliance theory

Alliance theory in literature is about the collaboration between two independent entities. The collaboration in the current research encompasses three independent entities. The conceptual model developed under this research reflects the conditions and features necessary to achieve an optimized availability as outcome of the MRO&U triad. As shown in the current research the commitment and involvement of all three triad partners (OEM, maintainer and operator) are required to realize a desired availability as performance outcome of the collaboration. The current research reveals that a PBC is most suited to achieve this commitment and involvement of the triad partners and to achieve availability. The developed conceptual model provides a method on how an alliance between three independent entities can be successful with respect to a desired performance outcome. Studies on this specific kind of alliance could not be found in literature and no models could be found to describe the conditions and features under which such an alliance is successful. As such the current research contributes to the extension of the alliance theory.

6.9.2 Contribution to the triad theory

The MRO&U triad is about the collaboration between operator, maintainer and OEM, in general terms: buyer, service provider and supplier. According to triad theory collaboration is established with as driving factor the achievement of a performance outcome, whereby performance based contracting is identified as the best suited mechanism to support triad collaboration. This is in line with the findings in the current research. However, only very limited research is performed on the subject of buyer/supplier triads, and no research has been performed on buyer, supplier and service provider triads. Research on triads on the basis of performance based contracts is sparse. In the current research, for the first time a study is made of the collaboration between three different independent entities. Furthermore in the current research for the first time a study is made of the factors of influence of a performance based contract, suited to support the triad of buyer, service provider and supplier. The current research provides as such an unique insight in the mechanisms, features and conditions of a successful performance based contract, as well as the effect thereof on the success of the collaboration in the triad in terms of achieving a desired performance outcome. These insights have resulted in a conceptual model. As such the findings of the current research provide insight in the factors and features relevant for the success of such a triad and are an

130

extension of the existing triad theory. However further study on this subject is required.

6.9.3 Contribution to the transaction costs economics theory

According to the transaction cost economics theory (TCE), outsourcing and collaboration are basically based on the cost criterion. If the transaction cost of outsourcing are lower than the transaction cost of insourcing, a decision for outsourcing is taken. TCE is extensively studied and applied in practice. It has developed into an advanced theory, which is commonly accepted especially for governing transactions. The current research is aimed at achieving availability as outcome of the MRO&U triad. Availability is a performance outcome of the collaboration in the triad. The main driver for collaboration is in this research found to be the realization of an optimized performance outcome. The selection of the triad partners is based on this goal: the entities that are capable to achieve the required performance outcome are selected as partner. As argued in the current research the collaboration agreement is structured in such a way that the performance outcome is effectively and efficiently reached. The means to support this collaboration is a performance based contract (PBC). Costs are a restraint for the collaboration, but the realization of the performance outcome is decisive. Decisions about collaboration and the selection of collaboration partners is based on the ability to achieve the performance outcome, even if the transaction costs are higher. The transaction cost economics theory is primary based on the cost of collaboration and less on the performance outcome of the collaboration. Based on the TCE, other decisions are taken with respect to collaboration than the decisions that are based on the performance approach. Performance based contracts are becoming more common and are widely accepted. The US government requires all new outsource contracts to be based on performance based contracts. As a result of the current research a theory was developed that provides insight in the factors of influence relevant to manage collaboration and to jointly realize a desired performance outcome. As such this model is regarded as a basis for a theory on collaboration transactions with the aim to realize a performance objective. The new theory is applicable on collaboration on the basis of a performance based contracts and is an extension of the existing TCE theory and replaces that theory in cases where achieving performance optimization is more important than costs optimization. This new theory could be referred to as “transaction performance theory”. Further study is needed to establish this theory.

6.10 Limitations of research

The research limitations for the current research are related to the literature study, the application of the theory-in-use and the case study. Each of the limitations is briefly discussed.

131

6.10.1 Limitation with respect to the literature study In the current research conclusions are drawn from the findings of the literature study. However, the literature study on alliances and transaction cost economics is about bilateral collaborations. While the research object is the MRO&U triad, a trilateral collaboration. In the literature study also the theory on triads is studied, however no literature could be found on triad collaboration between three different and independent entities. From literature it cannot be derived if and how the difference in study object between literature and the current research affects the findings. Furthermore it is found that literature is not conclusive with respect to the critical success factors applicable on performance based collaboration, while the applicability of some factors is disputed. Despite these limitations, the findings from the literature study are processed to build a preliminary availability conceptual framework. The findings from the literature study are tested and validated by two other methods of research, the application of the theory-in-use and the case study, which provides a sufficient basis to compensate for the limitations of the literature study and to extend the existing theories on alliances, transaction cost and triads.

6.10.2 Limitations with respect to the application of the theory-in-use The theory-in-use identified for the current research is the airworthiness method, by which the performance objective airworthiness is effectively achieved by collaboration between the MRO&U triad partners. The similarities between the airworthiness method and the field of the current research, the MRO&U triad collaboration with the aim to achieve the performance objective availability, are broad. However, some differences are present as well. A difference is the performance objective: aircraft availability differs from aircraft airworthiness. An available aircraft needs to be airworthy, however not every airworthy aircraft is necessarily available (it might need fuel, or cargo has to be loaded etc.). In the context of the current research the difference between availability and airworthiness is used to compare the applicable factors of influence on both performance objectives and to gain more insight in the working of these factors of influence. A more important difference stems from the NAA, which is a dominant, independent, controlling and enforcing party with respect to airworthiness requirements. The NAA puts pressure on all three MRO&U triad partners to comply with airworthiness regulations and can apply penalties to enforce that. Furthermore the NAA prescribes means of communication between the MRO&U partners and controls the quality and content of the communication. The NAA dictates the KPI’s which are applicable and measures and controls the realization of these KPI’s. In short the NAA dictates and controls the performance requirements and facilitates and enforces the collaboration between the MRO&U triad partners. For the MRO&U triad partners this means that there is always an independent third party with decision and penalty

132

power to guide the partners through to process to achieve airworthiness. This creates a level playing field between the MRO&U partners as well as a mandatory set of requirements to be met. These requirements are overlapping with the factors of influence identified to be applicable on the availability conceptual framework. However the mechanism to comply with the factors of influence is very different. The mechanism identified to facilitate the availability mechanism is the PBC. In a PBC there are three independent partners and no enforcing or dictating third party like a NAA. This implies that the communication system, the measuring system, the control system, the establishment of a level playing field and the commitment to achieve a performance objective have to be created by the MRO&U partners, and have to be covered in a PBC. This requires consensus, which often leads to concessions and long lasting negotiations. Furthermore it leads to differences in applicable factors of influence. A penalty system is a must to enforce compliance in the airworthiness method. However a penalty system is disputed in the MRO&U triad collaboration on availability, since it disturbs the relationship between partners. A consultation system is superfluous in the airworthiness method, since disputes are solved by the authority of the NAA. In the availability mechanism, a consultation system is important to solve and avoid disputes. As a result not all factors of influence applicable on the airworthiness method are applicable on the availability mechanism. However, the findings from the theory-in-use contribute to the better understanding of the factors of influence of the availability mechanism and are used as a test of the findings from the literature study. The application of the findings from the theory-in-use in the preliminary availability conceptual framework leads to a validated availability framework.

6.10.3 Limitations with respect to the case study

The limitation of the case study lies within the data collection and in the data analysis. Both aspects are discussed.

6.10.3.1 Data Collection Data collection in the current research involves interviews and the study of collaboration documents. The interviews are performed with professionals active in aircraft MRO&U. However, the availability of these professionals proved to be sparse and geographically wide spread. Furthermore the research resources are limited, which restricted the number of interviews with professionals abroad. Eight respondents were interviewed. All of the respondents but one, are involved in more than one contract. Which lead to a case study with thirteen cases between which a cross case study is performed. The subject of the current research is the collaboration in the MRO&U triad. As such a cross case study between the three triad partners is most relevant. However only

133

in one case professionals from the three MRO&U triad partners could be interviewed for two related contracts (PBC1 in table 10). In two other cases two out of three MRO&U partners are interviewed. Because of disclosure considerations only limited access is granted to the researcher with respect to collaboration agreements. Only in one case parts of an agreement are copied and used in the current research. Despite the fact that the number of interviews is limited, the number of cases that is studied is considerable. But more important is the fact that the interview answers provide much data and prove to be a rich source of information. This is reflected in the number and content of the quotes used in this thesis. The research approach chosen in the current research consists of a qualitative research approach to identify the applicable factors of influence. The number of occurrences of the descriptive codes is chosen to as a measure to determine the weight of the factors of influence. By making a distinction between traditional contracts and PBC’s another dimension is added to the data collection method. The application of these different research approaches proved to be beneficial for the data collection and the data analysis. The data collection by case studies is used to confirm, validate and complement the findings from the literature study and the application of the theory-in-use. Using several cases, several respondents, and various data gathering techniques, as well as information from collaboration agreements at the same time increases the reliability of research results.

6.10.3.2 Data analysis The data analysis consists of transcribing interviews, coding and categorizing the data based on the research questions and the factors of influence as identified by the literature review. The use of open questions provides additional information about the relation between the factors of influence, as well as information about the differences between the different cases studied. Furthermore quotations from the respondent are used to underline and illustrate findings from the analysis. By dividing the interview answers in answers related to traditional contracts and in answers related to PBC’s, an additional source of information is created which is used to identify the differences between both contract types. Finally a numerical research approach is applied to use the frequency of occurrence of descriptive codes as a source of information about the relative weight of the codes.

134

The analysis of the Core category “a level playing field” revealed that the frequency of occurrence is found to be small, which indicates that “a level playing field” has a low weight. However, the quotes on the subject of “a level playing field” indicate that this factor is assessed by the respondents to be important. This discrepancy between frequency of occurrence and quotes is interpreted as an indication that the reliability of both sources of information, frequency of occurrence and quotes, is limited. The data analysis in the current research has been the work of one person, the researcher. It is possible that the researcher is biased by his long experience in the field of aircraft MRO&U. The threat of bias is countered by sending the transcripts of the interviews to the respondents for validation. The data analysis is used to validate and complement the findings from the literature study and the comparison with the theory-in-use. Using several cases and several respondents, and different analysis approaches at the same time increases the reliability of research results.

6.10.4 Assessment of limitations Each of the three methods applied in the current research has its limitations. However, the research methods are used to find, test and validate findings. As such the conclusions of the current research are confirmed by three different research approaches and datasets. The use of three different research methods is assessed to be a solid basis for conclusions. As such the conclusions drawn from the current research are considered to be reliable.

6.11 Recommendations for further research

The conclusions of the current research are subject to limitations, stemming from the research approach and the applied research method. Additional research is required to mitigate these limitations;

- Literature is not conclusive on the critical success factors applicable on a

performance based collaboration. The current research contributes to that field of research, however the scope of the current research is limited to the aircraft MRO&U triad collaboration. An extension of the research to performance based collaboration between suppliers, service providers and users in different sectors is recommended;

- The current research applies the airworthiness method as a theory-in-use on the collaboration in the MRO&U triad. The airworthiness requirements are used as the basis to define the airworthiness method. However, no research on the airworthiness requirements with the aim to define an airworthiness method

135

could be found in literature. In the current research the airworthiness method is defined for the first time. A validation of the airworthiness method as defined in the current research is recommended;

- For the case study of the current research only a limited number of respondents is interviewed. The results from the case study are applied to validate the findings of the literature study and the application of the theory-in-use, and led to the adjustment of these findings. As such the impact of the results of the case study on the findings of the research is noticeable. A larger group of respondents would increase the validity of the case study and the reliability of the case study results.

