Going beyond aviation for Lamme Textile Management

Since last year, our consultants have had the privilege to work with Lamme Textile Management, a main contractor for in-flight supplies for multiple airlines at several European airports.

We took our expertise beyond the usual airport context and assisted our client with a just-in-time security concept development, evaluating the introduction of various security screening measures.

In this project, the goal is to (re)design a flexible and consistent business process, ensuring continuity for aviation services while empowering our client to effectively enhance their operations, its current facilities, and staff processes within defined parameters. These enhancements will align with regulations, including civil aviation security guidelines.

Need more information on the services Point FWD provides throughout and beyond the Aviation landscape, including warehouse and business process development?

Simply drop us an email and let’s discuss: hello@pointfwd.com

Security equipment implementation: Speaking the same language

This blog is about the culture surrounding Airport Implementation projects and the challenges that come with working in highly diverse teams. My name is Jo-Anne de Vos and I will share some of the insights gained during projects, specifically on the languages used in communication within and across teams, and the effect unnoticed subtle differences can have on the progress of a project.

The implementation of new security equipment requires good cooperation between all relevant stakeholders and partners. The overarching goal in the end is to implement a successful running process, which is certainly dependent on the efforts of every partner.

Zooming in on the various parties active in the Aviation Security ecosystem, there is a noticeable and logical difference in personal interest from various points of view. Every party owns an expertise and interest, which also comes with a certain way of talking – e.g. a certain type of language. For example, an engineer working at an OEM focusing on the technicalities of a lane can speak a different language and can refer to certain components using different words than a security operator working in a dynamic airport operation. An illustration of this is the yellow button: agents in operation prefer to call a button by its colour, while system engineers refer to the same button as the "M316-D button"*. Subtleties in such language can easily lead to miscommunication, with neglecting or misinterpreting a certain point of feedback as a result, which then takes on a life of its own while the original issue remains unaddressed. Recognizing these subtleties allows parties to better understand each other and eases their collaboration in working towards their overarching goals.

During operator training, we explain the technicalities of a lane in the language of the operation to create an environment where operators can feel free to ask questions and provide feedback from their perspective. Feedback from the operation is very valuable in creating a strong bridge between the technical design of a lane and the operational adoption of the system. Gaining understanding and feedback from the operation at a specific location provides the handles required to successfully merge security equipment with the culture of a unique situation.

How do you bridge the gap between the technical and operational languages?

Simulations in security checkpoints: Three Use Cases

Every security checkpoint is under constant pressure of changing situations. These can be triggered by a change in spacing due to construction plans, as well as policy changes looking at new procedures for screening passengers, or potentially an upgrade in screening technologies. Point FWD sees the security checkpoint as a coherent system of technologies, processes and people in which balance is the key to success at every unique location. Our challenge in this puzzle is to transition from a rather uncertain situation – i.e. getting surprised by external changes that impact checkpoint operations – to a situation where airports, airport operators and suppliers are in good shape for any upcoming change.

In this blog we like to give a short introduction about 3D simulations in security checkpoints by which digital representations of security operations can act as a “Sand-Box” to experiment with planned, or even unplanned changes. We believe that for a majority of changes to the security checkpoint, costly trial projects and time efforts could be reduced by building a digital model of the operational situation, but only when there is a sufficient level of operational detail.

Specifically we take a look at three main application areas in where simulations show great benefits, being:

1. Checkpoint redesign and technology upgrades;

2. Checkpoint resilience testing; and

3. Security process optimisation.

---

1. Checkpoint redesign and technology upgrades

A first area of application in which simulations can provide great benefit - and certainly all aviation professionals are most familiar with – is in design and planning projects. For example terminal expansion programs or security checkpoint redesign projects, which are often combined with technology upgrades such as ATRS, CT scanners or Security Scanners. However, most design simulations delivered for projects like mentioned mainly focus on generic passenger flows, which are modelled based on rather generic dynamics about security checkpoints. This is done by looking at acceptable security input and output values providing a good sense of passenger flows and queue areas.

