1 / 44

Presented by : Selcuk NAS,

Presented by : Selcuk NAS,. The Aim of Study The aim of this study is determine th e factors affect ing the individual decision making processes of the ship masters in the shipboard operations. Ship Masters’ Individual Decision Making Process. Research Process

erzsebet-toth
Download Presentation

Presented by : Selcuk NAS,

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Presented by: Selcuk NAS,

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

  3. Ship Masters’ Individual Decision Making Process Research Process • Literature Review (Decision Making and DM Styles) • Methodology • Qualitative Data Collection • Focus Group • Content Analysis • Developing Variables • Quantitative Data Collection 3. Findings 4. Results 5. Conclusions

  4. Literature Review The Role of Ship Master Ship mastershave a significant role in the internationally dynamic structure of the shipping industry. Ship mastersare in such a powerful position that any decisions they make with respect to their profession are able to directly affect not only the shipping companies they work for but also the whole shipping industry to a considerable extent.

  5. Literature Review Decision Making Decision making is defined as choosing behavior (Connor and Becker 2003). Decision making is generally defined as making a choice among a number of alternatives(Rollinson, 2002).

  6. Literature Review Decision Making Style During any decision making processes; decision makers develop certain habits likely to be affected by various internal and external factors. Such habits form the decision maker’s decision-making style. Decision making style could be defined as the “learning habits of decision making” (Driver, et al, 1990;3). Decision making style can help understand the processes managers use while making decisions (Nutt, 1990; 174). Individual's decision making style is his/her natural, habitual approach affecting a choice and then acting on that choice (Conner and Becker, 2003).

  7. Literature Review Individual Decision Making Process Noone (2002) states that, decision making occurs within a complex, multidimensional, situation-specific context. This context has both personal and environmental components to affect decision making processes. Environmental components are: “temporal nature of situation” “stress of decision” “resources (economic and social supports)” “culture” “social norms” “experiences and influences of others” Personal components are: “past experience with treatment”“use heuristic” “personal preferences”“physical abilities” “values”“locus of control” “self-esteem”“role preference” “framing of event”“personality traits” “pattern of decision making”“age”

  8. Activites Literature Review Stages Defining a problem or a challenge requiring a decision making 1 Individual Decision Making Process Throughout the research model, individual decision making is displayed in eight different stages. The model also exhibits the activities included in each stage as well as their interrelationship. Evaluating task and its requirements 2 Researching for proper alternatives 3 Determining strategy 4 INDIVIDUAL DECISION MAKING PROCESS Individual Decision Making Style Acquiring information and evaluating alternatives 5 Putting strategy into practice and choosing 6 Practicing chosen alternatives 7 Outcomes of the decision 8

  9. Literature Review The Factors Effecting Individual Decision Making Process As for the other factors affecting individual decision making processes, Rollinson (2002) points out; organizational factors such as culture,climate and policies. the individual-related factors are highlighted under such topics as personality, perception, risk taking behavior, ethics and values.

  10. Literature Review The Factors Effecting Individual Decision Making Process Besides, it is pointed out that the decision structure is also important and that the time pressure of the decision as well as any uncertainty is likely to affect the decision making process. Cecil and Lundgren (1978) think that the probability pressure also affect decision making processes.

  11. Literature Review Decision Making Models The literature review on decision making models reveals that a variety of disciplines are involved in developing such models. Some of the models appearing in the literature are; • “Expanded Four-Force Model” developed by Rowe and Boulgarides (2004) • “Decision Making Model” developed by Driver at al (1990), • “Organizational Decision Making Models” developed by Nutt (1976) and • “Inter-disciplinary Decision Making Model” developed by Harrison (1993). It is believed that an “integrated decision making model” covering and representing all these models and approaches is to be formed. To do this, a serious of integrated decision making models covering the variables of all the models mentioned has been prepared, and the series has been tested both qualitatively and quantitatively.

  12. Literature Review The Studies on Decision Making Process Consumers’ decision making behaviors were studied by Sprogles and Kendall (1986), Harfrom-Chae (1992) etc. Arroba (1978) made research on managers and employees at industrial plants. Janis and Mann (1977) practice research the field of education. The decision making styles developed by Driver and friends (1990; 279) have successfully been practiced with such industries as education, airways, real estates, international trade, computers, energy and defense.

  13. Literature Review The Studies on Decision Making Process The style developed by Rowe and Boulgarides (1992; 45) has been applied with such sectors as education and banking. Besides, this approach has also been practiced by Bowman (1992) with medical center management, and by Connor and Becker (2003) with state managers. Scott and Bruce’s approach (1993) has been practiced with male officers.

