659

1 INTRODUCTION

Maritime Education and Training (MET) has

developed through the decades. The development has

since incorporated emerging technologies, definition of

competences and most important standards of quality

that are to be met in training a seafarer

With the prevailing competition in the providing

labor to the maritime industry especially for onboard

employment, Maritime Education and Training

Institutions (METIs) are compelled to be concerned

with quality. Quality management has defined

processes and products in many industries including

the education sector. As such quality management has

played a crucial role in education.

While reference [1] lends the general definition of

quality to the educational process, it is important to

note that the quality of education and its services need

to be specific and agile to the demands of the external

environment. This highlights the subjective

characterization of quality in educational service. This

further points to the dependence of the definition of

quality in educational services through the prism of the

consumer of the educational product [2]. As a result,

reference [2] alludes that “quality should be estimated

both through results from the offered services, and

through the process itself which leads to the given

result”.

The STCW Convention and Code defines quality

through Quality Standards Systems (QSS) under the

Regulation I/8 unlike the definition through Quality

Management System (QMS). The paper aims at

defining the points of convergence and divergence in

seafarer education and training standards relative to

the application of Quality Management Systems

(QMS). The then answers the question on sustainability

of training and product quality to meet standards

required by the maritime industry through addressing

the gap between a QMS as applied in education and

Sustainability in Maritime Education and Training:

A Quality Standards Approach in Kenya

T.I. Mohammed

Technical University of Mombasa, Mombasa, Kenya

ABSTRACT: The Merchant Shipping (Training and Certification) Regulations of Kenya adapt The International

Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW Convention) and the

Standard Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping (STCW Code) for Seafarers. The STCW Convention and Code

defines the quality standards at a minimum requirement as the harmonized threshold for contracting parties,

which includes Kenya. Educational Institutions in Kenya primarily uses Quality Management Systems in

application of quality to education and training. This is however contrary to the requirements of the STCW

Convention and Code for institutions engaged in Maritime Education and Training. The paper focusses in

assessing the extent of non-compliance, the circumstantial challenges and thereafter proposes a framework to

address challenges in implementing Quality Standard Systems

http://www.transnav.eu

the International Journal

on Marine Navigation

and Safety of Sea Transportation

Volume 16

Number 4

December 2022

DOI: 10.12716/1001.16.04.07

660

training and the QSS as required for Maritime

Education and Training

2 QUALITY IN EDUCATION AND TRAINING

The term quality has been defined in numerous

contexts. The International Standards Organization [1]

defined quality as “the totality of features and

characteristics of a product or service that bears its

ability to satisfy stated or implied needs.” This has

been further revised by the ISO 9000:2015 - Quality

management systems — Fundamentals and

vocabulary [2]. The philosophy of ‘zero defects’,

reference [3] assumes homogenous effects which is not

in practice the absolute truth [4]. Reference [1] hence

developed what is known as his Quality Trilogy:

Quality Planning, Quality Management (or Control)

and Quality Implementation (or Improvement).

Quality and Total Quality Management (TQM) is a

concept and philosophy that has attracted educational

institutions at various levels as studies have shown [6]

[7] [8] . However, the structure of QMSs define

business processes. Reference [9] defines the ISO 9001

as a system that “provides a model for a quality

management system which focuses on the

effectiveness of the processes in a business to achieve

desired results.” This clearly shows the concept of

“process orientation” [2]. Reference [10] argues that the

“zero defects” can lead to misinterpretation of quality

in an educational process and product which may

eventually lead to a focus on how good the

examination results are at the end of the production

process. This may lead to a teaching and learning

process which focusses exclusively on achieving good

examination results. The product of education varies

with specific requirements and distinct nature of the

use of the product. This in turn requires not only

compliance but in addition conformance. Conformance

requires key specifications. These specifications are

realized through product design and specification.

This therefore means that for any product, service or

process to conform to the design specification, then the

consumer must be able to substantiate satisfaction of

the required needs and that the needs have been ideally

interpreted.

