LMNOP Aviation Needs Assessment
Business: LMNOP Aviation
Business Unit: Domestic Service Center Network
Assessment Window: 2 months (remote data collection)
Prepared by: Team Aviation, as part of the Boise State University OPWL program
Note: LMNOP Aviation is a pseudonym. Proprietary metrics and key information were anonymized.
LMNOP Aviation operates a Domestic Service Center Network (DSN) that has faced significant operational inefficiencies. While leadership initially identified these as a lack of project management knowledge and the need for project management training for frontline staff, an organizational scan suggested that the gaps were rooted in systemic environmental issues rather than individuals' knowledge gaps.
The organization faces a complex market landscape defined by rising demand for maintenance services, significant parts shortages, and a shifting technician demographic. To remain competitive, the network must maintain high levels of operational efficiency and customer trust.
The assessment targeted two primary metrics: Productivity and Invoice Accuracy. Less than one-fifth of locations met organizational goals for both metrics.
Productivity: Potential impact of up to $18 million annually.
Invoice Accuracy: Potential impact of up to $10.36 million annually.
Target: 90% of sites meet both goals.
Organizational Chart for LMNOP Aviation Domestic Service Centers
Team Aviation applied several frameworks as part of the needs assessment.
Chevalier's Behavior Engineering Model and Rummler and Brache's Nine-Variable Model provided the structure necessary to categorize our data. This allowed correlation to environmental factors and individual factors for productivity, and to the organizational level or process level for invoice accuracy.
The Five Whys technique was applied after data collection to identify root causes.
A SWOT analysis was used during intervention selection to identify which root causes would have the greatest impact, and then the Multicriteria Analysis was used to prioritize potential solutions.
Refer to Appendix F for a description of the frameworks and models.
Team Aviation used internal Power BI metrics for each location. The data analyzed were proprietary metrics that mapped to productivity and invoice accuracy. Additional related metrics were reviewed.
Team Aviation utilized those metrics to identify the network’s two "exemplary" locations and the two lowest-performing locations. By focusing interviews on TSMs and CSMs from these locations, the team was able to contrast the environmental supports present in high-performing sites against those missing in low-performing ones.
To review each key role identified by the project sponsors, the team distributed role-specific surveys to GMs, MMs, TSMs, CSMs, and Technicians, receiving over 300 total responses. Interviews and surveys were conducted over three weeks.
Excerpt of Survey Results
Team Aviation developed a codebook based on the BEM and Rummler and Brache’s Nine Boxes to systematically analyze qualitative data from TSM and CSM interviews at exemplary and non-exemplary sites, as well as from organization-wide surveys.
Team Aviation coded the interview transcripts and open-ended survey responses using the structured codebook, assigning each statement or observation to the relevant variables
Differences in performance across sites reflected less about individual effort and more about whether sites are consistently enabled with standard work, usable systems, mentoring, and sufficient role capacity by site leadership.
After triangulation of the data, Team Aviation utilized the Five Whys technique to identify root causes. A list of root causes was created for productivity and invoice accuracy.
Processes (SOPs) not standardized across sites
Difficulty locating and accessing documentation
No formal knowledge transfer process
Technician grade levels unclear and inconsistent
Computer tools not user-friendly
Physical tools outdated, in poor condition
Physical constraints (hangar design, WI-FI)
Manager feedback quality varies significantly
No standard processes for invoice review and quality control
Lack of documentation/guidelines for invoice review
Trial-by-error learning
Responsibilities vary widely by site and headcount
Many CSMs lack technical knowledge
Computer tools not user-friendly
Weak accountability culture
System design allows for weak quality control
Team Aviation applied strategic analysis tools to ensure recommendations were both evidence-based and aligned with LMNOP Aviation’s organizational goals. We started by categorizing root causes into key themes.
Correlations between several root causes for both Productivity and Invoice Accuracy were discovered, which affected the Information, Resources, and Knowledge factors of the BEM.
Shared Root Cause and Intervention Diagram
Team Aviation then used SWOT analysis to evaluate internal strengths and weaknesses alongside external opportunities and threats. This helped identify leverage points and constraints shaping LMNOP’s ability to improve productivity and invoice accuracy.
To ensure that intervention recommendations were grounded in business reality rather than subjective preference, Team Aviation utilized a Multicriteria Analysis to evaluate and prioritize potential solutions.
Excerpt of MCA Analysis
Rather than selecting interventions in isolation, the team met with a core group of General Managers (GMs) to define the specific standards for success. Using their responses, the team established six weighted criteria to score each proposed solution:
Cost (20%): Will the cost be prohibitive?
Work Stoppage (25%): Can this be implemented without impacting the floor?