  14. Decision Making Environment of Ship Masters

  15. Methodology Qualitative data collection (Focus Group) The first stage of the research, qualitative data collection method was implemented to determine the factors affecting the ship masters’ individual decision making processes practiced in shipboard operation. Within the focus group study, a group was formed from the staff of the factors with whom ship masters are interrelated and which form the ship masters’ organizational environment.

  16. Methodology Qualitative data collection (Focus Group) In this study, the numbers of the members of the focus group was decided to be 11, considering those who would affect the ship masters’ decisions most. As a consequence, the group was formed with such members as; 2 ship masters, 1 flag state officer, 1 P&I surveyor, 1 ship manager (bulk), 1 ship manager (passenger), 1 operation director (container), 1 general director (tanker), 1 class surveyor, 1 maritime lawyer. Numbers of focus group member, should be 10-12 according to Kinnear and Taylor (1996; 310) and Malhotra (2004; 140), 8-10 according to Sekeran (2003; 220) and 10 according to Nakip (2003; 71).

  17. Methodology Qualitative data collection (Content Analysis and Variables) As an overall result of the analysis made on the data gained from the focus group study, 60 variables that would be affective on ship masters’ individual decision making processes were reached. The model studies available in the literature, those of Rowe and Boulgarides (1994) Driver et al (1990) Simon (1976) Nutt (1979) Schermerhorn (1989) helped a lot, while forming the questions to be used with thefocus group study. And their models were of great help in determining the variables.

  18. Methodology Quantitative data collection During the second stage, the variables determined at the previous stage, were used to form a questionnaire which served as a data collecting instrument. The questionnaire was conducted through the ship masters who were operating ships at the time of the research implementation.

  19. Methodology Quantitative data collection Concerning the analysis of the shipmasters’ individual making processes two different parts were prepared, the first part aimed to evaluate the factors objectively. the second part of variables aimed to evaluate subjectively their own decision making processes. and also were prepared profiles variables of the ship masters

  20. Methodology Quantitative data collection (Questionnaire) Finally, developed (included 3 pilot studies) the questionnaire aiming to find out how often such variables are likely to affect the ship masters’ individual decision making processes. The first part of questionnaire has 28 variables and the second part have 40 variables. For evaluation 5-point Likert scale was used (1: Never, 2: Rarely, 3: Sometimes, 4, Very Often, 5: Always). Moreover, 18 profile questions of ship masters were developed. 24 variables of “Evaluation of ISM Code Practices by The Ship Masters” were developed considering the ship management literature.

  21. Methodology Quantitative data collection (Data Collection Fields) Following determining the 25 fields where the questionnaire would be conducted, a coordinator was assigned for each field. During field study a total of 1325 questionnaires were sent to the fields, 577 of which were issued in Turkish language and 748 in English language. Along with the field coordinators, 120 volunteers contributed to the task of the questionnaire conduction. These volunteers were consisted of harbor pilots and port managers.

  22. Methodology Quantitative data collection (Data Collection Fields)

  23. Methodology Quantitative data collection (Sampling) The basic participants of this research comprise “the ship masters who were at the time of the questionnaire study, actively conducting the ship operation” “non-probability sampling” method(Kinnear and Taylor, 1996; 411, Sekeran, 2003; 276) was chosen. The reason for this choice is that the mass is not constant, spread all over the world, and the masters could be reached only when they were at ports. Research conducted on July 22, 2005 through September 15 2005, the number was limited with 386 in order to reach the sample size for statistical analysis. 358 of questionnaire were accepted for statistical analysis.

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

  25. Findings

  26. Findings H1: The mean of ages of shipmasters differs meaningfully difference in terms of the nationality groups [F(3-322)=4,921, p<0,002] Hypothesis is excepted The mean of ages of “Turkish” shipmasters = 43,98 The mean of ages of “West European Countries” shipmaster = 48,48

  27. Findings H3: The mean of company experience of shipmasters differs meaningfully within the nationality group [F(3-309)=1,756, p<0,000] Hypothesis is excepted Company experience of “Turkish” shipmasters = 4,10 years Company experience of“West European Countries” shipmaster = 9,00 years Company experience of “Far East Countries” shipmasters = 9,59 years

  28. Findings H4: The mean of annual sea service periods of shipmasters differs meaningfully within the nationality groups. [(3-284)=19,654, p<0,000] Hypothesis is excepted Annual sea service periods of “Turkish” shipmasters 8,63 month Annual sea service periods of “West European Countries” shipmaster 7,41 month Annual sea service periods of“East Europe and the former East BlockCountries” shipmasters 6,85 years

  29. Findings H5: The scales of the company with whom the shipmasters work differs meaningfullywithin the nationality groups [F(3-304)=19,654, p<0,000 ] Hypothesis is excepted The scales of the company with whom the “Turkish” shipmasters work Medium scale (# 8,76 ships) The scales of the company with whom the “West European Countries” shipmasters work Big scale (# 62,65 ships)

