is there a correlation between resource man agement training and … · 2011-07-04 · subject and...
TRANSCRIPT
Is there a correlation betweentraining and low frequency of insurance claims? - A study of The Swedish Club Academy Maritime Resource Management
Bachelor’s thesis in Shipping and
CATHRINE WALDEBJER
Department of Shipping and Marine Technology
CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
Göteborg, SWEDEN 2011
Bachelor’s thesis SOL 11/60
Is there a correlation between resource mantraining and low frequency of insurance claims?
A study of The Swedish Club Academy Maritime Resource Management
Bachelor’s thesis in Shipping and Marine Technology
Department of Shipping and Marine Technology
UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
management training and low frequency of insurance claims?
A study of The Swedish Club Academy Maritime Resource Management
REPORT NO SOL 11/60
IS THERE A CORRELATION BETWEEN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT TRAINING
AND LOW FREQUENCY OF INSURANCE CLAIMS?
– A STUDY OF THE SWEDISH CLUB ACADEMY MARITIME RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
CATHRINE WALDEBJER
Department of Shipping and Marine Technology
CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
Göteborg, Sweden 2011
Abstract
Safety first is of importance in the maritime domain as incident and accidents can have a major effect on crew, vessel, cargo, environment and third person. Many accidents do occur as a result of human error and the aim of a resource management training program is to contribute to the culture in the organization, where these factors can be prevented. The STCW Manila Amendments, which are proposed to apply from 1st of January 2012, requires a minimum knowledge and proficiency of resource management for officers, deck crew and engineers.
The purpose of this bachelor’s thesis is to investigate the experienced impact that resource management training program has had on shipowners’ safety culture and if low claim frequency can be a result of this. The resource management training program of focus is The Swedish Club Academy’s Maritime Resource Management.
The qualitative investigation on the objective included a study of previous work done on the subject and a questionnaire executed by six maritime shipping organizations. The questionnaire evaluates the shipowners’ safety culture and the contribution of a resource management training program. The result shows that there is a correlation between high safety culture, resource management training and low claim frequency. Resource management training is overall experienced as positively contributing to safety culture and the shipowners with MRM, who participated in this survey, have the lowest claim frequency and are ranked with the highest safety cultures. However there are difficulties to measure the effect of MRM as many of the shipowners have crew with more than one resource management certificate as well as the many dimensions of safety culture. Key words: safety culture, resource management training program, claim frequency
Sammanfattning
Att sätta säkerheten först är viktigt inom sjöfarten eftersom incidenter och olyckor kan ha stor inverkan på besättning, fartyg, last och miljö samt tredje person. Många olyckor inträffar på grund av mänskliga misstag och syftet med en ’resource management’ utbildning är att bidra positivt till den kultur som råder i organisationen och där dessa faktorer kan förebyggas. STCW Manila-ändringarna, som föreslås träda i kraft 1 januari 2012, kräver en lägsta kunskap och färdighet i ’Resource Management’ för befälhavare, styrmän, manskap och ingenjörer.
Syftet med kandidatuppsatsen är att undersöka den upplevda effekten som ’resource management’ utbildningen har på rederiernas säkerhetskultur samt om en låg olyckfallsfrekvens kan vara ett resultat av detta. Den ledar- och resursutbildning som är i fokus för undersökningen är The Swedish Clubs Maritime Resource Management.
Den kvalitativa studien består av tidigare utförda studier i ämnet och ett frågeformulär som har besvarats av sex stycken redarorganisationer. Frågeformuläret behandlar redarens säkerhetskultur samt det upplevda utfallet av ledarutbildning.
Resultatet visar att det finns ett samband mellan hög säkerhetskultur, ’resource management’ utbildning och låg olycksfallsfrekvens. MRM upplevs generellt positivt bidragande till säkerhetskultur och de deltagande redarna som tillämpat MRM har den lägsta olycksfallsfrekvensen och är rankade med den högsta säkerhetskulturen. Men det finns svårigheter med att mäta effekten av MRM eftersom att det är många rederier som har besättning med mer än ett ledarskapscertifikat samt de många dimensionerna som en säkerhetskultur utgör.
Nyckelord: säkerhetskultur, ‘resource management’ utbildning, olycksfallsfrekvens
Acknowledgement
The reason for the chosen subject is due to a traineeship which I conducted at The Swedish Club Loss Prevention Department. During my trainee period I was involved in the process of researching the root cause to accidents which had occurred on vessels insured by The Swedish Club. My interest with this bachelor thesis is to further contribute with an investigation which can be of use for The Swedish Club Academy and the Maritime Resource Management training as well as shipowners globally.
My expectation with this study was to deepen my knowledge of the shipping industry and the way organizations work with safety.
I would like to thank all the shipowners who participated in this study, Lars A. Malm and Anders Hultman at The Swedish Club and Martin Hernqvist at The Swedish Club Academy for providing me with the necessary information. Would also like to thank Chalmers Human Factor Department for providing me with useful articles and my supervisor Anna Eliasson for consulted me along the way.
Conducting this thesis individually had not been possible without great support from boyfriend and family members.
Gothenburg 21st of May 2011
Cathrine Waldebjer
List of expressions and abbreviations
BRM Bridge Resource Management
CLASS Classifications society, which classifies the vessels technical standards regarding construction, equipment and operation.
CRM Crew Resource Management
FLAG STATE Flag state is the state which the vessel is registered in. The state’s laws and regulations are to be applied on the vessel.
IMO International Maritime Organization
ISM International Safety Management
MRM Maritime Resource Management
PSC Port State Control; inspection carried out by national port to verify that the vessel and its equipment live up to the international regulations as well as number of crew onboard and that the vessel is operated due to the regulation.
RO/RO Roll On Roll Off vessel
RO/PAX Roll On Roll Off Passenger vessel
SMS Safety Management System
SOLAS Safety of Life at Sea
STCW Standard of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping
TSC The Swedish Club
Table of Contents Abstract .................................................................................................................................................... i
Sammanfattning .......................................................................................................................................ii
Acknowledgement ................................................................................................................................... iii
List of expressions and abbreviations ..................................................................................................... iv
1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background .............................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Purpose .................................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Objective.................................................................................................................................. 2
1.4 Limitations ............................................................................................................................... 2
2 Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Literature studies .................................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Questionnaire .......................................................................................................................... 3
2.3 Criticism of the Method .......................................................................................................... 4
2.4 Criticism of the Sources ........................................................................................................... 5
3 Theory .............................................................................................................................................. 7
3.1 Conventions and regulation .................................................................................................... 7
3.2 Maritime Resource Management ......................................................................................... 10
3.2.1 Other management courses .......................................................................................... 11
3.3 Maritime risks and failures .................................................................................................... 12
3.4 Safety culture ........................................................................................................................ 13
3.4.1 Safety ............................................................................................................................. 13
3.4.2 Culture ........................................................................................................................... 13
3.4.3 Definitions of Safety Culture ......................................................................................... 14
3.5 Development of Safety Culture ............................................................................................. 15
3.6 Managing a Safety Culture .................................................................................................... 16
3.6.1 Top –down philosophy .................................................................................................. 17
3.6.2 The importance of superior employees ........................................................................ 17
3.6.3 Communication ............................................................................................................. 18
3.6.4 Manuals, checklist and procedures ............................................................................... 18
3.7 Key elements to a proactive safety culture ........................................................................... 19
4 Result ............................................................................................................................................. 21
4.1 The shipowners’ safety culture ............................................................................................. 21
4.1.1 Safety policy .................................................................................................................. 22
4.1.2 Awareness of different national cultures ...................................................................... 23
4.1.3 Organizational commitment to safety .......................................................................... 24
4.1.4 Safety practices ............................................................................................................. 24
4.1.5 Reason for investing in safety ....................................................................................... 26
4.1.6 Incentive to implement a management course ............................................................ 27
4.1.7 Lowest level of management skills ................................................................................ 27
4.1.8 Planed future development for the safety policy and safety culture ........................... 27
4.2 Experienced effect of MRM ................................................................................................... 28
4.2.1 Amount of employees with MRM ................................................................................. 29
4.2.2 Employees with other management course ................................................................. 29
4.2.3 MRM effect on latent risks ............................................................................................ 29
4.2.4 MRM contribution to organizational safety culture...................................................... 30
4.3 The shipowners which have not implemented MRM ........................................................... 31
4.4 Claim frequency ..................................................................................................................... 31
5 Discussion ...................................................................................................................................... 33
5.1 Shipowners safety culture and claim frequency ................................................................... 33
5.1.1 Safety culture ................................................................................................................ 33
5.1.2 Safety policy .................................................................................................................. 34
5.1.3 Awareness of different national cultures ...................................................................... 34
5.1.4 Organizational commitment to safety .......................................................................... 34
5.1.5 Safety practices ............................................................................................................. 34
5.1.6 Management skills ......................................................................................................... 35
5.1.7 Future development ...................................................................................................... 35
5.2 Shipowners safety culture ..................................................................................................... 35
5.3 MRM contribution ................................................................................................................. 37
6 Conclusion and recommendation ................................................................................................. 38
6.1 Recommendations to The Swedish Club ............................................................................... 38
6.2 Further recommendation for continued research ................................................................ 38
References ............................................................................................................................................. 40
APPENDIX 1 ........................................................................................................................................... 42
APPENDIX 2 ........................................................................................................................................... 44
1
1 Introduction
In this section the background to this thesis is presented along with the purpose, objective and limitations.
1.1 Background
The candidate’s interest in loss prevention arose when she conducted a traineeship at The Swedish Club Loss Prevention Department, which inspired her further to conduct her bachelor thesis and to create a deeper knowledge within the subject. When contacting The Swedish Club it was shown that they wished to investigate whether their resource management training program, Maritime Resource Management (MRM), has a positive effect on the organizations who have implemented the course. The principal gave the candidate a free mind on how to form and approach this subject.
The MRM is a further development of the Bridge Resource Management created by The Swedish Club Academy and seven other organizations in the 1990’s. This training program aims to increase masters, officers, engineers, shore personnel and pilots knowledge regarding management, crew cooperation and human error (The Swedish Club Academy 2011). MRM is, in summary, an attempt to counteract the occurrence of incidents and accidents in the maritime domain.
Early on in the research of this bachelor’s thesis the expression ‘safety culture’ occurred, which is a term explaining how an organization works with prevention of active and latent risks of incidents and accidents. The candidate found that measuring the shipowners’ experience if MRM contributes to ‘better’ safety culture would be a topic of value for both the shipping industry and The Swedish Club Academy.
IMO Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) presented the following definition of safety culture in document 77/17 (2003): “A safety culture can be defined as a culture in which there is considerable informed endeavour to reduce risk to the individual, ships and the marine environment to a level that is ‘as low as is reasonably practicable’. Specifically, for an organization making efforts to attain such a goal, economic and social benefits will be forthcoming, as a sound balance between safety and commerce will be maintained.”
Many articles and reports have been written on the subject of safety culture, many with guidelines on how to reach and develop a safety culture. For example the Maritime Safety Committee’s report Just Culture – Essential for Safety as well as Professor Hudson’s article Safety culture: the ultimate goal and Captain Drouin’s article The building blocks of a safety culture, which all are used in this bachelor’s thesis.
2
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this bachelor’s thesis is to investigate the impact or influence of resource management training in a shipowners safety system onboard and ashore. Does resource management training contribute safety culture to a higher level and can it be measurable in a lower frequency of insurance claims? The purpose is to investigate if there is a measurable correlation between resource management safety training in general, and specifically the MRM given by The Swedish Club Academy, and the frequency of claims of contact, collision and grounding over a period of ten years. If the effect is measurable it would be possible for a shipowner to calculate or estimate a return on investment on money spent in safety training courses like MRM or other equivalent.
1.3 Objective
The objective is if shipowners experience that Maritime Resource Management training program contributed to an improvement of the organizations safety culture, and if there is a correlation between resource management training, low claim frequency and high safety culture. The thesis will also object the reason to why shipowners have chosen not to implement MRM.
