Introduction
Project management is an essential part of the activities of a company or business in any field. Primarily, it includes an assessment of the scope, risks and planning of the project. In-depth analysis of project management aspects is especially urgent in industries such as aviation, since the liability for erroneous assessment is high. In this case, it includes the situation with the Boeing 373 MAX, namely problems with some project management items (Hoffmann & Walton, 2018). In turn, these issues led to two massive air crashes, with a large number of victims, which articulates the need to reassess many aspects. Thus, the purpose of the work is to consider the case through the prism of project management, assess the risks of the project, compare the plane with another aircraft of the same category, and draw conclusions.
Key Project Management Issues
Miscommunication
In order to effectively analyze the Boeing 373 MAX case, it is necessary to identify issues that may arise in project management. Many items are included, however, only some of them are relevant in this case. Miscommunication is an urgent issue that involves invalid transmission, interpretation, understanding, or awareness of information. In the current case, it is argued by one of the causes of the disasters, namely the Maneuvering Control Augmentation System (Johnston & Harris, 2019). It is a system that keeps the aircraft from potentially nose up by deliberately lowering it in the event of certain conditions. The MCAS was implemented in the Boeing 373 MAX series as during the flight the aircraft lifts its nose due to the design features and the location of the engines. It can potentially lead to loss of speed and falling, which can be corrected by lowering the nose thanks to the system.
However, The MCAS was not installed on previous models, and the pilots did not have enough experience to work with it so it was not used on its full potential. The aviators should have been provided with sufficient training on how to operate the MCAS but they were not, which led to not being aware of crucial data (Akyüz, 2021). Therefore, there was an invalid exchange of information regarding the implementation and use of this system. In addition, miscommunication occurred about the degree of training and experience in using the MCAS.
Management Model
The next key issue of project management is finding the right management model. More precisely, each project has its own goals and methods for achieving these goals, which includes certain actions that affect the environment. The management model was used in a wrong way which resulted in choosing the wrong targets, so these actions had a negative impact on the environment. Thus, the wrong management model and the goals set, namely the simplification of pilot training for the Boeing 373 MAX, has become another reason in the project management context (Gailagista et al., 2018). The management model should have been focused on the process and not on the result, which would be more appropriate in areas such as aviation.
Risk Assessment
Furthermore, one of the most essential issues is risk assessment. In this case, it was used for an inadequate evaluation of risks, which led to the inability to level the problem. As risks arise in unpredictable environments constant risk assessment should have been done and not a one-time plan development. Under risks, there are two strategies for leveling the problem, namely actions aimed at reducing risks and methods of dealing with consequences (Ossa et al., 2021). In the case of the Boeing 373 MAX, one did not apply a risk-mitigation strategy. On the contrary, the consequences of risk led to catastrophic consequences. The risks in this case were justified by the minimum training of pilots, and the insufficient allocation of financial and time resources to pay attention to the system.
Sufficient Accountability
Finally, the last key issue in the aspect of project management in this case was the lack of sufficient accountability. It was not thoroughly used so that a lack of accountability meant that one could not be aware of all the potential consequences of one’s actions. A central factor in the project and in business should have been formulated so it could allow one to visualize the work done, the solution of problems, and the risks that have arisen (Jiménez-Crisóstomo et al., 2021). In addition, accountability promotes elaborating effective development strategies based on the work done. Finally, it is necessary to maintain communication between the participants of the project or business, and to support the understanding of progress. In addition, it affected the degree of response to a possible problem in the operation of the Boeing 373 MAX.
Major Risks
Project management includes risk assessment as well, which is one of the points of project administration issues. As it has already been indicated, assessment is formulated by analyzing the actions taken to achieve the goal and the impact on the environment, and the risks to which actions may lead. It is worth emphasizing that risks can arise both intentionally due to actions in the project, and unintentionally due to the environment (Chalayonnawin et al., 2022). As one may notice, in the case of the Boeing 373 MAX and the disasters, the risks were intentional in order to achieve certain goals. These goals included improving flight efficiency and fuel economy with the aim of increasing profitability. However, underestimation and inadequate risk assessment led to serious negative consequences.
