WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, Vol. 9 (2010), No.1, 121–133
Function Based Manning and Aspects of Flexibility Margareta Ljung* Chalmers University of Technology, University West
Abstract The aim of the article is to examine the concept of flexibility from a shipping perspective. Flexibility is examined in order to develop strategies, theoretical and applicable, in the field of Function Based Manning (FBM), for achieving optimized manning, which is not the same as reduced manning, with a healthy crew. This is a complex concept in many aspects. Based on research on working life and work organizations conducted by social scientists, two aspects of flexibility are examined; functional flexibility including job enrichment and competence training, and working time flexibility. These issues are analyzed from a shipping perspective. The concept is double-edged in the sense that it entails both having flexibility and being flexible. Does flexibility only serve the interests of the employer? Or, do workers also benefit from flexibility? By combining these two aspects of flexibility, a win-win situation benefiting both employers and employees can be achieved. This article highlights and discusses strategies intended to promote the implementation of a model of optimized manning. Key words: Flexibility, Function Based Manning, Work Function, Optimized Manning
1
Introduction
Commercial shipping is the leading transport method in the world. In Sweden, approximately 90 percent of foreign trade is in maritime transport. The percentage figures for the total commercial traffic are roughly the same globally, probably slightly higher. Moreover, more than 30 million passengers are transported by ferry to and from Sweden each year. Precise figures are difficult to obtain. The scale of global commercial transport by sea is enormous considering that 5.9 billion tonnes of cargo was carried on ocean-going vessels in 2002. International trade is continuously growing much faster than the production of goods in the world, which indicates an extensive interlinking of global economies (Swedish Maritime Journal 2004). Shipping, just as other arenas of work, has gone through some major changes in recent decades. Work and the way work is performed have changed dramatically. Work functions have been added and functions have changed, but there is little documentation of how the character of work on board has changed. Like most other industries, shipping is characterized by strong demands on economic efficiency and profitability. As a consequence, there has been a major reduction in manning. From *
Assistant Professor, Sociology, Department of Shipping and Marine Technology, Chalmers University of Technology, 412 96 Göteborg, Sweden and University West, Department of Social and Behavioural Studies, 461 86 Trollhättan, Sweden, emails:
[email protected],
[email protected]
© World Maritime University. All rights reserved. ISSN: 1651-436X print/1654-1642 online
122
Ljung
having a team of 40–50 people on a normal, large cargo vessel 25 years ago, Hetherington, Flin and Mearns (2006) have found that even a very large cargo carrier currently can have a crew of as few as 22 people. This has mainly been made possible through increased automation, particularly in navigation systems (Grootjen, Neerincx and Veltman 2006; Hetherington et al. 2006). In shipping, with its specific conditions, the challenge is to achieve a balance between rational, cost-effective efforts and a healthy and engaged crew. One example is that the crew, for long periods of time, work and live together in a constricted mini-society far from family and friends. Several research reports on fatigue on board (inter alia Allen et al. 2005; Lützhöft et al. 2007) have highlighted this problem, bringing greater attention to the subject. These major changes pose challenges to shipping. When studying the area of Function Based Manning (FBM), it is easy to understand that this area is important to shipping, and indeed an area of central concern. FBM means that the work functions on a ship are carried out as efficiently as possible by the manning, but it is important to emphasize that achieving FBM does not mean a reduction in ship manning, but rather an optimized manning. Work functions can be identified as groups of skills, abilities and responsibilities. According to STCW 95 (IMO 2002), seven functions are defined: navigation, cargo handling and stowage, controlling the operation of the ship and care of people on board, marine engineering, electrical, electronic and control engineering, maintenance and repair, and radio communications. Work functions can be divided into even smaller units, e.g. fire extinction. In merchant shipping, the focus is on transporting goods from one port to another in the most cost-effective way, with a crew that is healthy and enjoying their duties. While the overall issue of how this can be done is simple to formulate, it is at the same time perhaps one of the most difficult tasks to respond to, and even more so to realize in practice. Consequently, one of the core questions in shipping is: How can we achieve manning optimization with the highest possible cost-efficiency and a healthy, motivated crew? Since the concept of flexibility seems to be important when studying issues of organizational change and FBM (Lützhöft, Ljung and Nodin 2008), the focus of this paper has been concentrated on a deeper examination of this concept together with an examination of how increased flexibility in work roles and working conditions may be a strategy for developing an alternative FBM model.
