Selecting SMS and CMS Software

Posted on by Chris Brooks

Foreword

 

This brief is based upon the author’s considerable experience as a safety  / compliance post-holder, his deep familiarity with a number of SMS/CMS packages and, his having completed this exercise on a number of occasions.

There are many SMS / CMS software packages available on the Market; several with additional functions available as paid add-ons.  Not just the functionality but, also, the costs and the pricing models (by fleet size, by flights per month etc) vary enormously.

Some developers offer only one pricing model so, it is for the user to decide whether or not to discount on that basis alone.  Pricing per number of flights, especially for a new operator, results in a rapid increase in costs whereas the growth in fleet size is likely to be more gradual.  Furthermore, pricing by fleet size may be banded, such that there is no increase in fees until a certain threshold has been passed.

The data on projected growth in fleet size and in number of flights is highly-sensitive.  It might be the case that such data would not be released for the purpose of the quantitative analysis.  Should it be released, it is essential that the developer be required to sign a non-disclosure agreement before providing any estimate of fees,

Each user should consider which pricing model best suits their needs.  It is recommended that fees be projected based on growth in both the fleet and in the number of flights.  The worst-case estimate should be used for the quantitative comparison.

Caution

 

Prior to spending time and money on the search for a new SMS / CMS software, question whether or not your existing system really is fit-for-purpose or has, simply, been poorly configured and deployed.

There is a common tendency to either:

  • Classify systems as unfit-for-purpose when poor training and configuration are the fundamental deficiencies;
  • Grow procedures to use as much as possible of the functionality of a system.

Ignore the first of the above and current deficiencies would be copied across to any replacement system.  Ignore the second of the above and the result would be an overly-complex SMS / CMS that is heavy on admin at the expense of effectiveness.

The RFP process should be conducted by a person experienced in using a variety of SMS / CMS software.

Requirement in Regulations

 

The requirement for effective safety management and compliance monitoring systems is well-understood by practitioners and operational managers.

However, it should be borne in mind that approval for expenditure may be required from persons who are not as well-practiced.  Notwithstanding the cost of SMS / CMS software in its own right, costs add rapidly and every request for expenditure should be managed diligently.  It is necessary, therefore, to begin any business case by citing selected excerpts from the applicable regulations.

The following text is taken from a variety of regulations, applicable to a variety of types of approved organisation in more than one jurisdiction:

ORG 3.1.3:  The Operator shall have an operational safety reporting system that:

(iii) Includes analysis and management action as necessary;

ORA.GEN.200(a)(6):  The management system shall include ‘a function to monitor compliance of the organisation with the relevant requirements.  Compliance monitoring shall include a feedback system of findings to the accountable manager to ensure effective implementation of corrective actions as necessary’;

GACAR Part 5, Sect 5.71(a):  ‘…must develop and maintain processes and systems…must include…:

(3) Auditing of operational processes and systems.

Current Situation

List the deficiencies inherent with the current system.  Consider, carefully, whether or not training is at the core of the current deficiencies.

If training is the issue, address this before considering a new system.  Otherwise, you may copy those deficiencies across.

The following are some examples of deficiencies:

  • The SMS and the CMS are paper-based;
  • The SMS and the CMS are admin-intensive, which diverts manpower away from oversight duties;
  • It is impossible to track efficiently compliance with target dates for responses to non-compliances;
  • There is no functional relationship between the SMS and the CMS;
  • Audit checklists cannot, easily, be updated in line with past performance;
  • There is no real-time display of aggregate safety and compliance data;
  • It is impossible to calculate and to track, easily, SPIs;
  • It is impossible to identify, easily, adverse trends and repeat non-compliances;
  • It is impossible to analyse root causes (commonalities, trends etc).

Request for Proposal

 

Break the top 15 criteria down into:

  • Common;
  • SMS;
  • CMS.

Common

  • Customisable access by user, including – but not necessarily limited to – specified report types and data fields (e.g.  to de-identified safety reports);
  • Customisable user privileges including – but not necessarily limited to – the changing of due dates;
  • Customisable labelling for tabs and data fields;
  • Ease of configuration by the user.

Note:   The system needs to be Cloud-based, overcoming the need for local servers.

