Maersk Doha Communcation Report

1 Shannon and Weavers Communications model seems to be a perfect fit for the Maersk Dohas problems on board as there were several instances when language caused mis converses between confederacy members and messages where delivered incorrectly. This highlights that not all in all messages received are identical to the message that was sent or to consecrate it in simpler terms it advise almost be described as a game of Chinese whispers. First off we are told that when the need occurred and the psyche(prenominal) engineer was not informed quickly enough.This could be downwards to the incompetence of the engineers or more likely that there was a neglect of discourse commodities available to them. We were also told that the chief engineer was in a difficult position when it came to communication as he spoke a different language from the rest of the crew. This then created a hindrance upon the crew who were tasked with trying to understand and relay what the chief engineer was saying and on with the background noise, this proved to be difficult and thus caused confusion.2- A elephantine problem was the communication barrier between the engineering and deck departments. If a structured communications procedure had been in place, the damage could and probably would abide been limited to a minimum. Problems arose as the engine crew didnt composing to the chief engineer and the chief didnt report to the captain. Obviously if the senior staff are not made aware of the problems then they cant be solved in a proper manor. Its of utmost importance that the correct procedure where carried out when dealing with rubber eraser issues.On this occasion a threat occurred due to an in have sexd crew, antipathetic to communicate with their superiors. All departments should have been working towards a joint aspiration instead there seemed to be departmental friction and the link of crosswise communication was inadequate. Having an inexperienced first and second e ngineer helped lead to not only mechanical problems occurring but also further problems in communication. The deportation company had decided all crew had a satisfactory take of English but this was not the instance and the language barrier acted as a catalyst to the reason the go off was not dealt with properly.4 It is unaccented that there were problems in all directional flows. The downward communication was ineffective. The chief engineer should have asserted his authority and created a line of communication between his staff. Although the language barrier sometimes prevented proper flow in education there should have been procedures in place in case of emergency to insure the crew could contact him with any problems. The upward communication was also found inadequate as the crew should have been answerable enough to notify the chief engineer that there was a fire in the economiser and that perhaps due to their naivety and lack of experience they did not want to alert th e chief and been seen as incompetent.The engineers where not acquainted(predicate) with the machinery and should have contacted the chief as early as affirmable. On the separate hand the chief is also guilty of miscommunication when it came to the deck department. It is imperative that both(prenominal) departments work together and help as much as possible and its also necessary to regularly keep up to realise with each others departments. This is the reason companies create procedures and flow charts that moldiness be adhered by whilst on board.If the system was flawed then the chief should have designed a new communication procedure in order to keep communication flowing between all come to 4 Its clear to say that the communication environment is heavily bear on by the presence of so much background noise. There were problems with both the technical and social aspects of noise. Semantic barriers also lead to a ostracize influence on the environment.The information require d regarding the economiser was available to the crew but due to this world from the ships previous owner and it not being endorsed by ZMA, there was confusion regarding what documents and procedures were to be followed. If ZMA had constructed their own policy, adding any information they did not carry over from the previous owner, this might have helped annul the ensuing problems.