Safety Science 68 (2014) 169179

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Safety Science
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ssci

A hybrid decision-making approach to measure effectiveness of safety

management system implementations on-board ships
Emre Akyuz a,, Metin Celik b
a
b

Department of Maritime Transportation and Management Engineering, Piri Reis University, Tuzla 34940, Istanbul, Turkey
Department of Marine Engineering, Istanbul Technical University, Tuzla 34940, Istanbul, Turkey

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 15 August 2013
Received in revised form 17 February 2014
Accepted 4 April 2014
Available online 24 April 2014
Keywords:
ISM Code
Safety management system
Maritime regulations
Decision-making

a b s t r a c t
Future of ship safety is recently a core topic discussed in various platforms by maritime stakeholders.
Regarding this issue, it is so signicant task to achieve maritime regulatory compliances with ship operational requirements to ensure safe operations on-board ships. For instance, it is one of the most recently
amendments to evaluate safety management system (SMS) effectiveness. The maritime research in this
context focuses on promoting a hybrid decision-making approach to measure effectiveness of safety
management system implementations on-board ships. The approach incorporates Analytical Hierarchy
Process (AHP) and Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS). It determines
the key performance indicators (KPIs) with tangible/intangible data in decision analysis which enhance
shipboard safety conditions. The main ndings highlight that number of detentions, crew injuries onboard ship, and major non-conformities are considered as assessment factors of ship SMS. The proposed
approach enables to review the SMS practices systematically that is required by recent amendments of
ISM Code. Thus, the proposed approach remedies the gap between safety science and maritime transportation industry in terms of adopting operational data in safety analysis. Consequently, the research
outcomes encourage the maritime researchers, safety engineers and ship operators.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Safety is the one of the key aspects of sustainable maritime
transportation. It directly deals with the management and operation of ships. The achievements of the International Maritime
Organization (IMO) related to maritime safety and marine environmental protection are marvellous. Principally, the IMO governs the
safety, security and environmental dimensions via regional Port
State Control (PSC) authorities in accordance with the designated
memorandum of understandings (MOUs). In current situation,
the IMO declared that there are now enough regulations in place
and the problem is one of implementation and enforcement.
Indeed, maritime authorities encourage the ships operators to full
the requirements of adopted rules and regulation. Therefore, safety
standards on-board ships contribute to threat unsafe conditions
along with the operation process. Hereby, it very critical aspect
to ensure conformity among regulatory execution and operational
requirements. In order to implement and enforce regulations in a
good order, ship management organisation should establish an

Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 216 581 00 50; fax: +90 216 581 00 51.
E-mail addresses: emreakyuz82@gmail.com, eakyuz@pirireis.edu.tr (E. Akyuz).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2014.04.003
0925-7535/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

advance monitoring system. To continuous control and verication

might improve the maritime safety and environmental protection
standards on a global basis (IMO, 2013).
Besides major conventions, operational safety requirements onboard ships have been supported in the form of international maritime codes. International safety management code (ISM Code) in
that context can be given an example in terms of safety considerations. The code requires establishing a safety management system
(SMS) which functioning to improve safety and environmental
prevention requirement.
Since maritime safety is essential key factor in terms of maritime transportation, several studies have been conducted over
the last decades. Tarelko (2012) explained origins of ship safety
requirements based on the IMO policy supported with reactive or
proactive actions. Furthermore, the outcomes of studies concerning marine accident statistics have potential to make constructive
decisions on maritime safety (Cariou et al., 2008; Mullai and
Paulsson, 2011). In addition, a methodology based on fuzzy logic
technique was developed by Gaonkar et al. (2011) to evaluate
safety parameter in maritime transportation. Likewise, several
advance models comprising Markov chains (Kolowrocki and
Soszynska, 2011) and Monte Carlo simulation (Montewka et al.,
2010) have been recently utilised in the same eld.

170

E. Akyuz, M. Celik / Safety Science 68 (2014) 169179

On the other hand, Heij et al. (2011) proposed a quantitative

risk assessment approach demonstrated with deciency databases
obtained from ship inspection. In other respect, a system of
hierarchical scorecards (SHS) has been developed to evaluate the
implementation performance of maritime rules and regulations
(Karahalios et al., 2011). In addition, Yang et al. (2013) reviews
the challenges of maritime safety analysis and the different
approaches used to quantify the risks in maritime transportation.
The article has provided an update review of maritime safety
analysis over the last decades.
The revived studies show that maritime safety is playing a critical role on shipboard managements and operations. In order to
maximise maritime safety on-board ship, this study proposes a
hybrid decision-making approach (AHPTOPSIS) to assess effectiveness of SMS implementation on-board ship. The purposes of
the study are highlighted as follows;
1. Enhancing safety management implementations on-board
ships.
2. Developing a methodological approach to measure safety
performance.
3. Executing ship operational procedures compliance with
maritime regulations.
In this context, this section expresses the motivation behind the
research and literature review on maritime safety. The next one
deals with the literature review on ISM code and SMS. Then,
research background upon SMS and ISM Code (2010) amendments
is also provided. Furthermore, the methodology is proposed and
demonstrated with a case study. The nal section gives the original
contributions of the research, discussion and prospective issues for
enhancement maritime safety.
2. Literature review
The ISM Code, which is enforced in 1998, refers that international safety management code for safe operation ships and pollution prevention. The Code was initially structured to prevent
maritime accidents mainly caused from sub-standard management and operation. Regarding this issue, the purpose of Code
is to maintain international standards for safe management and
operation on-board merchant ships (IMO, 2002). The ISM Code
was rst introduced in early 1980s during an investigation for
tanker ships whose management standards had found inadequate
(IMCO, 1982). This investigation report prompted tanker
ship owners to consider and restructure safety policy. Moreover,
it raised the awareness on-board ships and shore-based
organisation.
The introduction of the Code affected company management
system signicantly, beyond various shipping companies redesigned their organisation. It required a good management practice
towards safety and pollution prevention. Therefore, an implementation plan has to carry out the requirements of ISM Code constructed by shipping company (Hunter, 1998). In detail, the
shipping companies are required to develop their own policies,
responsibilities and procedures under SMS. The system includes
various procedures such as risk assessment, preventive action
planning, maintenance planning, accident reporting, emergency
response plan and internal audits.
In the literature, we found a few studies mainly concern the
design and implementations of SMS. In the rst segment, Hess
et al. (2011) discussed on establishing a risk assessment and classication system on-board ship in accordance with ISM Code. The
paper supported with methodology for preparation of a risk control plan connected with work activities on-board ship. Another
study uses a hybrid method to redesign of ISM Code procedure