Point FWD’s view in these projects is that for gaining the most accurate representation of a future checkpoint situation, more detail such as process anomalies, operational variations and airport specifics are required to understand different design scenarios for security checkpoints. Discrete event simulations can provide a visual representation of the detailed process and can provide further insight on how and where passengers precisely accumulate in the process itself and how a design could be altered to potentially resolve this. It also provides a dynamic component to the process by showing how lane and checkpoint throughputs are constantly varying over time and during peak hours. Below a simulation example based on the transition from x-ray to CT scanners and the impact thereof on process performance is included.

Design use case: Moving from standard X-ray to CT scanners. This video shows an example of the level of detail by which CT implementations can be tested, validated and successfully prepared by means of accurate simulations.

---

2. Checkpoint resilience testing

As of recent years, more and more airports adopt digital strategies to manage challenges that relate to operational stability. These include platforms for accurately forecasting actual passenger demand, based on real-time flight schedules and passenger data, increasingly with use of AI engines to detect anomalies. For the purpose of flexibly, both up- and down-scaling resources and assets during operational hours - especially capacity intensive terminal processes such as check-in, baggage reclaim and security - can benefit.

In case of the security checkpoint situation, on a different level than these real-time monitoring and planning systems, resilience levels can be tested, validated and improved greatly by a simulated environment. By doing so, exploring what-if scenarios in terms of common and uncommon events that happen in the checkpoint environment is possible, such as security lane errors or high threat procedures. Virtual representations of security lanes can then help in testing stress levels of checkpoint environments with regards to the number of lanes available for operation at maximum, versus passenger demand and key performance metrics. Eventually, a simulation of potential disruptions help in preparing for future threats to operation, and help to implement robust operational plans.  

Resilience use case: Outage of a security lane during peak times. This video exemplifies an operational situation that focuses on testing and validating operational plans for checkpoint situations, really looking at the impact on capacity and passenger flow.

---

3. Security process optimisation

Ideally, security checkpoints should accommodate for an environment to securely and swiftly process significant numbers of actual passengers. Often, the operation is not running  optimally and it is key to determine what is causing problems in the checkpoint so that these problems can be understood and solved.

Optimisation issues that can be assessed and fixed with simulations include, among other things, large queues with high queue times, low throughput, or the occurrence of bottlenecks. To recreate this operational situation in a digital twin environment, it is essential to have accurate and reliable input. This specific process data, such as processing times, reject rates and X-ray analysis times, are obtained both by extracting machine data, as well as manually collected measurements. Using this as input for the simulation, the process can be imitated and issues like mentioned can be tracked down. In doing so, experiments can be run which are testing different solution possibilities, such as changes in CONOPS or resources, delivering a better understanding of how this would effect, and potentially optimize the process, before ultimately implementing these changes in real-life operation.

Optimisation use case. In this video an example focused on the impact of the tray per passenger rate is simulated. It may help to simulate the operational impact of policy adjustments and CONOP changes in optimisation projects.

---

The importance of accurate input parameters

Simulation can be an excellent tool to create a virtual model of a security checkpoint. This environment can be manipulated and changed to either visualize the impact of certain changes or to see where bottlenecks are likely to occur. However, to create a digital twin of a specific security checkpoint, it is essential that the input parameters of the checkpoint represent the actuals. If the input is not correct, the output including the solutions to the initial issue, may not have the desired effect.

Point FWD’s Checkpoint Insight Tool

Data that is often required for complete simulations include screening system outputs, arrival patterns of passenger flows, but also more specific passenger data that often differentiates across airports. The latter is much often hard to capture with machine efforts, and therefore needs manual capturing. Point FWD’s Checkpoint Insight Tool is a tooling platform to help airport operators and OEMs to do just that.

---

Checkpoint Simulations by Point FWD

Has this blog made you curious or are you already contemplating about running a simulation for your business? At Point FWD, we are happy to help and answer in case specific questions about simulations in security checkpoints arise. We are open for demo requests and like to think with you in the solutions that can be brought with our security checkpoint simulation capability.

Quick fix solutions and long term developments to resolve current challenges in Airport processes.

