Page 71: of Maritime Reporter Magazine (June 2011)

to retain competent seafarers often results in transient, disinterested mariners wholook to serve their time, but not necessar- ily buy into a quality scheme. When the auditors are brought in, a process-basedsystem requires total commitment fromeach link in chain starting with the sea-man up the Captain and on to the C-level shipping executive and on to the Flag State level. Further, it requires the com- mitment from charterers, customers, P&IClubs, PSC (Port State Control), suppli-ers and so on. This combined commit- ment can only come with a stableworkforce that regularly returns to the same company or ship. The industry therefore, may as a RCA (Root CauseAnalysis) of many of its problems, find that retaining seafarers may actually be the one remedy that brings across-the-board commitment ? and therefore, Qual-ity itself.SELF AUDITS: EMPOWERING THE WORKFORCE Auditing should not take the place of self and supervisory monitoring. Moni-toring necessarily involves the people who perform and supervise the work ? particularly the DP, CSO, Superintendent and so forth ? and it is they who should be (first) observing how well their processes are fulfilling objectives. Audi- tors used as a single source of manage-ment quality input are inefficient and indicative of system failure. Eventually, the first set of NCs coming from internal sources will remove the fear of audits. Internal process monitoring should re-sult in rapid improvements that build a culture that further helps employees to determine and meet the process require-ments. Where organizations lack the cul- ture of the system approach, individuals are typically blamed for any and all fail- ures. Eventually, these individuals fall back and rely solely on the occasionalvisit 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 specifies at least one annual internal audit. The spirit of the change revolves around the premise that the audit would not be the only means of monitoring, hadthe spirit of clause 12.2 of the code hadbeen implemented with enthusiasm. Fur- ther, if the results (clause 12.5) of the au- dits are required to be brought to thenotice of all, it would involve every mem- ber of the team. In all this, the company is trying to meet the objectives as re- quired by clause 1.2.1. The feedback of facts and problems must flow and the system must use it as input to improve the system continually. The company must involve the em- ployees by ensuring that the system en- courages self monitoring and employee suggestions. Management reviews are therefore an integral part of the system and the outcomes are to be shared widely. Further customer feedback, as well asthat received from other stakeholders should also be presented for managementreview. Non-conforming products and audit reports should be considered as as-sets to spur improvement. FEAR OR CONTEMPT OF AUDITS = A DYSFUNCTIONAL SYSTEM The very first indication of a dysfunc- tional quality system chain is the under- current fear of audits. Beyond this, sole dependence on auditors to improve or fix the system is a major flaw on many mer- .,1*2)7+(6($6 81,3803'HSHQGDEOHGXUDEOHDQGXQFRPSURPLVLQJZLWKZKDWHYHULWKDVWRSXPSHYHQXQGHUWKHWRXJKHVWFRQGLWLRQV,WEHKDYHVOLNHDWUXHNLQJRQERDUGVKLS81,3803WKHZDVWHZDWHUEORFNSXPSIRUDOOVHDVRQV -++RIIPDQQ*PE+ &R.*_/LWWDX_+HUERUQ*HUPDQ\7HOHSKRQH_)D[ (0DLOLQIR#KHUERUQHUSXPSHQGH_ZZZKHUERUQHUSXPSHQGH June 2011www.marinelink.com 67