- No research on the collaboration between the three independent entities:

buyer, supplier and service provider, could be found in literature. This is a field of research still to be explored;

- The findings from the current research contribute to the extension of the TCE theory. From the findings of the research it is concluded that the conceptual model reflects the MRO&U triad collaboration with the aim to achieve a performance objective: availability. This aim deviates from the aim of collaboration as defined in the TCE, which is transaction cost reduction. The shift in focus from cost reduction to performance realization leads to different incentives and different choices with respect to partner selection and collaboration conditions. The researcher has referred to this different approach as “transaction performance theory”. The transaction performance theory should be further developed;

- The PBC’s studied in the literature study are bi-lateral contracts between a

down-stream Vertical Integrated (VI) OEM/maintainer. Whether PBC’s are suited to facilitate the management in the MRO&U triad if the OEM is not Vertically Integrated, and the MRO&U partnership consists of three independent entities (OEM, maintainer and operator) is not yet studied. It is recommended to perform research on performance based collaboration between the three independent entities, OEM, maintainer and operator, in the MRO&U triad;

- In literature more attention is given to the establishment of a collaboration than

to the consolidation of a collaboration. While even less attention is given to improving a collaboration. Revising collaboration with the aim to improve the outcome of that collaboration is not found to be a subject of research yet;

- The availability conceptual model is applicable on achieving availability by

collaboration in the MRO&U triad. However the interview with respondents from the automotive industry suggests that the model is applicable on collaboration in the automotive industry as well. In the automotive industry the MRO&U triad consists of a supplier, a service provider and a buyer. The conceptual model might be applicable on triads consisting of a supplier, a

136

service provider and a buyer, a very common constellation. No studies on the applicability of trilateral collaboration in the automotive industry could be found;

- The availability conceptual model is applicable on the performance objective availability. While availability is defined as a combination of the performance objectives reliability, maintainability, and supportability. This suggests that the availability conceptual model might be applicable on the performance objectives: availability, reliability, maintainability and supportability. No research is found to be performed on this aspect. It is recommended to research the applicability of the availability conceptual model on aircraft reliability, maintainability and supportability;

- The conceptual model is applicable on triad collaboration with a PBC as

collaboration instrument. However from the findings of the current research indications are found that the conceptual model would also be applicable on bilateral collaborations. No research on this aspect could be found in literature. It is recommended to research the applicability of the availability conceptual model on bilateral collaborations in aircraft maintenance.

137

7. Researchers reflections In this chapter I share my personal appreciation of the current research and its findings. I have been active in the field of aircraft MRO&U for more than 30 years. Based on this experience I expected the current research to be an expedition into a familiar environment in which my assumptions and expertise would be confirmed. This proved to be an incorrect perception. The current research provided new and unexpected insights in the collaboration between the partners in the MRO&U triad as well as in the factors of influence of that collaboration. These insights are valuable for me to better understand the mechanism of triad MRO&U collaboration and its driving forces. From the current research I gained knowledge that proved to be complementary to my expertise and has helped me to comprehend on-going trends in the field of aircraft MRO&U. The combination of the experience in the field of research and the use of scientific methodology to perform the research proved to be beneficial to me. The experience in the field of research led to the recognition of the similarities between the airworthiness method and a method to achieve availability in the MRO&U triad. This resulted in the application of the airworthiness method as a theory-in-use. The application of the theory-in-use provided guidance on how a method to achieve availability could look like. The scientific methodology provided the tooling to define the relation between the collaboration in the MRO&U triad and aircraft availability and to express that relation in an availability conceptual model. Performing the interviews with the professionals in the field of MRO&U was experienced as a pleasant and interesting activity. I felt that speaking the same language as the professionals was helpful to extract information from the respondent and to increase the value of the interviews. Furthermore I felt encouraged by the positive responses of the respondents on the preliminary availability conceptual framework presented to them.

The availability conceptual model developed in the current research (fig. 40) was an eye-opener for me. The factors of influence identified in the model and their relation helped to better understand the forces that determine the outcome of the MRO&U process. The availability conceptual model provides a foundation to explain the trend of OEM’s to offer maintenance services to operators and to understand why performance based contracts are difficult to establish and manage. Based on my experience with performance based contracting, I have identified the factors of influence of the availability conceptual model to reflect the factors of influence applicable on performance based contracts. This recognition led to the understanding that some of the performance based contracts I developed in the past were not successful because not all factors of influence were properly addressed in the contract. Although I experienced the availability conceptual model to be and eye-opener, I found that I was familiar with the factors of influence of the model. In hindsight I realized that I had encountered the factors in my daily work, but had never seen them in relation to each other. From the development of control systems for processes, I experienced that the performance requirements applicable on the performance objective availability are

138

representative for the requirements applicable on any key performance indicator (KPI). From my experience with the development of collaborations I found that a collaboration agreement needs to facilitate the establishment and consolidation of the collaboration. From developing collaborations aimed at optimizing performances, I found that a mechanism to improve the performance needs to be incorporated in the collaboration agreement. From working with collaboration agreements I experienced that critical boundary conditions were applicable on collaboration, and that these boundary conditions need to be addressed in the collaboration agreement. Over the years I learned that these conditions were communication, consultation and a measuring and control system. When developing performance based collaborations I experienced the impact of a common objective on the achievement of that objective, and I experienced the importance of a level playing field between the collaboration partners. Based on these experiences and the findings of the current research, my assessment is that the critical success factors are applicable on any collaboration aimed at achieving a performance objective. As such, the critical success factors could contribute to complement the TCE theory with the aim to mitigate opportunism and foster collaboration.

7.1 A proposed preliminary formulation of a theory

The availability conceptual model reflects the relation between collaboration in the MRO&U triad and the performance objective availability. The model serves as a basis for the development of a theory. Further research is required to develop that theory. Based on the knowledge gained from the current research and my experience in the field of MRO&U and performance based contracts, I propose a formulation of a preliminary conceptual theory derived from the conceptual model:

“A KPI must be defined in specific and measurable term which are achievable and relevant for the entities involved and which are time bound. The process to realize the KPI must be facilitated by an collaboration mechanism in such a way that the establishment, the consolidation and the improvement of the KPI is enabled, whereby the involved entities have a shared interest in realizing the KPI, and the means to measure and control the realization of the KPI, about which they communicate and consult each other, whereby each entity contributes on equal conditions.”

7.2 Application of the model

The conceptual model (fig. 40) developed in the current research is assumed to be applicable on practical situations where collaboration on the basis of performance based contracts is in place. The conceptual model represents an overview of all factors relevant to develop a successful collaboration between three independent entities. My assessment is that the model can be used as a checklist to identify whether all applicable conditions are met in a performance based collaboration. This checklist can be applied to develop new- or assess existing performance based contracts. Firms or organizations that intent to start a collaboration with the aim to realize a desired performance outcome, can apply the conceptual model to assess the maturity of the collaboration agreement.

139

For aircraft operators the conceptual model offer a means to develop or validate service and supply performance agreements. Furthermore the conceptual model can be used by governmental organizations which are in the process or have the intent to outsource public services to private companies.

140

References:

Acar, E., Kale, A. and Haftka, R.T., 2005. “Effects of Error, Variability, Testing and Safety Factors on Aircraft Safety”

University of Florida, Gainesville Aghion, P., and Bolton, P., 1987. "Contracts as a Barrier to Entry,"

American Economic Review, 77: pages 388-401. Air Transport and Airport Research, 2008. “Analyses of the European air transport market: Airline Business Models”

German Aerospace Center Al-kaabi, H., Potter, A. and Naim, M., 2007. "An outsourcing decision model for airlines' MRO activities".

Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, vol. 13, no. 3: pages 217-227. Anand, K., Mendelson, H., 1997. “Information organization for horizontal multimarket coordination.”

Management Science 43 (12) Arbor, A, 2009. “Global MRO market economic assessment”.

AeroStrategy study Araujo, L. and Mota, J., 1998. ”learning by using as systems integration: the case of aircraft maintenance”

Lancaster University management school Auerbach, C. F. & Silverstein, L. B. 2003. “Qualitative data: An introduction to coding and analysis.”

New York: New York University Press. Baker, G., Gibbons, R., Murphy, K.J., 1993. “Subjective Performance Measures in Optimal Incentive

Contracts” NBER Working Paper No. 4480

Basten, R., 2009. “Designing logistics support systems”

PhD Thesis, University Twente Basten, R. J. I., Van der Heijden, M. C., and Schutten, J. M. J., 2009. “An iterative method for the simultaneous optimization

of repair decisions and spare parts stocks”. Beta working paper 295. Submitted for publication.

Beverland, M. and Lindgreen, A., 2010. “What makes a good case study?”

A positivist view of qualitative case research published in Industrial Marketing Management, 1971-2006. Industrial Marketing Management, 39 (1), 56-63.

Bintrup, A.M., Ranasinghe, D.C., Kwan, S., Parlikad, A., Owens, K., 2009. “Roadmap to Self-Serving Assets in Civil

Aerospace”. University of Cambridge, Institute for Manufacturing

Blanchard, B.S., Verma, D. and Peterson, E.L., 1995. “Maintainability: A Key to Effective Serviceability and Maintenance Management”.

John Wiley & Sons, NY. Blischke, W.R., Murthy, D.N.P., 2000. “Reliability: Modeling, Prediction, and Optimization”.

Wiley-Inter science, New York. Bolton, R.N., Lemon, K.N. and Verhoef, P.C., 2008. “Expanding business-to business customer relationships: Modeling the customer’s upgrade decision”.

Journal of Marketing. Vol. 72: pages 46-64. Bolton, P. and Whinston, M., 1993. “Incomplete Contracts, Vertical Integration, and Supply Assurance”.

Review of Economic Studies, 60: pages 121-48. Boon Seh Choo, 2004. “Best practices in Aircraft Engine MRO: A study of Commercial and Military systems”.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

141

Boynlon, A.C., and Zmud, R.W., 1984. "An Assessment of Critical Success Factors". Sloan Management Review (25:4): pages 17-27

Bullington, K. and Bullington, S. F., 2005, "Stronger supply chain relationships: learning from research on strong families".

An International Journal of Supply Chain Management, vol. 10, no. 3: pages. 192-197. Cachon, G., 2003. “Supply chain coordination with contracts”.

Handbooks in operations research and management science, 11: pages 229–340. Carlton, D., 1979. “Vertical Integration in Competitive Markets Under Uncertainty”.

Journal of Industrial Economics, vol. 27: pages 189-209.

Cassady, S.J., Mason, S., Ormon, Schneider, K., Rainwater, C., Carrasco, M., Honeycutt, J., 2003. “Fleet-Level Selective Maintenance and Aircraft Scheduling”. University of Arkansas Dept. of Industrial Engineering.

Chakrabarty, S., Whitten, D. and Green, K., 2007/2008. "Understanding service quality and relationship quality in IS

outsourcing: client orientation & promotion, project management effectiveness and the task-technology- structure fit".

Journal of Computer Information Systems, vol. 48, no. 2: pages 1-15. Chandler, A., 1964. “Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of American Industrial Experience”.

MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Chen, L. and Soliman, K. S., 2002. "Managing IT outsourcing: a value-driven approach to outsourcing using application

service providers”. Logistics Information Management, vol. 15, no. 3: pages 180-191.

Choi, T.Y., Kim Y., 2008. “Structural embeddedness and supplier management: A network perspective” Journal of supply chain management, Vol. 44 (4), pg. 5-13 Choi, T.Y., Wu, Z., 2009. “Triads in supply networks: theorizing buyer-supplier-supplier relationships” Journal of supply chain management, Vol. 45 (1), pg. 8-25 Cole, J.H., 2001 “Patents and copyrights: Do the benefits exceed the cost?”

Journal of Libertarian Studies Volume 15, no. 4: pages 79–105 Contractor F.J., Lorange P., 1988. “Cooperative strategies in international business”.

Lexington: Lexington Books. Contractor F.J., Lorange P., 2002. “Cooperative Strategies and Alliances”.

Elsevier Science: Oxford. Cosley, D. J. and Lury, D. A, 1987. “Data collection in developing countries”.

2nd edition, Clarendon Press, Oxford Creswell, J. W., 1998. “Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five traditions”.

Thousand Oaks CA.: Sage Publications. Creswell, J.W., 2003. “Research design, quantitative, qualitative and mixed method approaches”.

Thousand Oaks CA.:Sage publications, 2nd edition

Crispino, M., Flintsch, G., Pozzi, M., 2008. “Key Success Factors For Global Service Contracts For Road Management And Maintenance”. 7th International Conference on Managing Pavement Assets

Cross, R. and Parker, A, 2004. “The hidden power of social networks”.

Harvard business press. ISBN 978-1-59139-270-5 Dahlman, C.J., 1979. “The problem of externality”.

Journal of law and economics 21: pages 141 – 162 Das, T. K. and Bing-Sheng Teng, 2000. “A Resource-Based Theory of Strategic Alliances”.

142

Journal of Management, Vol. 26, No. 1: pages 31–61 Deloitte. 2006. “The service revolution in global manufacturing industries”.

Deloitte Research. Deloitte, 2011. “Hit the ground running. Five critical success factors in contracting for outcomes”.

Deloitte Research. Dhillon, B.S. and Liu, Y., 2006. “Human error in maintenance: a review”.

Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering Vol. 12 No. 1: pages 21-36 DMO discussion paper, 2009. “Incentive contracting in defence procurement: an updated approach including

performance based measures.”. Australian Defence Material Organisation

Dul and Hak, 2008. “Case study methodology in business research”. ISBN: 978-0-7506-8196-4 Dussauge, P., and Garrette, B., 1995. “Determinants of success in international strategic alliances: Evidence from the global

aerospace industry”. Journal of International Business Studies, 26: pages 505–530.

Duysters, G., 2001. “Partner or Perish, Surviving the network economy”.