Recent spring holiday peaks have acted as unsuccessful load tests for the current state of both the airport infrastructure, as well as staffing at the various key airport processes such as check-in, security and ground handling. The forced lay off of personnel (and knowledge) during crisis time has left most airport companies and service providers with urgent and critical challenges, dealing with a sudden increase in capacity demands without having the sufficient number of staff available.

For the mid- and long-term, reshaping and monitoring human employment as part of the airport service seems to be inevitable. However, getting sufficient staff levels back is a though challenge and is not going to be solved in the short-term. That is, attraction, recruitment and training of airport personnel currently takes too much time to be of immediate help, and as a result, with current equipment setups and CONOPs, capacity gaps remain present. This is where operational balance should be regained.

---

Solutions to regain balance in the screening process.

So what other approaches, tools and solutions exist to minimize the capacity gap we face at airports today? We like to group potential solutions on a scale of time and therewith share the industry opinion that in the end, passenger screening checkpoints should gain in resilience. We therewith firmly believe that technology will enable us to replace human tasks in the near future.

Here is a list of solutions on the short-, mid- and long-term that will help airport managers and security checkpoint stakeholders in their current jobs.

1.       Short term: Process Optimisation as a quick fix and efficiency enabler

For the very short term, we know that still a lot of potential is present in current processes and operations at a major part of airports and security companies. This includes CONOPs alterations, process improvements, gaining awareness and active training and coaching of newly hired security personnel. After all, it takes time and experience to perform at your best.

• Start getting an accurate and thorough overview on security checkpoint operations to spot improvement potential for overall process efficiency. Start an act of regaining balance in every situation of operation, during, but also outside of peak hours.

• Manual process data collection is an effective and accessible way towards the identification of passenger bottlenecks and determination of lost workloads in the checkpoint. Point FWD’s Checkpoint Insight Tool is a low-cost and easy tool focused at the collection of critical passenger flow data. Getting a frequent status quo of the process ensures to maintain control over critical KPIs that, on most airports, are not (yet) logged by machines or sensors. When combined with machine data, it really provides the actionable insight when to start steering.

• Get your basics right. Whereas the situation in checkpoints has changed globally, so have the people. This especially applies to newly hired staff. Implementation (and discovery) of best practices may be of great help in order to get personnel on a steep learning curve towards a smooth and sustainable operation.

Point FWD’s Checkpoint Efficiency Assessment pin points efficiency gains in the process. Contact the team for more information.

2.       Mid-term: Process alterations and robust monitoring and forecasting.

Looking beyond the upcoming summer and winter peaks, security managers and staff managers should equip themselves with tools to effectively manage passenger flows and real-time capacities, without the excessive staff numbers of today. In the end, automation plays a big role in gaining stability, forecasting and control, and the facilitation of real-time steering of operations in security checkpoints. Some specific directions for solutions include:

• Keep a maintained focus on sustainable workloads and performance goals for security staff. Obtain stable methodologies for process alterations and baseline performance measures for the security process in detail, but also looking at work-loads of specific tasks, such as screening, recheck and divest. Are there CONOPs changes possible in specific windows of operation? Collect data, draw the hypotheses and start testing process changes

• Solutions for real-time monitoring of passenger flows and asset utilisation become increasingly more important looking at the stability of processes and operational excellent, real-time, process organisation. Specific vendors, such as Point FWD partner GRASP Innovations, also help to increase predictability of future peaks. Airports should now more than ever bring in the power of technology and automation to replace repetitive tasks – such as access control.

• Commence trial projects towards Automatic Prohibited Item Detection systems, to start studying practical process designs that can provide huge efficiency gains together with EDS algorithms. This might just be a game changer in Avsec screening in terms of operational excellence, but might also require a redesign of the security process as a whole. Advice here is to effectively prepare, design, test and monitor during a trial with adequate methods and tooling.

3.       Long-term: Technology enablement and security checkpoint rethinking

We are on the verge of a technology revolution in aviation security screening. That is, discussions around the Open Architecture of systems gain in power and OEMs start to work more and more on strategies around the co-development of Avsec screening components. The introduction of Artificial Intelligence in detection capability and alarm resolution technology pave the way for a rethinking of the security checkpoints of today. Integrating more advanced technology in the checkpoint maybe a driving force to require other types of personnel as operator at the lane – primarily including technicians, hosts and secondary judgement.

