Maritime Policy & Management

The flagship journal of international shipping and port research

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tmpm20

Beyond the ISM code: a conceptual proposal for an

integrated system within the Seven C’s approach

Sedat BAŞTUĞ , Ender ASYALI & Turgay BATTAL

To cite this article: Sedat BAŞTUĞ , Ender ASYALI & Turgay BATTAL (2020): Beyond the ISM
code: a conceptual proposal for an integrated system within the Seven C’s approach, Maritime
Policy & Management, DOI: 10.1080/03088839.2020.1770884

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2020.1770884

Published online: 10 Jun 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 19

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tmpm20
MARITIME POLICY & MANAGEMENT
https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2020.1770884

Beyond the ISM code: a conceptual proposal for an integrated

system within the Seven C’s approach
a b c
Sedat BAŞTUĞ , Ender ASYALI and Turgay BATTAL
a
Department of Maritime Business Administration, Iskenderun Technical University, Hatay, Turkey; bDepartment of
Marine Transportation, Maine Maritime Academy, Maine, USA; cThe Graduate School of Social Sciences, Dokuz Eylul
University, Izmir, Turkey

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The International Safety Management (ISM) Code aims to provide an ISM code; idea management
international standard for the safe management and operation of ships system; Seven C’s approach;
and pollution prevention. Initially, it improved both onboard and onshore safety management systems;
safety standards. In recent years, however, shipping safety statistics and in-depth phenomenological
interview; marketing
research have revealed that ISM Code compliance has increasingly wor-
sened due to accidents, deaths, and excessive sea pollution. The support
of another management system is thus needed to overcome difficulties in
implementing the ISM Code. Hence, this paper combines both manage-
ment systems (ISM and Idea Management System, IMS) within the Seven
C’s approach. This is a holistic approach to maritime safety management
that integrates seven critical success factors for effective implementation
of the ISM Code.
This approach may play an important role in creating organizational
knowledge to raise an organization’s awareness of managing and linking
know-how to position itself for the future. This will help to make ISM code
management more efficient and may reduce accidents, deaths, and mar-
ine pollution by fostering the seven C components.

1. Introduction
The ISM (International Safety Management) Code, which came into force in 1998 to eliminate poor
management practices and human error, aims to enhance safety and quality standards in the maritime
industry. Its two sections define the requirements for efficient ISM Code implementation and safe
shipping operations. To achieve this, the conditions must be exactly met. Studies have shown that all
organizational members are highly committed and adopt certain values and beliefs. According to Thai
and Grewal (2006), various factors are critical for successful ISM Code implementation: leadership,
safety management principles, employees’ attitudes, the cultivation of quality management, motiva-
tion for safety culture dissemination, management commitment, personnel acceptance, and compe-
tencies/knowledge. Conversely, excessive bureaucracy and required documentation, inconsistent
interpretation of the code’s clauses and requirements (Lappalainen, Kuronen, and Tapaninen 2012),
and conflicting perceptions of the ISM Code between ship crews and shipping company managers are
critical factors preventing effective code implementation (Bhattacharya 2012). Yet, although research
has identified these success factors, the ISM Code has still not been implemented successfully, as seen
from European Maritime Organization statistics (see Figure 1). These reveal inadequate ISM imple-
mentation, both onboard and onshore.

CONTACT Sedat BAŞTUĞ sedat.bastug@iste.edu.tr Iskenderun Technical University, Barbaros Hayrettin Naval
Architecture and Maritime Faculty, Merkez Kampus, 31200, Iskenderun, Hatay, Turkey
© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 S. BAŞTUĞ ET AL.

Figure 1. Top deficiencies of paris MOU (Memorandum of understanding).

