Stakeholder Engagement And Asset Management In Parallel Runway Projects

Stakeholder engagement within engineering and asset management sectors

In general, aviation is recognised as one of the fastest growing industries globally. This industry can be segregated broadly into two sections namely airlines and airports. The discourse of the study has considered the airport as an infrastructural asset particularly as per its operations. The main essence of the airports act as essential infrastructure which is required for overcoming the obstacles pertaining to distance and nurturing of the sustainable development which is evident across the continent in Australia. In various aspects, it is often contended that the variations pertaining to government structures especially privatisation and state-owned has encouraged the operators for fixating on maximisation of profits since 1998 (Dijkmans, Kerkhof and Beukeboom 2015). The one-sided focus on economic growth has often argued with the actual and potential adversaries pertaining to economic and social impacts as a result of loss of property or land, noise pollution, destruction to lifestyle and community and loss of biodiversity. In case the airports are considered as the main factors for sustainable development, then the operators need to ensure maintaining good relationships with community stakeholders as well as societal concerns for noise pollution caused by aircrafts movement. Despite of this, the present understanding of factors which causes noise annoyance of community should be incorporated by consideration of adequate airport governance. There are previous studies which have examined the utility for “Integrated Strategy Asset Management (ISAM)” framework which is conducive for asset management perspectives (Dhakal et al. 2015).

The present study aims to conduct an in-depth review of literature to identify the stakeholder engagement among asset management sectors and engineering pertaining to actual parallel runway. This literature review will be conducive in addressing the expected reactions of Sydney project after 25 years of its operation in case it was proposed today.

The standard categorisation of asset is based on either tangible or intangible asset. In the context of this literature review the tangible assets can be considered with actual parallel runway/airport infrastructure. They intangible assets include knowledge of network which is having specific value and utility over its period of life-cycle. In general, the optimum asset management can be categorised as a desired objective for airport operation. As stated by “Australian Asset Management Collaborative Group (AAMCoG)” the process of asset management takes into account planning, organising, controlling, refurbishment, designing and acquisition for the disposal of infrastructure in order to aid the process of service delivery (Sterling et al. 2017). In the recent times, the different types of approaches pertaining to asset management is often seen to advocate the life-cycle view of an asset which follows a planned process for allowing the scope of greater improvements. This is beneficial in productivity, long-term performance and safety concerns of the asset. The life-cycle of an asset can be composed of multiple facets which involves different stages. For instance, these may include disposal, acquisition, operation and maintenance of the assets. Therefore, asset management can be considered as a complex procedure due to a series of stages involved in the life-cycle which are identified with varied nature of values, stakeholders, planning horizons and objectives (Colvin, Witt and Lacey 2016).

Actual parallel runway constructed in the late 1980s early 1990s along with other runway construction projects

On the contrary, the unilateral focus on technological facets of asset are seen to gradually transform itself for recognising the worth of social factors and human factors in the governance of the airports. As discussed previously that the framework of ISAM is depicted on five main principles which are listed as follows:

• Service delivery is always aided by existence of the assets. Henceforth, there needs to be consideration only for non-asset solutions.
• Agencies need to ensure that asset Management is consistent with government policies and framework for consideration of future service demands, life costing and maintaining a balance between the requirements and capital expenditure.
• Asset management should ensure that the integration with corporate planning and strategy planning agencies are always present
• The decisions pertaining to asset management needs to be considered holistically along with sustainability outcomes such as governance, social and environmental concerns.
• It needs to be further discerned that the government arrangements must be able to clearly identify the responsibilities for accountability and functional performance of the assets along with service delivery (Forrester et al.2015).

The aforementioned principles can be depicted to be useful for defining the overall mechanism for the airport governance which is essential for internalising the expectations and needs of community stakeholders related to issues pertaining to noise annoyance. Typically, the terminology of governance has captured the shift of traditional hierarchical structure to a process of horizontal decision-making in which the informal and formal relationships among the community stakeholders, private sector and government representatives are adequately valued. The main premise pertaining to airport governance can be included with several types of external factors. For instance, community stakeholders often exhibit several ranges of influence and interest which are needed to be addressed during airport operations. Despite of nonexistence of unanimous definition, an individual or an organisation can be considered in the life-cycle. Several types of previous studies have identified community stakeholder’s representation with a direct or indirect stake or otherwise beneficial to the airport authority (Cheng, Ioannou and Serafeim 2014).

