A Study on the Rational Decision-Making Process of Vessel Organization—Focusing on Cases of Vessel Accidents

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper contributes by examining critical decision-making issues in vessel organizations, supported by case studies and empirically-informed solutions. The research addresses a relevant topic with empirical evidence and offers recommendations. Nonetheless, the study's scope could be expanded, and the comparative analysis of existing frameworks need to be reinforced. Addressing these weaknesses will enhance the paper's robustness and applicability. Detailed comments are as follows:

1. Please provide more details on the methodology used to select the three accident cases analyzed in this study and substantiate how these cases are representative of the broader range of vessel accidents.

2. Please analyze decision-making processes in non-accident scenarios to provide a comparative perspective.   

3. Discuss cultural differences among multinational crews impact the decision-making processes discussed in the discussion.  

4. The practical implementation of the "My Ship" system across different shipping companies and vessel types should be further suggested.

5. Discuss the potential impact of emerging technologies (e.g., AI-assisted decision-making tools) on the decision-making processes in vessel organizations.

6. Please propose a clear approach to measure the effectiveness of the improvements suggested in your paper in real-world maritime operations.  

7. Please provide more quantitative data on the frequency and impact of different types of decision-making errors in maritime accidents.

8. The current abstract is long and could benefit from further simplification and refinement.

9. The fonts in the figures within the text are distorted and of poor quality.

Author Response

Reviewer1

We would like to thank the reviewer for the insightful and constructive comments, which have helped to refine the paper in many ways. We list below the actions we have taken as a result of the review

 

The paper contributes by examining critical decision-making issues in vessel organizations, supported by case studies and empirically-informed solutions. The research addresses a relevant topic with empirical evidence and offers recommendations. Nonetheless, the study's scope could be expanded, and the comparative analysis of existing frameworks need to be reinforced. Addressing these weaknesses will enhance the paper's robustness and applicability. Detailed comments are as follows:

Comments 1: Please provide more details on the methodology used to select the three accident cases analyzed in this study and substantiate how these cases are representative of the broader range of vessel accidents.

Responses 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. According to the reviewer's point, new contents have been added to the methodology part. Please refer to the revised paper Page 9, Lines 368~386.

→ “In this study we used the qualitative research method of case study. In general, the main advantage of case study is that it allows for in-depth investigation and analyzis of real-life cases and is considered more robust because it is more deeply grounded in a variety of empirical evidence[49]. Case studies are characterised by the researcher ~ .”

This is in addition to the limitations of the study, as only three ship accidents are representative of the whole. Please refer to the revised paper Pages 16~17, Lines 650~656.

“As a limitation of this study, the case study was conducted only on Korean-flagged vessels, and the study was limited to vessel accidents that occurred in the waters off Korea, China, and Japan, so there is a problem in generalizing the research findings. Therefore, in order to overcome the limitations of this study, it would be interesting to conduct a follow-up study to include vessel accidents of different nationalities or to further investigate the characteristics of the decision-making process in vessel accidents by country. In addition, it is suggested that it is necessary to expand the sample of vessel accidents to include cases involving different types and sizes of vessels.”

Comments 2: Please analyze decision-making processes in non-accident scenarios to provide a comparative perspective.  

Responses 2: Thank you for pointing this out. In response to the reviewer's comments, we've added the following. Please refer to the revised paper Page 2, Lines 46~48.

→ “In general, vessel organizations that do not experience accidents make decisions in a consistent and efficient way by analysing risk factors and information[12].”

Comments 3: Discuss cultural differences among multinational crews impact the decision-making processes discussed in the discussion. 

Responses 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We've revised and rearranged it according to the reviewer's point of view. Please refer to the revised paper Page 16, Line 623~625.

→ “Seafarers of different nationalities have different values and communication styles. This can lead to gaps in situational awareness, such as distortion of information.”

Comments 4: The practical implementation of the "My Ship" system across different shipping companies and vessel types should be further suggested.

We agree with the reviewer's point. We've made some changes to address your concerns about the practical implementation of ‘My Ship’ for different shipping companies and vessel types. Please refer to the revised paper Page 15, Lines 585~589.

→ “‘My Ship is a system that allows seafarers to stay on board the same vessel rather than being assigned to the right vessel at the right time due to personnel rotation. The implementation of 'My Ship' is fundamentally dependent on multiple manning and it is believed that a sufficient reserve crew will help to ensure consistent decision making by the vessel organization.”