Improving Flight Efficiency
The first major risk was formulated by redesigning the aircraft to improve flight efficiency. Any aviation company is interested in fuel economy, as it is the main key to success and one has the right to strive for efficiency. However, the savings must end where the margin of safety begins. For several decades, people have so trusted the Boeing company that these catastrophes have become shocking. The new Boeing 373 MAX received new engines of larger diameter and power, which led to some changes in the design and specifics of aerodynamics (Gonela et al., 2020). Moreover, the engines had to be moved forward a short distance, so as not to violate the integrity of the structure during flight. It changed the behavior of the aircraft in the air, namely, it led to a nose-up, which can lead to a stall. In this regard, a system has been developed that prevents stalls in the event of a critical nose up.
As one knows, in the future, it led to tragic consequences, namely, disasters and a halt in the production of these aircraft. The risk assessment in this case consisted of an inadequate analysis of the consequences of an excessive desire to improve flight efficiency. In other words, one had to sacrifice efficiency for flight stability, rather than allowing the aircraft to fly nose up (Bravo et al., 2019). Definitely, the system solved the problem at the local level, but entailed the need to carry out many procedures. In addition, the safety criterion should be a priority in risk assessment, which formulates the preservation of the margin in terms of safety. However, in this case, security was sacrificed in favor of efficiency.
Fuel Economy
Suggested Likelihood
The second major risks across the project life are caused by the desire to increase profitability and increase the budget item that is developing the company with the help of fuel economy. The presence of additional cargo on the aircraft makes it necessary to increase the lifting force of the aircraft, which is achieved by increasing the angle of attack. At the same time, the drag increases, which requires additional engine thrust and corresponding additional fuel consumption to overcome (Vargas-Hernández & Martínez, 2019). Therefore, increasing the efficiency of the Boeing 373 MAX is one of the important tasks, since its improvement is associated with saving large material and financial resources. The solution to the problem of increasing the efficiency of the Boeing 373 MAX flight is partially carried out by saving fuel, which accounts for the bulk of the expenditure of financial and material resources. Such an increase in the level of efficiency of operation makes it possible to increase sales, since an aircraft with less fuel consumption is more profitable for airlines, and they are more interested in buying it.
Consequence
The Boeing 373 MAX is equipped with a motion mode selection system. Eco-mode helps to save fuel, but does not save money – the service life of an aircraft engine may decrease when using it. When flying with a standard volume of fuel, the engine’s capabilities are used by no more than 80% (Kahfie et al., 2019). The power that the manufacturer claims, the engine produces only at its peak. The primary task of the eco-flight mode of the Boeing 373 MAX is to save fuel, and this mode really copes well with this. In most cases, the consumption of gasoline and diesel is reduced, and the mileage of the aircraft on one tank increases. The transmission in this mode also switches to economy mode. Therefore, the eco-mode gradually spoils the condition of the Boeing 373 MAX engine if it is used too often.
Impact Potential
When driving at low speeds, the performance of the oil pump automatically decreases, which inevitably leads to engine oil starvation. The consequence of such a problem is accelerated wear of all the most important components, including the cylinder piston group (Kahfie et al., 2019). The gaps between the pistons and cylinders increase, and the hon is erased. The process leads to a decrease in compression, an increase in detonation, the development of inserts and the wear of the necks of the crankshaft of the aircraft.
At the same time, flying in eco-mode leads to the formation of a large amount of carbon deposits and oil deposits. The motor loses power and even switches to emergency operation algorithms. Abuse of the economical driving mode leads to a longer warming up of the aircraft engine and suboptimal working conditions, leading to accelerated wear and expensive frequent replacement of the aircraft engine (Johnston & Harris, 2019). This causes the need for more regular overhauls, and also creates the threat of unexpected engine failure. In turn, it creates a danger to the lives of the crew and passengers, since engine failure can occur directly during the flight.