To address the gaps and challenges posed to an

education system through the business oriented

process, reference [11] has since developed ISO

21001:2018 Educational organizations — Management

systems (EOMS) for educational organizations. The

ISO 21001:2018 changes structure and introduces new

terminologies in the standards. The terminologies

adopted plays a key role in resonating the standards

with the educational organizational it is intended to

appeal to. The EOMS defines the scope of quality in

education and achievement of the objectives through

the ability to support the acquisition and development

of competence. The general terminologies as defined

by ISO 9001 creates ambiguities in usage. Reference

[12] argues that “the terms “customer” and

“stakeholder” are often interchangeable in the context

of education. One can view the students as the

customer of education especially if they are on fee-

paying basis, but one can also perceive that the

industries are the actual customers of education since

they are the ones who will employ the “product” of

education thus are the right people to measure the

fitness of educational courses (curriculum, courses,

etc.) to the needs of the job market.” This shift in

paradigm thereby enhances the suitability of the EOMS

as it addresses the specific needs of an educational

organization rather an organization achieving its

objectives through business processes.

However, analyzing the shortfalls presented by the

QMS both ISO 9001:2015 and ISO 21001:2018, we find

that while the latter attempts to address the gaps in the

former in relation to an educational product, structure

of compliance is a gap by both within the

implementation of the STCW Convention 1978 and its

associated Code.

Figure 1.The PDCA cycle in EOMS ISO 21001 [11]

3 QUALITY STANDARDS SYSTEMS (QSS)

Fitness for purpose is a philosophy underpinned by the

STCW Convention and Code. This is core to the process

of education and training in the METIs through

achievement of the competences for competency of the

graduate. Thus as shown by reference [1] that the

human element cannot be excluded from the quality of

product, the maritime industry shifted its approach to

recognition of the human element and factor [13].

Results have shown continuously shown that 80% of

accidents and incidents within the maritime industry

are due to human error. This places a demand for not

only well educated but competent seafarers is growing

day by day. Therefore, for METIs to such a supply

demand beyond demand and expectations of the

shipping industry, emphasis for quality must not only

placed on the processes and voluntary compliance but

also through structured, standardized, internationally

accepted, monitored and assessed maritime education

and training. This, with recognition to the international

feature of the shipping industry [13].

Under the section A- I/8 “Quality Standards” of

STCW Code; Parties are required to ensure that all

training, assessment of competence, and certification

activities are continuously monitored through a

Quality Standards System (QSS)with the aim to ensure

that defined objectives are achieved. An "independent

evaluation" of the knowledge, understanding, skills

and competence acquisition and assessment activities,

as well as of the administration of the certification

system, is to be conducted at intervals of not more than

661

five years. The evaluation must be conducted by

persons who are not themselves involved in the

activities concerned to verify that full effect is given to

the STCW Convention and Code.

Reference [14] summaries the scope of STCW QSS

as shown in the figure below:

Figure 2. Summary of the requirements of the STCW QSS [14]

Key to the implementation of a QSS is the definition

of accountability. Accountability is enhanced through

enforcement which then establishes the level

answerability, a key interpretation to the Regulation

I/8-2. Answerability to the industry is induced through

the Regulation B-I/6.12 on the register of approved

training institutions. Reference [15] concludes that

through the documentation and recoding mechanism

as defined by regulation I/8, the traceability and

transparency of certification is achieved.

4 SUSTAINABILITY APPROACH TO QUALITY

MANAGEMENT IN METIS

The discussion and debates on how to define

sustainability is a constant wheel in motion albeit the

definitions of the World Commission on Environment

and Development (WCED). Sustainability became a

central to the discussions on environment [16]. To

understand the concept of sustainability, Reference

[17] argue that sustainability is a prediction problem

more than a definition problem. Reference [18] terms it

as “a consummately effective 'boundary term'”.

Looking at the definition of reference [19], we find that

maintaining, restoring and renewing to guarantee

quality of process and product provides a platform

upon which we build the concept of sustainability not

only in education but in Maritime Education and

Training (MET).

4.1 System’s Approach

Reference [20] supports systems thinking in education

and argues that its application as a mental tool of

understanding shows how sub-components of a whole

influence one another “so that resolving problems

within one part of education should neither negatively

impact the performance of other areas nor create

unforeseen consequences”. To address quality

standards rather than quality management, tools and

resources upon which the achievement of the

competences must be defined within the structure of

the system. In addition, the processes and assurances

are defined objectively in line with the requirements to

achieve knowledge, understanding and proficiency.

Sustaining quality needs identification of the

components to realize such quality and the critical

analysis of the individual needs of such components

and their expected synergy to function as a system.

Therefore, the inquiry of the components is key to the

evaluation of quality in training. This further enhances

quality and effectiveness of the training process

through a directional focus on “the goals of the

organization, the resources needed to achieve these

goals, and the relationship between the organization

and its environment” [21].

