Behavioural Competency Assessment and Verification – Why It Matters?

Behavioural Competency Assessment and Verification – Why It Matters

Beyond the Checklist – The Human Factor in Maritime Safety

The maritime industry has made monumental strides in engineering, technology, and regulation over the past half-century, dramatically improving the safety and environmental record of global shipping. Yet, despite these advances, a persistent and challenging variable remains at the heart of operational risk: the human element. Analysis from authoritative bodies like the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) and major marine insurers consistently reveals a stark reality: between 75% and 96% of all maritime incidents are attributable, in whole or in part, to human error. This is not an indictment of seafarer professionalism but a recognition that incidents are rarely caused by a single, isolated mistake. Instead, they are often the culmination of latent system weaknesses, poor decisions, and ineffective team interactions—factors that traditional, compliance-focused audits are ill-equipped to detect.

For decades, the industry’s approach to competency has been anchored in the verification of technical skills. These are the “hard skills” or the “what” of a seafarer’s job: the procedural knowledge and operational capabilities mandated by frameworks like the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW). An officer’s ability to operate an Electronic Chart Display and Information System (ECDIS), calculate cargo stability, or correctly follow a pre-departure checklist are all examples of essential technical skills. They form the bedrock of safe operations, but they are no longer sufficient.

The new frontier in maritime safety management lies in understanding and assessing behavioural competencies. These are the “soft skills” or the “how” of a seafarer’s performance. They are the observable behaviours that dictate how effectively technical skills are applied, particularly under the dynamic and often stressful conditions of vessel operations. Competencies such as teamwork, communication, leadership, situation awareness, and decision-making are the invisible architecture supporting every successful critical operation. They represent the crucial difference between an officer who can simply follow a passage plan and one who can effectively manage a bridge team to navigate safely through unforeseen challenges in congested waters.

This report posits that the systematic assessment and verification of these behavioural competencies during routine onboard audits is no longer a discretionary “best practice” but an operational and commercial imperative. Driven by a deeper understanding of risk management and codified in new regulatory regimes like the Oil Companies International Marine Forum’s (OCIMF) Ship Inspection Report Programme (SIRE 2.0), this human-centric approach represents the most significant evolution in maritime safety assurance in a generation. It is a shift from a culture of reactive compliance to one of proactive risk prediction, and it holds the key to unlocking the next level of safety and operational excellence at sea.

From Cockpit to Bridge: The Origins of Behavioural Assessment

The focus on non-technical skills as a cornerstone of safety is not a concept native to the maritime industry. Its origins can be traced back to the world of aviation, a sector that faced its own human factors crisis in the 1970’s. A series of catastrophic accidents, culminating in the 1977 Tenerife airport disaster where two Boeing 747s collided on the runway, forced investigators to look beyond mechanical failure and piloting proficiency. A landmark 1979 workshop sponsored by NASA concluded that the primary cause of most air crashes was not a lack of technical skill but failures in interpersonal communication, leadership, and decision-making within the cockpit.

This realization gave birth to Crew Resource Management (CRM), a revolutionary training system designed to improve air safety by focusing on the cognitive and interpersonal skills needed to manage a flight within a complex, team-based system. Initially termed “Cockpit Resource Management,” the name was soon broadened to “Crew Resource Management” to reflect the understanding that safety depended on the entire team, including flight attendants and ground personnel. The early days of CRM were not without resistance; many veteran pilots initially dismissed the training as “psycho-babble,” a cultural hurdle that foreshadowed similar challenges in the traditionally hierarchical maritime world. However, its undeniable success in reducing incident rates led to its mandatory adoption worldwide.

The proven effectiveness of CRM in aviation provided a powerful model for other high-risk industries. Sectors like nuclear power generation and offshore oil and gas, where human error could have devastating consequences, began to adapt and implement similar human-factors-based training and assessment programs. These industries recognized that technical expertise alone was not a sufficient barrier against catastrophic failure; the behaviours and interactions of the operational teams were equally, if not more, critical.

The maritime industry’s adoption of these principles has been more gradual but is now accelerating rapidly. The journey began with the International Safety Management (ISM) Code, which entered into force in 1998. The ISM Code was a foundational step, mandating that all shipping companies develop a Safety Management System (SMS) and formally acknowledging the importance of the human element in preventing accidents. However, its application was often broad, leading to a focus on procedural compliance rather than a deep-seated cultural change.

