Ship Masters’ Individual Decision Making Process SHIPPING AND LOGISTICS RESEARCH NETWORK WORKSHOP...

Ship Masters’ Individual Decision Ship Masters’ Individual Decision Making Process Making Process

SHIPPING AND LOGISTICS RESEARCH NETWORK WORKSHOP JANUARY, 14-16, 2008 AGENDA

Presented by: Selcuk NAS,



The Aim of Study

The aim of this study is determine the factors affecting the individual decision making processes of the ship masters in the shipboard operations.



Research Process

1. Literature Review (Decision Making and DM Styles)2. Methodology

a. Qualitative Data Collectioni. Focus Groupii. Content Analysisiii. Developing Variables

b. Quantitative Data Collection3. Findings4. Results5. Conclusions

Ship Masters’ Individual Decision Making Process Ship Masters’ Individual Decision Making Process



The Role of Ship Master

Ship masters have a significant role in the internationally dynamic structure of the shipping industry.

Ship masters are in such a powerful position that any decisions they make with respect to their profession are able to directly affect not only the shipping companies they work for but also the whole shipping industry to a considerable extent.

Literature Review



Decision Making

Decision making is defined as choosing behavior (Connor and Becker 2003).

Decision making is generally defined as making a choice among a number of alternatives (Rollinson, 2002).

Literature Review



Decision Making Style

During any decision making processes; decision makers develop certain habits likely to be affected by various internal and external factors. Such habits form the decision maker’s decision-making style.

Decision making style could be defined as the “learning habits of decision making” (Driver, et al, 1990;3).

Decision making style can help understand the processes managers use while making decisions (Nutt, 1990; 174).

Individual's decision making style is his/her natural, habitual approach affecting a choice and then acting on that choice (Conner and Becker, 2003).

Literature Review



Individual Decision Making Process

Noone (2002) states that, decision making occurs within a complex, multidimensional, situation-specific context. This context has both personal and environmental components to affect decision making processes.

Environmental components are: “temporal nature of situation”“stress of decision”

“resources (economic and social supports)”“culture”“social norms”“experiences and influences of others”

Personal components are: “past experience with treatment” “use heuristic”“personal preferences” “physical abilities”“values” “locus of control”“self-esteem” “role preference”“framing of event” “personality traits”“pattern of decision making” “age”

Literature Review



StagesDefining a problem

or a challenge requiring a decision

making

Evaluating task and its requirements

Activites

Researching for proper alternatives

Determiningstrategy

Acquiring information and

evaluating alternatives

Putting strategy into practice and

choosing

Practicing chosen alternatives

Outcomes of the decision

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Ind

ivid

ual

Dec

isio

n M

akin

g S

tyle

IND

IVID

UA

L D

EC

ISIO

N M

AK

ING

PR

OC

ES

S

Individual Decision Making Process

Throughout the research model, individual decision making is displayed in eight different stages. The model also exhibits the activities included in each stage as well as their interrelationship.

Literature Review



The Factors Effecting Individual Decision Making Process

As for the other factors affecting individual decision making processes, Rollinson (2002) points out;

organizational factors such as culture,climate and policies.

the individual-related factors are highlighted under such topics as personality, perception, risk taking behavior, ethics and values.

Literature Review



The Factors Effecting Individual Decision Making Process

Besides, it is pointed out that the decision structure is also important and that the time pressure of the decision as well as any uncertainty is likely to affect the decision making process.

Cecil and Lundgren (1978) think that the probability pressure also affect decision making processes.

Literature Review



Decision Making Models

The literature review on decision making models reveals that a variety of disciplines are involved in developing such models. Some of the models appearing in the literature are;• “Expanded Four-Force Model” developed by Rowe and Boulgarides

(2004) • “Decision Making Model” developed by Driver at al (1990), • “Organizational Decision Making Models” developed by Nutt (1976)

and • “Inter-disciplinary Decision Making Model” developed by Harrison

(1993).

It is believed that an “integrated decision making model”“integrated decision making model” covering and representing all these models and approaches is to be formed. To do this, a serious of integrated decision making models covering the variables of all the models mentioned has been prepared, and the series has been tested both qualitatively and quantitatively.

Literature Review



The Studies on Decision Making Process

Consumers’ decision making behaviors were studied by Sprogles and Kendall (1986), Harfrom-Chae (1992) etc.

Arroba (1978) made research on managers and employees at industrial plants.

Janis and Mann (1977) practice research the field of education.

The decision making styles developed by Driver and friends (1990; 279) have successfully been practiced with such industries as education, airways, real estates, international trade, computers, energy and defense.

Literature Review



The Studies on Decision Making Process

The style developed by Rowe and Boulgarides (1992; 45) has been applied with such sectors as education and banking. Besides, this approach has also been practiced by Bowman (1992) with medical center management, and by Connor and Becker (2003) with state managers.

Scott and Bruce’s approach (1993) has been practiced with male officers.

