Critical Analysis Of Titanic Disaster Stakeholders In Essay.

Stakeholders Involved in the Disaster

Describe about the Incident of the Titanic.

The disaster of Titanic is considered as the largest maritime disasters in the modern history. It is because in this disaster approx 1500 people were died among the 2200 passengers. In 1912, the Titanic was completely driven in the water after the collision (Chatterton, 2013). This paper discusses the stakeholders of this disaster. Along with this, it also discusses the stakeholders’ decisions that caused for this disaster. In addition, it also examines the decision that made by the stakeholders. At the end, it also evaluates the ways that could be used to prevent this disaster.

In the disaster of Titanic, there are various stakeholders that were involved from the development of Titanic plan to collapse of the ship in the sea. But, at the time of disaster, there were mainly two types of stakeholders are involved such as passengers and crew members, who taken the decisions. Along with this, there are also several stakeholders that directly and indirectly associated with the Titanic Disaster. In this, White Star Lines was a company that managed the Titanic project by providing engineering, Harland-Wolff (constructors), Alexander Carlisle and Thomas Andrews (shipwrights and designers), Edward John Smith who was the captain and finally Joseph Bruce Ismay as the director (Withington, 2013).

These stakeholders were associated with the Titanic project from its inception to the disaster and also responsible for all the decisions that cause the Titanic disaster.

There are various decisions, which were made by the stakeholders and caused the disaster of Titanic. From the group and crew member perspectives, one of the main decisions was made by the captain of the ship Edward J. Smith as he took the decision to sail the ship at full speed without concerning the visibility and possibilities of ship striking with the iceberg. This decision was probably taken in terms of making the record and impressing some stakeholders but, at the same time, this decision endangered the safety of the ship and led to damaging the ship as well as caused death of so many people. At that time, most of the crew member believed that the captain of the ship was not followed proper procedure for taking decisions. It is because Smith ignored several warnings of iceberg provided through the messages as well as other ships during the journey (Smith and Rayment, 2012). It also led Smith to take wrong decisions related to the speed of the ship and caused the disaster.  

Stakeholder's Decisions that Cause for Disaster

At the same time, as an individual, Edward J. Smith had also taken the biased decision that the lifeboats leave the ship with women and children first and for any remaining position, the position would be allocated to men. This decision was also interpreted wrongly by the passengers and crew members as they considered lifeboats will be launched only with women and children (Purchase, 2013). This decision also caused to the disaster of Titanic.  

At the same time, in the disaster, most of the decisions made by the crew members and the captain of the ship without concerning any decision-making process and procedures. In this, the  senior radio operator Jack Philips also made a decision to not to convey the messages related to the iceberg to the captain of the ship because these messages did not include the prefix MSG. This decision of senior radio operator also caused the Titanic disaster because due to this, captain Smith was not able to take actions to prevent the disaster. Along with this, in the beginning, the decision made by the engineers related to the design of ship also caused the Titanic failure or disaster. It is because in taking the decision of designing the ship, the engineers did not consider the engineering methodology and best available technologies that could have prevented probably the spread of water across the ship and led to its sinking (Chatterton, 2013).

From the perspective of passengers, it is examined that the decision made by Alexander Carlisle and Thomas Andrews related to the less number of lifeboats on the ship as compared to the passengers was also not good. It is because it converted the accident into a big disaster.   In this, the decision makers did not effective research that how many passengers were on the ships, the current number of lifeboats and any alternative actions if the accident will happen (Wilson, 2011). The lack of this research and alternative actions, mainly led the death of people in the Titanic accident.  

From the individual and group perspective, it is also examined that the decision of making a record of the six-day crossing was one of the reasons for the Titanic disaster. It is found that at that time, the competition for Atlantic passengers was intense and the owner of the Titanic ship wanted to prove that the company will make six-day crossing from Ireland to New York. In order to meet this schedule, it was not possible for the firm to slow down the speed of the ship (Withington, 2013). Due to this, Ismay created the pressure on Smith to maintain the speed of the ship, which caused for the disaster in the history. In this, the owner of the ship did not consider any alternative, which resulted in an accident.  

