Investigation Of Shipping Accident Severity - Causes & Consequences Essay.

Causes of Shipping Accidents

Discuss About The Investigation Of Shipping Accident Severity.

Charge over professional negligence – all the three officers; first mate, second mate and captain can be charged with professional neglect in a court of law. The manner in which the communication and delegation of duties were done was too casual and unprofessional. Also, incomplete work by the first and second mate could even accounting to gross professional negligence.

Also, they could be charged over reef grounding – the state government could also initiate a case against the destruction of the reef which is costly to construct. According to Weng, & Yang (2015) ship grounding is one of the fatal and expensive marine transportation accidents. The state government will, therefore, sue the shipping company alongside its management and the crew.

Spilling of oil on the ocean – this is perhaps the most catastrophic consequence and could call for the highest penalty. Despite the natural death of aquatic life due to oil spillage, White et al. (2012) note that oil spillage also affects the growth of corals. Oil spillage will also affect the health of the community who are using the sea water or even industries that draw water from the ocean for use.

Destruction of property and loss of life. Ship grounding on the seabed or waterway side may lead to the damage of the submerged part of the hull of the ship especially the bottom structure causing water ingression and consequently the compromise of the structural integrity, stability, and safety of the sheep. Less severe accidents may damage the hull, and in extreme cases, the breach may be hulled, cargo spills, complete destruction of the vessel, and at the end loss of life. The owner of the ship will as well lose revenue in addition to the loss of income by the employees.

Loss of public confidence (notional) in maritime transport of cargo. The public will no longer be confident of the safety of their cargo being transported by water.

Charge over professional negligence could lead to the withdrawal of their work licences and closure of the company owning the ship

Reef grounding could lead to overflowing of sea water which can result into flooding and loss of life and property

Oil spillage could lead to the death of aquatic life and deterioration of the health of the members of the surrounding community.

Destruction of property and loss of life. The ship may fatally be damaged and the cargo destroyed including the death of the people on board.

An event can formally be defined as the loss of control over the damaging properties of a threat (Viner, 2015). In the context of the case, the event is the point in time when control was lost over the possible detrimental act of not inserting the last navigation coordinates into the navigation computer.  The threat, in this case, is poor management. That is, the lack of proper delegation and follow-up of coordinates that was to guide the ship. Again, the aspect of undefined roles is as a result of poor management.  This is a kinetic energy source of threat (grounding) which leads to an unexpected negative consequence. The neglect and perhaps miscommunication among the two mates and the captain led to the undesired event. A simple statement for this event is: when the first mate forgot.

Consequences of Shipping Accidents

Ineffective procedure and process of delegation. The system of managing the ship is weak because it does not specify the tasks that can be delegated, to whom and at what time. For example, the second mate and the Captain plotted a course through which the ship was to be guided. Then they went ahead and entered all the coordinates into the navigation computer except for the last coordinates which were left for the first mate to key into the navigation computer, and he forgot leading to grounding.

Undefined roles. This is another possible mechanism for the event. Based on the observable casual delegation of duties, it is not clear which part should be done by whom and which ones should be delegated and by whom. This is a possible mechanism for the event because none is held accountable in case specific roles are not carried out efficiently. It also creates a sense of irresponsibility knowing that other officials will do what I have not done.

Fatigue can also be a possible mechanism for the event. From the scenario, it is like the second mate was overworked and as a result, he left the remaining coordinates to the first mate to enter them into the computer of which he forgot and the ship run ground. The second mate can at least be excused from the occurrence of the event because he had overworked for 38 hours without rest.Pre-conditions of an even are the circumstances and conditions of the facility, machinery, environment, and nature of work or organization that are a precursor to the occurrence of an event (Viner, 2015).  This mechanism is the ship being damaged by running ground. The mechanism of the grounding is that both the second mate and the captain ascertained all the navigation coordinates and entered them into the computer except the last ones which the second mate delegated to the first mate to key them in after the former had overworked without a break. The coordinates were to guide through a commonly used shortcut to the sea-lane. This apparently led the ship to run aground. Hence the pre-conditions include

Lack of management concern for the health and safety of its employees leading to overworking. The second mate went to rest after working for 38 hours without a break and he delegated his incomplete work of entering the last coordinates to the navigation computer to the first mate who forgot and the ship run ground. Thus, the lack of concern on the health and safety of the employee is a pre-condition to the mechanism.

Improper management structure of the ship. According to the roles played by the three crew members, it is clear that there are no defined roles for each of them hence the reason why both the captain and the second mate could ascertain and enter the navigation coordinates and then leave the first mate to key the last ones into the computer. The same second mate was previously in charge of de-docking, docking and loading. Thus, poor management structure can be attributed to the confusion in the roles of the crew.