Literature Review



Decision Making Environment of Ship Masters



Qualitative data collection (Focus Group)

The first stage of the research, qualitative data collection method was implemented to determine the factors affecting the ship masters’ individual decision making processes practiced in shipboard operation.

Within the focus group study, a group was formed from the staff of the factors with whom ship masters are interrelated and which form the ship masters’ organizational environment.

Methodology



Qualitative data collection (Focus Group)

In this study, the numbers of the members of the focus group was decided to be 11, considering those who would affect the ship masters’ decisions most. As a consequence, the group was formed with such members as;

2 ship masters, 1 flag state officer, 1 P&I surveyor, 1 ship manager (bulk), 1 ship manager (passenger), 1 operation director (container), 1 general director (tanker), 1 class surveyor, 1 maritime lawyer.

Methodology

Numbers of focus group member, should be 10-12 according to Kinnear and Taylor (1996; 310) and Malhotra (2004; 140), 8-10 according to Sekeran (2003; 220) and 10 according to Nakip (2003; 71).



Qualitative data collection (Content Analysis and Variables)

As an overall result of the analysis made on the data gained from the focus group study, 60 variables that would be affective on ship masters’ individual decision making processes were reached.

The model studies available in the literature, those of Rowe and Boulgarides (1994) Driver et al (1990) Simon (1976)Nutt (1979)Schermerhorn (1989)

helped a lot, while forming the questions to be used with the focus group study. And their models were of great help in determining the variables.

Methodology



QQuauantitativentitative data collection

During the second stage, the variables determined at the previous stage, were used to form a questionnaire which served as a data collecting instrument.

The questionnaire was conducted through the ship masters who were operating ships at the time of the research implementation.

Methodology



QQuauantitativentitative data collection

Concerning the analysis of the shipmasters’ individual making processes two different parts were prepared,

the first part aimed to evaluate the factors objectively.

the second part of variables aimed to evaluate subjectively their own decision making processes.

and also were prepared profiles variables of the ship masters

Methodology



QQuauantitativentitative data collection (Questionnaire)

Finally, developed (included 3 pilot studies) the questionnaire aiming to find out how often such variables are likely to affect the ship masters’ individual decision making processes.

The first part of questionnaire has 28 variables and the second part have 40 variables. For evaluation 5-point Likert scale was used (1: Never, 2: Rarely, 3: Sometimes, 4, Very Often, 5: Always).

Moreover, 18 profile questions of ship masters were developed. 24 variables of “Evaluation of ISM Code Practices by The Ship Masters” were developed considering the ship management literature.

Methodology



QQuauantitativentitative data collection (Data Collection Fields)

Following determining the 25 fields where the questionnaire would be conducted, a coordinator was assigned for each field.

During field study a total of 1325 questionnaires were sent to the fields, 577 of which were issued in Turkish language and 748 in English language.

Along with the field coordinators, 120 volunteers contributed to the task of the questionnaire conduction. These volunteers were consisted of harbor pilots and port managers.

Methodology



QQuauantitativentitative data collection (Data Collection Fields)

Methodology



QQuauantitativentitative data collection (Sampling)

The basic participants of this research comprise “the ship masters who were at the time of the questionnaire study, actively conducting the ship operation”

“non-probability sampling” method (Kinnear and Taylor, 1996; 411, Sekeran, 2003; 276) was chosen. The reason for this choice is that the mass is not constant, spread all over the world, and the masters could be reached only when they were at ports.

Research conducted on July 22, 2005 through September 15 2005, the number was limited with 386 in order to reach the sample size for statistical analysis. 358 of questionnaire were accepted for statistical analysis.

Methodology



Data processing is maintained by the SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) Program.

Findings



Findings



Findings

H1: The mean of ages of shipmasters differs meaningfully difference in terms of the nationality groups

[F(3-322)=4,921, p<0,002]Hypothesis is excepted

The mean of ages of “Turkish” shipmasters = 43,98

The mean of ages of “West European Countries” shipmaster = 48,48



Findings

H3: The mean of company experience of shipmasters differs meaningfully within the nationality group


Company experience of “Turkish” shipmasters = 4,10 years

Company experience of“West European Countries” shipmaster = 9,00 years

Company experience of “Far East Countries” shipmasters = 9,59 years



Findings

H4: The mean of annual sea service periods of shipmasters differs meaningfully within the nationality groups.

