M Assessing the drivers and consequences of safety culture in the maritime industry
Overview Funding Project funded by the Australian Research Council (Linkage Project) and AMSA Aims Project Team Profs. Mark Griffin Dr. Daniela Andrei Junxian Ryan Ho Thomas McIlroy Profs. Andrew Neal Rudy Cross, Alistair Kerr Dr. Michelle Grech Investigate safety culture on board ships operating in Australian waters Identify factors that have the strongest impact on safety Identify mechanisms through which these factors exert their effects Understand the potential consequences of a more or less mature safety culture
What is Safety Culture? The way an organisation manages safety reflects core assumptions & beliefs Two broad elements: Systems & processes People (norms/values) people work more safely and have fewer accidents when there is a culture in which safety is valued
Measurement Framework Safety Culture Systems and Processes Training Communication Role definitions Reporting systems Operation scheduling Policies & procedures People Values & priorities Workplace norms Motives
Participants Surveyed ships & crew visiting Australian ports (August 2015 June 2016) 862 Crew: 164 Officers 197 Ships More than 17 flag states Ship Types (7 different types)
Participant Demographics Variable Statistics 250 231 Number of Participants 1026 200 Gender/Sex Male (97.9%), Female (2.1%) 161 Tenure at Sea Mean: 10 years 150 137 Length of Contract Mean: 7.45 months 100 91 82 71 Number of Nationalities > 50 nationalities 50 45 42 38 Command vs Crew Command (16%), Rest of Crew (84%) 0 Master Officer - Deck Officer - Engine Room Rating - Deck Rating - Engine Room Galley Cadet Other Unknown
Flag States PANAMA SINGAPORE 11% 14% 15% 22% Ship Flags HONG KONG 11% 11% LIBERIA 9% 10% MALTA 4% 7% MARSHALL ISLANDS AUSTRALIA 6% 6% 6% 11% BAHAMAS 5% 5% UNITED KINGDOM 2% 5% Present Study ANTIGUA & BARBUDA 2% 3% Port Arrivals in 2015 CYPRUS 2% 2% CHINA DENMARK NORWAY JAPAN BERMUDA 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% OTHER 9% 10% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Frequency
Ship Type Ship Types Container Ship Bulk Carrier General Cargo Tanker Specialised Coaster Passenger Ship 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Frequency
Research Findings
Safety Culture Dimensions Safety culture Training Communication Responsibilities Reactive Safety Culture Reporting Planning Policies Values Compliance-focused Safety Culture Generative/Participative Safety Culture Norms Motives 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Perceived company priorities Antecedents of Safety Culture: Company Priorities Costs On-time Not at all important Damage to Goods Damage to Ship Safety Extremely important Welfare 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Command and crew perspective
Command team perceptions of context Seafarers perceptions of work life Operational Uncertainty -ve Wellbeing Company cost priority -ve Compliance to safety rules and procedures Company Safety Priority
Number of Participants Work Demands 350 333 300 250 217 200 150 100 58 145 161 Predictability of Working Hours Extremely unpredictable Unpredictable Predictable 50 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Extremely predictable 0 36 to 41 42 to 48 49 to 59 60 to 69 >69 Number of Hours Worked per Week Vigilance Demands Always Often Sometimes Time Pressure Rarely Never 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Mental Health and Wellbeing Individual Outcomes Mental health and wellbeing Mental Health Psychological well-being Social well-being Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always Hedonic well-being 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Positive Safety Compliance Behaviors Negative Safety Compliance Behaviors Individual Outcomes Safety and Compliance Behaviour Adaptive Strongly Disagree Disagree Non-Compliance Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Deep Agree Strongly Agree Surface Disagree Strongly Disagree 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Fatigue and Recovery at Work Individual Outcomes Sleep and Fatigue Sleep Problems 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Incomplete Recovery Between Shifts Chronic Fatigue Acute Fatigue Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Strain due to being away from family 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100% Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree
Antecedents of Safety Culture
Antecedents of Chronic Fatigue
Antecedents of Psychological Wellbeing
Summary Planning and scheduling was evaluated as least mature, on average Around 20% perceive that the company they work for places little/moderate importance on welfare Around 40% reported disturbances related to operational uncertainty in their work Around 40% reported experiencing symptoms of mental ill health Most reported working long hours, exceeding 69 hours/week Reported sleep problems and high levels of fatigue Almost 20% agree that they behave in non-compliant ways (e.g. skip the procedures to get the job done) while at work
Recommendations Improving the quality of work standards and procedures Work design Improving and managing monotonous tasks Fostering seafarers perception of 0rganizational support Increasing Levels of Employee Involvement in Decisionmaking Enhancing Seafarers Perceptions of Co-worker Support Improving crew stability Fatigue management Enhancing risk assessments - Managing differences in risk perception Safe design Developing useable information What kind of seafarers does the maritime industry need no only now, but also for tomorrow? Non-linearity Big hairy audacious goals Vision, creativity, empowerment those who will win will be those who have the best people, not necessarily those with the best technology Are our systems built to create/support the employees that we want/need?
Thank you! Daniela Andrei, Daniela.andrei@uwa.edu.au