Suggested Mitigation Strategies
Suggested mitigation strategies consist in the reasonable use of eco-mode on the Boeing 373 MAX. At least several times a month, it is worth turning on the standard mode without saving fuel. At the same time, an impressive part of the harmful deposits in the engine will burn, and the increased temperature will expel water condensate from the oil. When changing the mode from eco to standard, the engine will have time to warm up, and the exhaust system will have time to burn off the carbon and soot that form in the catalyst when flying frequently in economy mode (Ozçeli̇k & Durmuş-Özdemi̇r, 2021). Thus, an optimal balance will be maintained between maintaining the performance of the aircraft engine and moderate fuel economy. At the same time, the need for frequent expensive engine overhaul will not be created, and the risk of engine failure during flight will be reduced.
Comparison to Another Aircraft
Another aircraft in the airliner category which will be compared to the B737-MAX is its main competitor Airbus 320neo. This is the basic model of a new family of medium-haul passenger aircraft developed by the European concern Airbus. A320neo is a deep modernization of the popular Airbus A320 airliner with new generation engines, improved onboard systems and larger wingtips. Boeing 737 and Airbus A320 are passenger planes for medium distances, which are characterized by relatively large dimensions and large capacity (Vargas-Hernández & Martínez, 2019). Airliners have approximately the same characteristics: the flagship models of Airbus and Boeing are similar according to some technical parameters. As in the B737-MAX, fuel consumption is lower per seat compared to potential competitors. Similarly, to the B737-MAX, this aircraft aims to increase fuel efficiency including with the help of management.
Management Model
The management model factor of the Airbus 320neo creates less significant risks than that of the B737-MAX. The set of administration methods used in this company is different from the methods used in B737-MAX. In B737-MAX, the main strategy is continuous growth, prosperity and expansion. Success depends on the rational organization of labor and production, cost reduction, efficient use of resources and finding ways to increase productivity. In the management model, the Airbus 320neo has a maximum focus on technology development and related innovations, so the management structures are more flexible (Hoffmann & Walton, 2018). At the same time, the management organization seems to be more inclined to democratic forms of interaction. The management of Airbus320neo involves every management link at the level of quality control in the area entrusted to them, while the management of the B737-MAX is a closed system of evaluation by managers. Therefore, when manufacturing Airbus320neo, each employee’s feels responsible for the result, whereas in the B737-MAX, the head is responsible for what is happening in production.
Risk Assessment
The risk assessment model in the Airbus 320neo and B737-MAX is similar. The basic factor of both models is the ultimate goal expressed in reducing production costs by reducing fuel consumption. The advantage of both risk assessment models is its ease of use. However, at the same time, both the Airbus 320neo and the B737-MAX remain insensitive to factors poorly represented in the initially developed plan. The use of this model, where the main evaluation factor is the achievement of the initially set goal, in both companies ignores the risks that arise in the course of work on the implementation of the initial plan (Jiménez-Crisóstomo et al., 2021). The weaknesses of risk assessment in both the Airbus 320neo and the B737-MAX are an attempt to predict risks in advance, and emerging threats that were not foreseen in advance are not taken into account. There are slight differences in the degree of significance in explaining the potential income when evaluating it at different time periods (it is lower for Airbus 320neo), but otherwise the risk assessment in companies is identical.
Sufficient Accountability
Similarly to the B737-MAX, in the Airbus320neo, the accountability is imperfect, but the weaknesses of the managers are different. In both companies, accountability serve the goals of managers: they always contain up-to-date information on the necessary stages of the implementation of the plan and in the necessary detail. The B737-MAX accountability is too concise: the information presented in the shortest form, and does not fully reflect what is happening at the production stage. On the contrary, Airbus 320neo accountability is too informative: they contain an excessive amount of contradictory information, which makes it difficult to analyze and make management decisions information (Gonela et al., 2020). For both companies, accountability is not timely enough: reports do not reflect the current situation. Because of this, it is difficult to make a forecast of the development of production for several periods ahead.
