Modern Management or the Command System?

Professional Mariner Forum
41

[QUOTE=seadawg;15054]Allwyn,

Sir…I am surprised anyone bothered to respond to your babble…it is far from worthy of comment!![/QUOTE]

As the forum moderator I won’t jump into this discussion with my opinion (as much as I’d love to!).

I, however, simply can’t resist giving opinion on one comment I view as misguided… but it’s not Allwyn’s, it’s seadawg’s.

Seadawg, I can see your point and I initially agreed with you but… the fact is I have learned a lot from this discussion. While some comments on this thread are from left field, it’s this kind of out-of-the-box thinking discussed by our fellow mariners that is of real value to the industry as a whole.

Allwyn, whether or not your idea has merit, this discussion certainly does and I appreciate your provocation as it gives us an opportunity to discuss new ideas. I only wish every vessel manager had the guts to run their ideas past a forum of professional mariners before taking action.

42

Good point John but I think Allwyn’s profile says it all…

43

lol.

You’re not right.

44

[I]Allwyn, whether or not your idea has merit, this discussion certainly does and I appreciate your provocation as it gives us an opportunity to discuss new ideas. I only wish every vessel manager had the guts to run their ideas past a forum of professional mariners before taking action.

[/I]John, appreciate the leg up. I raised this issue here precisely the reason you mention, because it is dominated by lots of extremely professional Mariners who gather here to primarily share and exchange ideas.

One of the big handicaps we face is trying to manage and bring in improvements based on management systems that do not change the nature of onboard relationships or Shore-Ship. This is a difficult task and i shall bring up some examples later to illustrate this. Changing mindsets rooted in status quo is a challenge when we endeavour to bring in any change. This is one reason that the shipping Industry lags far behind it’s shore based counterparts and sea farers get a raw deal. Ultimately the onus of savings in the trade is translated/ shifted to longer working hours, strained and tense work loads on crew.

Changes in management structures that will bring in new Technology and improvements while enhancing safety on board and maintaining costs is a big challenge. This is beyond the scope of Marine Engineers or Masters to accomplish individually. Even getting ship saff to implement the ISM code has been no small deal. Without the active participations of PSCs and the damocless’ sword of heavy fines, no management on the planet would be enforcing it with vigor. The mechanics would not work out.

I am trying here to approach that there might be solution and it just might be quite simple though not so simplistic. Thats why i broached focus on core competencies involved in the operational trade. Rennaissance did not occur by making and maintaining the Church sacrosanct. No leadership can be unquestionable. No leadership can claim a monopolistic position forever, specially in the 21st century based on religious piety or tradition. The Industry is beyond that piety, beyond the tradition.

45

[I]Allwyn have you talked to any engineers that want to take on the day to day running of a ship along with running the engin room? [/I]
<!-- / message --> <!-- controls --> [I]

[/I]Jem, if you are referring to provision management, accounts, accommodation housekeeping, presentation of documents to CG/ Immigration etc frankly no. Neither i think Chiefs would be interested in this stuff. IMHO the Captain also should not be doing this. This is clerical stuff. Most company procedures manuals lay out quite clearly what is expected in daily running of ships. Any executive position should expect to be competent to macromanage and not micro manage such tasks delegated to someone.

[I]Allwyn, out of curiosity, where are your vessels flagged? [/I]

Sean, mixed, FOC, Singapore.

46

[I]Your firm is hiring deck officers that have completed the minimum STCW requirements to obtain a license in their flag state, but hire engineers from 4 year institutions - true? Does this reflect a cost savings for your firm? Does it present a source of contention between the folks that have invested 4 plus years in their education and the folks that did the STCW in 6 months - or less? Do you pay the entry level engineer the same as an entry level deck officer? Are they actually able to communicate or do they “meet” the standard for English as a second language?

[/I]We’re not exactly headhunting on college campuses that churn out BS Engineers and look out for Deck Officers without a degree. As i mentioned earlier we do have a multinational set up. Within that set up we do have a large percentage of Engineers who have a BS in Marine Engineering or have done a BS in Mechanical or Electrical with further 9 months specialization in Marine subjects. They join as Junior Engineers.

