Performance management review of saigon ground services

HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITÉ LIBRE DE BRUXELLES SOLVAY BRUSSELS SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT MBQPM4 PHAM VAN BINH PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW OF SAIGON GROUND SERVICES MASTER FINAL PROJECT MASTER IN BUSINESS QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT Ho Chi Minh City (2014) Preface At least once a year, top management shall review the organization’s quality management system, at planned intervals, to ensure its continuing suitability, adequacy and effectiveness Management review meeting including the opportunity to decide the need for improvements and system changes, organizational structure, reporting channels, functions, responsibilities, policies, processes, procedures and the allocation of resources When necessary, the Directors convene an unplanned meeting to address issues can affect company’s integrated management system Acknoweledgments The success of this study required the help of various individuals Without them, I might not meet my objectives in doing this study I want to give gratitude to the following people for their invaluable help and support: To all professors for giving the wisdom, strength, support and knowledge in exploring things; for the guidance is helping surpass all the trials that we encountered and for giving determination to pursue our studies and to make this study possible; To class administrators, their responsibilities for giving students good quality of updating information, the connection between professor and students, for the sneak to survive student after a hard long working day at company and continuous in class And lastly, to the people who have helped and contributed great ideas and advices, especially classmates and our team, without them, this study would not be possible I would like to extend the deepest gratitude Comments of Guide Professor(s) Table of Contents Preface Acknoweledgments Comments of Guide Professor(s) Table of Contents List of Abbreviations I 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 INTRODUCTION Vision Mission Quality policy Key features 10 Orgaization chart 10 II PERFOMANCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW BETWEEN 2013 VS 2012 & FORECAST 2014 11 CHAPTER I: REVIEW COMPANY QUALITY OBJECTIVES 12 1.1 Over view Objectives of 06 last months 12 1.2 Over view Objectives of full year 2013 vs 2012 18 1.3 Prevention action for 2014 24 CHAPTER II: REVIEW GROUND OPERATION DEPARTMENT QUALITY OBJECTIVES 25 2.1 Over view Objectives of 06 last months 25 2.2 Over view Objectives of full year 2013 30 2.3 Preventive action in 2014 35 CHAPTER III: REVIEW CUSTOMER SERVICES DEPARTMENT QUALITY OBJECTIVES 36 3.1 Overview 06 last months 2013 36 3.2 Over view quality bjectives of 2013 vs 2012 42 3.3 Preventive action in 2014 48 CHAPTER IV: REVIEW RAMP EQUIPMENT DEPARTMENT QUALITY OBJECTIVES 49 4.1 Overview quality objectives of 06 last months of 2013 and full 2013 49 4.2 Preventive action in 2014 61 III CONCLUSION 61 IV REFERENCE 61 V APPENDIX 61 List of Abbreviations Airport Cooperation of Vietnam ACV Saigon Ground Services SAGS Board of Director BOD Ground Operation Department GOD Customer Service Department CSD Ramp Equipment Department RED Quality Management System QMS Human Resource HR International Standard Organization ISO IATA Safety Audit Ground Operation Program ISAGO Tan Son Nhat International Airport SGN International Air Transport Association IATA International Civil Aviation Organization ICAO Civil Aviation Authority of Vietnam CAAV Passenger Boarding Bridge PBB Tan Son Nhat Cargo Services TCS Standard Time Departure STD Standard Time Arrival STA Customer Service CS IATA Ground Handling Council IGHC Non-conformity NC Emirates Airlines EK Jetstar Asia 3K Sichuan Airlines 3U Jeju Air 7C Air France AE Air Asia AK/FD/QZ Uni Air B7 Cargo Lux CV Thai Air Asia FD Lion Air JT Air Astana KC MAS cargo LD Malaysia Airlines MH All Nippon Airways NH Kabo N9 Asiana Airlines OZ Air Mekong P8 Qatar Airways QR Siberia Airlines S7 Saudi Arabian Airlines SV Turkish Air TK Tigerair TR United Airlines UA Transaero Airlines UN Vietjetair VJ Weight and Balance W&B Ground Service Equipment GSE Quality Management Department QMD Coordinator COOR Passenger Name List PNL Customer Services