Change Management for (SMS) in Aviation Page 1

Change Management for Safety Management System in Aviation

Mohammad Aljeemaz, DBA Researcher

Introduction

In this paper I should explore the assumptions and issues focuses on airlines safety

management system (SMS) implantation, and efficiency of (SMS) operation. And the roles

of change management concept to in convert (non-SMS) compliance to an (SMS)

compliance (Flouris, T., & Yilmaz, A. K. 2009).

Safety is NOT negotiable element in the aviation sector. It is the basics of any airline

operator, passengers and the civil aviation authority or the governments in general. Usually

apparent of the less number of accidents and incidents, aviation safety is mostly achieved

by the airline through the fulfillment of the (SMS) standards. The airlines and their

outsourcings suppliers usually get audited by safety managers in aviation authority; most

of the airlines follow the international standards such as IATA’s Operational Safety Audit

Program (International Air Transport Association).

Airlines, employees and regulators all proceed with different concepts of risk, based on the

perceptions of their people, their experience, public pressure and any number of other

“environmental” factors. If differing risk strategies and views exist, then there are

inevitable disagreements, any of which drag the operating process down. If the three

Actors can come to agreement on the ideas of risk, then the operating process can go

smoothly and efficiently (SMS Project Team of The Air Line Pilots Association,

International, 2006). The objective of an (SMS) is to provide a structured management

system to control risk in operations. Effective safety management must be based on

characteristics of an operator’s processes that affect safety (Federal Aviation

Administration, 2006)

The culture of the organization would be the back bone for aviation (SMS) implementation

environment. In the organization would be the stronger the culture, the more efficiently the

organization would handle the. The more efficiency in handling, the more success in

implementing the new (SMS) without creating more change management terms and

conditions (Flouris, T., & Yilmaz, A. K. 2009).

Change Management for (SMS) in Aviation Page 2

Discussion

The safety management of the aviation sector has been connected to organizational culture.

The proactive management of safety, including SMS initiatives, depends on the

establishment of a hazard reporting culture (Reason, 1998).

The power of the culture for an organization has been defined by some researchers in

organizational management, sociology, and anthropology. It has been defined as coherence

(Deal and Kennedy, 1982), homogeneity (Ouchi and Price, 1978), stability and intensity

(Schein, 1992), congruence (Schall, 1983), and internalized control (DiTomaso, 1987).

Cultural power linked to the concept of who accept the governing values and how strongly

these values, and how long the values have been dominant (Gordon & DiTomaso, 1992).

The fundamental concept to cultural power is the best way of getting the employees accept

these values, is that employees must believe in their organizational culture in order for the

culture to be successful.

Establishes an effective (SMS) are required:

1. Full organizational concept to the safety issues should be maintained, which

establishes the quality for the safety management, safety culture, safety policies, and

ensures the safety commitment for senior management.

2. Existence of effective safety standard and procedures for the organization.

Establishes the standards and assign resources and concentrate on risk and their

critical effects on safety activities.

3. Clear standardized form of (SMS) scope of work to assure all the organization will

maintain to follow the right goals and objectives to achieve the affective (SMS).

Ultimate dissolution

Change is a result of decline progression that would happen when an organization fails to

put appropriate observation to changes in its external environment (Flouris, T., & Yilmaz, A.

K. 2009). First stage is when organization blinded and unable to identify internal and

external changes that may affect the organization. Second stage is when organizations

unable to react to a need for change even with signs of bad performance. Third stage is

when organization reacts but these reactions are unfortunate. Fourth stage is after failing

to deal with the troubles, and then organization finds itself in front of the crisis. Failure to

react to the crisis would consequences to the ultimate dissolution of the organization

(Flouris, T., & Yilmaz, A. K. 2009).

Change Management for (SMS) in Aviation Page 3

Change categorization

The change we had in our discussion is continues and dynamic and can be categorized into

three phases. First phase is (unfreezing phase) where the organization start to shake or

freeing from the current culture. Second phase involves (moving phase) to a new culture

level. Third phase is (refreezing phase) at the new culture level. For example, the safety

management demands the organization to handle the hazards material to its operations

proactively. If proactive management does exist, an airline could (unfreeze) the current

processes which prevent it from doing so, then, through a training program, re-align the

culture pattern of the employees(moving), and finally (refreeze) the organizational process

once enough verification is obtained that culture alteration has taken place (Flouris, T., &

Yilmaz, A. K. 2009).

Conclusion

Efficient and effective aviation progress of the (SMS) based risk factors require the

operators to have risk and change management based (SMS) systems. Aviation field must

have a high level of (SMS) by practical risk management and change management in

addition to (SMS) in order to reduce accidents in airline operations.

The (SMS) concept, those exist in the academic context represent application of

transforming existing safety compliance systems in the aviation sector which linked to the

function of change management principles to manage the (SMS) procedures. Most

important phase of the change progression for an airline, when it moves from a

conventional type to an (SMS) type is the analyzing phase, and the changeover to the

implementation phase. The implementation should amend the malfunctions noted in the

analyzing to represents a critical phase to re-construct the organizational efficiency.

Change Management for (SMS) in Aviation Page 4

References:

FLOURIS, T., & YILMAZ, A. K. (2009). Change Management as A Road Map for Safety Management System Implementation in Aviation Operations: Focusing on Risk Management and Operational Effectiveness. International Journal of Civil Aviation, 1(1).

Federal Aviation Administration, (2006), Introduction to Safety Management systems fora ir Operators, Advisory Circular, AFS-800, AC no: 120-92, Par 2, p.4.

Galotti, Vince; Rao, Arun; Maurin, Daniel. (2008), Implementation of Safety Management Systems (SMS) in States Article, Sarps and Guidance Material, Library, The United Kingdom Flight Safety Committee, p.1.

Hall, R. (2002), Organizations: Structures, Processes, and Outcomes, 8th edition, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.

Haynes, J. (2002), The Theory and Practice of Change Management, Palgrave, Hampshire.

International Air Transport Association, (2009) www.iata.org/

SCSI ( 2009 ). Operational Risk Management, http://www.scsi-inc.com/orm.html.

SMS Project Team of The Air Line Pilots Association, International, (2006), Background and Fundamentals of the Safety Management System (SMS) for Aviation Operations, Second Edition, February, 2006, p.24.

Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet Airplane Accidents Worldwide Operations 1959 – 2004, Boeing Commercial Airplanes, May 2005, www.aermalignani.org/pdf/boeing.pdf For national authorities, a draft SMS manual has been released by ICAO (Doc 9859).