https://beyonddisruptions.blogspot.com/2017/06/the-la-la-life-of-delays-isnt-it-high_79.html
https://beyonddisruptions.blogspot.com/2017/06/the-la-la-life-of-delays-isnt-it-high_79.html
https://beyonddisruptions.blogspot.com/2017/06/the-la-la-life-of-delays-isnt-it-high_79.html
https://beyonddisruptions.blogspot.com/2017/06/the-la-la-life-of-delays-isnt-it-high_79.html
If agents have autonomy, why do they still fail so often in real life?
Here, Sandeep Swadia shares a simple, three-step technique to cut through the AI noise:
I was working with a board and leadership team of large consumer company. And when I asked what was stopping them from using AI to drive customer acquisition, for example, the CMO responded: We have all the data, but we still need to build a clean process so that we can turn that into something useful.
When I asked where the real challenge was, she said:
We need the right people in the seats first.
That's the story everywhere. Most AI problems are human problems in disguise. An agent is just a mirror. It reflects the quality of your thinking back at you. Usually, the agent fails because the human failed. So, before you automate anything run a GPS check:
Unless you can do those three things very well, your agent is not going to make any difference.
Let’s talk crewing, one of the most complex and consequential parts of airline operations and its wider impact.
Together with fuel and maintenance it accounts for a major share of airline operating costs, and the decisions made in each area are deeply interconnected.
Technology has made crew planning increasingly sophisticated, helping airlines manage enormous numbers of rules, constraints and competing objectives. But optimisation within one area cannot, on its own, reveal the full consequences of the decisions being made.
A crew plan that looks efficient on paper may become expensive when exposed to operational reality. Tight connections, limited reserves, schedule changes, aircraft swaps, maintenance events and airport disruption can quickly turn planned efficiency into delay, cancellation, passenger disruption and lost revenue.
At the veey core, the problem is not necessarily the crew plan, nor the technology supporting it. It is our ability to understand what happens when crew related decisions interact with the rest of the airline.
This is an issue I have explored for many years, the practice that I shared in my talks, book, and articles: the real cost of disruption rarely sits where the disruption is recorded.
Understanding these relationships and feeding what actually happens back into planning is becoming increasingly important as airlines depend more heavily on optimisation, automation and AI. The process is created for individual airline needs.
This is where a Systemic Reality Check can add another dimension: connecting technology with operational experience and the economic reality of the airline as a whole - the practice that doesn't take long to implement with the right guidance. It assumes that airlines and technology experts work together as long as necessary to make it work.
It is meant to serve leaders dedicated to creation of better future.
Here is the link to my related article Systemic Reality Check: A Practical Guide To Connected Decision Making https://lnkd.in/er5YJUkW
Interested in a wider practical context? Visit astuteaviation.com
In 2014, I wrote an article about Southwest Airlines and Herb Kelleher titled Making Peace with Flight Disruptions.
It wasn't really about what Southwest did differently. It was about something much harder to copy: the leadership conditions that made people behave differently.
Competitors can copy processes, procedures, technology and even business models. What they cannot easily copy is a tone - a culture built over time on trust, cooperation and the freedom of people to do the right thing when things go wrong, and to do it in synchrony. These days it is more important than ever.
Here is the original text of the article:
Being deeply immersed in the orchestration of airlines, particularly in the relationship between strategy and operations, I cannot help thinking how much these experiences and thoughts resonate with connection between symhonies and jazz music.
Whenever I see and listen to a symphonic orchestra, I am amazed by the sound of the music. So many different instruments, played beautifully by musicians, all in sync. And the whole is masterfully orchestrated by the conductor, touching the feelings of those listening.
Then my thoughts often slip to the artistry of jazz musicians — full of improvisation, with no conductor, yet self-synchronising in the moment.
The airline is designed like a symphony, but it has to survive like jazz.
Symphony gives structure. Jazz gives adaptability.
Doesn't that describe the relationship between strategy and operations?
Jazz isn't random improvisation. Great jazz musicians have extraordinary individual expertise, but that alone isn't enough. They are constantly:
listening to one another,
sensing changes,
anticipating where the music is going,
responding without losing the whole,
and creating something collectively that no individual musician could have predetermined.
Isn't that remarkably close to what effective airline operations require?
The challenge and the opportunity is to combine the two.
Airlines need the structure and shared direction of the symphony, while developing the collective awareness and adaptability of jazz.
This is where Systemic Reality Check, which emerged from my diverse experiences across the airline system, can serve as a practical guide towards systemic intelligence.
Systemic intelligence is the ability to understand, navigate and act within complex, interconnected systems. It brings together systems thinking, awareness of feedback and deep pattern recognition, helping us address root causes rather than repeatedly responding to symptoms.
Systemic Reality Check makes this practical by bringing people, operational reality and organisational knowledge together — continuously asking:
What is?
What matters?
What is possible?
It is simple to start. What it ultimately depends on is an airline's readiness to look openly at its own reality and commit to building a better present and future for air travel.
And that requires something no system or technology can provide on its own: openness to fresh thinking and art of adaptability to ever changing circumstances.
Setting the ground for #groundedAI #systemicintelligence
About ten years ago, I published my interview with Martin Geddes, a fresh thinker in technology with a personal connection to the airline industry. The interview was part of my preparation for the second edition of my book, Beyond Airline Disruptions – Thinking and Managing Anew.
It is fascinating to see how deeply Martin’s responses still resonate with the open questions I raised about industry issues that remain unresolved today.
As Bill Gates said, ”AI is moving too quickly to be treated as a future problem. We need urgent, coordinated action now to make sure the benefits of this technology reach as many people as possible while reducing the disruptions along the way.”
In reality, everybody is talking about generic AI solutions, not those tailored to the realities of organisations where work and value are created every day.
To break away from this practice detached from reality, effective AI requires people with deep experiential systems knowledge, an understanding of an organisation's economic and core values, and insight into how it fits within the wider system.
This leads to the need for continuous reality checks, viewing each organisation as part of a larger interconnected system.
Only then can augmented, human-centred technology operate in context, where better decisions and lasting value are created.
Our intelligence is shaped by the boundaries we have learned to live within. Formed through our experiences, beliefs, and habits, these boundaries can sometimes obscure our vision of reality and even become harmful. This state was named the Pike Syndrome after the results of the following experiment carried out by Dr Mobius.
In 1873 a German zoologist Dr Karl Mobius conducted a famous experiment with a pike – an aggressive fish predator. Dr Mobius put a glass divider in the middle of a tank. On one side he dropped small prey fish, and put a pike into another. The pike started to charge the minnows. It charged over and over, and each time it would hit hard into the glass wall. It persisted even when impact was so strong that it would float upside down for some time before recovering and finally gave up after three months. After six months the glass wall was removed and the pike roamed freely among the minnows, peacefully sharing the tank. The pike survived by eating the food given by Dr Mobius. Other researchers have repeated Mobius’s experiment and results were the same. Some have actually allowed the pike to starve to death while minnows swam safely around.
To free ourselves from the Pike Syndrome we need to become aware of and question routines that no longer serve us before they put us in serious trouble. The same applies to organisations when their core business values are being unknowingly eroded by actions driven by inherited, ineffective habits and practices.
It's time for a reality check.
***
The Pike Syndrome was first published ten years ago and has since become one of my most viewed posts. To me, this signals something important: people, leaders, and organisations can silently become trapped by habits long after reality has changed.
The question is no longer only whether we can recognise these invisible barriers, but how quickly humanised AI, guided by context, values, and human judgement, can help us break through them.