CS Transit & Arrival T&A Meet & Assist MAAS Lost & Found LL On Time Performance OTP On the Job Training OJT I INTRODUCTION Saigon Ground Services (SAGS) is the dynamic and professional provider of full range ground services at Tan Son Nhat International Airport (SGN) Leading international carriers such as All Nippon Airways, Asiana Airlines, Cargolux Airlines, Delta Northwest Air Lines, Qatar Airways and United Airlines have officially partnered with SAGS because of our excellent commitment and quality services SAGS also tailors ground services for such budget carriers as Air Asia, Indonesia Air Asia, Jetstar Asia Airways, Thai Air Asia, Tiger Airways and many VIP flights Also, SAGS is now providing ramp services (passenger boarding bridge, aircraft pushback / towin and marshalling) for all airlines in operation at SGN 1.1 Vision To be an unsurpassed full - range ground handling company in Vietnam 1.2 Mission To provide international and domestic carriers in operation at Vietnam's airports with top quality ground services and competitive price 1.3 Quality policy We are committed to providing professional services for our customers with the following shared values: Safety: first priority in all activities Accuracy: in everything we Green: greener handling, greener future Satisfaction: extra smile for employees and customers 10 1.4 Key features A subsidiary of Airports Corporation Of Vietnam (ACV) Quality Management System ISO 9001 : 2008 ISAGO Provider IGHC membership Dedicated passenger service agents State - of - the - art ground support equipment Technical expertise and managerial experience IATA and airline certified instructors Pioneering in assisting airlines with the implementation of self service check in kiosks and other new airline applications 1.5 Orgaization chart 47 3.2.9 Evaluate the ratio of NC occurrence on individual airlines  - Comment: Compare NC occurrence in 2013 vs 2012, VJ and Air Asia appropriate 26% and 23% on entire airlines that NC occurrence Other airlines reduce such as AE, UA, TK 48 3.3 Preventive action in 2014 - About Boarding services objective, in 2013 CSD only conducts some temperory compaign but don’t evaluate and measure closely so that the result don’t meet the company requirement and badly OTP performance to customer airlines Therefore, CSD should input this requirement into the longterm campaign to manage and improve the quality of services Lodge this boarding services objective into monthly review to evaluate and measure the improvement of staff performance About Travel document objective: Training center should lengthen training time to focus on content and OJT time for more effect Besides, CSD should plan to operate specialist knowledge seminar for almost team NC occurrence The seminar shall be once a week for bad performance and a month for good performance team Manager should join in it Moreover, if staff has bag performance in this objective frequently, CSD should change another suitable working position CSD manager must care about management, evaluate staff performance (skill, attitude, productivity…) in order to suggest or offer accordingly Especially, CSD should cooperate with Training center to update the irregularity handling content and recurrent if necessary + + + - 49 CHAPTER IV: REVIEW RAMP EQUIPMENT DEPARTMENT QUALITY OBJECTIVES In the RED, there are Ramp handling section, Bag handling section, Workshop section, Passenger boarding bridge section and Cabin cleaning section 4.1 Overview quality objectives of 06 last months of 2013 and full 2013 4.1.1 The result of quality objectives a 06 last months 2013 Also base on company requirement and quality objectives, RED set the quality objective of itself in order to meet, satisfy customer airlines requirement and satisfaction No 10 11 12 Quality Objectives Ensure 100% arrival and departure flight safety operation Ensure 99,98807% arrival and departure flight don’t occur accident/ big incident Ensure 99,96818% arrival and departure flight don’t occur accident/ small incident Ensure 99,96820% departure flight don’t delay over 9’ Ensure 99,95230% departure flight don’t delay over 20’ Ensure 100% departure flight don’t delay over 21’ Ensure 99,94432% arrival and departure ramp service meeting standard Ensure 99,98807% arrival and departure flight PBB service meeting standard Ensure 