Conclusion
All enterprises, when implementing their business processes, systematically face the need to manage various types of risks. Therefore, the top management of the company should ensure that the need for risk management is recognized by all managers and personnel of the organization as one of the factors of paramount importance. The B737-MAX failed to create an effective management base. Concentrating in the management process on the favorable consequences: fuel economy and income increase, due attention was not paid to negative factors. As a result, no potential deviations from the planned results were identified. The B737-MAX did not manage these deviations to improve prospects, reduce losses and improve the validity of decisions made. Prospects were not correctly identified and opportunities for improving activities were identified, as a result of which an undesirable course of events was allowed and the probability of their occurrence increased.
Future directions for research can be the development of standards and guidelines in the field of risk management in the field of aviation based on the information provided. For example, it can be the development of mechanisms, classifications and algorithms for risk management. In all the variety of fundamental and applied research on this issue, there is often no novelty, industry-specific risk management, consideration of the relationship and mutual influence of various risks. Therefore, as considerations for further research, it is possible to adapt a standard well-known risk management mechanism specifically for the aviation sector. For example, based on this work, it is possible to build risk management subsystems within the general management system in the company. Also, using the data obtained in this paper, it is possible to further analyze the implementation of standard procedures and risk algorithms: identification, qualitative and quantitative assessment, selection of methods and methods of risk leveling – in relation to aviation production.
Recommendations
The three lessons identified from an audit trail that can be learned by today’s project managers are: when a certain goal is achieved, the process of accomplishing it is of paramount importance; during project management, it is necessary to regularly assess risks; monitoring the implementation of the plan and its prompt correction are the key to the successful operation of the company.
References
Akyüz, M. K. (2021). Determination of fuel consumption and pollutant emissions with the real-time engine running data of aircrafts in the taxi-out period. Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology, 94(3), 317–326.
Bravo, A., Vieira, D., & Ferrer, G. (2019). Transitioning to more fuelefficient aircraft: A model of air traveler response in single-aisle segment. The Journal of Modern Project Management, 10(29), 93–107.
Chalayonnawin, P., Suthiwartnarueput, K., Pornchaiwiseskul, P., & Sukmanop, C. (2022). Investigating factors affecting fatal air transport accidents. International Journal of Operations and Quantitative Management, 28(1), 211–225.
Gailagista, A., Rahma, Z., An, S., Suparman, S., & Irenita, N. (2018). Is it worth replacing B 737-800 NG with B 737 Max 8? Advances in Transportation and Logistics, 17(4), 97–104.
Gonela, S., Laeequddin, M., Dikkatwar, R., & Sudesh, N. S. (2020). Cascading effect of Boeing’s 737 Max technology development. International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering, 8(5), 5208– 5215.
Hoffmann, H. O., & Walton, R. O. (2018). Integration of the ground-based augmentation system in continuous descent operations. Journal of Institute Navigation, 65(4), 571–580.
Jiménez-Crisóstomo, A., Rubio-Andrada, L., Celemín-Pedroche, M. S., & Escat-Cortés, M. (2021). The constrained air transport energy paradigm in 2021. sustainability, 13(9), 1– 23.
Johnston, P., & Harris, R. (2019). The Boeing 737 max saga: Lessons for software organizations. Safety and Automation, 21(3), 1–9.
Kahfi, I., Ramadan, M. C., Rafi, S., & Perawati, D. (2019). The crash of Boeing 737 Max 8 and it’s effect on costumer trust: Case on lion air passenger. Advances in Transportation and Logistics, 2(43), 764–769.
Ossa, A., Josephia, R., & Flores, M. (2021). Influence of the properties of a soft soil subgrade subject to a surcharge preloading improvement on the design of the pavements of runways and taxiways. Geotechnical Engineering in the XXI Century, 17(21), 1587– 1595.
Ozçeli̇k, S., & Durmuş-Özdemi̇r, E. (2021). Quality management systems in aviation transport: An example from the Covid-19 process. Journal of Current Researches on Social Sciences, 11(4), 429–450.
Vargas-Hernández, J. G., & Martínez, M. G. (2019). Transaction costs and strategic alliances of air transport: Case of Aero México in SkyTeam in the face of the Boeing crisis. International Journal of Management and Commerce, 1(1), 8–14.