INTRODUCTION
In my experience, Mariners have never been fond of audits! Worst
the companies that run the ships have often victimized honest Master’s if
during their tenure too many Non Conformities (NC) are reported, even if they
relate to resources! The only bad NC is
the one the organization does not know about, and yet the organizations do not
want to know!
A NC, comes from an audit and therefore the audit is an unwanted
intrusion into the working of the vessel and the company, and now with the
VIMSAS (Voluntary IMO Member State Audit Scheme) audits the Flag States have
started disliking audits or at the best accepting them as a necessary evil! NC drives Correction and Corrective Action
(CA) and the Preventive Action (PA) is data driven. Wisdom says therefore
audits should be welcome, and yet audits are feared.
Even the camaraderie on board a vessel is affected adversely as by
the term “audit”- because the truth could be an utterance which gets their colleagues
in trouble, or an audit may discover or uncover they are doing something
“wrong”. The blame culture in the merchant ships is a reality. Something goes
wrong- you blame someone! Why, the P & I clubs may not pay, if blame is not
attributable to an individual. The
entire system encourages the blame culture. In this article I want to initiate
a discussion wherein the maritime industry shies away from the blame culture
and meets the objectives of the ISM and ISPS Codes in operating vessels safely,
securely and meeting the environmental requirements. Companies should be lead
by Flag States to not ask “who” when things go wrong, but instead lead their
inquiries to “why” and “how” of the system failures. Individual failures are a
consequence of the system failing to select correct individuals for a job!
TOP MANAGEMENT COMMITMENT
Quality is the responsibility of each individual. Having said that,
we should ideally never pass responsibility down the chain of the management to
ships and the crews who man them. We may pass authority bundled with resources.
Top Management at each level must take responsibility for the system
performance. Continual improvement has to be the underlining current. Starting
with the IMO to Flag State to the Company and the ship each must be a
stakeholder in the system working. Lack of care and coordination by the Top
Management (TM) is roughly 90% responsible for establishing an environment of fear
for audits. By using the system and being participants in it at each
level the system operators will use and improve their system, ensuring everyone
understands that identifying opportunities for improvement (recognizing problems/
NC) will never be met with harshness or punishment; on the contrary, they will
be valued. Through this development of the system, a confidence emerges
that the system will allow its people to produce outcomes, which meet
requirements. The system will enable sailing ships of all kinds with the numerous
cargoes across the globe fulfilling the demands of the economy in a safe,
secure, socially responsible manner ensuring and protecting the environment.
It is the mature participatory involved confidence of the TM in
itself and those who lead the various maritime procedures and processes, which
will alleviate much of the fear and apprehension, associated with audits.
TM have to commit themselves and lead by accepting that audits are a vital
input to be valued for what it is: an
independent look at the system to confirm how well it allows its users to meet
requirements. TM as improvement opportunities identified during
day-to-day work should then welcome any findings.
The other 10% of the solution resides with the Auditor/Audit
Team. A well-trained auditor understands that their role (as mentioned
above) is to look for evidence of system conformity. Not of NC! Many a
maritime auditor is not qualified and or has not imbibed the doctrine by
correct training wherein the auditor should seek conformity and not go on board
with the aim of somehow finding a NC. Where the system does not appear to meet
requirements, the auditor must serve the audit client by providing detailed,
objective evidence explaining why not. Maintaining this integrity gives
the Auditees no reason to feel defensive or that they have any reason to fear
this valuable interaction. TMs must demand qualified auditors to perform
audits.
SOME REASONS FOR TM’s LACK OF COMMITMENT
As, to an extent, mentioned above, the poor quality of maritime
auditors is one of the reasons for a lack of TM commitment. A large force of
the maritime industries auditors comes from mariners. They merely, because they
are mariners and understand the environment and the industry become auditors.
Like any profession, auditing has its own concepts and training. It is a
science mixed with an art. It requires ethics and maturity wherein the audits
are performed to meet the objective not an ulterior objective. This can be a
challenge considering the global nature of the industry. Maritime Quality
experts have not created the opportunities to assist their leaders in
appreciating how the bottom line is positively affected by addressing NCs and
better still predicting potential NCs and changing processes before a NC
occurs. A process based system, as required by both the ISM and ISPS Code (as
also the ISO 28000 standard), basically based on the ISO 9001, will ensure the
system does not even wait for audits to recognize NCs. Too many of the TM would
rather delegate their responsibility for ensuring quality instead of the
authority to make it work. The TM commitment cannot be championed by anyone
except the TM. It is the TM who have to walk the talk and lead the employees in
developing and using the system. When have we had a company or a Flag State
actually declare the state of the safety and security implementation to the
employees, customers and other stakeholders and how they plan to improve it?
It is only when the maritime professionals commit themselves and
use the process based management system to implement policy and the
(measurable) objectives in the organization by ensuring the interactions as
required by the ISM Code will the cross functional teams use the resources to
best advantage.
Management systems are instinctively
understood and respected by organizational leaders when they show how the core
process converts the needs of customers into cash in the bank, while the
support processes sustain the core process. Leaders can then explain the
obligations and benefits of their system to the employees.
SELECTION, INVOLVEMENT AND RETENTION OF MARITIME MANPOWER
Another issue that the maritime industry has is the shifting and
uncertain man-power situation. Companies are never able to retain those who
serve at sea, these results in often, non-committed mariners, who come on board
to do their tenure and not use the system. They are individuals only committed
to themselves! So the companies are committed to themselves! The plot thickens
when auditors are brought in. Teamwork using a process based system requires
total commitment from each link in chain starting with the seaman to the
Captain and on to the TM at company and Flag State level. Further, it requires
the commitment from charterers, customers, P&I Clubs, PSC (Port State Control),
supplier and so on. There is an element of social responsibility too involved.
This combined commitment can only come with stable man-power. The industry
therefore, may as a RCA (Root Cause Analysis) of many of its problems, find
that retaining stable work force at sea may be one remedy to bring in
commitment. Then and only then can each member of the team be held responsible
including the TM, for delivering the desired results, meeting the objectives
and improving efficiency.
Auditing should not substitute self and supervisor monitoring. When
auditors are the only eyes for the management it is an inefficient state and
indicative of the system failure. The Master at sea, the managers in the
shipping companies office- particularly the DP, CSO, Superintendent and so on
and those responsible for these duties at the Flag State level should all be
supervising and be the first set of eyes. Monitoring should involve the people who do the work and supervise the
work and it is they who should be observing how well their processes are
fulfilling their objectives. The first set of NCs coming from internal sources
will remove the fear of audits. Monitoring is therefore essential for quickly
correcting processes that deviate beyond their normal range. Process monitoring
should result in fast improvements so the system helps employees even more to
determine and meet the process requirements. It is organizations which lack the
culture of the system approach who blame individuals for all their flaws and
faults and then rely on the occasional visit by their auditor. Is it any
surprise that this visit is feared!
INVOLVING THE TEAM: AT SEA AND ASHORE
Clause 12.1 of the ISM Code 2010 now necessitates at least an
annual internal audit. It had to be rubbed in, why? The audit would not be the
only means, if the spirit of clause 12.2 of the code had been implemented with
enthusiasm, to evaluate the
effectiveness of the system. Further if the results (clause 12.5) of the audits
are required to be brought to the notice of all, it would invove every member
of the team. In all this the company is trying to meet the objectives as
required by clause 1.2.1. The feedback of facts and problems must flow and the
system must use it as an input to improve the system continually.
The company must involve the employees by ensuring the system
encourages self monitoring and employee suggestions, the management reviews are
an integral part of the system and the results/ outcomes shared widely. Further
customer feedback, as also feedback from other stakeholders must be an input to
the management review. Nonconforming products and audit reports should be
considered as an input to improve the system
FEAR OF AUDITS INDICATES A DYSFUNCTIONAL SYSTEM
The very first indication to management of a dysfunctional chain
is the undercurrent fear of audits in the system chain of management! Further systems that need and totally rely on
auditors to be effective are dysfunctional. The system is the responsibility of
TM. They need to know how well the system is helping them and their employees
to determine and fulfill objectives and other requirements. By demanding that
auditors supplement the flow of information from their system they are
short-circuiting, this vital process and consequently weakening their systems. Dependence
on auditors to improve the system is a major flaw in the mercantile marine,
which because of the main asset, the ship, often operating far from their
physical location becomes the only means of assessment. This it should not be.
The Master and his crew should be encouraged to be the main eyes and
supervisors of the management. How to bring them on board should really be the
commitment of the TM. Suggestions and dependency on auditors is the starting
point of the fear culture and a false measure of efficiency.
Auditors add value by
examining evidence of how well the system is helping its users to predict
potential NC y analyzing data and getting useful information from it. This
information should provide the trends and analysis to make decisions on
resources and measures to improve efficiency and cut loss before it occurs. Auditors
add value by reporting NCs objectively, based on actual requirements and
supported by the evidence observed. That should be the only expectation from a
good auditor: a well defined objective NC.
EXPECTATIONS FROM & THE ROLE OF FLAG STATES
Flag State Administrations
and Registered Organizations (RO) as also Registered Security Organizations
(RSO) should support the auditing system by not getting into conflicts of
interest. When for example an RO represents the Flag State for certifications,
and chooses to be the consultant and trainer, a compromise on fruitfulness and
objectivity of the audit comes in. Independence of the auditing institution
must be a commitment of every stakeholder in the maritime industry. It will
prevent ENRON like situations
CONCLUSION
Audits to any of the codes
are carried out by mature auditors to confirm the system is working as desired.
The objective is not to somehow find a NC! Once a NC is discovered, it should
be respected as the starting point to initiate the CA process and therefore
should be welcomed. Independence of the auditors is as essential as the total
commitment of the TM to the process based management approach to implementation
of the ISM, ISPS Codes and other relevant standards as ISO 28000 for the
mercantile marine to remain viable prevent loss and prevention.
No comments:
Post a Comment