1.4 Limitations
The thesis theory has its foundation in previous research on safety culture in the maritime industry and in some cases the aviation as well as safety requirement from UN agencies.
The investigation is focused on the experienced effect of the MRM training program. The report does briefly mention other resource management training programs, which are of similarity to MRM, however the objective is not investigate the difference between resource management programs but to see if resource management programs do contribute to higher safety culture and low claim frequency. The MRM programs content or the way of teaching is not evaluated.
The questionnaire is conducted by a scope of six participating shipowners, who are insured by The Swedish Club. The questions focus summarily on safety culture dimensions and the MRM training. To evaluate the shipowners answers accident claim frequency data has been collected from The Swedish Club regarding claims of contact, collision and grounding, which these shipowners have had during the years 2001 to 2011. When evaluating the shipowners answer the candidate only has used the information given by the shipowner through the questionnaire and the claim frequency collected from The Swedish Club.
3
2 Methodology
The objective of this bachelor’s thesis has been approached through an explanatory survey (Höst, 2006). The survey has been accomplished through a literary study and questionnaire, which are presented in the following two sections. The research methods have been conducted in a qualitative way by explaining expressions and descriptions.
2.1 Literature studies
The research of this bachelor thesis was commenced with literature studies on human factors, giving the candidate greater knowledge of those human errors that can occur within the maritime industry. Continuously the research was aimed at what already had been researched and written about safety culture, both in general and in the maritime industry. The candidate is of the opinion that the sources are reliable due to the literature used is mainly scientific articles, scientific reports and UN agencies within the maritime domain. Some of the articles used where recommended by The Research Group of Human Factor at Chalmers University of Technology.
Safety training has been studied through the STCW code, which now in the Manila Amendments requires a minimum knowledge, understanding and proficiency of resource management. Information regarding Maritime Resource Management has been collected from The Swedish Club Academy.
2.2 Questionnaire
The optimal way of carrying out this survey would have been a personal interview with the shipowners. However this was not possible due to the time limit and the geographical spread of the shipowners. The candidate had chosen not to limit the investigation to a nation as she wanted to get an international spread and possibly see if anything differentiate nation wise. Therefore sending out the questionnaire by email was the most suitable method.
The survey is conducted through a questionnaire of fixed design, which can be found in Appendix 1. The questionnaire was sent out to ten shipowners which all are members of The Swedish Club, however only six of them participated. The selection of participants was chosen in cooperation of The Swedish Club with the aim of receiving a high level of participation. However, the candidate was uncertain when sending out the questionnaire if the shipowners had implemented MRM in their organization. After receiving the answers it showed that 50 percent of the shipowners had MRM and the other 50 percent had not.
The shipowners taking part in the survey are anonymous and not presented in the report with their company names. Hence each company name will be exchanged to letters, for example Shipowner A, Shipowner B. By not sharing the company name the survey was
4
more likely to be more valid as the participants are not in fear of hurting or putting their organization at risk.
However the segments which the shipowners operate within have effect on which safety level is required and could be the reason for difference in answers. The participating shipowners’ segments are cruise liners, container, tanker, ro/ro, ro/pax, bulk and offshore. Where cruise liners, tanker and offshore are the segments which have the highest demand from their customers and authorities.
The answers from the completed questionnaire were assessed by searching for keywords which were compared to the theory and presented in the result, which is an analyzing method called grounded theory (Höst 2010).
For the part of the questionnaire which dealt with safety culture, the answers from the shipowners have been ranked in positions from one to six, where one is high safety culture and six is low safety culture, regarding to the theory. All rankings from the questions regarding safety culture were later tallied up to together to a score chart to evaluate the shipowners’ safety culture and connect the level of safety culture with the effect of resource management courses.
To evaluate the rankings, data of the shipowners’ claim frequency during the last ten years were collected from The Swedish Club. However to keep the shipowners anonymous the claim frequency was multiplied by a certain factor, which is not presented. The claims frequency was used to create an understanding of the possible connection of low accident rate to a well-developed safety culture and the effect of a resource management course.
2.3 Criticism of the Method
The sample of companies participating is only a very small scope seeing to the shipping industry in its whole and there through the result cannot be valid as highly as if the survey had included more participants. However it can be of use as it provides a view on how these shipowners implement safety and which hopefully can lead to learning for others.
When sending the questionnaire to the shipowners the candidate did not consider conducting a testing of the questionnaire first, which could have awoken the candidate’s knowledge of the way the questions are interpreted and lead to a possible rework of the questions to get more efficient answers.
The candidate created her questions after many weeks of literature studies, to both cover the extent of the research as well as provide The Swedish Club with some of their wished subjects. Before sending the questionnaire out the candidate did run the question through her supervisor and The Swedish Club. After conducting the survey it showed that some questions were perceived differently by the shipowners, which has been taken
5
into account when ranking the answers. The candidate had to try to differentiate the answer however this could be flawed but for the sake of the result this was how it was conducted.
There is a risk when conducting a questionnaire that some might express something just to appear that they are doing the right thing or some shipowners answer more expressive to come across as more aware but that might not be the case. The candidate does not know under which circumstances the participant answered the questionnaire, maybe under pressure for the organizations management who in turn felt pressure from The Swedish Club to participate, which can have affect the reliability of the survey.
The way to choose the participants to the questionnaire could possibly have an effect on the answers, as the shipowners where chosen in cooperation with The Swedish Club. By initially informing the shipowners that their organization names will not be mentioned in the report and will stay anonymous the candidate was hoping to receive honest answers without the shipowners aiming to satisfy The Swedish Club.
There is a major difficulty to measure safety culture and how effective the MRM education is and therefore the best method to use is qualitative, where it is possible to compare how MRM is experienced by the shipowners and if it contributes to their safety culture or not.
The candidate therefore created a ranking scale from one to six, where one is high safety culture and six is low safety culture. In some way every shipowner has a safety culture, however it can be a high or a low commitment. By creating a scale the candidate could evaluate the shipowners safety culture and compare it to the claim frequency factor. The candidate took on a neutral approach to the research and when evaluating the answers.
However the risk of dishonest answers and misinterpretation still stands, due to carrying out the survey through a questionnaire with one way communication as well as the safety requirements of the segment which the shipowners operates within.
It is however not possible to measure a safety culture just by a questionnaire, which is answered by an employee on the shore based part of the organization. However this survey can be of use as it provides a view on how these shipowners implement safety and which hopefully can lead to learning for others.
2.4 Criticism of the Sources
The sources used in this thesis have carefully been chosen due to validity. Many of the articles and reports used in the thesis were recommended by The Research Group of Human Factor at Chalmers University of Technology, which is a group of docents and doctoral candidates.
6
Information collected has undergone a comparison between each other for the candidate to be critical regarding what is presented in the different sources and see if there is a connection and similarity, making sure that what is written is valid and up to date.
7
3 Theory This section covers the theory upon the rules and the conditions of a safety culture in the maritime domain, the Maritime Resource Management course, maritime risks and failures, definitions of safety culture, method to evaluate safety culture and how to manage a proactive safety culture. The theory will be the ground stone of evaluating shipowners’ answers which are presented in the result and further lead to a comparison in the discussion.
3.1 Conventions and regulation
The following regulations and conventions which are presented follow the standard of safety at sea throughout the shipping industry and are to be followed by ship-operators.
The International Maritime Organization, IMO, is a specialized agency within the United Nations. The agency is responsible for “the safety and security of shipping and the prevention of marine pollution by ships” (IMO 2011C). As was stated in the introduction, the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC), which is a section within the IMO, has presented the following definition of safety culture in document 77/17 (MSC 2003):
“A safety culture can be defined as a culture in which there is considerable informed endeavour to reduce risk to the individual, ships and the marine environment to a level that is ‘as low as is reasonably practicable’”. The committee function, within IMO, is to consider any subject within the scope of organizational, vessel, environmental and personnel safety and is responsible to acknowledge and withstand recommendation and guidelines regarding maritime safety”.
The International Convention of Safety of Life at Sea, SOLAS, was formed after the Titanic disaster and is a convention concerning the safety of merchant vessels (IMO 2001B). Construction, equipment and operation of vessels compatible with safety are the main object of the SOLAS Convention. The requirements are controlled through Port State Control and certificates. Regarding safe operation of ship, SOLAS refers to that the company and the vessel shall comply with the requirement of the International Safety Management Code, ISM code (IMO 2001B). Regulation 4 in 1974 SOLAS convention chapter IX refers to that every vessel shall have a Safety Management Certificate through the ISM-code which verify that the company operates in accordance to the approved Safety Management System. The certificate is issued by the Government of the flag State or the class in some cases. The Safety Management System should include a safety and environmental policy, communication between shore and onboard crew, procedures and instructions for reporting of accidents, emergency situations and internal audits (ISM-code 2002).
8
The Safety Management System has the objective to ensure safety at sea and prevention of human injury or loss of life, as well as to ensure prevention of pollution and avoidance of damage to the maritime environment and to property. The following excerpts on safety management objects are from the ISM-code 2002 part A:
“1.2.2 Safety management objective of the Company should, inter alia: .1 provide for safe practices in ship operation and a safe working environment; .2 establish safeguards against all identified risks; and .3 continuously improve safety management skills of personnel ashore and onboard ships, including preparing for emergencies related both to safety and environmental protection.” (ISM-code 2002)
“1.2.3 The Safety Management System should ensure: .1 compliance with mandatory rules and regulations; and .2 that applicable codes, guidelines and standards recommended by the Organization, Administrations, Classification societies and maritime industry organizations are taken into account.” (ISM-code 2002)
The International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW), which also is a part of IMO, regulates the requirements on safety education (IMO 2001A). Year 2010 STCW made some changes of the code, the so called Manila Amendment, which was proposed to apply from 1st of January 2012.
In section A-II/1 point 2 of the Manila Amendments there is a minimum required standard “knowledge, understanding and proficiency of master and deck personnel”. In table 3.1 the part of table A-II/1, of the Manila Amendments, which states Bridge Resource Management as a minimum knowledge, is presented.
Table 3.1 Part of table A-II/1 Manila Amendments for master and deck personnel
Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Competence Knowledge,
understanding and proficiency
Methods for demonstrating competence
Criteria for evaluating competence
Maintain a safe navigational watch
Bridge Resource Management Knowledge of Bridge Resource Management principles, including: .1 allocation, assignment, and prioritization of resources .2 effective
Assessment of evidence obtained from one or more of the following: .1 approved training .2 approved in-service experience .3 approved simulator training
Resources are allocated and assigned as needed in correct priority to perform necessary tasks Communcation is clearly and unambiguously given and received Questionable decisions and/or actions result in appropriate challenge
9
communication .3 assertiveness and leadership .4 obtaining and maintaining situational awareness .5 consideration of team experience
and response Effective leadership behaviours are identified Team member(s) share accurate understanding of current and predicted vessel state, navigation path, and external environment.
Source: Regeringskansliet Näringsdepartementet (2010)
MRM has its foundation in Bridge Resource Management (BRM), as The Swedish Club was one of the organizations who developed the BRM course (The Swedish Club Academy2011). MRM and BRM are in principle the same, however BRM is primarily aimed to train master and deck officers. The reason to why The Swedish Club Academy changed BRM to MRM is that they wished to extent the target group. By both training the employees onboard and ashore the organization can establish a wanted culture through the whole organization. The MRM contains a larger amount of resource management issues and is considered to meet the requirements on STCW Manila Amendments.
The standard for the engine personnel is stated in Section A-III/1 point 4 of the Manila Amendments which also requires a “minimum knowledge, understanding and proficiency” to be certified by the STCW-code. Table 3.2 is a cut out of table A-III/1 which states the requirement in maintaining a safe engineering watch.
Table 3.2 Table A-III/1 Manila Amendments for Engineers
Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Competence Knowledge,
understanding and proficiency
Methods for demonstrating competence
Criteria for evaluating competence
Maintain a safe engineering watch
Engine-room resource management Knowledge of engine-room resource management principles, including: .1 allocatio, assignment, and prioritization of resources .2 effective communication .3 assertiveness and leadership
Assessment of evidence obtained from one or more of the following: .1 approved training .2 approved in-service experience .3 approved simulator training
10
.4 obtaining and maintaining situational awareness .5 consideration of team experience
Source: Regeringskansliet Näringsdepartementet (2010)
Summarizing this section, onboard crew is required to have safety management training due to demands from ISM-code and STCW. ISM-code also states that shore employees should continuously improve their safety management skills.