Inaugural lecture 22 June. Eindhoven University of Technology. Dyer, J.H., Singh, H., 1998. “The relational view: cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive

advantage”. Academy of Management Review 23(4): pages 660-679.

Dwyer, R.F., Schurr, P.H., Oh, S., 1987. “Developing buyer-seller relationships”. Journal of Marketing. Vol. 51 (2), Pg. 11-27 EASA A, 2013, “Certification specifications for large airoplanes, CS-25” EASA B, 2013, internet: http://easa.europa.eu/safety-and-research Eckerson, W. W., 2006. “Performance dashboard: measuring, monitoring and managing your business”.

John Wiley & Sons, Inc, USA. Eggert, A., Ulaga, W. and Schultz, F., 2006. “Value creation in the relationship lifecycle: A quasi-longitudinal analysis”.

Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 20 – 27. Eichenberger, J., 1997. “General aviation law”.

Mc Graw-Hill Company, ISBN 0-07-015104-0 Eisenhardt, K. M., 1989. "Building theories from case study research"

Academy of Management Review, vol. 14, no. 4: pages 532-550. Eriksson and Kovalainen, 2008. ”Qualitative methods in business research”. ISBN 978-1-4129-0316-5. Sage publications Inc. Thousand Oaks, CA. FAA A Electronic code of regulation 2013, the internet FAA B Continuous Operational Safety (COS), 2013, the internet FAA C Aircraft Handbooks & Manuals, 2013 Ferregut, C.M., Roberto, A., Osegueda, Mendoza, Y., Kreinovich, V. and Ross, T.J., 2000. “Aircraft Integrity and Reliability”.

University of Texas at El Paso Flick, U., 2014. “An introduction to qualitative research” SAGE publications Ltd., London, ISBN 978-1-4462-6778-3

143

De Florio, F., 2006. “Airworthiness; An introduction to aircraft certification”

ISBN 978-0-7506-6948-1

Frazer, L. and Lawley, M., 2000. “Questionnaire design & administration”. John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd, Brisbane.

Friese, S., 2011. “Doing Qualitative Research With Atlas-ti”

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Garni, Ahmed, Z.,Tozan, Mueyyet, Mehedi, Mustafa, I., 2007. “Optimization of Maintenance Intervals for

Aircraft Systems and Components”. The Opportunity and Challenges Facing the Gulf Aviation Industry, Dharan, KSA.

Gates, S., 1993. “Strategic alliances: Guidelines for successful management”.

New York: Conference Board. Gerson, R., 2006. “Achieving high performance: a research-based practical approach” HRD press Inc. Amherst, MA 01002, USA Gerybadze, A., 1995. “Strategic alliances and process redesign: Effective management and restructuring of cooperative projects and networks”.

Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co. Ghobbar, A. A. and Friend, C. H., 2003. "Evaluation of forecasting methods for intermittent parts demand in the field of aviation: a predictive model".

Computers & Operations Research, vol. 30, no. 14: pages 2097-2114. Ghobbar, A.A., 2008. “Implementing Reliability, Availability, Maintainability and Supportability RAMS for the MRO

Industry: a Case Study at European Airlines”. 34th ESReDA Seminar on Supporting Technologies for Advanced Maintenance Information Management.

Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. 1967. “The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research.” Chicago, Ill: Aldine Pub. Co.

GOA, USA Government Accountability Office, 2004. “Defense Management: Opportunities to enhance the implementation

of performance based logistics”. US Senate

Grant, R.M. and Baden-Fuller, C., 2004. “A Knowledge Accessing Theory of Strategic Alliances”. Journal of Management Studies 41:1

Gregory, W., 1993. “Maintainability by Design”.

Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Society of Automotive Engineers Reliability, Maintainability, and Supportability Workshop. Dallas, Texas.

Green, J., 1986. “Vertical Integration and Assurance of Markets”.

New Developments in the Analysis of Market Structure. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Grinblatt, M. and Titman, S., 1989. “Adverse risk incentives and the design of performance-based contracts”

Management Science, Vol. 35, No 7 Grönroos, C., 2004. “The relationship marketing process: Communication, interaction, dialogue, value”.

Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 19, No. 2: pages 99–113.

Grossman, S. and Hart, O., 1986. "The Costs and Benefits of Ownership: A Theory of Vertical and Lateral Integration".

Journal of Political Economy, vol. 94: pages 691-719. Guajardo, J., Cohen, M., Netessine, S. and Kim, S.H., 2010. “Impact of Performance-Based Contracting on Product

Reliability: An Empirical Analysis”. Working paper.

144

Gulati, R., 1995. “Does familiarity breed trust? The implication of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances”. Academy of Management Journal, 38: pages 85–112.

Gulati, R., 2009. “Maintenance and reliability. Best practices”.

ISBN 978-0-8311-3311-5 Lei, G., Ng, I., 2011. “The co-production of equipment-based services: An interpersonal approach”.

European Management Journal Volume 29, Issue 1, February 2011, Pages 43–50 Harmsen, M, 2012. “Improving the customer-perceived value of supply with just-in-time production of specialty chemicals”. Master thesis, Technical University of Delft. Hart, O., and Tirole, J., 1990. “Vertical Integration and Market Foreclosure”.

Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Special Issue: pages 205-276. Harry, M.J., Schroeder, R., 2007. “Six Sigma: the breakthrough management strategy revolutionizing the world's top corporations” Harvard Business Review Press (ed), 2002. “Harvard Business Review on Strategic Alliances”.

Harvard Business School Press Heimeriks, 2004. “Developing alliance capabilities”.

Technische Universiteit Eindhoven. ISBN 90-386-2247-3 Henderson, J. C., 1990. "Plugging into strategic partnerships: the critical IS connection".

Sloan management review, vol. 31, no. 3: pages 7-18.

Herriot, R. E. and Firestone, W. A., 1983. "Multisite qualitative policy research: optimizing description and generalizability". Educational Researcher, vol. 12, no. 14-19.

Hessburg, J., 2000. “Air carrier MRO handbook: Maintenance, repair and overhaul”.

New York: McGraw‑Hill. Huberman, A. M. and Miles, M.B., 2002. “Introduction. In A. M. Huberman & M. B. Miles (Eds.)”

The Qualitative Researcher’s Companion, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 37-64. Hussey, J. and Hussey, R., 1997. “Business research: a practical guide for undergraduate and postgraduate students”.

Palgrave, United States. Illes, F., 2009. “A New Firm-level Information Technology Classification Model and the Effect on Firm Performance:

Theory Building & Empirical Analysis” Ireland, R.D., Hitt, M.A., Vaidyanath, D., 2002. “Alliance management as a source of competitive advantage”.

Journal of Management 28(3): pages 413-446. Johnson, J.L., Cullen, J.B., Sakano, T., Takenouchi, H., 1996. “Setting the stage for trust and strategic integration in Japanese-

U.S. cooperative alliances”. Journal of International Business Studies 27: pages 981-1004.

Jones, J., 2006. “Integrated Logistics Support Handbook”.

McGraw-Hill Logistics Series, ISBN 0-07-147168-5 Jones, J. V., 2006. “Supportability Engineering Handbook, Implementation, Measurement and Management”.

McGraw Hill, USA.

Jones, R. and Noble, G., 2007. “Grounded theory and management research: A lack of integrity?” Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management, 2, pp. 84-103.

Jong, de, A., 2010. “Improving industrial maintenance contract relationships: Optimizing the allocation of decision rights

and risk in contract relationships involving uncertainty in demand”. PhD Thesis, Delft Technical University

Joskow, P.L., 2003. “Vertical Integration”.

145

Handbook of New Institutional Economics, Kluwer. Kale, P., Singh, H., Perlmutter, H., 2000. “Learning and protection of proprietary assets in strategic alliances: building

Relational capital”. Strategic Management Journal Special Issue 21(3): pages 217-237

Kannan, D., 2007. “Certification Aspects of civil Aircraft”.

Symposium on Aircraft Design, 14th June 2007, Bangalore, India Kanter, R.M., 1994. “Collaborative advantage”.

Harvard Business Review 72(4): pages 96-108. Khanna, T., Gulati, R., Nohria, N., 1998. “The dynamics of learning alliances: competition, cooperation, and relative scope”. Strategic Management Journal 19(3): pages 193-210. Khodarinova, L. A., Binner, J. M., Fletcher, L. R., Kolokoltsov, V. N. and Whysall, P., 2004. “Controlling alliances through executing pressure”. Killing, J. P., 1988. “Understanding alliances: The role of task and organizational complexity”.

In F. J. Contractor & P. Lorange (Eds.), Cooperative strategies in international business: 55–68. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Kinnison, H., 2004. “Aviation Maintenance Management”.

Mc Graw-Hill Companies. ISBN 0-07-142251-X Kobbacy, K.A.H. and Jeon, J., 2001. “The development of a hybrid intelligent maintenance optimization system (HIMOS)”.

Journal of the Operational Research Society, 52 (7): pages 762-778. Kornelius, L., 1999. “Interorganisational infrastructures for competitive advantage: Strategic alignment in virtual

corporations”. TU Eindhoven, Eindhoven.

Kraines, D.P. and Kraines, V. Y., 2000. “Natural selection on memory-one strategies for the iterated prisoner’s dilemma”.

J. theor. Biol., 203: pages 335-355. Kumar, D., 2000. “Reliability maintenance and logistic support, a life cycle approach”.

Springer Verlag. Kumar, D., Knezevic, J., 1998. "Supportability - critical factor on systems’ operational availability"

International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 15 Iss: 4, pp.366 - 376 Kuo, W., Prasad, V.R., 2000. “An annotated overview of system-reliability Optimization”.

IEEE Transactions on Reliability 49 176–187.

Kuo, W., Wan, R., 2007. “Recent advances in optimal reliability allocation”. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 37 143–156.

Lane, P.J., Lubatkin, M., 1998. “Relative absorptive capacity and inter organizational learning”.

Strategic Management Journal 19(5): pages 461-477. Langfield-Smit, K. and Smith, D., 2003. "Management control systems and trust in outsourcing relationships".

Management Accounting Research, vol. 14: pages 281-307. Lasher, D. R. and Ives, B., 1991. "USAA-IBM partnerships in information technology: managing the image project”.

MIS Quarterly, vol. 15, no. 4: pages 551-565. Lavie, D., Haunschild, P.R., Khanna, P., 2012. “Organizational differences, rational mechanisms, and alliance Performance”.

Strategic Management Journal, vol. 33 issue 13: pages 1453-1479 Li, H., Wormer, K., 2012. “Optimizing the supply chain configuration for make-to-order manufacturing”.

European Journal of Operational Research. Volume 221, Issue 1: Pages 118–128

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03772217/221/1

146

Lin, H.M., Huang, H.C., Lin, C.P., Hsu, W.C., 2012. “How to manage strategic alliances in OEM-based Industrial cluster: Network embeddedness and formal governance mechanisms”. Industrial marketing management, vol. 41, issue 3: pages 449-459

Liu, A. H., Leach, M.P., and Bernhardt, K.L., 2005. “Examining customer value perceptions of organisational buyers when sourcing from multiple vendors”

Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58, No. 5, pp. 559 -568. Locks, M. O., 1995. “Reliability, Maintainability and Availability Assessment”

ASQC Quality Press, 2nd, USA.

Lorange, P., Roos, J., 1990. “Strategic Alliances, Formation, Implementation and Evolution”. Cambridge MA: Blackwell.

Lorange, P., Roos J., 1990. “Formation of cooperative ventures: Competence mix of the management teams”. Management International Review, 30 (Special issue): pages 69–86. Luo, Y., 2002. “Contract, cooperation, and performance in international joint ventures”.

Strategic Management Journal 23(10): pages 903-919. Lynch, C. F., 2004. “Logistics outsourcing: a management guide”.

2nd ed, CFL Publishing, Memphis. Madhavan, R., and Lee, 2010. "Divestiture and Firm Performance".

Journal of Management, Volume 36: pages 1345-1371 Madhok, A., Tallman, S.B., 1998. “Resources, transactions and rents: managing value through interfirm collaborative

relationships”. Organization Science 9(3): pages 326-339.

Man, de, A.P., 2014. “Alliances” Executive guide to designing strategic partnerships EAN 9781118486399, ISBN 978-1-118-48639-9

Martin, L., 2003. “Making performance-based contracting perform: What the federal government can learn from the state

and local governments”. In M.A. Abramson & R. Harris (Eds.), The Procurement Revolution, Rowman & Littlefield, New York: pages 87-125.

