Fuzzy Multiple-Criteria Decision Making Based Evaluation of the Incident Analysis Forms Used in Internal Reporting Systems: A Case Study of Tanker Shipping Companies

Abstract

Under the International Safety Management (ISM) Code, shipping companies are required to build a Safety Management System and develop procedures that will regulate the incident analysis process. By these procedures, the shipping companies develop an incident analysis form and use it on all ships within their fleets. Although these forms serve a common purpose, their structure shows some differences between companies. Thus, time may be wasted when transferring the data or insufficient data may be obtained. This paper examines incident analysis forms used for tanker ships whose hazardous cargos make them of particular importance. The features of incident analysis forms used on tankers of a shipping company were specified, and the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) method presented their importance levels. Expert opinion was collected by a questionnaire. The results revealed that the highest priorities belong to the sections allocated for details about the ship and environmental conditions and root cause analysis technique. The least essential sub-criteria were related to the structure and variety of the forms. Based on the study results, which captured the current practice and the sector’s expectations, tanker shipping companies’ existing incident analysis forms could be revised. The revised documents would help to achieve complete information and prevent loss of time in information exchange between companies. Bringing a common approach to the analysis of incidents in tanker shipping would increase safety in the shipping industry.

Keywords

marine marine safety and human factors accident incident management maritime safety ship vessels

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Kececi

Arslan

SHARE Technique: A Novel Approach to Root Cause Analysis of Ship Accidents. Safety Science, Vol. 96, 2017, pp. 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.03.002.

Department of Transport. The Merchant Shipping Act 1894, Mv Herald of Free Enterprise, Report of Court No. 8074, Formal Investigation. London, 1987. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/54c1704ce5274a15b6000025/FormalInvestigation_HeraldofFreeEnterprise-MSA1894.pdf. Accessed May 7, 2021.

Anderson

The ISM Code: A Practical Guide to the Legal and Insurance Implications. Informa Law from Routledge, London, 2015.

Goulielmos

A. M.

Goulielmos

M. A.

The Accident of m/v Herald of Free Enterprise. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 14, No. 4, 2005, pp. 479–492. https://doi.org/10.1108/09653560510618320.

Batalden

B.-M.

Sydnes

A. K.

Maritime Safety and the ISM Code: A Study of Investigated Casualties and Incidents. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2014, pp. 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-013-0051-8.

IMO. ISM Code International Safety Management Code and Guidelines on Implementation of the ISM Code. International Maritime Organization, London, 2010.

Herdzik

ISM Code on Vessels With or Without Impact on a Number of Incidents Threats. Journal of KONES, Vol. 26, No. 2, 2019, pp. 53–59. https://doi.org/10.2478/kones-2019-0032.

Kececi

Gokcek

Development of Standard Accident/Incident Analysis Forms (Report No: YAS201806). 2019. http://archive.iamu-edu.org/download/final-report-of-research-project-fy2018/ Accessed November 5, 2021.

IMO. MSC-MEPC.7/Circ.7. Guidance on Near-Miss Reporting. IMO, London, 2008.

10.

IMO. MSC-MEPC.3/Circ.2. Casualty-Related Matters – Code of the International Standards and Recommended Practices for a Safety Investigation Into a Marine Casualty or Marine Incident. IMO, London, 2008.

11.

IMO. MSC-MEPC.3/Circ.3. Casualty-Related Matters – Reports on Marine Casualties and Incidents. IMO, London, 2008.

12.

Saaty

T. L.

Decision Making With the Analytic Hierarchy Process. International Journal of Services Sciences, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2008, pp. 83–98.

13.

Goepel

K. D.

Implementation of an Online Software Tool for the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP-OS). International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Vol. 10, No. 3, 2018, pp. 469–487. https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v10i3.590.

14.

Saaty

T. L.

The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw Hill, New York, 1980.

15.

Haque

H. M. E.

Dhakal

Mostafa

S. M. G.

An Assessment of Opportunities and Challenges for Cross-Border Electricity Trade for Bangladesh Using SWOT-AHP Approach. Energy Policy, Vol. 137, 2020, P. 111118. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENPOL.2019.111118.

16.

Zadeh

L. A.

Fuzzy Sets. Information and Control, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1965, pp. 338–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X.

17.

van Laarhoven

P. J. M.

Pedrycz

A Fuzzy Extension of Saaty’s Priority Theory. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 11, No. 1–3, 1983, pp. 229–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0114(83)80082-7.

18.

Boral

Howard

Chaturvedi

S. K.

McKee

Naikan

V. N. A.

An Integrated Approach for Fuzzy Failure Modes and Effects Analysis Using Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy MAIRCA. Engineering Failure Analysis, Vol. 108, 2020, P. 104195. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENGFAILANAL.2019.104195.

19.

Buckley

J. J.

Fuzzy Hierarchical Analysis. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 17, No. 3, 1985, pp. 233–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(85)90090-9.

20.

Kwong

C. K.

Bai

A Fuzzy AHP Approach to the Determination of Importance Weights of Customer Requirements in Quality Function Deployment. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Vol. 13, No. 5, 2002, pp. 367–377. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019984626631.

21.