Comments 5: Discuss the potential impact of emerging technologies (e.g., AI-assisted decision-making tools) on the decision-making processes in vessel organizations.

Responses 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with the reviewer's point. We've revised and rearranged it according to the reviewer's point of view. Please refer to the revised paper Page 16, Lines 606~609.

→ “To prevent this, it is believed that the best decisions should be made through sufficient communication with organizational members and shore-based organizations, and possibly through the introduction and development of decision support systems such as autonomous navigation[34, 37, 56, 57].”

Comments 6: Please propose a clear approach to measure the effectiveness of the improvements suggested in your paper in real-world maritime operations. 

Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. we propose a Carnegie Decision model and a Management Acience model that can complement the wastebasket model of decision making proposed in this study. Please refer to the revised paper Page 14, Line 548.

Table 4. Problems and improvement measures in Decision-Making (created by the author)

Vessel Name	Decision-Making problems	Decision-making improvement measures
Hakata Voyager	Arbitrary decision-making by top decision-makers based on heuristics using the Garbage Can model	Proposing the Carnegie Decision model through collaboration and participation of many people.
Hongkong Voyager	Arbitrary middle manager based on the Garbage Can model	Proposing a management science model through quantification and manualization.
Byakko	Arbitrary decisions by subordinate staff based on the Garbage Can model	Proposing a management science model through quantification and manualization.
Ulsan Pioneer	Failure of the decision-making process based on the Garbage Can model	Proposing the Carnegie Decision model through collaboration and participation of many people.

 

Comments 7: Please provide more quantitative data on the frequency and impact of different types of decision-making errors in maritime accidents.

Responses 7: Thank you for pointing this out. We've revised and rearranged it according to the reviewer's point of view. Please refer to the revised paper Page 4, Line 151

Table 2. Factors affecting human element in vessel accidents (adapted from [74])

Influencing Factors	Contributing Factors related to Human Element (%)
Decision-making errors	14.2
Routine violations	13.3
Inadequate supervision	11.7
Crew resource management	7.3
Organisational process	7.3

 

Comments 8: The current abstract is long and could benefit from further simplification and refinement.

Responses 8: Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised the abstract as pointed out by the reviewer. Please refer to the revised paper Page 1, Lines 12~27.

→ “Vessel organizations are exposed to the risk of accidents due to the limited experience and intuition of the top decision makers in the organization in the special environment of the sea. This study aims to provide ~ .”

Comments 9: The fonts in the figures within the text are distorted and of poor quality.

Responses 9: Thank you for pointing this out. We have improved the resolution and readability of all figures, as pointed out by the reviewer. Please refer to the figures in revised paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study aims to solve the problem of the decision-making process in vessel organization. However, significant shortages can be found. A major revision may be required.

1The problem statement, purpose, method, and key results are not clear in the abstract.

2The aim of this study is to provide a desirable direction for the decision-making process. What are the scientific contributions and novelties?

3In line 49, the author mentions that the automation and amortization of vessels lead to an increase in damage compensation. However, seafarers are claimed as one of the key factors affecting the increase in shipping companies’ profits. The logic here is unclear.

4In the literature review, the research gaps need to be highlighted.

5In the literature review, many models, such as the ‘decision-making process,’ ‘management science model,’ ‘Carnegie decision model,’ etc., have been reviewed. What are the advancements in the methodology used in this study compared to the state-of-the-art?

6In the methodology section, what is the case study methodology? The method used in this study should be clearly presented.

7In the methodology section, a flowchart that can clearly describe the methods used in this study is needed.

8Data description should be separated from the methodology.

9The rationale for selecting 3 accidents from hundreds of accident cases is not clear.

1What is the ‘My Ship’ system?

1What are the connections between section 3.2 and the above case studies? The discussions and implications should be linked to the methods and results of this study.

1In the conclusion, the key findings can be described in a more concise manner.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

Reviewer2

We would like to thank the reviewer for the insightful and constructive comments, which have helped to refine the paper in many ways. We list below the actions we have taken as a result of the review

 

This study aims to solve the problem of the decision-making process in vessel organization. However, significant shortages can be found. A major revision may be required.

Comments 1: The problem statement, purpose, method, and key results are not clear in the abstract.

Responses 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised the abstract as pointed out by the reviewer. Please refer to the revised paper Page 1, Lines 12~27.

→ “Vessel organizations are exposed to the risk of accidents due to the limited experience and intuition of the top decision makers in the organization in the special environment of the sea. This study aims to provide ~.”