Mathewson, F. and Winter, R., 1986. “The Economics of Vertical Restraints in Distribution,”

In New Developments in the Analysis of Market Structures Cambridge, MA. MIT Press Mavris, D., Nottigham, C., Bandte, O., 1998. “The impact of supportability on the economic viability of a high

speed civil transport”. Aerospace System Design Laboratory, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta

McFarlan, F. W. and Nolan, R. L., 1995. "How to manage an IT outsourcing alliance"

Sloan Management Review, vol. 36, no. 2: pages 9-23. McIvor, R., Humphreys, P. and McCurry, L., 2003. "Electronic commerce: supporting collaboration in the supply chain?”

Journal of Materials Processing Technology, vol. 139, no. 1: pages 147-152. Medcof, J.W., 1997. “Why too many alliances end in divorce”.

Long Range Planning 30(5): pages 718-732. Meurs, I., 2010. “Partnerships for development: a holistic approach to the performance of a water operator partnership” Msc Thesis Technical University Delft Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., 1994. “Qualitative data analyses: An expanded sourcebook”.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc. Mohr, J. and Spekman, R., 1994. "Characteristics of partnership success: partnership attributes, communication behavior

And conflict resolution techniques" Strategic Management Journal, vol. 15, no. 2: pages 135-152.

147

Morse, J., 2000. “Determining sample size.” Qualitative Health Research, 10, pp. 3-5.

Mowery, D. C., Oxley, J. E., & Silverman, B. S., 1998. “Technological overlap and inter-firm cooperation: Implications for the

resource-based view of the firm”. Research Policy, 27: pages 507–523.

Mulder, W., Blok, J., Hoekstra, S., Kokkeler, F., 2012. “Design for maintenance. Guidelines to enhance

maintainability, reliability and supportability of industrial products”. University Twente, ISBN 978-94-6190-993-0

Murty, A. S. R. and Naikan, V. N. A., 1995. “Availability and Maintenance Cost Optimization of a Production Plant”. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, vol. 12, pages 28-35. Neely, A., Gregory, M. and Platts, K., 2005. "Performance measurement system design: a literature review and research

agenda". International Journal of Operations & Production Management, vol. 25, no. 12: pages 1228-3577.

Ng, I. and Yip, N., 2009. “Identifying Risk and its Impact on Contracting Through a Benefit Based-Model Framework in Business to Business contracting: Case of the defence industry”.

Cranfield University Ng, I. and Ding, X., 2010. “Outcome-based Contract Performance and Co-production in B2B Maintenance and

Repair Service”. Cranfield University

Ng, I., Ding, X. and Yip, N., 2013. “Outcome-based contracts as new business model: The role of partnership and value-driven relational assets” Industrial Marketing Management, 2013 Volume 42, Issue 5, July 2013, Pages 730–743

Nooteboom, B., Berger, J., Noorderhaven, N.G., 1997. “Effects of trust and governance on relational risk”. Academy of Management Journal 40(2): pages 308-338.

Oliver, C., 1990. “Determinants of interorganizational relationships: Integration and future directions”.

Academy of Management Review, 15: pages 241–265. Öner, K.B., 2010. “Optimal Reliability and Upgrading Decisions for Capital Goods”.

PhD thesis TUE Öner, K.B. and Bachoe, R., 2010. “Mathematical models for reliability decisions”.

Proceedings IOP-IPCR Symposium “System Availability Up: Life Cycle Cost Down”. December 2, 2010 Ordover, J., Salop, S., and Saloner, G., 1990. "Equilibrium Vertical Foreclosure".

American Economic Review. Vol. 80: pages 127-42. Osborn, R. N. and Baughn, C. C., 1990. “Forms of inter-organizational governance for multinational alliances”.

Academy of Management Journal, vol. 33: pages 503–519. Park, S.O., Ungson, G.R., 2001. “Inter-firm rivalry and managerial complexity: a conceptual framework of alliance failure”. Organization Science vol. 12(1): pages 37-53. Parkhe, A., 1998. “Understanding trust in international alliances”.

Journal of World Business vol. 33(3): pages 219-240 Payne, A. and Holt, S., 2001. “Diagnosing customer value: Integrating the value process and relationship marketing”

British Journal of Management, Vol. 12, No.2, pp. 159−182. Peng, T.-J.A., Lin, N.-J., Martinez, V., Yu, C.-M.J., 2010. “Managing Triads in a Military Avionics Service Maintenance Network in Taiwan.”

International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 30 (4), 398-422 Perry, M., 1978. "Price Discrimination and Vertical Integration".

Bell Journal of Economics, vol. 9: pages 209-17.

148

Persona, A., Regattieri, A., Pham, H., Battini, D., 2007. “Remote control and maintenance outsourcing

networks and its applications in supply chain management”. Journal of Operations Management vol. 25: pages 1275–1291

Pisano, G. P. and Teece, D. J., 1989. “Collaborative arrangements and global technology strategy: Some evidence from the

telecommunications equipment industry”. Research on Technological Innovation, Management and Policy, vol. 4: pages 227–256.

Porter, M. E., 1985. “Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance”. New York : Oxford: Free Press.

Porter, M.E., 2001. “Service Operation Strategy”.

Harvard Business School Quinn and Hilmer, 1995. “Make versus Buy, strategic outsourcing”.

The McKinsey quarterly 1995 Number 1 Rappaport, A., 1998. “Creating shareholder value”.

New York Free press, ISBN 0-684-84456-7 Rakers, R., 2011. “The influence of sustainment contract types on product reliability”.

A case study research in the defense aero engine aftermarket. Delft University of Technology

Reunis, M.R.B., 2007. “The Effect of Influence Tactics on E-Procurement Adoption Cognitions”, Dissertation TU Delft, Delft, The Netherlands.

Rindfleisch, A. and Heide, J.B., 1997. “Transaction Cost Analysis: Past, Present, and Future Applications”. Journal of Marketing, vol. 61 (October): pages 30-54.

Roberts, R., Gregory, D., Cornwell, F., O’Keefe, M., 2002. “Value Chains: A Project”.

Management and Mentoring Guide. Canberra Romeu, J. L., 2004. “Availability”.

Selected Topics in Assurance Related Technologies, vol. 11, no. 6. Rothaermel, Hitt and Jobe, 2006. “Balancing Vertical Integration and strategic outsourcing: effects on product portfolio, Product success and firm performance”. Strategic Management Journal, 2006, Volume 26, Issue 11, page 1033 -1056. Ruiter, de, A., 2010. “The Lean Value Chain Network And Aftermarket MRO”.

PhD Thesis, Delft University and University Nyenrode Rijsdijk, C., and Ghobbar, A.A., 2012. “An attempt to quantitatively underpin the rationality of maintenance support”. Proceedings of the third international air transport and operations symposium 2012. ISBN 978-1-61499-118-2 Saaksvuori, A. and Immonen, A., 2008. „Product Lifecycle Management“.

Springer-Verlag Berlin, Heidelberg. Sachon, M. and Pate-Cornell, E., 2000. "Delays and safety in airline maintenance".

Reliability Engineering and System, vol. 67, no. 3: pages 301-309. Sachs, 2004. “Innovations in performance based contracting”.

San Diego State University. Safety Regulation Group, CAP 718, 2002. “Human Factors in Aircraft Maintenance and Inspection”.

(previously ICAO Digest No. 12). ISBN 0 86039 836 6 Sakburanapech, A., 2008. “Development of a Relationship Management Framework and Related Performance Metrics for

Outsourced Aircraft Maintenance”. Cranfield University school of applied science

Saldaña, J., 2009. “The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers”.

149

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Scalan, Hill, Marsh, Bru, Dunkley and Cleevely, 2002. “Cost modeling for aircraft design optimization”. J. Eng. Design, vol. 13, no. 3

Schilling, T., Hölzel, N.B., Langhals, S., 2012. “Cost-benefit evaluation of aircraft maintenance base-check

down-time and cost”. Proceedings of the third international air transport and operations symposium 2012. ISBN 978-1-61499-118-2

Shelanski, H.A. and Klein, P.G., 1995. “Empirical Research in Transaction Cost Economics: A Review and

Assessment”. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, Vol. 11, No. 2: pages 335-361

Sheth, J.N., and Parvatiyar, A., 1992. “Towards a theory on business alliance formation”.

Scandinavian international Business review, vol. 1, no. 3 Serghides, and Fielding, 1984. “A Maintainability Prediction Methodology for Use in Aircraft Design” International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management ISSN: 0265-671X Shapiro, J.F., Singhal, V.M. and Wagner, S.N., 1993. “Optimizing the value chain”.

Interfaces, Vol. 23, No. 2: pages 102-117. Silverman, B.S., 1999. “Technological Resources and the Direction of Corporate Diversification: Toward an Integration of

the Resource-Based View and Transaction Cost Economics” Management science Volume 45 Issue 8, August 1999, pp. 1109-1124

Smets, L., 2009. “Design for availability”.

Master thesis, University of Leuven Smith, C., Knezevic, J., 1996. "Achieving quality through supportability - part I: concepts and principles"

Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 2 Iss: 2, pp.21 – 29

Sobal, J., 2001. “Sample extensiveness in qualitative nutrition education research.” Journal of Nutrition Education, 33, pp. 184-192.

Southwest Airlines, 2008. “Southwest Airlines Risk Management”.

Cheathouse 47194 Sparrow, E., 2003. “Successful IT outsourcing”.

Springer-Verlag London Limited, Great Britain. Steiner, G.A., 1968. “Strategic Factors in Business Success”.

University of California Graduate School of Business Administration: Los Angeles. Strauss, A. & Corbin, J., 1998. “Basics of Qualitative Research.”

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Suhir, E., Mahajan, R., Lucero, A.E. , Bechou, L., 2012. “Probabilistic design-for-reliability concept and novel approach to

qualification testing of aerospace electronic products”. Aerospace Conference. ISBN: 978-1-4577-0556-4

Sullivan, U.Y. and Coughlan, A.T., 2004. “Alliance Structure and Success in the Global Airline Industry: An Empirical

Investigation“. Department of Business Administration, College of Business, University of Illinois-Urbana/Champaign

Suwondo, E., 2007. “LCC-OPS, Life Cycle Cost application in aircraft operations”.

Thesis TUDelft, ITB Press, Jalan Ganesha 10, Bandung 40132, Indonesia Suwondo, E., 1999. “Life Cycle Cost: Concept, Procedure and Models”.

A Literature Study on LCC, TU Delft, 1999 (unpublished). Tallman, S. B., & Shenkar, O., 1990. “International cooperative venture strategies: Outward investment and small firms from NICs”.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/search/searchresult.jsp?searchWithin=p_Authors:.QT.Mahajan,%20R..QT.&newsearch=partialPref

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/search/searchresult.jsp?searchWithin=p_Authors:.QT.Lucero,%20A.E..QT.&newsearch=partialPref

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/search/searchresult.jsp?searchWithin=p_Authors:.QT.Bechou,%20L..QT.&newsearch=partialPref

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/mostRecentIssue.jsp?punumber=6178851

150

Management International Review, vol. 30: pages 299–315. Tate, W., Ellram, L., Bals, L., Hartmann, E., Van der Valk, W., 2010. “An agency theory perspective on the purchase of

marketing services”. Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 39 (5), pg. 806-819.

Taylor, J.C., 1990. “Facilitation of Information Exchange Among Organizational Units Within Industry”.

Proceedings of the Second Federal Aviation Administration Meeting on Human Factors Issues in Maintenance and Inspection — Information Exchange and Communication. Washington, D.C

Thokala, P., 2009. “Life cycle cost modeling as an aircraft design decision support tool”.

University of Southampton Thomson, S.B., 2011. “Sample Size and Grounded Theory.”

JOAAG, Vol. 5. No. 1 Tiffany, C. F., Gallagher, J. P., and Babish IV, C. A., 2010. “Threats to aircraft structural safety, including a compendium of selected structural accidents / incidents”.

ASC-TR-2010-5002 Aeronautical Systems Center Tirole, J., 1988. “The Theory of Industrial Organization”.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Valk, van der, W., 2010. “Purchasing and supply chain management: analysis, strategy, planning and practice”. Andover: Cengage Learning Vandenbosch, M. and Dawar, N., 2002. “Beyond better products: Capturing value in customer interactions”.

MIT Sloan Management Review, vol. 43, No. 4: pages 35– 42.

Vanneste, S.G., Van Wassenhove, L.N., 1995. “An integrated and structured approach to improve maintenance”. European Journal of Operational Research vol. 82: pages 241–257.

van Rhee, Kaelen en V.d. Voort, 2008. “Keteninnovatie”.

World Class Maintenance, The Netherlands van Rhee, Kaelen en V.d. Voort, 2009. “Performance Based Contracting”.

World Class Maintenance, The Netherlands Walter, J., Kellermanns, F.W., Lechner, C., 2012. “Decision making within and between organizations. Rationality, politics, and alliance performance”.