3.2 Maritime Resource Management
Maritime Resource Management (MRM) is a training program provided by The Swedish Club Academy. The aim of the program is to improve knowledge as to why accidents occur and provide masters, officers, pilots and shore personnel with tools to establish a safety culture and knowledge of human performance and limitations, which can help the organization to become more safety aware (The Swedish Club Academy 2011).
Human error is a factor which contributes to accidents occurring (The Swedish Club Academy 2011). Lack of communication, team work and safe organizational culture as well as the wrong attitude can lead to errors. Those subjects which are covered in the MRM course can help prevent these factors from occurring by developing the skills and knowledge of mariners.
The MRM program contains the following subjects which are explained and discussed with the participants (The Swedish Club Academy 2011).
Situational awareness - The connection and importance between situational awareness and decision-making - Presentation of list of factors which can affect situational awareness
Attitudes and management skills - The nature of humans and the weaknesses which can occur is given attention - Training to see the warning of hazardous thoughts and the difference to the opposite safe thoughts. - Tool: Common Terminology
Cultural awareness - What cultural differences are there and the way to deal with them.
11
Communication and briefings - Communication error and failure - Communication climate - Importance of briefings and debriefings . Tool: closed loop communication
Challenge and response - Creating a supportive environment where questioning of actions are used as a tool to avoid errors
Short term strategy - Practical method in emergency situations
Authority and assertiveness - These terms can be reason danger
Management styles - Different styles to lead a group - Human relation and performance
Workload - The risk and danger of low and high workload - Tools: task analysis, rotation and delegation of tasks
State of the ship - The combination and differences of the crew members’ personal mental condition
Human involvement in error - Underlying external and internal causes which can stimulate errors - Tool: Respond and learn from past errors
Judgment and decision making - The process and factors of decision making
Leadership in emergencies - Different leadership styles effect in emergencies
Crisis and crowd management - Learning to deal with mental and physical reactions that occur in a crisis situation and how to handle a crowd
Automation awareness - Recognition of the consequences with automation on ship’s systems
3.2.1 Other management courses
Bridge Resource Management (BRM) and Crew Resource Management (CRM) are similar training programs to MRM (Grech 2008). They all contain topics that are indicated to be useful in the interaction on a vessel or airplane. The concepts come from the aviation industry and are now also being used within the maritime domain. As mentioned in section 3.1 in this thesis the MRM is a development of BRM, and is
12
therefore very similar however the MRM aims at a larger target group of the organization.
3.3 Maritime risks and failures
Failures and risk in the maritime industry can be divided in two groups, latent and active.
Latent risks and failures lie hidden in the organization’s structure as they are not known or observed by the organization (Grech 2008). This type of risk and failure can become a great problem for the organization as it can set off a sequence of accidents in a surprising way. Latent risks are said to arise from decision making on a high level in the organizations hierarchy and lies in the strategy and vision of the organization.
Active risks and failure normally occur at the operational end, which are the crew onboard the vessel (Grech 2008). It is stated that the active failures do not often lead to any major consequences as the crew or the system’s safe guards can manage and prevent severe failure (Grech 2008). However these defences may fail and result in an incident or an accident.
The active risk and failure can be divided further into two groups; vessel accidents and personal accidents (Grech 2008). Vessel accidents are those risks and failures caused by or which affect the vessel primarily, such as collision, conta ct and grounding. Personal risks and failure affect an individual, for example a deck man who slips and falls on deck.
Vessel accidents can occur through technical failures, human failures and other external circumstances. Technical failures can strike for example the engine, the vessel manoeuvring system, the mooring equipment, cargo equipment or the navigational equipment. Human failure of crew can be for example navigational error, communication error or fatigue. Other possible external circumstances are bad weather, buoy misplacement, another vessel or pilot error.
Creating a high safety culture is a primary way to prevent latent risks and failures (Grech 2008). Implementing MRM or another Safety Management is directly connected to preventing active risk and failure in the organization, as the management systems aim is to train and educate the employees in preventing and managing risks. The active risk and failure is however affected by and connected to the latent risks and failures in the organization and almost every accident arises from a mixture of both. Therefore it is of importance to apply safety culture in the organizations as its whole and this is presented as an important objective of MRM (The Swedish Club 2011).
13
3.4 Safety culture
This section explains the definition of this expression and describes the ‘rules’ to keep a safety culture.
3.4.1 Safety
Safety in the maritime domain is “a characteristic of a system that strives for incident and injury free operations and does not permit unacceptable risks to be taken” (Grech 2008 s.138).
Security, assurance, protection, defence and inviolability are just some of the words which describe the word safety. In the context of shipping the subject of safety branches out in safety for crew, vessel, cargo, environment and third parties (c.f. IMO b 2010; MSC 2003). To protect these is the base of a safety culture.
The antonym of safety is danger, meaning risk, liability, exposure to harm and injury. Danger is the incidents and accidents which occur and is that which the safety culture should counteract.
3.4.2 Culture
“Culture has been described as a shared way of life, within a group of people, an organization, a profession or a nation” (Grech 2008 p. 135). Incorporated in this shared life are norms, attitudes, values and practices which the group might see as important to follow and share. A culture therefore has an effect on how people interact, communicate, make decisions and evaluate risks.
Hudson’s (2001) general definition of an organizational culture is “who and what we are, what we find important and how we go about doing things around here”.
Three types of cultures that can influence a work environment (Grech 2008 p. 135):
National culture Shipping is an international business with various national cultures that work side by side on the same vessel. Aspects on communication, teamwork, responsibility and authority can differ culturally which increases the risks for misunderstanding and conflicts.
Professional culture Traditions, training, related risks, responsibilities and the characteristics of the personnel are features of the professional culture. Grech (2008) explains that the professional culture is strong in the commercial shipping industry. Resource management education such as MRM, CRM and BRM can contribute to changing established norms and values of the professional culture. However these changes require strong intervention and a lot of time.
14
Organizational culture Established norms, values and beliefs are reflected in the strategies and attitudes of the organization’s management and affect the employees. The organizational culture of policies and decision can contain latent risks. The top management commitment, top down, is important for a culture to imbue in the organization.
3.4.3 Definitions of Safety Culture
Due to different interpretations there are many definitions of safety culture. This section will present some of the definitions and summaries of researches on the subject.
Safety culture can be explained as an organizations common and learned opinion, knowledge and understanding of work and safety with the aim to guide the employees to act against risks, accidents and to prevent them from occurring (Törner 2010).
“The safety culture of an organization is the product of individual and group values, attitudes, perceptions, competencies, and patterns of behaviour that determine the commitment to, and the style and proficiency of, an organization’s health and safety management” (Ek Å. et al. 2000).
“Organizations with a positive Safety Culture are characterized by communications founded on mutual trust, by shared perceptions of the importance of safety and confidence” (Tegetholt 2007 p. 14).
A shipowner with a high safety culture has safety as a value, which imbue through the whole organization. There are clear guidelines and policies to how the safety should be held on the desired level so that employees are aware of the requirements which lie in the organization. However it is of vital importance in a high safety culture that there is a team spirit with trust and communication. A safety culture is a method to elimate risks and protects crew, vessel, cargo, environment and third parties from becoming victims for human error.
15
3.5 Development of Safety Culture
Figure 4.3 shows the evolution of safety culture according to Drouin, Grech, Hudson and MSC. This model to establish what kind of safety culture a organization has and as to where they are on the evolutionary ladder.
Figure 3.3 The Evolution of a Safety Culture
Source: c.f.Drouin 2010; Grech 2008; Hudson 2001; Just culture 2010
The lowest step on the ladder is pathological, which means that the organization is not interested in knowing about the safety risks (c.f.Drouin 2010; Grech 2008; Hudson 2001; Just culture 2010). Errors and accidents are not investigated and are seen to be unavoidable. If incidents or accidents do occur the individuals involved will be blamed and in some cases even get fired.
The second step is the reactive level where safety has some importance due to that there has been many incidents and accidents in the organization (c.f.Drouin 2010; Grech 2008; Hudson 2001; Just culture 2010). However the organization waits until a accident occurs to attend the problem. Safety is here defined on how well rules and procedures are followed. If accident rates increase there will be punishment of the front-line staff, which is the reactive approach to the commitment to safety.
Proactive
We work on the problems that we
still find.
Bureaucratic
We have systems in place to
manage all hazard.
Pathological
We don’t want to know
Reactive
We do a lot every time we have an
accident
Generative
Safety is how we do business round
here.
16
In the middle of the ladder is the bureaucratic level. A organization at this level has knowledge that management decisions can be the cause of acccidents and the importance of front line personnels commitment (c.f.Drouin 2010; Grech 2008; Hudson 2001; Just culture 2010). They amend the Safety Management System and use risk assessments techniques and audits to evaluate the safety culture. However safety is an add-on to the organization and implementing an SMS is seen as enough.
In the proactive level both management and employees are commited and clear on the importance of safety and prevention of incidents and accidents (c.f.Drouin 2010; Grech 2008; Hudson 2001; Just culture 2010). To make results on the reduction of failures, communication is vital as well as a common aspiration, as all need to work together. Analysing and learning from past failures is a way to improve the safety system and become aware of the holes in the system that triggered the past accidents. However proactive organizations have not generally come so deep in the evaluation of the accidents root cause analysis. Awareness of human errors and the importance of procedures which can control and prevent the human error to occur is another important part of the proactive work. The procedures is one step, however training is also vital so that the personnel have competence to carry out the procedures as well as handling failures when they occur.
Top of the ladder is the generative level where the organization has fully incorporated safe behavior into the whole organization and keeps the safety culture up to date (c.f.Drouin 2010; Grech 2008; Hudson 2001; Just culture 2010). Safety is, at this level, no longer a priority but a organizational value. Communication is good and open within the organization and near-misses, incidents and accidents are reported so that the organization can learn from its failures. There is a constant situational awareness of the safety risks involved.
The evalutionary safety culture model has five steps and go from low to high safety culture. This model has been used as a tool to evalutate the shipowners answers on the questionnaire and differenttiate them from each other to establing the perceptive of their safety culture level, which is presented in the discussion.
3.6 Managing a Safety Culture
A good and healthy safety culture does not occur without any effort from the organization. A company can submit a Safety Management System without actually adopting the spirit of the system. Some might say that a good safety culture is a culture with a low rate of accidents. Although an organization with a poor safety culture may simply be lucky and have low number of accidents.
Presented in this section are the key expressions which are found to be a part of a safety culture that is on the right way to becoming a safety culture of high level.
17
3.6.1 Top –down philosophy
It is of great importance that the organization’s board of directors embraces the desired culture so that it imbues the whole organization, from top management out to each vessels management and to all the personnel. (c.f. BIMCO, 2010; Hudson, 2001; Drouin 2010).The management should clearly state a safety policy with strategy and goals so that the employees are informed. The employees need to share the organization’s safety policy and opinion for the Safety Culture to be effective. On the vessels, senior officers should be ambassadors of the culture to motivate and drive the crew to amend the wanted safety behaviour and commitment. The safety culture needs to constantly be addressed and alive in the organization to reach a successful level.
3.6.2 The importance of superior employees
A vessel is a safety critical system where risk and stress is involved in the daily work tasks (c.f. Schager 2008; Grech 2008). Active failures can be caused by the personnel on the vessels and it is therefore of importance for companies to employ suitable, qualified and trained personnel to operate their vessels safely.
The employees’ personality, attitude and motivation reflect on how well the safety culture develops to positive results. Personal experience, knowledge, education and national culture also have an effect on how aware, task managing, interactive, etc. the person is (Schager 2008). The maritime industry has certificates that notify the seaman’s knowledge and experience. It is also becoming more usual that companies conduct personality, logical and safety tests before employing. This is to make sure that the person is suitable for the position.