The next significant evolution came with OCIMF’s Tanker Management and Self Assessment (TMSA) programme, first introduced in 2004. TMSA encouraged a culture of continuous improvement by providing a framework for operators to assess their own management systems against a series of key performance indicators (KPIs) and best practices. Crucially, TMSA was the first major industry tool to explicitly reference the value of navigational assessments that went beyond simple compliance checks, pushing operators to look more closely at the quality of their onboard practices.

This evolutionary process has culminated in OCIMF SIRE 2.0. This new vetting programme represents a fundamental paradigm shift. It moves away from the static, checklist-based approach of the original SIRE programme to a dynamic, risk-based, and human-factor-centric inspection regime. SIRE 2.0 inspectors are now required to assess not just if a procedure exists, but how it is implemented by the crew. The programme directly evaluates crew competency, operational behaviour, and the effectiveness of the SMS in practice. This makes the formal assessment of behavioural competencies an indispensable component of the vetting process and, by extension, a vessel’s commercial viability.

The Anatomy of Behavioural Competence: A Framework for Observation

To effectively assess behavioural competencies, the industry first needed a standardized, objective language to describe them. Historically, evaluating “soft skills” was a highly subjective exercise, often reliant on an individual assessor’s personal definition of “good seamanship.” This led to inconsistent evaluations, vague feedback, and made any form of fleet-wide analysis or benchmarking impossible. The breakthrough came with the joint OCIMF and INTERTANKO publication, Behavioural Competency Assessment and Verification for Vessel Operators. This guide established the industry’s definitive framework, transforming abstract concepts into a structured, measurable system.

The framework is built upon a hierarchy that deconstructs complex behaviours into observable components. At the highest level are six core Competency Domains. Each domain is then broken down into narrower Elements, which are further defined by a list of positive and negative Behavioural Indicators—the specific, observable actions an assessor can see and record during an audit. This structure provides the common language and clear criteria needed for objective assessment.

The six core competency domains are:

1. Team working: This domain assesses the ability to work effectively within a team, building productive relationships through cooperation, respect, and conflict resolution. It is about moving beyond individual tasks to achieve a common goal. A positive indicator would be an officer who “actively participates in team tasks” and “encourages input and feedback from others.” A negative indicator would be one who “blocks open communication” or “competes with others”.
2. Communication and Influencing: This focuses on the ability to give and receive information clearly, precisely, and convincingly. It encompasses not just the clarity of the message but also the method of delivery and the critical step of ensuring shared understanding. This is the domain where practices like closed-loop communication—where an order is given, repeated back, and the outcome monitored—are assessed. Positive indicators include “gives clear and concise briefings” and “asks questions to confirm understanding,” while negative indicators include “briefings are unclear, lengthy” and “communication is one-way”.
3. Situation Awareness: Defined as the ability to accurately perceive the immediate environment, understand the meaning of those perceptions, and project their status into the near future. This is arguably the most critical cognitive skill for preventing incidents, as it forms the primary defense against being surprised by events. Positive indicators include “monitors, cross-checks and reports changes in vessel system states” and “anticipates future states, threats and their consequences.” Negative indicators include being “unaware of changes in the external environment” and being “surprised by outcomes of events, with little or no contingency planning”.
4. Decision Making: This competency involves reaching systematic and rational judgments based on relevant information. It is a structured process that includes problem definition, generating multiple options, assessing the risks and benefits of each option, and reviewing the final outcome. A positive indicator is an officer who “gathers information and identifies the problem” and “assesses and shares the risks and benefits of different courses of action.” A negative indicator is one who “makes decisions without recognizing or acknowledging own limitations” or “selects a course of action without a clear risk analysis”.
5. Results Focus: This domain measures the drive to achieve desired results safely and efficiently. It includes demonstrating initiative, determination, flexibility in the face of changing conditions, and accountability for one’s work. Positive indicators are “identifies what needs to be done and initiates appropriate action” and “adapts approach, goals and methods to achieve solutions.” Negative indicators include “seldom takes action to improve outcomes” and “struggles to use time efficiently”.
6. Leadership and Managerial Skills: This competency is about inspiring, motivating, and empowering personnel to perform at their best. It is not limited to the Master but applies to any officer in a supervisory role. Key elements include setting a clear direction, empowering subordinates, demonstrating authority and assertiveness when required, maintaining standards, and managing workload effectively. Positive indicators include “communicates clear expectations” and “creates a safe and trusting environment for crewmembers to speak up.” Negative indicators include “micromanages direct reports” and “blames the team if things go wrong”.