Journal of management, vol. 38, issue 5: pages 1582-1610 Walters, D., 2002. “Operations strategy”.

London: Palgrave MacMillan. WCM, 2010. “World Class Maintenance voor militaire vliegtuiggasturbines, via een PPS x PBL concept”.

Werk document Dutch Institute World Class Maintenance (not releasable to all) Van Weele , A.J., 2005. “Purchasing and supply chain management: analysis, strategy, planning and practice”.

Thomson Learning, London. The White House, Office of Management and Budget, 1998. “Best Practices for Performance-Based Contracting”

Office of Federal Procurement Policy, (OFPP) Office of Management and Budget, (OMB) Executive Office of the President

Williamson, O.E., 1975. “Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications”.

The Free Press: New York, NY. ---- 1985. “The Economic Institutions of Capitalism” The Free Press: New York, NY. ---- 1999. “Strategy Research: Governance and Competence Perspectives” Strategic Management Journal, vol. 20: pages 1087-1108.

151

Wirick, D., 2009. “Public sector project management: meeting the challenges and achieving results”. John Wiley&Sons.Inc. Hoboken, New Jersey, USA. Whipple, J.M., Frankel, R., 2006. “Strategic alliance success factors”.

Journal of supply chain management, vol. 36, issue 3. Wu, H., Liu, Y., Ding, Y., and Liu, J., 2004. “Methods to Reduce the Direct Maintenance Cost for Commercial Aircraft”.

Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology, vol. 76: pages 15-18.

Wynstra, F., Robbe, T., Rooks, G., Türksever, H.,Valk, van der, W., 2012. “Three is a crowd, but in which ways?: Performance based contracting in buyer-supplier-customer triads”. IPSERA 2012, conference proceedings

Yilmaz, A.K., 2008. “The Corporate Sustainability Model for Airline Business”.

Anadolu University Yin, R.K., 2003. “Case Study Research: Design and Methods”

3rd Edition, Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Yoshino, M. Y. and Rangan, U. S., 1995. “Strategic alliances: An entrepreneurial approach to globalization”.

Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Zineldin, M. and Bredenlow, T., 2003. "Strategic alliance: synergies and challenges: a case of strategic outsourcing relationship "SOUR"".

International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics, vol. 33, no. 5: pages 449-464.

152

List of tables

Paragraph

4.3 Table 1. The descriptive codes of the Central Category “performance requirements of the performance objective airworthiness”

4.4.1 Table 2. The core category “to establish” and the related descriptive codes

4.4.2 Table 3. The core category to consolidate airworthiness and the descriptive codes 4.4.3 Table 4. The core category to improve and the frequencies of the descriptive codes 4.5.5 Table 5. The Core category measure and control and the descriptive codes with frequencies 4.5.6 Table 6. The Core category communication and the descriptive codes with their frequencies of

occurrence 4.5.7 Table 7. The core category “penalty system” and the frequency of the descriptive codes 4.5.8 Table 8. The Core category “level playing field” and the related descriptive codes with their frequencies. 5.3.2 Table 9. Overview of respondents 5.3.3 Table 10. Relation between respondents and collaboration agreements 5.7 Table 11. The comparison for the codes and frequencies with respect to the descriptive code

“availability” 5.8.1 Table 12. Comparison of the codes and the frequencies of the Core Category “specific” 5.8.2 Table 13. The assigned codes and their frequency for PBC’s and traditional contracts for the Core

category “measurable” 5.8.3 Table 14. The codes and frequencies for the Core Category Achievable 5.8.4 Table 15. The assignment of codes and the frequencies of the Core Category “relevant”. 5.8.5 Table 16. The assignment of the codes to the Core Category “Time bound” 5.9.1 Table 17. The assignment of the codes to the Core Category “establish” 5.9.2 Table 18. The assignment of codes and their frequency for the Core Category “consolidate” 5.9.3 Table 19. The assignment of the codes and their frequencies for the Core Category “Improve” 5.10.1 Table 20. The assignment of the codes and their frequencies to the Core Category “shared interest” 5.10.2 Table 21. The assignment of codes and their frequencies to the Core category “communication” 5.10.3 Table 22. The assignment of descriptive codes and their frequency of occurrence for the Core Category

“measuring & control” 5.10.4 Table 23. The assignment and frequencies of the codes for the Core Category “penalty & consultation” 5.10.5 Table 24. The assignment of the codes and their frequencies to the Core Category “level playing field” 5.12 Table 25. The frequencies of occurrence of codes for the Core Categories for OEM2 with respect to PBC2

and traditional contract2, and for maintainer3 with respect to PBC1 and PBC2 6.7 Table 26. The relative weight of the descriptive codes for PBC1 6.8 Table 27. The relative interest of the triad partners

153

Annex H Table H-1. Success factor “Definition of availability” Table H-2. Central Category “performance requirements of the performance objective availability”

Core Category “Specific&Measurable” Table H-3. Central Category “performance requirements of availability” Core Category “Achievable & Relevant” Table H-4. Central Category “performance requirements of availability” Core Category “Time bound” Table H-5. Central Category “functions of availability mechanism” Core Category “Establish & Consolidate” Table H-6. Central Category “functions of the availability mechanism” Core Category “Improve” Table H-7. Central Category “critical success factors” Core Category “Common objective” Table H-8. Central Category “critical success factors” Core Category “Measuring&control” Table H-9. Central Category “critical success factors” Core Category “Communication&Consultation” Table H-10. Central Category “critical success factors” Core Category “Level playing field”

Annex I Table I-1. The descriptive codes from the automotive industry

List of figures

Paragraph

1.3 Fig. 1. The MRO&U process 1.7 Fig. 2. Relation between the collaboration in the MRO&U triad and the performance objective

availability. 1.7 Fig. 3. The research approach (based on Dul and Hak, 2008) 2.3 Fig. 4. The performance requirements of the performance objective availability 2.4.1 Fig. 5. The collaboration mechanisms and its functions for the collaboration in the MRO& triad 2.4.2 Fig. 6. The critical success factors applicable on the collaboration in the MRO& triad 2.4.3 Fig. 7. The critical success factors and the critical success factors of the collaboration in the MRO&U

triad. 2.5 Fig. 8. The initial preliminary availability conceptual framework. 2.7.1 Fig. 9. The research approach 2.7.3 Fig. 10. Aircraft accident rate (Boeing Company 2010) 2.7.3 Fig. 11. Relation between the collaboration in the MRO&U triad and the performance objective

airworthiness.

154

2.7.3 Fig. 12. The airworthiness conceptual model. 2.8.4 Fig. 13. Structure of the research 3.4 Fig. 14. Availability structure (Smets, 2009, Mulder et al., 2012) 3.4.4 Fig. 15. The SMART performance requirements of the performance objective availability as extension of

the findings from the preliminary literature review. 3.5 Fig. 16. The process of identifying the collaboration mechanisms and its functions and critical success

factors from the theories on triads, alliances and TCE. 3.5.2 Fig. 17. The grouping of purpose related alliances (Sheth and Parvatiyar, 1992). 3.5.8 Fig. 18. The collaboration mechanism PBC and its functions as extension of the collaboration in the

MRO&U triad as identified in the preliminary literature review. 3.6.4 Fig. 19. The critical success factors of the collaboration mechanism as extension of the findings from the

preliminary literature review. 3.7 Fig. 20. The preliminary availability conceptual framework. 4.2 Fig. 21. The steps taken in the study of the airworthiness requirements. 4.2 Fig. 22. The categories of the properties of availability. 4.2 Fig. 23. The categories of the functions of the airworthiness method 4.3.1 Fig. 24. Comparison between the performance requirements applicable on availability and on

airworthiness. 4.4.1 Fig. 25. Establishing airworthiness and the descriptive codes assigned to the Core category “establish”. 4.4.2 Fig. 26. Consolidating airworthiness and the descriptive codes assigned to the Core category

“consolidating airworthiness” 4.4.3 Fig. 27. The airworthiness improvement method and the descriptive codes 4.4.4 Fig. 28. Comparison between the functions of PBC for availability and the functions of the airworthiness

method. 4.5.2 Fig. 29. The Core Categories of the critical success factors 4.5.9 Fig. 30. The comparison between the critical success factors of the availability method and the

airworthiness method. 4.6 Fig. 31. The results from the confirmation of the critical success factors by the theory-in-use. 4.7 Fig. 32. The availability conceptual framework. 5.6.4 Fig. 33. The categories of the requirements applicable on availability. 5.6.4 Fig. 34. The categories of the functions of the availability mechanism 5.6.4 Fig. 35. The Categories of the critical success factors 5.9.4 Fig. 36. Transition and adjustment of the functions of the availability mechanism: PBC 5.10.6 Fig. 37. The transition and adjustment of the critical success factors of the collaboration in the MRO&U

triad 5.10.7 Fig. 38. The revised performance requirements of the performance objective availability.

155

5.13 Fig. 39. The availability conceptual model 6.6 Fig. 40. The availability conceptual model

List of abbreviations

A0 Planned arrival time

AMOS Aircraft management information system

AOG Aircraft On Ground

Ass. Assistant

D0 Planned departure time

DMO Defense Materiel Organization

EASA European Aviation Safety Agency

F–16 Fighter aircraft F-16

Fig. Figure

FAA Federal Airworthiness authority

IPR Intellectual Property Rights

JSTOR Journal Storage

KLM Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij

KPI Key Performance Indicator

LCC Life Cycle Cost

M1 Maintainer 1

Maint. Maintainer

MBTH Material By The Hour

MEL Minimum Equipment List

MRO&U Maintenance, Repair, Overhaul and Upgrade

MTBF Mean Time Between Failures

MTBUR Mean Time Between Unscheduled Removals

MTTR Mean Time To Repair

MTTS Mean Time To Support

NAA National Airworthiness Authority

NAG Netherlands Aerospace Group

OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer

O2 Operator 2

Oper. Operator

PBC Performance Based Contract

PMA Parts Manufacturer Approval

RNLAF Royal Netherlands Air Force

RQ Research Question

SARS Severe acute respiratory syndrome

SMART Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time bound

156

TC3 Traditional Contract 3

TCE Transaction Cost Economics

TDR Technical Dispatch Reliability

Trad. Traditional

UGT Unscheduled Ground Time

US United States

VI Vertical Integration or Vertically Integrated

157

Annexes

Annex A

The interview questions

OEM Maintainer Operator Name of Company: Name of Company: Name of Company: Name interviewee Name interviewee Name interviewee Position Interviewee Position Interviewee Position Interviewee Contract type Contract type Contract type Which maintainer Which OEM Which OEM Which operator Which operator Which Maintainer Aircraft type Aircraft type Aircraft type

1 Which are in your opinion the minimum requirements to make an aircraft available for the operator?

Which are in your opinion the minimum requirements to make an aircraft available for the operator?

Which are in your opinion the minimum requirements to make an aircraft available for operations?

2 Which three aircraft (design) characteristics are the most important factors which determine aircraft availability?

Which three aircraft (maintain) characteristics are the most important factors which determine aircraft availability?

Which three aircraft characteristics are the most important factors which determine aircraft availability?

3 What kind of contract is in place with the operator and maintainer: performance based or other?

What kind of contract is in place with the operator and OEM: performance based or other?

What kind of contract is in place with the OEM and maintainer: performance based or other?

4 Does the contract contain performance requirements with respect to aircraft availability

Does the contract contain performance requirements with respect to aircraft availability

Does the contract contain performance requirements with respect to aircraft availability

5 Which is the most important performance requirement of this contract and how is that performance requirement defined?

Which is the most important performance requirement of this contract and how is that performance requirement defined?

Which is the most important performance requirement of this contract and how is that performance requirement defined?

6 Who defined these performance requirements?

Who defined these performance requirements?

Who defined these performance requirements?

7 How these performance requirements are measured?

How these performance requirements are measured?

How these performance requirements are measured?

8 Are you as OEM in the position to control the achievement of the performance requirements?

Are you as maintainer in the position to control the achievement of the performance requirements?

Are you as operator in the position to control the achievement of the performance requirements?

9 Is it relevant for the OEM to achieve the performance requirement?

Is it relevant for the maintainer to achieve the performance requirement?

Is it relevant for the operator to achieve the performance requirement?

10 Is there a third party required to achieve the performance objectives?

Is there a third party required to achieve the performance objectives?

Is there a third party required to achieve the performance objectives?

158

11 Is there a time limit to realize the performance requirements?

Is there a time limit to realize the performance requirements?

Is there a time limit to realize the performance requirements?

12 Do you think that this contract and the performance requirements in the contract affect the aircraft availability?

Do you think that this contract and the performance requirements in the contract affect the aircraft availability?