Reasons for Titanic Sink

The Titanic ship was one of the so called ‘unsinkable ships’ at that time in the history. The main reason of Titanic being sunk was an iceberg that damaged the ship and generated hole that caused the ship to sink quickly. Along with this, there were also various reasons that made the titanic sink as it was found that the material used in building the ship was not up-to-the standards. It is also identified that during the building of the Titanic ship, the designers had taken the decisions to use low-grade iron rivets with the steel plates (Marshall, 2012). The main reason behind this decision was to reduce the cost of the ship building. But, at the time of the collision, these low-grade iron rivets have ripped easily that created the reason for sinking the ship more quickly.

At the same time, the decision related to build the sixteen watertight compartments was also a reason for the sink. It is because in this decision, the designers did not follow proper research process in order to check the negative impact of these watertight compartments. From the crew member perspective, this decision was not so effective because in this decision, the designers did not use prescribed standards and quality that developed the cause of sunk in the ship (Wilson, 2011). Along with this, there are various factors that affected the decisions of stakeholders and caused the Titanic to sink so quickly. It is found that many of the experts believed that in the icy condition, the ship gained fast speed. In this, the Captain Smith also denied the iceberg warnings that were received (Chatterton, 2013).

At the same time, it is also found that one of the important reasons of the Titanic sink was related to the lack of technological equipment to see the iceberg from the ship. It is analyzed that at the Titanic ship, there were no binoculars to see the iceberg on the night of the collision. It also negatively affected the decision-making process of the captain Smith and reduced his ability to take corrective actions properly to prevent the sink in the ship (Withington, 2013). Along with this, it is also examined that most of the experts believe that at the night of collision, the steersman taken a wrong decision to turn the ship in order to save the ship from the iceberg accident. It is found that after identifying the iceberg, the captain was also command to turn the ship. But, the command was misinterpreted by the crew members as turn the ship turned right as compare to push the tiller hard to the left (Morris, 2011). It also led the ship towards the collision and created the Titanic disaster.

Ways to Prevent Disaster

The disaster of sinking of Titanic could have been possibly prevented or reduced if these measures were adopted at that time. From the crew members perspective, the decision maker could have used the double hull technology but, the Titanic’s manufacturers considered it an additional expense and built the ship with double bottom instead which do not resist the water flow inside the ship. The quality of steel plates used in the construction of ship could have been better as when actual holing of the ship caused, the steel plates may prevented the ship from sinking by providing a resistance to iceberg and not results in jamming of plates (Lord, 2012).

The Titanic contained watertight bulkheads which could have been fully sealed up to reduce the effect of flood occurred, but these bulkheads could not be sealed up to the top because too many compartments were flooded and water reached the top of bulkheads and they were designed only on the basis if only a small number of compartments get flooded. The titanic watertight bulkhead should have been designed in such a way that if large number of compartments got flooded, then also it works (Marshall, 2016). The captain of the ship ignored the numerous ice warnings, if the captain could have responded to the numerous ice warnings and slowed down the ship or completely stopped and started waited for daylight then the scenario was totally different. Instead Titanic was travelling at around 20 knots, close to its maximum speed (Torres, 2011).

From the individual perspective, there were very few lifeboats on the ship and it was one of the biggest tragedies. If there were more lifeboats than many lives could have been saved. Titanic was consisting of more than 2200 passengers and crew members and only 1200 people can be accommodated with the help of lifeboat (Compton, 2012). The wireless operators of Californian ship could have passed the message of ice warnings with more urgency so that Titanic came to know the actual havoc and stopped itself from moving forward.

There was no practical training imparted to crew members, as there were only 20 lifeboats and because of lack of training practices only 12 passenger per life boat were carried out instead of 40 passengers. If proper training was imparted then it will surely going to impact the outcome, saving more lives of people (Tibballs, 2012). The ship was not containing adequate tools and safety equipments as some of the officers on the ship do not have search light and binoculars and this result in only 37 seconds left, to react before the ship hits the iceberg. If there were more safety equipments, the crew members must got more time as every second was precious.