to cover precautions against occupational accidents on-board

chemical tankers (Celik, 2010). The proposed method has positive
impact to extend ISM Code procedure to OHSAS 18001:2007 standards in chemical tankers operation. According to the research
(Celik, 2010), the ISM Code enables a broad procedural support
to crewmembers against safety and environmental related threads.
In that condition, the responsible executives ensure transformation
of ISM Code procedures into operational decision support
especially for cargo handling, tank inspection, gas freeing, tank
cleaning, and tank purging operations. It is another viewpoint
(Celik, 2009) to design an integrated quality and safety management system (IQSMS) for shipping operations to deal with shortfalls in the shipping management. The mentioned study (Celik,
2009) utilised axiomatic design principles to assess the conformity
level of ISO integration to execution process of ISM code in merchant shipping. In order to provide a strategy for the safe carriage
of liquid chemical cargoes in chemical tankers, a qualitative
research has been performed by using SWOT analysis (Arslan and
Er, 2008). Another research attempting to examine the precaution
priorities during cargo operation in chemical tankers have been
studied by Arslan (2009). In this study, AHP method is utilised to
prioritize the precautions in order to explain risk assessment
options in chemical tanker eet. Furthermore, another study based
on a MILP formulating has been introduced last decade (Jetlund
and Karimi, 2004). In this paper, authors address the scheduling
of multi-parcel chemical tankers which are carrying of numerous
chemical cargoes. Moreover, a model based approach upon systematic analysis has recently been introduced (Celik et al., 2013).
The aim of this research is to determine the principle particulars
of the optimum vessel based on the minimum construction cost
of chemical tankers.
A different perspective is raised by Goulielmos and Giziakis
(2002) by using the fundamental of the complexity theory to
reduce bureaucracy level of the SMS in practice. Likewise, another
study has recently been offered to evaluate the effectiveness of the
ISM Code (Bhattacharya, 2012). The article reveals that there is a
wide gap among the perception of seafarers and company managers in the ISM Code implementation. This is very challenging problem subject to factual implementation of SMS on-board ships. In
addition, Anderson (2002) conducts a wide range of survey to analyse awareness of seafarers and shore-based manager upon the
efciency of ISM Code implementation on-board ship. On the effectiveness of ISM Code implementation, Tzannatos and Kokotos
(2009) also carried out an analysis over the 268 ship accident during before and after implementation of ISM Code period. The study
reveals that implementation of the code led to decrease humaninduced marine accident. Likewise, another study conducted on
shipping accident on Greek-agged ships in order to evaluate the
enforcement of the ISM Code between 1995 and 2006 through
applying of the data mining tool (Kokotas and Linardatos, 2011).
The ISM Code establishes safety management objectives and it
requires a SMS which should be established by ship management
company. Thereafter, the company has to set and accomplish a policy for achieving those objectives. To sum up, it encourages the
development of a safety culture on-board ship. The functional
requirements of SMS associated with the operation of the ship
are expressed as follows (Farthing, 1997; ISM Code, 2010); (i)
safety and environmental protection policy, (ii) safety and environmental protection procedures, (iii) communication procedures
between the company and on-board ship, (iv) procedures for
reporting accident or incidents, (v) emergency response plan and
(vi) internal audits. The ag state of each ship has a legal right to
attend management company and conduct regular audit to verify
that the company accomplish these provisions of code. If the ag
state found everything in order, they issue a certicate named documents of compliance (DOC). In addition, ag state may conduct

E. Akyuz, M. Celik / Safety Science 68 (2014) 169179

audit on-board ship to approve that the shore-based organisation

and ships are operating in accordance with SMS. When it is
achieved, ag state authority issues a certicate titled safety management certicate (SMC). Each ship has to be certied with DOC
and SMC for trading international seas. The certicates are valid
for a period not exceeding ve years from the rst audit completion but to be subjected to periodical audit approval (IMO, 2013).
In accordance with ISM Code clauses, each company establishes
their safety management system and appoints a designated person
ashore (DPA) whose responsibility is to provide a link between
shore-based organisation and shipboard personnel. The responsibility of DPA should include monitoring the safety and pollution
prevention aspects of the shipboard operation (Chen, 2000). In
addition, DPA should make sure that adequate resources and
shore-based support are given to shipboard personnel. To achieve
these responsibilities, DPA should be familiar with management
tools, analysis methods, etc.
After 2002 almost all of the shipping companies have established a SMS compliance with the ISM Code requirements. However, it was required to adopt some amendments upon original
text in 2008 through Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) resolution
273 (85). Then, amendments were accepted on 1 January 2010 and
the latest version entered into force. Just to name a few key
amendments with new auditable requirements, the followings
are addressed; (i) assessment of all risks (article 1.2.2), (ii) measure
of preventive action (article 9.2), (iii) internal audits intervals
(12.1), (iv) reviewing effectiveness of SMS by company (article
12.2) (ABS, 2010). For instance, in the original text related to effectiveness of SMS; The Company should periodically evaluate the
effectiveness efciency of and when needed review of the safety
management system in accordance with procedures established
by the Company (article 12.2) is amended. The wording efciency of and when needed review is deleted. Thereby, it is clear
now that the company reviews shall be carried out periodically
and systematically. In addition, the company shall provide evidence that the reviews evaluate the effectiveness of the SMS.
In the view of ISM Code (2010) amendments, the relevance
managers and executives in shore-based organisation should take
the opportunity to review effective of SMS which means identifying the safety related performance, strengths, weakness and vulnerabilities in ship eet operations and managements.
3. Methodology
This paper presents a hybrid decision-making methodology by
integrating Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Technique for
Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) in order
to measure effectiveness of SMS implementation on-board ship.
The further sections introduce AHPTOPSIS and related application
of both methods in literature.
3.1. AHP technique
The AHP technique is rst proposed by Saaty (1980) in order to
solve multiple criteria decision problems. It uses a typical pairwise comparison technique to acquire relative weights of criteria
base upon a hierarchical structure. Briey, AHP technique consists
of following stages (Cheng et al., 1999);
 To divide the complex problems into small part and rank
them hierarchically.
 To compare the elements by making pair-wise.
 To assess the relative importance of the elements.
 To unit these relevant importance and determine entire
ranking of decision alternatives.

171

AHP helps capture both qualitative and quantitative criteria

measurement. Thus, in the last decades, it has been widely used
for resolving complex decision problems in numerous disciplines
such as logistics for automobile spare parts (Li and Kuo, 2008),
strategic planning for knowledge assets value creation map
(Carlucci and Schiuma, 2007), knowledge management for technology acquisition (Bititci et al., 2001). In addition, utilisation of
AHP technique together with hybrid method has been widely
extended in many different disciplines. For instance, Ho (2008)
made researches upon application of hybrid or integrated AHP
and demonstrated ve works which combined with the AHP. The
AHP in SWOT analysis (Kurttila et al., 2000) is another different
example of a combination specially developed for the purposes
of practical strategic planning. Likewise, a system named SHS is
developed in order to assess the implementation of maritime regulations and rules by combining the AHP technique with fuzzy sets
(Karahalios et al., 2011). Similarly, a fuzzy TOPSIS method combined with AHP technique was conducted to solve the solid waste
carriage site selection problem (Onut and Soner, 2008).
Despite the popularity of the AHP, there are some disadvantages
of AHP methodology such as articial limitation of the use of 9scale. Another weakness of AHP is that the method may require a
great time for the pair-wise comparisons. Therefore, in order to
minimise the weakness of AHP technique, it can be combined with
other multicriteria decision-making tools such as TOPSIS.
This study will utilise the AHP methodology for determining the
priority weights of factors to evaluate the SMS.

