=Paper= {{Paper |id=Vol-2522/paper9 |storemode=property |title=Efficiency of Controlling the Production System at Airports Using the Single Information Space for Ensuring Technological Processes |pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2522/paper9.pdf |volume=Vol-2522 |authors=Ivan I. Linnik,Aleksander A. Tamargazin,Elena P. Linnik }} ==Efficiency of Controlling the Production System at Airports Using the Single Information Space for Ensuring Technological Processes== https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2522/paper9.pdf

Efficiency of Controlling the Production System at
Airports Using the Single Information Space for
Ensuring Technological Processes*

Ivan I. Linnik1[0000-0001-9815-4806], Aleksander A. Tamargazin2[0000-0002-9941-3600],
Elena P. Linnik1[0000-0001-9070-2556]
1V.I. Vernadsky Crimean Federal University, Yalta, Russia

ivanlinnik@hotmail.com
2National Aviation University, prosp. Kosmonavta Komarova 1, 03058 Kyiv, Ukraine

avia_icao@mail.ru

Abstract. Within the framework of the single information space paradigms for
ensuring technological processes at airports, considered are the efficiency crite-
ria currently used in production processes at airports. It is shown that the effi-
ciency criteria, as a rule, include one or a set of indicators for assessing the effi-
ciency of the production system, which allows quantifying the individual prop-
erties of such systems or their elements, as well as their interaction. Considered
are the integral efficiency criteria giving a generalized specification of the pro-
duction system. It is shown that the correct definition of the physical essence
and mathematical expression of the efficiency criteria and their rational division
into main and auxiliary ones makes it possible to evaluate their condition more
objectively, compare various options for production systems’ implementation
and visualize the prospects of their development. As a separate group of effi-
ciency indicators, considered are the indicators for assessing the efficiency of
controlling production systems at airports, including the assessment of control
quality and such control system properties as readiness, efficiency, sustainabil-
ity, and continuity. Proposed is the method of designing efficiency criteria that
meets the representativeness requirement. For this purpose, the efficiency crite-
rion is presented in the form of a functional, which is defined according to the
functions most significantly affecting the quality of production systems and
their control processes. Such a view of the efficiency criterion is based on con-
sidering the control process to be both information-driven and intellectual by its
nature, and associated directly with the creative activity of the person making
the decision in a certain production system.

Keywords: airport, production potential, efficiency.

* Copyright 2019 for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons Li-
cense Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
89

1 Approaches to Assessing the Efficiency of Production Systems
at Airports

High-quality implementation of typical tasks at airports requires constant analysis,
evaluation, and selection of the most rational options for tackling these tasks. This
selection is based on the forecast and comparison of the possible results achieved with
the help of the chosen course of action with the goals of an airport or its particular
departments and services. The measure used to assess options in terms of achieving a
goal or solving a problem is called the “measure of efficiency”, or shortly, “efficien-
cy”. In general, it can be said that the concept of “efficiency” characterizes the ability
of the production system at an airport to achieve its goals or cope with its tasks.
The criterion of efficiency is a numerical measure, quantitatively characterizing the
degree of goals’ achievement or problems’ solution. The criterion of efficiency, as a
rule, includes one or a set of indicators for assessing the system’s efficiency, allowing
quantifying the specific properties of the system or its elements and their relationship.
It gives an integral, generalized characteristic of the production system. The correct
definition of the physical essence and mathematical expression of the criteria of effi-
ciency as well as their rational division into the main and auxiliary ones make it pos-
sible to more objectively evaluate the condition of the production systems at airports,
compare their variants and to visualize their development prospects. It is especially
true when using a single information space to ensure technological processes at air-
ports [1, 2].
By now, four requirements for efficiency criteria (indicators) have been formulat-
ed:

─ representativeness (strict compliance with the goal efficiency indicator implement-
ed by the system);
─ sensitivity (the ability of the efficiency indicator to change its value when the sys-
tem parameters change);
─ ease of calculation;
─ visibility (the clear physical meaning of the efficiency indicator).

