IMS cube, a new risk model for integrated management systems in aviation
Abstract
Airlines have implemented various management systems to avoid different risks but without considering interoperability or integration. This results in a lack of a holistic view and a counterproductive and isolated approach to managing different risks. Therefore, this article proposes a newly designed model to have an integrated system for airlines to ensure interoperability and demonstrate the added value of such a model. The model is based on a survey outcome which confirmed the need for interoperability amongst different management systems. The developed model creates a language for key processes in different management systems, enabling different management systems to create interoperability. The language consists of 3 components used by the different systems. Adding a process to integrate all the different systems provides a holistic view of how each management system works together by providing focus points for the different risks airlines face. Together with the concept of the IMS cube, a new practical model is developed and provides new insights into the different management systems, which remain undetected when looking at management systems individually. It is concluded that a holistic risk profile assists airlines in making decisions which impact multiple management systems rather than individual management systems.
Keyword : management systems, integrated management systems, interoperability, integrated risk, IMS cube
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
Allen, C. J. (2013). Risky business. Christopher John Allen.
Aven, T. (2015). Implications of black swans to the foundations and practice of risk assessment and management. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 134, 83–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2014.10.004
Aven, T., & Krohn, B. S. (2014). A new perspective on how to understand, assess and manage risk and the unforeseen. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 121, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2013.07.005
Bao, C., Li, J., & Wu, D. (2022). Risk perceptions in risk matrix: Sources and impact to risk matrix design. In Risk matrix. Innovation in risk analysis. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-1480-5_4
Bao, C., Wan, J., Wu, D., & Li, J. (2021). Aggregating risk matrices under a normative framework. Journal of Risk Research, 24(8), 999–1015. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2019.1588912
Bao, C., Wu, D., Wan, J., Li, J., & Chen, J. (2017). Comparison of different methods to design risk matrices from the perspective of applicability. Procedia Computer Science, 122, 455–462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.11.393
Barnard, H. (2018). The Risk Matrix: Horoscope or best practice? https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/risk-matrix-horoscope-best-practice-/
Budescu, D. V., Broomell, S., & Por, H. H. (2009). Improving communication of uncertainty in the reports of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Psychological Science, 20(3), 299–308. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02284.x
Carvalho, M. P. K., Picchi, F., Camarini, G., & Chamon, E. M. Q. O. (2015). Benefits in the implementation of safety, health, environmental and quality integrated system. International Journal of Engineering and Technology, 7(4), 333–338. https://doi.org/10.7763/IJET.2015.V7.814
Cox, L. A. (2008). What’s wrong with risk matrices? Risk Analysis, 28(2), 497–512. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01030.x
Duijm, N. J. (2015). Recommendations on the use and design of risk matrices. Safety Science, 76, 21–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2015.02.014
Environmental Protection Agency. (2021). Norwegian Air International Limited EU ETS Excess Emissions Penalty 2021. https://www.epa.ie/our-services/compliance--enforcement/whats-happening/prosecutions-and-penalties/prosecutions-2021/norwegian-air-international-limited-eu-ets-excess-emissions-penalty-2021.php
Hubbard, D. (2009). Failure of risk management: Why it’s broken and how to fix it. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119521914
Hubbard, D., & Evans, D. (2010). Problems with scoring methods and ordinal scales in risk assessment. IBM Journal of Research and Development, 54(3). https://doi.org/10.1147/JRD.2010.2042914
Hubbard, D. W. (2008). How to measure anything: Finding the value of “intangibles” in business. Choice Reviews Online, 45(12). https://doi.org/10.5860/CHOICE.45-6882
International Civil Aviation Organization. (2018). Doc 9859, Safety Management Manual (SMM). In Doc 9859 AN/474 (4th ed.). ICAO. http://www.icao.int
Ispas, L., & Mironeasa, C. (2022). The identification of common models applied for the integration of management systems: A review. Sustainability, 14(6), 20–22. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063559
Krisper, M. (2021). Problems with risk matrices using ordinal scales. Cornell University. http://arxiv.org/abs/2103.05440
López-Fresno, P. (2010). Implementation of an integrated management system in an airline: A case study. TQM Journal, 22(6), 629–647. https://doi.org/10.1108/17542731011085311
Maier, D., Vadastreanu, A. M., Keppler, T., Eidenmuller, T., & Maier, A. (2015). Innovation as a part of an existing integrated management system. Procedia Economics and Finance, 26, 1060–1067. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00930-2
Malakis, S., Kontogiannis, T., & Smoker, A. (2023). A pragmatic approach to the limitations of safety management systems in aviation. Safety Science, 166(May), Article 106215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2023.106215
Masuin, R., & Latief, Y. (2019). Development of integration risk on integrated management system in order to increase organizational performance of construction company. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 620(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/620/1/012024
Meeûs, J., Dewulf, W., & Macário, R. (2023). Management systems in aviation: Challenges and opportunities to upgrade to an integrated management system. Sustainability, 15(13), Article 10424. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310424
Moors, G., Kieruj, N. D., & Vermunt, J. K. (2014). The effect of labeling and numbering of response scales on the likelihood of response bias. Sociological Methodology, 44(1), 369–399. https://doi.org/10.1177/0081175013516114
Muzaimi, H., Hamid, S. R., & Chew, B. C. (2018). Integrated management system for quality management system accreditation. Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 12(1), 87–100.
Nisula, J. (2018). A risk management framework for a complex adaptive transport system. Hal Theses, (March).
Nunhes, T. V., Bernardo, M., & Oliveira, O. J. (2019). Guiding principles of integrated management systems: Towards unifying a starting point for researchers and practitioners. Journal of Cleaner Production, 210, 977–993. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.066
Peace, C. (2017). The risk matrix: Uncertain results? Policy and Practice in Health and Safety, 15(2), 131–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/14773996.2017.1348571
Reason, J. (1990). Human error. Cambrige University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139062367
Reason, J. (1997). Managing the risks of organisational accidents. Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Thomas, P., Bratvold, R. B., & Bickel, J. E. (2013). The risk of using risk matrices. Proceedings – SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 3(September), 2314–2329. https://doi.org/10.2118/166269-MS
Tufte, E. R. (1983). The visual display of quantitative information. Journal of Field Archaeology, 19(1), 121–123. https://doi.org/10.2307/530384
Zhao, D., McCoy, A. P., Kleiner, B. M., Mills, T. H., & Lingard, H. (2016). Stakeholder perceptions of risk in construction. Safety Science, 82, 111–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2015.09.002