Most Deck Officers in our Company have started as Cadets after high school and finish requisite time to appear for 3rd mates. The 3rd Mate (entr level Deck Officer) earns more than the J/E (entry level Engineer). J/Es translate to 4/Es after time and clearing a Class 4 examination. The 3rd Mate and 4/E salaries are equivalent, like 2/M and 3/E. Or the 1/M and 2/E. 2/E =1st Engineer in nomenclature expressed differently across the spectrum. The C/E and Master have equivalent salaries again.

Yes all are able to communicate in English. That is mandatory.
[I]
It sounds as if you are a proponent of management by committee - something that I abhor.[/I]

I nowhere mentioned i am proposing that. I don’t want things managed by some sort of consensus management. If you’re translating my statement on increased transparency, then you did not get me right.

[I]Your example of trouble shooting a crane is not an emergency - it is the job of the engineering department.[/I]

I just gave an example. Did i mention it is an emergency? Do you really think it is the Chief Engineers job to be able to troubleshoot every thing in every different crane model? From what i gather you don’t think that the Master could contribute anything to the vessel getting delayed in this case. The Company is bothered MOST primarily about the commercial aspect. BECAUSE Safety hit’s out at Company bottomlines by law, it is the reason why Company’s invest in it today. The Master is not going to display even in your instance (fire on the crane), any higher specialized fire fighting skills than that a C/E or Mate (all do the same AFF course) is going display under the circumstances. Instead of directly doing the firefighting, he going to be reporting the circumstances to appropriate authorities for info/ support etc on numbers listed above the Inmarsat terminal on the basis of information being supplied if needed and going through established checklists to confirm if FF procedures are going smooth. He is assigned that role because of his executive position and not necessarily superior fire fighting abilities.

[I]This is all about Incident COMMAND and span of control - not management by committee.[/I]

No dispute there. The Master plays out an executive role. That role is [I]given[/I] to him.
[I]
or for that matter fix your crane! [/I]

I just realized you could’nt fix it, the way you claimed you could. The problem in our instance could not be fixed despite 3 days of non-stop work. Do you think the tools available for troubleshooting are universally mandatory and available on board or for that matter ships function on ultimate redundancy? The last thing anyone hiring is comforable with is bravado.

However i do wish you the very best in your quest as a mariner. There is a learning curve, and it is painful at times.

47

From my point of view I see a case of self-fulfilling prophecy, from the point of view of engineering centric management the captain is little more then a glorified second mate who pompously demands full authority over all vessel operations. If management believes that captain’s main role is to navigate in a world where navigation has become a simple manner of steering towards a waypoint which has been entered into a GPS then the bar for hiring captains if probably very low. For example it was mentioned that captains don’t understand how the cargo equipment work, something that should have been learned long before stepping into a captain’s job.

It is my view that in many cases many members of the engine dept fail to appreciate what deck officers do. Consider two young officers fresh out of school with equal intelligence, ambitions and so on joining for the first time, on as third engineer and one as third mate. The third eng goes to the engine room and begins the process of leaning a very complex engineering plant which will take years to master. And the third mate does, nothing, or next to nothing, he is given a radio some instructions to read and is left with a vague understanding that he is to make rounds and keep an eye on things. In other words lean on the rail and bs with the AB on watch. Seen another way however the young mate on watch has taken responsibility for the entire ship and in some case technicality in charge of everyone on board with the exception of the captain and chief mate. Of course no one in the engine department accepts the view that a raw third mate is in charge of the ship so thus be[I]gins the education of a deck officer.

When the ship gets underway the third engineer is allowed to do nothing without close supervision, meanwhile the third mate is sent to the stern and put in charge of the after mooring operations. What does that entail? From the point of view of the eng dept the third mate stands around with a radio and relays orders from the bridge to the crew [/I][I]so called rope chockers or deck apes. [/I][I]which then responds by either pushing or pulling on various ropes.

Seen another way however the third mate is now part of a team which consist of three vessels (the ship and two tug) each with its own crew which must pull the ship off the dock in restrcited waters get swung around and started down the channel. An operation whcih has tripped tugs and drown and kileed crews. A good crew makes it look easy but the fact that sometimes something rips loose and kills or injures someone and sometimes it does not is not simply a matter of luck.