3.2. TOPSIS technique

TOPSIS is a useful tool that deals with multicriteria decisionmaking problems. It was rst introduced by Hwang and Yoon
(1981). The technique helps the decision maker to organise the
problem for solving, analysing, comparing and ranking. In addition,
it is a goal based approach for nding the alternative that is closest
to the ideal solution. Thus, the chosen alternative should have the
shortest geometric distance from the positive ideal solution and
the longest geometric distance from the negative solution. The distance from positive ideal solution and negative ideal solution are
considered simultaneously. In this method, alternatives are ranked
based on ideal solution similarity. Basically, it is considered distance of options from ideal and non-ideal solution in order to measure similarity of options. In the last decades, TOPSIS technique has
been successfully conducted to the various sectors such as manufacturing (Milani et al., 2005), robot selection (Chu and Lin,
2003), transportation (Janic, 2003), water management (Srdjevic
et al., 2004), and human resource management (Chen and Tzeng,
2004).
On the other hand, the hybrid AHPTOPSIS application on marine sectors is quite limited. For instance, a study on AHPTOPSIS
application was utilised by Kandakoglu et al. (2009). In this paper,
multi-methodical approach based on the application of SWOT
analysis, AHP and TOPSIS method was practiced in order to support
the critical decision upon shipping registry selection. Another
study on AHPTOPSIS hybrid technique was performed by
Nooramin et al. (2012). This study takes the advantage of TOPSIS
and AHP hybrid technique for selecting the most efcient gantry
crane installed in marine container yard. Furthermore, AHPTOPSIS evaluation approach for protection of the coastal environment
in Taiwan has been recently proposed (Chang et al., 2012). In this
study, the authors aim is to provide an objective tool for setting
coastal protection priorities by using AHPTOPSIS technique.
In this paper, the TOPSIS technique will be utilised to assess the
safety performance in alternative years.

172

E. Akyuz, M. Celik / Safety Science 68 (2014) 169179

3.3. Proposed approach

In this section, a hybrid decision-making approach (AHPTOPSIS) will be presented to evaluate SMS effectiveness on-board ship.
The AHP technique is rst utilised to construct evaluation criteria
hierarchy. Thereafter, a pair-wise comparison matrix is developed.
Then, the criteria weights are calculated. Afterwards, TOPSIS
method is used to determine the safety performance results for
alternative years. As a consequence, proposed hybrid decisionmaking approach (AHPTOPSIS) acquires the benet of both techniques to measure effectiveness of SMS on-board ship. A ow diagram for AHPTOPSIS methodology in SMS implementation
effectiveness is illustrated in Fig. 1.
The proposed hybrid decision-making approach (AHPTOPSIS)
consists of ten steps;
Step (1) Specifying key performance indicators (KPIs): This
includes determination of KPIs for application. It depends on the
nature of the problem, data, and expert opinion (judgement) such
as DPA and HSEQ in the decision-making process in order to establish evaluation criteria of comparison matrix.
Step (2) Composing a pair-wise comparison matrix: A pair-wise
comparison matrix of criteria (A) is constructed using a scale of relative importance. Saaty (1980) created a measurement 19 scale of
the analytic hierarch process. Accordingly, the numbers of 1,3,5,7
and 9 verbal judgements can be dened as equal importance,
moderate importance, strong importance, very strong importance, and extreme (absolute) importance. The intermediate
values between the adjacent scale (such as 2 (weak); 4 (moderate
plus); 6 (strong plus); and 8 (very, very strong)) are used for compromise. In matrix A, each criteria aij (i,j = 1,2,3,. . .n) is the relative
importance of ith elements compared to the jth elements. In the
matrix, aij = 1 when i = j and aji = 1/aij.

6a
6 21
A6
6 ..
4 .
an1

a12
1
..
.
an2

   a1n

   a2n 7
7
..
.. 7
7 aii 1; aji 1=aij ; aij 0
.
. 5


Step (3) Calculating criterion weights (KPIs priorities) and consistency ratio: After composing of a pair-wise comparison matrix,
normalised value of matrix is found by dividing each entry in column to the sum of entries in column. Thereafter, the priority
weights of criterion are calculated. The average of value in each
row gives estimate of relative weights of criterion. The normalisation of matrix and priority weights of criterions (W1, W2,. . ., Wj) can
be calculated with following equations;

ai j
rij Pn

i1 ai j

Wj

i 1; 2; . . . ; n and j 1; 2; . . . ; n

n
1 X

aij ;
n i1

i 1; 2; . . . ; n and j 1; 2; . . . ; n

In order to provide consistency of data provided in methodology, Saaty proposed an equation to verify whether the matrix is
consistent or not. Accordingly, consistency index (CI) can be calculated as follows (4);

CI

kmax:  n
n1

In equation, n is the order of the matrix, and kmax is maximum

eigenvalue of the matrix and it can be found with following equation (Vargas, 1982).
n
X

aijwj kmax:wi

j1

In order to determine reasonable consistency, a consistency

ratio (CR) value should be calculated. If the CR value is found equal
or less than 0.10, the judgments are considered as consistent. The
formulation of CR can be stated as follows;

CR CI=RI
1

The Random index (RI) value is illustrated on the Table 1. The RI

is the indicator for random and it is subjected to the number of
items that is compared in matrix (Saaty, 1994).

Fig. 1. AHPTOPSIS methodology in SMS effectiveness evaluation.

173

E. Akyuz, M. Celik / Safety Science 68 (2014) 169179

3.4. KPIs for SMS

Table 1
The values of random index.
n
RI

1
0

2
0

3
0.58

4
0.90

5
1.12

6
1.24

7
1.32

8
1.41

9
1.45

10
1.49

Bold values show the polarity of attributes.

Step (4) Constructing decision matrix (D): This step is to represent all information available for the attribute in the decision
matrix. The structure of the decision matrix can be dened as
follows;

c1

c2

c3



cn

6A
6 1
6
6 A2
6
D6A
6 3
6 .
6 .
4 .

x11

x12

x13



x21
x31
..
.

x22
x32
..
.

x23
x33
..
.



..
.

x1n 7
7
7
x2n 7
7
x3n 7
7
.. 7
7
. 5

Am

xm1

xm2

xm3

   xmn

Key performance indicators (KPIs) are generally used to measure progress or to monitor trends which can be used to demonstrate where further improvements or resources are required. In
order to monitor performance of the SMS implementation, relevant
records and evidences which are gathered from the ship can be utilised. So that continuous monitoring of the KPIs will give idea
about the state of SMS implementations on-board ship. If there
would be any shortfalls on SMS design, it should be revised to
increase its utility. Moreover, the KPIs based analysis improves
safety performance on-board ships. In addition, application of KPIs
upon SMS implementation will provide to systematic review on
safety conditions.
The determined KPIs will help to measure effectiveness of SMS
implementations on-board ships by using the hybrid decisionmaking approach (AHPTOPSIS). The KPIs are provided on the
Table 2.

th

where Ai = i alternative related and xij is the performance value of

alternative with respect to criterion cj.
Step (5) Calculating normalised decision matrix: This step normalizes the decision matrix D by using the following formula;

xij
r ij q
Pm 2 ; i 1; 2; 3; . . . ; m and j 1; 2; 3; . . . ; n:
i1 xij

Step (6) Calculating weighted normalised decision matrix: In

order to construct weighted normalised decision matrix (vij), associated weight is to be multiplied with its normalised decision
matrix. The calculation is as follows;

v ij wj  rij ;

i 1; 2; . . . ; n; j 1; 2; . . . ; n

where wj is the weight of the jth attribute or criterion.

Step (7) Determining the positive ideal solution (PIS) and negative ideal solution (NIS): The PIS and NIS values can be determined
via taking the maximum and minimum values within the row of
weighted normalised decision matrix.

3.4.1. Number of deciency observed on-board ship (KPI1)

Deciency generally refers lack of safety and environment
requirements on-board ship. It deals with the non-fullment of
regulatory requirements. The main categories of shipboard deciencies, observed by PSC authorities, are given as follows;
Certicates and documentation (i.e. minimum safe manning
document)
 Structural condition (i.e. closing devices/watertight doors).
 Water/weather tight condition (i.e. railing, gangway, walkway and means for safe passage).
 Life saving appliances (i.e. lifeboat inventory).
 Pollution prevention (i.e. control of discharge of oil).
The deciencies should be identied and recorded. Hence,
records on the deciencies per year are one of the key indicators
to measure effectiveness of SMS implementations on-board ships.

A fmax v ij jj 2 J or min v ij jj 2 J 0 for i 1; 2; . . . ; mg

fv 1 ; v 2 ; . . . ; v n g

10

A fmin v ijjj 2 J or maxv ij jj 2 J 0 for i 1; 2; . . . ; mg

fv 1 :; v 2 ; . . . ; v n g
where J = 1,2,3,...,n. is associated with benet (positive criteria) and
J0 = 1,2,3,...,n is associated with cost (negative criteria).
Step (8) Calculating of separation measure: The separation of
each alternative from the PIS can be found by following equations;

r
Xn
2
Si
v ij  v j ; i 1; 2; . . . ; m
j1

11

3.4.2. Number of completed training on-board ship (KPI2)

The purpose of training on board is to provide improvement
crew awareness on safety and environment requirements. The
shore-based managers dispatch the training requirements to ship
authority to improve competency requirements. Therefore, number of completed training on-board ship in a year is considered
essential indicator for processing of SMS on-board ship.

Table 2
KPIs description, code and sources table.
Name of KPIs

Code
of
KPIs

Sources

Number of deciency observed on-board

ships ()
Number of completed training on-board
ships (+)
Number of major non-conformity observed
on-board ships ()
Number of detention ()
Number of near-miss reported by ships ()
Number of successful psychometric test
applied for ofcer (+)
Number of crew injury observed on-board
ships ()
DPA internal audit judgement (+)
HSEQ Manager audit judgement (+)

KPI1
KPI2

Knudsen and Hassler

(2011)
ISM Code (2010)

KPI3

DNV (2012)

KPI4
KPI5
KPI6

Cariou et al. (2009)

Storgard et al. (2012)
Ek and Olsson (2000)

KPI7

Storgard et al. (2012)

KPI8
KPI9

Management company
Management company

Likewise, the separation from the NIS can be dened as;

Si

r
Xn
v ij  v j 2 ; i 1; 2; . . . ; m
j1

12

Step (9) Calculating the relative closeness to the ideal solution:

The relative closeness has been measured by following equation;

C i

Si
; 0hC i h1; i 1; 2; . . . ; m

Si Si

13

Step (10) Ranking the preference order (SMS effectiveness evaluation): The nal step is provided to rank alternatives in accordance with the descending order of C i . This step provides a
comparison of alternative years in SMS effectiveness.

174

E. Akyuz, M. Celik / Safety Science 68 (2014) 169179

3.4.3. Number of major non-conformity (KPI3)

Major non-conformity is dened as a serious threat which may
result in vital failure to safety of crew, ship or environment that
requires immediate corrective actions (IMO, 2013). In operational
level, PSC ofcers conduct a survey on-board ship. If PSC ofcer
nds major non-conformities during inspection, it must be rectied before vessel departure. For instance, lack of ISM certicate,
unfamiliar new crew with their duties, lack of communication procedure in emergency situation, etc. Since the major non-conformities are critical records, it will help to measure effectiveness of SMS
implementations on-board ships.
3.4.4. Number of detention (KPI4)
If the corrective/preventive action procedures are not remedy
the major non-conformities, the ship is not allowed to sail in international waters. This is known as detention. Since a well-designed/
implemented SMS will prevent such kind of events, the number of
detention is another critical indicator for effectiveness of SMS
implementations.
3.4.5. Number of near-miss (KPI5)
It is dened as unexpected event which have not resulted in
loss of life or injury but had to potential to do. Near-misses are
recorded on-board ship to make causation analysis in order to prevent reoccurrence. Hence, number of near-miss incidents in a year
can provide an opportunity to evaluate effectiveness of SMS implementation on-board ship.
3.4.6. Number of successful psychometric test applied for ofcer (KPI6)
According to maritime regulations, each company should provide to ship with qualied and medically t seafarers. In order to
full this requirement, shore-based managers have recently
applied a psychometric test for ofcer. The test provides an objective way to monitor seafarers physical and mental performance.
The record of psychometric test is kept in company and on-board
ship. Accordingly, the number of successful psychometric test
results per year can be utilised as human factor parameter to
assess effectiveness of SMS implementation on-board ship.
3.4.7. Number of crew injury on-board ship (KPI7)
Crew injuries are very common issue on-board ship and ship
crew always face a high risk at sea conditions. As clearly point
out in ISM Code, ensuring safety at sea, prevention of human injury
or loss of life is claried as one of the main objectives. Therefore,
number of crew injuries on-board ship must keep a record and
being reported to shore-based organisation. The crew injury rate
is an indicator that shows whether SMS implementation on-board
is in a good order or not.
3.4.8. DPA internal audit judgement (KPI8)
The responsibility of DPA is clearly dened in ISM Code as monitoring the safety and pollution prevention aspect of the ship. DPA
attends on-board ship to conduct an internal audit regularly in
order to ensure that good SMS practice on-board ships. Thus, the
general review of DPA can be adopted into SMS performance
assessment. The verbal judgement based on a 15 rating scale
(Belz and Kow, 2010) provides incorporation of an important
parameter into SMS performance review. Furthermore, rating scale
can include followings; 1 refers poor performance, 2 indicates
fair performance, 3 refers good performance, 4 refers very good
performance and 5 indicates excellent performance for the year.
3.4.9. HSEQ Manager audit judgement (KPI9)
In ship management companies, health, safety, environment and
quality (HSEQ) department has recently been established to
improve the safety, quality and environment performance in ship

management and operation. The HSEQ department mainly concentrates on adopting quality principles into health, safety and environment considerations. The HSEQ manager judgements are taking into
account to gain a different viewpoint in SMS effectiveness analysis.
The verbal judgement, based on a 15 rating scale, is used.
4. Application
In this section the proposed AHPTOPSIS approach will be utilised to measure effectiveness of SMS implementations on-board
ships. To demonstrate the model, it is contacted with a prestigious
shipping company which has a chemical tanker eet. The eet age
is ranging between 2 to 15 years old and ships size varying 3000
17,000 deadweight tons.
4.1. Analysis of respondents
The data contains qualitative and quantitative information for
KPIs basis per year. The quantitative data (KPI1 to KPI7) were provided through data records which are consisting of PSC reports,
vetting control reports and company internal audit reports. The
data received from company is available for the last three years.
In addition, subjective data has received from maritime experts.
The expert prole contains professional managers (DPA and HSEQ
department) and marine superintendents who have seagoing background and professional execution experiences. While constituting
the expert group, average seagoing experiences (six years) and
shore-based management experiences (ve years) are taken into
account. Hence, the judgements of the experts are considered in
a group consensus via a brainstorming meeting. In this meeting,
technical and operational aspects of the problem are considered
in the evaluation of safety related activities on-board. The group
provide data/judgements for pairwise comparison of KPIs and the
subjective data for KPI8 and KPI9 in the content of decision matrix.
4.2. Data collection
Considering the importance of ISM Code implementation onboard ship, this study is conducted by using real data from operational level. It measures the effectiveness of SMS implementation
on-board ship by using the KPIs. Accordingly, the shore-based
organisation can realise whether SMS implementation on-board
is useful or not.
In this study, a shipping company operating chemical tanker
eet is decided. Execution of chemical tanker eet is required
advance management system due to the critical operational
aspects. In this demonstration, the data were gathered by reviewing company SMS records, related documents and correspondence
communication with ships. In addition, PSC reports and vetting
reports were benetted to analyse deciency, major non-conformity and detention. On the other hand, linguistic data has received
from DPA and HSEQ department of the company for KPI8 and KPI9
subjective judgement.
4.3. Empirical analysis
In application step, KPIs assist to measure effectiveness of SMS
implementation on-board ship. These indicators can also be helpful
to review performance of SMS implantation on-board ships. Moreover, knowing how to prioritize KPIs can help us streamline the
decision-making process of application.
After determining the KPIs for SMS effectiveness application, a
pair-wise comparison matrix is established in accordance with
19 scale of the analytic hierarchy process which is showing the
intensity of importance each criterion. The judgements on KPIs,

175

E. Akyuz, M. Celik / Safety Science 68 (2014) 169179

Table 3
DPA judgements on KPIs.

KPI1
KPI2

KPI1

KPI2

KPI3

KPI4

KPI5

KPI6

KPI7

KPI8

KPI9

Equal
importance
Reciprocal

Strong
importance
Equal
importance

1/Moderate
plus
1/Strong
plus
Equal
importance

1/Moderate
importance
1/Very strong
importance
1/Moderate plus

Strong
importance
Moderate
plus
Strong
importance
Strong plus

Very strong
importance
Strong plus

1/Strong
importance
1/Moderate
importance
1/Moderate
importance
Weak

1/Moderate plus

1/Moderate
importance
Moderate
Importance
Strong plus

KPI3

Equal importance

KPI4
KPI5

Equal
importance

KPI6
KPI7
KPI8
KPI9

which are given in Table 3, were received from the company DPA
to construct a pair-wise comparison matrix
The corresponding numerical equivalents for each judgement
are shown in Table 4. For example, number of completed training
on-board ship (KPI2) has weak importance than DPA internal
audit judgement (KPI8); therefore, number 2 is assigned for this
comparison. Likewise, the reciprocal equation of KPI8 to KPI2 is
assigned 1/2 as proposed in Eq. (1).
After composing of a pair-wise comparison matrix, the values
are need to normalised basis Eq. (2). It is found by dividing each
entry in column to the sum of entries in column. In Table 5, normalised value of each KPI is illustrated.
The priority weights of KPIs are calculated in accordance with
Eq. (3). The average of value in each row gives estimate of relative
weights of KPIs. Numerical weight values and percentages of each
KPI are provided in Table 6.
According to the Table 6, KPI4 (number of detention) has the
highest weight criterion (0.31) and it is percentage is 30.94% in
overall. Thereafter, KPI7 (number of crew injury on-board ship)
and KPI3 (number of major non-conformity) are ranking respectively. Since the KPI4 is ranked on the top of priority weight table,
Table 4
Pair-wise comparison matrix.

KPI1
KPI2
KPI3
KPI4
KPI5
KPI6
KPI7
KPI8
KPI9

KPI1

KPI2

KPI3

KPI4

KPI5

KPI6

KPI7

KPI8

KPI9

1.00
1/5
4.00
3.00
1/5
1/7
5.00
4.00
3.00

5.00
1.00
6.00
7.00
1/3
1/6
3.00
1/2
1/3

1/4
1/6
1.00
4.00
1/5
1/5
3.00
1/3
1/5

1/3
1/7
1/4
1.00
1/7
1/9
1/3
1/5
1/7

5.00
3.00
5.00
7.00
1.00
1/3
5.00
3.00
1/3

7.00
6.00
5.00
9.00
3.00
1.00
7.00
3.00
1/3

1/5
1/3
1/3
3.00
1/5
1/7
1.00
1/3
1/5

1/4
2.00
3.00
5.00
1/3
1/3
3.00
1.00
1/3

1/3
3.00
5.00
7.00
3.00
3.00
5.00
3.00
1.00

Table 5
Normalised pair-wise comparison matrix.

KPI1
KPI2
KPI3
KPI4
KPI5
KPI6
KPI7
KPI8
KPI9

KPI1

KPI2

KPI3

KPI4

KPI5

KPI6

KPI7

KPI8

KPI9

0.05
0.01
0.19
0.15
0.01
0.01
0.24
0.19
0.15

0.21
0.04
0.26
0.30
0.01
0.01
0.13
0.02
0.01

0.03
0.02
0.11
0.43
0.02
0.02
0.32
0.04
0.02

0.13
0.05
0.09
0.38
0.05
0.04
0.13
0.08
0.05

0.17
0.10
0.17
0.24
0.03
0.01
0.17
0.10
0.01

0.17
0.15
0.12
0.22
0.07
0.02
0.17
0.07
0.01

0.03
0.06
0.06
0.52
0.03
0.02
0.17
0.06
0.03

0.02
0.13
0.20
0.33
0.02
0.02
0.20
0.07
0.02

0.01
0.10
0.16
0.23
0.10
0.10
0.16
0.10
0.03

Strong
importance
Extreme
importance
Moderate
Importance
Equal
importance

1/Strong
importance
1/Very strong
importance
Equal importance

Weak
Moderate
importance
Strong
importance
1/Moderate
importance
1/Moderate
importance
Moderate
Importance
Equal
importance

