“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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 in the MRO&U triad Collaboration mechanism Functions Critical success factors Collaboration in the MRO&U triad 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 Performance requirements Collaboration mechanisms anism Functions Critical success factors
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 Qualitative research Preliminary literature 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
Performance requirements Functions Critical success
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