The Paris MOU Statistics (2018) suggest that deficiencies are decreasing, which might indicate
that the ISM Code is being quite successfully implemented within Europe. However, the
European Maritime Safety Agency (2016) reports that maritime casualties and accidents have
increased dramatically, with ISM-related deficiencies being the most frequent. Størkersen,
Antonsen, and Kongsvik (2017) also note that ship accidents have increased although the
frequency of personnel injuries has decreased. This paradox explains how safety management
regulations seem to work when they include knowledge and routines that appear rational to
maritime personnel, who therefore devote sufficient resources to abide by the procedures. On the
other hand, the ISM Code distract navigators from focusing fully on navigation because they are
forced to follow a multitude of distracting safety procedures during watchkeeping on the bridge.
Thus, companies could reduce ship accidents by simplifying procedures and minimizing dis-
turbances for navigators.
Many distractions are directly related to safety at sea. These include time and commercial
pressure (MAIB, 2018A), fatigue (MAIB, 2019A), mobile phone use (MAIB, 2019B), minimal
manning (MAIB, 2014), alarm functions, insufficient look-out, or completing ISM and other
voyage-related documents after leaving a port although full situational awareness is required
(MAIB, 2016, MAIB, 2018B, MAIB, 2017). As already mentioned, numerous factors prevent
effective implementation of the ISM Code, thereby causing more maritime accidents.
Various scholars (Tunidau and Thai 2010; Batalden and Sydnes 2014) have investigated how
maritime casualties and accidents are related to human and organizational factors. Batalden and
Sydnes (2014) reported that companies generally fail to implement ISMC Sections 5 (master respon-
sibility), 6 (resources and personnel), 7 (development of plans for shipboard operation), and 12
(company verification, review, and evaluation). Others (Oltedal and Engen 2010; Batalden and Sydnes
2014) point out that Section 7 is the most critical factor, reflecting the lack of developing good
instructions, procedures, and checklists. However, crews find procedures and checklists problematic
to use in their daily work. According to Oltedal and Engen (2010), this may be because seafarers
themselves are not involved in their development, a refusal to take crew experience seriously, and
insufficient opportunities for local adjustments for each vessel. These problems may lead to frequent
and deliberate breaching of procedures, which then reduces the willingness to report.
Safety management cannot be achieved in this way. Rather, it must embrace the human element
that should be at the center of all management systems. Taylor (1947) underestimated the meaning
of human motivation as opposed to the concept of the ISM Code. While assuming that human
 MARITIME POLICY & MANAGEMENT 3

motivation is critical, he claimed that people could and would be motivated by the prospect of
earning more. More recent scholars (Størkersen, Antonsen, and Kongsvik 2017; Lappalainen,
Kuronen, and Tapaninen 2012; Batalden and Sydnes 2014) have argued that innovation specifically
is needed to increase human motivation. Lendel, Moravčíková, and Latka (2017), for example,
claims that employees must be motivated to offer innovative ideas for succesful management. Thus,
organizations, including shipping companies, must develop incentive programs that emphasize
innovative ideas and be based on the requirements of employees. They go further, considering the
adoption of the idea as part of the innovation process (Zaltman, Duncan, and Holbek 1973). These
innovation processes will enable them to discover, evaluate, develop and implement ideas for
efficient implementation of the ISM Code. For example, idea management could create an inno-
vative maritime safety eco-system in the shipping industry (Gerlach and Brem 2017).
Shipping companies can draw on good examples from manufacturing and air transportation.
For example, BASF found that implementing employee ideas through its Idea Management
initiative saved the company around EUR 58 million globally in 2017. More than 23,000 suggestions
were implemented, with BASF rewarding its employees with bonuses totaling EUR 4.3 million. The
wealth of ideas submitted by employees not only created savings but often also increased workplace
safety (BASF 2018). Turkish Airlines, which was ranked the twelfth top airline by Skytrax in 2017,
encouraged employees to submit at least two ideas by the end of 2017. It collected employee
suggestions and opinions through the ‘I have an idea’ page on its empathy portal.
While the ISM Code and Idea Management Systems both aim to build continuous improvement
into a company’s safety culture, they should be integrated in some way. This integrated system
should incorporate mutual dimensions, including the safety and training requirements of the ISM
Code. These dimensions were identified by Asyali and Bastug (2014) as the ‘Seven C’s of the ISM
Code’. This concept will be explained further in the theoretical background section.
This study aims to address the shortcomings in the ISM Code outlined above by addressing the
following research questions:
RQ1: What kind of management system may help to support effective ISM Code implementation?

RQ2: How should this management system be integrated and work with the safety management system within
the Seven C’s approach?

In addressing these questions, the study aims to combine both management systems (ISM and Idea
Management System, IMS) within the Seven C’s approach to offer a holistic approach to maritime safety
management. This will integrate the crucial success factors for effective ISM Code implementation.
The study begins with a literature review on relevant management systems about the ISM code
and idea management system. The methodology section presents the conceptual model. The
findings and discussion follow before recommendations for future research are suggested.

