Ship Owner/Manager Guide

Potential weaknesses

The policies and procedures of a company are mostly sufficient to safeguard against risks of time pressure as well, however, this risk is not explicitly stated in the SMS.

Just as human factors play a critical role in every aspect of ship operations, time and the pressures arising from it also do. For this reason, the risk of time pressure should also be part of the SMS and explicitly mentioned whenever and wherever required.

When there is no overarching system governing this, it is bound to be misused. Therefore, the weakness in this part can be divided as:

Scope of SMS – It is generally believed that ISM and SMS applies to only the ship and the technical management of the company. In the same way, finance and accounting departments are seldom ‘within scope’ of ISM despite their having a significant influence on the resources available for the operation of the ship or indeed the purchase and design of the ship.

Structure of the company - Proper structure not in place. The decisions of a commercial department can hardly be challenged by the technical or safety department, creating a moral hazard resulting in conflict between technical and commercial department. The technical department is bound by, and accountable for, the safety and operations of the ship, whereas the chartering/commercial department may be motivated by profitability, especially where chartering bonuses are awarded that relate to ‘utilisation’. The commercial viewpoint may dominate, especially in low freight rate markets, resulting in increased risk especially if there is no commercial consequence to taking on a commercial risk. In some companies, these above-mentioned functions are separated as different legal entities or business units. This kind of structure further opens door for silo working mentality and these issues are exaggerated further.

Owner Pressure – Owner’s direct involvement in daily operational of the ship. This can have both positive and negative impacts. There are cases when an owner directly involves in the daily operation of the ship, he/she can see the challenges faced and takes a proactive approach in extending the needed resources for improvement of the system, however, there are times when the opposite happens, and it is these scenarios that turn out to be burdensome on the shipping company.

Absence of detailed procedures - There are detailed ship-specific procedures for conducting a particular operation, however, detailed information about the time required to safety complete the operation is not always present. The aspect of time is left to the person responsible for carrying out a task leading to some completing the same task in a lengthy period while others carrying out it in a reasonably quick period of time. It may not be clear which one was correct and if there were any safety shortcuts taken while fulfilling the task.

Implementation of systems – While procedures are in place in paper or computer-based, implementation remains a question. Real life implementation of the procedure is quite different from what is stated in the SMS. We have seen that different companies implement the same written procedure in different ways. Differences can also be seen between different ships from the same company.

Culture – Organisational culture hampering the process of the effective safeguard. This is where self-induced time pressure originates. The culture of the organisation is such that the employees assume that the allocated tasks must be completed in the allocated time, despite being well aware of the fact that it is very difficult to achieve the necessary results without compromising safety. The practice of challenging back is not existent.

Reviewing the scope of SMS – Scope of the ISM SMS should include the employment aspects of a ship. Including the commercial, finance and accounting departments will help alleviating time pressure that originates from these places. 

Reorganisation of company structure -Structure of the company should be such that the goals of the individual departments should be well aligned with the overall company’s goals. Responsibility, authority, and accountability should reside in the same department or very close to each other, so time pressure is not exerted between departments. Where pressures are exerted between departments, matters should be elevated to higher levels within the company to find a solution rather than passing it down within departments and to the ship. An organisation with a flat structure benefit from better communications between departments than a hierarchical one.

Time frame included in the procedures – Shipboard procedures for carrying out a task should also include an expected time required to complete the task. This will give a fair idea of the time required to not only the person who is going to do the task but to all involved and will further help in planning other tasks accordingly.

Change in leadership and culture - Leaders and ship-owners should realise that a positive drive from them can make all the difference and should work towards it. It is also in their hands to change the organisational culture to be make personnel more interactive and to question an order that is not safe to complete in the given time.

Potential weaknesses

Solutions

Organisational structure – At times, DPA has conflicting responsibilities, which puts pressure on the ships which he manages. On one hand he should act as the safety ambassador of the ship, while on the other, he is also the operational manager who must ensure that the ship fully performs for the charterer.  Here DPA himself forms part of the reason that generates time pressure on a ship.

Direct access to the top management is not clearly established or not used in scenarios when it must be used. While in theory, this is one of the fundamental objectives of having a DPA, in practice, there are many instances where this is not the case. In some cases, DPA does not use the access he has for alleviating the time pressure on the ships.

There are times when the DPA does not receive enough operational information/communication to allow proactive measures. Sometimes, the flow of information from the ship to a DPA can also be questioned.

DPA does not have enough resources available to pay full attention to all ships under his overview.

For example, the DPA could be assigned more ships than what he can normally concentrate on, and in this case, he must prioritise the more important tasks leaving room for improvement.

DPA not performing the role of a DPA.

Organisational structure – Having a proper organisational structure without conflicting demands can alleviate a lot of this weakness and strengthen this defence in the context of time pressure but also in the overall context of safety management.

Providing clear but also separate line of communication to the topmost part of the management can alleviate a lot of issues from this important safeguard.

Resources is another important aspect that can improve the job of a DPA immensely. This can ensure that indirect time pressures and, in some cases, self-induced time pressure are reduced.

Organisational structure – In the written procedures, the master is given the authority he deserves but when it comes to practical matters, decisions are taken with his/her limited involvement or only involved when it comes to the execution end of the task.

Here indirect time pressure plays an important role. When looking at the written procedures, it may seem that Master is given all the required authority, however, the practical operations may paint a different picture. The expectation from the Master is that he runs the ship to keep the charterers happy, even if that means cutting some safety corners. 

Reward structure - Master is also influenced by the reward structure created by the company. The implicit message here is that “this is what the company wants me to do”.

Organisational culture – Rather than questioning the unreasonable task, master passes on the time pressure to his subordinates, thereby negating the existence of this authority. Here the indirect time pressure exerted on him is converted into a direct time pressure by him towards his subordinates.

Leadership – Leadership both ashore and on board will have to be investigated.

Self-induced pressure - Master simply accepts the unreasonable task in the hope of achieving the results by cutting corners, here self-induced time pressure plays a part.

Organisation Structure and Culture – Certain organisations are better at implementing clearly what is written in their procedures, while others struggle with it. Carrying out the words in action goes a long way in addressing many of the problems associated with safety and not just time pressure.

Reward structure – While reward structure is beneficial to great extent, one should focus on not overdoing it. The reward structure should be carefully planned and executed, in keeping in mind that it does not put the staff in a conflicting position to comply with the safety procedures.

Self-induced time pressure - This can be mitigated with more ship-shore staff interactions and inducing the organisational culture of needing to get the job done safely even if it means putting additional time.