Schager (2008) presents in his book Human error in the maritime industry that a nautical officer should be a stable and organized person with skills to manage stress, handle situations, be a leader, take responsibility, communicate, be approachable and have situational awareness. However this is just a desire as not every individual can possess all these qualities.
Flexible culture is a dimension on safety culture where the organization respects and uses the knowledge, skills and experience of the employees (c.f. Ek. Å et al. 2000; Törner 2010). It is flexible in the meaning that control and decision making in an emergency situation should be made of the person of most situational knowledge.
When an employee in the operational role fails the responsibilities of his or her role the employee could be blamed. However in the safety culture dimension just culture there should be a no blame culture under the responsibility and knowledge of what is acceptable and non-acceptable behaviour (c.f. Ek. Å et al. 2000; Törner 2010). For example if the procedures were not followed and an accident occurred, then it should fall as blame. However this depends on who draws the line. If it is known in the organization that whoever does something wrong will be blamed, then this can become
18
a fear and affect the reporting system, as the employees become afraid of reporting near-misses.
3.6.3 Communication
The safety culture and accident prevention is affected by behaviour, values, attitudes, beliefs, experience, interpretation, perception and competence of the organization and its employees.
Good communication through the whole organization is a vital part that characterizes safety culture (Hudson 2001). Failure in communication is said to often be the factor which triggers an accident (c.f. The Swedish Club Academy 2010; Grech 2008). It can be due to language, as part or sometimes none of the crew have the communication language as their native language. Failure in communication can also be a case of misunderstanding or lack of assertiveness. A good way to avoid misunderstanding is by repeating an exact message or order which gets confirmed by the sender, this is called closed-loop communication (Grech 2008).
3.6.4 Manuals, checklist and procedures
The crew on the vessel needs to have situational awareness of risks when they execute tasks. By example having pre-meetings before loading, discharging and other tasks, where many of the crew are taking part in, is a way to explain what is about to happen, who should do what and what risks are involved.
As earlier stated in this thesis, section 3.1, the Safety Management System requires that safeguards should be established on all known risks (ISM code 2002). Theses safeguards are procedures, checklists, manuals and flowcharts which are created by the company and for the crew onboard to follow. The aim is to avoid the known risks which can trigger incidents and accidents and to prevent them from becoming a disaster if they have occurred. It is important that the manuals, procedures and checklist are continually audited and analysed so that they are up to date and that they are carried out by the crew.
A fundamental procedure in the development of a Safety Culture is to create an accident and incident reporting system and integrating it with a process for assessing individual responsibility across the whole organization. (MSC 2010; ISM code 2002) The reporting system is used to investigate and analyse accidents, incidents and near misses. The aim with this reporting system is to learn from what happened or could have happened and prevent it from happening again. In the ISM code section 9 the requirements for these actions are stated (ISM code 2002).
When an accident, incident or near miss has occurred the crew onboard writes a report identifying what has happened, how it happened, reason for it to happen, which actions were taken and what can be learned from this. Using a near-miss reporting system as a
19
tool is a way of learning from mistakes and prevent accidents from happening again, which is a good action taken by a safety culture minded organization (c.f. Ek. Å. et al. 2000; Törner 2010). The information regarding the reason to why the accident occurred should be spread to every sub-culture, meaning vessels, in the organization. It is of great importance that the organization creates an attitude of trust which makes the employee want to cooperate without getting punished for reporting an incident or accident.
3.7 Key elements to a proactive safety culture
Captain Paul Drouin, who is marine accident investigator and principal at SafeShip, has written an article of how to build up a proactive Safety Culture based on following 10 key elemets (Drouin 2010) which well summerize the previous sections. Safe Ship is a canadian company which informs and educates vessel managers and mariners to be aware of root cause analysis, human factor, safety culture, pilotage issues, risk-based decision makings and techniques to investigate safety (Safe Ship 2011).
1. Stakeholders particiation in minimizing safety risks is vital for the effectivness of the safety culture.
2. The organizations clear commitment to support and develop of the Safety Culture. It is the attitude of the individual that determine the culture and its important that the whole organization is committed.
3. The relationship between productivity and safety (safety cost versus accident cost). Captain Paul Drouin states in his report that industries which have a proactive safety culture have seen that an improved safety leads to profitability. Safety management and increased efficency is shown to have a positive relationship and thereto the argument of it being too costly to invest on safety cannot be justified.
4. Trust cannot be bought, it has to be earned and built up over time. Adding more regulation and auditing is not the solution.
5. Shared perception regarding how risks shall be reduced. 6. Communication. It is vital that stakeholders have common thoughts,
aspirations and communicate with each other. 7. Organizational learning. The organization shall have a safety culture where
they learn from past failures and work to improve the system. By having a ‘no blame culture’ supported by the management it can lead to the seafarers trusting the organization as an open and honest environment.
8. Safety resources affects on how the safety culture will be supported, developed and nurtured. It is essential that safety is at focus of all decision makings.
9. Industrial relations and job satisfaction. Good relations between employee and employer is a key factor to creating a working safety culture and contributes to understandings and implementation of proposed safety measures.
10. Training has a important connection to competence and procedures, meaning that they compliment and need each other to reach the best effect.
20
Summarying this theory section the model ‘evolution of a safety culture’ in section 3.5 as well as section 3.6 regarding how to manage a safety culture and the 10 key elements in section 3.7 are use to rank the shipowners answer in the result which further leads to a discussion and conclussion.
21
4 Result
In this section the result from conducting the questionnaire, which can be found in Appendix 1, is presented. The questionnaire was completed by six shipowners, all from various countries and all are insured by The Swedish Club. The aim in this result section is to answer the stated objective for this thesis which is if MRM contributes to an improvement of the organizations’ safety culture. On the way to this aimed objective the shipowners’ safety culture is to be evaluated as well as if there is a correlation between high safety culture and low accident rate.
The result is presented in four parts: The shipowners’ perceived safety culture, a presentation of the shipowners experience of MRM, the reason why the 50 percent of the participants have not chosen to implement MRM is presented and lastly the claim frequency collected for The Swedish Club database.
The shipowners are anonymous and are presented as shipowner A, shipowner B etc. Where shipowner A is the one with the lowest claim frequency scale and shipowner F the one with the highest.
In the part of the result, section 4.1, which dealt with safety culture the answers from the shipowners are ranked from one to six, where one is high safety culture and six is low safety culture. The ranking is achieved through evaluating the shipowners answers with the theory. After each dimension of the shipowners safety culture the rankings will be presented and later be summed up in the discussion to evaluate the shipowner safety culture due to “the evolution of a safety culture” model presented in section 3.5 and the claim frequency factor.
4.1 The shipowners’ safety culture
Through the question asked in the first part of the questionnaire the candidate could create a picture of how the shipowners’ safety culture looks like.
Safety culture is a complex culture which has many objectives and needs to be worked on constantly to be successful. The shipowners were asked to explain how they see safety culture and the following order of paragraphs are ranked due to the answers, starting with the one who is evaluated to have the highest safety culture.
Shipowner A’s answer gave an impression of an organization which has a solid understanding of safety culture by pointing at individual thinking, common goal, team work, tools and procedures, commitment from top management, blame free culture and individual responsibility.
Shipowner B and Shipowner E have a similar approach to safety culture, however shipowner B is a step higher than shipowner E as they mentioned using regular audits to make sure that the used methods are well implemented. Shipowner E is therefore
22
positioned as third, as they act safely but did not mention if they check up and make audits as clearly as shipowner B states it.
Shipowner D is harsher with their efforts in safety culture. They mention that they make no compromises to safety which might make the employees conform however it becomes a fear of making mistakes instead of a trust and committed organization who is trying to make it safe for the employees.
Shipowner C states that they “fix the roof before it starts to rain” which means to find latent risk and is something that safety culture aims to. However shipowner C does not state any method to go about this.
Shipowner F ends up on the same level as shipowner C due to them not stating which tools and methods are used to develop and maintain the safety culture. A safety culture needs constant work and it was not shown by the answers collected from shipowner C and F.
Shipowner A is ranked as first, Shipowner B as second, Shipowner E as third, Shipowner D as fourth, Shipowner C and F as fifth.
4.1.1 Safety policy
The management of an organization should clearly state a safety policy so that all employees are aware of the organization’s requirements and aims regarding safety. The ISM code states that every vessel in the shipping industry shall have a Safety Management Certificate (ISM-code 2002), which then is the mandatory ground which all participating shipowners should stand on. So even though not all shipowners have mentioned the Safety Management System the candidate made the conclusion that they all follow the SMS objectives (see pages 6 to 7). Participating shipowners explain their safety policy as follows and has been positioned with the most relevant answer first.
Shipowner A’s safety policy is a part of their Safety Management System which foundation is in the leadership and accountability. Proactive risks identification, information, risk management, auditing and training as well as investigating and analysing incident and accidents were also stated to be a part of the safety culture.
Shipowner C has a policy of no blame culture but the crew should feel accountability. The Safety policy comes from the management of the organization and is spread downwards.
Shipowner B’s policy aims for management commitment to safety on all levels, in the company and vessels. Shiponwer D mainly aims for all work related procedures to be carried out with safety precautions.
23
Shipowner E’s safety policy is provided and explained to all senior crew members and placed so all crew can read and take note of the organizations’ safety policy. The safety policy is a part of the Safety Management System.
Shipowner F stated that the Safety Management System has a great effect on the organizational operation. Included in the management system is safety, environmental and quality policies which are put up on the vessels for the crew to read.
Shipowner A is ranked a first, Shipowners B and C as second, Shipowner D as fourth, Shipowner E as fifth and Shipowner F as sixth.
4.1.2 Awareness of different national cultures
To get a committed team all employees have to amend their strategy and maybe change their individual attitude. It is known that there are national cultural differences onboard vessels and therefore it is of importance of the management to be aware of these differences and how they can affect the safety work onboard. The organization needs to ensure a mutual understanding and acceptance of the cultural differences between the personnel, which is an important part of becoming a good work team.
It is clearly seen, due to the participating shipowners listing all nationalities in the organization, that there are many nationalities working together in the shipping business. This can result in different ways of associating to procedures and safety work. Some shipowners participating are aware of and see differences in how the nationalities act.
Awareness is here important and it can clearly be seen on the answers in the questionnaire that shipowner A and E are both aware of and have recognized cultural differences, which is highly rated. Out of the two, shipowner E could specify very specifically how the different national employees worked. However it is interesting to see that this is the shipowner with one of the highest claim frequency. Shipowner A has the lowest claim frequency.
Shipowner C is somewhat aware of cultural differences to safety and the individual basic training. However does not go deeper into the subject.
Shipowner F is not aware of any differences beside the language difference and therefore procedures are written in clear and easily understood English.
Shipowner B focuses on rotating the same crew on the vessels so that the crew onboard gets to know each other.
On the lowest position is shipowner D, due to inconsistency in answers. The shipowner stated first that they do not experience any national differentiations, although aims to in the future develop a course on multicultural interaction, which made the candidate unsure of the validity of shipowner D’s answers.
24
Shipowner E is ranked a first, Shipowner A as second, Shipowner C as third, Shipowner F as fourth, Shipowner B as fifth and Shipowner D as sixth.
4.1.3 Organizational commitment to safety
Management commitment to the safety culture is important for its effectiveness and therefore it is of interest to see the shipowners’ Management Board dedication.
Shipowner C clearly motivated the importance of commitment to safety 24/7 on board and management’s agendas. The profitability of the organization is at stake if there is a lack of safety and accidents happen, therefore it is of importance to prevent.
Shipowner B, A and F have all committed management however they fall under shipowner C as the commitment appeared to be not as strong due to the limitation to weekly meetings.
Shipowner D and E said to have commitment from Management Board however did not specify or motivate how and therefore end up on the bottom position. The candidate got the impression that they do not take it too seriously or they might be hiding something.
Shipowner C is ranked a first, Shipowners B, A and F as second and shipowners D and E as fifth.