Once the ship is at sea the third engineer is given responsibly for the incinerator and so forth while the third mate is put in charge of the navigation watch, which consist of what? Following the big arrow on the gps or something more? Something which can not be seen by someone who does not know what they are looking for?
[/I]

1 Like
48

Are you a lawyer? If not, you should be. You are very good at twisting and spinning words to change their meaning and suit your needs.

Your next post will ask me to give examples. Just read the whole thread. That’s your example.

I think Capt. Fran hit the nail on the head. This is a power thing for you…and a lot of engineers. It’s a classic debate: if the engineer doesn’t maintain the machinery, the ship can’t perform and therefor doesn’t need a captain; if the master doesn’t navigate, communicate and otherwise manage the ship, the machinery doesn’t matter, thereby obviating the need for an engineer.

I say again, sombody has to be in command. Not a dictatorship, but in a position of authority with the abillity to make a critical decision in a critical situation. If you don’t have that ability, you shouldn’t be a master. If you can’t keep machinery operational you shouldn’t be an engineer.

This whole thing is a power play. Your company obviously has captains that won’t bend to the corporate objective (doing things as cheaply and as rapidly as possible) and engineers that you think will.

You want engineers to run the show? Let’s have mechanics tell pilots where to cut a line of squalls or whether to divert because of a mechanical discrepancy. After all, they keep the thing in good repair (supposedly). They should have a say, too.

And what’s your point about the number of stripes on your shoulder boards? Another symbol of authority? Does the number of stripes equal the amount of power and authority one wields?

You must have had a bad experience or two with captains in the past. And I am almost certain there are a multitude of captains that had bad experiences with you. It’s good you’re on the beach now. Let mariners, whether deck or engine room, do their jobs.

Nemo

49

[I]Seen another way however the third mate is now part of a team which consist of three vessels (the ship and two tug) each with its own crew which must pull the ship off the dock in restrcited waters get swung around and started down the channel. An operation whcih has tripped tugs and drown and kileed crews. A good crew makes it look easy but the fact that sometimes something rips loose and kills or injures someone and sometimes it does not is not simply a matter of luck. [/I]

I have personally managed spring and breast lines amongst tugs, floating docks and the ship several times without the presence and help of master, mates or deck officers, because none were present. I understand and appreciate hazards involved in pulling and straining ropes. While they require good situational awareness, they by no means require high technical skillsets. Implies a person who’s done even very basic school and posseses high situational awareness, can carry out such tasks as competently as someone who posseses a Masters in some field of Strength of Materials. So without altering the risk factor anything, i can conveniently put a much lesser qualified, but situationally aware person also in charge of actual operations as far as rope handling goes.
[I]
It is my view that in many cases many members of the engine dept fail to appreciate what deck officers do.[/I]

What about vice versa? Did you see the dredging site posted earlier and the apartheid legacy of shipping? Engineers do tend to be more humble, circumspect by education. Your point of view does not hold on this thread. The only person from the Engine dept i know who commented here (Electro, post 2 or 3) supported your dept albeit in a general way.
[I]
Seen another way however the young mate on watch has taken responsibility for the entire ship and in some case technicality in charge of everyone on board with the exception of the captain and chief mate. Of course no one in the engine department accepts the view that a raw third mate is in charge of the ship so thus be[/I][I]gins the education of a deck officer.[/I]

What makes you leave out Captain and the Mate? If the third mate is on watch he is in charge of everyone on board. Same logic. Gregory Cousins got punished more than the Captain remember? The Master got back his license too. Why single out the Engine dept? Don’t take more on to yourself than is necessary.

By the way we have cadets in he company. I have a crew list …one’s joined just 15 days ago. 1991 born, first time on a ship. The crew list in front of me prepared by Master shows the Chain of Command…

Master, Chief Mate, 2nd Mate, 3rd Mate, Cadet, Chief Engineer…

Thats if the first 4 cop it, the 15 day old Cadet takes over the ship. Technically yes. Correct.

[I]Once the ship is at sea the third engineer is given responsibly for the incinerator and so forth while the third mate is put in charge of the navigation watch, which consist of what? Following the big arrow on the gps or something more? Something which can not be seen by someone who does not know what they are looking for?[/I]

Ok so operating and interpreting GPS equipment is complicated? I don’t get your point.

50

[I]I think Capt. Fran hit the nail on the head. This is a power thing for you…and a lot of engineers.