  30. Findings H19: The mean of company experience of shipmasters differs meaningfully within the type of the ships group [F(3-289)=8,932, p<0,000] Hypothesis is excepted The company experience of shipmasters who work on the board of “general cargo ships” 4,12 years The company experience of shipmasters who work on the board of “container ships” 5,14 years The company experience of shipmasters who work on the board of “tankers” 8,46 years The company experience of shipmasters who work on the board of “bulk carriers” 9,36 years

  31. Findings on DM Variables Reliability analysis test on the variables of the “Ship Masters Individual Decision Making Process on Management of Ship Operations” were found as fully satisfied. As a result of the reliability analysis, 28 variables were scaled to be 0,9410 (Cronbach Alfa). The result of the 40 variables of the second part were scaled to be 0,8396 (Cronbach Alfa).

  32. Results of DM Variables According to the Likert Scale means, the variables affecting the shipmasters’ individual decision making processes most often were found to be as fallows: “considering the risk of life safety” (4,829), “international rules” (4,717), “legal responsibility on the conduct of the ship” (4,693) “protecting the interest of the shipowner” (4,689) “company’s aims and policies” (4,583) “ISM Code and procedures (4,558) “technological facilities” (4,536) “instructions from local and official authorities” (4,532) “ship security risk” (4,509).

  33. Results of DM Variables According to the Likert Scale means, the variables affecting the ship masters’ individual decision making processes least were found to be as follows: “ignoring the problems” (1,843) “nationalistic opinions” (2,231) “family problems encountered” (2,314) “initiatives being restricted by technology” (2,398) “conflict with company’s objectives and policies” (2,430) “tendency to postpone actions” (2,555) “requesting of the local state authorities against his will” (2,573).

  34. Results of DM Variables (Factor Analysis I) Due to the difference in the methods used to determine the perceptions, each of these two parts was exposed to a factor analysis the results of which can be seen in Tables. First, principal components analysis, with varimax rotation, was used to assess how the 28 variables are grouped in Ship Masters Individual Decision Making Process on Management of Ship Operations ( I ). The five factor groupings in the order of their reliability are respectively; (1) “individual factors”, (2) “personal factors”, (3) “organizational factors”, (4) “environmental factors”, (5) “physical condition of the ship”.

  35. Results ofDM Variables (Factor Analysis I )

  36. Results ofDM Variables (Factor Analysis II) Variables of “Ship Masters Individual Decision Making Process on Management of Ship Operations ( II )” are grouped in 10 factors through the factor analysis. Tables analyzed the ten sets of factors. Proportion of variance explained by factors was 59,167 %. The ten factor groupings in the order of their reliability are respectively; (1) “maritime institutions and organizations” (2) “protecting the interests and following the instructions” (3) “safety, security and ethics” (4) “using knowledge” (5) “self-confidence” (6) “requirements of profession” (7) “prepotent needs” (8) “legal responsibilities” (9) “decision making style” (10) “prudent seamanship”.

  37. Results ofDM Variables (Factor Analysis II)

  38. Results ofDM Variables (Factor Analysis II)

  39. Conclusion • Great efforts were made in planning, implementing and evaluating the qualitative and quantitative methods used in the study, and the results gained were quite fruitful. • The data were collected through a great variety of methods, some of which were as follows: observation, the author’s professional experience, interviews with shipmasters and academicians, focus group and literature review. • The observation and interview involved various persons from diverse fields. Analyzing the data also involved different analysis methods. “triangulation” method was put into practice collecting and analyzing data with the aim of enhancing and validity.

  40. Conclusion The general factors affecting the shipmasters’ individual decision making processes were found to be as fallows; 1. individual factors 2. personal factors 3. organizational factors 4. environmental factors 5. physical condition of the ships 6. maritime institutions and organizations 7. protecting the interests and following the instructions 8. safety, security and ethics 9. using knowledge 10. self-confidence 11. requirements of profession 12. prepotent needs 13. legal responsibilities 14. decision making style 15. prudent seamanship

  41. Conclusion These factors are similar to the factors stated before in the decision making literature. Especially factors of the “expanded four-force model” developed by Rowe and Boulgarides (1994), fully matched with this study. Besides, these factors affecting the decision making processes are explored for ship master individual decision making processes on the ship operation.

  42. Conclusion In this study, interaction between shipboard management - ship management organizations – maritime business environments and external environment are studied but this interaction theory needs to be further developed. The relations between factors affecting the decision making processes of ship masters and their profiles have been analyzed as a separate study.

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

  44. Thank You

More Related