Chang

D.-Y.

Applications of the Extent Analysis Method on Fuzzy AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 95, No. 3, 1996, pp. 649–655. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(95)00300-2.

22.

Wang

Y.-M.

Luo

Hua

On the Extent Analysis Method for Fuzzy AHP and Its Applications. European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 186, No. 2, 2008, pp. 735–747. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EJOR.2007.01.050.

23.

Liou

T.-S.

Wang

M.-J. J.

Ranking Fuzzy Numbers with Integral Value. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 50, No. 3, 1992, pp. 247–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(92)90223-Q.

24.

Alipour

Alighaleh

Hafezi

Omranievardi

A New Hybrid Decision Framework for Prioritizing Funding Allocation to Iran’s Energy Sector. Energy, Vol. 121, 2017, pp. 388–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.2017.01.024.

25.

De Felice

Petrillo

Captive Offshoring Drivers in the Manufacturing Industry: Criteria and Sub-Criteria That Influence the Location Choice. International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 59, No. 1, 2021, pp. 76–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1694718.

26.

Duman

G. M.

Tozanli

Kongar

Gupta

S. M.

A Holistic Approach for Performance Evaluation Using Quantitative and Qualitative Data: A Food Industry Case Study. Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 81, 2017, pp. 410–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ESWA.2017.03.070.

27.

Flores-Carrillo

D. A.

Sánchez-Fernández

L. P.

Sánchez-Pérez

L. A.

Carbajal-Hernández

J. J.

Soil Moisture Fuzzy Estimation Approach Based on Decision-Making. Environmental Modelling & Software, Vol. 91, 2017, pp. 223–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVSOFT.2017.01.018.

28.

Şen

C. G.

Çınar

Evaluation and Pre-Allocation of Operators with Multiple Skills: A Combined Fuzzy AHP and Max–Min Approach. Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 37, No. 3, 2010, pp. 2043–2053. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ESWA.2009.06.075.

29.

Sofyalıoğlu

Ç.

Kartal

The Selection of Global Supply Chain Risk Management Strategies by Using Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process – A Case from Turkey. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 58, 2012, pp. 1448–1457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.1131.

30.

Kececi

Analysis of Accident Investigation Practices in Merchant Shipping Companies. Presented at the 5th International Congress on Engineering, Architecture and DesignIstanbul, Turkey, 2019.

31.

Agrawal

Wankhede

V. A.

Kumar

Luthra

Analysing the Roadblocks of Circular Economy Adoption in the Automobile Sector: Reducing Waste and Environmental Perspectives. Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 30, No. 2, 2021, pp. 1051–1066. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2669.

32.

Dulange

S. R.

Pundir

A. K.

Ganapathy

Prioritization of Factors Impacting on Performance of Power Looms Using AHP. Journal of Industrial Engineering International, Vol. 10, No. 4, 2014, pp. 217–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40092-014-0080-8.

33.

Gupta

Kumar

An Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)-Guided Decision Model for Underground Mining Method Selection. International Journal of Mining, Reclamation and Environment, Vol. 26, No. 4, 2012, pp. 324–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/17480930.2011.622480.

34.

Menon

Suresh

Organizational Agility Assessment for Higher Education Institution. Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera, Vol. 51, No. 1, 2020, pp. 561–573. https://doi.org/10.36872/LEPI/V51I1/301050.

35.

Peeters

M. C. M.

Dirven

Koekkoek

J. A. F.

Gortmaker

E. G.

Fritz

Vos

M. J.

Taphoorn

M. J. B.

Prediagnostic Symptoms and Signs of Adult Glioma: The Patients’ View. Journal of Neuro-Oncology, Vol. 146, No. 2, 2020, pp. 293–301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-019-03373-y.

36.

Sandøe

Hansen

H. O.

Rhode

H. L. H.

Houe

Palmer

Forkman

Christensen

Benchmarking Farm Animal Welfare—A Novel Tool for Cross-Country Comparison Applied to Pig Production and Pork Consumption. Animals, Vol. 10, No. 6, 2020, p. 955. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10060955.

37.

Shi

Shuai

Fuzzy Fault Tree Assessment Based on Improved AHP for Fire and Explosion Accidents for Steel Oil Storage Tanks. Journal of Hazardous Materials, Vol. 278, 2014, pp. 529–538. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JHAZMAT.2014.06.034.

38.

Singh

R. K.

Prioritizing the Factors for Coordinated Supply Chain Using Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 17, No. 1, 2013, pp. 80–97. https://doi.org/10.1108/13683041311311383.

39.

Wang

Solangi

Y. A.

Strategic Renewable Energy Resources Selection for Pakistan: Based on SWOT-Fuzzy AHP Approach. Sustainable Cities and Society, Vol. 52, 2020, p. 101861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101861.

40.

Kou

Peng

Ergu

Improved AHP-Group Decision Making for Investment Strategy Selection. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, Vol. 18, No. 2, 2012, pp. 299–316. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2012.680520.

41.

Yilmaz

Yildirim Sari

Daghan

An Exploratory Study of Intercultural Effectiveness Scale in Nursing Students. Heliyon, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2020, P. e02769. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02769.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.34 MB