Page 58: of Maritime Logistics Professional Magazine (Q3 2016)

57 59

RISK safely challenge a higher authority on the bridge. We have dard ships from their supply chain. Along the way, promises some subject matter experts within our Membership that deal Norman, “We are working to augment the human element to with crewing and others with training, so the links can often supplement the vetting process – in particular, with closer be directly demonstrated and discussed.” analysis of ‘the human factor’ in PSC de? ciencies, including

Stanzel’s position on vetting drills deeper than simple ‘suit- those associated with the MLC Convention.” In fact, the next ability’ of a vessel. “In my mind, ‘vetting’ always has some- evolution for Qi is to directly factor a crew matrix into the risk thing to do with suitability and one of the things we have done rating. Warwick adds, “Our analysis shows us that the crew is for nearly ten years is to establish model training and experi- an important factor, but to consider this in terms of experience ence requirements for tanker of? cers to ensure they are ‘suit- alone is an oversimpli? cation: it is the crew’s interaction with able’ to do the job safely. Many of our Member companies have events that is important. For example, if we look at a crew speci? c training schemes for their of? cers and sometimes crew (rather than a vessel) that regularly calls at a terminal, we can and we are currently revising and collating what we consider see a direct relationship to their ef? ciency at that terminal.” ‘best practice’ in that ? eld together with some of the charterers.” For Shell and Gaughan, it involves more than just looking for

And, she maintains that there are many ways to test for suit- mariners. “We have found that today’s seafarers are looking for ability. “Some types of training (like simulator work) may be much more than just ? nding a ship to sail on and then upgrade able to gauge the suitability at a certain level, but I would ar- their licenses. They all want a long term career. At Shell, we gue there is much more to it. I am also absolutely convinced have developed an Employee Value Proposition (EVP) to at- of the importance of going beyond pure ‘competency based tract the best and brightest and to offer them future possible ca- training’ as that tends to address speci? cally needed skills reer paths throughout the Shell Organization,” says Gaughan.

rather than the personal and professional development of the Separately, INTERTANKO’s aim is to address and mitigate individual. Most of our members work to enhanced training human factors and associated risks, not quantify them. “That standards, in particular for their of? cers and many have per- may be more something for the charterer’s liability lawyers or sonalized development plans for all their staff, addressing not P&I underwriters or the likes of RightShip trying to provide just required competencies.” Taking a step back, that sounds easy answers to complex combinations of factors. We are of very much like the Shell approach. course interested in whether tools like the crew matrix for ex- ample could be re-engineered with a goal based approach so

T V : O GHREE IEWS NE OAL they actually address the risks of concern directly. I believe at

When it comes to the effort to create a safer environment at the moment there is little actual evidence that the measures sea, INTERTANKO, RightShip and Shell are all on the page, in the matrix (time in rank and with the company) actually albeit approaching the same ideal in different ways; some- directly correlate to a risk of incidents.” times for different reasons. Whatever the underlying motivation, the goals remain the

RightShip and founder Warwick Norman aim to more pre- same. Safety, in its purest form, will always involve the hu- cisely de? ne risk and at the same time, help customers to man element. Measuring, mitigating, and managing risk. We manage marine risk by identifying and eliminating substan- all want the same thing. It’s only human.

RightShip 58 Maritime Logistics Professional 3Q 2016| | 50-63 Q3 MP2016.indd 58 8/17/2016 10:28:55 AM