Skip to main content

Collaborative Decision Making


Decision-Making In Resolution
When the Wayne County Airport Authority (WCAA) was riding high and enjoying record breaking passenger traffic in 2019, they decided to make significant improvements to the newest terminal at Detroit Metro Airport (DTW), the North Terminal. The North Terminal opened in 2008 and had not undergone any extensive improvements since then. The leadership of the WCAA decided that certain enhancements should be made to continue our high level of customer service to our passengers. The WCAA decided to make changes to the facade of the terminal as well as to install new common use kiosks for passengers to use when checking their baggage. In all, the improvements to the terminal would have cost approximately $30,000,000. The budget at DTW is set up in a residual format, which means that the airlines pay for our operating budget each year. In order to make the enhancements to the North Terminal, the WCAA needed to obtain the approval of the airlines at the airport. Needing the input and approval of the stakeholders of the North Terminal airlines was critical to these enhancements. The WCAA had just won the JD power award for the best mega airport in North America in 2019, and the airport authority wanted to make sure we kept our status as one of the best airports in the country and continent.
The process that the WCAA went through to gain the support of the stakeholders was to first engage them in an exercise that showed the critical assets, especially those that were forward customer facing, their condition and how they could be improved. A presentation was made to the airlines that showed how the North terminal needed to be brought up to a higher standard. Once the presentation was made to the airlines, the WCAA began working towards a budget resolution for the funding that would be necessary for these improvements. The WCAA showed how these improvements would continue to support excellent customer service to the passengers, but also that it would reduce costs by allowing the airlines to repurpose some of their personnel to other areas of their operation. This return on investment was critical to the success of this plan, as it showed how it would not only provide a much-needed facelift for the terminal, but also that it would help with productivity. Ultimately, the outcome that we were hoping for was reached, as the airlines agreed in principle to fund this project.
Stakeholder engagement in this process was the number one factor in its success. As the airlines fund the WCAA’s budget, they would also have to fund these improvements. The airlines helped the WCAA get to the point in which we could have their blessing to move forward with the project. Taking time to articulate a vision that incorporates the desires of all people involved is not a causal matter (Levine, 2009, p. 181).
3 Ways I Can Learn From This Exercise
The most important part of this situation was to gain the acceptance of the airlines. I learned that the WCAA could have done a better job by including the airlines in the preliminary discussions beforehand. Rather than do all the work and then present the findings to the airlines, I would have a charrette event that would bring the WCAA and airlines together so that they can be part of the design of the North Terminal. Working hand in hand with the airlines would strengthen our relationships and allow the airlines to be collaborative partners. Second, I can use this experience to be more prepared for similar situations. There will be more opportunities for the WCAA to work together with the airlines and I will have a much closer role in future projects in my department. Understanding how the groups came together to discuss this project will be helpful for me in the future. Lastly, I can use this exercise as a constant reminder that working collaboratively with people, especially in the aviation industry will undoubtedly make the outcome more positive. Even if the airlines had rejected the project, we would still have the takeaway that we worked together and built stronger relationships in the process.
References
Levine, S. (2009). Getting to resolution turning conflict into collaboration (Second). Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Dear Marques

  Dear Marques, You’ve continued to gain a lot more knowledge of leadership, the foundational approaches using different aspects from the elements of theories, and a profound appreciation for senior leaders. The question before you today is – what will you do to get back to the mountain top? Your Personal Vision You’ve stated that your personal vision is “to be happy as much as possible” (Thomey, 2021, p. 2). We both know that you were at your best when you were happiest. Whether on the mountain top or not, you brought out the best in yourself when you were happy. You need to find a way to get back to that place so everything else can fall into place. Three Learning Goals In order to accomplish your personal vision, you must establish three learning goals with milestones so that you have a plan and a pathway for getting this done. Your first goal should be to reengage with the Dale Carnegie group for continuing education classes. I know you found this group to have a tra...
Post a Comment
Read more

Consequentialism vs Deontology

  Consequentialism vs Deontology Is it a glass half-empty or a glass half-full? It appears to me that what separates consequentialism and deontology is perspective. LaFollette (2007) writes that consequentialists must explain which consequences we should count, how much weight or consideration we should give those that do count, and how we should use these considerations when deliberating (p. 25). However, deontology is usually regarded as a foil to consequentialism ( Heinzelmann, 2018, p. 5201). What I find as the takeaway from this situation is that consequentialism isn’t necessarily grounded in morality, whereas deontology finds itself in a set of negative rules. As LaFollette points out with consequentialism, we must look at and use several dimensions to understand and consider what are the consequences of a situation. Deontology doesn’t require this additional gate check, but instead relies on our experience learning right and wrong from the negative perspective. Much like a...
Post a Comment
Read more