4.1.4 Safety practices
SOLAS chapter III Part B Section 3 requires that abandon ship and fire drill is carried out at least ones a month (IMO 2001B), which should be the minimum amount of drills carried out. However also ISM-code and SMS require that safe practice is provided in the ship operation. All shipowners answered yes on the question if continued training and safety drills are carried out. To further evaluate the shipowners’ safety culture differences it is of interest to see who is most committed to safety practice and if that particular shipowners has lower claim frequency then others.
The paragraphs ranking is not only connected to the frequency of drills but the whole interpretation which was given by the shipowners’ answers regarding their safety practices. Shipowner A has a very high frequency of safety drills onboard and carries out at least two drills a year with shore based organizations to test and evaluate their whole safety system. They focus on a big range of elements which demand high frequency for all of them to be carried out. It shows in the claim frequency that their safety work pays off as they have not had any claims within contact, collision and grounding in the last 10 years (see table 4.1). Shipowner C mentioned various trainings, meeting and briefings which are carried out frequently in the organization. The elements which are focused on are personal safety,
25
behaviour based safety, safety of navigation and environment safety. However shipowner D has one of the highest claim frequencies of the participants. Shipowner E does once a week safety drills on board and once a month has safety meetings. They have safety advisors which fly out to the vessels and work as ambassadors for the organizations aim in safety culture. Safety and security are the focus of the drills carried out. Shipowner D has good safety value with own training centres ashore and training departments however what draws their score down is the low frequency of drills carried out. Shipowner B and Shipowner F end up on the bottom position regarding safety training and drills. Shipowner B carries out audits and through them identifies where the training is needed. The drills are only carried out once per month. Shipowner F has frequent drills and updates them due to the latest demand from IMO and the organization requirements however they did not state how they carry out the drills and training. Table 4.1 presents which shipowner does the most drills and training. However there is no clear correlation between low claim frequency and how often safety training is carried out. Table 4.1 The frequency of safety training and possible correlation to claim frequency
Ship-owner Safety drill frequency
Claim frequency
factor
A Daily safety drills onboard + Two drills every year with shore side org. involvement 0,0
E Once a week safety drill + once a month safety meeting 16,0
C Very frequent + at least once a year training at crew office with top management 9,0
F Weekly 16,8
B At least once per month 7,4
D Audits/Drills ever four month ( in addition to drills dectated by ISM) 9,4 Source: Author and The Swedish Club
Shipowner A is ranked first, Shipowner C as second, Shipowner E as third, Shipowner D as fourth and Shipowners B and F as fifth.
26
4.1.5 Reason for investing in safety
The reason as to why all shipowners started to invest in safety and loss prevention is due to the internal interest of the organization in minimizing accidents and protecting crew, vessel, cargo and surrounding environment. Table 4.2 clearly present which reasons each shipowner stated in the questionnaire.
Some of the shipowners have both respects for the aim to lower incidents and accident as well as lowering the insurance premium. Also accidents cost money and as earlier presented in section 3.6.5, there are statements that improved safety leads to profitability.
Table 4.2 Reasons as to why shipowners started investing in safety
Reasons for investing in safety
External demand Lower premium Internal interest Shipowner A X
Shipowner B X
Shipowner C X X
Shipowner D X X Shipowner E X X
Shipowner F X Source: Author
Shipowner D, A and F explained more why they started to invest in safety, the following paragraphs are not stated in any particular ranking.
Shipowner D’s main target is to reach zero accidents in the respect of life and respect for charterers and in consequence of this lower the insurance premium.
Shipowner A had two major accidents in the 1990’s and subsequently committed to minimize their accidents rate.
Shipowner F invests time and money in safety to protect people, vessel and the environment and is not driven by commercial interest.
In table 4.2 it is seen that none of the shipowners claim that there is an external demand which has affected their safety development. The candidate believes that regulation, society and clients have somewhat influenced, however maybe not initially and it could be that the shipowner do not reflect upon external demands as they are so integrated in what the main purpose is of the organization. Although as it is so varied, it does not matter if the motivation is money, personnel or environment as long as there is motivation to become safer.
27
4.1.6 Incentive to implement a management course
To clarity if the shipowners have any incentives for employees to take management courses, one of the questions in the questionnaire asked the shipowners regarding this. The following paragraphs are not stated in any particular ranking.
Shipowner A has a policy to give a bonus to the employees related to how the safety and down time performance has been during the year in order to minimize accidents and down time.
Shipowner B’s incentive is to cultivate the safety culture and reach, as a result of safety management, a minimization of incidents.
Shipowner C does not motivate the employees to take safety and management course in any particular way while Shipowner D states a yes however did not give a reason of incentive.
Shipowner E states that many accidents are caused by the lack of proper management and human error, therefore they intend to develop their own training for their senior officers.
Shipowner F did not give an answer for this topic in the questionnaire.
4.1.7 Lowest level of management skills
The questionnaire contained a question of if the shipowners’ safety policy had stipulated a lowest level of management skills.
Shipowner D and A are certain on the professional requirements. Shipowner D states that senior officers are seriously evaluated whiles shipowner A has minimum requirements on all their positions.
Shipowner B provides in-house briefings and courses before on board personnel departure and has continuous training seminars onboard.
Shipowner E answered with a simple yes on the question and shipowner C does not have any lowest management skills required. Shipowner F did not answer the question, perhaps because of lack of knowledge.
Shipowner A and D are rated as first, Shipowner B as third, Shipowner E as fourth, Shipowner C as fifth and Shipowner F as sixth.
4.1.8 Planed future development for the safety policy and safety culture
A safety culture constantly has to be maintained and to evaluate the shipowners’ safety culture it is of interest to see what their future development plans are.
28
Shipowner A is aiming to stay consistent and develop their existing system where improvement is needed. By keeping key personnel and a large number of trained and experienced crew the organizations means to ensure a safe operation and no down time.
Shipowner B aims in the future of their safety culture to commit even more to their employees by creating a management team with loyal professionals with experience of all the organizations operations.
Shipowner E future development is to increase the number of crew members on board however perhaps they should focus on the noted problems with national cultural differences before hiring more crew. As without training it might not make any positive contributions.
Shipowner D is looking to create more professional seminars and courses in the future. The examples that are mentioned by the shipowner are Damage Stability, Multicultural Crew Interaction and Applied Meteorology.
Shipowner C is currently carrying out safety training on Behaviour Based Safety however in the future the shipowner wants to incorporate BBS in the organization.
Shipowner F will continually monitor their safety, environment and quality through their management department. Improvements will be taken if necessary to meet legislation and the organization initiatives. The safety inspectors which are already active in the organization will continue to constantly carry out audits.
Shipowner A is ranked first, Shipowner B second, Shipowners C, D and F as third and Shipowner as sixth.
Summarily the total rankings of the section 4.1 are Shipowner A as first, Shipowner B as second, Shipowner C as third, Shipowner E as fourth, Shipowner D as fifth and Shipowner F as sixth. This summary will further be approached in the discussion in section 5.1.
4.2 Experienced effect of MRM
Through the questionnaire it was shown that 50 percent of the shipowners which participated have employees with MRM certificates. Therefore the result will be presented in two separate sections, first the shipowners with MRM and secondly the ones who do not have MRM certificated employees.
Shipowner A, B and C are the participants that have implemented MRM, their view and perception of the contribution of MRM will be presented in this section. The shipowners are in this section not ranked regarding any scale.
29
4.2.1 Amount of employees with MRM
It is not clear that all employees or at least all officers in the organization have taken the management course. Therefore the question of numbers of employees on every vessel was asked to evaluate the organizations commitment to using MRM.
Shipowner B did not give a clear answer on this and the candidate got the impression that it was not a requirement that they have on the crew.
Shipowner C and A have both a high amount of officers with MRM. Shipowner C stated that only the organizations officers are taking the MRM course and that there are ten officers on each vessel. The reason for this amount is the availability of MRM. Shipowner A states that their goal is “that each individual working with ship operation should have this course” and they have now full MRM cover on the senior officer and 90 percent on junior.
4.2.2 Employees with other management course
To cover the possibility of the shipowner’s employees having another resource management course in addition to MRM, a question regarding how many employees on each vessel has taken another resource management course was included in the questionnaire. However it did not bring out the information regarding why they have chosen to use another course and which course was taken first, so that cannot be investigated.
Shipowner A who nearly have all officers with MRM have some officers which have taken Bridge Resource Management and Crew Resource Management before MRM. Shipowner B, who did not state a number of employees on each vessel with MRM, here states that all senior officers have taken another resource management course. Shipowner C is just using MRM as resource management training.
The conclusion of this is that some of the shipowners have implemented more than one resource management training program and this can be because of the importance of management knowledge or the existing selection of training program when they started educating their crew within the safety management philosophy.
4.2.3 MRM effect on latent risks
Latent risks hidden in the organization can affect active risks and failures to occur. It was of interest to see MRM’s effect in this by asking the shipowners if they experienced MRM to have contributed to identifying any latent risks.
Positive answers from shipowners B and C, where shipowner B specifies that they are confident that there employees both onboard and a shore report their mistakes.
30
Shipowner A on the other hand have not experienced an identification of latent risks however they hope by using MRM in the daily work they will eliminate some hidden risks.
An accident, incident and near misses report system is an important tool to learn from past errors and to clear out problems which can be latent. Shipowners B and C are positive to MRM contributing to more reports being written. However shipowner A answered that the organization had not measured this and can thereby not say if MRM contributed or not to increased reporting.
4.2.4 MRM contribution to organizational safety culture
Shipowner A is positive to MRM as their accident rate has decreased since they implemented MRM and other improvements. The decrease in accidents is not solely because of MRM, but the course has contributed considerably due to the shipowner. They see MRM as a very efficient tool which created awareness and alertness among the officers and crew. Improvements are also seen in the understanding and acceptance of differences between nationalities and realizing the appropriate way of dealing with differences.
Shipowner B states that there has been a positive change in the organization due to MRM and a decrease in numbers of accidents. Onboard personnel have achieved better communication between each other and are more confident in reporting unsafe occurrences. The organization has become better in evaluation of risks and to work proactively in their safety culture.
Shipowner C experience MRM as very effective. The organization has due to MRM achieved more on board transparency and employees are not afraid to speak up. There is a decrease in navigational incidents however crew personal accidents have not appreciable decreased.
It is also mentioned by the shipowners that they experience a development to better communication skills of the employees after starting with MRM, between all shipboard crew and specifically between officers. Communication is the way to keep clear of misunderstandings and prevent contingency situations, also to manage and restrict situations which have occurred.
MRM has not made the shipowners see which routines need to be changed. However it can be of such a nature that the shipowners already had well developed routines before implementing MRM.
As MRM is an investment, the shipowners where asked if they experience a pay back on their investment in MRM and all the answer was positive, however in long term and in cooperation with other parts of the SMS.
31
4.3 The shipowners which have not implemented MRM
The reason stated by the shipowners as to why they do not have MRM is the lack of awareness and knowledge of the course as well as using other resource management courses, such as BRM. Shipowner E stated that the cost of the course has a part in them not choosing the MRM. In the shipowner’s eyes the course is seen to be rather new and not promoted enough. The same shipowner is not informed that MRM considers meeting the requirements of the BRM in the STCW code Manila Amendments.
Due to the questions being angled to the MRM course, the shipowners who do not use MRM did not answer these. However some shipowners turned the question around and answered in respect of their safety management and culture. Under this section these answers will be presented, however without being ranked. Shipowner E, D and F do not have employees with MRM training.
Shipowner E only answered one of the questions regarding safety management, which was regarding how many educated employees within other resource management courses they have on each vessel. They have one or two employees on each vessel with Bridge Resource Management, which is a low amount in comparison to the other participating shipowners.
Shipowner D sees value in management as all senior management have undergone resource management courses in order to ascertain that they can identify latent risks and failures. Incidents are analysed and identified to find the latent failures in the system. Later this result is presented to all personal. All of shipowner D’s senior deck personnel and 40% of senior engine have taken a resource management course.