The creation of this standardized framework is a true game-changer. It allows a shipping company to move beyond anecdotal feedback and collect consistent, structured data on crew performance across its entire fleet. An observation is no longer a subjective “poor attitude” but a specific, recorded instance of a negative behavioural indicator, such as “Does not check whether plans and expectations have been understood” under the Communication domain. This data can then be aggregated and analyzed, enabling management to identify systemic weaknesses—for example, a fleet-wide deficiency in “Conflict Resolution”—and develop targeted, effective training interventions that address the root cause of the performance gap. The framework is the foundational tool that enables a strategic, data-driven approach to managing the human element.

Competency Domain	Definition	Example of Positive Observable Behaviour	Example of Negative Observable Behaviour
Team working	Works effectively in a team, building productive relationships, resolving conflicts, and balancing individual and team goals.	“Actively participates in team tasks and encourages input and feedback from others.”	“Blocks open communication and creates barriers between crewmembers.”
Communication and Influencing	Gives and receives communication clearly, precisely, and in a convincing way, ensuring shared understanding.	“Gives clear and concise briefings and asks questions to confirm understanding.”	“Communication is one-way and does not seek feedback or encourage questions.”
Situation Awareness	Accurately perceives the environment, understands surroundings, and predicts their status in the near future to manage threats.	“Anticipates future states, threats and their consequences, and discusses contingency strategies.”	“Is surprised by outcomes of events, with little or no contingency planning.”
Decision Making	Reaches systematic and rational judgements based on relevant information by analysing issues and breaking them down.	“Assesses and shares the risks and benefits of different courses of action through discussion.”	“Selects a course of action without a clear risk analysis.”
Results Focus	Focuses on achieving desired results by taking conscientious action, using initiative, and demonstrating flexibility.	“Identifies what needs to be done and initiates appropriate action.”	“Seldom takes action to improve outcomes, processes or measurements.”
Leadership and Managerial Skills	Inspires, motivates, and empowers personnel to perform at their best to achieve goals.	“Creates a safe and trusting environment for crewmembers to speak up without hesitation.”	“Micromanages direct reports and fails to motivate or support the team.”

Assessing Behaviour During Onboard Audits

The true value of a behavioural competency framework is realized when it is applied in the real world. The objective is not to create an entirely new and separate “behavioural audit,” which would add to the already significant audit burden on vessels. Instead, the goal is to seamlessly integrate behavioural observation into the existing schedule of dynamic onboard audits of critical operations. This requires a shift in the auditor’s mindset, moving from a static, paperwork-focused verification process to a dynamic, live observation of the crew in action. The audit becomes a window into how a team actually performs its duties, manages challenges, and interacts under operational pressure.

The OCIMF/INTERTANKO guide recommends focusing assessments on four key operational areas that provide rich opportunities for observation: navigation, cargo operations, mooring, and engineering.

Navigational Audits

The bridge of a vessel, especially during critical phases of a voyage, is one of the most fertile grounds for assessing behavioural competencies.

• Observation Point: The bridge during pilotage in a congested channel, a Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) crossing, or arrival/departure from port.
• What to Look For: An assessor should observe the entire bridge team, not just the individual at the conn.
  • Situation Awareness: Is the Officer of the Watch (OOW) maintaining a 360-degree awareness, using visual cues, radar, and AIS, or are they fixated on a single ECDIS screen? Do they anticipate the actions of other vessels well in advance?.
  • Communication & Team working: Is there a culture of “challenge and response,” where a junior officer feels empowered to voice a concern or question a senior’s decision? Is communication clear, concise, and confirmed using closed-loop techniques? How is the Master/Pilot information exchange conducted? Is it a genuine dialogue to establish a shared mental model of the plan, or a passive handover of control?.
  • Leadership: Does the Master’s presence on the bridge foster collaboration or stifle it? Do they effectively delegate tasks to manage workload, or do they attempt to control every variable themselves?.

Cargo and Ballast Water Operations

The Cargo Control Room (CCR) and deck operations during cargo transfer or ballast water management are high-stakes environments where teamwork and procedural discipline are paramount.

