1. COMPLACENCY AS AN ELEMENT OF MARITIME ACCIDENTS

3. SAFETY on board modern ships – NOT SATISFACTORY 75 – 96% of accidents include CREW´S ERROR Errors made by crewmembers: -Management errors – 71% -Operational errors

4. Management errors on board ship and in relation ship – external factors are mostly caused by COMPLACENCY COMPLACENCY can be divided into: 1.MANAGEMENT COMPLACENCY 2.LEADERSHIP COMPLACENCY 3.SELF-INDUCED COMPLACENCY

5. 1.MANAGEMENT COMPLACENCY negative influence of Shipping Companies expressed through dominant communication COMPANY- SHIP in which process the crew meet the interests of the Company against their own beliefs and attitudes which are eventually lost, or become passive and transform into submissive attitudes

6. Good communication Company-Ship ensures that you follow what you are supposed to do…

7. …otherwise…you hit what you should have easily missed…

8. 2.LEADERSHIP COMPLACENCY negative influence of leadership expressed through Master´s domination in which case the crew meet the requirements of the authority suppressing personal attitudes and beliefs

9. Shipboard duties…right person for the right job

10. Shipboard duties…right person for the right job… Senior officers have the burden of due diligence while assigning jobs.

11. …other wise…. OOPS !!! Your crew is your responsibility…

12. 3.SELF-INDUCED COMPLACENCY negative influence of the acquired feeling of superiority and personal significance to the change of personal previously positive attitudes

13. Perhaps, if there had not been lack of communication…... the container would have been on the plane…!!!

14. Psychological point of view: COMPLACENCY represents a process of gradual change of attitudes that transforms a “good” seaman into a “bad” seaman.

15. In such a state of inhibition the crew unconsciously, in compliance with newly formed attitudes, stop using potential knowledge and experiential resources. Passivization of knowledge, creativity and motivation is in fact activation of the notion of Management Complacency!

16. In that sense change into inhibition begins as a spontaneous reaction to bad communication or unpleasant environment (hierarchical relations) within which the individual(s) can feel insignificant.

17. Consequently, active knowledge, creativity and motivation are gradually suppressed. The crew still potentially have knowledge and creativity but they are not stimulated to use them (inhibition).

18. Journey from Complacency to Rules… Titanic (1912) = SOLAS (1929) Torrey Canyon (1967)= MARPOL (1973) & STCW (1978) Amoco Cadiz (1978)= SOLAS & MARPOL 1978 Protocols Herald of Free Enterprise (1987) = ISM & SOLAS Ch. II-1 Exxon Valdez (1989)= OPA’90

19. Journey from Complacency to Rules… Various Bulk Carrier losses – early 1990s = SOLAS Ch. XII (1997) Estonia= SOLAS Ch. II-1 (1995) Erika (1999)= EU package I & II Prestige (2002)= New IMO rules – phase- out of single hull tankers

20. Functional organizational model of the Shipping Company structure supports complacency because of: centralized control marked hierarchy which ensure efficiency and successfulness through adaptation of persons to the mechanistic model of behaviour and carrying out duties.

22. Functional organizational model insufficient motivation, communication and cooperation among officers job dissatisfaction, superficial interactions of the employees, HUMAN ERROR Caused by Complacency Syndrome.

23. Therefore, Complacency is reflected in: 1.Risk of maritime accident due to bad relation Ship-Company 2.Risk of on-the-job accident involving crewmembers, due to the crew discontent 3.Risk of damage of the ship and her cargo due to bad work organization 4.Risk of environment pollution 5.Higher insurance policy

24. Measures of protection from complacency syndrome (CS) Introduction of ISM code (SMS) on board is not efficient enough to prevent CS Reorganizing matrix functionally organizedorganizational companies structure

26. Basic difference of matrix organizational structure = decentralized management greater motivation and initiative by the Master, Chief Engineer and the Officers on board

27. Decentralised decision-making Need for forming the fleet management Establishing the function of the project manager

28. The basic function of the project manager in Company – Ship relation is building balance between ship´s demands and functional sections of the Company that, in order to satisfy interests of the whole, are prone to neglect the interests of individual ship

29. Managerial team on board + the other Officers (2 nd and 3 rd Officers) and Engineers ( 2 nd and 3 rd Engineer) develop new relations as regards mutual advising and planning the upgrading of ship´s safety (SMS) and possible reactions in an emergency

30. CONDITIONS OF REAL TEAM WORK CAN BE ESTABLISHED AND DEVELOPED ON THE BASIS OF MATRIX ORGANISATION

31. THANK YOU!