Shipowner F did not state any number on how many of the employees have taken a resource management course. However they say that they are investing heavily on safety related training for onboard personnel and management crew by having their own course. Their Safety Management System is designed to eliminate latent risks and the organization is open to employees speaking their mind and every employee has an equal voice regarding safety related matters. Shipowner F also states that they live up to the ISM-codes requirements of a reporting culture. The Safety Management System is viewed positively across the whole organization.
4.4 Claim frequency
The data in table 4.3 was collected from The Swedish Club database on their members claim frequency in regards of contact, collision and grounding, between the years 2001 and 2011. The column MRM has been added on by the candidate to evaluate MRM’s possible contribution. However the exact number collected from The Swedish Club cannot be presented due to keeping the shipowners anonymous and therefore the claim frequency is multiplied with a factor which is not presented.
32
The claim frequency factor, presented in table 4.3, is the count of claims which the shipowners had in total the last ten years divided by the average vessels per year which have been insured during this period divided by ten years and multiplied with the secret factor.
Table 4.3 Claim frequency factor (The Swedish Clubs accident statistics regarding contact, collision and grounding 2001 -2011)
Claim frequency factor MRM Shipowner A 0,0 Yes Shipowner B 7.4 Yes Shipowner C 9,0 Yes Shipowner D 9,4 No Shipowner E 16,0 No Shipowner F 16,8 No Source: The Swedish Club and Author
Table 4.3 shows that shipowner A has no incidents or accidents within contact, collision or grounding. Shipowner B has the lowest amount of claim per vessel, next is Shipowner C and shipowner D with similar amount. Shipowner E and F are the ones with highest amount of claims. It is also clearly shown that the shipowners with MRM are on the top half of the list and indicates a correlation between MRM and low claim frequency.
.
33
5 Discussion
This section, the discussion of this survey, contains a presentation of the total ranking of the result and is compared to the shipowners’ claim frequency, followed by the candidates analyze of the shipowners safety culture and the shipowners’ experience of MRM.
5.1 Shipowners safety culture and claim frequency
For the part of the result regarding safety cultures, the answers which were given by the shipowners were scored and ranked, from one to six, due to the candidate’s analyze of the shipowners, one being a high safety culture and six a low safety culture. The rankings are tallied to a total score in table 5.1 and are compared to the claim frequency factor to create an understanding of the possible connection of low accident rate and high developed safety culture.
Table 5.1 Summary of ranking of the shipowners answers in the result section
Ship-owner
Safety culture
Safety policy
National culture
Management commitment
Safety practices
Management skills
Future development
Total score
Claim frequency
factor Ranking
A 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 9 0,0 1
B 2 2 5 2 5 3 2 21 7.4 2
C 5 2 3 1 2 5 3 21 9,0 3
D 4 4 6 5 4 1 3 27 9,4 4
E 3 5 1 5 3 4 6 27 16,0 5
F 5 6 4 2 5 6 3 31 16,8 6 Source: Author
The table presents that the rankings of the shipowners do correlate with the claim frequency factor. However Shipowner B and C who have the same score as well as Shipowner D and E are ranked regarding their order in the alphabet.
Following sections will discuss if the rankings. which the shipowners have received in each safety culture dimension, correlate with their safety culture and claim frequency.
5.1.1 Safety culture
The description of safety culture which were given by the shipowner and rated by the candidate mainly correlate with the claim frequency. Besides Shipowner E how is positioned as number three but has one of the highest claim frequencies. Shipowner C who should due to the claim frequency have shipowner E’s position did lack in the extent of their answer, as no method to go about the safety culture dimensions was mentioned.
34
5.1.2 Safety policy
The answers and positioning are in correlation with claim frequency.
5.1.3 Awareness of different national cultures
The rating regarding the awareness of different national cultures has clearly no correlation to the claim frequency. Shipowner A is positioned first because of well explained awareness however a high claim frequency, perhaps their accidents are not really correlated to cultural differences. Shipowners B, C and D, who have low claim frequency, have no good awareness regarding this subject, which means that there is no correlation between national culture awareness and claim frequency seen in this survey.
5.1.4 Organizational commitment to safety
All shipowners state to have committed management, which this clearly very important. However Shipowner E and D which have higher claim frequency did not specify the level of commitment from the management and therefore got a high score, perhaps they do not have the right top to down engagement.
5.1.5 Safety practices
Table 5.2 (same as table 4.1 in section 4.1.4) presents the shipowners frequency of carrying out safety drills and training and to been seen in the table there is no clear correlation between high frequency of training and low claim frequency. Except for shipwoner E who tops the list and has not had any claims
Table 5.2 Correlation between high drill frequency and low claim frequency?
Ship-owner Safety drill frequency
Claim frequency
factor
A Daily safety drills onboard + Two drills every year with shore side org. involvement 0,0
E Once a week safety drill + once a month safety meeting 16,0
C Very frequent + at least once a year training at crew office with top management 9,0
F Weekly 16,8
B At least once per month 7,4
D Audits/Drills ever four month ( in addition to drills dectated by ISM) 9,4 Source: Author and The Swedish Club
Shipowner B has low claim frequency but is at a bottom position as they do not carry out training and drills as often as the other shipowners do.
Shipowner E with the higher claim frequency is ranked number two, due to their commitment to the importance of continues safety practise.
35
Shipowner F answers was lacking information regarding how they carry out their drills and training, which can be seen as something they hidden from this research.
5.1.6 Management skills
The organizations required management skills of their employees can be correlate to some extent to the low claim frequency, however is not highly valid high here in the discussion as the shipowners answers where somewhat short. Shipowner C was rated low due to their answer of not stating any requirements of management skills. Shipowner F did not even answer the question and has therefore been rated low as well.
5.1.7 Future development
Regarding the shipowners describing their future developments the rankings do correlate to some extent with the claim frequency. Although shipowner C, D and F get the same ranking but have different claim frequencies.
5.2 Shipowners safety culture
As stated in the theory section the theory of the evolution of safety culture is explained to have five levels which has been used to analyze on what level the participating shipowners should be placed according to their answers.
The following paragraphs are positioned how shipowners were ranked on all the questions regarding their safety culture, starting with the shipowner with lowest score, which means the shipowner with the highest safety culture.
Shipowner A has a zero claim frequency in the last 10 years and their safety culture stands between the proactive and the generative level. The shipowner has reached a high or the highest position on all questions and is shown to have a well committed management and employees. Their future development is solid, aiming to continue to stay consistent and develop their safety system.
Shipowner B is bureaucratic with some characteristic of being proactive. Commitment is of most importance for shipowner B who carries out briefings and courses before onboard personnel departures as well as ones continually held onboard. However the safety drills are carried out due to auditing and evaluating where training is needed, which is clearly more a bureaucratic way of approach. The shipowner’s future development of the safety culture is to commit even more and creating a management team with professional experience of all the organization’s operational areas. Shipowner B has the next lowest claim frequency. They are one of the three shipowners with MRM and have seen positive results in their accident prevention.
Shipowner C is at a bureaucratic stage regarding their safety culture. Due to that they have a well committed management however the employees’ commitment seems to be lacking as this is not mentioned. There is however proactive approaches being taken in
36
the frequency and sort of training, meetings and briefings which is carried out. The future development aim to incorporate Behaviour Based Safety further as it is already a part of the safety training in the organization today. Shipowner C’s frequency of claims is in the middle on the ranking of the shipowners and has nearly half the claims of the one with the highest claim frequency. They have employees with MRM and have not taken use of any other resource management course. The experience of the course is very effective due to the shipowner, who has reached onboard transparency, confident staff and decrease in navigational incidents.
Shipowner D gets stated to be in a reactive state and in some cases reaches bureaucratic. The safety policy is poorly described, however the shipowner focuses on safety precautions in all procedures. Commitment from board and management is stated but also poorly described. The shipowner has their own training centre ashore but there is however a lack of continual safety drills onboard in comparison to the other shipowners participating. In the future the shipowner aims to have more seminars and courses on professional principles, such as damage stability, multicultural crew interaction and applied meteorology. The candidate reacted on the shipowner wanting to develop multicultural crew interaction and that they did state that they had not experienced any national culture differences in section 4.1.2. Shipowner D is ranked in the middle of the list of claim frequency and is of the opinion that resource management courses do contribute positively. They have a high amount resource management educated employees, however not within MRM.
Shipowner E is bureaucratic. They notify their safety policy for employees, however most focus is on the senior crew the so called front-line crew to commit and understand the safety policy of the organization. The other crew gets to take care of the policy by reading the posted documents onboard. The board is committed to the safety culture though the candidate has some doubtfulness in how committed they really are. Shipowner A has good awareness and keeps continual safety drills, although their claim frequency is one on the highest of the participants. Regarding future developments to the safety culture they are looking to employ more crew to the bridge team however under another question regarding incentives they state to intend to develop their own training for their senior officers, which seems a bit split to where they actually want to head and the candidate has a lack of trust in some of the answers. Resource management education is perceived to not be of huge value to shipowner A, who claims MRM is a costly investment. They have one or two BRM educated employees on each vessel however they feel less committed than other participating shipowners which also can be seen on the claim frequency table.
Shipowner F is at the bureaucratic level. They use their Safety Management System and audits. The management is committed to safety however the safety policy is just displayed on the vessel. There is a lack of answers regarding how they carry out training; however drills and training is carried out often. Training is updated due to rules
37
and organizational requirements. Due to the shipowner having the highest claim frequency of participants the candidate is unsure if the organization really amend their safety culture. The shipowner states that they invest heavily in safety training and have their own course for their onboard personnel and management. Although something is not working out for shipowner F as they have the highest claim frequency in this survey.
5.3 MRM contribution
The shipowners which have MRM have the lowest claim frequency of the participating shipowners and are clearly to be committed to their safety culture. MRM is summarily described by the shipowners as an efficient, effective and contributing course to safety management which have created awareness, good communication and increased reporting as well as transparency, confident employees, national culture awareness and a decrease in accidents. Therefore the candidate can state that MRM has some correlation to improved safety culture in an organization, however it seems like the impact does depend on at which state the organization’s safety culture is. It is not certain that the MRM implementation necessarily equals fewer accidents although it is a clear indication how serious the shipowner is regarding safety, likely for a high safety culture to see training and education as an importance but not a sole success factor. For example shipowner A has shown to be very committed and wants everyone in the operation parts of the organization to have the MRM training and they are the shipowner with no claims. It was learned that shipowner A and C have both MRM educated personnel who also have taken another resource management courses. Therefore it is difficult to measure which parts MRM has contributed to.
Shipowner A is the one shipowner how has succeeded to reach zero accident within contact, collision and grounding has a nearly full coverage on senior and junior officers with MRM. However they had before MRM implemented both BRM and CRM, which could be the key. Therefore MRM cannot be seen as the solely reason for this success.
Shipowner F has the lowest ranking and highest claim frequency and has not stated to have employees with resource management courses, but however has their own course and training set up. The candidate sees a correlation between resource management training and fewer accidents.
Resource management training does contributed to a better safety culture and a high safety culture contributes to low claim frequency. The candidate found that committed resource management training seems to be a valid step on the way to develop a good safety culture.
How well developed the shipowners safety culture is when they implement MRM can also have a effect on the result, however data which tells when the shipowners started with MRM has not been found and cannot taken in to account in this survey.
38
6 Conclusion and recommendation
In this section the report’s conclusions are presented as well as recommendation to The Swedish Club Academy and for further research.
The influence that resource management safety training has on an organization can be measureable as positive and does have correlation to high safety culture. The discussion regarding correlation between low claim frequency and high safety culture show that a high safety culture does correlate to low claim frequency to some extent. Due to this there is a correlation between high safety culture, resource management training and low claim frequency. Specifically to measure MRM’s effect is difficult as the shipowners do not only have MRM certificated employees. Shipowner A has nearly full coverage on employees educated within MRM and has zero accident the last 10 year within contact, collision and grounding. However they do have CRM, BRM and MRM certificated employees which make the measurability of MRM difficult to determine. Resource management training is overall experienced as contributing and the shipowners with MRM in this survey have the lowest claim frequency and are ranked with the highest safety cultures. It shows that MRM has some correlation to improved safety culture in an organization and the shipowners state to be positive to the training program’s contribution to their safety culture. It is not possible to totally measure a safety culture just by a questionnaire conducted by one employee of the organization, who works ashore. The investigation’s small scope of participants affects the reliability of the result. However this survey provides The Swedish Club Academy with a picture of how the shipowners’ experience the effect of the training program.