[/I]I asked this before, even if it is. What then? Do you think the Master community will cede legally endorsed power of executive authority easily? Nobody has done that in history willingly. However if the Ship owner community can be convinced otherwise, there is a distinct possibility that traditional status quo structures prevalent in shipping might undergo a change.

[I]Your company obviously has captains that won’t bend to the corporate objective (doing things as cheaply and as rapidly as possible) and engineers that you think will.[/I]

[I]You want engineers to run the show? Let’s have mechanics tell pilots where to cut a line of squalls or whether to divert because of a mechanical discrepancy.[/I]

If you read through Company finance sheets, you’ll realize that apart from the inadvertant and rare occassion of bumping the vessel here or there, frankly Masters personally don’t usually soil the balance sheet. That comes out of , machinery spares, stores, normal salaries, (pollution related fines…scary), insurance and stuff. Just a month or 2 back, i tracked a ship and found that a cat 4 TS was heading down south Barrier Reef on it’s way. Sent a message to Master on what he intended to do to avoid this. He’d done a cursory calculation and assumed and insisted it would’nt be on his path. On the net, i had accurate data, and requested him to divert well away. He did heed my request, and as it turned out the storm turned Cat 5…Hamish would have met the ship bang on. Timelines got delayed, but this does not prevent us from spending a bit on safety too and assisting Master in his role. You’re way off mark i can assure ou on your above statement.

[I]And what’s your point about the number of stripes on your shoulder boards? Another symbol of authority? Does the number of stripes equal the amount of power and authority one wields?[/I]

Power and authority alone have never guaranteed good governance or management anywhere on this planet in History. Power and authority are important, and like you mention, “someone must be in Command’. I’d say " someone must be in control” for sure. No questions there. However who do you give the “power and authority”?

If we have a system where we are unable to extract change with the times, it does become a burden and dictatorship of sorts. Without saying that ships should be democracies, i do venture that ‘Authority’ sructures/ managements can be pulled down in shore companies, democratic Governments and supplemented. Not in absolute command regimes. Like the ones run in the Middle East. Seems a bit like failing Islamic states fighting terrorism demanding more religion to fight terror…does’nt work. There’s much more to the shipping industry than maintaining under law ‘Navigators only for command’. With management changes only do better technological inputs and savings surface. Status quo rigid management structures whilst good for sometime tend to wear off in effectiveness.

51

[I]You must have had a bad experience or two with captains in the past. And I am almost certain there are a multitude of captains that had bad experiences with you. It’s good you’re on the beach now. Let mariners, whether deck or engine room, do their jobs.

[/I]Captain, i am one of those who gives the maximin backing you can imagine to Captains. I’m known to be tough on Chiefs and Engineers. And no, i’m presently not exactly on the beach. Conducting an internal audit on board. [I][/I][I]:slight_smile:
[/I]

52

[I]You must have had a bad experience or two with captains in the past. And I am almost certain there are a multitude of captains that had bad experiences with you. It’s good you’re on the beach now. Let mariners, whether deck or engine room, do their jobs.[/I]

But the fact is most indications and historical records show clearly that the apartheid was followed and implemented by the Deck department. Was’nt a link provided here itself? Surprising thing is why have these suspicions and distrust not been broken in more than 100 years since Engineers entered shipping? The deck department has held the absolute power all along. But you want to fault Engineers? You have had everything you could have professionally asked for.

53

I think most Chiefs are too smart to want the headaches that go with command.

Anyone that’s sailed awhile and gotten any good at it knows it takes the whole crew to get the job done.

54

Allwyn have you talked to any engineers that want to take on the day to day running of a ship along with running the engin room?
<!-- / message –> <!-- controls –> [I]

[/I]Jem, if you are referring to provision management, accounts, accommodation housekeeping, presentation of documents to CG/ Immigration etc frankly no. Neither i think Chiefs would be interested in this stuff. IMHO the Captain also should not be doing this. This is clerical stuff. Most company procedures manuals lay out quite clearly what is expected in daily running of ships. Any executive position should expect to be competent to macromanage and not micro manage such tasks delegated to someone.
No were in the above did I even inference that any officer should be micromanaging, but I knew that’s were you would take it. The whole reason that an engine dept was put on board was because it was becoming to much for the Master to keep up with. Now you essentially what to go backwards and saddle a guy with enough responsibility already with even more responsibility that was deemed to much for one guy.

