Phase II
QS 426/616 & 427/527
Prepared by: Aviation Security
and Quality Team
Summer 2005
Project Background
The attack on America by terrorist, using airplanes as tools of destructions, killing
thousands on September 11, 2001, changed the way air travel is conducted forever. In
the end, more than 3000 persons were killed in these four heinous attacks. I'm sure that
each and every one of us has thought about what it must have been like for those
passengers in their final moments on each of those four ill-fated airliners on September
11th, 2001.Thousands of innocent lives were lost because of fanatic martyrs who believe
in some sort of a fantasyland after-life. Unlike hijackers of the past, there are no demands
to be met or negotiations to be had. These people have only one motive; to kill as many
Americans as possible and be willing to die for the cause; that is scary. Thanks to 9/11,
and for the foreseeable future, passengers will board commercial airliners with a
newfound type of anxiety. After all, our domestic security was breached and our air
transportation system was violated. We can't help but wonder if the passenger sitting next
to us has been properly screened and is not armed with a box cutter, knife, or other
weapon with the explicit intent to harm Americans. Things are different today, that's for
sure. Numerous security plans have been implemented since that time, to include limiting
gate access to passengers, intense screenings, searches, and other security checks.
However, whether these measures have really increased security is still questions. What
we do know is that passengers have mixed levels of satisfaction with these new services
used for aviation security. This project’s aim is to identify those measures of aviation
security that users are satisfied with, unsatisfied with; specific problems and to suggest
service improvements.
Short Form Purposes / Content




Team management review.
Serve as an executive summary of long form –
project focus.
Project overview.
Summarize findings, analyses, conclusions and
recommendations – project.
Team Management Review





Combined two QS teams into one collective unit
focused on the same industry and problems, each
identifying different solutions;
Course Rollout Matrix has been developed;
New process methodology has been developed,
implemented, and refined for the next tool;
Communication structure enhanced and adhered
to.
Continuous Improvement Tracking Spreadsheet
Combined QS
Team Membership Structure



Team is comprised of graduate and
undergraduate students taking the QS 426/616
& 427/527 class.
Members are: Derik Bailey, Justin Bayham, Walt
Chrysler, Janett Gray, Shawn Meyers, Scott
Roman, Troy Shrider, and Josh Seigley.
Instructor/Advisor: Dr. John Sinn.
Combined QS
Team Membership Structure
Combined
QS Team:
Aviation
Security
and
Quality
QS 426 /
616
Team
Members
Derick,
Janett,
Shawn
Josh,
Justin,
Walter
QS 427 /
527
Team
Members
Troy,
Scott
Josh,
Justin,
Walter
Problem Statement
Identify measures of aviation security that users find
satisfactory, unsatisfactory, and/or problematic.
In
addition, suggest new services and technologies to raise
customer satisfaction. Phase I on the project shall focus
on identifying problems or unsatisfactory security
measures. Phase II shall focus on identifying new
services, technologies, and services to increase
satisfaction, listing pro and cons of these services.
Project Research Methodology
Using each element of the ITTTM toolkit, which was studied and
applied as a result of this course, the team used the materials to
develop, organize, and document the project. This virtual team
utilized communication tools such as the discussion boards and
chats to communicate and track the project’s development, data
gathering, and progress. New communication methods were
instituted to develop the project in the amount of time for the
remaining part of the course. Ownership of each was assigned
to each member to be completed in whole with each team
member there after commenting on the work and providing
additional supportive documentation.
Materials
Five (5) Toolkits, per team, utilized:


Tools 25-29 and 31-35

Phase I completed 25-27; 31-33

Phase II completed 28-29; 34-35
Materials

3 RCAs completed – PPARMP, ROLDA,
PPMTA.

23 SDAs completed – OPCP, PASPC,
ISOQSAOPP, GOTA, DSDC,TMPCAA, SAGE,
OATCAF, SOPATA, OCA, GCA, GISPDCS,
FMEA,SPSACA, GSICPC, LVAOACA, KCA,
MAACE, APQPVC, APEIAR, QFD, CEAS.
Project Descriptions
The team’s project was the assessment of aviation
security and quality:
 Identify measures that are satisfactory,
unsatisfactory, and/or problematic;
 Suggest ideas to increase current efficiency and
customer satisfaction;
 Suggest new services to raise customer
satisfaction;
 Phase II - Propose new improved measures.
Project Objectives
1. Identify current security and quality issues with
respect to passenger checkpoints and propose
improvements to increase effectiveness without
compromising security levels;
2. Complete two (2) combined toolkit submissions
assignments (toolkits 28 & 34; toolkits 29 & 35),
assessing the applicable SDA’s from each tool;
utilizing these tools in the stated project, as
applicable;
Project Objectives
3. Streamline RCA and SDA documentation to
enhance overall effectiveness of the toolkit and
project relationship;
4. Combine the two QS teams, 426/616 &
427/527, into one collective unit to create and
manage one grand project working towards
Phase II presentation;
Project Objectives
5. Provide
leadership
and
guidance
to
undergraduate students to further enhance the
knowledge presented and obtained from the
course.
Project Passenger screening process
For this project, the team focused on the passenger,
as the customer. It was identified that although
passengers wanted and expected increased
security measures in airports, they were dissatisfied
with the associated waiting time they had to endure
as a result. The major cause of this wait time was
due to the passenger screening process. Using wait
time as the metric to improve, the team determined
that the following measures would reduce wait/cycle
time, therefore increasing customer satisfaction:
Project Passenger screening process
Passenger screening, as a measure of
security, involves two primary methods:





Walk-through metal detectors
X-ray of carry-on baggage
Long lines form, waiting to be screened
Wait times average 30 minutes.
Project Passenger screening process
Using wait time as the metric to improve, the
team focused specifically on methods to
reduce wait/cycle time, therefore increasing
customer satisfaction.
Project results
The team successfully identified several
methods to reduce wait times. Utilizing the
ITTTM courseware as the tool to manage the
project, document and analyze results, the
team successfully achieved the five (5)
objectives listed, as follows.
Project results
Objective 1:
Identify current security and quality
issues with respect to passenger
checkpoints and propose improvements
to increase effectiveness without
decreasing security levels.
Achieved:
Improvements proposed

Eliminate, or dramatically reduce, the
amount and size of carry-on
baggage that is allowed. Example, one
carry-on; includes purses.

Dedicated security lanes - one for
individuals without carry-on baggage;
one with baggage but no laptop; one for
laptops.

Optimize screen staff utilization.

Educate customers/passengers as to
what is acceptable, what is checked, type
of shoes, etc.

Standardize process nationwide for all
airports; consistency.

Using these measures has a potential of
reducing the average wait time from 30
minutes to only 10 minutes, 90% of the
time.
Project results
Objective 2:
Complete the five (5) toolkit
assignments (Tools 25-29;
Tools 31-35), assessing the
applicable SDA’s from each
tool; utilizing these tools in the
stated project, as applicable.
Achieved:
Both of the original teams were
successful in completing the
five (5) toolkit assignments and
associated assessments.
However, this objective was
exceeded when the two
classes (426/616 & 427/527)
were combined into the one
team. This combination, fully
implemented at the beginning
of Phase II, exposed each
member to tools from the other
Project results
Objective 3:
Streamline RCA and SDA documentation
to enhance the overall effectiveness of
the toolkit and project relationship.
Achieved:
A new methodology was developed and
implemented to streamline
documentation and increase
effectiveness. In the past, each team
member completed every form and
posted in Blackboard which was later
compiled into one master document.
With the new method, each member was
assigned a specific document to
complete and post, as the master
document, in which the remaining team
members reflected on the information
provided, and add to it if deemed
necessary. This methodology proved to
work exceptionally well in that it
minimized compilation time, reduced
redundant submissions, standardized
formatting, provided a cleaner form, and
provided greater supportive information
directed at the project objectives.
Project results
Objective 4:
Combine both QS teams
into one collective unit to
create and manage (1)
grand project working
towards Phase II
presentation.
Achieved:
As noted above, both teams
were successfully combined
at the start of Phase II.
Project objectives were
clearly defined with all
members participating. The
result of this combination
created a synergic learning
experience, providing more
information and application
of SDAs, to the team
combined then separate. In
addition, teamwork was
greatly enhanced.
Project results
Objective 5:
Provide leadership and
guidance to undergraduate
students to further enhance
the knowledge taken from
the course.
Achieved:
The three graduate
students took the lead to
direct, and assure, that
toolkits were completed;
objectives were focused,
documentation
correct/complete; and
served as compilers for all
submissions. Thereby,
significantly improving the
learning process.