6.1 Recommendations to The Swedish Club
The shipowners who did not have MRM were not aware of the training program and said that it was due to lack of promoting as well as the cost of educating the employees within MRM. The candidate therefore recommends The Swedish Club Academy to promote the MRM training program more so that shipowners will become aware of the course.
6.2 Further recommendation for continued research
• Interview the shipowners employees to see if the answers correlate, which puts the answer’s credibility into question.
• Interviews to be conducted in person or by phone, as there is too much ambiguity in written questions.
39
• Evaluate the shipowners deeper by breaking done to a period before and after they actively started improving their safety culture and how many vessels are insured.
40
References
Books and reports
Regeringskansliet Näringsdepartementet.(2010) Den reviderade STCW-konventionen Manilia-ändringarna. Stockholm: Elanders Sverige AB. ISBN 978-91-38-23494-5.
International Maritime OrganizationA (2001) International Convention on standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW code). United Kingdom: Willian Clowes Ltd. ISBN 978-92-801-108-4
International Maritime OrganizationB (2001) SOLAS. Third edition. London. ISBN 92-801-5100-2
Grech M. R., Horberry T. J., Koester T. (2008) Human Factors in the Maritime Domain. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis Group. ISBN 978-1-4200-4341-9
Höst M, Regnell B, Runeson P. (2006) Att genomföra examensarbete, Lund: Studentlitteratur AB. ISBN 978-91-44-00521-8
Schager B. (2008) Human Error in the Maritime Industry. Halmstad: Halmstad Tryckeri AB. ISBN 978-91-633-2064-4
Tegethoff T. (2007) Säkerhetskulturen, organisationskulturer och katastrofer. Stockholms universitet (examensuppsats inom psykologiska institutionen).
Törner M. (2010) Bra samspel och samverkan skapar säkerhet – om klimat och kultur på arbetsplatsen. Göteborg: Göteborgs universitet.
Ödegård, S (2007) I rättvisans namn: Ansvar, skuld och säkerhet i vården. Liber.
Articles
Drouin, P. (2010) The building blocks of a safety culture. Seaways. http://www.safeship.ca/attachments/File/Safety_culture_PaulDrouin.pdf (15 March 2011).
Ek Å. et al. (2000) Safety Culture onboard ships. In Conference proceedings of the International Ergonomics Association/ Human Factors and Ergonomics Society; 29 July – 4 August 2000, California. pp 320-322.
Hudson P. (2001) Safety culture: The ultimate goal. Flight safety Australia. http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/1091.pdf (30 March 2011).
Maritime Safety Committee (2010) ROLE OF HUMAN ELEMENT Just Culture – Essential for Safety. MSC 88/16/1. http://www.rina.org.uk/c2/uploads/msc%2088_16_1.pdf (20 February 2011).
41
Maritime Safety Committee. (2003) ROLE OF HUMAN ELEMENT Definition of Safety Culture. MSC 77/17. www.sjofartsverket.se/upload/4001/77-17.pdf (1 March 2011).
Internet
International Maritime OrganizationA. (2010) International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for seafarers (STCW code). http://www.imo.org/about/conventions/listofconventions/pages/international-convention-on-standards-of-training,-certification-and-watchkeeping-for-seafarers-(stcw).aspx (1 March 2011)
International Maritime OrganizationB (2010) International convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS). http://www.imo.org/about/conventions/listofconventions/pages/international-convention-for-the-safety-of-life-at-sea-(solas),-1974.aspx (1 March 2011)
International Maritime OrganizationC (2010) Introduction to IMO. http://www.imo.org/About/Pages/Default.aspx (1 March 2011)
International Safety Management. (2002) ISM CODE. http://www5.imo.org/SharePoint/mainframe.asp?topic_id=287 (1March 2011)
Safeship. (2011) http://www.safeship.ca/page14.php (16 May 2011)
42
APPENDIX 1
Questionnaire created to investigate if ship-owners perceive education (MRM) as contributing to an improvement of the organizations safety culture.
The ship-owners and managing companies participating in this research will be presented anonymously in the report. The research is conducted to create an understanding regarding the connection between safety culture and education/training.
1. How do you explain the expression “safety culture”?
2. How is the organizations safety policy expressed?
3. How many employees on board each vessel has taken the MRM course? • Any particular reasons for this number?
• How many employees on board each vessel has taken another management course?
• Are there any incentives for the organizations employees to take safety and/or management courses?
• Does the safety policy stipulate a lowest level of management skills?
4. Shipping is very international and various national cultures exist and interact with each other. As a consequence hereof there is a potential risk for misunderstandings and conflicts affected of communication, teamwork, responsibility and authority that may differ culturally. a) Which nationalities are employed in the organization? b) In respect of safety; can the organization see any variations in how the
different nationalities cooperate with the organizations safety policy? Please describe
5. Describe how safety is implemented in the organization. a) Is safety on the agenda at the Board and/or Management meetings? b) Are continued trainings and/or safety drills being carried out in the
organization? 1. If so, within which elements? 2. How are they carried out? 3. How frequently are they carried out?
6. What are the main reasons to why the organization started investing on safety
and loss prevention? a) External demand?
43
b) To lower the premium? c) Internal interested?
7. Latent risks and failures lie hidden in the organizations structure as they are not
know or observed by the organization. This type of risk and failure can become a great problem for the organization as it can set off sequence of accidents in a surprising way.
Has the organization identified any latent risks/failures that are eliminated by submitting MRM?
8. Does the organization experience a decrease in the number of incidents and accidents since implementing MRM?
9. Does the organization experience that MRM has contributed to that more accident, incident and near-miss reports are written?
10. Has the organization change any routines after you started sending your employees on MRM courses? If yes, which routines have been changed and why?
11. Does the organization experience that MRM has contributed to other improvements? If yes, in what way?
12. How effective does the organization perceive the MRM course to be?
13. Does the organization experience the MRM module to be up to date?
14. Does the organization experience a pay back on the investment in MRM?
15. What is the organizations planned future development for their safety policy and safety culture?
16. Finally, can the organization see any connection to MRM affecting a positive improvement to the organizations safety culture? Please motivate.
44
APPENDIX 2
In this appendix the shipowners exact answers on the questionnaire is presented.
1. How do you explain the expression “safety culture”?
Shipowner A An environment which has a Safety Culture could maybe be defined as:
In an environment with Safety Culture you are allowed to express your own experience/opinions and it will be adhered to and acknowledge as a valid point.
An environment where a number of individuals can think as individuals, speak their mind and at the end of the day reach a common goal by working as a team based on a common agreed approach using the same tools/procedures. The approach is based on each individual’s contribution but has to be defined as one goal that should be reached by all individuals as a team, not just as individuals within the group.
The commitment has to come from the top individuals in this group of human beings and they have to allow contribution from the individuals in the group when defining the goals and the procedures on how to get there.
A “blame free safety culture” is a bit of a myth and might not benefit your group in reaching the goals but below should help you dealing with it:
You must allow for mistakes, but not accept them long term “as can’t be corrected or dealt with”.
Neglecting an agreed procedure should not pass without consequence for individuals as that will jeopardy your team work and you will not reach your goals if you allow this in your group.
Shipowner B The management adopts the appropriate attitude and values towards safety, and ensures commitment to safety by all in the company.
45
Α company with a good safety culture aims for transparency of management and operational practices, and the minimisation οf all possible risks that are due to the human element .
Regular audits, risk assessment and evaluation, as well as implementation οf plans to control risk exposure, should enhance the safety culture and lead to a company almost free from risk incidents. But, in the real world, existing factors οf safety that are not within the control of the ship-owning or managing companies.”
Shipowner C Use your brains before you use your hands Never walk past a quality problem Fix the roof before it starts to rain The best way to save money is to spend it wisely”
Shipowner D Everything must pass first from the “filter”: “Is it safe?” No compromisations to safety.
Shipowner E The safety culture is the capability to implement a working environment based on the human safety habits acquired by theory, by training, by experience. The objective of the safety culture is to reduce the risk of accidents by giving crew on board and shore staff a common strategy based on a proper communication, implementing a no blame policy to report accidents, investing in proper equipment (such as PPE), promoting a strong team work culture.
Shipowner F Safety culture is inherent throughout our organization from the highest level of management through to the most junior employees in the company. There is safety awareness in everything we do and every decision that we make.
2. How is the organizations safety policy expressed?
Shipowner A Through our SMS system which consist of a set of Manuals.
SMS is based on leadership and accountability. It requires proactive hazard identification, risk management, information control, auditing and training. It also includes incident and accident investigation and analysis
Shipowner B Management commitment to all levels, in the company and vessels.
46
Shipowner C No blame culture but accountability, yes
Safety policy is from top down
Shiponwer D Mainly by safety precautions in all work related procedures
Shipowner E The safety policy is part of the Safety Management System. It is provided and explained to all senior crew members while joining a ship, fixed on board in proper places to be sure that everybody on board can read it.
Shipowner F The company has a safety management system which is fundamental to our operation. Without it the company would not exist. This system is subject to continual external audit. Within the system are a number of policies the most important of which is our safety, environmental and quality policy which is signed by the managing director and displayed in a public place on all our managed vessels.
3. How many employees on board each vessel has taken the MRM course? Any particular reasons for this number?
Shipowner A All senior officers onboard and 90% of the junior officers
We have had it as a goal that each individual working with ship operation should have this course.
Shipowner B Depend of the availability of disembarked shipboard personnel
Shipowner C At present only Officers are doing the MRM. 10 officers on each vessel. MRM course availability.
Shipowner D Zero employees have the MRM training We think that it is more or less covered by BRM/Simulator
Shipowner E Zero employees has taken the MRM course, but part of the whole training are provided (such as Emergency response management)
Two reasons: The course is new and not enough promoted and the cost. It should be introduced as a STCW compulsory training.
Shipowner F None because of lack of awareness of the course. We do however invest heavily in safety related training of shipboard staff and management staff.
47
How many employees on board each vessel has taken another management course?
Shipowner A I would say about 90% of the senior officers have it and 50% of the junior.
Shipowner B All Senior Officers
Shipowner C None
Shipowner D All senior Deck personnel and 40% of senior Engine.
Shipowner E 1 or 2 (Bridge Team Management)
Shipowner F -
Are there any incentives for the organizations employees to take safety and/or management courses?
Shipowner A Not in taking the course but by giving them the course we allow for a Safety Culture that minimize the accident and down time rate which results in a bonus at the end of the year. A big part of that bonus is related to how the safety/down time performance has been.
Shipowner B Yes, cultivate the safety culture and having as result the minimization of incidents.
Shipowner C No, besides it’s at no cost to the employee.
Shipowner D YES
Shipowner E Yes. Many accidents are caused by lack of proper management and human error and we intend to develop a training to our senior officers.
Shipowner F -
Does the safety policy stipulate a lowest level of management skills?
Shipowner A Yes, all our positions do have a job description and the minimum requirements are stipulated in the same.
Shipowner B Yes, by providing in-house briefings / courses before shipboard personnel departure and continuously onboard training seminars
Shipowner C No
48
Shipowner D It is inherent in the professional requirements. In the assessment of the senior Officers it is seriously evaluated for future employment
Shipowner E Yes
Shipowner F -
4. Which nationalities are employed in the organization?
Shipowner A We are a big organization with more then 4000 employees and we have about 30 different nationalities within the organization, mainly originating from Asia and Europe.
Shipowner B Greek Senior officers, Filipino officers and ratings
Shipowner C Multi- national. Ships : Chinese, Filipino, Indian, Ukrainian, Russian, Bangladeshi, Pakistani Offices : British, Dutch, Indian, Chinese, German, Filipino
Shipowner D Greek, Russian, Ukrainian and Tanzanian
Shipowner E French, Romanian, Philippines, Croatian, Polish, Ukrainians, Moroccan, Indians, and few others.