Very, very
strong
Moderate
importance
Moderate
importance
Strong
importance
Moderate
importance
Equal
importance

it is considered as the most critical factor in terms of safety management system implementation on-board ship. Subject to the
variety and number of detention, the ship might not be allowed
to sail by port authorities until the necessary rectication for
detentions have been completed by master of vessel or shorebased management company. Moreover, number of detentions
lead to lose prestige for shipping company. Therefore, a well organised SMS is designed and implemented by shore-based management company to prevent possible detention in advance.
The KPI7 is the second most crucial shortfall factor in accordance with effectiveness of safety management system implementations on-board ships. Since ship crew face a high risk at sea
conditions, crew injury rate gives an idea whether effectiveness
of SMS implementation on-board is properly fullled or not.
Thereby, as the second important factor, the SMS implementation
shall be organised to prevent crew injury on-board ship.
The KPI3 has the third highest weight criterion and shortfall
effectiveness of safety management system implementation onboard ships. The major non-conformity shall be prevented by
implementation SMS on-board ship properly. In case major nonconformities do not rectify on-time, the ship will face detain in
port.
After calculating priority criterion weight, the consistency
degree of the matrix is controlled to satisfy the consistency of judgments in the pair-wise comparison. The consistency ratio (CR) of
matrix can be calculated by using Eqs. (4)(6). The random index
(RI) value will be 1.45 since nine factors are compared in matrix.
Consequently, the CR value can be found as 0.093. Since the CR
value is less than 0.10, all data inserted in comparison matrix is
considered as consistency.
In the next step, decision matrix is established basis Eq. (7).
Table 7 is illustrating data records and judgements provided by
company on a yearly basis. The data demonstrates the total numbers that have occurred in that year for eet. For instance, totally
thirty-four deciencies have been observed in 2010. In addition,
two near-miss events have been reported in 2011. Beside numerical data information, verbal judgement of DPA and HSQE departments take a place in table basis 15 rating scale. For example,
DPA assigned with FP (fair performance) for 2010 years in terms
of reviewing the safety and environmental related performance
of ships. On the other hand, same year has been evaluated as GP
(good performance) by the HSQE manager in accordance with the
responsibility scope.
The data received from DPA are utilised to compose initial decision matrix in Table 8 where negative factors (cost attributes) are
reciprocally inserted. For instance, KPI7 (number of crew injury

176

E. Akyuz, M. Celik / Safety Science 68 (2014) 169179

Table 6
KPIs priorities.

KPI1
KPI2
KPI3
KPI4
KPI5
KPI6
KPI7
KPI8
KPI9

Table 11
Weighted normalised decision matrix.
Criterion Weight

Percentage (%)

0.09
0.07
0.15
0.31
0.04
0.03
0.19
0.08
0.04

9.06
7.32
15.13
30.94
4.01
2.87
18.80
8.04
3.83

KPI1
KPI2
KPI3
KPI4
KPI5
KPI6
KPI7
KPI8
KPI9

2010

2011

2012

0.05
0.05
0.06
0.10
0.01
0.02
0.07
0.03
0.02

0.04
0.04
0.11
0.20
0.03
0.02
0.13
0.06
0.03

0.06
0.04
0.09
0.20
0.02
0.02
0.13
0.04
0.03

34
21
8
2
5
57
4
FP
GP

2012

37
17
4
1
2
52
2
VGP
VGP

KPI1
KPI2
KPI3
KPI4
KPI5
KPI6
KPI7
KPI8
KPI9

26
14
5
1
3
59
2
GP
VGP

Max

Min

0.06
0.05
0.11
0.20
0.03
0.02
0.13
0.06
0.03

0.04
0.04
0.06
0.10
0.01
0.02
0.07
0.03
0.02

Table 13
Distance calculation, relative closeness and ranking.

Table 8
Initial decision matrix.

KPI1
KPI2
KPI3
KPI4
KPI5
KPI6
KPI7
KPI8
KPI9

2011

Table 12
Positive/negative ideal solution.

Table 7
Data on KPIs.

KPI1
KPI2
KPI3
KPI4
KPI5
KPI6
KPI7
KPI8
KPI9

2010

Scale

Weight

2010

2011

2012

Numbers
Numbers
Numbers
Numbers
Numbers
Numbers
Numbers
5-Scale judgement
5-Scale judgement

0.09
0.08
0.15
0.29
0.04
0.03
0.20
0.08
0.04

1/34
21
1/8
1/2
1/5
57
1/4
FP
GP

1/37
17
1/4
1
1/2
52
1/2
VGP
VGP

1/26
14
1/5
1
1/3
59
1/2
GP
VGP

S+
S
C
Rank

2010

2011

2012

0.14
0.02
0.12
3

0.02
0.14
0.86
1

0.03
0.13
0.79
2

Table 9
Decision matrix.

KPI1
KPI2
KPI3
KPI4
KPI5
KPI6
KPI7
KPI8
KPI9

Weight

2010

2011

2012

0.09
0.08
0.15
0.29
0.04
0.03
0.20
0.08
0.04

0.03
21.00
0.13
0.50
0.20
57.00
0.25
2.00
3.00

0.03
17.00
0.25
1.00
0.50
52.00
0.50
4.00
4.00

0.04
14.00
0.20
1.00
0.33
59.00
0.50
3.00
4.00

Table 10
Normalised decision matrix.

KPI1
KPI2
KPI3
KPI4
KPI5
KPI6
KPI7
KPI8
KPI9

Fig. 2. SMS effectiveness evaluation results.

Table 14
KPI based distances to PIS.

Weight

2010

2011

2012

0.09
0.08
0.15
0.29
0.04
0.03
0.20
0.08
0.04

0.53
0.69
0.36
0.33
0.32
0.59
0.33
0.37
0.60

0.49
0.56
0.73
0.67
0.79
0.54
0.67
0.74
0.80

0.69
0.46
0.58
0.67
0.53
0.61
0.67
0.56
0.80

KPI1
KPI2
KPI3
KPI4
KPI5
KPI6
KPI7
KPI8
KPI9

2010

2011

2012

0.015
0.000
0.056
0.098
0.019
0.001
0.066
0.030
0.007

0.019
0.010
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.000
0.000

0.000
0.018
0.022
0.000
0.011
0.000
0.000
0.015
0.000

E. Akyuz, M. Celik / Safety Science 68 (2014) 169179

on-board ship) has been reported as four times in 2010. Since number of crew injury has negative effect on SMS effectiveness evaluation, it should be inserted as reciprocal. Therefore, KPI7 value
(number of crew injury on-board ship) for 2010 is inserted as 1/4
in decision matrix.
The equivalent values of data, called as decision matrix, are
illustrated in Table 9. In this section, verbal judgement of DPA
and HSQE manager are converted to numerical value in accordance
with 15 rating scale. For example, DPA assigned a judgement for
eet conditions in 2012 are good (GP). Therefore, it is converted to
3 in accordance with 15 rating scale.
The decision matrix is normalised by using the Eq. (8). The normalised decision matrix is shown in Table 10.
Thereafter, weighted normalised decision matrix is calculated
in accordance with Eq. (9). The results are illustrated in Table 11.