Do you think that this contract and the performance requirements in the contract affect the aircraft availability?

13 Has the OEM developed special (design) measures to meet the performance requirements?

Has the maintainer developed special measures to meet the performance requirements?

Has the operator developed special measures to meet the performance requirements?

14 Has the OEM adjusted the design, production or service process to continuously meet the performance requirements?

Has the maintainer adjusted the design, production or service process to continuously meet the performance requirements?

Has the operator adjusted the design, production or service process to continuously meet the performance requirements?

15 Has the OEM adopted a permanent improvement method in its processes to meet or exceed the performance requirements?

Has the maintainer adopted a permanent improvement method in its processes to meet or exceed the performance requirements?

Has the operator adopted a permanent improvement method in its processes to meet or exceed the performance requirements?

16 Do you think that the process facilitates and/or stimulates the improvement of aircraft availability for the operator?

Do you think that the process facilitates and/or stimulates the improvement of aircraft availability for the operator?

Do you think that the process facilitates and/or stimulates the improvement of aircraft availability?

17 Which is the most important interest for the OEM with respect to this contract?

Which is the most important interest for the maintainer with respect to this contract?

Which is the most important interest for the operator with respect to the contract?

18 Does the OEM has an interest in improving the aircraft availability for the operator?

Does the maintainer has an interest in improving the aircraft availability for the operator?

Do the OEM and maintainer have an interest in improving the aircraft availability?

19 Do you think that the aircraft availability is affected if the OEM has an interest herein?

Do you think that the aircraft availability is affected if the maintainer has an interest herein?

Do you think that the aircraft availability is affected if the OEM and maintainer have an interest herein?

20 Do you communicate with the operator and the maintainer about the realization of the performance requirements?

Do you communicate with the operator and the OEM about the realization of the performance requirements?

Do you communicate with the OEM and the maintainer about the realization of the performance requirements?

21 Is the communication with the operator and maintainer adequate to serve your information needs with respect to the realization of the performance requirements?

Is the communication with the operator and OEM adequate to serve your information needs with respect to the realization of the performance requirements?

Is the communication with the OEM and maintainer adequate to serve your information needs with respect to the realization of the performance requirements?

159

22 Does the quality of the communication affect the realization of the performance requirements?

Does the quality of the communication affect the realization of the performance requirements?

Does the quality of the communication affect the realization of the performance requirements?

23 How do you measure whether the performance requirements are met?

How do you measure whether the performance requirements are met?

How do you measure whether the performance requirements are met?

24 How do you control the realization of the performance requirements, and is that control mechanism adequate?

How do you control the realization of the performance requirements, and is that control mechanism adequate?

How do you control the realization of the performance requirements, and is that control mechanism adequate?

25 What are the consequences (penalties) if the OEM cannot meet the performance requirements?

What are the consequences (penalties) if the maintainer cannot meet the performance requirements?

What are the consequences (penalties) if the OEM or maintainer cannot meet the performance requirements?

26 Is the OEM consulted by the operator if the performance requirements are not met?

Is the maintainer consulted by the operator if the performance requirements are not met?

Do you consult the OEM and/or maintainer if the performance requirements are not met?

27 Do you think that a penalty and consultancy system affects the realization of the performance requirements?

Do you think that a penalty and consultancy system affects the realization of the performance requirements?

Do you think that a penalty and consultancy system affects the realization of the performance requirements?

28 Do the OEM, the operator and the maintainer have equal positions in the MRO&U chain under this contract, i.e. is there a level playing field?

Do the OEM, the operator and the maintainer have equal positions in the MRO&U chain under this contract, i.e. is there a level playing field?

Do the OEM, the operator and the maintainer have equal positions in the MRO&U chain under this contract, i.e. is there a level playing field?

29 Do you think that the existence of a level playing field affect the realization of the performance requirements?

Do you think that the existence of a level playing field affect the realization of the performance requirements?

Do you think that the existence of a level playing field affect the realization of the performance requirements?

160

Annex B

Translation of descriptive codes from Dutch into English as used in this Thesis.

Dutch English A0 en D0 A0 and A0 Aangepast Adjusted Aangeschaft Procured Aantal vervangen delen Number replaced parts Afzegging Cancellation AMOS AMOS Analyse Analysis AOG AOG Beheer/controle Control Belangen Interests Beschikbaarheid Availabilty Bespreking Discussion Betrouwbaarheid Reliability Budget Budget Communicatie Communication Connectiviteit Connectivity Continuïteit Continuity Contract organ Contract board Controle Control Cultuur Culture Dashboard Dashboard Derden Third Party Direct Real time Discussie Discussion Doorlooptijd Turnaround time Engineering Engineering Evenwicht/balans Balance FAA eisen FAA requirements Frequentie Frequency Garantie Warranty Gebruikscijfers Usage number Gebruikersonderhoud Line maintenance Gelijkwaardigheid Level playing field Gemeenschappelijk Jointly Gemeten Measured Gerealiseerd Realized Geschikt voor operationeel gebruik Suitable for operations Gewicht Weight Imago Imago Inbouw klacht Fail on fit Informatie Information Investeringen Investments Inzetbaar Mission capable Juiste mensen, middelen, locatie Right people, means and location Klachtafhandelingssnelheid Repair time

161

Klachten registratie Malfunction list Klachten rapportage Malfunction report Klachten vrij No failures found Kosten Cost KPI (key performance indicator) KPI Logistieke reserve Logistic backup Luchtwaardig Airworthy Mate van ondersteuning Supportability MBTH MBTH Meetgegevens Metrics Meten To measure Milestones Milestones Minimum Equipment List MEL Monopolist Monopolist Modificatie Retrofit MTBF MTBF MTBUR MTBUR Nacalculatie Costing Netline Netline Netwerk Network Onderhoud ter voorkoming klacht Soft time maintenance Onderhoudbaarheid Maintainability Openheid Openness Organisatie Organization Overleg Consultation Passagiers tevredenheid Passenger Satisfaction Permanent/continue Continuously Plan kaarten Planning cards Prestatie Performance Prestatie contract Performance Contract Prestatie eisen Performance requirements Prestatie gegevens Performance metrics Prestatie niveau Performance level Prestatie vergadering Performance meeting Preventief Onderhoud Preventive Maintenance Proactief Proactive Proces Process Punctualiteit Punctuality Rapport Report Realiseren To Realize Relatie Relationship Reparatie tijd Fix time/ repair time Samenwerking Collaboration Service Service Straf Penalty TDR TDR Technische debriefing Technical debrief Tijd Time Transparant Transparent UGT UGT Uitgestelde klachten Deferred malfunction Uitstel Extension

162

Vaste prijs Fixed price Verbeteren To Improve Verbetering Improvement Verbeter programma Improvement program Verbetervoorstel Improvement proposal Vergadering Meeting Vertrouwen Trust Verworven Procured Vliegtuig aan de grond Downtime Vlieggereed Flight worthy/fit to fly Vliegtuigbeschikbaarheid Aircraft availability Vootmanagement Fleetmanagement Voorraad Supply Werkinstructiekaarten Work sequence cards Win-Win Win-win

163

Annex C

The descriptive codes and the frequency with which they are mentioned in the interview transcripts.

Codes: Freq. total

A0 and D0 5

Adjusted 11

Aircraft availability 36

Airworthy 6

AMOS 5

Analysis 15

AOG 7

Availability 48

Balance 3

Budget 5

Cancellations 1

Collaboration 34

Communication 36

Connectivity 1

Consultation 52

Continuity 2

Continuously 5

Contract board 2

Control 7

Costs 15

Costing 1

Culture 8

Dashboard 1

Deferred malfunction 1

Discussion 1

Downtime 1

Engineering 21

Extensions 1

164

FAA requirements 1

Fail on fit 1

First time yield 2

Fit to fly 2

Fix time 1

Fixed price 7

Fleetmanagement 5

Flight worthy 1

Imago 7

Improve 21

Improvement 39

Improvement program 3

Improvement proposals 5

Information 18

Interest 5

Investments 4

Jointly 8

KPI 54

Level playing field 9

Line maintenance 4

Logistic backup 6

Maintainability 4

Malfunction list 1

Malfunction report 1

MBTH 1

Measured 11

Measure 7

Meeting 1

Metrics 6

Milestones 2

Minimum equipment list 1

Mission capable 7

Monopolist 2

165

MTBF 2

MTBUR 2

Network 8

Netline 2

No failures found 1

Number of replaced parts 1

Openness 1

Organization 13

Passenger satisfaction 1

Penalty 24

Performance contract 13

Performance 78

Performance level 2

Performance meeting 3

Performance metrics 1

Performance requirement 11

Planning cards 1

Preventive maintenance 4

Process 18

Procured 2

Proactive 5

Punctuality 3

Report 17

Real time 4

Realized 21

Relationship 3

Reliability 30

Repair time 1

Retrofit 6

Right people, means, location 7

Service 17

Soft time maintenance 2

Suitable for operations 1

166

Supply 13

Supportability 4

TDR 9

Technical debrief 1

Third party 11

Time 18

To realize 20

Transparent 13

Trust 20

Turnaround 5

Turnaround time 60

Usage number 2

UGT 4

Warranty 3

Weight 5

Win-win 4

Work sequence cards 1

167

Annex D

The assignment of descriptive codes to the Core Categories and the Subcategory of the performance requirements of availability

Core Category Frequency Separate: (aircraft) Availability 168 Specific: A0 and D0 5

Airworthy 6 AOG 7 Cancellations 1 Deferred malfunction 3 Downtime 1 Extensions 1 FAA requirements 1 Fail on fit 1 First time yield 2 Fit to fly 2 Fix time 1 Flight worthy 1 KPI 54 Line maintenance 4 Maintainability 4 Minimum equipm. List 1 Mission capable 7 No failures found 1 No. of replaced parts 1 Performance 91 Performance requirements 13 Preventive Maintenance 4 Punctuality 3 Reliability 30 Repair time 1 Service 17 Suitable for operations 1 Supply 13 Supportability 4 TDR 9 Turnaround 5 UGT 4 Work sequence cards 1

Measurable: Budget 5

Costing 1 Costs 15 Information 18

168

Logististic backup 6 MBTH 1 Measured 11 Metrics 6 Milestones 2 MTBF 2 MTBUR 2

Passenger satisfaction 1 Performance level 2 Performance metrics 1 To measure 7

Usage figures 2 Achievable:

Analysis 15 Planningcards 1 Proactive 5 Third parties 11

Relevant Realized 21 To Realize 20 Time bound

Time 18 Turnaround time 60

169

Annex E

The assignment of descriptive codes to the Core Categories of the Central Category functions of the availability mechanism

Core Category Frequency Establish Adjusted 11 Investments 4 Organization 13 Procured 2 Right people, means, location 7 Consolidate Continuity 2 Continuously 5 Control 7 Imago 7 Process 18 Improve Engineering 21 To improve 21 Improvement 39 Improvement program 3 Improvement proposal 5 Retrofit 6

170

Annex F

The assignment of descriptive codes to the Core Categories of the Central Category critical success factors of the availability mechanism

Core Category Frequency A common objective Collaboration 34 Culture 8 Fixed price 7 Interests 5 Jointly 8 Relationship 20 Soft time maintenance 2 measuring & control AMOS 5 Dashboard 1 Fleetmanagement 5 Net line 2 Network 8 Performance meeting 3 Report 17 communication Consultation 52

Communication 36 Connectivity 1 Discussion 1 Meeting 1 Openness 1 Real time 4 Transparency 13 penalty & consultation

Contract Board 2 Malfunction List 1 Malfunction report 1 Penalty 24 Technical debrief 1 Warranty 5 A level playing Field Balance 3 Level playing field 9 Monopolist 2

Trust 20 Weight 5 Win-win 4

171

Annex G

The distribution of the assigned codes between PBC’s and traditional contracts

Codes: Freq. total freq. PBC freq. Traditional (Aircraft) Availability 36 29 7

Availability 48 36 12

Adjusted 11 9 2

A0 and D0 5 5 0 Airworthy 6 2 4 Fit to fly 2 2 0 Flight worthy 1 1 0 Mission capable 7 6 1 Minimum equiqm. List 3 3 0 Punctuality 3 3 0 Suitable for operations 1 1 0 TDR 9 8 1

UGT 4 2 2 AMOS 5 4 1 Analysis 15 12 3 AOG 7 7 0 Balance 3 2 1 Budget 5 0 5 Cancellations 1 0 1 Collaboration 34 31 3 Communication 36 23 13 Connectivity 1 0 1 Consultation 52 34 18 Continuity 2 1 1 Continuously 5 2 3 Contract board 2 2 0 Control 7 4 3 Costs 15 10 5