The theory pertaining to stakeholder engagement includes idea of CSR and considers that the airport operators are having the duties for broader society rather than their shareholders. In other terms, the airport governance can be considered as better than the operators are depicted to invest in strategic relationships with the community stakeholders rather than acting in a unilateral manner. There has been numerous case studies conducted in Australia and other regions which have highlighted the engagement of communities which is essential for creating a good public image of the airports and have increasing position for driving a sustainable development within the society (Mojtahedi 2017).

In the context of this discourse, we have identified previous studies in which “Gold Coast Airport (OOL)” operator and community stakeholders has been used. The main issues identified with literature review for stakeholder engagement is explored with dynamics of stakeholder engagement and asset management with issues pertaining to noise pollution at Gold Coast Airport. The OOL is depicted to embrace community stakeholder engagement in its legislative obligation since its change in ownership in the late 1990s (Todd, Leask and Ensor 2017). The two different forums namely ANACC and CACGC was depicted to be established in 1999 and 2011 to analyse the participation of additional community stakeholders. The meeting conducted in 1999 revealed that there are total of 18 active community stakeholders. This included 10 in the north of OOL (Queensland) and 8 in the south of OOL (New South Wales). On the contrary, the evolution of ANACC has become an evident forum for particularly shaping the procedures associated to noise abatement. For example, the minutes of the ANACC meetings have revealed that the stakeholders in general are appreciative of Australian air services and OOL. In addition to this, the government-owned corporations bear the responsibility for ensuring adequate service for aviation industry to be fast, safe and secure with a focused effort to engage additional communities (Arkema et al. 2015).

The recent formulation of CAGG has aimed to present a more holistic scope of propositions and act as a mode for suggesting broader issues associated to airport improvements including the noise pollution concern. For instance, at the time of meeting for CACG which was held in April 3rd 2012, the Australia air services representatives were readily followed up with the technical information concerning the noise level and airport growth which was requested by the community later. In this context, the main purpose of CACG was seen to ensure the views of community and effectively hear the opinions of the airport authority about broader activities associated to airport operation (Yu and Leung 2015). The membership of CACG is seen to be open to the residents who are affected by users of the airport, local authorities, operators and interested parties. The CACG meetings are conducive in exchanging the information is pertaining to airport operation and assessment of overall impacts. Besides the engagement of direct community stakeholder via ANACC, OOL and CACG there are also sponsors associated to other community programs which have extended their financial support to the hospital is dedicated for domestic wildlife Sanctuary of tourism and several other related campaigns (Boesso and Kumar 2016).

Noise annoyance can be identified as a significant issue pertaining to governance of the airports globally. It is clear that the main issues identified in the previous literature review have shown that several airport authorities in the past have taken the initiative to reduce noise pollution in the airport facility. For instance, in Birmingham airport the construction of actual parallel runway is seen to be realised with high level of noise. The low exposure has affected different communities in a different way. In terms of the present recommendation to Sydney project, the main constructions will include widening the Qantas drives to three lanes during each turning lanes. In the next 25 years of time, the Sydney project is expected to address various socio-economic implications which may bring about several differences among communities and in shaping the mitigation initiatives (O’Riordan and Fairbrass 2014).

Similarly, from the various excerpts of information of Canberra airport it is discerned that that the airport operators they are aware of the stakeholder polarisation and the alliance between community groups and local developers. This was compared against powerful vested interests seeking stakeholders who they are manipulative of perceptions of community. Sydney airport needs to be particularly aware of its functions associated with decision-making process for considering relationships within various communities and stakeholders (Ferkins and Shilbury 2015). The proposed improvement in Sydney airport on February 24th 2017 have revealed that it has adhered to the airport carbon accreditation regulations. The Sydney airport is responsible for achieving level 3 airport carbon accreditation by working with partners across airport business and reducing overall carbon emissions. Sydney airport has already taken the initiative of delivering 25.6% reduction in carbon emissions to ensure there is no abatement among the stakeholders. It has also achieved an absolute reduction of 8% carbon emission (Butt, Naaranoja and Savolainen 2016).