2
Flexibility – A Keyword
Flexibility is a keyword when discussing functions on board. Work functions can be adapted to available crew members by matching the work to the members’ competence profiles in order to provide flexible execution of work functions, as well as flexible team work. This can also cause redundancies as skills and competencies overlap. The concept of flexibility needs to be further examined in order to obtain further knowledge in the area of FBM and create an alternative manning model. The concept has been discussed in the context of working life in the Western world in recent decades (Atkinson and Meager 1986; Boyer 1988; Davidson 1990; Gilbert, Burrows
Function Based Manning and Aspects of Flexibility
123
and Pollert 1992). Both proponents and opponents of the application of flexibility are represented in research literature as well as in political debates. Consequently, there is reason to study flexibility from a maritime perspective. Is it a useful tool for increasing awareness of FBM and a possible application of FBM, and thus move a step closer to the introduction of an alternative manning (and education) model? In this article the concept of flexibility will be examined from different perspectives to see if flexibility can be of interest for the organization and execution of work on board vessels. Although the examination and the analysis to some extent are based on Swedish working conditions, the discussion of flexibility is international and is ongoing in various sectors of the labour market. This article will hopefully stimulate the debate and be a contribution to this discussion.
3
Flexibility and Organizational Changes
The attempt to make organizational changes in the Western world originates in the socio-technical theories developed at the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations (Katz and Kahn 1978; Buchanan 1979). The changes attempted in different countries since the 60s are based on these theories. There has been continuous development in the field of socio-technology concerning the knowledge of the organization of work changes. In the beginning, job extension was considered to be the solution to a new organization of work that would provide greater efficiency in production (Atkinson 1984; Håkansson and Isidorsson 1999). Job extension involves staff rotating between qualitatively similar duties. The theory was criticized for failing to understand the organization as a whole and what motivates human beings when they work. Socio-technology then included theories of motivation and satisfaction. Motivation factors were identified, and these came with increased responsibility, recognition, promotion (Herzberg 1966; Maslow 1987; McClelland 1987). In addition, so-called hygiene factors were examined, for example salaries, working conditions, management, and status and company policy. Thus, there were two different types of factors that formed the basis for the analysis of how the work organization could change. With this two-factor model it could be established that merely higher pay and better working conditions, i.e. hygiene factors, did not lead to greater staff motivation. The concept of job enrichment was introduced, which meant that work rotation, involving different types of tasks and more responsibility, led to greater efficiency in the work process. Motivation factors were thus included in socio-technical models, but criticism emerged concerning shortcomings in the understanding of the relationship between a working group and the organizational structure (Håkansson and Isidorsson 1999). Later developments in socio-technology emphasizes the analysis of the whole organization, but focuses primarily on productivity and efficiency. The working in groups is not only for psycho-social reasons, but the activity is also intended to be both as costeffective and competitive as possible. Advocates for socio-technology assert that an organization comprised of working groups enhances the motivation factors of its employees, as they experience that
124
Ljung
their jobs become more meaningful. In addition, technical systems can be better used if everyone in a working group can master all elements of the systems. What also emerged from the theories of socio-technology (Katz and Kahn 1978‚ Buchanan 1979) is that the introduction of new technology enabled flexible manufacturing, something which has been a driving force behind implementing working groups in organizations. Consequently, technology can be better exploited in an organization with working groups (Cole 1989). Since the scientists who have been engaged in flexibility base their analysis and strategies particularly on industrial companies, the public sector and the retail trade, the application to shipping is neither obvious nor straightforward. Nevertheless, it is interesting to study the models, strategies and their empirical application to other fields of work other than shipping. These studies can help us find parallels of interest that are also valid for shipping.
