6435 method used for risk analysis with application in airport management.

Filipoiu, Andrei Corneliu ; Alionte, Cristian Gabriel ; Filipoiu, Ioan Dan 等

1. INTRODUCTION

In this paper we propose and present a new method customized to be used in airport management. This method can be used to find, in a fast manner, the best management decision with a minimal risk imposed by the application field.

The 6435 Method, that is a morphological analysis and and it derives from the combination between two methods:

* Method 643, currently used for innovative products;

* Method 635, normally used to determine the response time limits for the function application at product development.

A morphological analysis is used to find new products or services variations or to improve their quality (Ehrspiegel et al., 1998). This method is based on the systematic study of the properties by combining them in an array of properties. This method is based on careful studies on the product functions which describe its performance, its disadvantages and the added value (Litke, 2007). The target of morphological analysis is to generate new ideas of design or to design products which are used for the implementation of new generations of products. The goal is to obtain new technologies, to renew product mix or to find new variants of the products. Morphological analysis technique is also known as: morphological method, zwichy analysis or morphological matrix (Andler, 2008).

There are oppinions that this method is a variant of brainstorming, where being creative is used to identify all the variables of a problem and after that combine all the parameters in various ways (Vasiliu & Lanyi, 2007). The method analyzes in an analytical and systematical way all the solutions of the problem and identifies the best one. This method was developed in 1948 by F. Zwichy (Ionescu, 2007).

2. IMPLEMENTATION

Using this method in a risk analisys is a difficult task. This can be done by taking into account the "score" of the functions which describe the entire process. We used this method in the airport management field because this domain is the closest to industrial management and provides numerous solutions in the shortest time possible.

A risk analysis using the 3456 method for a service is performed in the following steps:

* establish all the requirements (functions, parameters, attributes) that must be fulfilled (to contain or to have) the problem solution;

* record all possible variations or ways to achieve the goals in which each requirement can be met;

* describe the possible combinations making all possible variants into a morphological table;

* description procedure, "clear" description of the variants obtained under numerical combinations in the table;

* carry out an initial elimination of solutions: the solutions which are deleted are considered as known;

* second elimination of solutions: the solutions which are deleted are incompatible, absurd, disadvantageous or dangerous.

The final solution is chosen (taking into account other elements, or even random) from the remaining solutions.

The 6-4-3-5 method involves organizing a team of 6 people, which materializes every function in 3 constructive variants in 5 minutes. In the most optimistic solution, the target is to obtain 18 materialization functions for each member. Often, in the defined period of time when each team member is working he or she cannot find only new solutions different from those proposed by others. Each materialization complex MIMO function that defines the service is obtained using other similar subfunctions which are becoming input or output parameters for the materialization complex MIMO function. To shorten the service materialization time while a team member materializes for example the "i" sub-function, another materializes the "i +1" or function.

Finally, materialization of the MIMO function which defines the future service is obtained.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

The MIMO materialization function can be expressed as:

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (1)

To obtain possible variants of the service under study different combinations of the solutions proposed are carried out using team work for each function, separately. Among these functions the alternatives are not all reliable.

Fig. 1 presents an example of the materialization of the parking management function for airplanes on the airport, including all the maintenance services and taking into account the risk of any subfunction. Using a set of logical, engineering or safety rules are defined the links of the functions this MIMO function is transformed and provide sets of solutions.

3. INTERPRETATION

These alternatives are explored through risk analisys by providing a score from 1 to 4, depending on the risk of any airplane service / handling and the function importance. Table 1 is a logical scheme for granting score of innovative features developed for determining the characteristics of each share.

The alternative solutions can be achieves by drawing up a table which in the first column contains the risk influence factors, the second column is the share value allocated to each characteristic throughout the operations and then variations of each "i" subfunction is assigned scores from 1 to 4 for each factor of influence. Each variant has 2 columns. In the first column is given the score, and in the second column share, resulting from multiplying the weighting factor to influence the score awarded variant studied. Each possible alternative sum of weights is used to obtain the total score variant. The optimal variant is the solution which has a maximum score.

4. CONCLUSION

This paper presents a possible application of the 6435 Method in the airport services field, parking and maintenance. The method is not very comun in this particular area since it was created especially for development of innovative products and services. But this method provides some advantages: a large number of solutions; a good compliance regarding the safety regulations or other standards and regulations and reduced time to develop a solution.

The only drawback of this method is human factor and the lack of responsability. This is because the solutions development and processing is possible only in teams of 6 people. If the people knowledge and competences are heterogenous, the solutions are very different and difficult to be transformed in reliable solutions. Another problem is that the relations between team members must be good. If any problem arises, the decision time increases. Of course this is a problem when the decision time is critical. Another possible is which team member is responsible for the decisions made, because the method is applicable when all members have the same importance. Therefore, future studies and method development will focus on one important direction: the human factor.

