ALL THAT GLITTERS IS NOT GOLD
That salty old scribe Mike Grey wrote in Lloyds List recently of the dangers of buying into the notion that pilots could be replaced by sea traffic controllers based in the VTS tower. He rightly questioned in that sardonic, slightly ranting but lucid way of his: ” How can anyone, other than a pilot on the spot, realise that the man at the wheel barely knows the difference between port and starboard, and the third mate, speaking no language known to mankind, nods vigorously when he means ” no” ?
“And will the master admit to the disembodied voice in the tower that the steering gear is playing up and the ability to go astern is a bit iffy this evening?
“In an era of massive liabilities and total intolerance of any form of error, are we really ready for an “advance” which is so far a step backwards that it represents a major threat to marine safety?
“Forget about pilots’ jobs, or a new career of “sea traffic controller”. Professional mariners should unite and reject something which is fundamentally so potentially dangerous.”
Similar questions are raised in this issue of PS. Whilst most crane drivers are happy with quite a high degree of control built into the crane’s systems, are some of the latest and cleverest devices any substitute for the driver’s own intuitive touch and feel?
And as the Port of New York & New Jersey’s security chief, Bethann Rooney points out – also in this issue – on the value of human intelligence: “So we’re training the port workers in that extra knowledge they need to help us be the eyes and ears. It’s people and processes that are the absolutely critical factors to security.
Technology is a tiny part of it all.”
So where should the line be drawn between man and the glittering new machines and systems now being presented with their promises of higher performance and improved cost effectiveness? Look back to Louise Meyrick’s article in the March issue of PS (p.28-30) on measuring and managing employee performance and you may find the answer. She presents transactional vs integrative models and argues the pros and cons of each across a spectrum of goals. “In the transactional model, there is no expectation that employee and corporate goals are aligned at any profound level (whilst)?The integrative model is based on a fundamental hypothesis that business and personal goals can and should be aligned, and that business and personal success are interlinked.”
So the underlying questions for management are: Can you improve efficiency if you integrate your workforce into all goals and functions, or, conversely, if the workforce’s tasks are kept narrow and clearly defined? Can you, in effect, get a better return on investment (in men and machines) if you involve everyone in the process?
Whilst I’ve stood in the wheelhouse many a time watching pilot, master, watch officer and helmsman perform their carefully choreographed routines, I confess I’ve never been up in a crane driver’s cab on a windy day with a target of 30 moves per hour and a fast rising tide, and asked the question: Would you like more or less control over this task? I plan to though.
As for Meyrick’s integrative model, I can think of no better example than PD Teesport in UK. They took one of their crane drivers with them to Rotterdam, Liverpool, Dublin and elsewhere to actually drive other terminals’ cranes and give his opinions, before making their final choice (Liebherrs). And having paid careful attention to the ergonomics of the cab design – an adjustable seat independent of the crane controllers for example – for good measure they added a cd player too. “It’s the only way to do it, ” says project engineer, Allan Armstrong. It must be working since they hit 53 moves per hour at their new terminal in February.
Related Articles
OPERATIONS
INSIGHT & OPINION