Maybe this is were my experience from just running small boats in the oil fields, but who’s job is it to makes sure all this clerical stuff is done at the end of the day?

Who’s job is it if it isn’t the captains to make sure that all the T’s have been crossed and the I’s dotted?

Are you saying that when any of the above that you listed doesn’t go off as planned you’re not calling the master to at least know who you should be talking too, and if he goes “I don’t know” it’s a perfectly acceptable answer?

And still at the end of the day when something does go wrong and the CG has to be called the first person they want to talk to is the Master, and I can tell you from personal experience that pointing at someone else and saying they were in charge of that particular activity doesn’t absolve you from what happened.

I think that you forget that even the laws are written that run completely contradictory of what you are proposing.

                   [I]Seen another way however the third mate is now part of a team which consist of three vessels (the ship and two tug) each with its own crew which must pull the ship off the dock in restrcited waters get swung around and started down the channel. An operation whcih has tripped tugs and drown and kileed crews. A good crew makes it look easy but the fact that sometimes something rips loose and kills or injures someone and sometimes it does not is not simply a matter of luck. [/I]

I have personally managed spring and breast lines amongst tugs, floating docks and the ship several times without the presence and help of master, mates or deck officers, because none were present. I understand and appreciate hazards involved in pulling and straining ropes. While they require good situational awareness, they by no means require high technical skillsets. Implies a person who’s done even very basic school and posseses high situational awareness, can carry out such tasks as competently as someone who posseses a Masters in some field of Strength of Materials. So without altering the risk factor anything, i can conveniently put a much lesser qualified, but situationally aware person also in charge of actual operations as far as rope handling goes
Congratulations you got lucky. 99% of the time nothing happens, but that 1% is the one that fucks you over. That 1% is only lowered by having experienced guys in charge.

Whats even more telling is this.

i can conveniently put a much lesser qualified, but situationally aware person also in charge of actual operations as far as rope handling
You would rather pay for the bare minimum instead of stacking the odds in your favor of everything running more smoothly and pay for experience.

Again it has been said by Capt. A, Capt. Fran, my self, and others. Your company is suffering from bad communication, and what sounds like some bad hiring decisions and policy’s from H&R. Instead of trying to reinvent the wheel why not try and fix it first?

I’m sure your not the first to come up with your idea, so how come it hasn’t been implemented? The big reason is that at the end of the day there are thousands of things that can happen on the open water were the command system works best and is proven to save lives. So while even if you’re system could save your company money, is it worth the risk to human life that it could impose?

As much as I dislike your idea, I will give you props for bringing it here were it can be vetted by those who it would impact most. I just wish some of the engineers around would way in on this.

55

[I]I think perhaps Allwyn has been putting us on. There are too many errrors in his writing for an experneced engineer. The crew list is not a chain of command for example, mariners don’t call lines ropes.
[/I]

56

I have seen no laws that would prohibit one of these highly-skilled, well-educated Engineers from obtaining a Third Mates License and working their way to Master. I know there are some who have, and would be very interested in hearing from them, rather than an Engineer who has carried such bitterness, born of ignorance to the overall operations of the vessel, into a shore-side management position.

57

[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;15187][I]I think perhaps Allwyn has been putting us on. There are too many errrors in his writing for an experneced engineer. The crew list is not a chain of command for example, mariners don’t call lines ropes.
[/I][/QUOTE]

You might be right, has THEMANOVERBOARD come back to haunt us using a different name???

58

[I]There are too many errrors in his writing for an experneced engineer. The crew list is not a chain of command for example, mariners don’t call lines ropes.

[/I]Easy, a simple google on “mooring ropes” will tell you how many manufacturers, mariners use the term rope. Look at the ISSA catalogue (International Marine Purchasing Association) look up the section under which these lines are classified: Mooring ropes. So much for cracked conspiracy theories.

59

[I]I have seen no laws that would prohibit one of these highly-skilled, well-educated Engineers from obtaining a Third Mates License and working their way to Master. I know there are some who have, and would be very interested in hearing from them, rather than an Engineer who has carried such bitterness, born of ignorance to the overall operations of the vessel, into a shore-side management position.

