Air Traffic Control system

flight operation procedure

Company’s existing assessment on ATC system is conducted at technological

instrument and machines as maintenance routine, and quality assurance based on information

accuracy.

Technology Assessment of ATC system based on 4

technology element

Problem Identification

Technological gap of ATC System

Technology Assessment of ATC system

Alternative decision for technology improvement

1.To assess the use ATC system technologyperformed in Juanda International Airport;

2.To figure out linkage inside the system that isinsufficient;

3.To develop alternative decisions for ATC system improvement

(revision version)

Research objectives

Research Scope and

Assumptions

The research scopes are:• The problem is viewed from the researcher’s point of view, by considering stakeholder’s;• Technological components being observed are Technoware,

Humanware, Infoware and Orgaware;

• The specified field of evaluation is the ATC system and management of technology of Juanda International Airport;

Research assumptions are:• The ATC system being observed are all parts significant in assisting ATC controllers to manage flights;• Expert judgments information necessary will be obtained through company’s experts in ATC technology.

Critical review

No Name Title of Research Research ObjectivesYear of

ConductMethod

1Dian

Pusporini

Analisis Manajemen Teknologi pada Industri

Kertas dengan Pendekatan TCC dan Benefit Cost Ratio

(studi kasus: PT Kertas Leces (PERSERO)

Investigate technological transition in paper industry, benchmark to know the company'

position and developing alternative technology investment

2003TCC, Benefit Cost

Ratio

2Evy Diah Prawestri

Implementasi Metode Teknometrik untuk

Menganalisa Kandungan Teknologi pada PT Iglas

(PERSERO)

Investigate gap between existing technology and state of the art technology for company's

improvement2003 TCC, AHP

2Xing, Jing;

Manning, Carol

Complexity and Automation Displays of Air Traffic

Control: Literature Review and Analysis

Investigate the impact of technology implementation in ATC display traffic

control2005

Human Reliability Assessment

Corporate performance

4Dwi

Kusumaningtyas

Implementation of Technology Assessment

in Air Traffic Control System at Juanda

International Airport using MCDM and

Technometric Approach

investigate the existing ATC technology to improve its

performance through developing alternative decision for technology

investment

2010

Technometric -TCC

MCDM (AHP, ELECTRE III)

Stages of data processing

and calculation

AHP Weighting of Technology Component

TCC calculation

TechnometricTHIO Plot diagram

Establishing criteria and alternative improvement

ELECTRE III calculation of improvement preferences

AHP weighting stage

Technology Component

Weighting

In order to determine the weight of each ATC component,interview and discussion is conducted with 2 of the company’s ATCtechnology experts. Results obtained is then inputted into Expert Choice2000 software to generate the technology component weight. For eachtechnology element, the output shows only the first hierarchy criteria, witheach subcomponent participate at lower hierarchy calculated inaggregation to form the first hierarchy criteria.

At first level of technology element level, the result of AHPweighting is:

Complete list of technology component weight at APPENDIX B

Element Weight

Technoware 0,255

Humanware 0,362

Infoware 0,272

Orgaware 0,111

Inconsistency ratio = 0,03

SOA and TCC calculation

State Of the Art Score

State of the art values are extracted from questionnaire ofcomparison of company and SOA score, filled in by company’sexperts. Then, to determine each technology component SOA score,calculation is conducted using equation:

for Technoware technology element,

where k = number of criteria = 1,2,…,ktti = score for each criteria

Same calculation applies for Humanware, Infoware andOrgaware. Example of SOA score calculation:

Recap of SOA Score

k

ikt

tikST 10/1

Technology Contribution

Coefficient This model will measure the total contribution of the four componentsof technometric. This model is formulated;

TCC = T βt . H βh . I βi . O βo

Where:T,H,I,O = technoware, humanware, infoware, orgaware contributiont, h, I, o = contribution intensity of T, H, I, O to TCC.

Where contribution of each four technology element is calculated using :

T = [ LTi + STi (UTi – LTi)]/9

H = [Lhj + SHj (UHj – LHj)]/9

I = [LI + SI (UI- LI)]/9

O = [LO + SO (UO – LO)]/9

Recap Table of SOA score and TCC calculation

k

ikt

tikST 10/1

TCC = T βt . H βh . I βi . O βo

Technology ElementUpper Limit

Lower Limit

Weight (β)

SOA rating

Component Contribution

Total Contribution

(TCC)TECHNOWARE

Preparation Stage 3 1 0,048 0,156 0,257 0,156Departure Stage 5 1 0,127 0,167 0,519 0,153During flight/ In travel 3 1 0,336 0,147 0,255 0,105Approaching Stage 3 1 0,125 0,150 0,256 0,141Landing Stage 3 1 0,281 0,150 0,256 0,114Arrival Stage 5 1 0,083 0,167 0,519 0,158

0,827HUMANWARE

Implementing Labour 6 1 0,584 0,275 0,708 0,273Operational Labour 6 1 0,281 0,267 0,704 0,302Technical Labour 6 1 0,135 0,458 0,810 0,324

0,899INFOWARE

Infoware related to Technoware 4 1 0,105 0,450 0,483 0,309Infoware related to Humanware 4 1 0,637 0,275 0,425 0,193Infoware related to Orgaware 4 1 0,258 0,275 0,425 0,267

0,769ORGAWARE

Work Organization 5 2 0,265 0,163 0,721 0,229Work facilities 7 3 0,508 0,352 1,490 0,306Job Evaluation 6 3 0,151 0,176 1,059 0,252Modification of Work 7 5 0,075 0,308 1,180 0,253

4,449 0,260

For orgaware, total contribution

equally divided by 4 organization

components

THIO Diagram

0,827

0,899

0,769

0,260

0,000

0,100

0,200

0,300

0,400

0,500

0,600

0,700

0,800

0,900

Technoware

Humanware

Infoware

Orgaware

Company's Existing Technology

Improvement alternatives developed based on company’s preferences for technology investment….

