COMPLACENCY AS

AN ELEMENT OF MARITIME ACCIDENTS

SAFETY on board modern ships –

NOT SATISFACTORY

75 – 96% of accidents include

CREW´S ERROR

Errors made by crewmembers:

- Management errors – 71%

- Operational errors

Management errors on board ship and in relation ship – external factors are mostly

caused by COMPLACENCY

COMPLACENCY can be divided into:

1. MANAGEMENT COMPLACENCY

2. LEADERSHIP COMPLACENCY

3. SELF-INDUCED COMPLACENCY

1. MANAGEMENT COMPLACENCY

negative influence of Shipping Companies

expressed through dominant communication COMPANY- SHIP in

which process the crew meet the interests of the Company against their

own beliefs and attitudes which are eventually lost, or become passive and

transform into submissive attitudes

Good communication Company-Ship ensures that you follow what you are

supposed to do…

…otherwise…you hit what you should have easily missed…

2. LEADERSHIP COMPLACENCY

negative influence of leadership expressed through Master´s domination in which

case the crew meet the requirements of the authority suppressing personal

attitudes and beliefs

Shipboard duties…right person for the right job

Shipboard duties…right person for the Shipboard duties…right person for the right job…right job…

Senior officers have the burden of due Senior officers have the burden of due diligence while assigning jobs.diligence while assigning jobs.

…other wise….

OOPS !!!

Your crew is your responsibility…

3. SELF-INDUCED COMPLACENCY

negative influence of the acquired feeling of superiority and personal

significance to the change of personal previously positive

attitudes

Perhaps, if there had not been lack of communication…

... the container would have been on the plane…!!!

Psychological point of view:

COMPLACENCY represents a process of gradual change of attitudes that

transforms a “good” seaman into a “bad” seaman.

In such a state of inhibition

the crew unconsciously, in compliance with newly formed attitudes, stop using

potential knowledge and experiential resources.

Passivization of knowledge, creativity and motivation

is in fact

activation of the notion of Management Complacency!

In that sense

change into inhibition begins as a spontaneous reaction to

bad communication or unpleasant environment (hierarchical relations) within

which the individual(s) can feel insignificant.

Consequently,

active knowledge, creativity and motivation are gradually suppressed.

The crew still potentially have knowledge and creativity

but they are not stimulated to use them (inhibition).

Journey from Complacency to Rules…

Titanic (1912) = SOLAS (1929)

Torrey Canyon (1967) = MARPOL (1973) & STCW (1978)

Amoco Cadiz (1978) = SOLAS & MARPOL 1978 Protocols

Herald of Free Enterprise (1987)

= ISM & SOLAS Ch. II-1

Exxon Valdez (1989) = OPA’90

Journey from Complacency to Rules…Various Bulk Carrier losses – early 1990s

= SOLAS Ch. XII (1997)

Estonia = SOLAS Ch. II-1 (1995)

Erika (1999) = EU package I & II

Prestige (2002) = New IMO rules – phase-out of single hull tankers

Functional organizational model of the Shipping Company structure

supports complacency because of:

• centralized control

• marked hierarchy

which ensure efficiency and successfulness through adaptation of persons to the mechanistic model of behaviour and carrying out duties.

Figure 1. Functional Organisation

Source: Human Resources Management – IMO 1992., Part D, page. 28

OWNER

ADMIN. INS. ACCOUNTS OPS oper.

ENG. CREW SUPPLY

MASTER

CHIEF ENGINEER CHIEF STEWARDS Glavni konobar

MAR.

Functional organizational model

insufficient motivation, communication and cooperation among officers

job dissatisfaction, superficial interactions of the employees,

HUMAN ERROR Caused by Complacency Syndrome.

Therefore,

Complacency is reflected in:1. Risk of maritime accident due to bad

relation Ship-Company2. Risk of on-the-job accident involving

crewmembers, due to the crew discontent

3. Risk of damage of the ship and her cargo due to bad work organization

4. Risk of environment pollution 5. Higher insurance policy

Measures of protection from complacency syndrome (CS)

• Introduction of ISM code (SMS) on board

is not efficient enough to prevent CS

• Reorganizing matrix

functionally organized organizational

companies structure

Figure 2. Matrix Organisation

Fleet X

Fleet Y

Fleet Z

Source: Human Resource Management – IMO 1992. Part D, p..29

OWNER

ADMIN. INS. ACCOUNTS

OPS. FLEET MANAGEMENT

CREW TECH. SUPPLY

FLEET MGR.

FLEET MGR.

FLEET MGR.

Basic difference of matrix organizational structure

=

decentralized management

greater motivation and initiative by the Master, Chief Engineer and the Officers on

board

Decentralised decision-making

• Need for forming the fleet management

• Establishing the function of the project manager

The basic function of the project manager

in Company – Ship relation

is

building balance between ship´s demands and functional sections of the Company that, in order to satisfy interests of the

whole, are prone to neglect the interests of individual ship

Managerial team on board +

the other Officers (2nd and 3rd Officers) and Engineers ( 2nd and 3rd Engineer)

develop new relations

as regards

mutual advising and planning

the upgrading of ship´s safety (SMS) and

possible reactions in an emergency

CONDITIONS OF

REAL TEAM WORK

CAN BE ESTABLISHED AND DEVELOPED ON THE BASIS

OF

MATRIX ORGANISATION

THANK YOU!