2. Literature review
This section covers three areas: international safety management, seven critical success factors, and
idea management. Afterward, the methodology section will be presented.

2.1. International safety management (ISM) code

The ISM Code, which originated from quality management, offers a systematic method for every part of
shipping organizations, both onshore and onboard (Kristiansen 2013). The code aims to ensure safety at
sea, and protect human life, property, and the marine environment. Shipping company must ensure safe
practices in ship operations and a safe working environment. This entails assessing all identified risks to
ships, personnel, and environment before implementing appropriate safeguards and continuously
developing the safety management skills of onshore and onboard personnel.
4 S. BAŞTUĞ ET AL.

While many studies (Karakasnaki et al. 2018; Pantouvakis and Karakasnaki 2016; Asyali and
Bastug 2014) evaluate the success factors in ISM Code implementation, others focus on problems
and difficulties. As mentioned before, Paris MOU statistics reveal problems and difficulties faced by
shipping companies in implementing the ISM Code. According to Pun, Yam, and Lewis (2003), the
most difficult implementation problems are:

(1) Refusal to change

(2) Insufficient human resources
(3) Lack of knowledge of procedures
(4) Inadequate inter-departmental communication
(5) Poor education
(6) Continous staff turnover
(7) Limited time to ensure SMS (Safety Management System) requirements

Pun, Yam, and Lewis (2003) found that these difficulties are caused by inconsistencies between the
organization and the requirements of the ISM Code, particularly when the organizational culture
does not support a safety-oriented culture, which is essential for the effective ISM Code application.
Anderson (2003) also identifies three major factors in unsuccessful implementation of the safety
management system:

(1) Too much paperwork due to voluminous documentation

(2) Many irrelevant procedures and checklists
(3) Lack of human resources and insufficient training

In such cases, safety management is occasionally recognized through paperwork and ship crew
do not involve to improve the system. In addition, there is low motivation for safety management
among personnel, and personnel turnover and new employee familiarization is a problem
(Anderson 2003). Anderson (2003) therefore identified four success factors for well-functioning
safety management systems:

(1) Top management leadership and commitment

(2) A sense of personnel ownership of the SMS
(3) Good communication between ship and office
(4) Reduction of paperwork to manageable levels

The main structure of the ISM Code is the idea of continuous improvement. The investigation of
accidents is a part of continuous improvement in SMS while effective reporting procedures are
a clear sign of continuous improvement (Anderson 2003). The studies (Bye and Aalberg 2020;
Karakasnaki et al. 2018; Ek and Akselsson 2005) show that the important shortcomings on literature
are continuous improvement and incident reporting. Several studies (Karakasnaki et al. 2018; Ek
and Akselsson 2005; Anderson 2003) found that incidents are not properly reported, especially
minor incidents, which are considered as redundant bureaucracy, while reporting is usually
neglected.
Maritime personnel are also demotivated by poor feedback from incidents. Most of the time,
onshore management are criticized because feedback about incidents is neglected. When manage-
ment gives no feedback to onboard personnel, they are not motivated to provide incident reports in
the future. They are also motivated to hide their errors (Bye and Aalberg 2020; Mejia 2001;
Anderson 2003; IMO 2005; Ek and Akselsson 2005). Thus, incident reports fail to lead to any
improvements as the sharing of information and feedback from incident reports are poorly carried
out by management.
 MARITIME POLICY & MANAGEMENT 5

Table 1. Literature review of safety management systems.

Authors Year Relevant Subject
Mejia 2001 ISM Code performance criteria
Pun et al. 2003 Certification of safety management system in the maritime sector
Anderson 2003 The importance of the code and its effect on maritime routines
Ek and Akselsson 2005 An investigation of safety culture on Swedish cruise vessels
Kuronen and Tapaninen 2009 Evaluation of maritime safety policy instruments
Bhattacharya 2012 The effectiveness of the ISM code: a qualitative inquiry
Lappalainen et al. 2012 Assessment of ISM Code implementation in the Finish maritime market
Batalden and Sydnes 2014 A phenomenological study of the ISM code
Asyali and Bastug 2014 The effect of scientific management principles on the ISM Code
Pantouvakis and Karakasnaki 2016 ISM Code effectiveness with ISO certification
Karakasnaki et al. 2018 Research on safety for code implementation in the maritime sector
Mišković et al. 2019 The mental outlook of professional seafarers regarding ISM Code implementation
Bye and Aalberg 2020 Violations of safety management system procedures