99,99896% checked bag service meeting standard Ensure 99.80294% departure flight has finalized accurancy Ensure 99,99983% arrival bags are served meeting standard Ensure 99,96816% arrival flight Ratio of plan (%) NC of plan 100 Ratio of NC of Actual Result Actual (%) 100 Pass Pass 99.98807 99.98939 Pass 99.96818 99.9 348 99.96820 99.96817 99.9523 100 0 100 99.94432 10 99.93635 12 99.98807 100 9.99896 99.9994 99.80294 19 99.94696 99.99983 100 99.96816 100 10 Fail Pass Pass Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass 50 13 14 15 have cabin cleaning served meeting standard Ensure 98% GSE of other companies are served meeting 98 standard Ensure 99,96716% arrival and departure flight have GSE 99.96716 operation met standard Ensure GSE operation factor 98 obtain 98% Pass 8.77 99.98409 98.85 Pass Pass We compare NC occurrences per quality objectives of 06 last months 2013  - Comment There are 02 failed quality objectives over 15 of RED last 06 months 2013 which is number and NC occurrence that focus on GSE technical reason, bad handling performance, staff working assignment, customer airlines complaints and especially there are 02 occurrence relate to company regulation that badly effect to company prestige and image b The result of quality objectives full year 2013 51 No 10 11 12 13 14 15 Quality Objectives Ensure 100% arrival and departure flight safety operation Ensure 99,98807% arrival and departure flight don’t occur accident/ big incident Ensure 99,96818% arrival and departure flight don’t occur accident/ small incident Ensure 99,96820% departure flight don’t delay over 9’ Ensure 99,95230% departure flight don’t delay over 20’ Ensure 100% departure flight don’t delay over 21’ Ensure 99,94432% arrival and departure ramp service meeting standard Ensure 99,98807% arrival and departure flight PBB service meeting standard Ensure 99,99896% checked bag service meeting standard Ensure 99.80294% departure flight has finalized accurancy Ensure 99,99983% arrival bags are served meeting standard Ensure 99,96816% arrival flight have cabin cleaning served meeting standard Ensure 98% GSE of other companies are served meeting standard Ensure 99,96716% arrival and departure flight have GSE operation met standard Ensure GSE operation factor obtain 98% Ratio of NC of Ratio of NC of Result Plan (%) Plan Fact (%) Fact 100 100 Pass 99.98807 99.98639 Fail Pass 99.96818 12 99.98095 99.9682 99.97823 99.9523 100 100 100 99.94432 20 99.9374 23 Pass Pass Pass Fail Pass 99.98807 100 99.99896 18 99.99938 11 99.80294 36 99.96735 99.99983 100 99.96816 100 98 98.77 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass 99.96716 12 99.98095 98 98.91 Compare NC occurrences per quality objectives of 2013 vs 2012 Pass 52  Comment - Full year 2013, there are 02 failed objectives over 15 that is number and Among them, the objectives number & are failed at last 06 months 2013 RED attempt to limit NC occurrence so that there are only 02 failed one The NC occurrences are not only in said above reason but also in failed communication between staff/staff, section to another section, damage to aircraft, occupational accident - 53 4.1.2 Evaluate NC occurrence in each section a Last 06 months 2013 vs 2012 Compare ratio of NC occurrence of RED RED Ramp Bag Workshop PBB Cabin cleaning Total of RED  NC last months 2013 NC last months 2012 19 11 0 35 14 10 1 32 Comment: Compare with 2012, RED has ratio of NC occurrence increasing from 44% (32NC) to 54% (35NC) Ratio increasing and decreasing of NC occurrences per section 54  - b Comment Ramp increases 26% from 14 to 19 NC which bad services to delivery to customer airlines Bag increases 9% from 10 to 11 NC Especially, Workshop reduces -20% from to NC This is meaning that our solution and prevention valuable for this section Full year 2013 Compare NC occurrence of RED in 2013 vs 2012 55  - Comment Ramp section appropriates 51% much more 2012 39% It means increasing tendency of this service Bag handling section is only 29% less than 2012 43% Workshop oppropriates more than 2012 from 10% to 21% RED Ramp Bag Workshop PBB Cabin cleaning Total of RED NC 2013 NC 2012 32 18 13 0 63 26 29 67 Ratio increasing and decreasing of NC occurrences per section  - Comment Cabin cleaning and PBB section are good perfomance in the whole year 2013 Ramp section appropriate 51% entire NC of RED, increasing 