Meeting of divergent realities in MET: A synergistic
approach to quality standards

Abstract
Title of Dissertation: Meeting of Divergent Realities in MET: A Synergistic
Approach to Quality Standards
Degree: MSc
Within the context of maritime industry, quality is almost unquantifiable. More often
than not, quality is equated as successfully getting certification, and finally getting a
job at sea. Everything is assumed until one is faced with difficult situations on-board
such as, accident due to lack of knowledge of the situation, or human error due to
vacillation. In the light of the requirements of Regulation I/8 (Quality Standards) of the
STCW Convention of 1978, as amended, this dissertation explores the realities in
MET practices as perceived by selected administrations along with the other maritime
industry key players (seafarers, maritime education and training institutions, and
shipping companies). Accordingly, this research aimed to lay down some significant
cases in MET that could further inform the maritime administration of the
inconspicuous but critical areas in MET that need further attention. Through
qualitative analysis of the responses to the open-ended questions, this study entails
interrogation of the current system of the selected maritime administrations in terms
of provision of resources, legislations, and maritime education and training structures.
After careful consideration of the findings, this research highlights the management
responsibilities (maritime administrations), resource management (maritime
administration, maritime education and training institutions, and shipping companies),
and feedback mechanisms (seafarers and shipping companies) as the most critical
ingredients of a successful implementation of quality standards in MET. As such,
collaboration among the key players in the maritime industry is highly encouraged.
vii
Contents
Declaration ………………………………………………………………………………………………….ii
Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………………………….iii
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………………..vi
List of figures………………………………………………………………………………………………. x
List of abbreviations………………………………………………………………………………………xi
Chapter 1 – Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………..1
1.1 Research questions………………………………………………………………………………5
1.2 Methodology, source of information…………………………………………………………6
1.3 Use of words/definitions …………………………………………………………………8
1.4 Scope and Delimitation……………………………………………………………………….10
Chapter 2 – Review of Literature ……………………………………………………………………..11
2.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………….11
2.2 Legal basis of MET quality standards……………………………………………………..12
STCW Regulation I/8……………………………………………………………………………..12
2.3 The nature of quality standards……………………………………………………………..13
.1 Customer Satisfaction………………………………………………………………………….14
.2 Fitness for industry needs……………………………………………………………………..14
.3 Continuous improvement ……………………………………………………………………..15
2.4 Maritime Education and Training…………………………………………………………..16
.1 Education…………………………………………………………………………………………16
.2 Training…………………………………………………………………………………………..17
2.5 Quality Standards in Maritime Education and Training………………………………..18
2.6 Key Elements of Quality Standards………………………………………………………..21
2.7 The independent Assessment………………………………………………………………….22
viii
2.8 Quality Standards in MET……………………………………………………………………23
.1 Japan ………………………………………………………………………………………………23
.2 India and the Philippines………………………………………………………………………25
Chapter 3 – Methodology……………………………………………………………………………….29
3.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………….29
3.2 Selection of Participants ……………………………………………………………………..29
3.3 Instrumentation…………………………………………………………………………………30
3.4 Research Ethics ………………………………………………………………………………..31
3.5 Questionnaire Instrument…………………………………………………………………….31
3.6 Data Collection…………………………………………………………………………………32
.1 Quantitative Method……………………………………………………………………………32
3.7 Data Analyses ………………………………………………………………………………….33
.1 Quantitative Analyses………………………………………………………………………….33
.2 Qualitative Analyses……………………………………………………………………………33
Chapter 4 – Analysis and Presentation of Data …………………………………………………….35
4.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………….35
4.2 Research findings and analyses of data ……………………………………………………36
4.3 Statistical presentation of results……………………………………………………………37
4.4 Qualitative Analysis…………………………………………………………………………..44
.1 Quality Management System…………………………………………………………………44
.2 Management Responsibility ………………………………………………………………….48
.3 Resource Management…………………………………………………………………………52
.4 Course Realisation ……………………………………………………………………………..54
.5 Assessment and Improvement …………………………………………………………………60
4.5 Summary ………………………………………………………………………………………..63
Chapter 5 – Discussion of Findings…………………………………………………………………..64
ix
5.1 Discussion of Findings ……………………………………………………………………….64
5.2 Summary of the Study ………………………………………………………………………..64
5.3 Discussion of the Findings in View of the Research Questions ………………………66
Report on customer’s satisfaction ………………………………………………………………71
5.4 Implications of findings………………………………………………………………………74
5.5 Recommendations……………………………………………………………………………..75
5.6 Conclusions …………………………………………………………………………………….77
References…………………………………………………………………………………………………79
APPENDIX 1 – Letter to the respondents……………………………………………………………86
APPENDIX 2 – Questionnaire completion and return…………………………………………….87
APPENDIX 3 – Research Questionnaires…………………………………………………………..88
x
List of figures
Figure 1. Satisfaction level of respondents ………………………………………………………… 43
Figure 2. Percentage of dissatisfied respondents per group………………………………… 44
Figure 3. Percentage of satisfied respondents per group…………………………………….. 44
Figure 4. Awareness levels of top management and staff……………………………………. 49
Figure 5. Percentage of those who believe that there is a monitoring system in place
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 60
Figure 6. Domains within which the maritime administration outline the role……. 66
Figure 7. This figure illustrates the level of agreement of the respondents in terms of
having a well-defined job description ………………………………………………………………… 68
Figure 8. This figure shows that high percentage of the respondents believe that
their administration conducts internal audits……………………………………………………. 69
Figure 9. Areas in which factors that contribute to effective……………………………….. 70
Figure 10. Agreement level on the clarity of policies, aims, and objectives ………….. 70
xi
List of abbreviations
ASEAN – Association of Southeast Asian Nations
BIMCO – Baltic and International Maritime Council
CHED – Commission on Higher Education
CIP – Comprehensive Inspection Programme
COC – Certificate of Competency
DGS – Directorate General of Shipping
EAC – Examination, Assessement and Certification
EMSA – European Maritime Safety Agency
ESSP – English and Study Skills Programme
ICS – International Chamber of Shipping
IMLA – International Maritime Lecturers Association
IMO – International Maritime Organization
ISO – International Organization for Standardization
JIMEX – Japan-India Maritime Exercise
MARAD- Maritime Administration
MARINA- Maritime Industry Authority
MET – Maritime Education and Training
METI – Maritime Education and Training Institution
METSS – Maritime Education and Training Standards Supervisors
MHEI – Maritime Higher Education Institution
xii
MKC – Maritime Knowledge Center
MTI – Maritime Training Institution
OECD – Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
POSE – Panel of STCW Experts
QMET – Quality Maritime Education and Training
QMS – Quality Management System
QS – Quality Standards
SML – Shipping Management and Logistics
STCW – The International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and
Watchkeeping for Seafarers
WMU – World Maritime University
1
Chapter 1 – Introduction
“Quality is never an accident; it is always the result of high intention,
sincere effort, intelligent direction and skillful execution; it represents
the wise choice of many alternatives.”
Foster (n.d.)
As stated by the former Secretary-General of the International Maritime Organization,
Mr. Koji Sekimizu, shipping cannot thrive without a quality labour force who are
motivated, trained and skilled to the appropriate international standards, (“World
Maritime Day”, 2015). In similar vein, Kanev (2014) argues that the quality of
seafaring personnel is critical and that people are the most important component of
maritime business. As maritime transportation evolves into an avant-garde industry, it
is imperative that seafarers are qualified and properly assessed/certified as such to
perform duties that require knowledge, technical competency, and practical skills.
In line with these perspectives, continuous efforts are made by the International
Maritime Organization (IMO) to achieve consistent and effective implementation of its
instruments, in this case, those regarding the training and certification of seafarers
2
(IMO, 2013). However, in order to achieve quality, gaining outcomes that are fit for
purpose and to the satisfaction of the customer should be considered (Cross, 2016).
Often, this satisfaction entails meeting a particular standard.
With the introduction of the amendments of 1995 and continuing from there with the
amendments of 2010, there have been a lot of changes to the International Convention
on Standards of Training Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers 1978, (STCW
Convention ’78, as amended). One of the most notable and significant among these
changes is the requirement for the implementation of quality standards systems by
Parties to the Convention. It has been six years since the STCW Convention was
amended in Manila. On 01 January 2017, it will become fully mandatory for all Parties
to the Convention. By that date, all institutions that provide MET shall have already
complied with the requirements under the Regulation I/8 [Quality Standards]. On top
of the requirement for quality standards under the Convention, quality should be an
essential basic operating mindset/paradigm rather than a compliance add-on (Manghani,
2011).
Although the STCW Convention [Regulation I/8] demands that the “training,
assessment of competence, certification, including medical certification, endorsement
and revalidation activities carried out by non-governmental agencies or entities…are to
be continuously monitored through a quality standards system to ensure achievement
of defined objectives …”, the effective implementation of these standards are only as
good as the internal and external expertise and resources available to each
3
administration (Holder, 2002).
In a study conducted by Patrino, Velez, and Yan Wang (2013), it was noted that quality
is more and more becoming the central topic in education reform and planning in many
countries. Changes in the educational system may be driven by the industry. It is
evident in the UK where there is a system that continuously monitors the link between
higher education and the labour market (De Weert, 2012). It simply shows that
determination of such correlation is considered important in terms of quality in
education. At the moment, issues regarding the quality of maritime education and
training (MET) are seriously being dealt with by the International Maritime
Organization (IMO). As a matter of fact, effective 01 January 2016, the verification of
compliance by the IMO required by the IMO Instruments Implementation Code (and
its associated audit scheme), shall be carried out under a new provision in the STCW
Convention (Regulation I/16 – Verification of Compliance). This is in addition to the
verification and control mechanisms already in the STCW – in Regulation I/8 on
Quality Standards – which allows for continually monitoring the Parties’
implementation of the STCW. Similarly, Article IV and Regulation I/7
(Communication of Information) of the same Convention highlights the need for
communication of information of the Parties to the Secretary-General. This
information shall include the steps taken by the Parties confirming that full and
complete effect is given to the provisions of the Convention.
To further the discussions on this cohesive venture and its effectiveness, this study
explored the administrative frameworks within which maritime administrations
4
exercise their duties and responsibilities as Parties to the STCW Convention. This
entailed an investigation into the current status of the selected maritime administrations
in terms of provision of resources, legislation, and maritime education and training
administrative and institutional practices.
Furthermore, this work aimed to examine the role of the Quality Standards Systems
(per Regulation I/8 of the Annex to the STCW Convention) of the maritime
administrations in exercising their control, monitoring, and Assessment of the MET
systems in their own jurisdictions.
It is the interest of this study to look into the MET systems of two developing Asian
countries, India and the Philippines. These countries have been identified as having
significant maritime labor supply (“United Nations,” n.d.). It is also noted that
seafarers coming from these countries are mainly employed by foreign flagged ships
operated by international shipping companies (ICS, 2015). The MET system of these
two countries were analysed to identify the main features of each system. To do this,
the researcher studied and made use of the Japanese MET system as a possible
benchmark for analysis. Japan has been working closely with the maritime
Administrations of both the Philippines, and India for maritime security and capacity
building. In fact, a defense equipment transfer agreement between Tokyo and Manila
was signed on February 29, 2016 making the Philippines the first Southeast Asian
country to have such undertaking with Japan (Tatsumi, 2016). Likewise, the expansion
of the Indo-Japanese maritime joint training to the more recent Japan-India Maritime
5
Exercise (JIMEX) series involving both navies in 2012 is also a proof of strong
coordination between India and Japan (Nagao & Collin, 2016). In addition, Nagao and
Collin (2016) also indicated that both countries have already started to Help Southeast
Asian countries in building their maritime security capacities to cope with the evolving
array of challenges at sea. The principle of “res communis” extends the relevance of
this cooperation not only in light of maritime safety and security practices, but in the
shipping community as a whole.
Furthermore, this study aimed to look into the role of quality standards in the
implementation of the provisions in the Convention. It also sought to provide
research-based recommendations to the administrations in the area of policy making,
providing a grounded basis for the implementation of good quality management
practices, including in regards to onboard training derived from the feedback of the
industry key players.
In summary, it is intended that this research work will provide insightful
recommendations to the maritime administrations and maritime education and training
institutions as to what elements of the MET should be the focus of implementation,
control, and monitoring.
1.1 Research questions
In order to address the set objectives, this study was driven by three research questions:
.1 How do maritime administrations define the role and objectives of the
6
quality standards in MET in the national context?
.2 What are the key components, conditions and factors that determine and/or
influence the effectiveness of a quality approach in the MET systems of
different Parties to the STCW Convention?
.3 How do Maritime Administrations exercise their control and monitoring of
their MET systems in terms of:
.1 resources
.2 legislation and administrative frameworks
.3 processes
.4 outputs
1.2 Methodology, source of information
The initial step in this study was to identify the sample jurisdictions and also to
indicate the criteria for their selection. This helped to develop a general appreciation
and understanding of the current maritime situation in the selected maritime
jurisdictions. This is in line with the determination to explore further the nature and
limitations of different maritime and education systems to determine any potential
challenges.
The data gathering activities included research of existing literature relevant to the
problem. Among others, Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO),
International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), and other maritime related organizations
such as IMO. Resources from the WMU library were also used in the data-gathering
7
phase.
Since various useful and authentic readings are also available online, internet sources
were utilised. Similarly, some relevant texts from dissertations found in the “Maritime
Commons” in the digital repository of the WMU were used as guides. The researcher
also had the chance to make use of the available reference materials (such as books and
journals) in the Maritime Knowledge Center of the IMO during a data gathering period
at the IMO.
The following specific methods which are deemed appropriate for answering the
research questions were used in the data-gathering procedure:
.1 Questionnaires were designed to address research questions 1, 2, and 3. This
instrument was sent out to the competent authorities. Timely retrieval of the
documents was one of the challenges faced in this method.
