General aviation (GA) pilots are increasingly relying on available weather technology to conduct preflight weather self-briefings, rather than call-in briefings to Flight Services. However, research has shown that GA pilots’ have difficulty in interpreting weather products, such as radar, and that this problem persists even after additional training. The domain of change management examines how to properly plan and implement transitions in technology. The current paper examines this transition from call-in to self-briefing using principles of change management, specifically from the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AgusteJ. (2013) Applying Kotter’s 8-Step Process for Leading Change to the Digital Transformation of an Orthopedic Surgical Practice Group in Toronto, Canada. J Health Med Informant4(129). doi:10.4172/2157-7420.1000129
2.
ArazmjooH.RahmansereshtH. (2019). A multi-dimensional meta-heuristic model for managing organizational change. Management Decision, 57(3), 526–543. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/10.1108/MD-07-2018-0795
3.
BarrettF. J.ThomasG. F.HocevarS. P. (1995). The central role of discourse in large-scale change: A social construction perspective. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 31(3), 352. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/10.1177/0021886395313007
4.
BlickensderferB.LanicciJ.GuinnT. A.KingJ.OrtizY.ThomasR. (2018). Assessing general aviation pilots’ understanding of aviation weather products. The international journal of aerospace psychology, 27(3-4). https://doi.org/10.1080/24721840.2018.1431780
BurnesB.JacksonP. (2011) Success and failure in organizational change: An exploration of the role of values. Journal of Change Management, 11(2), 133–162. DOI: 10.1080/14697017.2010.524655
8.
CorriganS.MårtenssonL.KayA.OkwirS.UlfvengrenP.McdonaldN. (2015). Preparing for airport collaborative decision making (A-CDM) implementation: An evaluation and Running head: Continuous Change Management in Avionics recommendations. Cognition, Technology & Work, 17(2), 207–218. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/10.1007/s10111-014-0295-x
FrenchJ. R. P.RavenB. (1959) The bases of social power, Studies in Social Power, CardwrightD. (ed.), Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, MI. 150–167.
12.
FultzA. J.AshleyW. S. (2016). Fatal weather-related general aviation accidents in the United States. Physical Geography, 37(5), 291–312. doi:10.1080/02723646.2016.1211854
13.
GuerraC. J.CarmichaelN. E.NielsonJ. T. (2016). Aircraft avionics strategic fleet update using optimal methods. Paper presented at the 1–5. doi:10.1109/AERO.2016.7500934
14.
HallD.MansfieldR. (1975). Relationships of age and seniority with career variables of engineers and scientists. Journal of Applied Psychology., 60(2), 201–210. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076549
15.
HaukN.HüffmeierJ.KrummS. (2018). Ready to be a silver surfer? A meta-analysis on the relationship between chronological age and technology acceptance. Computers in Human Behavior., 84, 304–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.01.020
16.
HicksB.RiggsL. H.McDanielL.SannerJ. (2004). Managing change through roadmapping: Changes in aviation electronics. IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Magazine, 19(5), 9–15. doi:10.1109/MAES.2004.1301220
17.
KattnerN.WangT.LindemannU. (2016). Performance metrics in engineering change management -key performance indicators and engineering change performance levels. IEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering Management. doi:10.1109/IEEM.2016.7798064
18.
KundaG. (1992). Engineering culture: Control and commitment in a high-tech corporation. Temple University Press.
19.
LevaM. C.Del SordoD.MatteiF. (2015). Day-to-day performance management in a small regional airport and management of change for safer operations. Cognition, Technology & Work, 17(2), 237–248. doi:10.1007/s10111-014-0298-7
20.
LiS.GlassR.RecordsH. (2008). The Influence of Gender on New Technology Adoption and Use–Mobile Commerce. Journal of Internet Commerce. 7, 270–289. Doi:10.1080/15332860802067748.
21.
LofquistE. A. (2011). Doomed to fail: A case study of change implementation collapse in the Norwegian civil aviation industry. Journal of Change Management, 11(2), 223–243. doi:10.1080/14697017.2010.527853
22.
MaesG.Van HootegemG. (2019). A systems model of organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 32(7), 725–738. doi:10.1108/JOCM-07-2017-0268
PludeD.HoyerW. (1985). Attention and performance: Identifying and localizing age deficits. Aging and Human Performance, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 47–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-14612-2760-1_9
25.
RhodesS. R. (1983). Age-related differences in work attitudes and behavior: A review and conceptual analysis. Psychological Bulletin93(2), 328–367.
26.
SchimmelR.MuntslagD. R. (2009). Learning barriers: A framework for the examination of structural impediments to organizational change. Human Resource Management, 48(3), 399–416. doi:10.1002/hrm.20287
27.
SulistiyaniE.AliA. H.AstutiD. M. (2020). Change management strategies to implement a fingerprint based attendance system in information systems department using ADKAR model. Applied Technology and Computing Science Journal, 3(1), 22–29.
28.
VenkateshV.MorrisM.DavisG.DavisF. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. doi:10.2307/30036540
29.
WarshawP. R. (1980). A new model for predicting behavioral intentions: An alternative to Fishbein. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(2), 153–172.
