The Person

Who makes a good Controller? This is one of the more difficult questions to answer. It would seem apparent from preceding sections that the Controller is indeed a special person with an impressive array of skills, able to assess and deal single-handedly with any complex problem in a highly capably manner, then put into action the plan conceived, with immediate positive outcomes to solve a dilemma, and as a result, all falls back into place. In an ideal world, maybe! Realistically, though, the person does need to have exemplary skills in communication, negotiation, problem solving and management of self, others and the variety of tasks. To achieve all this requires the highest levels of personal aptitude, an uncompromising approach to attaining objectives and, at times, having to do so under considerable time constraints, and therefore, pressure.

But this is not all. The stand-out Controller has what could be described as a ‘sixth sense’; a trait that sets him or her apart from others. This is an innate ability to sense anomalies, such as recognising when communications comprise mixed messages, or when a seemingly obvious solution has some latent pitfalls or undesired consequences, or that delaying a decision or an action is likely to yield further, at times quite contrary, information, and hence, results. These nuances characterise varying levels of awareness and instinct among Controllers. Colloquially speaking, it’s in their DNA! They can either do it or they can’t, and no amount of training substitutes sufficiently. If an IOC can populate itself with individuals of this calibre, it is likely to realise a significantly more capable team who can generate far better accomplished outcomes.

Background and Experience

In the past, experience levels in an IOC were widespread, with many staff members having served stable, long-lasting careers, often in quite specialised roles but associated with IOC functions. Over this time, they amassed a wealth of knowledge and, of course, immense capability, through exposure to numerous problems and challenges. Indeed, they were revered for their command over the airline’s operations as no one else really could understand the extent of the issues and, more importantly, the enormity of the effort taken to resolve complicated problems. What has changed over time has been the movement of staff, due to retirement, ill-suited appointment, or perhaps inability to cope with the extremes of pressure, mounting complexities, and increasing requirements to satisfy performance targets. Thus, the experience levels of staff within the IOC over time have been greatly diminished. Of course, part of the reason has been due to the developments in technology (e.g., smarter, more capable systems, and the digitalisation of mundane or repetitive activity) which, ironically, have also removed some fundamental or baseline understanding of the principles involved in the task. These system improvements enable tasks to be conducted more efficiently and capably, but this comes with downsides as well. First, the number of skilled staff in total has diminished, and second, the ‘leg work’ traditionally carried out by new staff as part of their grounded learning is now system-driven, removing this important series of progressive steps. Such shortfalls in learning and knowledge gain need to be recognised, acknowledged and compensated for in the training regime.

Despite ever-improving technology informing and driving problem solving and decision making, the appropriate supply of human capital remains hugely important, for the reasons spelt out above, so the resourcing of these people is critical. Introducing ‘green’ appointees into an IOC, with little or no prior operational experience is pointless, and although this may have occurred in past times, nowadays this is highly unlikely. Thus, the sourcing of appropriate individuals with suitable backgrounds is a priority. A census of Operations Controllers across IOCs would reveal that most staff generally have five or more years’ experience in the role, though usually with vastly different backgrounds. Some, of course, have previous IOC experience gathered in another airline, perhaps a small regional carrier, or from another member airline within the group.

They may also have experience from an airline in another country, during which time they may or may not have served as junior officers as a common pathway into the Operations Controller role. Alternatively, or in addition, they may have gained some experience through other IOC roles (e.g., in crewing or flight-planning roles). This experience will serve them well for they will be attractive to the airline due to their high levels of understanding in terms of the types of problems, solutions and consequences thereof. They will also be well aware of the nature of problem solving within tight time-frames, and hence will have been subjected to the types of pressure common in this environment. Crucially, these individuals are also likely to recognise which stakeholders are, or need to be, involved in the process and the appropriate times for communicating information. In other words, they can ‘hit the ground running’. Others may also have aviation experience, in со-related, operational areas of the industry such as having been a Pilot, Engineer, Air Traffic Controller or Flight Service Officer, or may have emanated from the military (especially the air force). Although not having had IOC experience per se, their backgrounds may nevertheless provide unique value to the airline. There is evidence, though, to suggest that thinking styles and the primary focus of attention are dominant according to the domain from which individuals emerge.¹ For example, staff recruited from an ‘airport’ environment (e.g., a ramp officer or terminal customer service role) are more likely to focus on airport-related issues, perhaps to the detriment of balancing the needs of the overall problem. A similar approach is likely with Pilots or Engineers, for example, or others from industry. While their knowledge, expertise and methods of operating in their former domains are fully acknowledged to contain valued skills, the IOC must be cognisant of any limitations that such recruitment presents.

Less common among Controllers is a background in allied industries such as logistics, or road or rail transport, such that the likeness of previous performance in comparable roles to the task required of Controllers is a prime argument for seeking such individuals. The commonality is very relevant and refers to the necessity for individuals to have had extensive operational exposure, particularly in similarly complex, high paced and intense environments, and with a focus on problem analysis and solving. One difference, though, may lie in a lack of exposure for considering the impact of disruptions on high volumes of customers, and with an increasing focus on customer journey management, this shortfall may be apparent. Occasionally, the net may be spread further to include other airline or even airport staff with ramp or terminal experience perhaps, or other aviation-related roles beyond operational functions including a number of commercial roles (e.g., Reservations) in the airline. The problem is that the further away from truly operational functions the greater the likelihood that the match between individual capability and requirements of the job at hand is diminished. This compares with a more traditional course of an apprenticeship served in supporting IOC roles such as a Crew Planner, which in that particular case, for example, would enable staff to become familiar with regulations and industrial awards pertaining to technical and cabin crews. Such a pathway has obvious advantages for grasping the concepts around disruption management.