At the same time, the task of selecting indicators and efficiency criteria is complex,
since there are no formal rules for their selection. The problem is solved informally.
Its decision depends on the analyst’s level of training, clear understanding of the pur-
pose of the assessment and intuition.
In order to choose the most acceptable course of action from the set of options
characterized by the corresponding criterion of efficiency, it is necessary to define the
rule of the choice option or the assessment criterion. When considering the quantita-
tive methods to substantiate decisions, the most common assessment criteria are usu-
ally used: the principle of maximum gain, the principle of guaranteed results, the
principle of domination, etc. Thus, to assess the efficiency of the production system at
airports, it is necessary to determine not only the efficiency criterion and indicators
but also the assessment criterion.
90

2 Efficiency Criteria for Production Systems

We shall consider the criteria for production systems’ efficiency which are most
commonly used in practice.

2.1 Efficiency Criterion for Production Systems Based on the Total
Implemented Production Potential
Any production system at a particular airport has certain potential production capa-
bilities. These potential production capabilities are called “production potential”.
Depending on the organization, technical condition and resource supply of the air-
port, the production potential of the system can be fully or partially implemented.
Only the part of the production potential that will actually be implemented, that is,
skillfully used under the specific conditions of the given airport (current weather con-
ditions, flight schedules, etc.), will have a direct impact on the course and outcome of
technological processes at the airport.
As a value containing a generalized assessment of the production system, the pro-
duction potential complies with the goal of its functioning; it can be measured and
serve as an integral characteristic of any production system at an airport.
Suppose that a production system has n elements of the supports of the production
potential, each of these having the production potential Pi(t). If “absolutely” perfect
organizations and technologies are used in all processes, both material and informa-
tional, then the total implemented production potential of the system equals to
m
TP1 (t )   Pi (t ) . (1)
i 1

If there are deviations from the “ideal” in the processes related to the resource support
for the implementation of the production potential and these deviations for the i-th
technological process are characterized by the coefficient 0 < i(t) < 1, then the total
implemented production potential of the system equals to
m
TP2 (t )   Pi (t ) i (t ) ,
i 1

where TP2 characterizes the degree of production potential’s implementation, given
the existing technologies of resource provision and the ideal level of controllability
and organization of the system.
In practice, the ideal organization and controllability of the production system do
not exist. If we introduce a coefficient characterizing the quality of control for the i-th
technological process 0 <i(t) <1, then the total implemented production potential of
the system equals to
m
TP3 (t )   Pi (t ) i (t )  i (t ) (2)
i 1
91

where TP3 characterizes the degree of production potential’s implementation, given
the existing technologies of resource provision and the existing level of controllability
and organization of the system.
As the criterion of the production system’s efficiency, characterizing the level of
equipment and technologies of resource provision, the following indicator may be
used:

TP2 (t )
(t )  .
TP1 (t )

As the criterion of the production system’s efficiency, reflecting int. al. the standard
of system control’s quality, the following indicator may be used:

TP3 (t )
(t )  .
TP2 (t )

A similar approach can be applied with a different composition and interpretation of
the coefficients. Basically, it corresponds to the energy approach [3-7].

2.2 Efficiency Criterion for Production Systems Based on the Relative
Speed of Technological Processes’ Resource Allocation at Airports

The alternative for the total implemented production potential TP1 defined according
to formula (1) is the relative speed of movement of the unit of technological process-
es’ resource allocation at an airport V1(t).
n
 vi (t ) pi (t )
V1 (t )  i 1 n ,
 pi (t )
i 1

where vi(t) is the maximum speed of movement of the unit of technological processes’
resource allocation at an airport performed by the i-th object - support of the produc-
tion potential; pi(t) is the production potential of the i-th support of the production
potential.
The alternative for the total implemented production potential TP2 is the variable
V2(t),
n
 vi (t ) pi (t )i (t )
V2 (t )  i 1 n
,
 pi (t )
i 1

where i(t) is the coefficient characterizing the technology of transportation of tech-
nological processes’ resource allocation at an airport.
92

The actual relative speed of movement of technological processes’ resource alloca-
tion at an airport, taking into account the quality of control, equals to
n
 vi (t ) pi (t )i (t )i (t )
V2 (t )  i 1 n
,
 pi (t )
i 1

where i(t) is the fraction of decrease in the relative speed of movement of technolog-
ical processes’ resource allocation at an airport, depending on the quality of control.
As the criterion of the production system’s efficiency, at least two indicators can be
used:
V (t ) V (t )
(t )  2 , (t )  3 .
V1 (t ) V2 (t )
The analysis of these variables allows making conclusions about the quality of trans-
portation and control technologies and, in general, about the mobility of the produc-
tion system at airports.