4.2 Sustainability Framework

Identifying the consumer of a product is key to quality

of such products. Reference [1] in his nine-step

roadmap to achieve the ideal of quality, identified than

in order to satisfy the needs of the customer, you need

to develop a product that meets their needs through a

suitable process to create the product. Therefore, the

implementation of Quality Standard System is desired

in such a manner that the consumer of the product of

MET which is the global maritime industry fraternity

is able to see in the product, satisfaction of their need.

To understand the requirements for a sustainable

quality standard system, the Table 1 below shows a

mapping matrix of STCW QSS against the ISO9001 and

ISO21001.

Table 1. Table of comparative analysis of the ISO 9001, 21001

and STCW QSS requirements

________________________________________________

ISO ISO STCW QSS

9001:2015 21001:2018

________________________________________________

Resources defines A description of

“learning training facilities

resources” and equipment

Customer Relates the Defined Satisfaction

Satisfaction customer within the defined with

with generic scope of Competency

product education:

quality learners

definition

Defining the Defines in a Defines Defined in the

customer generic customer as trainee and the

scope ‘Learners consumer

and other (administration,

beneficiaries’ shipping

fraternity)

Compliance The customer The customer statutory

scope quality quality

requirements requirements

Quality Generic Definitions Defines the

management definition relative to Responsible

functions education Persons

Details of Not Defines Defined and

academic incorporated. associated mandatory

and training attributes to

strategies in curriculum

use

An outline of Defined in Defined in Defined in

the policies a generic educational competence

and scope scope specific scope

procedures

Achieving none Defines Defines

learning learning requirements for

outcomes outcomes achieving

(competency) competency

Evaluation periodic periodic periodic,

mandatory

Accounta- x x defined

bility

________________________________________________

662

Form the table we realize that resources to achieve

educational goals and competences is defined in both

ISO21001 and the STCW QSS, while it is not defined in

ISO9001. Definitions within the framework of both the

ISO2001 and STCW QSS is defined within the scope of

objectives of the product which then enhances the

systems as relevant to the product as defined “fit for

purpose” rather than generic acquisition of product

description. However, the accountability of such

system is not explicitly defined and apportioned in

both ISO9001 and ISO2001, a fact that makes the STCW

QSS a unique tool in addressing quality of the product,

in this sense the seafarer.

5 A MARITIME EDUCATION AND TRAINING

(MET) STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES

(SOP)

From the analysis and comparison, we find the

following to be relevant to the MET SOP framework:

1. Definition of terms specific to the maritime training

industry

While the ISO 2001 defines education terms and

concepts, it is devoid of maritime specific terms

which gives meaning to processes and documents.

The SOP therefore shall include definitions of key

terms and concepts that are specific to MET

2. Defining QSS

It is important that the SOP defines the essence and

compliance of the QSS. This forms the basis of

approvals of MTIs, hence the need for clarity of

MET specific processes and procedures.

3. Defining the audit system and process under the

requirements of QSS

4. Defining the Responsible Persons (RPs, D/RPs)

This is key to the management and administration

of the training. The RP and the deputy bear the

responsibility to ensure quality, hence addressing

the aspect of accountability.

5. Defining regulatory compliance for instructors.

This includes competency and proficiency of

instructors as required by the STCW Convention

Regulation I/6 and also addresses the requirements

of Regulation I/8

6. Defining competence and competency

This is key to the pedagogical process including

assessment. Through this, we find that the STCW

Code Tables of competence defines the competence,

the achievement of the competence through

Knowledge, Understanding and Proficiency, the

criteria for assessment and the tools to use for

assessment.

7. Defining control of non-conforming services

Defining the audit process and processes for

corrective action is an important element in

ensuring quality. Therefore, for such a system to be

a Quality Standard System, the inclusion of the

control mechanism and framework is essential.

8. Defining continuous competence development

Continuous competence development is key to

knowledge dissemination, hence the reality of

ensuring continuous learning. The QSS must

therefore 8address the formalities and methodology

for continuous learning for instructors to enhance

organizational learning and knowledge

management.

9. Defining scope and applicable standards.

6 CONCLUSIONS

The practice of implementing QMS at educational

institutions presents key challenges in defining

processes within the scope of education. Further, the

challenges are then transferred to MET in particular.

