Introducing an internationally Accepted Project Management Tool into Russian Aviation: Translation Processes for Responsibility Assignment at Pulkovo Airport

Specifics: Emerging market history and culture

Historically in Russia, written rules may be less followed. There are a lot of documents and rules provided by authorities and top management of the company, often very hierarchical bureaucratic. Following all kind of documents may slow down company processes. The employment process needs a lot of time as there are a lot of necessary stages, for example; decision-making processes, in general need a lot of time, too. For example, PwC consultants establish that:

“… the business processes are rarely used in practice in the Russian company. At best, Russian companies use outdated data of business processes, at worst there is an absence of any business processes documents. It leads to the variability of processes.”

Closely connected with that, too many documents lead to information overload, and to a reluctance to deal with the important aspects within them. The employee of the organizational development department observed:

“Having started the project, it was found that the job description contains a description of the risks, but top managers do not have the right understanding. And when actors were asked to name the risks, top managers do not understand what they are.”

As the Russians try to avoid following rules, employees would not take part in a complicated process and reading documents about changing rules is happened even less likely. That is why attitude to changes is taken as an indictment by the Russians. Some top managers of Pulkovo Airport with international experience claim that it does not matter wherever you work, you will face resistance to change; everyone is first naturally skeptical about changes. Nevertheless, some specifics of cultural dimension should be taken into account. Historically, Russian tend to oppose changes. Thus, change management is a potential way to overcome this resistance. According to Hofstede (2011), the level of uncertainty avoidance is high in Russia; people tend to control everything, they try to avoid something new and unpredictable. Therefore, the frequency and quality of communication with top managers are vital, to give a feeling of security. In addition, the channels of communication should be chosen in accordance with requirements. Thus, communication and step-by-step strategy will help to provide translation approach.

Communication and step-by-step strategy may prevent several problems: nonacceptance of ideas and models, misunderstanding of the reason for providing the project, disagreement with the proposed tools, the complexity of ideas and models perception, disagreement with the basis for identifying business processes. The employee of organizational development department noticed that:

“…every top manager thinks his or her process is the most important. Some top managers of Pulkovo Airport strongly believe that incorrect identification of business processes can lead to an incorrect perception of their activities by other employees, that is, if employees does not see the three main areas of their division, then this means that their activities will be viewed as unimportant.”

That is why it is vital to provide feedback meetings to receive top managers opinions and to explain the unclear perception in an appropriate way. Having conducted such feedback meetings, it was found that top managers partly agreed with the project. It is essential to communicate with them at any stages of the project. Apparently even more than in other countries, due to a very hierarchical approach to management and uncertainty reduction efforts on all levels, the role of C-level support in Russia plays an important role. In the case followed up here, own observation suggests that it is essential to prove support of C-level management for Russian employees in order to secure support for any kind of activities and projects. Top managers trust actors only if C-level management has not only formally agreed, but personally supports the project (based on the source: own observation). Mentioning of C-level management participants increases the translation process efficiency tremendously.

Specifics: Organizational field of aviation

The majority of Russian airports constructed in USSR were transferred later from Government Management to partly private airport operators. Similar to worldwide developments, airport operation is becoming an increasingly complex business (Jimenez, Claro, & Sousa, 2014). The most vital aspect for airports, though, remains safety. It is a high-risk business where profit and cost reduction are in the second place. On the first place is safety and compliance, health and safety of employees and customers. Employees in organizations within aviation are used to meet formal procedures more than others. For safety is essential, which is often secured by strict formalized rules and procedures.

Some top managers argued in interviews that an airport, due to its strict regulation, is comparable to a separate state within the state, and assumes the presence of state bodies within itself. The airport has its own laws, offices, and borders with other countries. There is an organization where a lot of state authorities (Transport Inspection, State Ecological Inspectorate, Labor Inspectorate, Investigation Committee) control the airport activities. State authorities closely monitor all departments of the airport. Thus, the organizational field of aviation is strictly regulated.

As at the airport there are always non-standard situations it is dangerous to have the variability of processes; therefore, only strict following of procedures can cope with different emergency situations. It may become a trigger to using the translation approach in order to optimize processes.