 

Comments 2: The aim of this study is to provide a desirable direction for the decision-making process. What are the scientific contributions and novelties?

Responses 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We thank the reviewers for their thoughtful comments. We have revised the conclusions to add the contributions of this paper as pointed out by the reviewer. Please refer to the revised paper Page 16, Lines 641~649.

→ “The contributions of this study include the fact that the research was conducted on a specific organization, a vessel organization, rather than a general land-based organization, and the analysis of a Korean-flagged vessel accident case with a strong hierarchical organizational culture. This differs from previous studies of decision-making processes, which have been conducted in general organizations or institutions rather than vessel organizations, and will help to broaden the scope of sustained research on vessel organizations in the future. In addition, the fact that the decision-making process in Korean vessels with a strong hierarchical order was studied can expand the scope of sustainable research on decision-making processes in vessel organizations of different nationalities in the future.”

 

Comments 3: In line 49, the author mentions that the automation and amortization of vessels lead to an increase in damage compensation. However, seafarers are claimed as one of the key factors affecting the increase in shipping companies’ profits. The logic here is unclear.

Responses 3: Thank you for pointing this out. According to the reviewer's point, we revised it as follows to suit the context. Please refer to the revised paper Page 1, Lines 40~42.

→ "Despite the increasing reduction of crew due to the automation and smartization of vessels, the vessel organization(crew) is one of the key factors that can influence the growth of a vessel's revenues[1].”

 

Comments 4: In the literature review, the research gaps need to be highlighted.

Responses 4: Thank you for pointing this out. According to the reviewer's point, we revised it as follows to suit the context. Please refer to the revised paper Page 2, Lines 71~77.

→ “This suggests that the decision-making process is more important in vessel organizations than in other organizations. However, most of the existing studies on decision-making processes have been conducted in land-based organizations[14, 15] and there are very few studies on decision-making processes in vessel organizations. Despite the fact that this issue has been raised in the past[7, 8], there is a lack of research on decision-making processes in vessel organizations.”

Comments 5: In the literature review, many models, such as the ‘decision-making process,’ ‘management science model,’ ‘Carnegie decision model,’ etc., have been reviewed. What are the advancements in the methodology used in this study compared to the state-of-the-art?

Responses 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with the serious points made by the reviewer. The methodology used in this study is a case study of qualitative research. We have written and added the following strengths of a case study. Please refer to the revised paper Page 9, Lines 368~386.

→ “In this study we used the qualitative research method of case study. In general, the main advantage of case study is that it allows for in-depth investigation and analyzis of real-life cases and is considered more robust because it is more deeply grounded in a variety of empirical evidence[49]. Case studies are ~.”

In addition, we propose a Carnegie Decision model and a Management science model that can complement the Garbage Can model of decision making proposed in this study. Please refer to the revised paper Page 14, Line 548.

-> Table 4. Problems and improvement measures in Decision-Making (created by the author)

Vessel Name	Decision-Making problems	Decision-making improvement measures
Hakata Voyager	Arbitrary decision-making by top decision-makers based on heuristics using the Garbage Can model	Proposing the Carnegie Decision model through collaboration and participation of many people.
Hongkong Voyager	Arbitrary middle manager based on the Garbage Can model	Proposing a management science model through quantification and manualization.
Byakko	Arbitrary decisions by subordinate staff based on the Garbage Can model	Proposing a management science model through quantification and manualization.
Ulsan Pioneer	Failure of the decision-making process based on the Garbage Can model	Proposing the Carnegie Decision model through collaboration and participation of many people.

 

Comments 6: In the methodology section, what is the case study methodology? The method used in this study should be clearly presented.

Responses 6: Thank you for pointing out our error. The research methodology used in this study is a case study. We apologize for the confusion. We have added a new line in the revised paper Page 9, Lines 368~386.

→ “Case studies are characterised by the researcher investigating a real case in a specific and complex context. To do this, the researcher collects qualitative or quantitative data using a variety of methods, including literature, interviews and observation. A case is distinguished from other cases by its specific context, situation and characteristics. Therefore, the case as a research object must have certain limitations[50]. The advantage of case studies is that ~.”

Comments 7: In the methodology section, a flowchart that can clearly describe the methods used in this study is needed.

Thank you for pointing this out. As pointed out by the reviewers, we have added a research flowchart to the revised manuscript Page 9, Lines 387.