3.1
Flexibility – A Complex Concept
Flexibility is one of the most frequently used terms when talking about changes in working life in recent decades, and this applies both to the scientific community as well as to political and other public contexts. The concept has not only changed meaning over the years, but also comprises a complex of multiple meanings. Flexibility is quite often used broadly and loosely. It is not always obvious which type of flexibility that is being referred to. In the technical and social sciences, the concept has a multiplicity of meanings. Sethi and Sethi (1990 in Furåker et al. 2007) found about 50 meanings for different types of flexibility in the technical and engineering sciences alone. Some of these meanings were used redundantly. There is thus reason to clarify the concept and differentiate its various meanings. The various expressions of flexibility are particularly interesting from a sociological and work-oriented perspective for the purpose of this article. During the 70s and 80s the discussion was particularly focused on flexible working hours (Håkansson and Isidorsson 1999, 2003). Flexitime was introduced and the individual was able to partially determine his or her own working hours. During the 90s employers required flexibility to regulate activities on the basis of market needs. In shipping, issues of work and flexibility are rather unexplored, and social scientists have largely been engaged in exploring work, working conditions and work organization issues, especially in industry and the public sector. It is also in the discourse of these researchers that we can find a discussion of flexibility and descriptions of how to categorize different types of flexibility. The British researchers John Atkinsson and Nigel Meager (1986) made a valuable contribution to the research in the field. In the 1980s they presented a theoretical model of “the flexible company.” The model showed a differentiation of the flexibility concept, and different approaches could be used to meet the need for change in various companies. Their flexibility strategies were numerical flexibility, functional flexibility, pay flexibility and distancing. Without going into detail of this model and
Function Based Manning and Aspects of Flexibility
125
the criticism of it, which has been extensive, we can note that this model has been an important reference for researchers in recent decades that have been working on issues of change in working conditions and work organization. In an empirical study on working time flexibility in the retail trade (Håkansson and Isidorsson 1999), the authors use a division of personal flexibility, which means flexibility for the individual’s wishes, and operational and production flexibility, which is flexibility for business needs. Distinctions are also made between qualitative and quantitative flexibility (Atkinson and Meager 1986). What is interesting from a shipping point of view is the quantitative flexibility which offers the business the opportunity to bring production into line with changes based on market demand. It can be divided into three different categories. The quantitative flexibility part of the model devised by Håkansson and Isidorsson (1999) is shown here and will be discussed in the following section.
Quantitative flexibility Work time flexibility Varying operating working hours
Numerical flexibility Varying staff
Functional flexibility Varying tasks or products
Figure 1. The relationship between changes in demand, quantitative flexibility
3.2
Numerical Flexibility
In shipping, the crew has been reduced considerably in recent years. Numerical flexibility is almost fixed, i.e. there is virtually no flexibility at all with which to operate. If the crew were reduced even more, there is reason to fear that the fatigue and stress as identified in reports on seafarers (Allen et al. 2005; Lützhöft et al. 2007, Lund 2009) would become even more tangible. If the number of crew members increase then costs become too high, and there is a risk that shipping companies will find it hard to compete on the market.
3.3
Functional Flexibility
Functional flexibility is one of the flexibility concepts (Atkinson and Meager 1986; Davidson 1990; Håkansson and Isidorsson 1999) that could be applied to achieve manning optimization. Functional flexibility means that a company uses existing personnel in a more efficient manner. This type of flexibility is therefore associated with the work organization: How work and the performance of work are organized (Scott 1992‚ Armenakis, Achilles and Bedeian 1999‚ Pettigrew and Fenton 2000). In a conventional industrial company for example, staff can be moved to other sectors or departments, where the need is greater. Another strategy is to vary staff duties to adapt to current demand.