Costing 1 1 0 Culture 8 5 3

Dashboard 1 1 0 Deferred malfunction 3 1 2 Discussion 1 1 0 Downtime 1 1 0 Engineering 21 15 6 Extensions 1 0 1 FAA requirements 1 1 0 Fail on fit 1 1 0 First time yield 2 2 0 Fix time 1 1 0 Fixed price 7 5 2 Fleetmanagement 5 2 3

Imago 7 4 3 Improve 21 17 4

172

Improvement 39 31 8 Improvement program 3 3 0 Improvement proposals 5 3 2

Information 18 17 1 Interest 5 5 0 Investments 4 2 2

Jointly 8 6 2 KPI 54 41 13 Level playing field 9 7 2 Line maintenance 4 4 0 Logistic backup 6 5 1 Maintainability 4 3 1 Malfunction list 1 1 0 Malfunction report 1 1 0

MBTH 1 0 1 Measured 11 5 6

Measure 7 2 5 Meeting 1 1 0 Metrics 6 3 3 Milestones 2 0 2 Monopolist 2 1 1 MTBF 2 2 0 MTBUR 2 1 1 Network 8 8 0

Netline 2 2 0 No failures found 1 1 0 No. of replaced parts 1 1 0 Openness 1 1 0 Organization 13 9 4 Passenger satisfaction 1 1 0 Penalty 24 15 9 Performance 91 64 27 Performance level 2 2 0 Performance meeting 3 3 0 Performance metrics 1 1 0 Performance requirements 14 11 3 Planning cards 1 0 1 Preventive maintenance 4 4 0 Process 18 8 10 Procured 2 2 0 Proactive 5 5 0 Report 17 11 6 Real time 4 4 0 Realized 21 15 6 Relationship 20 13 7 Reliability 30 24 6 Repair time 1 0 1 Retrofit 6 4 2 Right people, means, location 7 6 1 Service 17 14 3 Soft time maintenance 2 2 0 Supply 13 1 12

173

Supportability 4 3 1 Technical debrief 1 1 0 Third party 11 7 4 Time 18 9 9 To realize 20 17 3 Transparent 13 12 1 Trust 20 18 2 Turnaround 5 3 2 Turnaround time 60 20 40 Usage number 2 2 0 Warranty 5 1 4 Weight 5 3 2 Win-win 4 2 2 Work sequence cards 1 0 1

174

Annex H

The distribution of the codes between de MRO&U partners for PBC1, PBC2 and traditional contract2

Success factor “Definition of availability”

Table H-1

Central Category “performance requirements of the performance objective availability” Core Category “Specific&Measurable”

Descriptive code

OEM1 Freq.

Oper.1 Freq.

Maint.3 Freq.

Maint.4 Freq.

OEM2 Freq.

Maint.3 Freq.

OEM2 Freq.

Oper.2 Freq.

Airc. Availability

3 7 7 4 6 1

Availabilty 6 6 1 4 8 1 1 4

Total 9 13 8 8 14 1 1 5

Descriptive code

OEM1 Freq.

Oper.1 Freq.

Maint.3 Freq.

Maint.4 Freq.

OEM2 Freq.

Maint.3 Freq.

OEM2 Freq.

Oper.2 Freq.

A0 and D0 3

Airworthy 2 1 3

Fit to fly 1

Flight Worthy 1 1

Maintainability 3 2

MEL 1

Punctuality 3

Reliability 6 3 1 5 5

Suitable for ops

1

Supportability 3 1

TDR 3 4 1

UGT 2 2 KPI 1 6 13 10 3 7 Preventive Maintenance

1

Downtime 2 AOG 1 Line maintenance

1 1 1 1

FAA requirements

1

Fail on fit 1 Fix time 1

PBC1 PBC2 Traditional2


175

Table H-2

Turnaround 2 No failures found

1

Supply 9 2 2 2 Performance 7 12 4 6 2 6 Repair time 1 Cancellations 1 Extension 1 Deferred malfunctions

1 2

No. of replaced parts

1


8 3

Service 14 3

Usage number 2 1

Costs 2 3 3

Costing 4

Measured 4

To Measure 1 2

Passenger satisfaction

1

Information 6 3 4 1 1

Metrics 1 3 3 1

Logistic back-up

5

MTBF 1 1 1

MBTH 1

MTBUR 1 1

Milestone

Budget 1

Performance level

2 2

Performance metrics

3 1

Total 34 44 26 26 56 9 22 36

176

Central Category “performance requirements of availability” Core Category “Achievable & Relevant”

Table H-3

Central Category “performance requirements of availability” Core Category “Time bound”

Table H-4

Descriptive code

OEM1 Freq.

Oper.1 Freq.

Maint.3 Freq.

Maint.4 Freq.

OEM2 Freq.

Maint.3 Freq.

OEM2 Freq.

Oper.2 Freq.

Analysis 2 4 2 1 1

Proactive 1

Third party 2 1 3 1 4

Realized 2 5 2 1

To realize 1 1 6 3 1 3 1

Total 3 11 11 7 5 3 2 6

Descriptive code

OEM1 Freq.

Oper.1 Freq.

Maint.3 Freq.

Maint.4 Freq.

OEM2 Freq.

Maint.3 Freq.

OEM2 Freq.

Oper.2 Freq.

Turnaround time

1 1 2 8

Time 1 4 1 6 1 1 2

Total 1 5 2 6 3 1 10



177

Central Category “functions of availability mechanism” Core Category “Establish & Consolidate”

Table H-5

Central Category “functions of the availability mechanism” Core Category “Improve”

Table H-6

Central Category “critical success factors” Core Category “Common objective”

Descriptive code

OEM1 Freq.

Oper.1 Freq.

Maint.3 Freq.

Maint.4 Freq.

OEM2 Freq.

Maint.3 Freq.

OEM2 Freq.

Oper.2 Freq.

Adjusted 2 2 1 2 1

Investments 1 1

Organization 1 3 2

Procured 2

Right people, means, location

1 1

Continuity 1 1

Continuously 1 2

Control 1 1 4

Image 2

Process 1 5

Total 4 5 5 5 3 2 5 10

Descriptive code

OEM1 Freq.

Oper.1 Freq.

Maint.3 Freq.

Maint.4 Freq.

OEM2 Freq.

Maint.3 Freq.

OEM2 Freq.

Oper.2 Freq.

Engineering 3 5 2 1 1

To improve 6 8 7 3 7 1

Improvement 12 1 2 3 1 3

Improvement program

1 1 1 1

Improvement proposal

1 1

retrofit 1

Total 10 27 12 5 10 0 3 6

Descriptive code

OEM1 Freq.

Oper.1 Freq.

Maint.3 Freq.

Maint.4 Freq.

OEM2 Freq.

Maint.3 Freq.

OEM2 Freq.

Oper.2 Freq.

Collaboration 2 4 1 2 2

Culture 2 1




178

Table H-7

Central Category “critical success factors” Core Category “Measuring&control”

Table H-8

Central Category “critical success factors” Core Category “Communication&Consultation”

Fixed price 2 2

Interest 2 10 2 1 4 1 1 6

Jointly 1 7 3 2

Perf. contract 1 3 1 1 3 1 2

Relationship 3 1 1 3

Soft time 9 28 8 10 12 2 1 8

Descriptive code

OEM1 Freq.

Oper.1 Freq.

Maint.3 Freq.

Maint.4 Freq.

OEM2 Freq.

Maint.3 Freq.

OEM2 Freq.

Oper.2 Freq.

AMOS 2 2

Dashboard 1

Fleet management

1 1 1

Network 7 4 4

Performance meeting

2 1

Report 3 2 1 3

Total 3 11 5 7 4 0 0 5

Descriptive code

OEM1 Freq.

Oper.1 Freq.

Maint.3 Freq.

Maint.4 Freq.

OEM2 Freq.

Maint.3 Freq.

OEM2 Freq.

Oper.2 Freq.

Communication 2 6 2 3 2

Connectivity 1

Discussion 8 10 1 2 5

Meeting 1 5 1

Openness 1

Real time 1 2

Transparency 5 1 1

Consultation

Contract board 2

Malfunction List

1

Malfunction Report

1

Penalty 3 1 1 1 3 1



179

Table H-9

Central Category “critical success factors” Core Category “Level playing field”

Table H-10

Technical debrief

1

Warranty 3 1

Total 11 27 11 12 1 5 3 9

Descriptive code

OEM1 Freq.

Oper.1 Freq.

Maint.3 Freq.

Maint.4 Freq.

OEM2 Freq.

Maint.3 Freq.

OEM2 Freq.

Oper.2 Freq.

Balance 1 1 1

Level playing field

6 1 1

Monopolist 1

Trust 3 2 2 4 1

Weight 1

Win-win 1 1

Total 5 8 3 4 3 1 3


180

Annex I

The assignment of codes for the automotive environment

Code OEMX MaintainerX peratorX

Specific&measurable

KPI 5 7 5

Maintenance 3 23 2

Availability 3 5 1

Performance 5 10 6

Malfunction 2

Cost 15 2

Measured 1 1

Satisfaction 4

Information 1 2

Budget 3

Mission Capable 1

Suitable for ops 8 1

Total 21 74 21

Achievable&relevant

Analysis 2

Third Party 2 2 3


2 2

Planning 2

Realized 1 2

Total 2 7 9

Time bound

Time 3 3 6

Turnaround time 1

Total 5 4 6

Establish&consolidate

Organization 1 1

Right means, location 3 2

Control 5 3 1

Proces 4 1

Continuously 1

Continuity 1

Total 13 6 4

Improve

To improve 2 2

181

Table I-1 The descriptive codes from the automotive industry

Improvement 1 1 1

Improvementprogram 1

Retrofit 2

Total 3 3 5

Common interest

Jointly 1 1

Interest 2 1

Culture 1

Relationship 1

Total 2 4 1

Measuring&control

Performance meeting 1 2

Total 1 2

Communication&consult.

Consultation 3 2 2

Communication 2 2 4

Real time 3

Penalties 2

Malfunction 2

Openness 1 1

Total 6 9 9

Level playing field

Level playing field 1

Trust 1 1

Total 2 1

182

Annex J

186

Abstract

How to achieve availability in the MRO&U triad

Research aim and research questions The financial crisis and the introduction of low-budget companies have brought major changes to the air freight community. Competition became stronger and cost control became more important. This led to new ways of organizing aircraft Maintenance, Repair, Overhauls and Upgrades (MRO&U), which became performance oriented. For the triad of participants in the maintenance process, the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM), the maintainers and the operator, this meant that they had to change their way of working, their processes and their culture. The focus shifted to delivering performance i.e. aircraft availability. The objective of the current research is to contribute to the development of a theory on how to achieve the performance objective aircraft availability as outcome of the MRO&U triad collaboration. This qualifies the current research as a theory building research. The current research aims at specifying the relation between the performance objective availability and the collaboration in the MRO&U triad, as well as the factors that influence this relation; - the performance requirements of the performance objective availability; - the applicable collaboration mechanism and its functions; - the critical success factors applicable on the collaboration mechanism of the MRO&U

triad.

The research questions are developed to determine the relation between the collaboration in the MRO&U triad and availability by determining the factors of influence. The research questions are;

- RQ1: Which are the performance requirements applicable on availability? To identify the requirements applicable on availability, an analysis is made of availability and its characteristics.

- RQ2: Which collaboration mechanisms are suited to facilitate the collaboration in the MRO&U triad with the aim to achieve availability, and which are its functions? The collaboration mechanism affects the performance of the collaboration. A literature study on triad, transaction cost economics and alliance theories is performed to identify suitable mechanisms and their functions. The findings of the literature study are tested by the application of a theory-in-use and validated by a case study.

- RQ3: Which critical success factors are applicable on the availability collaboration mechanism? To identify the critical success factors applicable on collaboration in the MRO&U triad a study on triads, alliances and TCE collaboration is performed. The findings of this study are tested by the application of a theory-in-use and validated by a case study.

- RQ4: What is the relation between collaboration in the MRO&U triad and the performance objective availability?

187

Based on the answers on the previous questions an availability conceptual model is developed. The availability conceptual model describes the relation between the collaboration in the MRO&U triad and the performance objective availability. The factors of influence form the building blocks of this model.