2.3 Efficiency Criterion for Production Systems Based on “the Cost of
Losses Averted”

When making decisions regarding the development of a specific production system at
an airport, it is necessary to be able to assess the feasibility of such measures.
Suppose an airport has a certain absolute income per year, equal to D(t), and does
not comprise a production system with the potential p(t). Suppose the airport may
suffer from damages amounting to Y(t) on average per year as the result of possible
external influences. Then the airport’s real annual income will be determined by the
variable Dp(t) = D(t) – Y(t). Suppose a new production system with the potential p(t)
can be installed at the airport, its cost being equal to C(t0). It is assumed that the new
production system is able to reduce (prevent) possible annual damage by y(t),
whereby y(t) is the function of the production potential. Then it can be argued that
the real income of the airport will increase and equal to Dpl(t) = Dp + y(t). Consider-
ing the above-mentioned, in T years the new production system will be able to gener-
ate income calculated according to the formula:
T
y (T )  C (t0 ) (1  s(i)) ,
i 1

where s(i) is the annual share of the initial investment in the production system C(t0);
C(t) is the cost of installing the production system.
The function y(T) is a poor efficiency criterion since it does not reflect the rate of
return on investments. Choosing the period during which the initial investment will
increase (pay off) by m times is, therefore, advisable; i.e. when
93

y (T )
m .
C (t0 )

Provided that s(i) is const, the criterion of m-fold payback will be as follows:

log( m)
Tm  .
log(1  s )

Generally speaking, the value of s(i) is not constant and decreases with time due to
wear (system’s aging). The variable Y(t) can be obtained on the basis of a retrospec-
tive statistical analysis of the damage.

2.4 Efficiency Criterion Based on the Convolution of Particular
Efficiency Indicators

Suppose a production system has m properties, each of which, in turn, is characterized
by the corresponding fi efficiency indicator. Suppose the contribution of each proper-
ty to the implementation of the system’s production potential is known and estimated
by the coefficients i so that
m
0 < i < 1 and   i  1 .
i 1

And suppose none of the efficiency criteria we have considered so far are suitable for
analysis. Then, a new integral efficiency criterion of particular efficiency indicators
can be constructed on the basis of convolution, in which the set of efficiency indica-
tors f1, f2, …, fn is replaced with one function F(f1, f2, …, fm), namely:
m
F ( f1, f 2 ,, f n )   i fi .
i 1

Table 1 shows an example of setting the efficiency indicators of the production sys-
tem’s particular properties and the corresponding coefficients of the indicators’ con-
tribution to the integral efficiency criterion F(f1, f2, …, fm).

Table 1. Production system’s efficiency indicators and coefficients of the indicators’ contribu-
tion

Properties Efficiency indicator Coefficient
Production readiness f1 1
Production capacity f2 2
Technological stability f3 3
Controllability f4 4
Organization f5 5
94

Properties Efficiency indicator Coefficient
Observability f6 6
Mental capacity f7 7
Self-management f8 8
Self-sufficiency f9 9
Dynamism f10 10

This approach seems quite practical and technology-savvy. It allows using the con-
volution of both the more complex hierarchy of properties and the relevant indicators.
Its main disadvantages are hard-going conditions: conceptual comparability of the
variables of individual efficiency indicators, absence of conceptual meaning for the F
function and uncertainty in the choice of i weights. To assess them, it is often nec-
essary to resort to expert assessments.