Figure 3. Research Flowchart (created by the author)

 

Comments 8: Data description should be separated from the methodology.

Responses 8: Thank you for pointing this out. As the reviewer pointed out, we have separated the data source and made new changes. Please refer to the revised paper Page 10, Lines 390~400.

→ “4.1. Data source.

The case study data is taken from the decision of the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal, an organization under the Korean government that investigates and adjudicates maritime accidents[51]. Specifically, the number of accidents involving ~.”

Comments 9: The rationale for selecting 3 accidents from hundreds of accident cases is not clear.

Thank you for pointing this out. In response to the reviewer's point, we have rewritten the sample selection process to separate it from the data source. Please refer to the revised paper Page 10, Lines 393~400.

→ “ Specifically, the number of accidents involving Korean-flagged vessels in the last three years was 121 in 2021, 131 in 2022 and 112 in 2023, totaling 364 cases[52]. First, the accidents selected for this study were limited to those that occurred in East Asian waters between 2021 and 2023 and involved Korean-flagged vessels. Second, we selected one accident case each from Korea, China and Japan, which are the most common countries in the region, and finally analyzed a total of three accidents. By analyzing the problems in the decision-making process within the Korean-flagged vessel organization, which has a strong hierarchical culture, through actual vessel accident cases, we aim to analyze and observe the decision-making process within the Korean vessel organization in depth.”

In addition, we've made some changes and additions to this area as a limitation. Please refer to the revised paper Page 16, Line 650~656.

→ “As a limitation of this study, the case study was conducted only on Korean-flagged vessels, and the study was limited to vessel accidents that occurred in the waters off Korea, China, and Japan, so there is a problem in generalizing the research findings. Therefore, in order to overcome the limitations of this study, it would be interesting to conduct a follow-up study to include vessel accidents of different nationalities ~.”

Comments 10: What is the ‘My Ship’ system?

Responses 10: Thank you for pointing this out. We've revised and rearranged it according to the reviewer's point of view. Please refer to the revised paper Page 15, Lines 585~589.

→ “‘My Ship is a system that allows seafarers to stay on board the same vessel rather than being assigned to the right vessel at the right time due to personnel rotation. The implementation of 'My Ship' is fundamentally dependent on multiple manning and it is believed that a sufficient reserve crew will help to ensure consistent decision making by the vessel organization.”

Comments 11: What are the connections between section 3.2 and the above case studies? The discussions and implications should be linked to the methods and results of this study.

Responses 11: Thank you for pointing this out. We have deleted section 3.2 and reorganised section ‘5. Conclusions’ as suggested by the reviewer. Please refer to the revised paper Page 15~16, Lines 582~640.

→ “Based on these case studies, the policy, theoretical and practical implications of this study are as follows. Firstly, the policy implication is that the frequent changes in organizational structure due to personnel rotation at sea necessitate the introduction of the 'My Ship' system. My Ship is a system that allows seafarers to stay on board the same vessel rather than being assigned to the right vessel at the right time due to personnel rotation. The implementation of 'My Ship' is fundamentally dependent on multiple manning and it is believed that a sufficient reserve crew will help to ensure consistent decision making by the vessel organization. ~.”

Comments 12: In the conclusions, the key findings can be described in a more concise manner.

Responses 12: Thank you for pointing this out. We have reorganized the content on Pages 14~15, Lines 550~581 according to the reviewer's point.

→ “This study examines the decision-making process in vessel organizations based on case studies and aims to help shipping companies improve their decision-making processes in the future. The specific findings of this study are as follows. First, the Hakata Voyager weather buoy contact incident was caused by the Master(the top decision maker) relying on his past experience, ignoring the Navigation Offiers reports, and making arbitrary decisions without going through the proper decision-making process. This accident was ~.”

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to read this paper. It presents a relevant topic. However, some adjustments are needed before publication. See below:

The abstract does not follow the journal's standard. See instructions for authors.

The introduction does not make clear what the research gap is. What is new about this study? How does it differ from previous publications in this context?

Please clarify the objective of the study and justify the research better.

The references and research method are the paper's strengths. However, the discussions of the case study are not well outlined. Only the results are presented, but they are not discussed in light of the literature. The theoretical and practical contributions are not presented, nor are the political implications.

The conclusions are superficial due to the results that are not widely discussed. What are the limitations of the study? How were they overcome?

Good luck.

Author Response

Reviewer3

We would like to thank the reviewer for the insightful and constructive comments, which have helped to refine the paper in many ways. We list below the actions we have taken as a result of the review

 

Thank you for the opportunity to read this paper. It presents a relevant topic. However, some adjustments are needed before publication. See below:

Comments 1: The abstract does not follow the journal's standard. See instructions for authors.
Responses 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised the abstract as pointed out by the reviewer. Please refer to the revised paper Page 1, Lines 12~27.

→ “Vessel organizations are exposed to the risk of accidents due to the limited experience and intuition of the top decision makers in the organization in the special environment of the sea. This study aims to provide a direction for Vessel organizations are ~.”

Comments 2: The introduction does not make clear what the research gap is. What is new about this study? How does it differ from previous publications in this context?
Responses 2: Thank you for pointing this out. According to the reviewer's point, we revised it as follows to suit the context. Please refer to the revised paper Page 2, Lines 71~80.

→ “This suggests that the decision-making process is more important in vessel organizations than in other organizations. However, most of the existing studies on decision-making processes have been conducted in land-based organizations[14, 15] and there are very few studies on decision-making processes in vessel organizations. Despite the fact that this issue has been raised in the past[7, 8], there is a lack of research on decision-making processes in vessel organizations. ~.”

The contribution of this study is a revised version of the paper Page 16, Line 641~649.

→ “The contributions of this study include the fact that the research was conducted on a specific organization, a vessel organization, rather than a general land-based organization, and the analyzis of a Korean-flagged vessel accident case with a strong hierarchical organizational culture. This differs from previous studies of decision-making processes, which have been conducted in general organizations or institutions rather than vessel organizations, and will help to broaden the scope of sustained research on vessel organizations in the future. In addition, the fact that the decision-making process in Korean vessels with a strong hierarchical order was studied can expand the scope of sustainable research on decision-making processes in vessel organizations of different nationalities in the future.”

Comments 3: Please clarify the objective of the study and justify the research better.
Responses 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We've revised and rearranged it according to the reviewer's point of view. Please refer to the revised paper Page 2, Lines 74~80.

→ “However, most of the existing studies on decision-making processes have been conducted in land-based organizations[14, 15] and there are very few studies on decision-making processes in vessel organizations. Despite the fact that this issue has been raised in the past[7, 8], there is a lack of research on decision-making processes in vessel organizations. Therefore, this study aims to provide a desirable direction for the sustainable and rational decision-making process of vessel organizations by analyzing actual vessel accidents in the unpredictable maritime environment.”

Comments 4: The references and research method are the paper's strengths. However, the discussions of the case study are not well outlined. Only the results are presented, but they are not discussed in light of the literature. The theoretical and practical contributions are not presented, nor are the political implications.
Responses 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We have reorganized ‘5. Conclusions’ and added various implications and contributions as pointed out by the reviewers. Please refer to the revised paper Page 15~16, Line 582~649.

→ “Based on these case studies, the policy, theoretical and practical implications of this study are as follows. Firstly, the policy implication is that the frequent changes in organizational structure due to personnel rotation at sea necessitate the introduction of the 'My Ship' system. My Ship is a system that allows seafarers to stay on board the same vessel rather than being assigned to the right vessel at the right time due to personnel rotation. The implementation of 'My Ship' is fundamentally dependent on multiple manning and it is believed that a sufficient reserve crew will help to ensure consistent decision making by the vessel organization. ~ ”

Comments 5: The conclusionss are superficial due to the results that are not widely discussed. What are the limitations of the study? How were they overcome?
Responses 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We have reorganized ‘5. Conclusions’ and added various implications and limitations as pointed out by the reviewers. Please refer to the revised paper Page 16~17, Lines 582~656.

→ “As a limitation of this study, the case study was conducted only on Korean-flagged vessels, and the study was limited to vessel accidents that occurred in the waters off Korea, China, and Japan, so there is a problem in generalising the research findings. Therefore, in order to overcome the limitations of this study, it would be interesting to conduct a follow-up study to include vessel accidents of different nationalities or to further investigate the characteristics of the decision-making process in vessel accidents by country. In addition, it is suggested that it is necessary to expand the sample of vessel accidents to include cases involving different types and sizes of vessels.”

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors made careful revision and the manuscript can be published for this journal.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you to the authors for their efforts in the revision. I have no further comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The suggestions for improvements indicated in round 1 of review have been incorporated into the text. I believe this version is ok for publication.