Supporting operational decision making concerning aircraft structural integrity damage identified during maintenance.

dc.contributor.advisorMcNaught, Ken R.
dc.contributor.advisorSaddington, A. J.
dc.contributor.authorGreen, Richard N.
dc.date.accessioned2022-05-27T14:54:17Z
dc.date.available2022-05-27T14:54:17Z
dc.date.issued2021-06
dc.description© Crown Copyright 2021. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without the written permission of the copyright owner.en_UK
dc.description.abstractMilitary aircraft operations balance delivery pressures and engineering risks. Aircraft structural damage incurred in-service creates complex risk decision problems for managers deliberating maintenance activity such as delaying rectification to continue operations, or grounding an aircraft or entire fleet. In many operational settings, aircraft availability demands restrict the time, information, or resources to analyse structural risks, making formal risk or decision analysis intractable. Exact solutions are information intensive and require specialist knowledge or machinery beyond the capabilities of generalist engineering managers, often compelling decision-makers to use their subjective judgement in an unsupported way. For actors deliberating aircraft maintenance structural risks in such circumstances, a novel approach based upon heuristics, argument and bounded rationality is proposed, which was informed by the results from a survey of engineering practitioners and case study analyses. Testing of the approach was carried-out with 21 aircraft engineering decision-makers with experience of structural integrity risks, split into three groups, using realistic but fictional textual simulations of aircraft maintenance. One group used existing decision justification approaches and were compared with a second group who provided decision justifications using the novel approach. Users of the novel approach felt supported and were very confident in their justifications. The third group of raters comparing the two sets of decision justifications indicated preferences using Likert scales against the criteria: which is easier to understand, which is more transparent, and which gives the better justification. Analysis of the comparative results iii ABSTRACT iv using ANOVA provided evidence that the novel approach enabled better decision justification and transparency compared to existing approaches. The novel approach aids decision-makers compelled to use their unsupported subjective judgement, improving organisational resilience by improving robustness and stretching system process to handle surprises, and providing a clear record of the decision basis for post hoc reviewen_UK
dc.description.coursenamePHDen_UK
dc.identifier.urihttp://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/handle/1826/17971
dc.language.isoenen_UK
dc.relation.ispartofseriesPHD;PHD-21-GREEN
dc.rights© Cranfield University, 2015. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without the written permission of the copyright holder.
dc.subjectAircraft maintenanceen_UK
dc.subjectStructural integrityen_UK
dc.subjectRisk assessmenten_UK
dc.subjectNaturalistic decision-makingen_UK
dc.subjectBounded rationalityen_UK
dc.titleSupporting operational decision making concerning aircraft structural integrity damage identified during maintenance.en_UK
dc.typeThesisen_UK

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Thesis_RGreen.pdf
Size:
19.43 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.63 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: