The Value of a Correctly Implemented Management System

All shore managements and those at sea should already know: the value of a correctly implemented process-based management system (the ISM Code, read in conjunction with ISO 9001:2008). The implementation of the SMS, though, should not be to prevent detention. It should be, or could be, one of the consequences/benefits of a good system.

However, the system should have a more honest, larger purpose where it welcomes deficiencies or nonconformities (NCs) to enable management, both at sea and ashore, to fulfill their obligations under the ISM Code clause 9. Correction of NCs followed by root cause analysis does not end the cycle. The NCs in the arsenal of the management should be systematically monitored to create a database from which information is produced, fulfilling the expectations of Clause 4 of the code embodied in the responsibilities of the designated person as a link between the shore and ship. This should be analyzed to predict potential NCs and trends, and will produce safer ships, cleaner seas and result in “cash in the bank” for owners and operators. It will also enable the master to fulfill his responsibilities in a more correct manner under Clause 5.

'Cracking the code' to prevent detention, is counter-productive to the expectation of both the code and the system approach. It encourages ‘hoodwinking’ the Port State Control (PSC) and USCG etc. If management takes that path, true safety cannot be achieved. PSCs are stakeholders in safety at sea. They can highlight a disaster about to happen.What would management prefer: a catastrophe or a detention? Which is the less expensive? The Master and crew are often accused on not being committed to safety - this is most uncalled for! If the master does not perform or does not conduct himself professionally or according to expectations, whose fault is that? The management picks the crews, so the hiring procedure needs to be targeted. Those at sea perform to the best of their abilities, as per the selection criteria that the management used. The answer, again, is a better management system.

A system should be created that welcomes NCs. The only bad NC is the one we do not know about.A detention is an NC that has saved an organization from a likely catastrophe. Yes, detentions are expensive, hence the need to create a SMS that ensures NCs are detected internally, well in time, so management can take corrective action before or soon after their occurrence. To do that after each mishap the management should not jump to the ‘check’ stage of the Plan-Do-Check- Act cycle. They should instead go back to the ‘act’ stage and carry out better management reviews leading to better planning followed by correct implementation of the system. A system approach, correctly implemented, will lead to a system that will work, and when the system works one of the many benefits will be no detentions, or only rare detentions.

The ISM Code is the basis for such a system. An investment in a well-designed system and implementation along with active participation by the management will ensure requirements are met, and hence no detentions. Let us not prepare for audits and detentions and PSCs and soon. The principle is incorrect. Let us, as parties interested in safety at sea, create systems that function.