• Observation Point: The CCR during the “topping off” of cargo tanks, a critical ballast water exchange sequence, or tank cleaning operations.
• What to Look For:
  • Decision Making & Planning: How does the team conduct the pre-operational meeting and toolbox talk? Is there a clearly articulated plan with contingencies, and is there a shared understanding of roles and responsibilities?. When an unexpected alarm sounds or a deviation from the plan occurs (e.g., a sudden change in shore pumping rate), how does the team diagnose the problem, generate options, and make a timely, risk-assessed decision?
  • Communication: Is there clear and continuous communication between the CCR, the deck team, and the engine room? Are critical updates, like tank levels, communicated proactively and confirmed?.
  • Compliance & Results Focus: During a ballast water management audit, an assessor should go beyond simply verifying the existence of a Ballast Water Management Plan (BWMP). They should ask the responsible officer to demonstrate its use, explain the procedure for a specific operation, and show familiarity with record-keeping. This assesses actual competence, not just the presence of a document.

Bunkering and Mooring Operations

These operations involve intense coordination between multiple parties (ship, tugs, bunker barge, shore personnel) in a confined and dynamic environment.

• Observation Point: The pre-bunkering toolbox talk, the bunker station during transfer, and the mooring stations during berthing/unberthing.
• What to Look For:
  • Team working & Leadership: Is the pre-bunkering toolbox talk an interactive risk assessment where all team members contribute, or a one-way monologue? Does the team leader (e.g., Chief Engineer or Chief Officer) effectively empower their team, delegate tasks, and manage workload to avoid fatigue and overload?.
  • Communication: Is communication with the bunker barge or tugs clear, professional, and based on established protocols? Are key instructions confirmed to prevent misunderstanding?.
  • Situation Awareness: During mooring, does the officer in charge of a station anticipate the potential effects of external factors like a passing vessel’s wake or a change in tidal height on the mooring lines? Do they communicate these potential threats proactively to the bridge?.

By embedding these observational techniques into routine audits, a company can gather invaluable data on how its procedures are actually being implemented at the sharp end, providing a far more accurate and predictive measure of operational risk than any paperwork review alone.

The Strategic Value for Shore Management: Translating Onboard Behaviour to Business Performance

For shore-based management, the implementation of a behavioural competency assessment program is not merely an exercise in enhancing safety; it is a strategic investment with tangible returns that impact every facet of the business. By systematically collecting and analyzing data on crew behaviour, a company can translate observations from the bridge and engine room into measurable improvements in safety, compliance, efficiency, and commercial reputation.

Enhanced Safety Culture: Shifting from Lagging to Leading Indicators

Perhaps the most profound benefit is the transformation of a company’s approach to risk management. Traditional safety metrics—such as the Lost Time Injury Frequency (LTIF) rate, the number of spills, or the frequency of collisions—are all lagging indicators. They are historical measures of failure; they tell you how many times your defenses have already been breached. While essential for tracking past performance, they offer no predictive power.

A robust behavioural assessment program, in contrast, provides powerful leading indicators. When data from onboard assessments is aggregated across the fleet, it reveals latent vulnerabilities and unsafe behavioural trends before they manifest as an incident. For example, if fleet-wide data shows a consistent “Needs Improvement” rating in the “Risk Assessment and Option Selection” element of the Decision Making domain, management has identified a critical systemic weakness. This data point is a clear warning signal that crews may be predisposed to making poor choices under pressure. It allows management to move from a reactive, post-mortem analysis of an accident to a proactive, pre-emptive intervention. They can deploy a targeted fleet-wide training module on dynamic risk assessment, update relevant procedures in the SMS, or issue a safety bulletin with lessons learned from near-misses. This fundamental shift from a reactive to a predictive safety model is the key to preventing major accidents rather than just investigating them.

Reduced Incidents and Associated Costs

By directly addressing the root causes of the vast majority of accidents—human factors—the logical and proven outcome is a quantifiable reduction in incidents, spills, injuries, and fatalities. This translates directly to the bottom line through significantly lower costs associated with insurance claims and deductibles, reduced vessel off-hire time for repairs and investigations, fewer regulatory fines and penalties, and the avoidance of catastrophic environmental cleanup expenses.

Stronger Compliance with SIRE 2.0, ISM, and TMSA

In the modern regulatory landscape, simply having a procedure in a manual is no longer sufficient. Vetting bodies and regulators demand objective evidence that these procedures are being effectively implemented. A documented behavioural assessment program provides precisely this evidence.

• SIRE 2.0: The new inspection regime is explicitly designed to assess human factors. A formal program demonstrates to vetting inspectors that the company is proactively managing crew competency and behaviour, which is a core requirement for a successful inspection.
• ISM Code: The program provides tangible proof that the company is fulfilling the spirit, not just the letter, of the ISM Code by actively monitoring performance and fostering a positive safety culture.
• TMSA: Achieving the higher stages of the Tanker Management and Self Assessment programme requires demonstrating a culture of continuous improvement. Data from behavioural assessments allows a company to identify weaknesses, implement corrective training, and document the resulting performance improvement, providing a clear path to advancing through the TMSA stages.

Improved Crew Performance, Development, and Retention

Objective assessment data transforms the crew appraisal process. Vague feedback like “needs to improve attitude” can be replaced with specific, actionable points tied to the competency framework, such as “needs to more consistently use closed-loop communication during cargo operations.” This clarity makes performance reviews more constructive and provides a clear roadmap for individual development.

Furthermore, by investing in the development of their crews’ soft skills, companies show a genuine commitment to their professional growth. This fosters a more positive onboard culture, boosts morale and engagement, and significantly improves crew retention. In an industry facing a growing shortage of skilled seafarers, reducing crew turnover and the high costs associated with recruitment and familiarization is a major competitive advantage.

Better Risk Management and Enhanced Commercial Reputation

Ultimately, a strong, verifiable safety culture is a powerful commercial differentiator. Charterers, particularly oil majors and other blue-chip clients, are increasingly sophisticated in their risk assessment of operators. They actively seek partners who can demonstrate robust and proactive management of the human element. A company with a strong behavioural competency program, evidenced by positive SIRE 2.0 results and a low incident rate, builds a reputation for reliability, quality, and safety. This enhances its standing in the market, making it a preferred partner for charterers, which can lead to better charter rates, higher vessel utilization, and a more resilient business model.

The Assessor’s Toolkit: Methodologies for Verification

Implementing a successful behavioural assessment program hinges on the quality and consistency of the assessors themselves. Their role is not simply to be an inspector finding fault, but to be a skilled observer, analyst, and coach. This requires a structured methodology and a specific toolkit to ensure that assessments are objective, valuable, and drive continuous improvement.

How to Observe, Measure, and Verify

The assessment process is not a single action but a combination of techniques applied during live, dynamic operations:

1. Direct Observation: This is the primary and most powerful tool. The assessor must be present on the bridge, in the engine control room, or on deck during critical operations, watching how individuals and teams interact with each other, with their equipment, and with procedures. The focus is on observing the behavioural indicators outlined in the competency framework.
2. Strategic Questioning: An effective assessor uses open-ended, probing questions to understand the thought processes behind actions. Instead of asking, “Did you do a risk assessment?” (a simple yes/no question), a better approach is, “Can you walk me through your risk assessment for this operation and the key hazards you identified?” This reveals the depth of understanding and the quality of the decision-making process.
3. Review of Records as Evidence: Documents such as passage plans, risk assessments, toolbox talk records, and logbook entries are not just checked for completion. They are reviewed as evidence of the quality of the planning and communication processes. A well-annotated passage plan that includes contingency points is evidence of good Situation Awareness and Decision Making.

Standardising the Process for Consistency and Analysis

To move from subjective opinion to objective data, the assessment process must be standardized across the fleet.

• Performance Review Templates: Using standardized forms, such as the examples provided in the OCIMF/INTERTANKO guide, is essential. These templates list the competency domains and elements, providing a structured way for the assessor to record observations and assign ratings. This ensures that every assessor is measuring against the same criteria, making the collected data consistent and comparable.
• Defined Rating Scales: A clear, levels-based rating system (e.g., a five-point scale from Unsatisfactory to Exceptional) is crucial. Each level must have a clear definition, as outlined in the OCIMF guide, to guide the assessor’s judgment. This quantification of performance is what allows for meaningful feedback, benchmarking between vessels, and the statistical analysis of fleet-wide trends.

The Assessor as Coach, Not Critic

The success of the program is heavily dependent on how it is perceived by the crew. If the assessor is seen as a critic whose only job is to find fault, the crew will become defensive, and the opportunity for genuine improvement will be lost. The assessor must be trained to act as a coach and mentor. The post-assessment debrief is a vital part of this process. It should be a constructive dialogue, starting with positive observations before moving to areas for improvement. The emphasis should be on learning and development, not on blame or criticism.

Training and Calibration of Assessors

Given the skill required, the training of assessors is non-negotiable. An untrained assessor will introduce subjectivity and inconsistency, undermining the entire system. It is recommended that assessor training be based on the principles of IMO Model Course 1.30 (On-board Assessment). This course provides the foundational knowledge for conducting assessments, understanding evidence, and providing effective feedback. Furthermore, companies should conduct regular calibration sessions where all assessors review scenarios together to ensure they are applying the rating scales consistently. This ensures that a “Meets Expectations” rating from one assessor means the same thing as a “Meets Expectations” rating from another.

Phase of Operation	Competency Domain	Positive Behavioural Indicators to Observe	Negative Behavioural Indicators to Observe
Pre-Transfer Meeting	Team working & Communication	Team leader facilitates an interactive toolbox talk, encouraging questions and input from all members.	Briefing is a one-way monologue; crew members appear passive and do not ask questions.
	Decision Making	The team openly discusses the bunkering plan, potential risks (e.g., spill), and agrees on contingency actions.	Risk assessment is treated as a paperwork exercise with no real discussion of “what-if” scenarios.
Hose Connection	Results Focus & Team working	Crew takes personal responsibility for their tasks, double-checking connections and ensuring all preparations are complete.	Crew members rush through the checklist, missing steps or requiring frequent supervision to complete tasks.
During Pumping	Situation Awareness & Communication	Deck watch maintains constant vigilance, monitoring the connection, pressure, and surrounding water for any signs of leakage.	Deck watch appears distracted or complacent; communication with the ECR is infrequent or unclear.
	Communication	Clear, closed-loop communication is used to confirm the start of pumping and any changes in pumping rate with the bunker barge.	Instructions are given without confirmation, leading to potential misunderstandings about pumping rates or sequences.
Topping Off Tanks	Leadership & Workload Management	The Chief Engineer effectively coordinates the team, ensuring clear roles for monitoring levels and operating valves to prevent an overflow.	The operation appears disorganized, with unclear roles, leading to confusion and heightened risk during the critical final stage.

Navigating the Implementation Challenges

Transitioning to a system of behavioural competency assessment is a significant organizational change that comes with inherent challenges. Proactively identifying and addressing these hurdles is critical for the successful implementation and long-term sustainability of the program.

Overcoming Subjectivity and Ensuring Consistency

The most common criticism leveled against the assessment of “soft skills” is its potential for subjectivity. An assessment can easily devolve into a personality judgment if not properly structured. This challenge is mitigated through a multi-pronged approach:

• A Robust Framework: Adherence to a detailed, standardized framework like the OCIMF/INTERTANKO guide is the first line of defense. It forces assessors to base their judgments on observable behaviours rather than general impressions.
• Standardized Tools: The mandatory use of consistent templates and defined rating scales across all assessments reduces variability.
• Rigorous Assessor Training and Calibration: This is the most critical element. All assessors, whether internal superintendents or third-party contractors, must undergo comprehensive training not only on the framework itself but also on observational techniques, avoiding bias, and delivering constructive feedback. Regular calibration workshops, where assessors review and rate video scenarios or case studies together, are essential to ensure they are applying the standards consistently and that their evaluations are aligned.

Gaining Crew Acceptance and Trust

Seafarers operate in a high-scrutiny environment and may view a new assessment program as another “witch hunt” designed to find fault. This perception can lead to resistance, defensiveness, and a “show” performance for the assessor that masks real-world behaviours. Gaining crew buy-in is paramount.