19% as 2012 56 - Bag seciton appropriate 29% entire NC of RED but reduce -61% NC occurrence Workshop section appropriate 21%, increasing 46% In short, NC occurrence on safety operation (6NC) increasing 4NC as 2012 only 2NC (see chart below), regulation (4NC), staff assignment (1NC) 57 4.1.3 Evaluate NC occurrence on per airlines a Last months 2013 Ratio of comparision per airlines  - Comment There are some airlines that NC occurrence increasing fast as the same period of time in 2012 EK appropriate 14% from 2/2012 to 5/2013 QR/UA appropriate 11% from 2/2012 to 4/2013 BL, TK appropriate 9% from 0/2012 to 3/2013 Especially, some airlines such as FD, KE, MH, PR, SQ, SV had a few NC occurrence but zero NC on 2013 58 b Full of year 2013 Ratio of comparision per airlines  - Comment EK appropriate 11%, NC in 2012 but NC in 2013 QR appropriate 11%, VJ/10% UA reduce 12% to 8% (compare last months 2013 with full year 2013) 59 4.1.4 Evaluate NC occurrence on flight yield a Last months 2013  - - Comment EK appropriate the ratio NC occurrence from 1.08% to 2.73% on entire 183 flights at last months 2013 So 100 flights will have 2.73 NC occurrence It means that very high risk for EK flight operation UA increases from 1.08% to 2.31% TK increases fast from 0% to 1.65% QR even flight yields increase from 183 flights at last month 2012 to 362 at the same time in 2013 but only little increases from 1.10% to 2.16% There are some airlines LD, AK, FD, MH, 7C reducing the ratio of NC occurrence 60 b Full year 2013  Comment - EK: compare with last month 2013, ratio of NC occurrence on yield (364 flights) from 2.73% to 1.92% and icrease from 0.94%/2012 to 1.92%/2013 - QR even has 675 flights in 2013 but only 1.04% NC occurrence as 1.64% in 2012 VJ even has 8215 flights but only 0.07% (6NC) in year 2013 And others airlines have much flights but the ratio of NC occurrence is very low - 61 4.2 Preventive action in 2014 - About human safety, RED manager should report specifically each case and report to HR for arrangement accordingly For NC occurrence of GSE technical, RED research and update manufacture manual to current operation procedure to prevent the wrong operation Example: instead of lifting the highlift platform but control lowering which is caused to damage fuselage or operator and GSE around RED manager have to closely monitor daily operation, especially briefing process between each RED section with Loading section prior to handling Suspend working of staff/ supervisor whose doesn’t follow procedure immediately For NC occurrence of regulation, managers on duty must monitor closely at each sensitive sites Conduct to prevent negative activities, RED should input it to priority task in 2014 Cabin cleaning section has very impressive performance in many years recently Others manager of department should learn experienced from this section - - - - III CONCLUSION After performance evaluation, management review, company will regconize the responsibility and authority of manage, supervisor and staff are very important in each operation separately Manager and supervisor should complete 02 important roles: monitor, manage staff and high specialist knowledge Through the evaluation and analysis through the quality objectives 2013, BOD recognize that the performance of 2013 is better than 2012 It is not manager attempt of GOD, RED, CSD but also other department that support company objectives conduction Finally, all the departments need to focus on the corrective actions, QMD should evaluate into the main point frequently to support, assist others department dessimination and learn experienced promptly IV REFERENCE www.sags.vn http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/management-standards/iso_9000.htm V APPENDIX Nil ... we periodically evaluate performance management review at beginning of 06 months of the year (from Jan to Jun) Secondly, we periodically evaluate performance management review at last 06 months... period of time, Quality Management Department report the summary of Performace management review: result of performance process and the product’s non-conformity which be detailed in comparision of. .. Cooperation of Vietnam ACV Saigon Ground Services SAGS Board of Director BOD Ground Operation Department GOD Customer Service Department CSD Ramp Equipment Department RED Quality Management System