Introduction
It is no secret that aviation technology is one of the most complex fields of higher education. It requires a lot of attention, highly developed skills, and significant knowledge on the topic from the student for one to become a professional. Analyzing related research articles and case studies can help one to acquire these. This paper will explore, summarize, and criticize the main points of the case study about aircraft maintenance by Ward et al..
Summary of Research Problem and Rationale
Aircraft maintenance and its topical issues are the main focus of the case study. In the article titled “A performance improvement case study in aircraft maintenance and its implications for hazard identification,” its authors point out several times that “aircraft maintenance is a highly regulated, safety-critical, complex industry currently facing unprecedented challenges” (Ward et al., 2010, p. 247). They argue that in order to overcome these challenges, innovative improvements must be made in the process efficiency area (Ward et al., 2010). Their work provides a unique model that will allow achieving significant positive results without sacrificing other aspects of aircraft maintenance.
Readers can find the research problem, rationale, and purpose statement at the very beginning of the article. The abstract and introduction sections include all-important background information about aircraft maintenance and related aviation technology topics (Ward et al., 2010). Writers use multiple sources to describe and explain the status quo of the aircraft maintenance industry and to support their claims about the need for innovations. However, the authors do not make any clear hypotheses and research questions.
Summary of Methodology
Participatory action research is the methodology that was applied in the analyzed case study. According to Ward et al. (2010), “the overall methodology of this work was participatory action research” (p. 251). This approach “focuses on the effects of the researcher’s direct actions of practice within a participatory community, with the goal of improving the performance quality of the community or an area of concern” (Ward et al., 2010, p. 251). Necessary information was collected through the use of focus groups.
In order to ensure the credibility of the data, the authors applied several well-established frameworks for better data collection and interpretation. These include Human Integration into the Lifecycle of Aviation Systems (HILAS) and enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems, as well as key performance indicators (KPIs) (Ward et al., 2010). The description of the data collection process indicates that the sampling strategy that the authors have utilized was convention sampling. The authors note that many hangar workers and the entire base maintenance department served as data sources for the study (Ward et al., 2010). It is safe to say that the authors’ clear understanding of how to use different research methods, approaches, and models and a detailed description of each aspect of the research process provide a significant level of credibility to their case study. However, the transferability of the findings raises concerns since the survey was conducted in the context of the Western aviation industry. Some of the described management models and frameworks may be inapplicable or have a different effect on aircraft maintenance businesses in other countries due to cultural or religious nuances.
Summary of Research Findings
Ward et al. divided the data analysis process into several steps in their study. Initially, all aircraft maintenance processes and actors were analyzed through four different perspectives, including system levels, process activities, dependencies, and stakeholders (Ward et al., 2010). The researchers then created several reports to evaluate the effect of the intervention on performance and safety in aircraft maintenance, which hangar workers later completed. There were two types of them, which are the self-compiled performance reports and the blocker ones (Ward et al., 2010). The first group included amendment reports, quality discrepancy reports, accident occurrence reports, and forward driver reports (Ward et al., 2010). Blocker reports described the process of how hangar workers faced various difficulties in the workplace and solved those (Ward et al., 2010). After this, researchers and management analyzed multiple aspects of the reported working processes and developed the most effective solutions for blockers. The case study authors later incorporated many of the developed methods for solving blockers into their model.
Significant theoretical knowledge and the right approach to practical research allowed the researchers to achieve positive results. The writers argue that the proposed operating system model positively influenced the performance and safety in the hangar and boosted the process efficiency of aircraft maintenance in the company where the study took place (Ward et al., 2010). The proposed model increases the engagement of hangar workers in decision-making and allows employees and managers to quickly identify and solve various workflow blockers (Ward et al., 2010). Researchers conclude that a large number of diverse sources within the systematized reporting model in aerospace companies can not only significantly reduce various risks but also create an extensive and flexible database of working processes (Ward et al., 2010). The limitations of their work are its narrow sphere, namely aircraft maintenance, and the cultural context of the study. Trying the proposed model in other countries or other areas of the aerospace industry may be topics for subsequent research.
Critique of the Work by Ward et al.
Ward et al. conducted comprehensive and exciting research on a topic crucial for the aviation technology industry. Researchers have shown that they have excellent theoretical knowledge of aircraft maintenance and well-developed managerial skills. The choice of tools for collecting and analyzing data is brilliant and even unique in some sense. I also liked that Ward et al. encouraged other researchers to conduct a quantitative study on the discussed topic in the implications section (Ward et al., 2010). The flow of information and reasoning is consistent and logical; the data shown supports the authors’ conclusions. The authors indirectly argue that their proposed model is universal. It is partially true; their approach would be applicable to many Western aerospace companies, but its applicability in other cultural environments raises doubts. It is also worth mentioning such a minor flaw in the work as a poor choice of words.
Conclusion
This paper describes the key points of the case study made by Ward et al. and criticizes the authors’ approach to research. It is safe to say that the authors conducted comprehensive but narrowly focused research. The discovery they made has the potential to facilitate significantly many working processes in aircraft maintenance and related industries within aviation technology. The proposed model also makes work in this area much safer. It can be said that research by Ward et al. not only saved a lot of money for aerospace companies but also many lives for the families and relatives of aerospace workers.
References
Ward, M., McDonald, N., Morrison, R., Gaynor, D., & Nugent, T. (2010). A performance improvement case study in aircraft maintenance and its implications for hazard identification. Ergonomics, 53(2), 247-267. Web.