.2 Reading of related literature and documentary analysis were done to support the
answers to the research questions.
Further, this study did not intend to mine confidential information from the
respondents. Objectives and requirements of the research instrument were fully
explained in the instructions to the respondents as indicated in the questionnaires.
8
1.3 Use of words/definitions
.1 Quality
Tagged with the goals of the IMO to ensure safe and efficient ship operations on
cleaner oceans, the STCW Convention mandates all the Parties to ensure the quality of
the seafarers as the outcome of maritime education and training. But should it only be
the outcomes that ensure quality? This assumption was interrogated by Chaffee and
Sherr (1992) who proposed that quality cannot be “inspected into a product at the end
of the line.” They suggested that prevention is as important to the detection of defects:
all work is a process.
In this view, the word “quality” is used in this study as an overarching definition of the
optimum process that leads to achieving seafarer’s competence as an optimum
outcome.
.2 Education
Rickman (2004) states that education is about fostering the mind, by encouraging it to
think independently and introducing it to knowledge of the physical and cultural
world. This is backed by King (n.d.) when he mentions that the function of education is
to teach one to think intensively and to think critically.
.3 Training
The Cambridge dictionary defines training from a business perspective as the activity
of learning or teaching the skills and knowledge needed for a particular job or activity.
9
From an academic standpoint, Rickman (2004) says that training is about practice,
about skill, about learning how to do things. Pike (2003) in his book about creative
training techniques, states that the purpose of any training programme is to deliver
results and that the people, after the training must be more effective than they were
before. Chowdhury (2006) suggests that training is a set of defined actions undertaken
to achieve a predetermined goal, while in educating neither the objective is given nor is
the means of getting to it distinct.
.4 Standard
According to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), a standard is a
document that provides requirements, specifications, guidelines or characteristics that
can be used consistently to ensure that materials, products, processes and services are
fit for their purpose. In this study, the standards refer to those of the STCW Convention
1978, as amended (together with its STCW Code).
.5 System
System refers to group of organizations that work together for a particular purpose, or
have similar activities (“System,” n.d.). On the other hand, a system (“System,” n.d.) is
defined as “an organized, purposeful structure that consists of interrelated and
interdependent elements (components, entities, factors, members, parts etc.). These
elements continually influence one another (directly or indirectly) to maintain their
activity and the existence of the system, in order to achieve the goal of the system.”
10
.6 Framework
Framework is defined as a system of rules, ideas, or beliefs that is used to plan or
decide something.
Additionally, For the purpose of further discussions and in the context of this study,
“…when the standard is applied to higher maritime education process, the term
“organization/products/services” will stand for “higher maritime education” process
which is provided by the “university/faculty/school”. The term “customer” will stand
for the “student, industry, society”. The term “supplier” will remind “the physical
infrastructure, the learning resources, organization and management of the system” that
serve the higher maritime education process” (Asyali, Tuna & Cerit, 2016, p. 4).
1.4 Scope and Delimitation
This study covers Quality Standards as perceived by the key players in the maritime
industry namely: seafarers, maritime administrations, maritime education and training
institutions, and shipping companies. Though the research questions were answered,
the level of heterogeneity of the respondents means that the results cannot be used to
describe a generic characterisation of the groups they represent due to the relatively
small sample sizes. Nevertheless, the study interrogated and identified an overview of
the current picture of the quality systems as implemented in Japan, India and the
Philippines. This is discussed in the succeeding chapter.
11
Chapter 2 – Review of Literature
2.1 Introduction
In order to completely appreciate the essence of this study, and its implication in the
current maritime industry, it is necessary to understand how the notion of Quality
Standards came about and what it aims to achieve. Lemak & Reed and Hendricks &
Singhal (as cited by Gustafsson, Nilsson, & Johnson, 2003) mentioned that there is a
substantial body of empirical research that provides support for the notion that quality
practices improve firm performance. Research also suggests that quality system
implementation has the highest impact on the quality improvement of companies’
operations and products (Adomaitiene & Ruzevicius, 1999 as cited by Nehati, 2010).
Often, quality is used to describe the level of customer satisfaction. Dean and Bowen
as cited by Gustafsson, Nilsson, & Johnson (2003, p. 4) suggest that most of what has
been written about quality is based on three principles: customer focus, continuous
improvement and teamwork.
This Chapter interrogates the literature and discusses the rationale of having Quality
Standards and its relevance to the maritime education and training.
12
2.2 Legal basis of MET quality standards
STCW Regulation I/8
One of the salient changes in the International Convention on Standards of
Training Certification and Watchkeeping (STCW) since its amendments in 1995 is
the mandatory requirement for Quality Standards. This change in the Convention
shifted the focus of MET from mere test of knowledge to demonstration of
knowledge and skills. In Regulation I/8, the requirement for a continuous
monitoring of all the processes that lead to the certification of seafarers and an
independent Assessment of these processes, is explicitly stated.
As such, each Party to the Convention is mandated to ensure that all of these
interlaced activities, more importantly the administration of seafarers’ certification
shall be covered by a quality standard system. This includes a clear definition of
the education and training objectives related standards of competence to be
achieved. In addition, the Party or any institution carrying out these activities
under the authority of a Party is duty-bound to satisfy the requirements of
examinations and assessments. Further, it is also necessary that the level of
knowledge, understanding and skills are identified.
It is also important to note that the interest of the Convention does not merely
focus on the education and training outcome. Thus, all the processes leading to
certification of seafarers like qualifications and experience required of instructors
and assessors, policies, systems, controls and internal quality assurance reviews
13
shall be established to ensure achievement of the defined objectives.
As such, impartial assessment of the system shall be carried out through
documented independent Assessment which is conducted at intervals of not more
than five years to ensure that objectives are met. This is also aimed at verifying
continued conformity of the Party to the Convention. Likewise, timely compliance,
as well as reporting of the results of such Assessment, is mandatory.
2.3 The nature of quality standards
As Nas & Koseoglu (2012) suggest, quality may mean different things to different
people who have different quality expectations and methods of assessing quality.
This was agreed to by Harvey and Green , as cited by Nas & Koseoglu (2012), who
describe quality as a “relative concept.” In terms of STCW, “quality” means the ability
of the seafarer to effectively carry out his/her duties and responsibilities (Nakazawa,
2015). The key for their success lies in administrations’ and companies’ real
commitment to quality improvement and their true motives for [quality] certification,
which finally dictates the manner of and depth to which the standards are implemented
(Gotzamani & Tsiotras, 2001). This idea is supported by the Maritime Training and
Human Element Section of the Maritime Safety Division of the IMO which claims that
success will depend largely on the staff involved with responsibility for the work of
ensuring quality (Cross, 2016). “Although there are different definitions of quality,
many modern definitions include a qualitative and subjective Assessment made by
customers, such as, “fitness for use,” “value to customers” or “customer satisfaction
14
and delight” (Klefsjö, Bergquist, & Garvare, 2008, p. 6).
.1 Customer Satisfaction
Department of Trade and Industry, U.K. (n.d.) claims that they are built around
business processes, with a strong emphasis on improvement and a focus on meeting the
needs of customers. This was agreed by Tjiptono as cited by Hadiyati, E. (2014) when
he mentioned that service quality is “a measurement of how a service meets the
consumer’s expectation”. Volvo Group also expresses their commitment to customer
satisfaction through employees’ commitment and participation, combined with a
process culture that encourages employees to be responsive and aware of the
company’s objectives (AB Volvo, 2016). Furthermore, Tricker (2005) suggests that
quality is not merely meeting the customers’ expectations but exceeding them.
Similarly Jørgensen (2008) goes a step further and describes the purpose of developing
standards as a means to secure high criteria, which must be strengthened continuously,
in order to meet the demands of current knowledge and current expectations in society.
.2 Fitness for industry needs
The plain definition of fit-for-purpose is something good enough to do the job it was
designed to do (Gaetani et. al., 2016, p. 198). For instance, Coca-Cola, which ranked
4th after Apple, Google, and Microsoft, in the World’s Most Valuable Brands for 2016
(“Forbes Media LLC,” 2016) has strong governance practices in place; they work
persistently to ensure compliance to applicable regulations and standards. On top of
these, they keep themselves abreast with new regulations, industry best practices, and
15
marketplace trends and conditions and also engage the company with standard-setting
and industry organizations (Staff, 2012). In the same light, Bross as cited by Deming
(1986, p. 168) stated that the purpose of studies in consumer preference is to adjust the
product to the public, rather than, in advertising, to adjust the public to the product.
In addition, consumer research should aim to understand the consumer’s needs and
wishes, and thus, to design product and service that will provide better living for him
in the future (p. 175). In terms of quality standards, the determination of this need at
the early stage of system planning is essential to its future success.
.3 Continuous improvement
Commitment to continual improvement truly rewards (“SkyMark Corporation,” 2016).
It has also been noted that a lack of commitment to continuous development of
competence is still one of the outstanding problems in the implementation of a quality
standard (Bhradwaj as cited by Loginovsky, 2009). Additionally, Anderson (as cited by
Hadiyati, 2014) defined quality as a strategic tool to achieve operational efficiency and
improve organizational performance. However, Steiber and Alänge as cited by Siva et
al., (2016) suggest that though some quality management approaches could positively
impact innovation, the question of whether the quality management in general supports
improvement or not remains unresolved.
16
2.4 Maritime Education and Training
.1 Education
One of the identified important factors in enabling integration into global value chains
is the development of human capital through education and training, in addition to
developing infrastructure, improving the availability of capital, improving the business
climate and the quality of institutions (Kowalski, et. al., 2015). Additionally, Matchett
et. al. (2016) suggest that “quality be viewed as the extent to which an institution
increases the likelihood of achieving various educational goals—that is, as a causal
impact of attending an institution on some outcome of education.” (p. 4). There are
various studies examining general quality management practices but industry-specific
studies on quality management practices and factors that influence their success in the
shipping industry are rather few (Cheng & Choy, 2007, p. 1). For that reason, quality
in terms of maritime education and training may not be easily quantified.
Apparently, the requirement for a quality standard in education has drastically changed
the educational paradigm (Cheng, 2001). According to Tyler as cited by Bramley
(1991), it was not until the late 1960s and early 1970s that organizations started to
control the quality of training by setting training objectives.
From an education point of view, Kvaal as cited by Matchett, Dahlberg and Rudin
(2016) distinguished between post-secondary education programmes designed for
specific economic outcomes and programmes designed to confer broader skills. He
further suggested that “quality outcomes” (p. 11) will vary strongly depending on
17
institutional mission and purpose.
.2 Training
Just by reading the full definition of the STCW, one could claim that training is an
integral aspect of this Convention. The peculiarity of the maritime profession suggests
that there should be standards of training that help develop the skills of seafarers,
among all others, in order for them to carry out their specific tasks onboard a ship. It is
a career where people are trained in many areas (Aliyu, 2016, para. 4). For this reason,
there is a need to align the skills supply with demand (Martinez-Fernandez & Choi,
2012). There is no doubt that, in recent years the maritime industry has been attracting
too few new entrants, and faces both a shortfall of staff and a serious skills gap,
(IMarEST: Shipping’s looming skills gap, 2016, para. 4).
Since the shipping industry worldwide is experiencing a shortage of trained and
qualified officers (Gekara, 2009), training and other activation measures are deemed
necessary for the long-term unemployed who often experience a range of difficulties in
finding jobs (Cusmano et al., 2015). Mwangura (2016, para. 2) notes that, training has
always been vital to moulding future officers not only in the area concerning Maritime
Education and Training (MET), but also in forming such unique characteristics as
self-developmental education, responsibility, attentiveness, planning, readiness,
spontaneousness, accuracy, self-denial, obedience and leadership among others.
For example, in education and training, central agencies can contribute by providing
18
the policy, regulation, and planning framework for local initiatives, by supporting local
partners with information and forecasts, curriculum development, quality and
accreditation assessment, Assessment and monitoring, and funding for the local partners
to meet the agreed funding criteria (Fernandez & Choi, 2012, p. 31).
2.5 Quality Standards in Maritime Education and Training
IMO (2016) notes that an essential requirement of Quality Standards is for the
administrations to “satisfy themselves that their administrative systems for establishing
and monitoring training, competency and certification arrangements are of an adequate
standard to ensure that specified objectives are being achieved (p. 4).” However, Lau et.
al. (as cited by Klefsjö, et. al., 2008) are of the opinion that the difficulty in managing
quality that involves cultural change has seldom been given enough attention.
Similarly, there is underestimation of the time, resources and work needed during the
implementation.
In recognition of the fact that seafarers certification used to be dependent on the results
of tests and examinations without much emphasis given to the quality of training, it is
required that the administrations must satisfy themselves, and others closely involved,
about the quality of their certification and training activities – at all levels (Cross, 2016,
p. 4). In this context, quality is conceptualised in consideration of its fitness for an
intended purpose rather than comparing the level of competence of the involved
individuals.
The monitoring and Assessment provisions of a quality standards system are more
19
concerned with the operating systems and procedures that lead to the actual
certification of a seafarer rather than the actual standards of competency or the
educational standards of related courses (Cross, 2016).
Nas & Koseoglu (2012) view the quality of education as a means of determining the
students’ requirements and expectations. They believe that the main and the most
important stakeholders and competent evaluators to monitor MET service quality of
the MET Institutions are their graduates, which they classified as internal stakeholders
(formerly) and external stakeholders (currently). On the contrary, Maringe & Gibbs
(2009) held that the higher education service is more than just fulfilment of “clients”
wishes and needs. He further explained that both the students and the education
providers’ needs and expectations are approximated in a manner that helps to accomplish
the field of study, helping students to take their place in society in their best and most
appropriate way.
The service quality of education is improved by graduates’ satisfaction. Quality in
education means determining the requirements and expectations of diverse
stakeholders and meeting them. It is not easy to determine service quality in higher
education. For this purpose, Gatfield, Barker and Graham (2006) made focus group
studies, interviews and a literature review to determine the student’s quality
perceptions, and the results of which suggest that the most important factor in
determining quality in education is ‘academic instruction’ (p. 248).