177

Positive ideal solution (best) and negative ideal solution (worst)

is determined by using Eq. (12). Table 12 provides PIS and NIS values for each KPI.
After doing a separation measurement by using Eqs. (11) and
(12) for PIS and NIS, the relative closeness of criterion is calculated
using the Eq. (12). The results are shown in Table 13.
Finally, the criterion are arranged in descending order in accordance with their relative closeness and ranked the preference
order.
4.4. Findings
According to the results, the SMS effectiveness in 2011 reaches
the highest value when compare the previous year. Fig. 2
illustrates the SMS effectiveness evaluation results in the period

Fig. 3. SMS overview based on KPIs in 2010.

Fig. 4. SMS overview based on KPIs in 2011.

178

E. Akyuz, M. Celik / Safety Science 68 (2014) 169179

Fig. 5. SMS overview based on KPIs in 2012.

of 20102012. It seems that there is a signicant raise in 2011 in

terms of SMS implementation benets. However, the system evaluation reveals a slight decrease in 2012.
The distance values of each KPI for alternative years to PIS can
give idea to decision makers (ship operators and managers) about
critical issues in SMS implementations. The values, KPI based distances to PIS, are provided in Table 14.
For cluster based analysis, Figs. 35 illustrate the vulnerabilities
in the system through 2010, 2011 and 2012 respectively.
As it is seen in Fig. 3, KPI4 (number of detention), the distal
point, is determined as the most remarkable factor to take into
consideration. On the other hand, KPI7 (number of crew injury
observed on-board ships) and KPI3 (number of major non-conformity observed on-board ships) are the other critical aspects in
2010.
In 2011, KPI1 (number of deciency found on-board ships) and
KPI2 (number of completed training on-board ships) are the most
critical aspects according to Fig. 4. As the most successful year
within alternatives, the variety of the KPIs cumulates in the centre.
Fig. 5 points out that KPI3 (number of major non-conformity
observed on-board ships), KPI2 (number of completed training
on-board ships), KPI5 (number of near-miss reported by ships)
and KPI8 (DPA internal audit judgement) are the key aspects in
order to increase effectiveness of SMS implementation.
5. Conclusion and discussion
Regulatory compliance matter is an onerous task recently
discussed various platforms in maritime society. This problem
requires establishing robust models in order to make sensitive
decision analysis on regulation requirements and operational
conditions. For instance, the latest amendment to ISM Code necessitates performing an effectiveness analysis to SMS implementations on-board ships. Solution of compliance matter in ISM Code
especially deals with reducing bureaucracy, integrated documentation management, effecting reporting, continuous improvement
and active monitoring with performance indicators. At this point,
the managers in shore-based organisation should develop a safety
monitoring system that complies with the auditable requirements
of international authorities.

This research prompted a hybrid-decision model to monitor

the implementation performance of SMS via monitoring the KPIs
data. The model is based on AHP and TOPSIS technique to prioritize and use KPIs data under unique frame on which safety performance is measured. Since the evaluation of safety is very
challenging process, the proposed approach has managed to ll
the gap both in safety science literature theoretically and maritime industry practically. The main ndings of the research show
that number of detentions, crew injuries on-board ship, and
major non-conformities are the key indicator to make decision
on ship SMS integration. Hence, the proposed approach enables
to review the SMS practices systematically that is required by
recent amendments of ISM Code. Therefore, original contributions
of the research outcomes to maritime researchers, safety engineers and ship operators can be highly appreciated. In addition,
the paper is expected to contribute on-going efforts towards
improvement of chemical tanker SMS since chemical tanker operations require a high level of safety and environmental-related
precautions when compared with the other types of merchant
ships. The proposed model provides to analyse the SMS practice
in chemical tanker eet safety management by evaluating number of detention, crew injuries and major non-conformities. Thus,
monitoring the implementation performance of SMS should be
carried out in order to reduce catastrophic factor that may affect
chemical tanker safety. Moreover, management of chemical tanker shipping company can utilise the proposed approach to avoid
any detention or crew injuries or major non-conformities in
advance by measuring effectiveness of SMS implementations
on-board chemical tankers. Thereby, the vessel is not arrested
or detained by PSC ofcer (Cariou et al., 2009). The following
points of the research can briey be highlighted;
(i) The proposed model can utilise both quantitative/qualitative
data in safety analysis.
(ii) It supports the required solutions to ISM Code (2010)
amendments.
(iii) The model can be adopted into SMS documentation.
(iv) The research encourages the safety practitioners and maritime executives to establish model base system in ship operation and management.

E. Akyuz, M. Celik / Safety Science 68 (2014) 169179

Furthermore, the proposed approach can be modied to involve

long range data with variety of KPIs. In addition, the model can be
supported with information technologies to enhance implementation practice.

