Poor engineering management, delayed or incorrect information being communicated by the ship, poor safety management, poor bridge communication, and poor record book management are all reasons a vessel could be detained or delayed, subject to high demurrage payments. They are, of course all precursors to a major incident too, but you don’t need a major incident to result in sub-optimal vessel performance.
With the average OPEX of a ship running at $5,000 per day, poor performance leading to off-hire days can be financially disastrous. One incident that was shared anonymously with Ocean Technologies Group (OTG) was linked directly to poor training onboard. It led to a 271-day off-hire period, resulting in US $1.4m in costs. Where a vessel goes off-hire, the knock-on impact can be huge too. If losing a vessel means an offshore energy construction project needs to be shut down temporarily, the wider costs can run into the tens of millions of dollars. The subsequent contractual penalties and reputational damage can be huge.
Just as it can be challenging to measure the overall performance of a vessel, it is challenging too to measure the overall performance of individuals and teams. A remote workforce operating within the micro-culture of the vessel is difficult to evaluate consistently. Individual appraisals are often carried out in an ad hoc and inconsistent manner, usually by officers in the same crew. In some instances it can be merely a box-ticking exercise, in others it can be biased by individual relationships.
Often, the appraisals of individual team members are used in isolation to make decisions on advancement or training without taking into account wider factors such as the overall performance of a team or crew.
Linking human and vessel performance
A container shipping company noticed that fuel consumption onboard its ships was higher than it should have been according to the manufacturer’s specifications and industry benchmarks. An internal audit found no mechanical faults in the systems, but instead, it appeared that the crew severely lacked training in planning and executing efficient voyages, which led to more costly routes, inappropriate speed adjustments, and inefficient manoeuvring.
There was also found to be a lack of understanding of engine and machinery equipment, which meant it was not operated in the most fuel-efficient way. In ship performance, the human element is not to be underestimated. In 2022, Bernhard Schulte Shipmanagement (BSM) investigated the influence of seafarer behaviour on carbon emissions. Using an app by clean-tech start-up Signol that ‘nudges’ seafarers to make more fuel-efficient decisions, BSM reported bunker fuel savings of 4,000 metric tonnes and 13,900 metric tonnes of CO2 savings over a 4-month trial period. This is equivalent to US $3.16 million. What’s more, is that BSM reported an increase in seafarer morale and wellbeing due to ongoing communication and personal interaction.
This suggests that crew behaviour has a strong influence on the fuel performance of a vessel. However, seafarers who are overworked or fatigued are less likely to be responsive to these ‘nudges’ given by the app, highlighting the need to match crew resources and workload.
For a more detailed understanding and exploration of the topics covered in this article, refer to our report, commissioned by Ocean Technologies Group. The Bottom Line: Why Human Capital Management is the future of HR and crewing. You can download the full report below:
