{"id":6563,"date":"2012-01-24T15:43:42","date_gmt":"2012-01-24T15:43:42","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.smartdatacollective.com\/index.php\/post\/cruise-ship-captains-and-normal-accidents\/"},"modified":"2012-01-24T15:43:42","modified_gmt":"2012-01-24T15:43:42","slug":"cruise-ship-captains-and-normal-accidents","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.smartdatacollective.com\/cruise-ship-captains-and-normal-accidents\/","title":{"rendered":"Cruise Ship Captains and Normal Accidents"},"content":{"rendered":"

With the official death toll at eleven and plenty more persons missing in the Costa Concordia cruise ship disaster<\/a>, reports have trickled in that this accident was mostly \u201coperator error\u201d induced on part of the ship\u2019s captain. However, as we will see in any system \u2013whether it is tightly or loosely coupled, there is always probability of accident, leaving us to calculate if we should build more slack or buffers into a given system, or accept risks of leaving things just as they are.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

With the official death toll at eleven and plenty more persons missing in the Costa Concordia cruise ship disaster<\/a>, reports have trickled in that this accident was mostly \u201coperator error\u201d induced on part of the ship\u2019s captain. However, as we will see in any system \u2013whether it is tightly or loosely coupled, there is always probability of accident, leaving us to calculate if we should build more slack or buffers into a given system, or accept risks of leaving things just as they are.<\/p>\n

As the Costa Concordia departed from the Italian port of Civitavecchia, no one predicted it would crash and sink.  According to news reports, the ship\u2019s captain wanted to \u201csalute\u201d the island residents of Giglio and took the ship near shallow waters. However, through mis-calculation, the cruise ship hit rocks, took on water and eventually capsized causing passenger injuries and some deaths.<\/p>\n

The captain of the Costa Concordia has admitted to navigational error<\/a>, even though on previous journeys he performed similar maneuvers taking the cruise ship too close to the rocky island.  And while it\u2019s easy to pin blame solely on operator error, or in this instance bold incompetence, we should not forget that accidents such as these should be expected in moderately coupled systems.<\/p>\n

We\u2019re all risk takers to some degree. Implicitly, we understand whether we fly commercial airlines, drive a car, or take our family vacation on a cruise there is risk of injury or worse involved.  However with probabilities of \u201caccident\u201d so small, we judge risk vs. reward and usually settle on taking our chances with an understanding that accidents cannot be altogether avoided. <\/p>\n

Author Charles Perrow reminds us that in systems\u2014whether they are tightly coupled (little to no slack) or loosely coupled (linear interactions with possible delays) there \u201cwill be failures\u201d.  In fact, in the maritime industry, which Perrow calls \u201cmoderately coupled\u201d, it\u2019s surprising there are not more boating accidents.<\/p>\n

In his book, \u201cNormal Accidents<\/a>\u201d Perrow mentions how the maritime industry is full of risky behavior where captains make poor judgments in \u201cplaying chicken\u201d with other boats, or take sightseeing tours that deviate from planned navigational routes.  In addition, on the sea, operator error abounds where captains \u201czig when they should have zagged\u201d or make mistakes because they often work 14-hour work days. Aboard a ship, Perrow says, the captain is supreme and with so much riding on one person, it\u2019s not surprising many of the worse maritime disasters are due to poor decisions of the captain.<\/p>\n

So we then realize\u2014whatever the system\u2014whether it\u2019s a transformation industry like nuclear power, or one that\u2019s less complex like maritime, there will be failures and there will be accidents. There\u2019s no such thing as a non-risky system.   <\/p>\n

In fact, since risk in systems cannot be eliminated, we can either take drastic steps such as shutting down such systems (i.e. Germany\u2019s pledge to eliminate nuclear power by 2022<\/a>) or learn to live with risks by inserting more buffers and slack to stop chain reactions\u2014if possible. This last strategy of course is more costly to society.<\/p>\n

Perrow reminds us that when it comes to systems, \u201cnothing is perfect, neither designs, equipment, procedures, operators, supplies or the environment.\u201d Indeed, we know risk is all around us. What we can do however, as business managers and\/or members of society, is to think more carefully about risks we\u2019re willing to accept vs. plausible rewards. In addition, where possible we should strongly consider building in redundancies and planning for disaster so that when the inconceivable strikes, we\u2019re much more prepared to deal with potential outcomes.<\/p>\n

Questions:<\/p>\n