126
Ljung
Based on the socio-technical theories above, companies working with organizational change went from job extension to job enrichment, which was based on a holistic approach, where motivation and job satisfaction also were taken into account (Håkansson and Isidorsson 1999). Job enrichment involving qualitatively different tasks with more responsibility and initiative taking could improve the efficiency of the work. These forms of functional flexibility are particularly linked to the companies’ production capacity and labour, and are applied to deal with fluctuations in business cycles in the market. Supply and demand for products and labour can be managed by means of job enrichment. When transferring flexibility by means of job enrichment to shipping, traditional professional roles can change. Some tasks can be performed by someone other than the person who traditionally performs the task. This assumes that the skills and competence exist or are possible to obtain within the organization. This implies that another form of flexibility can be appropriate; flexibility by competence training. Owing to the rapid technological developments that take place on the bridge, in the engine room, and on shore, it may be legitimate to raise the issue of knowledge and competence. Integrating continuous training into the total employment framework might lead to higher working efficiency, i.e. competent and updated staff do the job better and safer and feel more motivation; employees attain variation in the workplace, and perhaps more responsibility and knowledge, which can be stimulating. Considering the extensive computerization and the increase in administrative work that has developed in the maritime sector in recent years, we can say that job enrichment has existed for many years, without the application of flexibility to work performance. New technical systems have continuously been implemented without having any impact on traditional professional roles. In a study of FBM (Lützhöft et al. 2008), a chief mate on a cargo ship expresses his frustration over the high administrative workload at the computer, when he thinks that his actual or ‘real’ job is to manage and sail the ship.
3.4
Working Time Flexibility
Quantitative flexibility also consists of working time flexibility, as shown above (Atkinson 1986; Håkansson and Isidorsson 1999). One of the issues that workers on board a vessel experience as the most difficult is being away from loved ones, i.e. maintaining contact with friends, partners, children and grandchildren and putting the pieces of the puzzle of life in place. In an ongoing research project on recruitment, motivation and attitudes of older sailors at the Maritime University of Kalmar (Hult and Ljung 2009), 25 interviews with seafarers have been conducted. It was found that the most difficult thing was to maintain important relationships. Some of the older sailors even say that the price is too high, and that they would have made a different career choice today. The young seafarers have a greater claim to paternity leave and family life, which under present circumstances almost makes a long working life at sea impossible. Working years at sea have also decreased in recent years. Most seafarers
Function Based Manning and Aspects of Flexibility
127
work an average of only about seven years, sometimes even less, before leaving for other duties on shore. Two recent surveys indicate a decline in those choosing to stay at sea until they retire; in the one conducted in Oct/Nov 2007 the number was 45%, and in the one conducted March/June 2008 it was 28, 3%. The numbers should be interpreted with caution, however, since the available response alternatives were not the same in the two surveys (Shiptalk 2008a, 2008b). Recruitment of seafarers is thus a major problem for shipping today. Empirical research on the causes behind the decrease in working years of seafarers is difficult to find, but one survey indicates that the highest ranked reasons for staying on board are the salary and job satisfaction. The reasons for the decrease in working years are undoubtedly numerous, and the survey shows the top reasons are too much time away from family, children and friends, too much paperwork, and fatigue (Shiptalk 2008a). An organization which applies flexibility to issues such as working hours, leave periods, rotation systems and holidays can be of interest to the employees on board. A well designed and reality-based strategy for comprehensive working time flexibility, prepared by the employers and workers together with the trade unions, might improve both the work efficiency and motivation and have a positive effect on the recruitment problem.
3.5
Different Faces of Flexibility
A discussion of flexibility also includes the question: Flexibility for whom? The concept is fascinating. After all, who does not want flexibility when it comes to working conditions and work organization issues? The concept has a positive value and has been used in the ideological objectives of discourses on the new working life (Sennett 1999; Burchell, Lapido and Wilkinson 2002; Furåker et al. in Furåker et al. 2007). In addition to the confusion about the definition of flexibility, this is another reason to take a critical approach. The sociologist Jan Christer Karlsson (in Furåker et al. 2007) presents a review of research literature on the approach to flexibility. He makes a distinction based on which group at work that benefits from the concept. He limits his sample to the employer and employee (and not the customer). The conclusion he draws is that flexibility is a double-edged concept. Affirmation of flexibility has its basis in various work categories based on different dimensions, depending on whether an employer or an employee is asked. Employees are often positive to flexibility related to working hours, but are opposed to flexibility that is supported by the management. Illustrative of the issue is the example of a trade union representative who says, “We’re looking for counter-flexibility, flexibility that suits the employees and not just the employers” (Davidsson 1990:702, in Karlsson, 28, in Furåker et al. 2007). The quote is an example of the double-edged meaning of flexibility. Karlsson proposes a clarifying distinction between having flexibility and being flexible (Karlsson, in Furåker et al. 2007). If one party, e.g. the employer, wants flexibility
128
Ljung
the employees should be flexible, for example, by accepting a change in the duties required. If in contrast, the employees want flexible working hours, the employer should be flexible in the organization of work schedules. During the 2000s, a new concept appeared in the discussion of flexibility. A further insight into the political context of the double-edged meaning of flexibility became apparent when the European Commission in 2001 launched the concept of flexicurity (Engstrand, in Furåker et al. 2007). The rapid growth of global trade, great changes in the traditional division of labour and the development towards a knowledgebased society brought about a need for a European social model. This model was needed as a political strategy for coordinating efforts concerning, on one hand, labour market flexibility and the modernization of the work organization, and on the other hand, job security and social protection measures for weak, vulnerable groups in the labour market. Providing a concept that is a fusion of flexibility and security seems to be a way of satisfying two needs of the labour market which stand in contrast to one another. This can at least be interpreted as an expression of the employers’ need for flexibility, and the employees’ need for social security. Flexicurity could function as a strategy for achieving stability from a market economics perspective. In shipping, great emphasis is placed on safety and safety culture (Håvold 2005; Lu and Shang 2005; Ek 2006). Flexibility, or for that matter flexicurity, has not been linked to safety in general. An issue that must always be at the forefront of shipping is how an increase in flexibility will affect safety. Flexibility cannot be introduced at the expense of safety. Let us here introduce the concept flexafety. There should not be any room for interpretation regarding a contradiction between flexibility and safety. The ambition should be to unite these terms so that greater flexibility will improve safety. Bringing safety into the discussion of flexibility provides additional motivation to develop strategies for change in both working conditions and work organization.
4
Conclusions
Current leading research on flexibility, in relation to performance and organization of work, is based on other industries than shipping, particularly industrial companies. It is, nevertheless, interesting to study and possibly transfer this experience and knowledge to the shipping industry in order to develop strategies for reducing costs and increasing work efficiency. Apart from flexibility in terms of tasks, performance of work and work organization, it is also relevant to emphasize the importance of flexibility in education and training, working career, work schedules and rotation systems. As a way to promote the development of appropriate models, it is therefore justified to differentiate the various meanings of the term in order to clarify the different meanings and manage them as analytical tools more effectively. The definitions of flexibility that were interesting from the FBM perspective were functional flexibility and working time flexibility. Functional flexibility was developed, as described above, more specifically for job enrichment and continuing professional
Function Based Manning and Aspects of Flexibility
129
development. This means that tasks can be flexible and go beyond those which professionals have traditionally worked with. Work tasks are detached from the professional role or job title in the past. Consequently, a shift in professional boundaries occurs which can lead to an increase in the overall capacity of the entire workforce. This requires several things, but above all the competence to perform many duties. Functional flexibility with continuing professional development is mainly used when a company needs to decrease the number of employees who are then offered continuing professional development training instead of being laid off. When the production starts up, employees can begin to work again, however enriched with greater skills and competence. Considering the increase in automation and computerization that characterizes shipping today, continuing professional development is a current issue. New IT systems with new software and more administrative tasks, i.e. increasing regulatory and safety systems, require that employees receive continuing professional development and updating to work with the systems effectively. Rather often an IT enthusiast or a few young people on board are the only ones who can fix technical errors, or a computer problem. Sometimes there is only one staff member who knows the technology at all. An illustrative example is the chief mate of a cargo ship who called his brother ashore when there was a problem with the computer program that he did not understand. It can also be pointed out that the importance of the new technology must be linked to safety. Continuing professional development should be linked to greater safety. If crew members master technology, computer programs and IT systems, this should have an impact on the safety on board. An abundance of skills and competence would probably enhance safety even more (Lützhöft et al. 2008). We can think of job enrichment as a phenomenon that has been a constant creeping process. Since computerization and automation were introduced on a larger scale, job enrichment has affected the crew. The increase in administrative work may well be regarded as job enrichment, without functional flexibility or any explicit continuing professional development for that matter. Testing a model that includes functional flexibility with both job enrichment and continuing professional development would be interesting. This would be a way to reduce or eliminate frustrations over the amount of administrative work that is strongly expressed by the crew members (Shiptalk 2008b). Continuing professional development and updating of knowledge can provide, in addition to greater safety and participation, an understanding that work functions change, new ones are to come and others may disappear or change in nature. Greater knowledge, not the least in cognitive skills, is of increasing importance in the workplace. The knowledge-based society requires a constant update when changes are rapid. These issues strongly affect the training of seafarers. The organization of an education today requires greater flexibility. This is a major issue that is beyond the scope of this article, but an emphasis on educational issues is necessary.