20
Challenges
It was reported by OECD Paris (2012) that “providing access to quality education is
fundamental to the country’s long-term economic success as is ensuring opportunities
for all” (p .5). But despite the focus on the quality in undergraduate education in terms
of input factors and outcome measures, educators, policymakers, employers, and other
interested stakeholders continue to strive for more comprehensive indicators of a
“quality undergraduate experience,” including those that measure student learning
outcomes and graduates’ readiness for success in the workforce (Matchett, et. al.,
2016).
In achieving such quality, some of the outstanding challenges faced by the Asian
countries include reducing skills mismatches, improving links between training and
industry needs, upgrading outdated training systems and increasing industry
participation (Martinez-Fernandez & Choi, 2012). According to the World Trade
Organization (as cited by “WTO’s New Trade Index,” 2016) world trade has been
moving sluggishly since 2015, however, rise of the world trade in terms of value is
expected in 2017. To sustain a growth path, increasing the level of workplace training
and the quality of training is becoming a key issue (Martinez-Fernandez & Choi, 2012).
Additionally, the low skill investment of the industries is seen as a common problem in
promoting workplace training (p. 37).
But the question as to who decides the quality and how it is measured remains. As a
matter of fact, maintaining the quality of education is still an on-going challenge in all
21
countries (Osborn, Cutter & Ullah, 2005).
2.6 Key Elements of Quality Standards
The STCW Convention lays out the specific key elements of a Quality Standards. In
the provision on the STCW Regulation I/8, the elements it seeks to achieve are clearly
stated. Section B-I/8 of the Code recommends that in applying quality standards under
the provisions of Regulation I/8 and Section A-I/8 to the administration of its
certification system, each Party should take account of existing national or
international models. It is also suggested that the key elements such as expressed
policy regarding quality indicating the means for its implementation, a quality system,
operational activities that ensures quality control, systematic monitoring arrangements
that involves internal quality audits, as well as independent external quality Assessments
are incorporated.
As guidance for administrations therefore and according to Cross (2016, p. 5) the
quality standards provisions of Regulation I/8 (together with the requirements of
section A-I/8 and guidance of section B-I/8) may be summarised as:
1 providing systems and processes to assure the quality of the training and
assessment;
2 extending this to incorporate all certification, endorsement and revalidation
activities; and
3 introducing the additional element of accountability by way of the independent
Assessment and associated reporting requirements.
22
2.7 The independent Assessment
Regulation I/8 of the STCW Convention, 1978, as amended, and Section A-I/8 of the
STCW Code contain the requirements for the independent Assessment and follow-up
actions. They specify the scope and purpose of the Assessment and require that results
be discussed with those responsible for the area evaluated – in order that timely action
may be taken to correct any deficiencies. The Assessments are to be conducted at
intervals of not more than five years. The outcome of each Assessment must be
communicated to the Secretary-General of the Organization within six months of its
completion (Section A-I/7, paragraph 4 of the STCW Code).
These provisions in the guidance notes for the administrations aim for accountability:
that is, to demonstrate to other Parties to the Convention and to all concerned
stakeholders through IMO, that each administration’s responsibilities for the quality of
its activities are being discharged effectively.
The final results of the quality standards activities should be represented by the
independent Assessment and follow-up actions. This key element, if properly
implemented is critical to the success of the entire operation. In addition, it is required
by Regulation I/8 that periodic Assessments be undertaken by qualified persons who are
not themselves involved in the activities concerned. Such qualified persons are
determined by an administration. Though there are no particular independent bodies
identified to do the Assessment, the credibility of such Assessment will be based on its
credibility within the international maritime community (Cross, 2016).
23
2.8 Quality Standards in MET
.1 Japan
Japan has been providing Helpance to various countries including India and the
Philippines in areas such as education and health, where the poor can benefit directly.
As reported by the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2013), Japan is not only
interested in supporting these countries improve their own infrastructures, economies,
legal systems, employment opportunities through innovations in technology, and
human resource, but also in Helping them in a manner that directly influences their
economic growth.
In its recognition of the critical role of education to these developments and overall
sustainability of human development and nation-building, Japan attaches great
importance to its Helpance in this sector (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2013). Japan acts
as an enabler as it works closely with the industry, the operators and governments from
which the inputs for future decisions in terms of education and training are derived
(Achuthan, 2005).
Despite being comprehensive, the MET system of Japan has once been subject to an
independent Assessment when the Republic of Cyprus requested for the Recognition of
Certificates from Japan. Japan was inspected by the European Maritime Safety Agency
(EMSA) in 2012. As a result of the independent body Assessment, some findings
pertinent to the implementation of quality standards were mentioned, to wit (Bulc,
2014):
24
“(3) The assessment did not reveal serious concerns though it identified some areas
in need of attention. In particular, the quality standards system of the maritime
administration and of the Maritime Education and Training Institutions did not
cover some processes. Also, the syllabi and the practical training established by the
national standards did not ensure the achievement of some prescribed standards of
competence for the ‘Life Saving’ and ‘Fire Fighting’ courses.
(4) …However, based on the analysis of the documentation provided by the
Japanese authorities, it appeared that the administration did not ensure that this
type of seagoing service was relevant to the certificate applied for and that all
relevant competences were achieved during this seagoing service for the candidates
who had completed 36 months of seagoing service. Also, it appeared that the
administration did not ensure that this type of seagoing service was relevant to the
certificate applied for and that all relevant competences were achieved during this
seagoing service for the revalidation and upgrade of certificates for all candidates.
(5) … However, it appeared that the administration did not require candidates who
have completed 36 months of seagoing service to also complete approved education
in order to apply for certification at operational level.
(8) … the application of such criteria was not sufficiently demonstrated by the
information provided.
25
(9) Regarding the completion of approved education by candidates applying for
certification at operational level who have completed 36 months of seagoing service,
the Japanese authorities argued that they comply with the relevant requirements of
the STCW Convention. However, such compliance was not sufficiently demonstrated
by the information provided.
Further, having completely presented all the necessary document, the decision of the
Commission reveals that “The final outcome of the assessment demonstrates that
Japan complies with the requirements of the STCW Convention, while this country
has taken appropriate measures to prevent fraud involving certificates.”
.2 India and the Philippines
According to a report by Kowalski, Gonzalez, Ugarte, & Ragoussis (2015),
institutional quality in South Asia is below the world average in all countries except
Bhutan. Though India ranks second in the region, showing an institutional quality
slightly higher than that of China, the Philippines is one of those who are far behind
the other South East Asia (SEA) countries in terms of good practice, though, they can
learn from some of their ASEAN neighbours with a view to improving the quality of
their institutions (p. 47).
India and Philippines may be different in some aspects but in the fulfillment of the
requirements under the STCW Convention, these two seafaring countries encounter
similar implementation challenges. Based on the research of Baylon & Santos (2011)
26
and Thiruvasagam & Rengamani (2015) the following have been identified as the
common areas in MET that need more consideration by policy makers and by the
whole maritime industry at large:
1 Commitment and development of plans for MET system; ship-owners or
shipping companies are encouraged to support improvement plans in MET to
ensure that they will employ qualified seafarers who will man their vessels.
2 Collaboration between MET institutions (METI) and the shipping industry (the
end users of graduates to ensure that their MET programmes are current and
relevant to the industry); closer cooperation between MET institutions should
also be strengthened to establish programmes on faculty/staff exchange, to
share expensive facilities and equipment, and to undertake trainings of
instructors; maritime institutions must go in for networking with companies.
3 Updated training programmes by the METI; well-designed and updated
curricula, and other requirements (e.g. support time on modern vessels to gain
first-hand experience with current technologies).
4 Latest technology in terms of facilities and equipment like simulators and other
supporting technologies; a more practical orientation in teaching, not only on
the theoretical aspects of the profession because practical (competence-based)
learning is favoured over theoretical learning in maritime degree programmes,
with access to current simulation technologies and opportunities for trainees to
obtain onboard experience serving as a cadets.
5 Highly qualified and experienced instructors; the faculty who normally teaches
the curriculum of Directorate General of Shipping (DGS) should be imbibed
27
with appropriate pedagogy techniques. Currently most of the faculty resources
are seafarers without much training in teaching methodologies.
6 Adoption of curriculum and guidelines
7 Skill development among cadets
8 Focus on research and development
Similarly, both countries implement a monitoring and control mechanisms to ensure
that MET standards are complied with. India implements the ‘Comprehensive
Inspection Programmme (CIP)’ which is compulsory for all the Indian maritime
institutions. This mechanism is more of a checklist approach that dispenses with the
mandatory requirement for the ISO certification of the Quality System and the Grading
by rating agencies. Rather, it focuses on infrastructure set-up and maintenance, faculty
& human resource development, student development programmes, recruitment &
placement records and overall performance & long-term prospects (Directorate
General of Shipping, Mumbai, 2013).
On the other hand, Philippines employs an outcome-based monitoring instrument that
is aimed at checking the MET based on the processes involved that lead to the
seafarers’ certification. The key areas that are given focus includes quality standards
system, organization and management, curriculum, teaching methods and media of
delivery (academic strategies), examination and assessment system (including appeals
and re-sits), faculty (instructors, assessors, and support staff), admission and retention
(students), facilities, training equipment, simulator, shipboard training, research and
development, and extension services (Joint CHED-MARINA Memorandum No. 1,
28
Series of 2016).
29
Chapter 3 – Methodology
3.1 Introduction
This research is aimed at finding out answers relevant to how maritime administrations
can better improve their monitoring of the MET systems through quality standards
system. For this purpose, the researcher asked the following questions:
.1 How do maritime administrations define the role and objectives of the quality
standards in MET in the national context?
.2 What are the key components, conditions and factors that determine and/or
influence the effectiveness of a quality approach in the MET systems of different
Parties to the STCW Convention?
.3 How do Maritime Administrations exercise their control and monitoring of their
MET systems in terms of:
.1 resources
.2 legislation and administrative frameworks
.3 processes
.4 outputs
3.2 Selection of Participants
According to Johnson & Onwuegbuzie (2004), the research question is very
30
fundamental and should be followed by research methods that lead to obtaining valid
and valuable answers. To answer the research questions, participants from the maritime
industry were chosen and classified into four groups, namely:
.1 Maritime Administrations (MARAD)
.2 Maritime Education and Training Institutions (METI)
.3 Shipping Companies
.4 Seafarers
Since the research aims to study the MET systems of the Philippines and India, using
the Japanese MET system as the benchmark, the questionnaires were distributed to the
participants purposively; participants from the Philippines, India, and Japan who can
best inform the research questions and enhance understanding of the phenomenon
under study were selected by the researcher (Kuper, et. al. 2008; Creswell, 2009, as
cited by Sargeant, 2012). As a contingency plan, the questionnaires were also sent to
the WMU Alumni from different countries.
3.3 Instrumentation
The researcher used a Likert Scale Response Format to invite responses from research
participants. This response format makes use of fixed choice response formats and is
designed to measure attitudes or opinions (Bowling, 1997; Burns, & Grove, 1997 as
cited by McLeod, 2008). These ordinal scales measure levels of
agreement/disagreement. Further, the researcher also used open-ended questions to
encourage a full, meaningful answer using the subject’s own knowledge and/or feelings
31
on the questions asked (“Open-ended Questions,” n.d.).
3.4 Research Ethics
It is very essential for a researcher to learn how to make decisions and to act ethically
in various situations through careful interpretation, assessment and application of
various research rules (Resnik, 2015). In this regard, the research instruments were
approved by the WMU Research Ethics Committee. The participants willingly agreed
to answer the research questionnaires on the understanding that data derived from their
responses was solely for the purpose of the dissertation and that the names of
respondents would be anonymised in the final report.
3.5 Questionnaire Instrument
Four different sets of questionnaires for the four groups of respondents were made
available in Google Forms format. All questionnaires were aimed at getting both
qualitative and quantitative responses. Section A of the questionnaires required answers
to demographic questions and Section B contained a combination of questions in the
Likert Scale Response Format, Yes or No questions, and open-ended but mandatory
questions. There were 27 questions for the METI, 22 for the shipping companies, and
30 questions for the seafarers and MARAD each. The respondents’ names and the
names of the companies were optional fields.
Reliability of the questionnaires were verified through a pilot testing which was
participated in by 19 WMU students from China, Colombia, Ecuador, Egypt, Ghana,
32
Greece, India, Japan, Kenya, Malawi, Panama, Philippines, Senegal, Tonga, and
Vietnam. As a result of the pilot testing a question in Section B of the questionnaire for
the seafarers was modified.
3.6 Data Collection
.1 Quantitative Method
For the purpose of this study, the researcher aimed at getting responses from four
groups of people who are considered as the “key players” in the maritime industry:
maritime administrations (MARADs), maritime education and training institutions
(METIs), seafarers, and shipping companies. The researcher aimed at getting 25
respondents from each group to get a total of 100 responses. In the process of getting
potential respondents for the research survey, the researcher sought Helpance of the
WMU professors from Japan and India. Contact details of individuals from India and
Japan who could best provide links to more respondents were given to the researcher.
Likewise, questionnaires were sent to the researcher’s affiliates from the Philippines.
Indian and Japanese colleagues from WMU also served as “focal persons”. Several
contacts were given to the researcher. However, some questionnaires were directly sent
to the other respondents by the focal persons who are in contact with the respondents
on regular basis.
In an attempt to gather more data, the researcher also asked for contact details of
33
WMU Alumni from 2000-2015 from the University Registrar. The questionnaires were
sent to 850 WMU alumni e-mail addresses. In total, the questionnaires were sent to
approximately a thousand respondents. Majority of the e-mails bounced back and
were deemed to have not reached the potential respondents. Ultimately, the researcher
came up with 101 responses – a response rate of 10.1%. Although, this number is
enough for the total number of respondents needed, as targeted, the distribution of the
respondents is not equal per group. A series of follow-ups was undertaken by the
researcher but getting responses was challenging particularly from the shipping
companies from which the researcher got 10.89% of the total responses received (11
responses). It is followed by the METI group with 19.80% (20 respondents), and
responses from MARAD with a total of 23.76% (24 respondents). The largest
percentage of 45.54% (46 respondents) came from the seafarers’ group.
3.7 Data Analyses
.1 Quantitative Analyses
Despite the number of the responses received, the research questions were well
addressed by the responses gathered from open-ended questions. Therefore,
quantitative analysis was limited to descriptive statics using the graphs, figures, and
other statistics generated automatically by Google Forms and Google Spreadsheet.
.2 Qualitative Analyses
The researcher used Excel sheets to tabulate the responses. The answers were grouped
into themes and the number of occurrence of the theme in a response was counted. The
34
answers were evaluated by questions asked per group of respondents. Results from the
groups with the same questions were analysed collectively.
35
Chapter 4 – Analysis and Presentation of Data
4.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the statistical data based on the analyses of the responses
gathered in the data collection. The research was aimed at defining the role of the
quality standards systems in terms of maritime education and training as perceived by
the maritime industry key players: maritime administration, maritime education and
training institutions, seafarers, and shipping companies. As indicated earlier, the
research questions for the study were:
.1 How do maritime administrations define the role and objectives of the quality
standards in MET in the national context?
.2 What are the key components, conditions and factors that determine and/or
influence the effectiveness of a quality approach in the MET systems of different
Parties to the STCW Convention?
.3 How do Maritime Administrations exercise their control and monitoring of their
MET systems in terms of:
.1 resources
.2 legislation and administrative frameworks
.3 processes
36
.4 outputs
4.2 Research findings and analyses of data
To answer such inquiries, the results of the responses were categorised into themes
using the Quality Maritime Education and Training Standards (QMET) Standards
(“QMET PSB”, 2002). The main themes that emerged were namely, quality
management system, management responsibility, resource management, course
realisation, and Assessment and improvement. The themes were further subdivided
into the following categories:
.1 Quality Management System
1. General requirements
1.1 International and national requirements
2. Documentation requirements
.2 Management Responsibility
1. Management commitment
2. Education and training requirements
3. Quality policy
4. Planning
5. Responsibility, authority, and communication
6. Management review
.3 Resource Management
7. Physical resources
8. Human resources
37
9. Work environment
10. Procurement/engagement
.4 Course Realisation
1. Design and development
2. Validation
3. Delivery
4. Monitoring
5. Review
6. Marketing
7. External approved courses
.5 Assessment and Improvement
1. Monitoring and measurement
2. Control of non-conformity
3. Analysis of data
4. Continual improvement
4.3 Statistical presentation of results
After the electronic questionnaires were distributed to gather data, the researcher
received a total of 101 responses, although, for the purpose of this analysis, the
researcher counted the number of responses received per question since a respondent
could give more than one answer to an open-ended question. The questionnaire
consisted of questions that encouraged open responses to the following inquiry:
38
.1 How the administrations exercise their control and monitoring of the MET systems
in their own jurisdiction in terms of resources, legislation and administrative
frameworks, processes, and outputs
Control and monitoring mechanism of the administrations in terms of resources,
implied that monitoring, and continual improvement are the main focus. Out of 29
written responses, 27.59% (8) answered that their administration is implementing
monitoring and control mechanisms to ensure the provision of resources for MET. Six
(20.68%) of them mentioned that there are documentary and procedural requirements
that need to be satisfied. Five or 17.24% of the responses talked about the
mechanisms on the allocation of funds and other resources, whereas another five
(17.24%) stated that the management responsibility plays an important role in
communicating the need for provision of the resources. Four (13.79%) said that they
do not have any idea how their administrations exercise control in terms of resources.
Further, one (3.44%) of the responses indicates that bureaucracy influences the way
they control resources.
In terms of the “legislation and administrative framework”, a significant portion of the
responses (59.26%) or a total of 16 out of 27 responses implied that most
administrations have their own rules and regulations that are implemented in
compliance with the national and international standards. While five (18.52%) gave
responses that are under management responsibility, three (11.11%) of them mentioned
audits. Another two (7.41%) gave different answers such as “no idea” and “none” and
one (3.70%) said that the legislation is “changing.”
39
It is clear that the mechanisms on control and monitoring procedures in terms of
processes mainly involve compliance in the QMS and regulatory standards; almost half
or 39.28% (11) of the total responses indicate this. It is followed by the Assessment and
improvement 28.57% (8), and management responsibility with 10.71% (3) of the
responses. Three (10.71%) of the respondents gave uncategorised answers like
“always”, “constantly changing because of constant change in legislation and
administrative framework”, and “proceeding” while another three (10.71%) answered
“none” and “no idea.”
In terms of outputs, 12 (40%) gave responses that fall under the management
responsibility, while 36.67% or 8 out of 30 responses pertained to Assessment and
improvement. Further, four of the responses (13.33%) talked about documentary
requirements according to the QMS. Three (10%) gave indefinite answers such as “it is
study by the authority”, “reactive rather than proactive”, and “no one.” Nobody cares
about MET” while another 10% mentioned that they have no idea.
.2 How the policies of the administrations apply to the shipping companies

Out of 31 responses, 11 or 35.48% claimed that the extent to which the maritime
administrations exercise their control with the shipping companies vastly involve
compliance with the international and national legislation (ISM Code, for instance).
Audits and verification measures are also employed by the administrations, as revealed
by nine (29.03%) responses. Likewise, management responsibility is 29.03%, followed
by resource management with four or 11.43% of the total responses.
40
.3 Challenges encountered in the implementation of the Quality Standards System
MARAD
Most of the challenges encountered in the implementation of the QSS in the MARADs
pertained to the quality management system itself according to 11 (34.38%) out of 32
responses received. Eight (25%) identify such challenges with management
responsibility, and seven or 21.88% mentioned that there are challenges in the
Assessment and improvement. Further, three (9.38%) said it is in the resource
management where they encounter challenges. Another 9.38% answered “Not
applicable.”
METI
Responses received from the people working in METI revealed that six (27.27%) out
of 22 believed that challenges are mostly encountered in the management responsibility.
Meanwhile, 22.73% or five out of 22 believed that they have challenges in terms of
resource management. Similarly, another five claimed that they do not encounter
difficulties in the implementation of the QSS in their organizations. Three (13.64%) of
the responses referred to issues on QMS implementation, two (9.09%) indicated
Assessment and improvement, while only one (4.54%) considered course realisation as
the challenging part.
41
.4 Factors that affect effective implementation
MARAD
From the point of view of those who work in the MARAD, factors that influence the
effective implementation of the QSS are linked to management responsibilities as
mentioned by ten (29.41%) out of 34 responses. It is followed by the resource
management which took 23.52% or 8 responses. Elements of QMS and Assessment and
improvement were both indicated by 4 or 11.76% respectively. The other eight
(23.52%) respondents provided other answers (stated verbatim) such as:
1. Ego
2. Urgency
3. Change (Adoption with the new system is hard considering that employees are
used to the old practice; These challenges are dynamic and continuous)
4. Stakeholders
5. Culture
6. Lack of political will, political systems
7. Way of doing things
METI
Five out of 22 responses (22.73%) stated factors that influence the ability to have
effective implementation of QSS (stated verbatim):
1. Lack of time
2. Effects of implementing change and improvement
42
3. Unattractiveness of the job due to poor compensation (unattractive salaries to
attract good qualified instructors. Inadequate budget to purchase state of the art
equipment)
4. Acceptance
5. Culture – I guess it might be related to the culture in Japan. As our mind, we
have historically had own quality culture.
Five or 22.73% of the responses indicated that factors that affect the effectiveness of
implementation have something to do with resource management, and another five
(22.73%) referred to management responsibility whereas four (18.18%) responded that
the question was “not applicable” to them. Factors that are related to the QMS were
mentioned twice (9.09%). Further, only one (4.55%) mentioned a factor that relates to
Assessment and improvement.
.5 Satisfaction with the current MET system
Since the study is aimed at informing the MARAD about how they can improve the
implementation of QSS in their own jurisdictions, the question on MET satisfaction
was asked only from the seafarers, shipping companies, and maritime education and
training institutions. In total, there were 77 respondents for this question.
Answers were coded as “yes”, “no”, “yes with reservation” and “indeterminate”.
Responses from the groups revealed that there is a high level of dissatisfaction among
the respondents.
43
Thirty-six (46.75%) of the respondents said they are not satisfied with the current MET
system. Twenty-eight (36.36%) said that they are satisfied with their current MET
system. A couple of seafarer respondents (2.59%) gave indeterminate answers such as
“” and “GGWP1
” Furthermore, 11 (14.29%) said “yes” they are satisfied but with
reservations. Figure 1 illustrates the level of satisfaction of the respondents.
Figure 1. Satisfaction level of respondents
Further, among the dissatisfied respondents, twenty-three (63.89%) are seafarers, eight
(22.22%) are people working in the shipping companies, and five (13.89%) are from
the METI. The next figure shows the percentage of dissatisfied respondents.

1 Abbreviation of good game, well played (www.urbandictionary.com)
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
Satisfaction Level of the
Respondents
Satisfaction Level of the Respondents
44
Figure 2. Percentage of dissatisfied respondents per group
On the other hand, more than half or 15 (53.57%) of them comes from the METI,
followed by 11 (39.29%) satisfied answers from the seafarers, and two (7.14%) from
the shipping companies. The figure below presents the percentage of satisfied
respondents per group.
Figure 3. Percentage of satisfied respondents per group
4.4 Qualitative Analysis
.1 Quality Management System
Quality management is described as the process, supported by policies and systems
used by an institution to maintain and enhance the quality of education experienced by
64%
22%
14%
Percentage of Dissatisfied Respondents
per Group
SF
SCO
METI
39% 54%
7%
Percentage of Satisfied Respondents per
Group
METI
SF
SCO
45
its students and of the research undertaken by its staff. The set of integrated
policies and practices that structure the management, implementation and adaptation of
quality assurance processes is what is referred to as quality system, while the quality
standard are norms, expectations or specifications that provide the basis for
the assurance of quality (Harvey, 2016). For a more concise description, and to suit the
intention of the Convention, QSS is referred to as a system that is able to manage and
control all necessary activities and information through a set of documented procedure
(Nakazawa, 2015).
As indicated below, findings of this study revealed that there is a great reliance on the
QMS when it comes to MARAD total control of the MET Systems in their own
jurisdictions. This includes the implementation of the national and international
regulations. When asked about how their administration exercise control and
monitoring of their own MET system in terms of processes, resources, legislation and
administrative frameworks, and outputs, the following were their answers (stated
verbatim):
HRM, Kenya
“Regulatory. Insist on QSS”
Personnel of Maritime Ships Security Department, Panama
“Exist a link through the use of Circulars and Marine Notices.”
46
Top Management, India
“In India, the Maritime Administration lays down strict norms for conduct of each
course. Besides this the METI has to have QMS certified by another agency.”
Officer-in-Charge, Public Information Division
“There is a government unit dedicated for monitoring of MET, the Monitoring
Division of the STCW Office-MARINA, which carry-out monitoring activities in
coordination with the Commission on Higher Education. There is also a
Surveillance Division for spot-checking of continued compliance to STCW
standards. A Maritime Education Review Committee is in-charge of Assessment and
revision of education requirements/curriculum to meet relevant standards of
education and training. A Technical Panel for Maritime Education, headed by the
MARINA Administrator regularly convenes to discuss matters on proper and
effective implementation education and training standards. Ultimately, the
Administration employs technical experts called Panel of STCW Experts (POSE)
to serve as Maritime Education and Training Standards Supervisors (METSS) who
join the Monitoring Division in conducting inspection to Maritime Higher
Education Institutions (MHEIs) and Maritime Training Institutions (MTIs).”
Executive Director, Philippines
“Using the ISO 9001 standards for seamless portal entry and exchange”
47
Technical Helpant at the Research and Development Division, Philippines
“The Administration prescribes the minimum standards for the Maritime Training
Institutions in the offer of the training courses. These MTIs are being accredited
and monitored if they comply with the requirements.”
Section chief, PSC office, Japan
“We have the control on all aspects of the MET right from approval of institutes,
intake into the institutes, assessment of eligibility for examination, conduct of
examinations (written and oral), declaration of result and preparation and dispatch
of COCs.”
Officer-in-Charge, Public Information Division, Philippines
“The current policies issued aim at standardizing domestic and international
requirements, such that there will be “no distinction” as for employment in
domestic or international. With this, the shipping companies are affected in terms
of assimilating and making a full effect of the Convention, as amended. Affected
in the sense that all crew/personnel ALL shipping companies shall employ MUST
be compliant to the requirements.”
Director, India
“We have our Merchant Shipping rules EAC branch, Quality Manuals for same and
also follow the STCW code’ and well defined quality manual; through a licensing
system; implemented through legislation.”
48
Chief, Policy Development and Review Division
“The Administration promulgates its own administrative regulations to fully
implement its mandate on maritime education, training and certification system.”
Responses also indicated that most of the MARAD exercise their control through
verification of compliance, implementation of quality manuals, and standardization of
well-defined policies. External verifications in behalf of the administration are also
permitted.
.2 Management Responsibility
Deming (1986, p. 25) described innovation as the foundation of the future which
cannot thrive unless the top management has declared unshakable commitment to
quality and productivity. In the research findings, it shows that the management
responsibility is the greatest factor that influences the effectiveness of a QS
implementation. Out of the 253 responses received, 66 or 26.09% is attributed such
effectiveness to management responsibility.