Mechanisms of Shipping Accidents

Poor communication/coordination amongst the mates and the captain. There is evident of poor communication and coordination after the second mate and captain feeds the computer the coordinates and then the second mate leaves the last ones for the first mate to enter and forgets later on. This implies the crew are not coordinated and supervised leading to the neglect and hence grounding.

Low staffing levels. The fact that the second mate worked for a total of 38 hours without rest shows that the employees are overworked. Furthermore, the multiplicity of duties carried out by the second mate shows that the staffs in charge of the ship are fewer compared to the workload. This pre-condition leads to the mechanism where the second mate overworks and doesn’t delegate properly to the colleagues who already have duties to do.

The navigation coordinates were not entered and the ship run ground – the outcome of the event of forgetting to insert the last navigation coordinates into the navigation computer by the first mate made the ship to run ground.

Another one is that the navigation coordinates are not entered into the computer and the ship doesn’t run ground.

This refers to the character, style, and focus of the organization (Salmon, 2011). An organization character is usually set by the management and is observed by the other staff. This is determined by the style of management and the objective or focus of the organization.  The administration uses various control points under the organizational category to achieve their desired goal. These include management style/attitudes and capabilities, production pressures, and information communication. Production pressures are exerted on the staff by the management to ensure that the set production output is attained. The production pressures exist when the employees are assigned excessive workload and are expected to complete it within a short duration of time. These pressures at work are the sources of stress, burnout (Nahrgang, Morgeson, & Hofmann, 2011; Toker, & Biron, 2012) and a threat to patient safety leading to the possibility of errors and workarounds (Reason, 2016).

The attitudes and capabilities or the management styles are also significant because they can either serve to motivate or demotivate the employees. Leadership is significant to employees’ performance because it is the executive that directs guides and affects the conduct and work of the staff (Yukl, 2013; Malo?, 2012). Management styles include autocratic, democratic, and participative leadership styles. Different management styles have varying impacts on employee performance. A democratic approach is where decisions are made within groups, with equal regards to the input of each member (Gonos, & Gallo, 2013). The leader only approves the opinions or decisions of the team members (Bhatti et al., 2012). Participative leadership is where all team members are party to the identification of significant goals and developing strategies to their achievement (Randeree, & Ghaffar Chaudhry, 2012). The leader mainly functions as a guide or facilitator and doesn’t just issue orders or assign tasks (Miao et al., 2013). Participative leadership also allows for the nurture of leadership skills among the members from which can rise leaders to serve the organization in the future. It provides a platform where people can showcase their creativity, talent, and abilities. Autocratic leadership style is where the leaders issue orders and expect them to be executed immediately without dispute (Rast III, Hogg, & Giessner, 2013). The group is isolated from the development of plans and policies and instructions are issued without reasons or explanations. This type of leadership makes unrealistic demands to the workers, exerts excessive discipline and punishment, and doesn’t allow the staff to dispute instructions (Ojokuku, Odetayo, & Sajuyigbe, 2012).  It is most likely that the owners of the ship practice autocracy style of leadership. All of the control points mentioned above can only reach the team through communication or relaying of information through teaching or training. Activities such as skill development and personal protective gear are dependent on timely and relevant information. 

Pre-conditions of Shipping Accidents

Lastly, there are always risks attached to the management decisions and actions taken by employees. Thus the management uses the control point of risk control to set their priorities right about the best step to take that will minimize risks while maximizing returns.

Under time zone 1, the organization category can be viewed in three stages namely pre-conditions, mechanisms, and outcomes. i.e., before the event takes place. In the pre-conditions stage, various circumstances and conditions associated with the administration of the ship can be attributed to grounding. These include the various aspects of the organization regarding the staffing levels, organizational goals, and the type of work, workgroup, and the people. This stage shows the cause of the given outcomes. For instance, the grounding can be attributed to poor staffing level in which the crew that is managing the ship are overworked leading to grounding. Additionally, the type of work that the first mate was engaged in like supervising of de-docking and docking should have been done by another different staff not managing the ship.

Under the mechanisms stage of the Time Zone 1 in the Time Sequence Model, grounding can be attributed to the failure of standard controls. The shortcomings of these controls are unintentional and incidental. The mechanisms here are the uncontrolled active failures. The event, therefore, is the loss of control over the threat of ship damaging which is grounding. The ship grounding can be attributed to the failures of both the administration and the captain in exercising control over the management of the ship. Incompatibilities between production and health and safety of the crew are also evidenced by the study case.

In the outcomes stage of the Time Sequence Model, the process through which the threat reaches the level of damage takes a long time. The practice of casual delegation of duties and undefined roles amongst the team is a culture that has grown over time and is unchecked. There are no operating procedures for the defined roles and responsibilities of the crew. This is evidenced by the manner in which the second mate overworks on the supervision of de-docking, docking, loading and later on in the generation of navigation coordinates. The outcomes can also be attributed to lack of job planning, oversight, and leadership. The mistake of forgetting to enter the navigation coordinates by the first mate can also be due to poor job planning and supervision. Job planning helps in identifying the expected roles and adequate preparation for their execution. Also, if the first mate were supervised on time, the grave mistake of forgetting to key in the coordinates would have been avoided. Other outcomes under the Time sequence Model include the workload, shift patterns, work hours and levels of manning. The workload is not equally distributed amongst the mates and the captain leading to overworking of the second mate. The shift patterns and working hours are also not clear or are undefined because the second mate breaks for rest after 38 hours of non-stop working and resumes after two hours only. This makes some workers work for more extended hours than the rest. Furthermore, the manning levels do not show the defining boundary of the roles of the captain, the second and first mate.

1. The units of exposure for the risk of a wet floor are daily or as often as the cleaning is done. Also, the units of exposure will depend on the number of people crossing the wet floor.
2. The probability risk of a wet floor can be measured by the extent of injury caused to the staff or client. The degree of harm will vary depending on the body part injured. For example, someone may slip and fall on the floor and an arm is twisted while the other may break a leg. Both cases are injuries resulting from a wet floor but the level of their severity is different, that is the injuries can vary from minor to major. Thus the measure of the risk is the risk frequency with which slipping and falling over will occur.

A risk is defined by ISO 31000 as the uncertainty effect on objectives and Seffect is a deviation from the anticipated whether positive or negative (Purdy, 2010). It is a statement of the association between Frequency and Consequence value. The definition assumes that everybody lives in a world that is uncertain. Each time an objective or goal is sought for; there are chances of events not going as planned or projected. Each initiated and action is characteristic of a risk element which requires being managed, and also, every result is uncertain. Always it is the case that the results are not the exact ones initially expected. The outcomes come sometimes be positive or negative but seldom do the results turn out to be both. It is for this reason that the level of uncertainty in any undertaking should be reduced as much as possible. The lack of certainty or uncertainty is the condition or state that comprises a lack of information and results to insufficient or partial awareness or understanding. In risk management, uncertainty is deemed present when the understanding or information about an occurrence, consequence, or probability in insufficient or partial.

References

Bhatti, N., Maitlo, G.M., Shaikh, N., Hashmi, M.A. and Shaikh, F.M., 2012. The impact of autocratic and democratic leadership style on job satisfaction. International Business Research, 5(2), p.192.

Gonos, J. and Gallo, P., 2013. Model for leadership style evaluation. Management: journal of contemporary management issues, 18(2), pp.157-168.

Malo?, R., 2012. Leadership Styles. Annals of Eftimie Murgu University Resita, Fascicle II, Economic Studies.

Miao, Q., Newman, A., Schwarz, G. and Xu, L., 2013. Participative leadership and the organizational commitment of civil servants in China: the mediating effects of trust in supervisor. British Journal of Management, 24(S1).

Nahrgang, J.D., Morgeson, F.P. and Hofmann, D.A., 2011. Safety at work: a meta-analytic investigation of the link between job demands, job resources, burnout, engagement, and safety outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(1), p.71.

Ojokuku, R.M., Odetayo, T.A. and Sajuyigbe, A.S., 2012. Impact of leadership style on organizational performance: a case study of Nigerian banks. American Journal of Business and Management, 1(4), pp.202-207.

Purdy, G., 2010. ISO 31000: 2009—setting a new standard for risk management. Risk analysis, 30(6), pp.881-886.

Randeree, K. and Ghaffar Chaudhry, A., 2012. Leadership–style, satisfaction and commitment: An exploration in the United Arab Emirates' construction sector. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 19(1), pp.61-85.

Rast III, D.E., Hogg, M.A. and Giessner, S.R., 2013. Self-uncertainty and support for autocratic leadership. Self and Identity, 12(6), pp.635-649.

Reason, J., 2016. Managing the risks of organizational accidents. Routledge.

Salmon, P.M., 2011. Human factors methods and accident analysis: practical guidance and case study applications. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd..

Toker, S. and Biron, M., 2012. Job burnout and depression: Unraveling their temporal relationship and considering the role of physical activity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(3), p.699.

Viner, M.D., 2015. Occupational risk control: predicting and preventing the unwanted. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.

Weng, J. and Yang, D., 2015. Investigation of shipping accident injury severity and mortality. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 76, pp.92-101.

White, H.K., Hsing, P.Y., Cho, W., Shank, T.M., Cordes, E.E., Quattrini, A.M., Nelson, R.K., Camilli, R., Demopoulos, A.W., German, C.R. and Brooks, J.M., 2012. Impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on a deep-water coral community in the Gulf of Mexico. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(50), pp.20303-20308.

Yukl, G.A., 2013. Leadership in organizations. Pearson Education India.