According to Lappalainen, Kuronen, and Tapaninen (2012), the deficiencies in the ISM Code in
Finland’s maritime industry are the bureaucratic burden, complex documentation, poor guidance
in code implementation, poor safety performance indicators, and non-standard analysis of require-
ments. Conversely, experienced seafarers’ attitudes towards ISM implementation are significantly
improved by well-designed and structured safety rules and procedures, a positive work environ-
ment, and adequate communication (Mišković, Jelaska, and Ivče 2019). The relevant literature has
been also added about the difficulties and problems in ISM Code implementation in the Table 1.

2.2. Seven critical success factors (The Seven C’s)

To meet certain conditions and decrease damaging consequences, Asyali and Bastug (2014)
recommend seven critical success factors (the 7ʹC’s) for effective implementation of the ISM
Code, both within the company and on board ships: Commitment, Compliance, Competence,
Continuous Improvement, Communication, Collective Responsibility, and Cooperation. These
factors are industry specific and provide guidance to all employees and management for achieving
safety goals.
Commitment is a critical factor for increasing safety awareness among top managers. As
Anderson (2003) notes, shipping companies successfully implement ISM thanks to the leadership
of senior management and the commitment of the whole organization. Similarly, Pun, Yam, and
Lewis (2003) argue that top management is the major factor in ISM implementation as their
leadership generates corporate-wide safety initiatives and management practices in compliance
with the ISM Code. Clearly, without senior management commitment and the united effort of the
whole organization, ISM Code implementation will fail.
Thomas (2012) considers Compliance as the centerpiece of the ISM Code, given the minimum
requirements to implement it successfully. Compliance means tha all seafarers, other personnel,
and ship managers follow all safety-related international, national, local, industrial, and company-
specific standards, rules, laws, and requirements. SMS has six functional requirements that must be
developed, implemented, and maintained by each company:

(1) A policy for safety and environmental protection

(2) Clear instructions and procedures to provide safe onboard practices and environmental
protection in compliance with necessary regulations
(3) Well-structured levels of authority and good communication between onshore and onboard
staff
(4) Clear instructions and procedures for reporting accidents and nonconformities
(5) Procedures for emergency situations
(6) Well-established procedures for audits and management reviews
6 S. BAŞTUĞ ET AL.

Competence is the ability to do something successfully or efficiently (The New Oxford Dictionary of
English 1998). For maritime training specifically, the exact meaning of the term requires further
definition in compliance with the STCW (The International Convention on Standards of Training,
Certification, and Watchkeeping for Seafarers) Code. This defines the minimum requirements for
certification in terms of knowledge, understanding, and proficiency (IMO 1996). However, com-
petence has a common meaning that can be related to maritime occupations. Occupational
competence is the bringing together of all the diverse skills, knowledge, and abilities needed to
ensure that individuals are capable of fulfilling the roles expected of them in the way and to the
standards expected in seafarers’ employment (Matthew 1997: 189).
Various quality gurus introduced the term continuous improvement after the Second World
War, of whom the American businessman Philip Crosby is one of the better recognized. He claimed
that to achieve the target of a quality management system, it is important to consider the task as
a continuous process where non-conformities are frequently reported and rectified.
Communication is the act of transferring information between the maritime departments of the
shipping company. Continuous, open communication between top management and sea personnel
helps clarify the professional objectives of ISM implementation, focuses sea operations, and
prevents or minimizes accidents or hazardous incidents. There have been many approaches to
improve inter-organizational communication. Kaizen, for example, is the culture of trust between
staff and managers, including good bi-directional communication, and an open-minded and
democratic managerial view of employees (Asyali and Bastug 2014).
Collective responsibility defines the responsibilities of everyone at all levels of an organization
in terms of SMS. Safety culture is created around the idea of collective responsibility. Maritime
safety can be achieved through the collective responsibility of all stakeholders. Thus, all individuals
should be involved in safety-related issues.
Taylor (1947) introduced cooperation as one of the principles of scientific management, which
was accepted as a mental revolution. While Taylor mainly focused on cooperation between
employees and management, it may also be extended to that between the company and all
stakeholders in the shipping industry, including benchmarking practices. Cooperation facilitates
the implementation of a safety management policy both on ships and on shore.