It is necessary that the top management exercise its responsibility to ensure that
everyone involved in the system has an appropriate knowledge and understanding of
the organization’s quality policy through internal communication. This includes
management commitment to make certain that the requirements, including customer,
legal, and regulatory are communicated throughout the organization (“5 Management
Responsibility,” 2001). In the surveyed MARAD, it is apparent that the top
management’s level of awareness is high as shown in Figure 4.
49
Figure 4. Awareness levels of top management and staff
However, the responses revealed some issues on the awareness of Quality Standards
among the staff. Santos et. al. as cited by Guasch (2007), all note that the most frequent
barriers to certification are lack of quality awareness and resistance to change (p. 105).
Further, when asked about the factors that influence the implementation of the quality
standards in their institutions, the following were some of the responses (stated
verbatim):
Indian Principal
“…the belief on quality system by all faculty members. Some always think this to
be a necessary evil and documentation is more important than the spirit of the
system.”
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Strongly
agree 1
2 3 4 Strongly
disagree 5
no. of responses
The awareness levels of the top management and staff on
the institutional policies, aims and objectives
Top management
Staff
50
Staff from the Philippine MARAD
“Lack of appreciation of the whole QMS process.”
Director, and a person in-charge of seafarer’s training, India
“Awareness and execution.”
Top management of an METI, Philippines
“Overkill requirement that entails so much cost.”
Maritime education and training standards supervisor
“QSS was new then and the implementation of the IQA [Internal Quality Audit] was
something like an intrusion into the undertakings of other employees.”
Training manager of a shipping company, India
“In case of emergency joining or a replacement of candidate due to last moment
rejection from Owners it becomes challenging to fulfill our own criteria of training.”
In some cases, ‘Quality Standards’ is viewed as a very new concept.
Senior Coordinator, Japan:
“In fact, I have not developed the QSS in my institution. However, I think it has
been quite difficult to mind the philosophy of QSS or QMS to our staff.”
51
Division Chief of the Surveillance Division, Philippines
“Adoption with the new system is hard considering that employees are used to the
old practice.”
In addition, the commitment of the top management was also questioned. In quality
management, management commitment includes (1) setting up and serving on a
quality committee, (2) formulating and establishing quality policies and objectives, (3)
providing resources and training, (4) overseeing implementation at all levels of the
organization, and (5) evaluating and revising the policy in light of results achieved
(“Top Management Commitment,” n.d.).
Some respondents claimed that there is vagueness in the rules that make them open to
subjective interpretations. Shortcomings with respect to the oversight of proper QSS
implementation was likewise mentioned, as well as concerns on the designation of
personnel.
Engineer and Ship Surveyor, India
“Varied knowledge and experience of surveyors, non-communication of the quality
manual changes swiftly across the entire spectrum of field offices, no clarity in the
rules (often some rules are kept open to interpretation).”
Officer-in-Charge, Public Information Division, Philippines
“Political system in which each agency exists and functions according to its own
52
mandate; general acceptance and awareness of Reg. I/8 of the STCW Convention, as
amended; effective control and monitoring system for PROPER implementation of a
QSS; not all personnel playing important role in the implementation of the QSS have
been trained to perform such functions.”
Principal, India
“The quality system is in place since last 15 years and is quite matured. The biggest
challenge is the classroom monitoring i.e. ensuring what and how things are
taught.”
Staff from the Philippine MARAD
“Lack of training. Lack of support from management.”
“Lack of Staff/Personnel, unstable designation of Division Chief, weak support from
the top management.”
Division Chief of the Surveillance Division, Philippines
“Adherence to policy procedures is quite a challenge considering that the QSS is
relatively new to the Administration as far as implementation.”
.3 Resource Management
Numerous responses pertained to human resource management as a factor for an
effective implementation of the QSS. Respondents were articulate in emphasising these
53
factors not only in terms of the scarcity of personnel but also their professional
qualifications.
METI Top Management, India
“In India, the Maritime Administration lays down strict norms for conduct of each
course. Besides this the METI has to have QMS certified by another agency. There is
also a grading system needs to be done by another third party for each competency
course or pre-sea course. The challenge encountered is shortage of faculty. Faculty
shortage is there because faculty needs to be experienced from seagoing job and
holding highest Certificate of competency. Not many take up faculty position as
salary is less.”
Lecturer, Cameroon
“Insufficient qualified instructors and inadequate training facilities.”
Senior Lecturer, Egypt
“Scarcity of experienced maritime teachers”
Nautical Surveyor and PSCO, India
“Mainly due to shortage of skilled man power in the Administration.”
Further, challenges in the provision of physical resources and procurement are present in
some jurisdictions.
54
Senior Lecturer, Nautical Science Department, Ghana
“There have been challenges in the implementation mainly in area of the provision
of teaching aids such as ship handling simulators and lack of funding for
procurement.”
Legal Division Officer, Vietnam
“External factors such as foreign shipping companies and the poor ability of national
shipowners.”
METI Top Management, Philippines
“Yes. Cost of certification is one problem because it’s too expensive. We also
initially experienced resistance from the faculty and staff because certification
entails additional workload.”
.4 Course Realisation
Since the STCW Convention aims at ensuring safe and efficient operations of ships, the
end users of the MET systems are the seafarers, and the shipping companies: seafarers
who have specific, multiple, and varied jobs and responsibilities to perform, and the ship
owners (or companies) who want to be sure that everyone who gets onboard their ships
were well trained, skillful, and reliable (Emad & Roth, 2008). When asked about the
level of satisfaction on the MET systems, a great portion (42.11%) of their responses
referred to course realisation.
55
In India, it seems that there is a great dissatisfaction from the seafarers when it comes to
the provision of training facilities for practical training in terms of technology and
equipment-to-student ratio both in the private and government run METI. There was a
claim that the MET facilities are not sufficient to accommodate the number of students.
Maharashtra Academy of Naval Education and Training, Private Institute, India
“The system can become more transparent by proper IT system and by complying
with right to information act. The infrastructure is not good and there is overcapacity
of seafarers which is causing unemployability. This can be improved by regulating
the batch size for students as per the demand of maritime industry. There should be
close cooperation with maritime industry to meet their requirements. The lead time
should be minimised by adopting new programmes and training technologies into
MET system to comply with new regulations and advance standards of maritime
industry. Corruption and involvement of middlemen or agents is also one of the
major hindrances for transparent organizational structure in my country. This can be
improved by direct cooperation with awarding and licensing authorities and MET
institutions in India.”
Fourth Engineer, India
“The MET system should provide more practical knowledge to students on current
technology and equipments that is used nowadays, the leadership and risk taking
abilities of students should be improved.”
56
There is also an issue on the fees and charges. Some seafarers believed that they do not
get the value for the money they pay for the training, and that there are unnecessary
trainings that entail too much costs. This is true for both public and private institutions.
Fourth Engineer, Marine Engineering and Research Institute, Kolkata, India
“No. Whether it be the IMO or the national shipping governments, they should plan
and think more justly about the welfare of seafarers, instead of acting like money
laundering machines. Recently introduced courses like high voltage course, cost too
much without any specific reason! Many colleges (in India) are not able to provide
placements to the passing out cadets, reason being the cobwebs of agencies via
which the companies hire these days, which usually costs a cadet around 5000 usd,
far too much for a young guy. Merit these days has taken a back seat.”
Fourth Engineer, Marine Engineering and Research Institute, Kolkata, India
“The training fee should be reduced because it is much more in comparison with the
facilities provided by the institute.”
Fourth Engineer, Vishwakarma Maritime Institute (VMI), India
“They take lot of money for training and courses sometime the situation arise you
don’t have any saving after that all are usually spent on exams and course which year
by year increase there prices but the salary don’t increase only the institution and
colleges and administration are getting all our hard earned money this is creating a
negative picture of industry.”
57
Fourth Engineer, Indian Maritime University (IMU) Kolkata, India
“All the Institute must communicate with their students about faculties, facilities and
the need of modifications. There are many things those must be changed or need to
be improved, and students are the one who know better than what to be and what not
to. Thank you.”
In the Philippines, redundancy of training has been mentioned repeatedly by the
respondents. Further, there is also a problem when it comes to employment, as some of
the graduate had difficulties in finding job after graduation. This, again, may raise the
question on “fitness for purpose” of MET.
Third Officer, (MAAP) Philippines
“No. There’s too much training on the current system, trainings that already been
taken up in the academy.”
Second Helpant Engineer, (NYK) Philippines
“Not much satisfied. Need to review the syllabus of some trainings which are in
common with the other training.”
Engine Cadet, (PMMA) Philippines
“Yes but in other schools or institutions they have a very low rate of graduates
getting a job in the industry. Most graduates from other schools finished their
courses but failed to use it. Which is very sad.”
58
According to Alfiani (2010) the declining number of seafarers from major ship owner
countries like Japan has been one of the reasons why employers choose to man their
ships with international crews. This is evident in one of the responses when a respondent
mentioned that there is a challenge in training national crews.
Faculty of Maritime Sciences, Kobe University, Japan
“I felt satisfied with my cadetship more than 10 years ago. There were a lot of
structural changes in the ministry and relevant MET organizations affected. The link
between MET institutions and shipping companies has been less significant.
Shipping companies are more interested in training foreign crew than their national
crew, because of the HR costs and their excellences.”
Some ship operators have little interest in the assessment techniques underpinning
licence examinations and less idea of the variations that can currently be identified in the
practice of different maritime administrations (Sampson, Gekara & Bloor, 2011, p. 91).
But as to the question on the satisfaction level, some of the responses received imply
otherwise (stated verbatim):
International Shipping Company, Japan
“Publicity activity about this maritime MET is not enough. MET is very much into
licence matter and not enough about the industry itself.”
59
International Company, Philippines
“Not really. It can be improved when the administration MARINA properly
defines its goals in ensuring not only the STCW compliance, but the real competence
of the seafarers after finishing school.”
Multinational Company, India
“More training is required identifying caliber of candidates. Especially there is big
void on technical training.”
International Company, Philippines
“Needs improvement. The maritime education and training in the Philippines is over
and beyond what international standards seem to require. But what needs
improvement is the alignment with STCW. I don’t understand why we always have
problems with STCW compliance.”
Multinational Company, Philippines
“No, the MET system does not fully address the needs of the seafarers for
shipboard competence. There must be better coordination between the institutions
and the shipping companies to address this need.”
60
.5 Assessment and Improvement
In the results of the data analyses, majority of the people working in the MARAD
believe that there is a monitoring system that ensures full implementation of the quality
policies. Below is a figure that shows the level of agreement of the respondents that
such system is present in the Administration:
Figure 5. Percentage of those who believe that there is a monitoring system in place
When asked about how the Administration exercise their control and monitoring of
MET, most of the answers indicated that they usually conduct of inspections, audits,
and verification of the processes leading to seafarers’ certification. However, the
research found some challenges in the implementation of QSS in these areas according
to 19.37% of the total responses received. Below are some of the responses verbatim:
Division Chief- Surveillance Division
“Periodic inspections and monitoring are conducted including surprise inspection
and verification to all MET institutions.”
61
Senior Officer, Quality Management Division, Philippines
“Systematic monitoring if systems are in place and if changes are to be introduced.”
Public Relations and customer care officer, Kenya
“Conducting audits and Assessments; including reAssessments; benchmarking; they
ensure that shipping companies are responsible for employing seafarers aboard their
ships in compliance to the requirements of the amended STCW Convention.”
Nautical Surveyor and PSCO, India
“Part of the monitoring activities delegated to the Recognized Organizations i.e.
Classification societies for conduct of Comprehensive Inspection Programme (CIP)
of METs in view of shortage of personnel in the Administration. The frequency of
monitoring directly by Administration varies based on the CIP grading of METs;
Company responsibilities defined in National STCW Rules. Implementation verified
during ISM audits of companies and ships and during ship inspections.”
Section chief, PSC office, Japan
“Through annual reporting from each MET institutions and Audit if considered
necessary.”
Executive Director, Philippines
“Extend service providers that are not following a QSS, ergo service output at times
cannot be verified.”
62
The findings also show that the majority of MARAD and METI conduct internal quality
audits and employ third party Assessments.
The high percentage of these Assessment mechanisms also entails institutional
challenges, mainly because the concept of audit and review is not fully accepted (lack
of experience of this or culture) (Wyatt, 2012). Challenges in these areas are also
experienced by the shipping companies and METIs.
Chief Engineer, India
“Getting various departments data organised and audited.”
Former Head, Maritime Safety Department, Ghana
“Measuring the level of achievements in IMO mandatory courses vis-a-vis
goals.”
Chief of Policy Development and Review Division, Philippines
“Management has the tendency to lobby the downgrading of major
non-conformities.”
Training Manager in an METI, Philippines
“Non-compliance of required training equipment in maritime schools.”
63
Principal, India
“The quality system is in place since last 15 years & is quite matured. The
biggest challenge is the classroom monitoring i.e. ensuring what and how things
are taught.”
4.5 Summary
Chapter 4 articulated the following:
.1 The MARAD exercise their control and monitoring of the MET systems mainly
through Quality Management Systems.
.2 Management responsibility is the greatest factor that affects the effective
implementation of the QSS.
.3 There is a substantial level of dissatisfaction from the seafarers on the current
MET systems in both India and the Philippines.
.4 Challenges encountered in the implementation of the QSS pertain to the QMS
and management responsibility.
64
Chapter 5 – Discussion of Findings
“The whole is more than the sum of its parts.”
Aristotle (n.d.)
5.1 Discussion of Findings
In chapter four, the data were presented and analysed. This chapter, however, will
summarise and discuss the research findings, significance of the study,
recommendations for further study and conclusion. Further, the extent to which the
research questions were answered by the study and its relevance to current MET
practices will also be presented. Concepts as discussed in the literature review are
considered in the synthesis of the research findings and are backed by the data
recorded in the previous chapter.
