International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR) ISSN: 2319-7064 ResearchGate Impact Factor (2018): 0.28 | SJIF (2018): 7.426 Volume 8 Issue 6, June 2019 www.ijsr.net Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY Enhancing Performance of Air Transport in Kenya through Implementation of Appropriate Monitoring and Evaluation Process Nelson Kyalo Mwikya 1 , Dr. Mulwa, Angeline Sabina 2 , Dr. Mbugua, John Mwaura 3 1 Ph.D. Candidate (Project Planning and Management), Department of Open Learning, School of Open and Distance Learning, University of Nairobi, Kenya 2 Senior Lecturer, Department of Open Learning, School of Open and Distance Learning, University of Nairobi. kenya 3 Lecturer, Department of Open Learning, School of Open and Distance Learning, University of Nairobi. Kenya Abstract: This paper focuses on improved Performance of air transport through appropriate implementation of Monitoring and Evaluation Process. It is based on an empirical study carried out in Kenya focusing on the Air Ports in Nairobi County. The objective of the study was to establish the extent to which monitoring and evaluation process influences the performance of Air Transport in Kenya. The Monitoring and Evaluation was measured in terms of Preparation of M&E work plans, Data collection on aviation safety compliance, Data Analysis and Dissemination of M&E results. To validate the findings inferential statistics were used to test the hypothesis that Monitoring and evaluation process has no significant influence on performance of air transport in Kenya. The study was hinged on pragmatism philosophical standpoint, mixed methods of data collection and sequential triangulation strategy. This study adopted a descriptive cross sectional survey and correlational research design. A sample of 224 participants was selected from a target population of 269 who included Directorate of Safety standards and regulation (DASSR) and registered air operators. Data was collected through structured questionnaire, interview guide, observation guide and document analysis. Responses in the questionnaires were processed by use of Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 20.0 programme to analyze the data. Non-parametric data was analyzed descriptively by use of measures of central tendency as the tools of data analysis. Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation analysis(r) was used to establish correlation between variables. The findings of the study reveal that monitoring and evaluation is correlated to performance of air transport as seen from responses where majority of the respondents strongly agreed that adherence to Monitoring and Evaluation plans in aviation improves performance (61.7%) and the level of satisfaction where operators maintained that they are satisfied with the way Monitoring and evaluation is done in air transport industry (M=2.16, SVD=0.86). In conclusion, analysis revealed that both KCAA and the air operators emphasized that adherence to monitoring and evaluation plans in aviation improve performance and lead to proper analysis of the client’s needs hence boosting performance of air transport. The influence of Monitoring and Evaluation on performance of air transport implies that there is need to invest more resources on Monitoring and Evaluation and sensitize all players in the aviation industry on the appropriate process to enhance performance of air transport. This paper contributes to knowledge on the field of air transport which had not been widely researched previously especially monitoring and evaluation process and performance of air transport. Keywords: aviation standards, monitoring and evaluation, training, compliance, Performance of Air Transport. 1. Introduction The performance of Air Transport has been measured using different parameters by different scholars. For example, Geoffrey (1998) defines a set of aviation performance indicators as accessibility to desired destinations through air transportation, accessibility to airport system, cost effectiveness of air transport, industry sustainability, air transport safety and security and customer satisfaction among other things. The United States Department of Energy (1995) found in Mokaya, Chocho, and Kosgey (2009) also defined a set of system performance indicators, including; system delays, flexibility, predictability, reliability and availability. These indicators have been used to define performance measurement criteria for the civil aviation industry within their states. Aviation performance assessment is for the purpose of improving system operations, determining progress against strategic goals as an integral part of performance-oriented management, to diagnosing constraints within the system and to ascertain the general health of the system (Learmount, 2006). The global nature of the aviation industry, the complex and dynamic aviation environment requires that aviation regulators, air operators, and service providers cooperate to maintain a safe air transport system (Dannatt, 2006; Lu et al., 2006). In this study, performance was operationalized as the increment in aviation operators, reduction in number of air accidents, on time performance (OTP) for scheduled flights, fleet growth, continuous training of staff, frequency of oversight surveillance and routine audit of AMO’s. The assumption behind this definition is that any positive change on these indicators will lead to positive performance of the air transport and vice versa. The year 2015 was termed as an extraordinarily safe year when it came to aviation’s safety performance in terms of the number of fatal accidents (Global Claims Review, 2015). The International Air Transport Association (IATA) (2016) released data for the year 2015 safety performance of the commercial airline industry. The data revealed that in 2015 the global jet accident rate which is measured in hull losses per 1 million flights was 0.32, which was the equivalent of one major accident for every 3.1 million flights. However, this performance was not as good as the rate of 0.27 achieved in 2014 but notably a 30% improvement compared to the Paper ID: 25051901 10.21275/25051901 1675