Aviation Management Theory Comparative Review:

Aviation Management Theory

Comparative Review:

One of the defining features of aviation management is the need to navigate both uncertainty and a wide range of uncontrollable variables. With weather, mechanical issues and flight delays all bearing a direct impact on decision-making and, simultaneously, wide variances in underlying cost, quality control demands and customer service matters impacting daily functionality, aviation management is a highly complex undertaking. It is for this reason that the management theories invoked for administration in this context should ideally encompass said uncertainty and variability. This underscores the assessment here of both the Contingency Theory and the Systems Theory of Management. Each of these carries a number of characteristics that are relevant to the endeavor of aviation management and are therefore likely to figure into the research proposed here.

Discussion:

In a comparative discussion on the two modes of management, we find that there are crossover purposes that apply with relevance to the aviation field. According to the Wells & Young (1986) text, there are particular sectors of an airport that will be charged with management in a Systems Theory capacity. But even as such sectors as the Air Traffic Control Systems Command Center (ATCSCC) adhere to the integrative coordination demands implied by the Systems Theory, they must simultaneously remain equipped with Contingency Management capabilities. Indeed, Wells & Young report that the ATCSCC is "responsible for the operation of four distinct but integrated functions: Central Flow Control Function (CFCF), Central Altitude Reservations Function (CARF), Airport Reservation Position, and the Air Traffic Service Contingency Command Post (ATSCCP)." (Wells & Young, p. 509)

Here, the Systems Theory emerges as having particular relevance because it calls for the incorporation and simultaneously administration of several distinct but interdependent aspects of an airport's operation. Indeed, more bureaucratic models in which duties are divided between departments and personnel teams could not be effectively maintained in a context with so many moving parts. And yet, we find that contingency planning must inherently be a part of all approaches to aviation management, and is therefore incorporated as part of the Systems Management Theory in the present discussion. The inevitability of change and uncertainty in the aviation industry means that part of the integrative strategy implied by the Systems Theory must necessarily include proper planning for changes in vessel availability, scheduling, customer demand, fuel pricing and a host of other variables impacting operations.

These characteristics make the Contingency Theory a valuable mode of administration independent from the Systems Theory as well. Here, our research notes that Contingency Management is important as a way of planning for the uncertainty that is a part of this particular business. As Flouris (2006) notes, "the use of contingency plans and scenario analysis is . . . discussed as a tool of strategy formulation in turbulent environments." (Flouris, p. xviii)

Conclusion:

This denotes that Contingency Planning is a valuable way to draw alternative plans and responses to often fast-shifting operational demands. However, the recommendation here is for an emphasis on the integrative properties of Systems Management with an elevation of the role played by the Air Traffic Service Contingency Command Post as a way of contending with the uncertainty principle.