5.2 Summary of the Study
The study intended to find out how the maritime administrations exercise their control
and monitoring functions of maritime education and training in their own jurisdictions,
including the kind of control they have over the shipping companies, and all other
processes that lead to seafarers’ certification. The study also looked into three
determinants of quality and tried to extract substantial responses from the “customers”
that lead to: customer satisfaction, fitness for the industry, and continuous
improvement. For further understanding of its essence, quality in terms of education
needed to be contextualised.
65
As such, key stakeholders who often hold views and meanings of educational quality
were taken into consideration in trying to draw an applicable, if not perfect, picture of
quality in the current MET systems (UNICEF, n.d., p. 5). Readings of literature and
analysis of qualitative data led the researcher to conclude that quality cannot be fully
achieved and determined by merely looking at the output, but by carefully looking into
the systems and how they are really implemented.
There are challenges in the implementation of quality standards in most jurisdictions
surveyed. Most of these challenges pertained to customer satisfaction which leads to
the interrogation of management responsibilities in terms of dealing with feedbacks
and constancy of objectives (Deming, 1986). As part of management responsibilities,
“the institute shall ensure that industry, student and regulatory requirements are met,
with the aim of improving industry/student satisfaction (“PSB Certification,” 2002, p.
14).
However, it was noted that a large number of the seafarer respondents expressed their
dissatisfaction with the current MET system in terms of educational and training
requirements. This includes dissatisfaction with the provision of onboard training for
cadets, low job opportunities after graduation due to skills gap, insufficient technology
to cater for practical training, poorly qualified instructors, redundancy of training, and
the value for money of the training.
66
5.3 Discussion of the Findings in View of the Research Questions
Research Question 1 & 3.
How do maritime administrations define the role and objectives of the quality
standards in MET in the national context? How do Maritime Administrations exercise
their control and monitoring of their MET systems in terms of resources, legislation
and administrative frameworks, processes, outputs?
One hundred percent of responses from MARADs indicated that they implement a
quality standard pursuant to Regulation I/8 of the Convention.
Figure 6. Domains within which the maritime administration outline the role
and objectives of the QS in MET
In connection with their compliance with the Quality Standards requirement, figure 6
above shows the domains within which the maritime administration outline the role
37%
26%
5%
27%
5%
How maritime administrations define the role and
objectives of Quality Standards
QMS MR RM EI others n/r
67
and objectives of the QS in MET: Quality Management System (QMS), Management
Responsibilities (MR), Resource Management (RM) and Assessment and Improvement
(EI). QMS, MR and EI are the three major domains. A large portion of the
responses received is related to the QMS (general requirements and documentation) in
terms of control mechanisms done in the implementation of the legislative and
administrative frameworks, and processes. This includes national legislation and
implementation of international and national regulations. Conversely, the reported
challenges in the implementation of QS in MET, once again, are encountered in the
same domains as previously mentioned.
The responses also highlighted the focus on the responsibility, authority, and
communication where MARADs indicated that they exercise their control and
monitoring of the MET systems through issuance of regulatory requirements to satisfy
paragraph 1 of Regulation I/8. Monitoring and control procedures are focused on the
provision of resources and monitoring of outputs.
Moreover, answers from the people working in the MARAD show that most
employees are aware of their roles and functions in their organization, although
there is a small percentage that claimed that the job description was not
well-defined as shown in Figure 7.
68
Figure 7. This figure illustrates the level of agreement of the respondents in terms of having a
well-defined job description
Further, the control and monitoring exercised by MARAD also give emphasis on their
commitment to improve the system through Assessment. This involves audits,
inspection, and monitoring exercises conducted to check on the implementation of
MET systems. Though a high percentage suggests that such mechanisms are done by
the administrations, one may claim that this does not indicate full achievement of
quality. As Dodge mentioned, “you cannot inspect quality into a product” (Deming,
1986, p. 32), the quality should lie on how the final product was achieved. Having
mentioned such, the system involved in the monitoring activities is in question.
Nevertheless, the findings also suggest that the necessary effort for continual
improvement is being done by the Administrations. Glasser (as cited by UNICEF, n.d.,
p. 5) once stated that “systems that embrace change through… self-assessment are
more likely to offer quality education to students”. As such, it is also important to note
that METIs conduct internal quality audits as part of their self-assessment scheme like
MARADs do, as reflected in the next figure.
69
Figure 8. This figure shows that high percentage of the respondents believe that their administration
conducts internal audits
Additionally, a substantial number or 66.70% of responses from MARAD indicated
that they are employing third party Assessment. This is similar to the METI from which
55% of the responses revealed that they employ third party audits on top of the ones
being conducted by the maritime administration
Research Question 2
What are the key components, conditions and factors that determine and/or influence
the effectiveness of a quality approach in the MET systems of different Parties to the
STCW Convention?
In the previous chapter, it has been found out that management responsibility plays a
critical role in the effective implementation of the quality standards system. Despite the
efforts for continual improvement, challenges in the QS implementation are still
encountered.
70
Below is a figure that shows the areas in which factors that contributes to effective
QSS implementation are noted.
Figure 9. Areas in which factors that contribute to effective
QSS implementation are noted
Although majority of the responses from MARAD implied that goals and objectives of
the system were clearly defined, it is noticeable that there is a little divergence of
responses from MARAD and METI when it comes to clarity of policies, aims and
objectives as shown in the table below:
Figure 10. Agreement level on the clarity of policies, aims, and objectives
QMS MR RM EI other
s
n/r
MARAD’s 11.76 29.41 23.53 11.76 23.53 0
METI’s 9.09 22.73 22.73 4.55 22.73 18.18
total 20.85 52.14 46.26 16.31 46.26 18.18
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
no. of responses received
%
Factors that affect effective
implementation of quality standards
0
50
100
Strongly
agree 1
2 3 4 Strongly
disagree 5
Agreement level on the clarity of policies,
aims and objectives of MARAD in respect of
MET
MARAD’s METI’S
71
The discrepancy between the responses indicates that there is vagueness in the policies,
aims and objectives as perceived by the METI. Such could be a result of an unstated
assumption that the procedures are fully defined and followed in most service
organizations (Latzko n.d., as cited by Deming, 1986, p. 191), like MARAD.
Provided that there are clear policies in place in most jurisdiction, there is still a need
to identify the factors that affect the successful implementation of the MET systems.
The disagreement between the results may suggest that there is a need to look closely
into how the METI implement the system. The gap between the understanding of the
policies, no matter how small can snowball into something irredeemable if not
corrected at the early stages of implementation. “No amount of care or skill in
workmanship can overcome fundamental faults in the system (Deming, 1986, p. 315).”
Report on customer’s satisfaction
Further to the previous discussions, this study also wants to highlight the significance
of “customer satisfaction” as one of the key components of an effective quality
system. Literature in the earlier chapter suggested that customer satisfaction should be
one of the prime objectives of quality education. Usman (2010) indicates that
satisfaction plays a major role in determining the originality and accuracy of a system,
especially the educational system wherein the level of satisfaction is tagged with the
level of students’ skill development, course knowledge and mentality. Additionally,
Keller as cited by Usman (2010) suggested that the students get motivated from the
72
reliability of the facilities they are provided with. However, the findings show that
there is a substantial amount of dissatisfaction from the respondents. It was previously
noted that most of the responses expressed discontent with the provision of resources
among others.
Access to appropriate and up-to-date equipment is one of the major concerns in India.
Repondents from both public and private METI mentioned that there is a problem
when it comes to the training facilities that are perceived to be outdated. For the same
reason, the findings revealed that the respondents demand for more practical training
that could help them get the job. This is supported by Carron & Chau (as cited by
UNICEF, n.d.) when they mentioned a study in India which suggested that, the quality
of the learning environment was strongly correlated with pupils’ achievement. This
needs to be looked into by the mangement if they really are committed to achieving
quality.
If the institutions and the administrations are aiming at producing quality seafarers, then
the goals as well as the means of achieving them have to be in line with the objectives.
Deming (1986, p. 16) emphasised that outputs cannot be considered without considering
the goals they are designed to achieve. Moreover, the responses suggest that there is a
need to review the policies considering the outcomes of the courses despite the provision
of strict policies for the conduct of each course.
73
On the other hand, redundancy of training was repeatedly stated by the respondents
from the Philippines. This suggests further review of curricula is needed in order to
identify the gaps and duplication of training programmes. This is associated with their
complaints about high cost training fees which are believed to be just redundancy and
not adding much value with what they already know.
It was noted in both jursdictions that the respondents did not find value for money
from the courses they attended because the facilities that were offered to them were
deemed to be inadequate and “not meeting the standards”. Similarly the training
programme for cadets and some issues related to employment were also found to be a
unsatisfactory as mentioned by the respondents from India, Japan, and Philippines.
Further, problems on human resources like, lack of qualified instructors was
highlighted as a common challenge in all the surveyed respondents. Being aware that
teaching personnel is one critical factors in achieving quality education, Regulation I/8
clearly stated the requirement for a quality standard that covers the administration of
processes that lead to seafarers’ certification, including the qualification of instructors.
This is in line with the requirements of Regulation I/6 [Training and assessment] which
requires a Party to ensure administration, supervision and monitoring of training and
assessment of seafarers. This idea was affirmed by the Japanese Ministry of Foreign
Affairs (2013) who believes in the importance of excellent teaching staff in developing
excellent industrial human resources. “They argue that educational leaders must be
able to ‘account for the quality of learning’ in their institutions” (Haughton, 2012, p.
74
59). Indeed, the importance of having well-trained instructors as associated with the
perception of quality was highlighted in the discussion of the overall satisfaction with
MET, as well as in the literature review in Chapter 2. In effect, the system on how
these instructors were qualified to perform such teaching functions needs a review.
5.4 Implications of findings
The literature talks about MET quality in terms of satisfying the “customers” as well as
“fitness for industry needs” and such are indicated in the findings of this study. As a
result, it calls for attention of the maritime administrations to look into their systems
more critically and mind the importance of feedback mechanisms in their commitment
to continual improvement of MET. This could help them align their objectives with
what is required, not only by the Convention but with what the “customers”
themselves, require. Total engagement with the seafarers and shipping companies is
necessary.
Since management responsibilities are also highlighted in this research, the relevance
of this study extends to the top management of METI and MARAD and all other
important stakeholders that are involved in seafarer certification and overall safety and
efficiency of ship operations at large. As the research findings revealed, mere
compliance with the requirements of the Convention does not totally assure
quality–for one may satisfy every stated requirement and still fail to satisfy the
customer in a profound way (Cochran, 2008, para. 7).
75
In terms of organizational or institutional quality, the study revealed lack of awareness
of the staff of the quality standards system in both MARAD and METI. As such, there
is a need to review the policy on competence, awareness, and training of the staff to
emphasise the importance of their individual activities in achieving quality objectives,
and at the same time enable them to perform their specific functions effectively.
Given such expectations, paired with the complex nature of the maritime industry,
there is a need to the act of those concerned together, to fully achieve success. As such,
this impacts everyone who, in one way or another has a chance to build quality into the
service offered, whether or not directly involved with the “customers.”
5.5 Recommendations
With all the findings and data at hand, the analyses focused only on the data that best
answer the research questions. Therefore, quantitative data were not exhaustively
analysed. It is also necessary to mention that, the study was participated in by only a
limited number of respondents from Japan and therefore cannot create such solid
conclusion of the current MET situation in that jurisdiction. On the other hand,
respondents from India and the Philippines, especially from the seafarers point of view,
are enough to conclude the presence of some lapses in their MET system.
However, the researcher also note that the responses from the seafarer are just limited
to their own experiences and knowledge of the bigger picture in terms of application of
the quality standards system at the national level.
76
Nevertheless, this research recommends the following:
To the MARAD:
People are part of the system but few people in the industry know what constitute a
system (Deming, 1986, p. 366). It is the duty of the administration to ensure
appropriate and non-conflicting understanding of the policies, aims, and objectives in
both the maritime administration and the stakeholders, particularly the METI who have
direct interaction with the customers (seafarers and industry). It is also recommended
that the MARAD strengthen their collaboration with industry stakeholders. With this,
identifying the lapses in the whole MET system should not be as challenging.
It is also suggested that the MARADs as government institutions act not only as
regulators but as enablers. That is, not only setting goals that can be realised within the
capabilities of the system but also through assertion of leadership, to organize the
stakeholders, and to allocate resources in the development enterprise (Bratton, 1989).
To the METI:
A review of current policies on hiring instructors and all other personnel, and
augmentation of institutional capacity through training are recommended. Likewise,
conducting constant review of the national regulations and curriculum vis-a-vis
inventory of the training facilities is highly suggested. Further, it is also recommended
that the link between MET institutions dissertation help USA and shipping companies be strengthened in
order to improve the current situation on training berths for cadets.
77
5.6 Conclusions
The study has provided through its findings that the role of the quality standards
system as implemented by the maritime administration is defined as a means of
controlling and monitoring the processes that underpin maritime education and training.
However, factors and challenges in ensuring its effective implementation were also
noted. Management responsibility, among all other factors, was determined to be one
of the greatest factors that affect the implementation of the quality standard system.
Since the management holds an immense responsibility in ensuring the proper
implementation of the QSS, it is prudent to conclude that not much improvement can
be expected from the effort of the workforce unaided by the management (Deming,
1986, p. 366). Another important factor was the resource management. This does not
only involve scarcity with respect to adequate and relevant training facilities, but also
putting the right people to perform the job. As Barber & Mourshed (2007, p. 13) put it,
the quality of an education system cannot exceed the quality of its teachers. In the
research findings, qualification of instructors was questioned and therefore calls for an
utmost attention.
Further, the study reveals that seafarers in the surveyed jurisdictions are generally not
satisfied with the current MET systems. Therefore, the MARADs should be made
aware of the “reality” behind the METIs compliance with the national regulations.