In order to achieve the third level optimisation Sydney airport has focused on measuring the emissions pertaining to electricity usage, staff business travel, landing and take-off cycles. It has also provided relevant evidence for stakeholder engagement. Some of the additional measures taken by the airport authority can be inferred with community Christmas giving appeal, supporting conservation volunteers in Australia and supporting the Clontarf Foundation (Eccles, Ioannou and Serafeim 2014). Over the next 25 years of time the community engagement for raising appeal to a record 316,000 for Ronald McDonald will be duly accounted to be having a mark on its corporate governance. The Sydney airport has further partner with Clontarf Foundation for providing assistance to 24 indigenous individuals complete high school. There is also scope for wide variety of focus and number of jobs at the Sydney airport which has been hosted by school student across 800 individual businesses. The airport has also hosted students from Clontarf Foundation to ensure a better community support which will have positive results in the long run (Strand and Freeman 2015).

In Narita Japan, the airport operators are seen with the need of utilising deliberative forum for example regional symposium pertaining to airport. There have been several issues such as roundtable conference which have gradually reduced the antagonism among the community. The main implications for Sydney airport can be drawn by considering organising the flagship event they are the government, academics and community may be able to participate and exchange their own viewpoints (Mount and Martinez 2014).

The main issues in the reporting by the previous research can be depicted with international airports in terms of adding democratic contexts. The literature gaps in this context does not represent a wide range of airport runways which are affected by external factors of matters relating to deliberative democracy and neoliberalism. In addition to these there is a minimal international comparative investigation to review the stakeholder engagement of engineering and asset management sector as per the present literature. The second issue can be depicted with there is no data available for comparable passenger and aircraft traffic movements (Missonier and Loufrani-Fedida 2014). The main gap in this context of the literature can be inferred with developing a base point for making assessment of valid comparisons. Another significant issue can be depicted with varying governance structures. The gap in literature associated to this issue is discerned with minimal research remains for literature on knowing about the impact of governance context for airport planning process (Mok, Shen and Yang 2015). This needs to be addressed with consideration of historical context in order to show the impact of airport planning and stakeholder engagement. In addition to this, the future works should be able to assess the role of regulatory framework in defining airport planning process, governance and engagement of the stakeholders. Several studies have also shown variations in terms of processes and regulations. There is a minimal existence of research for comparing, contrasting and planning regulations for the processes associated to a certain international context (Henisz, Dorobantu and Nartey 2014).

The determination of regulatory framework and governance should define the stakeholder’s engagement process with airport planning. It needs to be further identified that there has been very nature of stakeholder engagement strategies and mechanisms. The gaps in terms of this aspect the depicts that there is a minimal research for showing the comparison of stakeholder engagement process in particular international context (Cuppen et al. 2016). Some of the improvement process to address the issue should be based on identification of mechanisms for stakeholder engagement employed by the airport authorities. The very nature of cultural and social political contexts have been also noted by research and industry bodies. There is a limited research which has compared the variations in social political context and cultural impacts on the international context as per stakeholder engagement effect with engineering and asset management. The future studies need to show several types of cultural and contextual impacts related to stakeholder engagement process. In addition to this, there needs to be also operational drivers for knowing about the factors which drive stakeholder engagement process (Yip, Phaal and Probert 2014).

Conclusion to Literature Review

It needs to be understood that the airports operations are bound by institutional frameworks was process of planning are influenced by external and internal factors. Moreover, the main mechanism of stakeholder engagement strategies is seen to be driven by broader influences which are also considered as the operational drivers for specific context. In addition to this, the corporations not be having the various types of legal obligations for acting in a responsible manner. As it has been evidenced under the problems faced by researchers the incorporation of a rational stakeholder engagement practice will be able to address in reducing stakeholder issues and result in short and long-term benefits. These benefits will be not only be valued financially but also as per social and environmental reputation. The study of construction of parallel runway and its impact on stakeholder engagement has been able to demonstrate a contemporary planning context adopted with a societal norm. It is for the important to mention the contribution of policy maker and regulator for defining the impact of effective stakeholder’s engagement strategies.

References

Arkema, K. K., Verutes, G. M., Wood, S. A., Clarke-Samuels, C., Rosado, S., Canto, M., Rosenthal, A., Ruckelshaus, M., Guannel, G., Toft, J., Faries, J., Silver, J. M., Griffin, R. and Guerry, A. D. (2015) ‘Embedding ecosystem services in coastal planning leads to better outcomes for people and nature.’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1406483112.

Boesso, G. and Kumar, K. (2016) ‘Examining the association between stakeholder culture, stakeholder salience and stakeholder engagement activities: An empirical study’, Management Decision. doi: 10.1108/MD-06-2015-0245.