---

We are here to support airport and security personnel.

Point FWD owns a core capability in the monitoring and optimisation of airport security processes and has developed a highly effective platform for its partners to collect process data, to analyse and identify bottlenecks and to quickly initiate and monitor effective change. Now is the time to start acting.

Contact us

Contact team

Open Architecture in Aviation Security; three operational enablers

A central topic in the Aviation Security (AvSec) industry is the concept of Open Architecture (OA). It is expected to become an important direction for the landscape of equipment development in the near future. One of the bigger steps taken is the release of a position paper last year, on the challenges, opportunities and dynamics of OA initiated by Avinor and Heathrow Airport. The initiative gained support from different government bodies (US TSA, UK DFT), aviation authorities (ACI Europe) and various prestigious airport hubs around the world (e.g Schiphol Airport, Manchester Airport Group, Dubai Airports). But what is the concern of the current architecture and systems landscape, and what can the new standard bring?

“OA can be viewed as a plug-and-play approach to airport security systems”

— John Christian Paulshus, Avinor

In this blog, together with John Christian Paulshus (Enterprise Architect at Avinor and Chair of the ACI OA Technical Standardization work stream), we explore the operational challenges that Avinor as an airport group faces and the opportunities an OA systems standard could provide to address these challenges.

---

Open Architecture – an interoperable systems approach

Currently, most AvSec equipment and screening solutions are developed rather with a focus on integration to a selection of systems, in order to co-exist in a security operation. The efforts needed to integrate system components vary across different standards used for protocols and interfacing related to data-sharing, (cyber)security and data-formatting – also referred to as the Integrated Systems approach. With OA, the software or physical architecture of a system is developed using interfaces, communication and protocols that are publicly available, well documented and free to use – referred to as an Interoperable Systems approach. Following Avinor (TSI MAG, 2021) OA can be viewed as a plug-and-play approach to airport security systems.

The most important differences between Integrated Systems and Interoperable systems, ACI 2020.

A few important generic benefits of OA are: a next level in standardization and interoperability between systems and processes, an enhancement in the detection of evolving threats and enabling for innovative third party capabilities. For Avinor – responsible for 44 Norwegian state-owned airports – OA can bring significant opportunities in various directions. Together with John, we take a look at three of those, being:

1. More efficient staff deployment;

2. Increased (cyber)security levels;

3. Increased equipment interoperability.

---

1. More efficient staff deployment

Screening capacity demand, both carry-on and hold baggage, varies during operational hours and generally additional staff is required during peak times. John explains the situation for Avinor: “We have airports in many places in Norway and our hypothesis is that we have staff performing the same functions at different locations. These people may be scheduled a bit unproductive due to a varying number of passengers, as they are being staffed for peak traffic and peak workloads.” He continues: “If an operational centre could operate several airports, or if people located at one airport could help performing work for other airports, it could save significant labour efforts.”

The complete coverage of Airports in Norway, including 5 privately owned airports. Source: Wikipedia, 2021.

An operational centre mentioned by John could in fact address several focus areas, such as maintenance, monitoring of systems and processes, but also image analysis of both cabin and hold baggage. When we specifically look at centralised image processing (CIP), operators would be able to analyse images independently from the capacity demand at one specific terminal or checkpoint, or even a complete airport. Avinor, who started a project regarding CIP, experienced challenges in the efforts needed to successfully deploy such a concept. John explains: “So far, our experience is that with more standardization in place, this would have been an easier task.”

With CIP, although networked from different locations, the challenge that can evolve is that different system configurations exist across airports. Even within one single airport there is often a “mixed-fleet” of security equipment. In relation to procurement strategy, Point FWD often sees multi-terminal airports that tend to never upgrade the whole airport to one new system. Based on the current systems approach, in order to have CIP operational for those instances combining different system setups, lots of efforts are expected to be spent on integration. In this case, OA could offer an opportunity to combine the operation of various systems in a CIP concept more effortlessly and seamlessly. Hence, more efficient staff deployment and a better balanced workload deployment becomes accessible for operating the 44 Norwegian airports.