Speed (10%): How quickly can the change be implemented?
Sustainability (5%): How sustainable is the intervention?
Impact on Performance metric(s) (20%): Is this intervention likely to impact the productivity and invoice accuracy?
Number of locations affected (20%): How many locations will be impacted by the intervention?
The team applied these weighted criteria to the list of potential interventions.
These interventions address the root causes affecting both productivity and invoice accuracy across the entire network. The interventions will have the maximum impact on the performance gap.
Create network-wide standards for project planning, scheduling, and management; invoice review and quality control; work allocation and assignments; and project communication.
Approach | Working group identifies best practices from exemplary sites and documents standard operating procedures.
Impact | Reduced variation, faster onboarding, clearer expectations
Feasibility | Medium | Leverage exemplary sites
Centralize and normalize documentation. In addition, conduct an assessment of computer tools and systems.
Potential Approaches | Retrieval-Augmented Generation LLM agent; Centralized web portal; Knowledge Management System
Impact | Less time wasted, fewer errors pass through
Feasibility | High-Low | RAG LLM can leverage tools already used; assessment & customization of software is time-consuming and expensive.
Components of intervention would include a mentoring program (experienced staff paired with new hires), role-specific onboarding paths, and a competency model with a certification pathway for technician grades.
Approach | Setup formal mentorships with experienced/new staff, create role-specific onboarding paths, design a capability model for technicians for each grade level and job description
Impact | Faster time-to-competency, reduced errors, stronger career path
Feasibility | Medium | Pilot program for one group (CSMs)
Success metrics would include reduction in project completion time variance across sites, decreased error rates in invoice processing, and improved time-to-competency for new hires.
These recommendations target network-wide causes that, while critical, are secondary to the systemic failures identified in the primary recommendations. They will impact the performance gap, but less than the primary recommendations, or require implementation of the primary recommendations before implementation.
Train managers on effective, consistent feedback while providing regular feedback patterns (weekly or monthly 1-on-1s). Establish recognition programs for excellence.
Impact | Clearer expectations, faster improvement, stronger accountability
Feasibility | High | Minimal cost or time constraints compared to other interventions
Review and adjust leadership compensation as applicable. Review COL for locations. Develop a leadership program for aspiring managers. Create clear competency requirements for advancement.
Impact | Less lost institutional knowledge, turnover
Feasibility | Low-High | Vary heavily
Appoint site champions to share successes and challenges. Provide role shadowing opportunities. Provide recognition for innovations that benefit the network.
Impact | Less lost institutional knowledge, turnover
Feasibility | Low-High | Vary heavily
The final level recommendations consist of targeted interventions designed to address site-specific infrastructure needs that do not necessarily apply to the entire network.
Review and correct tool issues at locations. This includes reviewing WI-FI connectivity, the number of parts racks, and adding additional tool sheds where applicable. When feasible, evaluate hangar capacity at specific locations.
Impact | Work slowdowns; loss of business
Feasibility | Low-High
Team Aviation proposed a phased 12–18 month plan that balances ambition with practicality to deliver early wins. The focus is on three primary interventions, while also providing timelines for second-level and third-level interventions.
LMNOP Aviation Recommendation Implementation Gannt Chart
Phase 1 (4-6 weeks)
Standardize SOPs as the foundation for all other work.
Phase 2 (3-4 months)
Upgrade tools and systems for easy access to SOPs and key information.
Phase 3 (4-6 months, overlapping Phase 1)
Formalize knowledge transfer processes.
Phase 4 (12-18 months onward)
Implement second-level recommendations (performance management, career development).
Phase 5 (Ongoing, location specific)
Third-level recommendations will be applied selectively where relevant.
There were several constraints that impacted the needs assessment. These included:
Remote-only collection (no onsite observations)
Sampling due to time
Potential response bias
Limited review of support departments
No competitive benchmark data available
No access to compensation data.
Despite these constraints, the data showed strong evidence to support recommendations, and intervention recommendations took into account potential missing data.
Chevalier, R. (2008). The evolution of a performance analysis job aid. Performance Improvement, 47(10), 9–18.
Gilbert, T. F. (2007). Human competence: Engineering worthy performance (3rd ed.). Pfeiffer/John Wiley & Sons.
Rothwell, W. J., Hohne, C. K., & King, S. B. (2018). Human performance improvement: building practitioner performance. Routledge.
Rummler-Brache Group (N.D.) The three levels of performance. Retrieved from https://www.rummler-brach/default/files.
Stefaniak, J. (2020). Needs Assessment for Learning and Performance. Routelage.
Watkins, R., Meiers, M. W., & Visser, Y. L. (2011). A guide to assessing needs: essential tools for collecting information, making decisions, and achieving development results.