SMS

  • Reporting:  User-definable (open, confidential & anonymous) such as air safety report, maintenance safety, fatigue, hazard & general;
  • Risk Management:  hazard identification, safety risk analysis (preferably ICAO 5 X 5 matrix), recording / assignment / follow-up of risk mitigation actions etc;
  • Investigation:  to include the recording, assignment and follow-up of recommendations;
  • Analysis:  including, but not necessarily limited to, the analysis of open and closed actions, reporting on the status of actions (by person, investigation, risk etc);
  • Generate .E5x file (required for submitting mandatory reports to EASA and the national authority).

Note:   There exist differences between and within NAAs on how NCs are classified.

CMS

  • Audit schedule creation and publishing;
  • Checklist creation and customisation;
  • Pre-defined regulations (IOSA, EASA Part-145, EASA Part-CAO, GACAR Part-121 etc);
  • The ability to classify each non-compliance in the manner required by the respective NAA;
  • Upon closure of a non-compliance, the ability to schedule a follow-up check;
  • Comprehensive analysis and reporting of / on non-compliances;
  • Ease of revision of checklists;
  • Compliance reporting by regulation.

Shortlist

  • Q5 Systems:   https://www.q5systems.com/;
  • Q Pulse:   https://www.ideagen.com/solutions/quality;
  • Air Maestro:   https://www.avinet.com.au/;
  • IQSMS:   https://www.asqs.net/;
  • SMS Pro:   https://www.asms-pro.com/smspro.aspx;
  • SMS360:   https://www.flightdatapeople.com/sms360.

Notes:

  • SMS / CMS packages include, but are not limited to, the list above;
  • Some systems are tailored to other industries & may not suit aviation;
  • Consider the existing user base, including references;
  • A software bridge can be used to transfer data between SMS / CMS and FDM systems;
  • Compatibility with FDM systems varies considerably.

Qualitative Comparison

 

Reduce four candidates to three on the basis of the qualitative comparison.

The graphic below shows part of only one of the three classes of essential criteria:

Quantitative Comparison

 

Systems may be priced on different criteria, such as:  fleet size, number of flights per months etc.  Especially in the case of new operators, highly-sensitive data would be required and its sharing with developers might be prohibited.

Having eliminated System 4 based on the qualitative comparison, the remaining steps are:

  • Compare on the basis of cost;
  • Seek a 2nd ‘best and final offer’;
  • Account for savings if SMS / CMS is bundled with a FDM package;
  • Account for pricing basis (flights / No aircraft) plus their trends;
  • FDM may require support services from the aircraft system OEM.
The resulting table – which, in this particular case, shows only the projected costs of the SMS/CMS element – may look something like the following:

Analysis

 

Break the analysis down into a maximum of ten bullet points.  Remember that this is the basis for your recommendation and it must be clear.  The first point should address relative cost.

All of the comments cited below might be applicable, dependent upon the systems under consideration and the nature of the operation in question:

  • System 1 is the cheapest of the three remaining options;
  • System 1 is in widespread airline use;
  • System 1 is very easy to configure by the user;
  • System 1 possesses simple analytical functionality;
  • System 1 can be configured for multiple methods of classifying non-compliances;
  • System 1 is priced based upon fleet size, thereby offering greater stability than pricing based upon flight numbers;
  • System 1 has, previously, been paired with our existing FDM system;
  • The developer of System 1 provides also their own FDM system, matched to System 1 itself, and permitting secure transfer of FDM data for the purpose of investigation;
  • The developer of System 1 is in a time zone only two hours behind our own.

Recommendation

 

Present the remaining systems in ascending order of cost.  Cite the source for exchange rate calculations (typically:  xe.com) and the date.  Note down characteristics specific to each package.

Notes:

  • Exchange rates taken from:   https://.www.xe.com <8 Nov 2020>;
  • Systems (2) and (3) required a software bridge to be developed for linking with any FDM system.
  • Common to all solutions involving FDM, the total includes USD99k for ground station software / services.

Recommendation:  Purchase System (1).

Approval

For ease of reference, it is recommended that purchase approval be recorded on the Business Case as follows:

Footnotes:

Detailed records of the RFP process should be retained, including hand-written notes.  Such notes might be required for financial audit (including for the purposes of combatting money laundering and corruption).

Should further information be required, including a .pdf version of this article, please contact the Author.

To view the full business case associated with this article, please contact the Author for the password then click here:  Business Case.