References
ABS, 2010. ISM Code Update. Amendments to the ISM Code MSC 85 Resolution, vol.
273(85).
Anderson, P. 2002. Managing safety at sea. D. Phil thesis, UK: Middlesex University.
Arslan, O., Er, I.D., 2008. SWOT analysis for safer carriage of bulk liquid chemicals in
tankers. J. Hazard. Mater. 154, 901913.
Arslan, O., 2009. Quantitative evaluation of precautions on chemical tanker
operations. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 87, 113120.
Belz, A., Kow, E., 2010. Comparing rating scales and preference judgements in
language evaluation. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Natural Language
Generation Conference, pp 0715.
Bhattacharya, S., 2012. The effectiveness of the ISM Code: a qualitative enquiry.
Mar. Policy 36, 528535.
Bititci, U.S., Suwignjo, P., Carrie, A.S., 2001. Strategy management through
quantitative modelling of performance measurement systems. Int. J. Prod.
Econ. 69 (1), 1522.
Cariou, P., Mejia, M.Q., Wolff, F.C., 2009. Evidence on target factors used for port
state control inspections. Mar. Policy 33, 847859.
Cariou, P., Mejia, M.Q., Wolff, F.C., 2008. On the effectiveness of port state control
inspections. Transport. Res. Part E Logis. Transpiration 44 (3), 491503.
Carlucci, D., Schiuma, G., 2007. Knowledge assets value creation map assessing
knowledge assets value drivers using AHP. Exp. Syst. Appl. 32 (3), 814821.
Celik, F., Erturk, I., Turan, E., 2013. Investigation of main particulars subject to
minimum building cost for chemical tankers. Ocean Eng. 73, 3237.
Celik, M., 2010. Enhancement of occupational health and safety requirements in
chemical tanker operations: the case of cargo explosion. Saf. Sci. 48, 195203.
Celik, M., 2009. Designing of integrated quality and safety management system
(IQSMS) for shipping operations. Saf. Sci. 47, 569577.
Chang, H.K., Liou, J.C., Chen, W.W., 2012. Protection priority in the coastal
environment using a hybrid AHP-TOPSIS method on the Miaoli Coast, Taiwan.
J. Coast. Res. 28 (2), 369374.
Chen, L., 2000. Legal and practical consequences of not complying with ISM code.
Maritime Policy Manag: Flagship J. Int. Shipping Port Res. 27 (3), 219230.
Chen, M.F., Tzeng, G.H., 2004. Combining gray relation and TOPSIS concepts for
selecting an expatriate host country. Math. Comput. Model. 40, 14731490.
Cheng, A.C., Yang, B.K., Hwang, C., 1999. Evaluating attack helicopters by the AHP
based on linguistic variable weight. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 116 (2), 423435.
Chu, T.C., Lin, Y.C., 2003. A fuzzy topsis method for robot selection. Int. J. Adv.
Manuf. Technol. 21, 284290.
DNV, 2012. Port state control-synopsis of frequent ndings and detention items.
DNV serving the maritime industry.
Ek, A., Olsson, U.M.M., 2000. Safety culture onboard ships. In: Proceedings of the
Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. vol. 44, no. 27, pp.
320322.
Farthing, B. 1997. The ISM Code: A leap forward or a return to old standards. Baltic
and International Maritime Council (BIMCO). Review. London, pp. 9395.
Gaonkar, R.S.P., Xie, M., Ng, M.M., Habibullah, M.S., 2011. Subjective operational
reliability assessment of maritime transportation system. Exp. Syst. Appl. 38
(11), 1383513846.
Goulielmos, A.M., Giziakis, C.B., 2002. Marine accident prevention: an evaluation of
the ISM code by the fundamentals of the complexity theory. Disaster Prevention
Manag. 11 (1), 1832.
Heij, C., Bijwaard, G.E., Knapp, S., 2011. Ship inspection strategies: Effects on
maritime safety and environmental protection. Transport. Res. Part D-Transport
Environ. 16 (1), 4248.
Hess, M., Kos, S., Njegovan, M., 2011. Assessment and control of operational risks on
board ships in accordance with the ISM Code. J. Maritime Stud. 25 (2), 405416.

179

Ho, W., 2008. Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications, a literature
review,. Eur. J. Operational Res. 186 (1), 211228.
Hunter, J.A.D., 1998. Shipowners perspective of its development: A success or a
failure?. New Safety Culture Conference, Institute of Marine Engineers, pp. 37.
Hwang, C.L., Yoon, K.P., 1981. Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and
Applications. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Janic, M., 2003. Multicriteria evaluation of high-speed rail, Transrapid Maglev, and
air passenger transport in Europe. Transport. Plann. Technol. 26, 491512.
Jetlund, A.S., Karimi, I.A., 2004. Improving the logistics of multi-compartment
chemical tankers. Comput. Chem. Eng. 28, 12671283.
IMCO, 1982. Tanker casualty investigations: Report of the tanker accident working
group by ICS, OCIMF and INTERTANKO. Presented at maritime safety committee
46th session agenda no.18. (MSC46/18/726February1982).
IMO, 2013. ISM code and guidelines on implementation of the ISM code. <http://
www.imo.org>.
IMO, 2002. International Safety Management Code and Revised Guide Lines on
Implementation of the ISM Code by Administrations. IMO, London, 2002.
ISM Code, 2010. ISM Code and Guidelines on Implementation of the ISM Code 2010.
Resolution A.741(18) as amended by MSC.104(73), MSC.179(79), MSC.195(80)
and MSC.273(85). London, UK.
Kandakoglu, A., Celik, M., Akgun, I., 2009. A multi-methodological approach for
shipping registry selection in maritime transportation industry. Math. Comput.
Model. 49, 586597.
Karahalios, H., Yang, Z.L., Williams, V., Wang, J., 2011. A proposed system of
hierarchical scorecards to facilitate the implementation of maritime
regulations. Saf. Sci. 49 (3), 450462.
Kokotas, X.D., Linardatos, S.D., 2011. An application of data mining tools for the
study of shipping safety in restricted waters. Saf. Sci. 49, 192197.
Kolowrocki, K., Soszynska, J., 2011. On safety analysis of complex technical
maritime transportation systems. J. Risk Reliab. 225 (3), 345354.
Knudsen, O.F., Hassler, B., 2011. IMO legislation and its implementation: Accident
risk, vessel deciencies and national administrative practices. Mar. Policy 35,
201207.
Kurttila, M., Pesonen, M., Kangas, J., Kajanus, M., 2000. Utilizing AHP in SWOT
analysis: a hybrid method and its application. Forest Policy Econom. 1, 4145.
Li, S.G., Kuo, X., 2008. The inventory management system for automobile spare parts
in a central warehouse. Exp. Syst. Appl. 34 (2), 11441153.
Milani, A.S., Shanian, A., Madoliat, R., 2005. The effect of normalization norms in
multiple attribute decision making models: a case study in gear material
selection. Struct. Multidiscip. Optimization 29, 312318.
Montewka, J., Hinz, T., Kujala, P., Matusiak, J., 2010. Probability modelling of vessel
collisions. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 95 (5), 573589.
Mullai, A., Paulsson, U., 2011. A grounded theory model for analysis of marine
accidents. Accid. Anal. Prev. 43 (4), 15901603.
Nooramin, A.S., Sayareh, J., Moghadam, M.K., Alizmini, H.R., 2012. TOPSIS and AHP
techniques for selecting the most efcient marine container yard gantry crane.
Oper. Res. Decis. Theory 49 (2), 116132.
Onut, S., Soner, S., 2008. Transshipment site selection using the AHP and TOPSIS
approaches under fuzzy environment. Waste Manage. (Oxford) 28, 15521559.
Saaty, T.L., 1994. How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Interfaces
24 (6), 1943.
Saaty, T.L., 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting,
Resource Allocation. McGraw-Hill.
Srdjevic, B., Medeiros, Y.D.P., Faria, A.S., 2004. An objective multi-criteria evaluation
of water management scenarios. Water Resour. Manage 18, 3554.
Storgard, J., Erdogan, I., Lappalainen, J., Tapaninen, U., 2012. Developing incident
and near missing reporting in the maritime industry-a case study on the Baltic
Sea. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 48, 10101021.
Tarelko, W., 2012. Origins of ship safety requirements formulated by International
Maritime Organization. Int. Symp. Saf. Sci. Technol. Proc. Eng. 45, 847856.
Tzannatos, W., Kokotos, D., 2009. Analysis of accidents in Greek shipping during the
pre-and post-ISM period. Mar. Policy 33, 679684.
Vargas, L., 1982. Reciprocal matrices with random coefcients. Math. Model. 3, 69
81.
Yang, L.Z., Wang, J., Li, X.K., 2013. Maritime safety analysis in retrospect. Maritime
Policy Manag. 40 (3), 261277.