Shipowner F European, Russian, Baltic states, Croatian, Indian and Filipino
In respect of safety; can the organization see any variations in how the different nationalities cooperate with the organizations safety policy? Please describe.
Shipowner A When talking Safety Culture yes. In Asia the power distance is very noticeable and the message “respect the elderly and the superiors” is hammered into to you from the day you enter this side of life.
We have challenges in getting these individuals to adopt the “team approach and also to speak their mind”.
49
Shipowner B Company's continuous efforts, in order rotation of same personnel on board and with appropriate appraisals to keep seafarers with long term cooperation.
Shipowner C It’s depends on an individual’s basic training and to some degree the safety seen in daily life in one’s home country.
Shipowner D Not significant. They all undergo rigorous pre-boarding training ashore.
Shipowner E Yes. For example an Indian Officer will not report enough when they are some problems on board. French, English or Romanian will report much easily and with accuracy but sometimes will complain too much.
Filipinos are complying easily with rules, instructions. But in case of Emergency or big problem, they are much more under stress and have no leadership.
Oldest crew members are usually much more reluctant with safety procedures, PPE, etc… compared to new young generation.
Crew under permanent employment contract will feel much more free to report problems than a crew under short term contract.
Shipowner F No material difference. We need to have our safety procedures written down in a clear and easily understood manner in order that those seafarers who do not have English as their first language can follow them without difficult.
5. Describe how safety is implemented in the organization
Is safety on the agenda at the Board and/or Management meetings?
Shipowner A Yes it is and there is a commitment from upper Management to operate safe.
Shipowner B Yes, on weekly/monthly meeting
Shipowner C Safety is 24/7 and on Board & Management agendas. Lack of safety results in loss and any loss that has been prevented from happening adds to the profitability of the organization.
50
Shipowner D Yes
Shipowner E Yes
Shipowner F Safety is discussed at every board meeting. It is an agenda item on weekly management meetings of the company’s senior management and executive directors. Shipboard management committees have weekly safety meetings.
Are continued trainings and/or safety drills being carried out in the organization?
Shipowner A Yes
Shipowner B Yes
Shipowner C Yes
Shipowner D Yes
Shipowner E Yes
Shipowner F Yes
Within which elements?
Shipowner A All I would say, piracy, terrorist threats, Emergency related such as fire, grounding, Collision, Man over board, lifeboat drills, Black Out, etc.
Shipowner B New rules & regulations
Shipowner C Personal Safety, Behaviour Based Safety, Safety of Navigation, Environmental Safety
Shipowner D There is A Safety-Quality-Environmental department which does regular internal audits (and drills) and on-the job training on board. There is a separate Training Department which performs all training ashore. This Department takes care to make up the individual seafarer’s training needs as they are reported in his assessment report by the Master.
Shipowner E Safety and Security
51
Shipowner F Safety drills and training are updated in accordance with latest IMO and company requirements
How are they carried out?
Shipowner A Individually onboard the ship as well as fleet wide drills involving the shore side emergency organization.
Shipowner B Various matters identify training needs which are obtained from the audits, Master’s review etc.
Shipowner C At in house Training Centres, Fleet Officer Safety Meetings, Safety Briefings for Ratings, On board safety training done by training superintendents, pre-joining safety briefings, monthly safety digest.
Shipowner D At the Offices and specialized Training Centers.
Especially for Tanzanians we have created our own Training Center in Zanzibar which is designed for two weeks (presentations-exams-field training like FF, Rescue from enclosed space of vessel moke up, seamanship etc).
All requirements are clearly stated in Company’s ISM Manual, in which a control procedure is described (and applied) as well.
Shipowner E Drills and instructions with crews. We have also implemented safety advisors (formal Captains who fly from a vessel to another with the sole objective to develop the safety culture on board using power point presentation, feedbacks from other vessels, etc…)
Shipowner F -
How frequently are they carried out?
Shipowner A There is daily safety drills carried out onboard the ships as the emergency organization is huge on a passenger ship. This are training for life boat groups, Fire squads, Emergency Evacuation Groups, Medical Groups, Assembly station groups, etc.
52
There are at least 2 drills every year where the shore side organizations are involved and the complete system is tested and evaluated.
Shipowner B At least once per month. Shipowner C Very frequently and at least once a year at each crewing
office where top management is present.
Shipowner D Audits- Drills every four months (in addition to drills dictated by ISM)
Shipowner E Once a week safety drill + once a month safety meeting.
Shipowner F Weekly safety drills and training
6. What are the main reasons to why the organization started investing on safety and loss prevention?
• External demand? • To lower the premium? • Internal interested?
Shipowner A I would say C could describe it as we had two major accidents back in the 90’s. Management at that time committed 100% to minimize the accident rate and we embarked on a long journey which has lasted for 15 years now without any insurance claims related to our loss and prevention insurance.
Shipowner B First of all, INTERNAL INTEREST
Shipowner C External demand? No To lower the premium? Yes Internal interested? Yes
Shipowner D External demand? NO To lower the premium? As a consequence of next: Internal interested? Out of the main target of the Company, aiming to zero accidents, respect for human life and respect to charterers.
Shipowner E External demand? No To lower the premium? Yes Internal interested? Yes
53
Shipowner F The primary reason that the company invests heavily in cost and time is to promote a high end safety culture to protect people, the vessel and the environment. It is not driven by commercial interest.
7. Have the organization identified any latent risks/failures that are eliminated by submitting MRM?
Shipowner A No we can’t say we have but we are trying to practice MRM in our daily work so by using it in our decision making we have hopefully eliminated some potential risks
Shipowner B Yes, confident that our seafarers and shore personnel are reporting their mistakes.
Shipowner C Yes
Shipowner D All senior management (all department Heads) have undergone very serious management courses in order to make sure they can identify such circumstances. Also, any non-routine incident undergoes serious analysis, with the main purpose to identify those latent failures of the system. Results are presented to all personnel.
Shipowner E We do not have MRM training
Shipowner F Our safety management system is designed to eliminate this type of risk. Every employed in the organization has an equal voice when it comes to safety related matters and all views and opinions are treated with equal respect and properly considered when implementing any change to our procedures.
8. Does the organization experience a decrease in the number of incidents and accidents since implementing MRM?
Shipowner A Yes, we have but it is not solely due to MRM but it has contributed considerably.
Shipowner B Yes
Shipowner C Yes, fewer navigational incidents. However no appreciable decrease in crew personal accidents.
54
Shipowner D We implement our own MRM, as a result of other managerial courses and methods. YES there is improvement.
Shipowner E We do not have MRM training
Shipowner F We have not implemented this particular version of MRM but we do have our own SMS. When we first introduced our SMS the main benefit we noted was the requirement for all vessels to follow a standard set of procedures and to report incidents in a standard format in a consistent manner. Our constant promotion of safety awareness has led to steady downward trend of lost time incidents over a 15 year period.
9. Does the organization experience that MRM has contributed to that more accident, incident and near-miss reports are written?
Shipowner A We have not measured this in the company so we can’t clearly say that is the case.
Shipowner B With the concept of Near Misses, yes Shipowner C Yes
Shipowner D No experience yet on The Swedish Club Academy’s MRM
Shipowner E We do not have MRM training
Shipowner F Our safety management system, particularly since the mandatory introduction of ISM by IMO necessitated the requirement to report incidents in a consistent manner. There is a perception that this has introduced more reporting but this is not true for any organization that already took safety seriously.
10. Has the organization change any routines after you started sending your employees on MRM courses? If yes, which routines have been changed and why?
Shipowner A When we started with BRM, CRM (back in the late 90’s) and later MRM we changed a lot of our routines and implemented new ones as well. This is a continuing process that will never end.
Shipowner B Better communication skills between the senior officers onboard
Shipowner C No changes in routines.
55
Shipowner D No experience yet on The Swedish Club Academy’s MRM
Shipowner E We do not have MRM training
Shipowner F As already mentioned, we were not aware of the MRM course but we do have equivalent courses available to our staff. Ten years ago we introduced behaviorable based safety systems in our fleet and this had an effect on the work routines as this system effectively requires the person who is about to undertake any task to step back and ask themselves five safety related questions which they have to satisfy themselves with before undertaking the task.
11. Does the organization experience that MRM has contributed to other improvements? If yes, in what way?
Shipowner A We think that the awareness and alertness has improved as well as the understanding/ acceptance that we are not all the same and “there is a reason to way he/she is different from my way of thinking/doing” and by realizing that you can take a better approach in dealing with those type of things that are very common in a multi nationality environment.
Shipowner B More confident for reporting hazardous occurrences etc. Better evaluation of the risks. To be proactive
Shipowner C More on board transparency
Shipowner D No experience yet on The Swedish Club Academy’s MRM
Shipowner E We do not have MRM training
Shipowner F -
12. How effective does the organization perceive the MRM course to be?
Shipowner A For us it has been a very efficient tool in creating awareness among our Officers and Crew and we would of course like to see all our top management taking this course as we have had big changes in a number of key positions in the company lately.
Shipowner B To achieve better communication skills between shipboard personnel in order to act under contingency situation.
56
Shipowner C Very effective Shipowner D No experience yet on The Swedish Club Academy’s MRM
Shipowner E We do not have MRM training
Shiponwer F -
13. Does the organization experience the MRM module to be up to date?
Shipowner A Our opinion is that the module is up to date
Shipowner B Obviously yes Shipowner C Yes
Shipowner D No experience yet on The Swedish Club Academy’s MRM
Shipowner E We do not have MRM training
Shipowner F -
14. Does the organization experience a pay back on the investment in MRM?
Shipowner A As a part of our SMS system yes, if you only had MRM it would not work.
Shipowner B In long term, yes Shipowner C Yes
Shipowner D No experience yet on The Swedish Club Academy’s MRM
Shipowner E We do not have MRM training
Shipowner F -
15. What is the organizations planned future development for their safety policy and safety culture?
Shipowner A Our aim is to stay on top and develop existing system and improve where we identify needs to improve. Consistency is a big thing when talking safety and our aim is to stay consistent and keep our key personal and a big number of rank and file crew as well, this to ensure a safe operation as well as one with no down time.
57
Shipowner B Commitment to our staff, for creation of a team with loyal management professionals with considerable experience in all areas of the company’s operations.
Shipowner C Inculcate BBS ( Behavior Based Safety)
Shipowner D Create more seminars/courses on purely professional stuff, like “Damage Stability”, “Multicultural Crew Interaction”, Applied Meteorology etc.
Shipowner E We decided to increase the number of crew members on board (especially for bridge teams: mates and AB)
Shipowner F We have a management department consisting of eight persons who are solely engaged in continually monitoring our safety, environment and quality systems and introducing improvements when necessary to comply with legislation or in house initiatives. In addition to this we have a team of six safety inspectors who are constantly engaged in safety audits for compliance across our managed fleet.
16. Finally, can the organization see any connection to MRM affecting a positive improvement to the organizations safety culture? Please motivate.
Shipowner A It has for sure been the case for our shipboard operations and among the top management as our accident rate has decreased since we started with MRM and other improvements. Our Officers are still very motivated as well as the Marine Operation part of the company.
It is harder to say if the new part of top management in the company has adopted and acknowledge MRM as a good tool in your daily work as monetary matters seems to be more on the agenda these days, even if safety still is a big part on daily agenda.
We need to run them through MRM before we can say for sure they have adopted and accepted it as a management tool.
Shipowner B Yes, minimization of human errors. Shipowner C Staff are not afraid to speak up
58
Shipowner D No experience yet on The Swedish Club Academy’s MRM
Shipowner E We do not have MRM training
Shipowner F Our safety management system is viewed positively across the whole organization. Whilst primarily focussed on shipboard activities it is embedded deeply in our management culture as without this we would simply not function as a ship management company. The majority of directors and senior managers have a seagoing background and therefore an inherent awareness and positive approach to safety. The introduction of ISM has enabled us to engage the shipowners and their insurers and charterers in our regular shore based emergency drills to test our systems.