As for maintenance opportunities, system errors could be diverted to the operational centre directly as the systems communicate seamlessly. This eliminates the need for manual and human interaction as most operators are not trained to perform such tasks. OA could furthermore enhance the implementation of condition based monitoring for AvSec technology components, enabling for a preventive maintenance program and providing accurate insights into maintenance and service cycles.

---

2. Increased (cyber)security levels

The introduction of advanced technologies in the security checkpoint, such as 3D imaging and algorithm detection capabilities, increase security levels by adding value in threat detection. One of the direct effects of these advanced technological components that strike us is the size and complexity of the data that is being produced during operation. Dealing with the new situation, Avinor advocates for a common OA standard leading to a higher standard for risk mitigation. John explains: “The threat situation is increasingly getting more complicated and the available data sets are getting larger and larger. This means that both Avinor and the vendors in the AvSec system industry need to improve on this front and protect the separate systems, as well as using and sharing data with parties outside their own systems. Historically, these systems have been hidden far away from open networks, so using and sharing data has been a challenge.”  

Security screening at the busiest Norwegian airport Oslo Airport, source: Avinor.

 Specifically looking at an increase of security detection level, by implementing OA and providing a shared approach to data-transfer, innovation in direction of threat detection can be a focus of a combined systems approach. John explains that this includes the introduction of risk-based threat assessment and advanced automated detection based on multiple sources of screening. Looking at such an interoperable system, data from multiple security and additional systems (like government databases) can be combined to perform a complete risk assessment. For example; different parts of a threat item can be divided over cabin baggage and on a person’s body. Independently these items may not form a threat, but can do so when combined.

At the moment, there are restrictions on using and storing data from security equipment due to regulatory limitations. We definitely see an opportunity in an approved standard to store and use this data, which could allow for continuous algorithm learning, even over different airports. This data can be valuable to OEMs to train and enhance their detection algorithms. OA can also be beneficial, as explained by Avinor, by use of a shared digital threat library. John explains further: “OA would allow to certify new threat libraries much faster than certifying a security system hardware and software.” In case of updated regulation, airports can update their systems faster and be compliant. The digital library itself can also be updated faster with more seamless integration as it can be done by multiple parties.

---

3. Increased equipment interoperability

One of the primary objectives of OA is the increase in interoperability between systems. This means that standard interfacing should exist between all system components, providing for a modular systems landscape. This would enable airports and security operators to combine any security equipment components out there, resulting in a so called “best-of-breed” solution to obtain highest business value.

Avinor explains that OA will bring them added value in terms of scalability of solutions: “Because the principle of OA is that new systems shall communicate and work with existing systems”. He adds: “Up until now, these systems have not talked to each other. When buying the system, we may have bought the capacity we thought we would need on a future date. With OA we can buy what we need without fearing that expansion would be difficult. The scalability feature is important for Avinor.” The COVID-19 pandemic confirmed the importance of operational flexibility to the entire aviation industry.

Security service at Norwegian airport Oslo Airport, source: Avinor.

‘Plug-and-play’ equipment allows choosing the optimal checkpoint for airports and airport operators. It is easier to experiment and set up trails of new technology before committing to a certain technology. It may enable more a seamless and cost-effective implementation of equipment, and airports are encouraged to upgrade parts of their security checkpoint in a step-by-step approach. This enables the implementation of add-on security systems, like alarm resolution equipment for shoes, which may not have been implemented otherwise due to technical complications or implementation costs. The modular aspect of OA also reinforces Point FWD’s ability to optimize airport security checkpoints even further.

A last opportunity resulting from the increased interoperability by introducing open standards is an increased accessibility to the AvSec industry for third party innovators. The AvSec industry of today may be perceived as highly challenging to enter, looking at the high standards in terms of integration between components and the utmost importance of partnerships with OEMs and Airports. We think that taking OA as a new approach for developing interoperable solutions may bridge the gap for innovators cross-industry, adding value to the experience for passengers worldwide.  

---

Ready for the change?

