improving checkpoint efficiency & effectiveness through centralised image processing
Passenger numbers through international airports continue to rise year-on-year which places increasing pressure on the capacity of the passenger screening facility. Most airports do not have the luxury of being able to increase the size of their passenger search areas and ideally would like to make them smaller. Further, changing regulations and the impact of more stringent measures continue to affect operational efficiency. Uncertainty over future regulatory changes can make investment in improving checkpoint technology risky as it is difficult to predict the return on investment.
new technology innovations on the rise
The good news is that new technology innovations are becoming increasingly available to airports. These include automation of the tray return system (ATRS) and centralised image processing (CIP). Investment in these new technologies can provide airports with significant potential for improving checkpoint capacity, efficiency, resourcing flexibility and also screening effectiveness. However, ensuring that the right return on investment is achieved requires a robust approach to the design, implementation, and embedding of these new ways of working.
When rolling out new technology at pace there is a real danger of miscalculating the benefits and not meeting the business case expectations. Getting the benefits case wrong is easy to do because benefits can be double counted, the true costs (capital and operating) can be misunderstood, and the airport is often reliant on the technology provider to articulate the potential opportunities. Delivering the expected benefits can also be tricky because they require the right combination of infrastructure, process, and people change to be implemented at the same time.
We have been working with early adopter airports to assist in the implementation of new checkpoint technologies such as CIP and have captured the lessons learned from the experience of these projects.
lesson learned #1: set a true baseline
Checkpoints are not always stable operations as performance on one day can be very different from another. Also, we tend to find that various initiatives are already underway or have been recently implemented. Therefore, before any large technology programme can be adopted, understanding the existing performance and typical variations is a good place to start. The table below shows the options available to improve checkpoints before CIP or ATRS is even considered.
Looking at these options allows you to consider whether consolidation or improvements are required before implementation of new technologies. It also helps inform the business case, and provide you with good insight into the how the new concept of operations with the new technology should work. To assist this exercise, we have developed a checkpoint performance assessment model which compares with checkpoint performance with other airports and whether you are getting the most out of your existing checkpoint. This methodology helps you understand whether ATRS / CIP can provide extra capacity or efficiency or both.
lesson learned #2: thrash out the concept of operations
A common mistake is to develop the concept of operations (CONOPS) after the decision to invest or engage with a technology provider has been taken. This means that there may be a mismatch between the technology solution and the expectations of the operation. More importantly, the scale of change management required may be understated. For example, CIP has a number of tangible advantages, such as the ability to centralise security officers into a single location. However, this change does not necessarily create labour efficiencies unless aspects such as staff rostering, staff rotation at the checkpoint and a security officer’s time on task are understood up-front. Fundamentally, if the staff using the new technology are not engaged and have not been consulted on these changes to their roles, successful roll out is in peril. To assist this exercise, we have developed a CONOPS design decision guide that enables airports to establish the new ways of working and engage staff in the change process.
lesson learned #3: consultation with stakeholders
It goes without saying that airports should consult with stakeholders such as their regulator or state appropriate authority before engaging with a major change to the checkpoint. We have found that regulators can take a “wait and see” approach which adds risk to the investment being undertaken by the airport. This may be because new technologies do not always align or fit with the regulations which were written before the technology was developed. We bring examples of implementations from other states which have understood the compliance implications of new ways of working in the checkpoint which de-risk the investment for airports.
lesson learned #4: ruthless contracting and project management
The procurement process should enable a full evaluation of the new system that will be implemented by the technology provider. However, the ATRS / CIP technology solutions are not complete off-the-shelf solutions and we find that the procurement and contracting process could be more robust in ensuring that the technology solution is tailored specifically for your airport’s environment and requirements. Furthermore, the implementation of the solution requires collaborative working between the airport’s capital team, the airport operation, and the technology provider. If this collaboration is not well managed, accountability for ensuring that benefits be fully realised can become blurred between these multiple parties. To encourage successful engagement with technology providers, we have developed a risk assessment for CIP that helps with the end-to-end engagement with technology providers. The risks identified can be used by the programme management office to ensure that all parties fulfil their role in realising the benefits of the new system.
lesson learned #5: the human factor
It is well understood that technology change can fail without the proper engagement of its users i.e. the airport security officer. CIP changes the screening task and practices that have been in place for many years. The changes need to be tested with the security officers and new ways of working created. However, engaging with security officers on new technology can be a difficult balancing act between over-consulting and becoming stuck in the detail and under-consulting which can create avoidable staff resistance. For example, CIP provides a wide range of options for user configuration that have not previously been available for security officers. It is key to understand for your airport which configurations could involve staff in their design. We have developed an engagement approach which focuses on the “what’s in it for me” for not only the security officer but also for the often over-looked security supervisor. More importantly, establishing early wins when implementing the new technology enables credibility with the staff. To assist this our bottom-up implementation approach ensures that airport security officers and supervisors are actively engaged in making sure the implementation is a success.
in summary
Technology innovation such as ATRS and CIP provides airports with real opportunity now to improve the passenger screening process to meet the future demands facing the airport and airline industry challenges. However we believe it is vital to address the issues raised in this article in order to maximise the benefits of these technologies to support change, growth and an airport capacity to readily meet future demands.
If you’d like to explore this thinking further or discuss the implications of the changes on your organisation, please get in touch / +44 (0) 20 7298 7878