Dissatisfaction of the seafarers strongly indicates that despite the mechanisms of the
government to ensure the quality of MET, the “customers” are not fully satisfied. As
the end users of the product, seafarers and shipowners/shipping companies are deemed
78
to be in the position to judge whether the objectives are satisfied. “When it comes to
customers, feelings are facts (Kalmar n.d., as cited from Cochran, 2008).”
The “High Level Group” (2013, p. 14) realises that there is no single definition for
high quality in teaching and learning, as both are multi-faceted activities that depend
largely on the context, such as the subject, the learners, the mode of instruction,
resources, etc. As such, the study let the literature and the findings speak a definite
context in which the quality can be defined. With this, it was concluded that the
customers’ perspectives are very important in determining quality.
The study laid down the factors that affect the effectiveness of the QSS, and further
described the perceived quality of the current MET, which generally boiled down to
management responsibilities. However, maritime administrations cannot work in
isolation; for the quality standards to work effectively, collective effort from the key
players is highly encouraged.
“Alone we can do so little, together we can do so much.”
–Helen Keller (n.d.)
(adapted from Kerpen, 2014)
79
References
5 Management responsibility. (2001). Retrieved from
http://www.simplyquality.org/2000%20Summary/req_5-0.html
AB Volvo. (2016). Quality. Retrieved from
http://www.volvogroup.com/group/global/en-gb/volvo%20group/ourvalues/quality/Pages/qualit
y.aspx
Achuthan, A. (2005). Synergistic Solutions.
Alfiani, Didin Susetyo., “Multinational and multicultural seafarers and MET students : a socio-cultural
study for improving maritime safety and the education of seafarers” (2010). World Maritime
University Dissertations. Paper 425.
Aliyu, M. (2016, March 30). Master mariners, engineers to serve as faculty instructors at MMTC.
Retrieved from
http://guardian.ng/business-services/master-mariners-engineers-to-serve-as-faculty-instructorsat-mmtc/
Aristotle. (n.d.). BrainyQuote.com. Retrieved September 17, 2016, from BrainyQuote.com Web site:
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/aristotle377766.html
Asyali, E., Tuna, O., & Cerit, A. (2016). Http://ljournal.ru/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/d-2016-154.pdf.
ISO 9000:2000 Quality Management System and Problem Based Learning in MET.
doi:10.18411/d-2016-154
Barber, M., & Mourshed, M. (2007). How the world’s best-performing school systems come out on top.
New York: McKinsey &.
Baylon, A. M., & Santos, E. R., VAdm. (2011). The Challenges in Philippine Maritime Education and
Training. International Journal of Innovative Interdisciplinary Research, (1), december.
Bramley, P. (1991). Evaluating training effectiveness: Translating theory into practice. London:
McGraw-Hill Book.
Bratton, M. (1989). The politics of government-NGO relations in Africa. World Development, 17(4),
569-587. doi:10.1016/0305-750x(89)90263-5
Bulc, V. (2014, December 19). Commission Implementing Decision of 17 December 2014 on the
recognition of Japan pursuant to Directive 2008/106/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council as regards the systems for training and certification of seafarers (notified under
document C(2014) 9590) (Text with EEA relevance) (2014/935/EU). Retrieved from
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014D0935&from=EN
80
Chaffee, E., & Sherr, L. A. (1992, October). Quality: Transforming Postsecondary Education. ERIC
Digest. Retrieved from http://www.ericdigests.org/1992-1/quality.htm
Cheng, Y.C. (2001b). New Education and New Teacher Education: A Paradigm Shift for the Future. In
Cheng, Y.C., Chow, K.W., & Tsui, K.T. (eds.). New Teacher Education for the Future:
International Perspectives, (pp. 33-88). Hong Kong & The Netherlands: Hong Kong Institute of
Education & Kluwer Academic Puhlishers.
Cheng, T. C., & Choy, P. W. (2007). Measuring Success Factors of Quality Management in the
Shipping Industry. Maritime Economics & Logistics, 9(3), 234-253.
Chowdhury, M. S. (n.d.). Human behavior in the context of training: An overview of the role of
learning theories as applied to training and development. Retrieved from
http://www.tlainc.com/articl112.htm
Cochran, C. (2008). Measuring service quality. Retrieved from
http://www.qualitydigest.com/mar08/articles/03_article.shtml
Cross, S. J. (2015). Quality standards, Regulation I/8, STCW Convention, 1978, as amended, notes for
the guidance of administrations. Unpublished lecture notes in curriculum design, delivery and
assessment. World Maritime University, Malmo, Sweden
Cusmano, L., Froy, F., Bouis, R., Christensen, A., Serres, A. D., Guichard, S., . . . Renaud, I.
(2015). Escaping the Stagnation Trap: Policy Options for the Euro Area and Japan.
Deming, E. W. (1982). Out of crisis (First MIT Press ed., Ser. 2000, p. 6). Cambridge, MA:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Department of Trade and Industry. (n.d.). Quality Management Systems [PDF]. United Kingdom:
Department of Trade and Industry.
De Weert, E. (2011), Perspectives on Higher Education and the Labour Market: Review of
International Policy Developments , Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies, University of
Twente, Enschede.
Directorate General of Shipping, Mumbai. (2013). Comprehensive Inspection Programme (CIP) for
Maritime Training Institutes-Competency Courses. (23), 2014th ser.
Emad, G., & Roth, W. M. (2008). Contradictions in the practices of training for and assessment of
competency. Education Training, 50(3), 260-272. doi:10.1108/00400910810874026
Fernandez, C. M., & Choi, K. (2012). An overview of skills development pathways in Asia (pp. 13-39,
Skills Pathways Asia).
Forbes Media LLC. (2016). The World’s Most Valuable Brands. Retrieved from
http://www.forbes.com/powerful-brands/list/#tab:rank
81
Foster, W. A. (n.d.). Forbes quotes. Thoughts on the business of life. Retrieved from
http://www.forbes.com/quotes/9698/
Frost, R., Untermeyer, L., & Frost, R. (1991). The road not taken: A selection of Robert Frost’s poems.
New York: H. Holt and Co.
Gaetani I.I. ,Hoes P.,& Hensen J.L.M., (2016). Occupant behavior in building energy simulation:
towards a fit-for-purpose modeling strategy. Energy and Buildings, Vol. 121(2016), p. 188-204
Gatfield, T., Barker, M., & Graham, P. (2006, July 7). Journal of Higher Education Policy and
Management. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1360080990210210
Gekara, V. (2009). Understanding attrition in UK maritime education and training. Globalisation,
Societies and Education, 7(2), 217-232. doi:10.1080/14767720902908190
GG WP. (n.d.). In Urban Dictionary. Retrieved from
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=GG+WP
Gotzamani, K. D., & Tsiotras, G. D. (2001). An empirical study of the ISO 9000 standards’
contribution towards total quality management. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, 21(10), 1326-1342
Gustafsson, A., Nilsson, L., & Johnson, M. D. (2003). The role of quality practices in service
organizations[pdf]. Retrieved from Cornell University, School of Hospitality Administration
site: http://scholarship.sha.cornell.edu/articles/700
Guasch, J. L. (2007). Quality systems and standards for a competitive edge. Washington, D.C.: World
Bank.
Hadiyati, E. (2014). Service Quality and Performance of Public Sector: Study on Immigration Office in
Indonesia. IJMS International Journal of Marketing Studies, 6(6). doi:10.5539/ijms.v6n6p104
Harvey, L. (2016, January 26). Glossary index. Retrieved from
http://www.qualityresearchinternational.com/glossary/
Haughton, C. J. (2012). From ships to leaderships: The leadership of maritime education and training
(MET) institutions in the United Kingdom. Unpublished PhD dissertation, The University of
Birmingham, United Kingdom
High level group on the modernisation of higher education: Report to the European Commission on
improving the quality of teaching and learning in Europe’s higher education institutions. (2013).
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Holder, L. A. (2002). Training and assessment on board: A guide for Seafarers and Managers on how
to make best use of opportunities for practical training and assessment of competence on board
ship. London: Witherby and.
ICS. (2015). Number and Nationality of World’s Seafarers. Retrieved December 02, 2015, from
82
http://www.ics-shipping.org/shipping-facts/shipping-and-world-trade/number-and-nationality-o
f-world’s-seafarers
IMarEST: Shipping’s looming skills gap must be tackled now -. (2016, May 06). Retrieved from

IMarEST: Shipping’s looming skills gap must be tackled now

International Maritime Organization [IMO]. (2013). Guidance on the preparation, reporting and review
of independent Assessments and steps taken to implement mandatory amendments required by
Regulation I/7 of the STCW Convention: MSC.1/Circ.1449. London: Author
Johnson, R., & Onwuegbuzie, A. (2004). Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time
Has Come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3700093
Joint CHED-MARINA Memorandum No. 1, Series of 2016. (2016, July 19). Retrieved from

Joint CHED-MARINA Memorandum No. 1

Jørgensen, T. H. (2008). Towards more sustainable management systems: Through life cycle
management and integration. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(10), 1071-1080.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.06.006
Kanev, D. (2014, June). The New Characteristics of Seafarers’ Labor Market and their Requirements to
the Maritime Education. Retrieved from http://iamu-edu.org/?page_id=1399
Kerpen, D. (2014, February 12). 15 Quotes to Inspire Great Teamwork. Retrieved from
http://www.inc.com/dave-kerpen/15-quotes-to-inspire-great-team-work.html
King M.L., Jr. (n.d.). BrainyQuote.com. Retrieved September 17, 2016, from BrainyQuote.com Web
site: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/martinluth402936.html
Klefsjö, B., Bergquist, B., & Garvare, R. (2008). Quality management and business excellence,
customers and stakeholders. The TQM Journal, 20(2), 120-129.
doi:10.1108/17542730810857354
Kowalski, P., Gonzalez, J. L., Ugarte, C., & Ragoussis, A. (2015). Participation of Developing
Countries in Global Value Chains. OECD Trade Policy Papers. doi:10.1787/5js33lfw0xxn-en
Loginovsky, V., General Assembly of the International Association of Maritime Universities,
International Association of Maritime Universities., & Nihon Zaidan. (2009). MET trends in the
XXI century : Shipping industry and training institutions in the global environment, area of
mutual interests and cooperation. [Place of publication not identified]: International
Association of Maritime Universities.
Manghani, K. (2011). Quality assurance: Importance of systems and standard operating
procedures. Perspect Clin Res Perspectives in Clinical Research, 2(1), 34.
doi:10.4103/2229-3485.76288
83
Maringe, F., & Gibbs, P. (2009). Marketing higher education: Theory and practice. Maidenhead: Open
University Press.
Martinez-Fernandez, C., & Choi, K. (2012). Skills Development Pathways in Asia. Technical and
Vocational Education and Training: Issues, Concerns and Prospects Skills Development for
Inclusive and Sustainable Growth in Developing Asia-Pacific, 155-179.
doi:10.1007/978-94-007-5937-4_9
Matchett, K., Dahlberg, M. L., & Rudin, T. (2016). Quality in the undergraduate experience: What is
it? how is it measured? who decides? summary of a workshop. Washington: National
Academies Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.17226/23514
McLeod, S. (2008). Likert Scale. Retrieved from http://www.simplypsychology.org/likert-scale.html
Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2013). Japan’s Official Development Helpance White Paper 2012
[Pamphlet]. Tokyo, Japan: Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Mwangura, A. (2016, March 08). Kenya needs modern ship to boost maritime training. Retrieved from
http://www.businessdailyafrica.com/Kenya-needs-modern-ship-to-boost-maritime-training-/-/1
248928/3108752/-/12nh588z/-/index.html
Nagao, S., & Collin, K. (2016, February 16). Toward a Japan-Singapore-India maritime
partnership. Japan Times RSS. Retrieved May 04, 2016, from
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2016/02/16/commentary/japan-commentary/toward-japansingapore-india-maritime-partnership/#.Vyn7ffl97IV
Nakazawa, T. (2015). Developing seafarer skills through quality maritime education and training [PDF
document]. Retrieved from
http://www.imo.org/en/About/Events/WorldMaritimeDay/Documents/2015%20WMD/Mr.%20
Takeshi%20Nakazawa,%20Secretary-General,%20International%20Association%20of%20Mar
itime%20Universities.pdf
Nas, S. and Köseoğlu, B. (2012). Maritime Education and Training Quality (METQUAL); An
Application on Dokuz Eylül University Maritime Faculty, Journal of Marine Technology and
Environment, Volume I, pp. 115-122
Nehati, M. (2010). Global Business and Management Research: An International Journal , 2(1), 58.
OECD Paris. (2012). India: Sustaining High and Inclusive Growth. Better Policies.
doi:10.1787/9789264201651-en
Open-ended questions. (n.d.). Retrieved September 11, 2016, from
http://www.mediacollege.com/journalism/interviews/open-ended-questions.html
Osborn, D., Cutter, A., & Ullah, F. (2005). The United Nations Millennium Development
Goals. Journal of International Affairs, 58(2, Financing Development: Challenges for the
84
Millennium Development Goals).
Patrinos, H., Velez, E., & Wang, C. Y. (2013, November). Framework for the Reform of Education
Systems and Planning for Quality. Retrieved from
http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2013/11/14/000
158349_20131114130408/Rendered/PDF/WPS6701.pdf
Pike, R. W. (2003). Creative training techniques handbook: Tips, tactics, and how-to’s for delivering
effective training. Human Resource Development.
QMET PSB Standard for quality maritime education and training. (2002). PSB Certification Pte.
Resnik, D. B., J.D., Ph.D. (2015, December 01). What is Ethics in Research & Why is it Important?
Retrieved from http://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/whatis/
Reuters (2016, July 08). WTO’s new trade index suggests sluggish third quarter world trade growth.
Retrieved from
http://www.businessinsider.com/r-wtos-new-trade-index-suggests-sluggish-third-quarter-worldtrade-growth-2016-7?r=US&IR=T
Rickman, P. (2016, August/September). Education versus training.