A competent leadership can save the lives of many people, but there was no competent leader in the ship. There was lack of coordination between people, process and technology. In case of titanic only technology was focused and no importance is being given to people and process and people and process were underestimated. If proper coordination will be there between people process and technology then the outcome will be different, saving more lives (Tarshis, 2011). There were no emergency approach and when the titanic hits the ice berg the crew members think nothing can be happened to titanic as it is unsinkable ship. So, they reacted late and many of the crew members were falling asleep after drunk. If the news of ship drowning was properly communicated then it results in saving of more lives, as many people on ship do not know that ship was drowning and after water reached in compartments, they got stuck in compartments losing their lives (Stare, 2010).

Conclusion

From the above discussion, it can be concluded that the incident of Titanic was a leading maritime disasters in the history. The Titanic disaster had various stakeholders including passengers, crew members, owner, engineers, architectures, and captain of the ship. In this, the wrong decision taken by Mr. Smith related to the speed of ship and lifeboats caused the disaster. At the same time, in order to take decisions, the crew members and captain were also not followed proper decision-making process, which also emerged as one of the biggest disasters in the history. At the same time, it can also be concluded that the use of low level and quality material in building the ship also caused a reason for the sink in the ship. In this, by arranging the enough lifeboats for the passenger and maintaining the ideal speed could be effective to prevent this disaster.

References

Boileau, R., Mak, L., and Lever, D. (2010). Avoiding the next Titanic: Are we ready for a major maritime incident in the Arctic?. Journal of Ocean Technology, 5(4), 1-12.

Chatterton, E. K. (2013). The Mercantile Marine. USA: BoD – Books on Demand.

Compton, N. (2012). Titanic on Trial. UK: A&C Black.

Frey, B. S., Savage, D. A., and Torgler, B. (2010). Interaction of natural survival instincts and internalized social norms exploring the Titanic and Lusitania disasters. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,107(11), 4862-4865.

Frey, B. S., Savage, D. A., and Torgler, B. (2011). Behavior under extreme conditions: The Titanic disaster. The Journal of Economic Perspectives,25(1), 209-221.

Lord, W. (2012). A Night to Remember. USA: Open Road Media.

Marshall, L. (2012). The Sinking of the Titanic and Great Sea Disasters. USA: Tales End Press.

Marshall, L. (2016). The Sinking of the Titanic and Great Sea Disasters: Thrilling Stories of Survivors with Photographs and Sketches. USA: Skyhorse Publishing, Inc.

Meiner, C. and Veel, K. (2012). The Cultural Life of Catastrophes and Crises. Germany: Walter de Gruyter.

Morris, B. (2011). Nightmare at Sea. USA: Trafford Publishing.

Neill, W. J. (2011). The Debasing of Myth: The Privatization of Titanic Memory in Designing the ‘Post-conflict’City. Journal of Urban Design, 16(1), 67-86.

Purchase, B. (2013). Navigating on the Titanic: Economic Growth, Energy, and the Failure of Governance. USA: McGill-Queen's Press – MQUP.

Robertson, M. (2012). The Wreck of the Titan. USA: Simon and Schuster.

Schröder-Hinrichs, J. U., Hollnagel, E., and Baldauf, M. (2012). From Titanic to Costa Concordia—a century of lessons not learned. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 11(2), 151-167.

Smith, J. and Rayment, J. (2012). MisLeadership: Prevalence, Causes and Consequences. UK: Gower Publishing, Ltd.

Stare, A. (2010). Comprehensive management of project changes. Economic and Business Review for Central and South-Eastern Europe, 12(3), 195.

Tarshis, L. (2011). Survived the Sinking of the Titanic, 1912 (I Survived #1). USA: Scholastic Inc.

Tibballs, G. (2012). Voices from the Titanic. UK: Hachette UK.

Torres, C. A. (2011). Dancing on the deck of the Titanic? Adult education, the nation-state and new social movements. International Review of Education, 57(1-2), 39-55.

Wilson, F. (2011). How to Survive the Titanic. USA: Harper Collins.

Withington, J. (2013). Disaster!: A History of Earthquakes, Floods, Plagues, and Other Catastrophes. USA: Skyhorse Publishing, Inc.

Xu, J. G., Zeng, B. F., Zhou, W., Kong, W. Q., Fu, Y. S., Zhao, B. Z., ... and Lian, X. F. (2011). Anterior Z-plate and titanic mesh fixation for acute burst thoracolumbar fracture. spine, 36(7), E498-E504.