Modern Management or the Command System?

[Kennebec Captain]

your idea of passing responsibility by delegation of duty does not stand!

- I think that responsibility in some situations is shared but who gets the legal blame after an incident might not be a good guide as to ship operations, blame after an incident often is a roll of the dice. The master has to be mindful of liabilities but steps taken to mitigate liability shouldn't be measures that might increase the risk of an incident. Resources are limited, time spend mitigating liability at some point will be better spend optimizing operations so as to reduce the chance of an incident in the first place.

- That most incidents are engineering, I don't think that is correct, most are groundings, collisions, accidents while mooring and so forth, not related to engineering problems.

- Dividing the crew into deck/ eng / steward does not clarify matters The tasks are: operations, technical support and hotel services. The captain is in charge of operations and is assisted by the mates, the chief is in charge of technical support and the steward dept provides hotel services. Technical supports operations, however operations are constrained by engineering limitations. Ships today are complex the captain must work closely with the chief.

It is very common that technicians believe that their managers do not sufficiently understand the technical aspects of an operation, that doesn't mean the techs should be in charge. Often what is required is better communications and teamwork.

It is often the case that engineers and shore side personnel underestimate the level of planning and skill required to achieve smooth operations and also underestimate the level of difficulty encountered in the marine environment. It is easy to see that changing a piston is a complex job but the experience, skill and judgmental required to, say, produce a voyage plan or conn a ship in heavy traffic in restricted waters is not obvious to someone who has not done it - perhaps an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

[jolly]

[quote=Kennebec Captain;21366
It is often the case that engineers and shore side personnel underestimate the level of planning and skill required to achieve smooth operations and also underestimate the level of difficulty encountered in the marine environment. It is easy to see that changing a piston is a complex job but the experience, skill and judgmental required to, say, produce a voyage plan or conn a ship in heavy traffic in restricted waters is not obvious to someone who has not done it - perhaps an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.[/quote]

My man!

[emsin]

I see very weak arguments from people manning the Navigational department here. I don't see anyone having countered anything Allwin said except lots of name calling.

Deck Officers in my honest opinion have a requirement for very simple intellectual skill sets. People on board, at the minimum, every single Officer..must know// have an Engineering background.

One cannot know how a ship runs, unless one understands Engineering. No two ways about that. Sorry, not mean to sound harsh. But it's the truth.

[anchorman]

I see very weak arguments from people manning the Navigational department here. I don't see anyone having countered anything Allwin said except lots of name calling.

Deck Officers in my honest opinion have a requirement for very simple intellectual skill sets. People on board, at the minimum, every single Officer..must know// have an Engineering background.

One cannot know how a ship runs, unless one understands Engineering. No two ways about that. Sorry, not mean to sound harsh. But it's the truth.

Allwin was not advocating the advancement of deck officer knowledge of engineering principals, and no deck officer would deny that being important part of their job. He was advocating the replacement of authority of the Master by emphasizing the Chief Engineer being more suited in today's merchant marine for that role. All Chief Engineer's agree with him, and all Captains disagree......why would anyone expect otherwise?

[jolly]

I see very weak arguments from people manning the Navigational department here. I don't see anyone having countered anything Allwin said except lots of name calling.

Deck Officers in my honest opinion have a requirement for very simple intellectual skill sets. People on board, at the minimum, every single Officer..must know// have an Engineering background.

One cannot know how a ship runs, unless one understands Engineering. No two ways about that. Sorry, not mean to sound harsh. But it's the truth.

@Emsin:

May I ask how much time of on board experience do you actually have? I also never meant to sound harsh.
An honest answer, please?

[Kennebec Captain]

All Chief Engineer's agree with him, and all Captains disagree......why would anyone expect otherwise?

Yup.

- I was on the back deck of a tug playing with the towing bridle one day and the captain and a insurance inspector came down to have a look. A third party came along, made some critical comment and left. We were setting up to tow two barges offshore. The captain was a little annoyed but the inspector told us that he always responded to uninformed remarks about towing with this question. "How many ocean tows have you made?"

Same thing applies here. The question is: "What skills are required to command a deep sea ship on an ocean voyage." People who have answered that question on this forum can be divided into two categories, those who have in fact commanded a ship at sea, and those who have not.

[jolly]

Yup.

People who have answered that question on this forum can be divided into two categories, those who have in fact commanded a ship at sea, and those who have not.

The latter can be divided in two sub-categories:
Those who have some experience in any other rank, but not had actual command,
and,
Those who developed a theoretical opinion without any experience, but with school background or apprenticeship at the most.

In my free estimate, Emsin sounds like a smart(ass) cadet, with UK-type school backround - the 2nd type, of the two sub-categories.

It will be interesting to see if he is willing to share his experience with us, and if I were right or wrong in my guessing.

