| References : |
|
my former pages 22 and 28
ISM code/edition 2014– MSC-MEPC.7 circulars
|
Introduction
When IMO published the MSC-PEPC.7 Circ.5 in 2007 and then Circ.8 in June 2013, a responsible person is required in the reporting and analysis process of accidents, non conformities and hazard occurrences and also, in the implementation of corrective actions.
There were some questions at that time of publication as to the role and position of such a « responsible person ».
Today, we think these corrective actions can be linked with the deficiencies discovered during internal audits and also with « the responsible person of the management in charge of correction » as specified in the code (ISM Code § 12.7).
1st interpretation :
To cover the requirements of § 9 of the code and also the circular above, a responsible person within the board is in charge of receiving the reports, analysis of accidents and non conformities and then ensures the implementation of corrective actions.
In the §12.7 corrective actions are trusted to the « responsible person of the area involved who should take timely corrective actions ».
This paragraph is more accurate because, in fact, we have one responsible person within the board on the one hand and the management personnel responsible for the area on the other hand.
This ISM code text is clearer than the text in the circular.
The above interpretation can be considered as correct in a first approach. But today we see some difficulties in companies trying to implement the circular.
The main question is : why create another « responsible person » within the board who will order the « responsible person of the area involved » to ….correct non conformities or take action to avoid recurrences ?
2nd interpretation
Following a classic procedure of reporting or notification to the company, the DPA ensures the instant information to the company management about non conformities, accidents or hazardous situations. (ISM code § 9). These situations are investigated and analyzed by the ISM structure with the objective to propose corrective action to rectify and when possible, to improve the SMS in order to prevent recurrences.
|
|
|
On the other hand, the results of internal inspections and audits are also brought to the attention of all personnel having responsibility in the area involved (ISM code § 12.6 & 7) then the management personnel of this area, will take corrective action.
The reviews performed by Masters or the Management of each sector dealing with safety and pollution prevention will produce either propositions and decisions from the company management.
We are in the same sector : reporting, analysis and correction of non conformities.
Of course, when decisions involve important funds, the decision is taken by the highest level of the company (may be during a board meeting) and then managed by the responsible persons of the sector involved.
It is very logical that the general notification towards the responsible persons of the management is done by the ISM structure as they are in charge of enquiries and feedback to be able to propose corrective or improvement actions.
Then, it is again very logical also that the person in charge of the sector involved agrees, rejects or completes the ISM structure propositions. The decision should be presented during the management review : good occasion to keep every company manager aware of.
After that, it is also logical that the person in charge will follow the implementation of the measures decided.
So, in conclusion, this logical chain of decision does not need a complementary position of responsible person in a medium or small company as the position exist already: such as fleet manager, technical manager, commercial manager, human resource manager or financial manager.
For a bigger company where the non conformities could be numerous, a first management review by main sectors can be planned and it is logical again that the manager in charge of the sector prepares a synthesis in order to present solutions to the highest level of the company which can be usually the board !
The particularity of the ISM Code is that this person will keep the responsibility of the follow up of the corrective or preventive actions.
Anyway on the other hand, as a cross check attitude, the SMS can require that the DPA is in charge also of the control of the effective implementation of corrective actions decided by somebody else at a higher position than himself.
However, in order to avoid a very heavy system, very frequently the DPA has a budget to solve the smaller problems up to a certain value. In that case the DPA takes the responsibility on behalf the area manager. This is a clever organization which does not prevent for notification and follow up of the corrective action.
In conclusion,
All irregularities, incidents, non-conformities, including the near-misses, are reported to the management/area manager concerned via the DPA/ISM structure which ensures the analysis and proposes solutions for preventive or corrective actions as far as possible.
The management involved can accept or refuse the solutions proposed but keeps the responsibility to find a solution. The final decision being in hands of the company’s highest level meaning … the boards of directors (we are in conformity with the code : the highest level has been informed and they have taken the decision even though somebody else is in charge of follow up.)
NB Sometimes we have to take into account that solutions could be urgent and in case of non-immediate solutions for budget reasons for example, some interim solutions should be implemented and to be accepted as in conformity the spirit of the ISM code.
Capt. Bertrand APPERRY
AFCAN-AFEXMAR-IIMS