3 Production System Control’s Efficiency Assessment

Control efficiency is an important indicator of any production system’s capabilities.
Intuitively, efficient control is understood as such a control process, in which, first,
the timely development of solutions and plans which are optimal and most appropri-
ate for the specific situation is ensured, secondly, the successful rigorous implementa-
tion of these decisions and plans in a timely manner and, thirdly, achieving a high
degree of readiness for the implementation of the airport’s production capabilities.
However, the intuitive understanding of the “control efficiency” concept does not
allow for an objective comprehensive analysis of the subsystem of controlling produc-
tion systems at airports to develop scientifically based proposals on how to sustain
and develop them. The quantitative methods of system analysis are required.[8, 10]
The following main goals for assessing control efficiency in production systems
can be considered:

─ determine the extent to which the current control system contributes to (or hinders)
the implementation of the system’s production potential;
─ assess the current condition of the control system in order to take measures to
maintain it at the required level;
─ determine the most promising ways of the control system’s development;
─ identify the most appropriate ways to improve the forms and methods of control;
─ identify to what extent the qualifications of the airport’s engineering and technical
staff influence the efficiency of solving production problems.

The basic principle of assessing the efficiency of production systems’ control at air-
ports is the system approach principle. According to the principle, the control system
is considered as not only a set of information-related departments and services at air-
ports, communication systems, automated and special systems, but also as a part of
the applied information technologies (IT), decision-making methods and information
resources (IR) - a single information space of technological processes’ maintenance
95

[1].
An important feature of airport control processes is their implementation in a sepa-
rate part of the production system - the control subsystem. In relation to this subsys-
tem, the production system is comprehensive. Therefore, the criteria for assessing the
production system and the requirements imposed by the production system are deci-
sive for constructing a system of indicators and criteria for evaluating the effective-
ness of airport control processes.
When assessing efficiency, the following indicators are usually used as efficiency
indicators: k - coefficients similar in meaning to efficiency; T - the mathematical ex-
pectation of the time of occurrence (completion) of events (processes); P(t < tз) - the
probability of occurrence (completion) of events (processes) within a period shorter
than the specified one; W - the mathematical expectation of the fraction of objects
with a certain property; M - the mathematical expectation of the fraction of objects
(processes) meeting the standard requirements.
The most widely used methods for assessing efficiency indicators are the methods
of probability calculus, waiting theory, search theory, network planning, game theory,
etc. [3-7].
One of the first integral indicators for assessing control efficiency is the indicator
representing a kind of efficiency factor, kef, reflecting the degree to which potential
production capacity is used:

Р
kef  ,
TP
where P is the implemented production capacity; TP is the potential production ca-
pacity.
The internal efficiency indicators allow comparing control systems as tools of con-
trol activity. Indicators of external or production efficiency assess the extent to which
the control system affects the result of the production system’s activity [3, 5, 6].
The internal control efficiency assessment comprises control quality assessment
and such properties of the control system as readiness, efficiency, sustainability, and
continuity.

1. The assessment of the control system’s efficiency and operational readiness was
carried out according to the following six indicators:

─ the absolute duration of activities needed to set the control system ready;
─ time balance;
─ the difference between the fixed (scheduled) and actual deadlines;
─ the mathematical expectation of the duration of activities to ensure the functioning
of the control system;
─ the probability of a timely response to destructive factors’ influence;
─ the probability of meeting the specified (directive, normative) deadlines.

2. The assessment of control quality - according to the degree of optimality of the de-
cisions made (the plans being designed) and the completeness of their implementa-
tion.
96

3. The assessment of control stability – according to the system’s reliability, surviva-
bility and noise immunity. Notice that the following indicators are used to assess
reliability:
─ the average uptime of individual elements and the control system as a whole;
─ the average time between failures of the control system’s elements;
─ the probability of reliable functioning of the control system as a whole.

The following factors are used to assess survivability:

─ security and vulnerability characteristics of the control system’s elements, the
probability of their failure, the degree (multiplicity) of their redundancy;
─ the level of the control system’s functioning after exposure to various types of
destructive factors;
─ the number of communication channels per control direction;
─ impaired control’s recovery time.

The main criterion for assessing the sustainability of production processes’ control at
airports within a certain period is the percentage ratio of the time during which the
conditions of control sustainability are fulfilled to the entire period under considera-
tion.

4. The main criterion for assessing the continuity of production control at an airport is
the percentage ratio of the time during which the condition of continuity of control
is satisfied over the entire period under consideration.

Note that the particular indicators of the internal efficiency of the production system
are neither formally nor functionally related to the external efficiency indicator. With-
in particular efficiency indicators, e.g. sustainability, there are also particular indica-
tors, which are also neither formally nor functionally related to the specific indicator
that generalizes them.
Taking into account the initiated proposals and the elimination of uncertainties
characteristic of this approach, we can offer two options for constructing a system of
criteria and indicators for controlling production systems at airports. The first option
is based on the selection of standard stages of activity for the application of a certain
production process. Let us call it the functional option. The second option is based on
the control system’s contribution to the implementation of a certain production sys-
tem’s properties.
We shall consider the first option of assessing the production system’s efficiency.
In accordance with the criteria for assessing the production system (1), the control
efficiency in the production system was assessed according to the formulas:
TP3 (t ) V (t )
(t )  or (t )  3 ,
TP2 (t ) V2 (t )

where TP2, (V2(t)) is the total speed of the production potential’s movement, charac-
terizing the degree of the production potential’s implementation with the existing
technologies of resource allocation and the ideal level of controllability and organiza-
97

tion of the system; TP3, (V3(t)) is the speed of the production potential’s movement
(taking into account the control quality) which characterizes the degree of the produc-
tion potential’s implementation with the existing technologies of resource allocation
and the existing level of controllability and organization of the system.
In order to design an efficiency criterion satisfying the representativeness require-
ment, we shall define it as a function defined on the functions most significantly af-
fecting the quality of the system and control processes. In the production system’s
activity, we shall single out four stages that, from the point of view of the control
process, most significantly influence the solution of the production problem. The
coefficient characterizing the control quality can be formulated as follows:
  F ( fо , fc , fd , f p ) (3)

where fо is the functional determining the quality of the production system’s organ-
ization; fc is the functional determining the controllability of the production system; fd
is the functional determining the quality of decisions in the production system; fp is
the functional determining the quality of planning in the production system.
The functional for determining the quality of the production system’s organization
will be formulated as follows:

f о  F1 (os , SIS ( II , IR )) ,

where os is the functional determining the organizational structure’s quality; sis
is the functional determining the quality of the single information space of technolog-
ical processes’ support at airports; II is the functional determining the information
infrastructure’s quality; IR is functional determining the information resources’ quali-
ty.
In their turn, II and IR are formulated as:

 I  F2 ( IT ,  LLS,  ACS, CS , CP ) ,

where IT is the function determining the quality of information technologies; LLS
is the function determining the quality of the location’s lighting system; ACS is the
function determining the quality of automated control systems; CS is the function
determining the quality of the communication system; CP is the function determining
the quality of control points.

 IR  F3 ( D ,  DB ,  FP ) ,

where D is the function determining the quality of documentary information re-
sources; DB is the function determining the quality of factual information resources;
FP is the function determining the quality of the functional part of information re-
sources.
The functional fc defining the production system’s controllability will be formulat-
ed as follows:

f c  F4 (E ,C ,S ) ,
98

where E is the function determining the control efficiency; C is the function de-
termining the control continuity; S is the function determining the control security.
The functional characterizing the quality of the decisions made is defined as fol-
lows:

f d  F5 ( T , V ) ,

where T is the function determining the timeliness of decisions made; V is the
function determining the validity of decisions made.
The functional characterizing the quality of planning is defined as follows:

f p  F6 ( V ,  A ) ,

where V is the function determining the validity of planning; A is the function de-
termining the accuracy of planning.
Thus, formula (3) can be rewritten as follows:

  F ( F1, F4 , F5 , F6 ) . (4)