5. REFERENCES

Andler, N. (2008). Tools fur Projectmanagement Workshops und Consulting, Publicis Corporate Publising, ISBN 978-389578-264-0, Erlangen

Litke, H-D (2007). Projekt-mnagement, Methoden,Techniken, Verholtensweisen, Evolutionares Projektmanagement, Carl Hansen Verlag, ISBN 978-3-446-40997-2, Munchen

Ehrlenspiegel, K.; Kiewert, A. & Lindenmann, U. (1998). Kostengungstig Entwickeln und Konstruieren Kostenmanagement bei der integrieren Produktentwicleng, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, ISBN 3-540-64705

Ionescu, S.C. (2007). Inovation Management, Politehnica Press, ISBN 978-973-7838-42-1, Bucharest

Vasiliu N. & Lanyi SZ. (2007). Excelence reasearch--a way to ERA. EdituraTehnica, ISBN 973-31-2241-6, Bucharest

Tab. 1. Impact and mediation of the coefficient of influence on
the operations: x--scale; xy--level of appreciation

Influence coeficient

 x V1 V2 V3

 y xy y xy y xy

Function Environment 1/11
1/2 Subfunction Chemical Polution 1/22

 2 2/22 1 1/22 2 2/22

Function Environment
1/4 Subfunction Acoustic Polution 1/22

1/11 1 1/11 1 1/11 2 1/11

Function Environment
1/4 Subfunction Vibration Polution 1/22

1/11 1 1/11 1 1/11 2 1/11

Function Cost 4/11
4/12 Subfunction Materials Cost 16/132

16/132 3 48/132 4 64/132 3 48/132

Function Cost 4/11
3/12 Subfunction Fabrication Cost 12/132

12/132 4 48/132 4 48/132 2 24/132

Function Cost 4/11
3/12 Subfunction Production Cost 12/132

12/132 3 36/132 3 36/132 2 24/132

Function Cost 4/11
1/12 Subfunction Selling representance Cost 4/132

4/132 2 8/132 1 8/132 2 8/132

Function Cost 4/11
1/12 Subfunction Waranty Cost 4/132

4/132 2 8/132 2 8/132 3 12/132

Function Utility 4/11
3/11 Subfunction Productivity 12/121

16/121 3 48/121 3 48/121 2 32/121

Function Utility 4/11
3/11 Subfunction Manevrability 12/121

12/121 4 48/121 2 24/121 3 36/121

Function Utility 4/11
3/11 Subfunction Durability 12/121

12/121 3 36/121 3 36/121 4 48/121

Function Utility 4/11
2/11 Subfunction Fiability 8/121

8/121 4 32/121 3 24/121 3 24/121

Function Design 4/11
1/2 Subfunction Trend 2/22

2/22 4 8/121 2 4/22 1 2/22

Function Design 4/11
1/2 Subfunction Ergonomy 2/22

2/22 2 4/22 1 1/22 2 4/22

TOTAL

 [ZIGMA] xy [ZIGMA] xy [ZIGMA] xy
 =3.158 =2.588 =2.49

Influence coeficient

 x V4 V5 V6

 y xy y xy y

Function Environment 1/11
1/2 Subfunction Chemical Polution 1/22

 3 3/22 2 3/22 1 1/22

Function Environme 1/11
1/4 Subfunction Acoustic Polution 1/22

1/11 2 1/11 2 1/11 2 1/11

Function Environme 1/11
1/4 Subfunction Vibration Polution 1/22

1/11 2 1/11 2 1/11 2 1/11

Function Cost 4/11
4/12 Subfunction Materials Cost 16/132

16/132 2 32/132 4 64/132 4 64/132

Function Cost 4/11
3/12 Subfunction Fabrication Cost 12/132

12/132 2 24/132 3 36/132 3 36/132

Function Cost 4/11
3/12 Subfunction Production Cost 12/132

12/132 2 24/132 2 24/132 2 24/132

Function Cost 4/11
1/12 Subfunction Selling representance Cost 4/132

4/132 1 4/132 2 8/132 1 4/132

Function Cost 4/11
1/12 Subfunction Waranty Cost 4/132

4/132 2 8/132 2 8/132 1 4/132

Function Utility 4/11
3/11 Subfunction Productivity 12/121

16/121 3 48/121 2 32/121 2 32/121

Function Utility 4/11
3/11 Subfunction Manevrability 12/121

12/121 3 36/121 3 36/121 2 24/121

Function Utility 4/11
3/11 Subfunction Durability 12/121

12/121 3 36/121 2 24/121 2 24/121

Function Utility 4/11
2/11 Subfunction Fiability 8/121

8/121 3 24/121 3 24/121 3 24/121

Function Design 4/11
1/2 Subfunction Trend 2/22

2/22 1 2/22 2 4/22 3 6/22

Function Design 4/11
1/2 Subfunction Ergonomy 2/22

2/22 3 6/22 2 4/22 3 6/22

TOTAL

 [ZIGMA] xy [ZIGMA] xy [ZIGMA] xy
 =2.478 =2.565 =2.541