Anyway, a good point, Kennebec Captain!
Lets see what emsin has to say....

[Captmad]

Allwyn,
Until the law changes and says the CE will do this or that instead of the Captain. I strongly suggest your company learn to deal with the situation. In the interim communicate.

[jolly]

Alwyn is long gone by now. The discussion is now left to remaining, masters, chief engineers, and theoretisizing cadets...

[Allwyn]

""""""Alwyn is long gone by now. The discussion is now left to remaining, masters, chief engineers, and theoretisizing cadets... """""

No not gone really. There's not much theorizing left really in this. Shipping will undergo major changes in the next few years. All that i said stands..and will stand.

[Allwyn]

management: have we really moved on?

‘Command and Control’ is a phrase that we only use nowadays in connection with modern management in a tone of amused irony. We all know about command and control as the management system of choice from the earliest days of the major modern corporations—and we have definitely ‘moved on’.

Or have we?

Command and control systems used by the armed forces were deliberately adopted as the best management model for the emerging corporations of the early twentieth century, as a means of ensuring that the most appropriate command decisions were taken by the general staff (senior management) and that these were effectively transmitted to the ranks (workers) via their officers (middle management).

Although we think of command and control as the ultimate ‘top down’ management style (commands are cascaded down through the system, giving each unit the precise instructions that they need, and no more) there is nevertheless an essential feedback loop in place. The role of staff officers is not only to communicate the commander’s decisions to operating units, but also to feed information about the developing situation back to the commander. This is the ‘control’ system that ensures the effectiveness of the commands.

Command and control works—so where’s the problem?

There are four key problems with command and control (and the most significant is the last).

Command and control seeks information to feed into the decision-making process, but the people at the sharp end are asked, in effect, to supply raw data only—they are not expected to recommend a course of action; that decision is reserved for command. The people at the sharp end are better informed about the local situation, though not about the broader picture, from which they are deliberately excluded. But if they knew about the bigger picture, this might change their interpretation of their immediate environment.
The commander’s decisions are based on information that is second- or third-hand at best. Although the commander sees the broad picture (in theory) he or she may also be disastrously wrong about key aspects of reality ‘on the ground’.
It takes time for information to be conveyed the top and for decisions to relayed back down the command chain.
Command and control ultimately relies on the judgement of a single person: the commander. As a result, success or failure hangs on the decision-making skills of one individual.

An emerging, modern model

A consensus is emerging that management of modern organisations needs far higher degrees of consultation and empowerment; that decision making should move closer to the consumer; and that leaders need to encourage genuine input and creative thinking from the whole organisation.

Consultation

Modern leaders and managers need genuinely to consult with the organisation as a whole: there should be a broad consensus before major policies are implemented, and significant issues should have been discussed. An organisation that has had the opportunity to address the likely issues arising from the new plan is more likely to implement the plan successfully. More importantly, the plan has not been imposed on people: they have ‘bought in’.

Empowerment

Individual managers and team leaders should be given considerable latitude in choosing the appropriate course of action within the overall strategy. Modern leaders should give their teams the goal and the direction, and then trust them to make the best decisions for themselves.

Moving decisions close to the consumer

In every organisation, the teams that are closest to the customer are best placed to know what customers really want. Modern leaders must create systems that make these colleagues’ voices heard and build them into the decision-making process in a structural way but also, as above, empower them to make rapid and effective decisions without referral.

Harnessing the intelligence of the organisation

The organisation as a whole knows more than the leadership and is a huge resource of energy and ideas. Some modern organisations allow colleagues to influence the direction of the organisation by showing their preferences for different projects, thereby allowing them to ‘vote with their feet’. Others encourage and reward entrepreneurial ideas from any colleague, and set up small ad hoc teams to explore these.

It is not easy to devise management systems that embrace these principles effectively, but modern organisations are moving in this direction because they have to. Today’s highly-educated and mobile knowledge-workers will not tolerate a ‘production line’ approach to their working life; they expect to be consulted and they expect to make a contribution. And the leader who is not harnessing all of the skills, knowledge and experience of their colleagues is both wasting an immense pool of talent and failing to engage colleagues in a mutual effort to create a successful organisation.

http://jonathangifford.com/business-...ol-management/

Suggested reading. It's imperative for the shipping industry to see that necessary changes are implemented.

[dougpine]

Here we go again. Welcome back, Suit.

[ah7aeGe1ei]

How about the law?

Try referencing a case in Mobile Alabama a few year back where a bow thruster went out on a small container ship, while topping around, causing the ship to strike the dock and gantry crane killing an electrician that was on the dock crane at the time - The German captain went to federal prison - The Chief engineer went home.

[Steamer]

The German captain went to federal prison - The Chief engineer went home.

The chief engineer did not decide to depart and maneuver without tugs and did not give the helm and telegraph orders that led to the allision.