Structure and findings of the research

The research approach is a multiple method research involving, a literature study, application of a theory-in-use and a case study. The literature study is performed on triad, alliance and transaction cost theories and is applied to answer the research questions. The airworthiness method defines the collaboration in the MRO&U triad with the aim to achieve the performance objective airworthiness. The airworthiness method is applicable and effective on a wide range of aircraft types. Based on the broad applicability and the fact that the airworthiness method results in the airworthiness of the system, it is assessed that the airworthiness method is a sufficient condition to provide airworthiness as outcome of the MRO&U process. The airworthiness method is applied as a theory-in-use and to test and adjust the findings from the literature study. The case study is conducted by interviewing professionals active in the aircraft MRO&U process. Interviews are conducted with eight different respondents from seven different firms. The case study consists of thirteen case studies (contracts) and a Cross-case analysis. The case study provides additional information about the weight of the factors of influence as well as the relation between the factors of influence. The case study is applied to validate and complement the findings from the literature study and the application of the theory-in-use. The research process is structured around the research questions and the research approach. RQ1: Which are the performance requirements of the performance objective availability? In the literature study the requirements applicable on the performance objective availability are identified to be defined in Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time bound (SMART) terms. This finding is tested by the application of the theory-in-use. The case study revealed that the performance requirements “specific” and “measurable” are intertwined and should be combined, which applies also on the performance requirements “achievable” and “relevant”. Furthermore the case study indicates that the performance requirement “specific and measurable” is most important. RQ2: Which collaboration mechanisms are suited to facilitate the collaboration in the MRO&U triad with the aim to achieve availability, and which are its functions? On the bases of the literature study the Performance Based Contract (PBC) is identified as the collaboration mechanism best suited to facilitate the collaboration in the MRO&U triad. Furthermore the functions of the collaboration mechanism PBC are identified: to establish,

188

consolidate and improve the collaboration in the aircraft MRO&U triad. The theory-in-use is based on a different collaboration mechanism, however the applications of the functions are tested. The case study validates that the PBC is the best suited collaboration mechanism for the MRO&U triad. Furthermore the applicable functions are validated, whereby the function “improve” is found to be the most important function. RQ3: Which critical success factors are applicable on the availability collaboration? The critical success factors identified in the literature study are;

- A common performance objective; - Measuring and control; - Communication; - Trust; - A penalty and consultation system; - A level playing field.

Of these critical success factors the factors: “trust” and “a penalty system” are disputed, while the factor: “a level playing field”, lacks support from more than one source. The critical success factors of the availability mechanism are confirmed by the findings from the analysis of the theory-in-us, except for the critical success factor “trust”, which is not confirmed by the theory-in-use, and is deleted. The results of the case study validate the applicability of the critical success factors, with exception of the critical success factor “a penalty system” which is deleted. The critical success factors communication and consultation are intertwined and are combined into the critical success factor “communication and consultation”, which is an important factor. RQ4: What is the relation between the collaboration in the MRO&U triad and the performance objective availability? The relation between the collaboration in the MRO&U triad and the performance objective availability is determined by the factors of influence. The factors of influence form the building blocks for the availability conceptual model, which is illustrated in fig. 1. A high relative weight of a factor is expressed by the use of bolt characters.


The resulting availability conceptual model (see fig. 1) is assessed to be the basis for a theory on how to achieve availability by collaboration in the MRO&U triad.

Relation between the collaboration in the MRO&U triad and availability


Availability mechanism PBC



Time Bound

To establish & consolidate To improve



Level playing field

189

Conclusions The availability conceptual model represents a method to achieve availability by collaboration in the MRO&U triad. As such the model provides an answer to the main question of this research “How to achieve availability in the MRO&U triad”. The model provides guidance as how to establish, consolidate and enhance MRO&U triad collaboration by the use of a PBC, and how to improve the performance outcome, aircraft availability, of that collaboration.

190

Samenvatting

Hoe kan beschikbaarheid worden verkregen door samenwerking in de ORR&U triade

Doel van het onderzoek en de onderzoekvragen De financiële crisis en de komst van de low-budget vliegmaatschappijen hebben tot grote veranderingen in de luchtvaartsector geleid. Competitie werd heftiger en kostenbeheersing belangrijker. Als gevolg hiervan werd de inrichting van onderhoud, reparatie, revisie en updates (ORR&U) van vliegtuigen meer prestatie gericht. Voor de triade van het vliegtuig onderhoudsproces, de fabrikant, de onderhouder en de gebruiker, betekende dit dat zij hun werkwijze, hun processen en hun bedrijfscultuur moesten aanpassen. Het zwaartepunt verschoof naar het leveren van prestaties, i.c. vliegtuigbeschikbaarheid. Het doel van het huidige onderzoek is om een bijdrage te leveren aan de ontwikkeling van een theorie over het bereiken van de prestatiedoelstelling vliegtuigbeschikbaarheid als resultaat van de samenwerking in vliegtuig ORR&U triade. Dat classificeert het huidige onderzoek als een theorie vormend onderzoek, waarbij de relatie tussen de samenwerking in de ORR&U triade en de prestatiedoelstelling vliegtuigbeschikbaarheid wordt gedefinieerd, alsmede de factoren van invloed op deze relatie: - De prestatie eisen die worden gesteld aan de prestatiedoelstelling

‘vliegtuigbeschikbaarheid’; - Het samenwerkingsmechanisme en de functionaliteiten daarvan; - De kritische succes factoren van de samenwerking. De onderzoekvragen zijn gericht op het vaststellen van de relatie tussen de samenwerking in de ORR&U triade en vliegtuigbeschikbaarheid door het definiëren van de factoren van invloed op deze relatie. De onderzoekvragen zijn; - OV1: Welke prestatie eisen zijn van toepassing op vliegtuigbeschikbaarheid?

Om deze prestatie eisen vast te stellen is een analyse gemaakt van de specifieke kenmerken van vliegtuigbeschikbaarheid;

- OV2: Welke samenwerkingsmechanismen zijn geschikt voor de triade samenwerking in MRO&U en wat zijn de functionaliteiten? Het samenwerkingsmechanisme beïnvloedt de kwaliteit van de samenwerking. De theorieën op het gebied van triades, transactie kosten en allianties zijn bestudeerd om de geschikte samenwerkingsvormen te identificeren. De bevindingen van de literatuur studie zijn bevestigd door vergelijking met de toegepaste theorie en gevalideerd met een case studie;

- OV3: Welke kritische succes factoren zijn van toepassing op de ORR&U samenwerking?

De kritisch succes factoren zijn geïnventariseerd door de theorie op het gebied van triades, transactiekosten en allianties te bestuderen. De bevindingen van deze inventarisatie zijn bevestigd door vergelijking met de toegepaste theorie en gevalideerd met een case studie;

- OV4: Wat is de relatie tussen de samenwerking in de ORR&U triade en vliegtuigbeschikbaarheid? Op basis van de antwoorden op de vorige onderzoekvragen wordt een vliegtuigbeschikbaarheidsmodel geconcipieerd, waarin de relatie tussen de

191

samenwerking in de ORR&U triade en vliegtuigbeschikbaarheid wordt gedefinieerd. De factoren van invloed vormen de ingrediënten voor dit model.

Structuur en uitkomsten van het onderzoek Voor het beantwoorden van de onderzoekvragen is de Multi-methode onderzoekopzet toegepast, bestaande uit een literatuur studie, de analyse van een toegepaste applicatie en een case studie. De literatuurstudie is uitgevoerd op basis van triade, transactie kosten en alliantie theorieën. De methode van luchtwaardigheidsborging definieert samenwerking in de ORR&U triade die tot doel heeft de luchtwaardigheid van vliegtuigen te realiseren. De methode wordt op alle vliegende systemen toegepast en is in de loop van de tijd effectief gebleken. Daarom wordt de methode beschouwd als een voorbeeld van een succesvol toegepaste theorie m.b.t. samenwerking in de ORR&U triade met luchtwaardigheid als prestatie uitkomst. De methode van luchtwaardigheidsborging wordt gebruikt als voorbeeld van een toegepaste theorie waarmee de resultaten van de literatuur studie kunnen worden bevestigd. De case studie is uitgevoerd door het interviewen van acht professionals werkzaam in zeven bedrijven actief in vliegtuig ORR&U. Er zijn dertien casussen (contracten) onderzocht en er is een cross-case analyse uitgevoerd. De case studie levert aanvullende informatie op, waarmee de bevindingen van de literatuur studie en de vergelijking met de toegepaste theorie zijn gevalideerd. Daarenboven levert de case studie kennis op over het relatieve gewicht van de factoren van invloed alsmede hun onderlinge relatie. Het onderzoek proces is gestructureerd rond de onderzoekvragen en de onderzoekopzet. OV1: Welke prestatie eisen zijn van toepassing op vliegtuigbeschikbaarheid? Uit de literatuurstudie volgt dat vliegtuigbeschikbaarheid is gedefinieerd in specifieke, meetbare, bereikbare, relevante en tijdgebonden prestatie eisen. Deze uitkomst wordt bevestigd door vergelijking met de toegepaste theorie, de methode van luchtwaardigheidsborging. Uit de case studie volgt dat de prestatie eisen “specifiek” en “meetbaar” zodanig met elkaar zijn verweven dat ze kunnen worden samengevoegd. Dat geldt ook voor de prestatie eisen “haalbaar” en “relevant”. Daarenboven blijkt de prestatie eis “specifiek en meetbaar” het hoogste relatieve gewicht te hebben en het belangrijkst te zijn. OV2: Welke samenwerkingsmechanismen zijn geschikt voor de samenwerking in de ORR&U triade en wat zijn de functionaliteiten? Op basis van de literatuurstudie is het prestatie contract geïdentificeerd als het meest geschikte samenwerkingsmechanisme voor de ORR&U triade. De functionaliteiten van het prestatie contract zijn daarbij: de ontwikkeling, de instandhouding en de verbetering van de samenwerking. De toegepaste theorie, de methode van luchtwaardigheidsborging, gebruikt een ander samenwerkingsmechanisme, maar met dezelfde functionaliteiten. De resultaten

192

van de case studie bevestigen dat het prestatie contract het meest geschikte samenwerkingsmechanisme is en dat identieke functionaliteiten van toepassing zijn. Daarenboven toont de case studie aan dat “verbeteren” de belangrijkste functionaliteit is. OV3: Welke kritische succes factoren zijn van toepassing op de ORR&U samenwerking? Uit de literatuurstudie volgen de onderstaande kritische succes factoren;

- Een gemeenschappelijke prestatie doelstelling; - Een meet en controle systeem; - Communicatie; - Onderling vertrouwen; - Een boete systeem met overlegstructuur; - Een gebalanceerde onderlinge machtsverhouding.

Over de factoren “onderling vertrouwen” en een “boete systeem” is de literatuur niet eensluidend, terwijl voor “een gebalanceerde onderlinge machtsverhouding” slechts een informatiebron is gevonden. De kritische succes factoren zijn ook aangetroffen in de luchtwaardigheidsborging als toegepaste theorie, met uitzondering van “onderling vertrouwen”, derhalve is besloten de factor “onderling vertrouwen” te laten vervallen. Met de case studie worden de kritische succes factoren gevalideerd met uitzondering van de factor “boete systeem”. De factor “boete systeem” vervalt. Daarenboven bleken de factoren “communicatie” en “overleg” zodanig met elkaar verweven dat zij zijn samengevoegd. De factor “communicatie en overleg” blijkt relatief het hoogste gewicht te hebben en de belangrijkste factor te zijn. OV4: Wat is de relatie tussen de samenwerking in de ORR&U triade en vliegtuigbeschikbaarheid? De relatie tussen de samenwerking in de ORR&U triade en vliegtuigbeschikbaarheid wordt bepaald door de factoren van invloed, welke de bouwstenen vormen van het conceptuele vliegtuigbeschikbaarheidsmodel, zie fig. 1. De belangrijke factoren zijn weergegeven in vetgedrukte letters.

Fig. 1 Het vliegtuigbeschikbaarheidsmodel

Het vliegtuigbeschikbaarheidsmodel vormt een basis voor de theorie over hoe vliegtuigbeschikbaarheid kan worden bereikt door samenwerking in de ORR&U triade.

Relatie tussen de samenwerking in de ORR&U triade en vliegtuigbeschikbaarheid

Samenwerking in de ORR&U triade

Prestatie contract

Prestatie doelstelling vliegtuigbeschikbaarheid

Specifiek & Meetbaar Bereikbaar & Relevant

Tijd gebonden

ontwikkelen & instandhouden

verbeteren

Gemeenschappelijke doelstelling

Communicatie & overleg Meten en controleren

Gebalanceerde machtsverhouding

193

Conclusies Het vliegtuigbeschikbaarheidsmodel geeft aan onder welke voorwaarden de vliegtuigbeschikbaarheid wordt gerealiseerd door samenwerking in de ORR&U triade. Als zodanig geeft het model antwoord op de hoofd onderzoeksvraag “hoe kan beschikbaarheid worden verkregen door samenwerking in de ORR&U triade”.

“How to achieve aircraft availability in the MRO&U triad”

Documents

Transcript of “How to achieve aircraft availability in the MRO&U triad”