Unit 8: Conceptual Models for Continuous Improvement
1. 8.1 The Quality Coin: Fitness for Purpose vs. Compliance
A key contribution of this paper is the development of the Quality Coin Model (Figure 1), which offers a framework to distinguish between compliance and fitness for purpose in maritime safety.
Figure 1 – Coin of Fitness for Purpose vs. Compliance
Compliance, in this context, refers to adherence to established procedures, as outlined by a company’s Safety Management System (SMS) under the ISM Code. Fitness for purpose, on the other hand, assesses whether the implemented safety measures are effective and practical in real-world conditions. Furthermore, apart from the company’s procedures (manual) there are other safety rules such as collision regulations, cyber security and so forth that needs to be seriously taken into consideration. Even when these are considered earnestly there are issues of misinterpretation of the rules for instance with Rule 19 of collision Regulations [5].
The ISM-Code provides companies with the freedom to develop their own SMS, allowing them to tailor policies and procedures to their specific needs. Consequently, external auditors assess compliance based on the companies’ internal safety systems rather than universal standards. This flexibility, while good for customization, has meant that very few instances occur when Document of Compliance (DOC) or Safety Management Certificate (SMC) is suspended or withdrawn when there are serious deficiencies. For ensuring quality and operation safety, the fitness-for-purpose concept is to be more than mere superficial compliance and involves deep analysis of human and system failures.
The variability of PSC inspection regimes across regions, for instance, under the Paris Memorandum of Understanding, further complicates the implementation of uniform standards. The methods used during the inspection, as well as the nature of the questions posed, are not standardized and could affect the validity of the results.