The Arguments within

Are these really cost-saving decisions? :-- 1) To have pirated softwares to run the computer systems. 2) To have duplicate, counterfeit parts installed in the systems when the originals are available in the market. 3) To put ‘unauthorized person’ (somebody whom the manufacturers of a device do not certify) to attend or service the device. 4) To replace the device with a human substitute when the device has become dysfunctional. 5) To deny communication , even a ‘BCC’ or ‘CC’ labeling of messages to certain recipients , all for the only reason of cost-savings, ! (where purposefulness is not questionable, only the cost) 6) To refuse communication to ship’s other staff by the Master or other management rank, with the office management in the name of cost incurred! 7) To “enforce” rules like switching off the lights, using the stationery items precariously, etc to say -- cost saving! 8) To hold cost-saving at higher regard than “safety first”, for example in a decision to lay-off regardin

Alternation and Duplication are two widely known methods of handling breakdowns on board ships. The concept of managing ship equipment and machinery talks mainly of the PMS only, which is the Planned Maintenance System, and, maybe, never talks on the breakdown maintenance of devices. In fact the ISM and other regulations such as ISGOTT have such heavy hurdles in place that no intelligent ship-staff will want to call repairs as his forte, if his ship-owners are a truly regulations-compliant people. Filling the forms, risk assessments, following-up the manuals, skills of the crew, -- these all are discouraging to achieving the repairs of any device or even the simplest of pipelines repairs. therefore the two methods talked above have been resorted to. In fact the cost incurred to achieve Alternation and Duplication (A&D) appears to be taken up for recovery by method of crew size cut-down and minimal stoppages or lay-offs Intelligent ship-owners will also appreciate that they can neve