Improvement alternatives

Company’s Improvement

Preferences

Establishing Criteria and Alternative

Improvement

Ranking for Improvement

Criteria

Performance for

Improvement

Output analysis of company’s

improvement

Name Criteria Definition

Cr01 Level of service outcome

Deals with the company's ATC unit service level as stated in SK Dirjen no. SKBP/284/X year 1999

Cr02Effectivity of power distribution

Indicate effectivity level of job and power distribution

Cr03 Overlapping of job description

Indicate the overlapping job description when job dissemination conducted

Name Alternative Decision Description

A1Renewed implementation of power distribution

While the organization structure itself can not be change, renewed implementation of each job position is expected to improve power distribution

A2 Improve work seniority

Seniority in job dissemination is still considered, therefore improving seniority at work by developing work qualification

A3Improving employee’s qualification

To overcome the problem of lack of qualification for existing employees

Criteria NameDegree of

ImportanceCr01 0,659Cr02 0,185Cr03 0,156

Conclusions &

suggestions

Conclusions• Technology assessment process was successfully

conducted at ATC system unit at Juanda InternationalAirport using AHP weighting method and technometricapproach, Humanware holds the greatest weight fortechnology element contributing 0,362 for overallcompany’s technology element and gaps 0,101 points toSOA score. While Orgaware weighted at 0,111 for overalltechnology element weight and is the lowest weightamong other and gaps 0,740 points.

• Results indicate that Orgaware technology element is thecompany’s weakest element.

• Preferences for improvement is made by company’sexperts, Alternative 1 is the most prefer among allalternatives.

Suggestions• The company, PT Angkasa Pura I Juanda International

Airport should maintain humanware technology elementperformance;

• Fully implementation of improvement preferencesshould be done if the company wishes to increasesorgaware function and contribution to ATC system;

• Company has sufficient technology element based onSOA score that the company established;

• This research could be broaden into investigation of twoATC system in two different airports to compared eachtechnological component contribution level and usingother more advance methods of technology assessmentand decision making

REFERENCES

Braybrooke, D, Lindblom, C. E., 1963. A Strategy for Decision, Free Press of Glencoe, New York.

Chatel, B. U.N. 1977. Office for Science and Technology, oral presentation at the session on “International Technology Assessment: Prospects & Problems ” in the Aforementioned East-West Centre Conference,.

Chen, K. 1979. International Perspectives on Technology Assessment. TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING AND SOCIAL CHANGE. Free access paper, access on January 7th 2010 at 15.24.

Ciptomulyono, U. 2003, MCDM and Technometric for Measurement and Management of Technology in Industrial Sector. Obtain directly at January 5th

2010.

Dobrov, G M., 1973. Science Policy and Assessment in the Soviet Union, Inc. Sm. Sci. J. (UNESCO). 25 (3)

FAA; OTA, 1982. Airport and Air Traffic Control System: Journal of Evaluation. Free access paper. Access on January 7th 2010, at 13.38.

Forman, E. H.; Peniwati, K. 1998. Theory and Methodology: Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the Analytic Hierarchy Process, European Journal of Operational Research 108, 165-169.

Frenkel et al. 1993. Technometric evaluation and technology policy: the case of bio diagnostic kits in Israel. Free access paper. Access on March 5th 2010.

Grupp, H. ,O.Hohmeyer. 1986. A technometric Model for the Assessment of Technological Standards and their application to selected technology-intensive products. Forecasting and Social Change, Vol.30, 123-137.

Husey, J; Husey, R. 1997. Business Research: A Practical Guide for Undergraduate and Postgraduate Students. Macmillan Business Book Publishing. Great Britain.

Khalil, T M. 2000. Management of Technology: The Key to Competitiveness and Wealth Creation. McGraw-Hill Book Publishing. Boston.

Nehnevajsa, J; Menkes, J. 1981. Technology Assessment and Risk Analysis. TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING AND SOCIAL CHANGE. Elsevier North Holland, Inc. Free access paper, access on January 7th 2010 at 13.04.

Oxford University Press. 2005. Oxford Learner’s Pocket Dictionary..New YorkPrawestri, E D. 2003. Implementasi Metode Teknometrik untuk Menganalisa

Kandungan Teknologi pada PT Iglas (PERSERO). Tugas Akhir. Jurusan TeknikIndustri ITS.

Pusporini, D. 2003. Analisis Manajemen Teknologi pada Industri Kertas denganPendekatan TCC dan Benefit Cost Ratio (studi kasus: PT Kertas Leces(PERSERO). Tugas Akhir. Jurusan Teknik Industri ITS.

Rakmawati, IntanP. 2003. Pengukuran dan Penilaian Kontribusi Teknologi PadaIndustri Gula Dengan Pendekatan Teknometrik dan Analisis HirarkhyProses (AHP), Tugas Akhir (TA) Jurusan Teknik Industri-FTI-ITS, Surabaya.

Saaty, T L. 1993. The Analytical Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill Books Publishing. New York.

Tabucanon, M T. 1988. Multiple criteria decision making in industry, Elsevier. New York

Tran, T A; Daim, T. 2008. A taxonomic review of methods and tools applied in technology assessment. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 1396–1405. Access on March 5th 2010.

Xing, J; Manning, C A. 2005. Complexity and Automation Displays of Air Traffic Control: Literature Review and Analysis. Civil Aerospace Medical Institute Federal Aviation Administration, Oklahoma. Free access paper, access on January 14th 2010 at 14.51.

Zeleny, M. 1982. Multiple Criteria Decision Making. Mc.Graw Hill Book Company, New York.