A distinctive feature of Pulkovo Airport is its legal structure based on Public-Private Partnership (PPP) Agreement. A unique project that not only survived but also is developing rapidly. The main difference between Moscow airports and Pulkovo Airport is that Pulkovo Airport has a unique structure as the majority projects and works are conducted internally, while other Russian Airports using outsourcing and sub-companies to do their tasks (Pruћinkэ & Mihalиovб, 2015). Pruћinkэ and Mihalиovб (2015) proved that using services of the outside company which has a particular specialization may minimize airport expenditures. However, the airport cannot rely only on their own strength and becomes very dependent on the activities of other companies. Indeed, Pulkovo Airport has a unique Corporate Governance. There are four shareholders with equal shares. One of them foreign shareholders is Fraport.

The presence of foreign top managers or top managers with international experience seems to make the translation process go more smoothly. Foreign top managers or top managers with international experience treated initiatives calmly, openly, understanding the value, because they have seen similar things in other contexts works. Some of them have dealt with similar projects and they know the opportunities of the proposed tools. It makes the process of translating easily.

PwC consultants distinguish that airport's employees were initially more open and ready to implement any demarcation tools than employees of IT, technology, and retail companies. As the airport is strictly regulated and its perception of the strict system is quite friendly, as they are used to it. In a case of the RACI matrix implementation, it is convenient to carry out with the help of organizational documents, regulations, company policy, organizational structure or other. It is meant by the documents of the company, which regulate just who is responsible for what. The implementation process is not particularly different. There are two main differences of implementing ideas or models which may help or stop the implementation process. The first one is the level of readiness to implement changes and the second one is employee's enthusiasm. If employees are ready and interested in changes, the implementation process becomes easier and faster.

Conclusion

Reference

1.Agar, M. (1991). The right brain strikes back. In N. G. Fielding, & R. M. Lee, Using Computers in Qualitative Research (pp. 81-94). London: Sage.

2.Alcouffe, S., Berland, N., & Levant, Y. (2008). Actor-networks and the diffusion of management accounting innovations: A comparative study. Management Accounting Research, 19, pp. 1-17.

3.Andronic, D. O., & Dumitraєcu, G. (2018, January 1). The Misconceived Delegation of Responsibility. Challenges and Innovation in Management and Entrepreneurship (Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences), 238, pp. 408-413. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro

4.Askeland, H. (2017). 48: Social-symbolic work: Aspirations, efforts and struggles. Institutional leadership and social-symbolic work: Intentional work to institutionalize purpose, values and identity in a faith-based health organization (pp. 1-19). Copenhagen: 33rd EGOS colloquium.

5.Bakker, R., Boros?, S., Kenis, P., & Oerlemans, L. (2013). It's Only Temporary: Time Frame and theDynamics of Creative Project Teams. British Journal of Management, 24(3), pp. 383-397. doi:0.1111/j.1467-8551.2012.00810.x

6.Bergstrцm, O., & Diedrich, A. (2011). Exercising social responsibility in downsizing: Enrolling and mobilizing. Organization Studies, 32, pp. 897-919.

7.Bingham, C., & Kahl, S. (2013). The process of schema emergence: Assimilation, deconstruction, unitization and the plurality of analogies. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), pp. 14-34.

8.Callon, M. (1984, May). Some Elements of A Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. Sociological Review, 32(S1), pp. 196-223.

9.DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), pp. 147-160.

10.Farashah, A., Thomas, J., & Blomquist, T. (2018, October 16). Exploring the value of project management certification in selection and recruiting. International Journal of Project Management, 37, pp. 14-26.

11.Fernandez-Alles, M., & Valle-Cabrera, R. (2006). Reconciling institutional theory with organizational theories: How neoinstitutionalism resolves five paradoxes. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 19(4), pp. 503-517.

12.Frandsen, F., & Johansen, W. (2013). Public relations and the new institutionalism: In search of a theoretical framework. Public Relations Inquiry, 2(2), pp. 205-221.

13.Fredriksson, M., Pallas, J., & Wehmeier, S. (2013, May 14). Public relations and neoinstitutional theory. Public Relations Inquiry, 2(2), pp. 183-203.

14.Fusch, P., & Ness, L. (2015, February). Are We There Yet? Data Saturation in Qualitative Research. The Qualitative Report, 20(9), pp. 1408-1416.