Helen Sampson , Victor Gekara & Michael Bloor (2011) Water-tight or sinking? A consideration of the
standards of the contemporary assessment practices underpinning seafarer licence examinations
and their implications for employers, Maritime Policy & Management, 38:1, 81-92, DOI:
10.1080/03088839.2010.533713
Sargeant, J. (2012, March). Qualitative Research Part II: Participants, Analysis, and Quality Assurance.
Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3312514/
Siva, V., Gremyr, I., Bergquist, B., Garvare, R., Zobel, T., & Isaksson, R. (2016). The support of
Quality Management to sustainable development: A literature review. Journal of Cleaner
Production. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.020
SkyMark Corporation. (2016). Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Retrieved from
http://www.skymark.com/resources/leaders/deming.asp
Staff, J. (2012, January 01). The Coca-Cola Company – Quality. Retrieved from
http://www.coca-colacompany.com/stories/quality
System [Def. 2]. (n.d.). In BusinessDictionary.com. Retrieved from
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/system.html
System [Def. B1]. (n.d.). In Cambridge Dictionary. Retrieved from
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/system
Tatsumi, Y. (2016, March 10). Why Japan’s Defense Deal with the Philippines is Unique. The Diplomat.
Retrieved May 4, 2016, from
85
http://thediplomat.com/2016/03/why-japans-defense-deal-with-the-philippines-is-unique/
Thiruvasagam, G., Col. Dr., & Rengamani, J., Dr. (2015). Maritime education in India – a study on
productivity enhancement. International Journal of Advanced Research in Management
(IJARM), 6(3), sep-dec, 29-35.
Top management commitment. (n.d.). In BusinessDictionary.com. Retrieved from
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/top-management-commitment.html
Tricker, R. (2005). ISO 9001. Burlington: Elsevier.
UNICEF. (n.d.). Defining quality in eduction. Retrieved from
http://www.unicef.org/education/files/QualityEducation.pdf
United Nations. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/index.html
Usman, A. (2010). The Impact of Service Quality on Students’ Satisfaction in Higher Education
Institutes of Punjab. Jmr Journal of Management Research, 2(2). doi:10.5296/jmr.v2i2.418
World Maritime Day 2015: Maritime education and training //. (2015, September 24). Retrieved
September 11, 2016, from
http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/PressBriefings/Pages/39-WMD-2015-.aspx
Wyatt, D. (2012, June 27). Voluntary IMO Member State Audit Scheme (VIMSAS) 12th North Indian
Ocean Hydrographic Commission Conference, Colombo, Sri Lanka. Retrieved from
http://iho.int/srv1/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=432&Itemid=391&lang=e
n
86
APPENDIX 1 – Letter to the respondents
Dear Respondent,
Thank you for taking the time to consider the attached questionnaire. We will be
grateful if you will take a few minutes to complete it.
The purpose of the questionnaire is to collect data for a Master of Science Dissertation
at the World Maritime University (WMU) about how a quality standards system is
implemented in different maritime jurisdictions. The World Maritime University
(WMU) is the apex educational institution of the International Maritime Organization
(IMO).
Data derived from this questionnaire is solely for the purpose of the dissertation and
we hereby assure complete confidentiality. Your name (if given) will be anonymised in
the final report. Further, the anonymised data will be stored until 12 October 2016
after which the electronic files will be deleted and hard paper copies shredded.
We consider you an important part of this survey. Your participation—though purely
voluntary—is critical to the success of the survey and is very much appreciated.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to send them to Katrina Marie Gravador
for a prompt reply:
Email: s16078@wmu.se
Thank you very much for your Helpance and participation in this survey.
87
APPENDIX 2 – Questionnaire completion and return
Please answer by checking the tick boxes or writing in the spaces provided for text.
For the electronic version, text (words) can be filled in directly in the shaded blanks –
_______- which expand to fill in the amount of text you want to input. The check
boxes are marked by clicking on them. To deselect a particular option, click on the box
again.
Kindly follow the specific instructions for each section and question.
There are no right or wrong answers. We are interested in your opinion. Any
additional comments you may have – where the question asks for this – will be
especially welcome.
The time and effort in answering the questions are very much appreciated and we
would like to thank you very much for your input and cooperation.
RETURN OF QUESTIONNAIRES:
 If you received the electronic version of this questionnaire, kindly save your
completed questionnaire under a suitable name of your choosing and then send
it to the email address indicated below.
s16078@wmu.se
88
 If you were handed the questionnaire by a facilitator, kindly return it to the
facilitator.
APPENDIX 3 – Research Questionnaires
(MARITIME ADMINISTRATION)
Section A
Respondent’s Profile:
1. Name (optional):
2. Age:
3. Gender:
4. Nationality:
5. What position do you hold in the Administration? (if not the Administrator,
kindly specify the department or section)
________________________________________________________________
6. How long have you been working in your organization?
________________________________________________________________
7. Do you deal with the International Convention on Standards of Training
Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW) in your daily official
functions? If yes, in which way? (e.g. certification, quality standards, training,
etc.).
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
89
Section B
This section is intended to help us gain insights into how your administration defines
the role and objectives of the quality standards system in your national maritime
education and training (MET) system. In this part of the questionnaire, you are
being asked to express your agreement or disagreement with the following
statements by choosing the appropriate box or answer yes/no as required. This will
be followed by a few questions to which we would appreciate as comprehensive an
answer as is possible.
Strongly
Agree
Agree Neutral
Disagre
e
Strongly
Disagree
1. The policies, aims and objectives of
your administration in respect of MET
are clearly stated.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
2. The top management is familiar with
the policies, aims and objectives.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
3. The whole staff is familiar with the
policies, aims and objectives.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
4. The objectives are measureable. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
5. The objectives are attainable. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
90
6. There is a mechanism to disseminate
these kinds of information to all
concerned.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
7. The management exercises total
control of the system.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
8. The job description of each employee
is well-defined.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
9.There is a monitoring system that
ensures full implementation of quality
policies for the following:
9.1 Administration
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
9.2 Maritime Education and
Training Institutions (METIs)
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
9.3 Seafarers ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
9.4 Shipping Companies ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
10. Your administration conducts
internal audits periodically.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
11. Your administration employs a third
party Assessment.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
12. Your organization implements a quality standard.
Yes
☐
No
☐
13. How do the policies of your Administration apply to and are implemented in
91
respect of shipping companies? Please explain briefly.
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
14. If your answer to question 12. is yes, have you encountered some challenges in the
implementation of a quality standards system in your administration? Please explain in
details. If your answer to question 12. is “no”, please proceed to question 17.
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
15. Kindly indicate the factors that cause or influence these challenges.
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
92
16. How in your opinion can these challenges be addressed?
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
17. How does your Administration exercise control and monitoring of your own MET
system in terms of:
17.1 Resources
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
17.2 Legislation and administrative frameworks
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
17.3 Processes
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
17.4 Outputs
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
We appreciate your completion of this questionnaire.
Thank you very much.
93
(SHIPPING COMPANY)
Section A
Respondents Profile:
1. Name (optional):
2. Age:
3. Gender:
4. Nationality:
5. What is the name of your company? (optional)
_______________________________________________________________
6. Please tick the appropriate bullet
o Local company
o International company
o Multinational company
7. Name the types of ship you operate. (Please indicate the GT and kW):
Type of ship GT kW
1
94
2
3
4
5
Section B
This section is intended to help us gain insights into how you think the maritime
education and training (MET) is implemented in your country (or the country where
you are currently operating, in case of an international/multinational companies).
You are being
asked to express your agreement or disagreement with the following statements by
choosing the appropriate box or answer yes /no as required. This will be followed by
a few questions to which we would appreciate as comprehensive an answer as is
possible.
Strongly
Agree
Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Disagree
1. The policies, aims and objectives
of the maritime administration in
respect of shipping companies are
clearly stated.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
2. The policies are accessible to the
companies.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
95
3. There is a policy provision for
the companies.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
4. Your company is monitored by a
national maritime organization.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
5. There is a platform in which the
government and the companies
have the opportunity to discuss the
implementation, review, and
revision of policies.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
6. There is a strong partnership
between the maritime education and
training institutions (METIs) and
your company.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
7. There is a strong collaboration
among the companies, the METIs,
and the maritime administration.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
8. There is a feedback mechanism
for the companies by the METIs in
case of partnership.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
9. Your company relies on the
administration for the seafarers’
training requirement.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
96
10. Your company has its own list
of training requirements on top of
the requirements from the
administration.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
11. Your company Helps the
seafarers to get certification.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
12. Your company accommodates
cadets.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
13. There is enough manpower in
your company to cater for the cadet
training.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
14. Are you satisfied with the current MET system in your country? If not, kindly let us
know how, in your opinion, it can be improved.
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
15. As a company, how do you think you can help the administration improve in these
areas?
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
97
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
We appreciate your completion of this questionnaire.
Thank you very much.
(MARITIME EDUCATION AND TRAINING INSTITUTION)
Section A
Respondents Profile:
1. Name (optional):
2. Age:
3. Gender:
4. Nationality:
5. What position do you hold in the METI? (if not the top management, kindly
specify the department or section)
________________________________________________________________
6. How long have you been working in your institution?
________________________________________________________________
7. Do you deal with the STCW in your daily official functions? If yes, in which
way? (e.g. certification, quality standards, training, etc.).
98
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Section B
This section is intended to help us gain insights into how in your point of view does
the maritime administration of your country define its role and objectives of the
quality standards system in your national maritime education and training (MET)
system. In this part of the questionnaire, you are being asked to express your
agreement or disagreement with the following statements by choosing the
appropriate box or answer yes /no as required. This will be followed by a few
questions to which we would appreciate as comprehensive an answer as is possible.
Strongly
Agree
Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Disagree
1. The policies, aims and
objectives of the maritime
administration in respect of
MET are clearly stated.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
99
2. The METIs and the staff are all
familiar with the policies, aims
and objectives.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
3. The objectives are measureable. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
4. The objectives are attainable. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
5. There is a mechanism to
disseminate these kinds of
information to all concerned.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
6. The maritime administration
exercises total control of your
MET system.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
7. Your institution has control of
your own system.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
8. The job description of each
employee is well-defined.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
9. There is a monitoring system
that ensures full implementation
of the policies for the following:
9.1 Institutional management
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
9.2 Qualification of Instructors
and Assessors
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
100
9.3 Shipboard training ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
9.4 Training and assessment ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
9.5 Examination and
certification
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
10. Your institution conducts
internal audits periodically.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
11. Your institution employs a third
party Assessment other than the
maritime administration.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
12. Your institution implements a quality standard.
Yes
☐
No
☐
13. If your answer to question 12. is yes, have you encountered some challenges in the
implementation of a quality standards system in your own institution? In which area in
MET? Please explain in details. If your answer to question 12. is “no”, please proceed
to question 16.
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
14. Kindly indicate the factors that cause or influence these challenges?
101
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
15. How in your opinion can these challenges be addressed?
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
16. In the absence of a quality standards system, on what basis does the maritime
administration allow your institution to provide MET? Please explain in details.
(Kindly disregard this question if your answer in question 12. is “yes”.)
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
We appreciate your completion of this questionnaire.
Thank you very much.
102
(SEAFARER)
Section A
Respondents Profile:
1. Name (optional):
2. Age:
3. Gender:
4. Nationality:
5. What is your highest level of education?
________________________________________________________________
6. From which university/institution did you gain your highest seafaring
qualification? (Please specify if it is a private institution or an institution run by
the government.)
________________________________________________________________
103
7. How long did the program last?
________________________________________________________________
8. Did it include shipboard training? For how long?
________________________________________________________________
9. What is your most recent position/rank on board?
________________________________________________________________
10. How long have you been working as a seafarer?
________________________________________________________________
11. What is the name of your last company?
________________________________________________________________
12. Have you undergone STCW training programs to get your certification? (If yes,
please list the last 7; if no, please state how you obtained certification.)
12.1 ____________________________________________________________
12.2 ____________________________________________________________
12.3 ___________________________________________________________
12.4 ____________________________________________________________
12.5 ____________________________________________________________
12.6 ____________________________________________________________
12.7 ___________________________________________________________
Section B
This section is intended to help us gain insights into how you think the maritime
104
education and training (MET) is implemented in your country. You are being asked
to express your agreement or disagreement with the following statements by
choosing the appropriate box or answer yes /no as required. This will be followed by
a few questions to which we would appreciate as comprehensive an answer as is
possible.
Strongly
Agree
Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Disagree
1. The policies, aims and objectives
of the maritime administration in
respect of seafarer training and
certification are clearly stated.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
2. The policies are accessible to the
seafarers.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
3.Feedback from seafarers is
encouraged/welcome by the
Administration
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
4. Seafarer feedback to the
Administration is acted on.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
5. Please think about your last
training session in a maritime
education and training institution
(METI).
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
105
5.1 The METI provided quality
service.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
5.2 The education and training
programs was relevant and useful to
my work on board ship.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
5.3 The education and training
facilities are adequate (in number
and quality).
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
5.4 The instructors and assessors
are appropriately qualified.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
5.5 The time allocated for the
subjects is sufficient.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
5.6 There is a feedback mechanism
for the seafarers after the training.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
5.7 There is a mechanism for
retaking examinations in case of
failure in the assessment.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
5.8 There are clear procedures on
certification.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
5.9 The assessment system is fair
and objective.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
6. It is easy to find a job after ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
106
graduation.
7. The METIs provide Helpance
to ensure the employability of their
graduates.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
8. The knowledge and skills you
obtained from your education are
very useful in your current job.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
9. There is a platform wherein the
seafarers can directly communicate
to the maritime administration.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
10. Are you satisfied with the current MET system in your country? If not, kindly let us
know how, in your opinion, it can be improved.
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
We appreciate your completion of this questionnaire.
Thank you very much.
107

Published by

Medical

View all posts