130
Ljung
One of the most pressing issues for the crew is the working hours, i.e. how to combine family and social relationships with the work on board. Finding well designed solutions for working time flexibility would be a major step forward. This would not only benefit the crew but also the management, because the motivation and job satisfaction of the employees can lead to greater work efficiency. Furthermore, working time flexibility would most likely affect the recruitment of people of both sexes, and certainly parents of young children. When discussing flexibility, there is always the question: Flexibility for whom? In the business and management world the concept is associated with greater profitability and higher production. When the European Commission launched the concept of flexicurity (Engstrand 2007), it showed an awareness that social security must be considered so that the stability in the labour market is not upset by rising unemployment figures and the exclusion of people from the labour market. Thus, in both scientific and political contexts there is currently an awareness of flexibility being a matter of give and take. Jan Christer Karlsson’s concepts of having flexibility and being flexible (Karlsson 2007) express this awareness. If one party, such as the management of a company, has flexibility in the work organization, the crew must be flexible too, and vice versa. If the crew has flexibility, for example through the arrangement of work schedules and working hours, the management must be flexible. Such a model would be interesting to work with, i.e. both the management and the employees would be able to give and take with greater flexibility. By combining functional flexibility with job enrichment and continuing professional development with working time flexibility, the prerequisites for a win-win situation can be obtained. It is obviously impossible to predict the effects of such a model. The whole matter of how to sail a vessel from one port to another, at minimum cost and with a healthy crew, is extremely complex. In this context, the question of the relationship between the crew on board and the staff on shore has not been discussed. The crew of a ship does not exist on an isolated island, but interacts with many other actors. Issues of safety are crucial when discussing flexibility and optimized manning. When elaborating with flexibility in an organization, safety must always come first. The flexafety concept can be used to reach the goal of increased flexibility leading to increased safety. Flexibility is also used in terms of purely technical and ergonomic solutions, where design is also an important area. A holistic approach is necessary when working with models as strategies for change.
References Allen, P., B. Wellens, R. McNamara, and A. Smith. 2005. It’s not all plain sailing. Port turn-arounds and seafarers’ fatigue: A case study. In Contemporary Ergonomics Ed. P. D. Bust and P. T. McCabe. London: Taylor and Francis, 563–567 Armenakis, Achilles A., and A. G. Bedeian. 1999. Organizational change. A review of theory and research in the 1990s. Journal of Management 25 (3): 293–315.