• Clear Communication: Management must relentlessly communicate the program’s purpose: it is a developmental tool for continuous improvement, not a punitive one for disciplinary action. The focus is on improving systems and skills, not on blaming individuals.
• Phased Introduction: Rolling out the program in phases, often starting with senior officers, can help build familiarity and demonstrate its value. Once senior officers become advocates, it is easier to gain acceptance from the rest of the crew.
• The Prerequisite of a “Just Culture”: A behavioural assessment program cannot succeed in a “blame culture.” If seafarers fear that admitting a mistake or revealing a non-standard workaround will lead to punishment, they will never be open and honest during an assessment. The organization must first establish a Just Culture, an atmosphere of trust where individuals are encouraged, and even rewarded, for reporting errors and near-misses. This allows the organization to learn from these events and fix the underlying systemic issues. Only within this environment of psychological safety can a behavioural assessment program truly uncover the realities of onboard operations and drive meaningful improvement. Attempting to implement such a program without a Just Culture will result in flawed data, active resistance, and ultimate failure.

Resource Allocation and Management Commitment

A credible and effective program requires a significant investment of time and resources. This includes the initial development or adoption of the competency framework, the creation of assessment materials and templates, the substantial time required for training and calibrating assessors, and the time for assessors to conduct the audits and debriefs onboard. Shore-based management must champion the program and allocate the necessary budget. The business case for this investment must be clearly articulated, linking the upfront costs to the long-term, tangible benefits of reduced incidents, lower insurance premiums, improved vetting performance, and enhanced commercial reputation.

Lessons from the Field: Case Studies and Industry Adoption

The value of behavioural competency assessment is best understood through real-world examples, both in the stark lessons from its absence and the successes of its adoption.

Learning from Disaster: The Case of the Costa Concordia

The 2012 grounding of the cruise ship Costa Concordia stands as a tragic and powerful case study in the failure of behavioural competencies at the highest level. The official investigation report identified the primary cause as the “unconventional behaviour of the Master,” who deviated from the approved course for personal reasons and failed to manage the subsequent emergency effectively. An analysis of this event through the lens of the OCIMF framework reveals catastrophic failures across multiple domains:

• Decision Making: The initial decision to deviate from the passage plan was based on an inadequate risk assessment and a normalization of deviance, prioritizing a “salute” to the shore over navigational safety.
• Leadership and Managerial Skills: The Master failed to maintain professional standards, created a command environment that discouraged challenge from junior officers, and did not effectively manage the bridge team during the critical moments leading up to the grounding.
• Situation Awareness: There was a clear loss of situation awareness regarding the vessel’s proximity to danger, compounded by distractions on the bridge.
• Communication: Communication during the emergency was chaotic and unclear, both within the ship and with shore authorities, delaying an effective response.

The Costa Concordia disaster is a stark reminder that technical proficiency is meaningless when undermined by poor judgment, flawed leadership, and a breakdown in team communication. It underscores the devastating consequences that can result from a failure of behavioural competencies.

Learning from Best Practices: Industry Adoption

On the positive side, leading segments of the maritime industry are actively embracing behavioural assessment as a core component of their safety and quality assurance systems.

• Industry Charters and Commitments: Companies like Group have publicly endorsed and adopted initiatives such as the UK Chamber of Shipping’s “Safety Culture Charter.” This charter explicitly commits signatories to driving a “Just Culture” where staff are empowered to “challenge unsafe behaviours and, by intervention, stop unsafe practices”. This type of top-level commitment is the essential cultural foundation upon which a successful behavioural assessment program can be built.
• Vetting-Driven Adoption: The most significant driver for adoption, particularly in the tanker sector, has been the rollout of SIRE 2.0. Because the new vetting regime places such a strong emphasis on human factors, oil majors and other charterers now effectively require operators to demonstrate a robust system for managing and assessing crew competencies. This commercial imperative has transformed behavioural assessment from a niche practice into a mainstream requirement for doing business. Many leading tanker operators are now using the OCIMF/INTERTANKO framework as the basis for their internal audit and training programs.
• A Maturing Training Ecosystem: The industry’s growing recognition of this need is reflected in the emergence of specialized training courses. The leading maritime training providers now offer dedicated “Behavioural Competency Assessor” courses, designed to equip superintendents and senior officers with the skills needed to conduct these assessments effectively. This development signifies that the industry is building the necessary infrastructure to support the widespread and professional implementation of these programs.

These examples show a clear trend: the principles of behavioural competency assessment are moving from theoretical guides to embedded practice, driven by lessons from past failures and the commercial demands of a more risk-aware industry.