[(3-284)=19,654, p<0,000]Hypothesis is excepted

Annual sea service periods of “Turkish” shipmasters 8,63 month

Annual sea service periods of “West European Countries” shipmaster7,41 month

Annual sea service periods of “East Europe and the former East Block Countries” shipmasters 6,85 years



Findings

H5: The scales of the company with whom the shipmasters work differs meaningfully within the nationality groups

[F(3-304)=19,654, p<0,000 ]Hypothesis is excepted

The scales of the company with whom the “Turkish” shipmasters workMedium scale (# 8,76 ships)

The scales of the company with whom the “West European Countries” shipmasters workBig scale (# 62,65 ships)



Findings

H19: The mean of company experience of shipmasters differs meaningfully within the type of the ships group


The company experience of shipmasters who work on the board of “general cargo ships” 4,12 years

The company experience of shipmasters who work on the board of “container ships”5,14 years

The company experience of shipmasters who work on the board of “tankers”8,46 years

The company experience of shipmasters who work on the board of “bulk carriers”9,36 years



Findings on DM Variables

Reliability analysis test on the variables of the “Ship Masters Individual Decision Making Process on Management of Ship Operations” were found as fully satisfied.

As a result of the reliability analysis, 28 variables were scaled to be 0,9410 (Cronbach Alfa).

The result of the 40 variables of the second part were scaled to be 0,8396 (Cronbach Alfa).



Results of DM Variables

According to the Likert Scale means, the variables affecting the shipmasters’ individual decision making processes most often were found to be as fallows:

“considering the risk of life safety” (4,829), “international rules” (4,717), “legal responsibility on the conduct of the ship” (4,693)“protecting the interest of the shipowner” (4,689)“company’s aims and policies” (4,583)“ISM Code and procedures (4,558)“technological facilities” (4,536)“instructions from local and official authorities” (4,532)“ship security risk” (4,509).



Results of DM Variables

According to the Likert Scale means, the variables affecting the ship masters’ individual decision making processes least were found to be as follows:

“ignoring the problems” (1,843)“nationalistic opinions” (2,231)“family problems encountered” (2,314)“initiatives being restricted by technology” (2,398)“conflict with company’s objectives and policies” (2,430)“tendency to postpone actions” (2,555)“requesting of the local state authorities against his will” (2,573).



Results of DM Variables (Factor Analysis I)

Due to the difference in the methods used to determine the perceptions, each of these two parts was exposed to a factor analysis the results of which can be seen in Tables. First, principal components analysis, with varimax rotation, was used to assess how the 28 variables are grouped in Ship Masters Individual Decision Making Process on Management of Ship Operations ( I ).

The five factor groupings in the order of their reliability are respectively;

(1) “individual factors”, (2) “personal factors”, (3) “organizational factors”, (4) “environmental factors”, (5) “physical condition of the ship”.



Results of DM Variables (Factor Analysis I )



Results of DM Variables (Factor Analysis II)

Variables of “Ship Masters Individual Decision Making Process on Management of Ship Operations ( II )” are grouped in 10 factors through the factor analysis. Tables analyzed the ten sets of factors. Proportion of variance explained by factors was 59,167 %. The ten factor groupings in the order of their reliability are respectively;

(1) “maritime institutions and organizations” (2) “protecting the interests and following the instructions”(3) “safety, security and ethics”(4) “using knowledge” (5) “self-confidence”(6) “requirements of profession”(7) “prepotent needs”(8) “legal responsibilities”(9) “decision making style”(10) “prudent seamanship”.



Results of DM Variables (Factor Analysis II)



Conclusion

• Great efforts were made in planning, implementing and evaluating the qualitative and quantitative methods used in the study, and the results gained were quite fruitful.

• The data were collected through a great variety of methods, some of which were as follows: observation, the author’s professional experience, interviews with shipmasters and academicians, focus group and literature review.

• The observation and interview involved various persons from diverse fields. Analyzing the data also involved different analysis methods. “triangulation” method was put into practice collecting and analyzing data with the aim of enhancing and validity.



Conclusion

The general factors affecting the shipmasters’ individual decision making processes were found to be as fallows;

1. individual factors2. personal factors3. organizational factors4. environmental factors5. physical condition of the ships 6. maritime institutions and organizations7. protecting the interests and following the instructions

8. safety, security and ethics9. using knowledge10. self-confidence11. requirements of profession12. prepotent needs13. legal responsibilities14. decision making style15. prudent seamanship



Conclusion

These factors are similar to the factors stated before in the decision making literature.

Especially factors of the “expanded four-force model” developed by Rowe and Boulgarides (1994), fully matched with this study.

Besides, these factors affecting the decision making processes are explored for ship master individual decision making processes on the ship operation.



Conclusion

In this study, interaction between shipboard management - ship management organizations – maritime business environments and external environment are studied but this interaction theory needs to be further developed.

The relations between factors affecting the decision making processes of ship masters and their profiles have been analyzed as a separate study.



Conclusion

As a further research “decision making style” of the ship masters can be determined. Besides relation between decision making styles of the ship masters and his/her profiles are to be explored.



Thank You

Ship Masters’ Individual Decision Making Process SHIPPING AND LOGISTICS RESEARCH NETWORK WORKSHOP...

Documents

Transcript of Ship Masters’ Individual Decision Making Process SHIPPING AND LOGISTICS RESEARCH NETWORK WORKSHOP...