Benchmarking-Its Applicability to MET

B. Lewarn
Faculty of Maritime Transport and Engineering, Australian Maritime College, AUSTRALIA

B. Lewarn

Abstract

We consider ourselves to be professionals. We get our institutions quality assured. We consider that we produce safe, well-trained seafarers. But on a range of objective measures many maritime education and training (MET) institutions have failed. Failed that is to produce safe, well-trained seafarers. In short, we have failed to act professionally. STCW 95 bears witness to this failure as it is not just about the competence of seafarers, it is also very much about the competence of those of us who educate and train seafarers as well as the institutions in which we work.

This paper identifies the attributes of MET institutions providing quality education and training, examines some of the issues associated with quality assurance, and considers how a MET institution might engage in benchmarking. Regardless of the innumerable external constraints there are many things a MET institution can, indeed must, do internally within the organisation to ensure core business activities are carried out in a professional manner; benchmarking assists in achieving this.

Benchmarking in MET is a relatively new concept; however, if used constructively benchmarking can be used for three distinct purposes, namely:

• to ascertain performance trends so as to initiate continuous self-improvement activities;
• to compare performance between institutions in mutually agreed areas;
• to determine one’s competitive position relative to others.
• The paper examines a range of measures suitable for the benchmarking of MET institutions and concludes that for a MET institution to be legitimately recognized as a quality provider it needs to do much more than become quality assured.