These challenges are induced subconsciously into the

MET system which has been superimposed on existing

educational framework. While these has addressed

quality of processes, it is still lacking in addressing

quality of product defined on competency and

statutory compliance. Statutory compliance addresses

the harmonization of quality to a standard acceptable

by the industry hence achieving mobility. The STCW

Convention and Code defines quality within the

premise of “fitness for purpose”. This therefore

Qualitative analysis of current quality systems

shows gaps in implementation of a QSS as defined by

the STCW Convention and Code, it is practical and

rational that duplication of system is unnecessary. The

approach is proposed for MET specific processes,

thereby defined within an SOP following the

guidelines of the STCW Code Section B-I/8 as regulated

by the STCW Convention Regulation I/8 in the

requirements set by STCW Code Section A-I/8.

REFERENCES

[1] J. M. Juran and J. A. Defeo, Juran's Quality Handbook: The

Complete Guide to Performance Excellence, McGraw-

Hill Professional Pub, 2010.

[2] J. Michalska-Ćwiek, "The quality management system in

education-implementation and certification.," Journal of

Achievements in materials and Manufacturing

Engineering, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 743-750., 2009.

[3] International Standards Organisation (ISO), ISO

8402:1986, International Standards Organisation (ISO),

1986.

[4] ISO, ISO 9000:2015 - Quality management systems —

Fundamentals and vocabulary, International Standards

Organisation, 2021.

[5] P. Crosby, Absolutes of Quality Management, 1985.

[6] G. K. Kanji, A. Malek and B. A. Tambi, "Total quality

management in UK higher education institutions.," Total

Quality Management,, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 129-153., 1999.

[7] M. Cruickshank, "Total quality management in the higher

education sector: a literature review from an international

and Australian perspective.," Total Quality Management

& Business Excellence., vol. 14, no. 10, pp. 1159-1167.,

2003.

[8] L. Harvey, "Beyond TQM.," Quality in Higher Education.,

vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 123-146., 1995.

[9] Det Norske Veritas (DNV), ISO 9001 - Quality

Management, Det Norske Veritas (DNV), 2021.

[10] L. Crawford and P. Shutler, "Total quality management

in education: problems and issues for the classroom

teacher," International Journal of Educational

Management, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 67-73., 1999.

[11] ISO, ISO 21001:2018 Educational organizations —

Management systems for educational organizations, ISO,

2018.

[12] E. Wibisono, "The new management system ISO

21001:2018: What and why educational organizations

should adopt it," Int. Sem. on Ind. Eng. and Management,

2018.

[13] E. Asyali, O. Tuna and A. G. Cerit, ISO 9000: 2000 Quality

Management System and Problem Based Learning in

MET., 2015.

[14] T. Nakazawa, Quality Assurance in MET and

Governance Bodies, 2019.

663

[15] R. Wei, "Views from maritime education and training on

the full implementation of 2010 STCW amendments.,"

Journal of Shipping and Ocean Engineering, vol. 3, no. 1-

2, pp. 40-46, 2013.

[16] A. Wilkinson, M. Hill and P. Gollan, "The sustainability

debate.," International Journal of Operations &

Production Management., 2001.

[17] R. Costanza and B. C. Patten, "Defining and predicting

sustainability.," Ecological economics, vol. 15, no. 3, pp.

193-196., 1995.

[18] I. Scoones, "Sustainability.," Development in practice,

vol. 17, no. 4-5, pp. 589-596., 2007.

[19] P. Sutton, "Sustainability," Greener Management

International Journal, vol. 23, 1999.

[20] D. Matorera, "Quality Management Systems in

Education," in Quality Management Systems - a Selective

Presentation of Case-studies Showcasing Its Evolution,

Intech, 2018, pp. 21-46.

[21] C. K. Cetin and A. G. Cerit, "Organizational effectiveness

at seaports: a systems approach," Maritime Policy &

Management, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 195-219, 2010.

[22] V. Hunt, Quality in America: How to Implement a

Competitive Quality Program., Mc-Graw Hill., 1992.

[23] M. S. Owlia and E. M. Aspinwall, "TQM in higher

education ‐ a review," International Journal of Quality &

Reliability Management, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 527-543, 1997.

[24] International Convention on Standards of Training,

Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers,

International Convention on Standards of Training,

Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers 1978 a

ammended, International Maritime Organisation (IMO),

2018.