The values of the functions the functional is based on (4) can be used as particular
indicators of efficiency assessment in order to compare the juxtaposed production
systems. The coefficient itself acts as an integral indicator that allows assessing the
influence of the control system on the degree of implementation of the production
potential or the speed of its delivery.
We shall consider the second option based on the contribution of the control sys-
tem to the implementation of the properties of a certain production system.
Suppose TP is the indicator determining the current value of the possible imple-
mentation of the production potential. Suppose this value is determined on the basis
of convolution reflecting the integral contribution of all system properties to the im-
plementation of the production potential TP = F(f1,f2, …, f10). Suppose fi is the contri-
bution indicator of each property of the system to the implementation of the produc-
tion potential defined as the function fi = i(fО, fC) from the properties of organization
and controllability, whereby fО = f5, fC = f4. Then the current value of the production
potential’s possible implementation can be formulated as TP = F(1(fО, fC), …, 10(fО,
fC)). Suppose certain changes have occurred in the control system of the production
system, thus leading to a change in the properties of organization and control ex-
pressed by the new values f'О, f'C. Then the new value of the possible implementation
of the system’s production potential can be formulated as
TP' = F(1(f'О, f'C), …, 10(f'О, f'C)). The assessment of the changes in the production
system can be made according to the degree of possibility incrementation of the pro-
duction potential’s implementation, formulated as follows:

TP '
TP  1 .
TP
99

4 Conclusion

Not claiming to make an exhaustive presentation of approaches to assessing the effi-
ciency of controlling production systems at airports, we have examined theoretically
only several approaches that most adequately correspond to situations when a single
information space of technological process control is used at airports. The proposed
method of assessing the criteria for the efficiency of controlling production systems at
airports involves not only the qualimetry of operators (decision-makers) according to
the existing methods of implementing control functions but also the modeling of their
processes according to advanced information technologies.

References
1. Tamargazіn, O.A., Lіnnіk, І.І., Kurbet, L.V. Stan, protirіchchya j tendencіi rozvitku іnfor-
macіjnogo polya zabezpechennya tekhnologіchnih procesіv v aeroportu / Naukoyemnі
tekhnologіi: Nauk. zhurnal – Kyiv: NAU, 2017. – No. 1 (33). – P. 65-70
DOI:10.18372/2310-5461.33.11561. (ukr).
2. Tamargazіn, O.A., Lіnnіk, І.І. Osoblivostі keruvannya tekhnologіchnimi procesami v
aeroportu / Naukoyemnі tekhnologіi: Nauk. zhurnal – Kyiv: NAU, 2017. – No. 2 (34). –
P.134-139 DOI:10.18372/2310-5461.34.11611. (ukr).
3. Nogin, V. D. Prinyatie reshenij v mnogokriterial'noj srede: kolichestvennyj podhod. – 2-e
izd., ispr. i dop. Moscow: FIZMATLIT Publ., 2004. 176 p. (rus).
4. Katulev, A.N. Matematicheskie metody v sistemah podderzhki prinyatiya reshenij: Ucheb.
posobie / A.N. Katulev, N.A. Severcev. Moscow: Vyssh. shk. Publ., 2005. 311 p. (rus).
5. S. Ortega Alba, M. Manana, Energy Research in Airports: A Review, MDPI, Energies 9,
349 (2016) DOI:10.3390/en9050349
6. J. Fei Qiao, Y. Hou, H. Gui Han, Optimal control for wastewater treatment process based
on an adaptive multi-objective differential evolution algorithm, NCA (2017) DOI:
10.1007/s00521-017-3212-4
7. Zhuchenko A.I., Osipa L.V., Cheropkin E.S., IJEM 7-4, 36-50 (2017) DOI:
10.5815/ijem.2017.04.04. 2017
8. Blanchard B.S., Fabrycky W.J., Systems Engineering and Analysis, 5th ed. Prentice-Hall
International series in Industrial and Systems Engineering (Prentice-Hall, USA, 2011)
9. Jianchun Guo and Hao Liang and Zhihong Zhao 2013 Optimizing the fracture parameters
of low permeability gas reservoirs J. Southwest Petrol Univ Sci Technol Ed 35 pp. 93-98
10. Kai X and Hong Z 2016 Comprehensive Monitoring System for Multiple Vehicles and Its
Modeling Study J. Transportation Research Procedia vol 25 pp 1824-1833