View non-flash version
www.sname.org/sname/mt October 2013 have both leadership and management to run any successful organization, and the same is true for the risk practice. David Hancock, head of risk and specialist project services for Transport for London, o ers his perspective on what risk leadership is all about beginning on page 36. His emphasis on leadership versus management is the spark that transforms risk from a mundane practice with limited e ectiveness to the disci- pline that supercharges good strategy and e ective operations. By the way, our two Opinion pieces in this issue expand on Hancocks feature. Lars Carlsson writes about leadership, or the lack thereof, in the commercial shipping industry as he emphasizes the need for broad vision and leadership that inspires organizations to move forward. One of Carlssons key points is that people in the shipping industry are focused on the deal of the day and tend to get themselves caught up in cyclical downturns that are costly not only in terms of nances, but in maintaining and building talent and ensur- ing quality operations. is indicates that, while there may be many talented individuals in the industry, there are few organizations that stand out as true leaders. is view is corroborated by Don Frosts Opinion article on shipping and trading. FACET THREE: THE WICKED PROBLEM e term wicked problem is a reference to the seminal 1973 paper on urban planning by Rittel and Weber, entitled Dilemmas in a General eory of Planning.? ey developed the concept to address the weakness that was evident ?at the juncture where goal-formulation, problem-de nition and equity issues meet.? Understanding that an environment is su ciently complex and that there are large tracts of data missing, it becomes evident that the use of multiple models and types of models help us cope with ambiguity and uncertainty. is is at the heart of the risk assessment. Mark C. Trexler, management and risk consultant and for- mer director of climate risk for Det Norske Veritas, checks in with an exploration of climate change risk beginning on page 42. He describes climate change as a problem that confronts the marine industry in the sense that it a ects emissions regula- tions, port availability, and fundamental trade patterns. Trexler uses the scenarios approach, combined with multiple climate change predictions and intermediate assessments, to gauge overall trends. is is an example of using outside-in? think- ing, combined with inside-out? thinking, to build scenarios and check feasibility. ese scenarios are relevant for engineers. For example, ships generally have a useful life of 20 to 40 years, putting ships being contracted today in the throes of some potentially large indus- try changes. Another example, which is more mundane, would be to consider a vessel that is normally designed to operate in a maximum of 35°C water; an increase in water temperature in certain parts of the world by 2 to 5°C could take the ship out of its known operating zone and potentially reduce its availability from 100% to 70%. A vivid example of this was the June 2013 ground- ing of some 20 regional jets in Phoenix when the air temperature exceeded 48 °C. FACET FOUR: RISK UNDERSTANDING AND RESPONSE CAPABILITY Mat Bateman, DP/vessel systems manager at Global Maritime, is up next, starting on page 50, with a look at the design of dynamic positioning (DP) vessels and the key drawing known as the failure mode and e ects analysis (FMEA) report for these ships. Bateman goes into detail on how the FMEA report is developed, how it is used, and why it was developed in the rst place. What emerges is that there are a lot of ways of doing an FMEA incorrectly, thereby rendering the design and construction as either insu cient or truly unknown in terms of system capabilities. A design made to a poor design philosophy and poorly done FMEA contribute to both an insu cient understanding of what could go wrong and a false sense of security that everything will be ne. A dark and stormy night while stationkeeping in close prox- imity to a production platform is not the best time to discover a major aw in the DP system design. A true risk understanding requires more than a cursory check of a design or procedure. It requires a full testing of underlying assumptions and an understanding of the strengths and weak- nesses of modeling. Trust but verify. e same holds true for response capability. Has the primary response mechanism been thoroughly tested and drilled? Or does the signing of a contract with a third party with no testing satisfy people that the capability is present and functional? Earlier this year, Oil Companies International Marine Forum published its Guidelines on Capabilities of Emergency Response Services as a result of industry experience illustrating that many organizations The risk discipline is evolving as it becomes more integrated with strategy, tactics, and operations. INTRODUCTION