[/I]This assessment is not right. I do not carry bitterness and cannot afford it in my job. The fact is i work under a status quo management structure on board, and all sorts of relationships and improvements have to fall under the guidelines of this rigid structure. There are some further improvemens on board that could be introduced, but it is being impeded by rigid status quo’s. I was trying to approach that, but it becomes difficult with a mindset thats immediately aggressive when one even barely starts questioning the present command structure on board.

Trust me if the industry finds solutions tha can run ships safely without marine engineers and /or simple mechanics would do, i’d be extremely glad and working overtime to get that done. That was why i initially started focussing on core competencies as opposed to the several onerous simple, clerical tasks mandated on the Captain today. I even tried to reduce his liability on pollution resulting from IAPP and IOPP regulations and pinning them down on the Chief. Masters should NOT sign ANY documents based on trust, as was the solution offered here by one Captain and certainly not important ones related to IOPP and such. Try telling senior management in your company, you sign IOPP docs based on how you trust someone, they’ll be in a state of shock.

60

[I]Again it has been said by Capt. A, Capt. Fran, my self, and others. [B]Your company is suffering from bad communication,

[/B][/I]Fair enough, but then a background of what we’ve been doing to address this. I did make a strong pitch here on the necessity for increased transparency. Good communication does translate from transparency. Increased transparency is the result of good communication. I am sure you will agree this?

First thing between shore-ship. We made it understood that all communication from the office will be addressed to both Master and Chief Engineer. There is no secret communication and no secrets to hide. All telephone conversations in which the Office management suggests something to the Captain or the Chief will not carry weight unless there is a written confirmation: We are carrying out this…blah blah…as per our telecon on so and so date. This is extremely important if you realize. I cannot tell the Master or Chief Engineer something on the phone and leave hhim holding the baby if something goes wrong, while i hide behind plausible deniability.

But guess what, the maximum opposition to the ‘end of secrecy’ came from which quarters? No prizes, and it was not the Chief Engineers. We also have very smart Captains, who do realize and moan the fact they are being held responsible for IOPP violations. If you are hauled up in a court in South Korea on an IOPP violation, what are you going to tell ‘his honor’? I trusted my Chief wrongly, plead guilty? No you are going to say, ‘i should not be signing this. And do so only because it is mandated by law/ flag state requirement etc. The person ruly in charge and responsible for this is the Chief Engineer and he is paid for this’. But guess what the Chief does’nt have to sign on the ORB.

Some of this responsibility stuff is good on the golf course and it does awe the uninitiated. But in brick and mortar terms it means little. Even the Exxon Valdez Master got back his license and was full absolved. The pitch in the court house is always a different take. And should be rightly so.

If i try and focus on core responsibilities and take away minor, clerical jobs that take critical focus away, i should be encouraged in this task. Critical redundancy factors are mandated by class on some basic stuff. Operationally over the years, the scope increases over and above the basic minimum that the class recommends. Some engine rooms are difficult to run. Engineers are saddled with sometimes very poor ship designs, radical revamps on these machinery will cost most companies money they cannot afford. The moment ou run those DC ward leonard type cranes, you’re talking 100% load on all generators. Charterers don’t want delays. On such vessels i am totally dependent on the Chief to keep things moving. Not the Master. If the cranes have to be stopped due to breakdowns, we don’t blame Masters. Target the Chief, not ask Master to ensure that breakdowns don’t occur. The older a ship gets engineering reliability factors come down drastically. These don’t effect the Master on board, they do entail more hardsip and understanding on the Chiefs part. Ofcourse a Master can say i ran a 30 year old ship for 4, 6 months without problems at the end of the day or contract. Looking through the subjectivity of 'running a ship" and identifying who is how critically responsible for what across the board is essential.

Look at it this way, if the Master is caught by law on IOPP, and the Company holds he C/E responsible there is a conflcit. I don’t want the Masters signature on the ORB because i don’t want him to be responsible for that. The Company cannot fire the Master in case the ORB is not maintained correctly. Masters questioning C/Es superficially on the ORB breeds onboard resentment. And no ship Master can monitor ever IOPP transfer record. Chiefs also cannot, but because he monitors the system extremely closely he is in the right position to be absolutely sworn responsible in the act.