Point FWD is a specialist consultant in designing, planning and implementing technology change in security processes throughout the airport. Do you want to explore how to deal with OA challenges, to explore the opportunity for your development agenda or identify trial locations and projects for your technology? Get in contact soon.

---

Security-adjacent airport process innovation

Point FWD has been active in the aviation security industry for over 10 years. During these years our colleagues have helped to create a smart, optimized and future-proof Aviation Security screening. However, recently we decided to expand our view to adjacent processes as well. We firmly believe that with our solutions and data-based thinking, we can assist airports in other aspects than solely the security process.

Stay Ahead of the Curve

Our key in our relation with clients is to help them to stay ahead of the curve. During interactive “Ahead of the Curve” sessions we leave our comfort zones and challenge ourselves to get a look at new angles – to think outside of the box. We are always striving to learn new things and stay curious, enriching our knowledge. With focus on understanding connections and relations, comparing processes and imagining the future of airport security, we select ideas that aim at a great vision.

---

Example of cross-process development

Figure 1: Example of Checkpoint Modelling tool re-imagined for the check-in process

Point FWD thrives on data-analysis, as data provides insights in your process and opportunities for improvement. Our Checkpoint Modelling Tool was developed by Point FWD to model the required capacity and flow of one or more security lane configurations. Using the modelling tool as a basis we re-imagined what the tool would look like when using it for measuring the capacity and flow of the adjacent processes. This really sparked our interest in further research on this topic.

---

Ahead of the curve outcomes

During our last innovation session we started expanding our vision and walked in the passenger’s footsteps to consider all the touch points during the passenger journey. And how can we use our experience and knowledge of the security process to optimize the adjacent processes.

Starting by considering the needs of the different stakeholders involved, we try to find the point of view with a 360 degrees perspective, identifying the challenges from all angles. The passenger must experience ownership of its journey. Our aim is to create a common understanding and clarity in the complexity of the journey and based on the passengers’ pace and desires; always striving for enhanced passenger experience – and loyalty, and more fluent passenger flows.

Three processes we took a look at: check in, boarding and reclaim processes.

Check-in

At check in the passenger journey starts: the passenger receives his boarding card, and the baggage is checked in. Online check-in is already a reality for many years, which eliminates much hassle for the passenger and the airline. Remote drop-off points, combined with baggage delivery service of the baggage is the next step. “Victory loves preparation” we say at Point FWD. By completing the full check-in procedure, including the baggage handling before even stepping foot in the terminal, the passenger has his hands free when going to the airport. This creates opportunities to spend time on more relaxing parts of the passenger journey.

Boarding

Guiding passengers to the departure gates is a challenge for many airports and airlines. Passenger could get real-time information on an app: about where they are, where their gate is, the distance to the gate and how much time they have available prior to gate-closing. Providing this information reduces stress on passengers. Furthermore, from an airport’s perspective it maximizes the time passengers can spend in the concession zones as people know exactly when they have to start to move towards their gate. This app can also be combined with information about the adjacent processes for a more holistic approach to the full passenger journey.

Reclaim

Way-finding is they key challenge of the reclaim process. On arrival, passengers’ first priority is to reclaim their baggage.  Where to go and how to proceed to the reclaim belt? This final process in the passenger journey raises feelings of uncertainty and stress. Besides, being tired after travelling and eager to arrive at the destination are factors that contribute to the challenging process.

People crave location-based and -tracking information – we see that in many industries: from food delivery to taxi services to online shopping. What if passengers are able to track baggage from drop off to reclaim? Sounds good right? A baggage reclaim service app can provide for information in relation to way-finding, live-location of baggage, time estimation on baggage arrival and merchandise offers to ease the waiting time. Or use the baggage-delivery service if that suits you better.

---

The passenger journey knows many airport processes, from check-in to security to baggage reclaim and everything in between. And they all impact the passenger experience. Having insight on these different processes enable the opportunity to see the processes in perspective of each other and to strive for an enhanced passenger experience. Considering every step in the way defines the optimal passenger journey.

Let’s work on industry innovations together!

We would like to make you part of our new journey. Therefore, we invite you to be Ahead of the Curve together with our team. Please send in any idea that we could pick up together to innovate our industry from the angle of your expertise!