To sum up, the intention of this paper was to meticulously describe and analyze the implementation of a so-called Airport-Collaborative Decision Making technology at Copenhagen Airport (A-CDM). We aimed to answer the research questions: 'How did group decision making affect the implementation of new technology at Copenhagen Airport (CPH)?’ and our findings revealed, that group decisions that have been occurring at CPH, do to a large extent impact the implementation and continuous evolvement and modification of the A-CDM technology.
There are several reasons that reflect the reasons why we answered our research question this way. First, the main theory used in this paper was sensemaking, predominantly described by scholar Karl E. Weick. This theory helped us to understand the processes that occur during the process of rationalizing people’s surrounding environments as well as organizing, what Weick called ‘flux’.
COPENHAGEN BUSINESS SCHOOL | Digitalization | Copenhagen Airport | 2018: 94
During our research, we were able to gather tangible evidence about the implementation of A-CDM from the stakeholders who have been involved in this process. Our interviewees’ understanding, use and rationalization of the system in terms of what benefits, problems or disadvantages it brought, slightly vary. This discrepancy causes discontent among those who are involved in managing the system, despite the collaborative nature of stakeholders at Copenhagen Airport. Therefore, we argue that decisions that are being made by group in this specific circumstance, can affect the implementation of A-CDM.
Even though Eurocontrol presents the phenomenal advantages of the A-CDM system, one ought to take into consideration that as the system can be slightly adjusted at each airport where it is implemented, stakeholders must use the same or very similar language and thought process to learn how to deal with the system. Hence, we state that just because something is good in theory, it does not necessarily mean that is works good in practice. We were able to deduce this finding, with the example of how the de-icing is handled at CPH. In theory, the system should have decreased the aircrafts’ waiting time for de-icing, however due to the stakeholders’ clashing understanding of the system, the decrease in waiting time is yet to happen.
We conclude that the process of sensemaking is process that happens in the mind of the each individual human being. This sensemaking of each stakeholder (affected by the A-CDM implementation) is not a replica of others’ sensemaking.
Hence, we argue that this was the reason, why the stakeholders were unable to create a consensus during ex ante and ex post implementation of A-CDM at CPH. As a result of this finding we propose that the aspect of retrospect should have been done in groups where the affected stakeholders would have been able to express their understanding of A-CDM. This could have potentially improved the shared understanding of A-CDM, as sensemaking is mainly about an interpretation of an individual, thus sharing these interpretations could have enhanced the shared understanding of A-CDM.
COPENHAGEN BUSINESS SCHOOL | Digitalization | Copenhagen Airport | 2018: 95
Second, we understood that in order to make a valid research, we had to take into consideration whether our gathered evidence was meaningful. Hence, through the use of Evidence-Based Management, we were able to validate the data used for this research. Moreover, apart from deploying Evidence-Based Management, we dedicated a significant amount of time to literature review, in order to investigate what research has been previously done on the topic of collaborative decision making and sensemaking preferably in an airport setting.
Third, because we are talking about technology, we comprehend the necessity to understand the value of IT, as without any value, every information system is deemed useless. After a thorough analysis we revealed, that A-CDM can create benefits under certain conditions, and those benefits can be various. Therefore, apart from having a mutual understanding between stakeholders, using the right system the right way can in fact create a tremendous value if used together with successful strategies.
Therefore, we conclude our Master’s Thesis by suggesting, that in order to overcome challenges and increase group collaboration and decision making at CPH, it is crucial to realize what are the main issues connected with A-CDM.
Once these issues have been identified, it is necessary to divide these issues in different groups, and find solutions accordingly to understand what role does group decision making play in the implementation of A-CDM. Moreover, we propose that more frequent meetings and webinars would be beneficial too, in order to be able to comprehend mutual disagreements and find consensus.
All these steps should be taken into consideration, as the business economic benefits can be tremendous for Copenhagen airport as well as the airlines, as with greater satisfaction and collaboration, they could increased their revenue as A-CDM focuses on enhancing productivity by enabling cost effective solutions to operations (Eurocontrol, n.d.).
However, overall, we claim that A-CDM is an environmentally friendly IT system, as the technology calculates exactly when will the aircraft be pushed back and towed, which means that fuel can be saved and this results both in
COPENHAGEN BUSINESS SCHOOL | Digitalization | Copenhagen Airport | 2018: 96
positive environmental impact and fuel savings for airlines. Thus, using the system in a correct way can help Copenhagen Airport to reach the goal of increasing the number of passengers that fly through Copenhagen Airport every day and make this airport a role model among Europe’s largest airports that have been using A-CDM as well as the global aviation industry.