The Future Horizon: Digitalisation of Competence Management

While onboard, in-person observation remains the gold standard for assessment, the future of behavioural competency management is undoubtedly digital. Technology is poised to make the processes of assessment, analysis, and development more efficient, consistent, and data-rich, further enhancing the predictive power of these programs.

The Rise of Competence Management Systems (CMS or CompMS)

The industry is rapidly moving away from paper-based checklists and siloed spreadsheets towards integrated, digital Competence Management Systems (CMS). These software platforms provide a centralized hub for managing the entire competency lifecycle. A modern CMS allows a shipping company to:

• Define role-specific competency frameworks, aligning them with industry standards like OCIMF’s Behavioural Competency Assessment and Verification (BCAV).
• Systematically schedule and record the results of onboard assessments using standardized digital forms.
• Aggregate and analyze data from across the fleet to identify performance trends, systemic competency gaps, and high-performing teams or vessels.
• Automatically assign targeted e-learning modules or other training interventions to individuals or groups based on identified needs.
• Maintain a complete, auditable record of each seafarer’s competency development and assessment history, ready for vetting or internal review.

Leveraging Voyage Data Recorder (VDR) Information

Voyage Data Recorders (VDRs), traditionally used solely for post-accident investigation, are now being recognized as a powerful tool for proactive, remote assessment. By routinely downloading and analyzing VDR data—which includes bridge audio, VHF communications, helm orders, engine commands, and radar imagery—shore-based managers and assessors can review a bridge team’s performance during a critical transit. This method offers a significant advantage: it eliminates the “observer effect,” where a crew may alter its behaviour simply because an assessor is physically present on the bridge. Analyzing VDR data can provide a more authentic and unfiltered picture of everyday operational practices and behaviours, good and bad.

The Potential of AI and E-Audits

The next evolutionary leap will be the application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and machine learning to the analysis of operational data. The future of e-auditing and continuous competence monitoring could include:

• AI-Assisted Analysis: AI algorithms could be trained to analyze vast datasets from VDRs, engine telemetry, and even live CCTV feeds to automatically detect patterns that may indicate behavioural risks. For example, an AI could identify communication patterns indicative of high stress or poor teamwork from bridge audio, or detect signs of fatigue from the way helm orders are executed over a long watch. These flagged events would not replace human assessors but would serve to direct their attention to specific areas of concern, making the audit process more efficient and targeted.
• Continuous Monitoring: This technology paves the way for a shift from periodic audits to a model of continuous, semi-automated monitoring. Digital platforms could provide a real-time compliance and competency dashboard for the fleet, allowing managers to identify and address emerging risks long before a formal audit is scheduled. This represents the ultimate evolution of the predictive safety model, where safety and performance are managed proactively and dynamically.

From a Compliance Burden to a Commercial and Operational Advantage

The integration of behavioural competency assessment into the fabric of onboard audits represents a strategic and necessary evolution for the maritime industry. It is a decisive move away from a reactive, compliance-driven safety paradigm toward a proactive, human-centric, and data-informed model of risk management. This shift is not merely another regulatory hurdle to be cleared; it is a fundamental rethinking of what constitutes true operational excellence.

By systematically observing, measuring, and developing the “how” of performance—the teamwork, communication, leadership, and decision-making skills of vessel operators—shipping companies directly address the root cause of the overwhelming majority of maritime incidents. This approach transforms safety management from a historical review of past failures into a predictive science of identifying and mitigating latent risks before they can lead to an accident. The result is a tangible reduction in incidents, which in turn yields significant financial benefits through lower operational costs and insurance premiums.

Furthermore, in an era defined by increasingly stringent vetting standards, a robust behavioural competency program is a powerful tool for demonstrating compliance and building commercial trust. It provides the objective evidence required to satisfy the human-factor demands of the ISM Code, achieve higher stages in the TMSA programme, and, most critically, succeed in the new SIRE 2.0 inspection regime. This builds a strong commercial reputation, positioning a company as a preferred partner for quality-conscious charterers.

Ultimately, the greatest advantage lies in the development of the organization’s most valuable asset: its people. A commitment to assessing and improving behavioural competencies fosters a culture of professionalism, accountability, and continuous learning. It builds more resilient, skilled, and engaged crews who are better equipped to manage the complexities of modern shipping. Companies that embrace this holistic approach will not only be safer and more compliant; they will be more efficient, more reputable, and better positioned to lead in an increasingly competitive and risk-aware global maritime industry.