Function Based Manning and Aspects of Flexibility
131
Atkinson, J. 1984. Manpower strategies for flexible organizations. Personnel management, 16 (8): 28–31. Atkinson, J., and N. Meager. 1986. Changing working patterns. How companies achieve flexibility to meet new needs. London: National Economic Development Office. Boyer, R. 1988. The Search for labour market flexibility. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Buchanan, D. 1979. The development of job design theories and techniques. Saxon House, England. Burchell, B., D. Lapido, and F. Wilkinson. 2002. Job insecurity and work intensification. London: Routledge. Chin-Shan, Lu, and Shang Kuo-chung. 2005. An empirical investigation of safety climate in container terminal operators. Journal of Safety Research 36: 297–308. Cole, R. E. 1989. Strategies for learning. Small-group activities in American, Japanese, and Swedish industry. Berkeley: University of California Press. Davidson, J. O. 1990. The road to functional flexibility: White collar work and employment relations in a privatized public utility. Sociological Review 34 (4): 689– 712. Ek, Å. 2006. Safety culture in sea and aviation transport. Doctoral thesis. Department of Design Sciences, Lund University. Engstrand, A-K. 2007. Flexibility’s new clothes: A historical perspective on the public discussion in Sweden. In Flexibility and stability in working life. Ed B. Furåker, K. Håkansson and J. K. Karlsson. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 63–82. Gilbert, N., R. Burrows, and A. Pollert. 1992. Fordism and flexibility. Divisions and change. London: Macmillan. Grootjen, M., M. A. Neerincx, and J. A. Veltman. 2006. Cognitive task load in a naval ship control centre: From Identification to prediction. Ergonomics 49 (12): 1236– 1264. Herzberg, F. 1966. Work and the nature of man. Cleveland. Hetherington, C., R. Flin, and K. Mearns. 2006. Safety in shipping: Humane elements. Journal of Safety Research 37: 410–411.
132
Ljung
Hult, C., and M. Ljung. 2009. Work and aging in the Swedish maritime sector: A study on attitudes and motivation related to age, work, environment and safety onboard. (ongoing research project) Kalmar Maritime Academy, University of Kalmar. Håvold, J. I. 2005. Safety-culture in a Norwegian shipping company. Journal of Safety Research 36: 441–458. Håkansson, K., and T. Isidorsson. 1999. Flexibla tider. Flexibilitetsstrategier inom detaljhandeln. [Flexible times. Strategies for flexibility in the retail trade]. Department of Work Science, Göteborg University [In Swedish only]. Håkansson, K., and T. Isidorsson. 2003. Flexible times: Dynamics and consequences of company strategies for flexibility. In Nordic management-labour relations and internationalization – Converging and diverging tendencies. Ed. D. Flemming and C. Thörnqvist. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers, 131–52. International Maritime Organization. 2002. STCW 95. London: IMO. Karlsson, J. C. 2007. For whom is flexibility good and bad? An overview. In Flexibility and stability in working life. Ed. B. Furåker, K. Håkansson and J. K. Karlsson. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 18–29. Katz, D., and R. L. Kahn. 1978. The Social psychology of organizations. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Lund, M. 2009. Engine room ergonomics and safety. Göteborg: Chalmers University of Technology (Coming dissertation). Lützhöft, M., B. Thorslund, A. Kircher, and M. Gillberg. 2007. Fatigue at sea: A field study in Swedish shipping (No. Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute report 586A). Linköping: Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute. Lützhöft, M., M. Ljung, and K. Nodin. 2008. Funktionsbaserad bemanning. En förstudie. [Function based manning – A pilot study]. Göteborg: Lighthouse, Chalmers University of Technology. Report no. 09:109 [In Swedish only]. Maslow, A. 1987. Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row. McClelland, D. 1987. Human motivation. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Pettigraw, A. M., and E. M. Fenton. 2000. The innovative organization. London: Sage. Scott, R. W. 1992. Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall International.
Function Based Manning and Aspects of Flexibility
133
Sehti, A. K., and S. P. Sehti. 1990. Flexibility in manufacturing: A survey. The International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems, 3 (2): 289–328. In Furåker, B, K. Håkansson and J. K. Karlsson. Reclaiming the Concept of Flexibility. In Flexibility and Stability in Working Life. Ed. Furåker, B, K. Håkansson and J. K. Karlsson, 1–17. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Sennett, R. 1999. Corrosion of character: The personal consequences of work in the new capitalism. New York: Norton. Shiptalk. 2008a. Life at sea survey 2007/8: Seafarer attraction & retention survey report. Gateshead: Shiptalk Limited. Shiptalk. 2008b. Life at sea survey 2007/8: Seafarer career progression and promotion survey report. Gateshead: Shiptalk Limited. Swedish Maritime Journal, Shipping’s Book, 2004. 2004. Göteborg.