Butt, A., Naaranoja, M. and Savolainen, J. (2016) ‘Project change stakeholder communication’, International Journal of Project Management. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.08.010.

Cheng, B., Ioannou, I. and Serafeim, G. (2014) ‘Corporate social responsibility and access to finance’, Strategic Management Journal. doi: 10.1002/smj.2131.

Colvin, R. M., Witt, G. B. and Lacey, J. (2016) ‘Approaches to identifying stakeholders in environmental management: Insights from practitioners to go beyond the “usual suspects”’, Land Use Policy. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.12.032.

Cuppen, E., Bosch-Rekveldt, M. G. C., Pikaar, E. and Mehos, D. C. (2016) ‘Stakeholder engagement in large-scale energy infrastructure projects: Revealing perspectives using Q methodology’, International Journal of Project Management. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.01.003.

Dhakal, S.P., Mahmood, M.N., Wiewora, A., Brown, K. and Keast, R., 2015. Stakeholder engagement and asset management: a case study of the Gold Coast airport, Queensland. In Proceedings of the 7th World Congress on Engineering Asset Management (WCEAM 2012) (pp. 195-205). Springer, Cham.

Dijkmans, C., Kerkhof, P. and Beukeboom, C. J. (2015) ‘A stage to engage: Social media use and corporate reputation’, Tourism Management. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2014.09.005.

Eccles, R. G., Ioannou, I. and Serafeim, G. (2014) ‘The Impact of Corporate Sustainability on Organizational Processes and Performance’, Management Science. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2014.1984.

Ferkins, L. and Shilbury, D. (2015) ‘The Stakeholder Dilemma in Sport Governance: Toward the Notion of ” Stakeowner “’, Journal of Sport Management. doi: 10.1123/JSM.2013-0182.

Forrester, J., Cook, B., Bracken, L., Cinderby, S. and Donaldson, A. (2015) ‘Combining participatory mapping with Q-methodology to map stakeholder perceptions of complex environmental problems’, Applied Geography. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.11.019.

Henisz, W. J., Dorobantu, S. and Nartey, L. J. (2014) ‘Spinning gold: The financial returns to stakeholder engagement’, Strategic Management Journal. doi: 10.1002/smj.2180.

Missonier, S. and Loufrani-Fedida, S. (2014) ‘Stakeholder analysis and engagement in projects: From stakeholder relational perspective to stakeholder relational ontology’, International Journal of Project Management. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.02.010.

Mojtahedi, M. and Oo, B. L. (2017) ‘Critical attributes for proactive engagement of stakeholders in disaster risk management’, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.10.017.

Mok, K. Y., Shen, G. Q. and Yang, J. (2015) ‘Stakeholder management studies in mega construction projects: A review and future directions’, International Journal of Project Management. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.08.007.

Mount, M. and Martinez, M. G. (2014) ‘Social Media: A Tool for Open Innovation’, California Management Review. doi: 10.1525/cmr.2014.56.4.124.

O’Riordan, L. and Fairbrass, J. (2014) ‘Managing CSR Stakeholder Engagement: A New Conceptual Framework’, Journal of Business Ethics. doi: 10.1007/s10551-013-1913-x.

Sterling, E. J., Betley, E., Sigouin, A., Gomez, A., Toomey, A., Cullman, G., Malone, C., Pekor, A., Arengo, F., Blair, M., Filardi, C., Landrigan, K. and Porzecanski, A. L. (2017) ‘Assessing the evidence for stakeholder engagement in biodiversity conservation’, Biological Conservation. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2017.02.008.

Strand, R. and Freeman, R. E. (2015) ‘Scandinavian Cooperative Advantage: The Theory and Practice of Stakeholder Engagement in Scandinavia’, Journal of Business Ethics. doi: 10.1007/s10551-013-1792-1.

Todd, L., Leask, A. and Ensor, J. (2017) ‘Understanding primary stakeholders’ multiple roles in hallmark event tourism management’, Tourism Management. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2016.09.010.

Yip, M. H., Phaal, R. and Probert, D. R. (2014) ‘Stakeholder engagement in early stage product-service system development for healthcare informatics’, in EMJ – Engineering Management Journal. doi: 10.1080/10429247.2014.11432020.

Yu, J. and Leung, M. yung (2015) ‘Exploring factors of preparing public engagement for large-scale development projects via a focus group study’, International Journal of Project Management. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.01.015.