2.3. Idea management systems

Ideation is the process whereby individuals and companies produce and improve creative
ideas (Graham and Bachmann 2004). Idea management can be seen as a sub-process of
innovation management aiming at effective and efficient idea generation, evaluation, and
selection (Brem and Voigt 2007). Idea management systems have evolved theoretically. In
the 1970 s, suggestion boxes were used to coordinate and manage creativity (Ekvall 1971)
while the 1990 s were important for idea management systems through the continuous
improvement element.
The idea management is considered as a way of increasing the organization’s continuous
improvement capabilities. Several studies (Schuring and Luijten, 2001; Verespej, 1992) have
found that idea management systems can enable continuous improvement, including cutting
costs and initiating organizational change. Carrier (1998) reached the same conclusion but warned
that these systems rarely lead to sweeping innovations: ‘They were usually concerned with changes
aimed at developing organizational efficiency and competitiveness, or with developing particular
practices and procedures.’ As can be seen in Table 2, Idea management systems have since become
more sophisticated through technological development and wider use of such systems.
Various scholars (Wheelwright and Clark 1992; Day, Gold, and Kuczmarski 1994; Cooper 2001)
report that idea management systems not only provide continuous improvements but also come up
with new products. According to Flynn et al. (2003), such systems are planned to execute at the
front end of the innovation process to gather and document opportunity identifications. The output
 MARITIME POLICY & MANAGEMENT 7

Table 2. Literature review of idea management systems.

Structural Social
Journal Articles Brem and Voigt 2007; Brem and Voigt 2009; Galbrait 1982; Nilsson, Elg, and Bergman 2002;
Gamlin, Yourd, and Patrick 2007; Karanjikar Boeddrich 2004; Pundt and Schyns, 2005;
2007; Enkel, Gassmann, and Chesbrough Björk and Magnusson 2009; Barczak, Griffin,
2009; Tung, Yuan, and Tsai 2009; Fatur and and Kahn 2009; Tung, Yuan, and Tsai 2009
Likar 2009; Sandström and Björk 2010;
Bettoni et al. 2010; Xie and Zhang 2010;
Westerski, Iglesias, and Rico 2010; Shani and
Divyapriya 2011; Zejnilovic, Oliveira, and
Veloso 2012; Bothos, Apostolou, and Mentzas
2012; Aagaard 2012; El Bassiti and Ajhoun
2013; Westerski, Dalamagas, and Iglesias
2013; Bergendahl and Magnusson 2014;
Löwer and Heller 2014; Sadriev and
Pratchenko 2014, Jiménez-Narvaez and
Gardoni 2015
Conference proceedings Voigt and Brem 2006; Bothos, Apostolou, and Saatcioglu 2002; Bailey and Horvitz 2010; Gish
Mentzas 2009; Bansemir and Neyer 2009; 2011
Klein and Lechner 2010; Hrastinski et al. 2010;
Westerski and Iglesias 2011; Holtzblatt and
Tierney 2011; Moos et al., 2011; Baez and
Convertino 2012; Poveda, Westerski, and
Iglesias 2012; Vagn, Clausen, and Gish 2013
Dissertation thesis Glassman 2009; Deichmann 2012; Westerski,
Dalamagas, and Iglesias 2013
Scientific institute Lindross 2006; Iversen et al. 2009
working papers
Book chapters Perez, Larrinaga, and Curry 2013; Miecznik 2013

of the system is an idea that feeds into the company’s product development process. Some
researchers still argue that they only directly deal with minor improvements. For example,
Proctor, Tan, and Fuse (2004) argue that they can be used to develop bottom-up communication,
with most suggestions dealing with minor things, while only rarely having a major impact on an
organization’s work processes.
The development of innovation in the last decade has dramatically changed scholars’
perceptions of idea management systems. Both researchers and companies have been thinking
about how to develop ideas and bring them into the market. Specifically, because productive
assets and processes are becoming intellectual or non-material, many researchers have pointed
out the importance of treating ideas differently. Good innovative behavior is correlated with
the number of ideas generated by a company. The focus of idea management systems can be
divided into two categories: structural and social. Structural idea management systems focus
on the design and process of the system whereas social idea management systems focus on
capital, creativity, cognition, etc. Regarding the design of idea management systems, most
scholars recommend structural designs, focusing initially on the management models in
Table 3.
The early phase of idea management models (Rowbotham and Bohlin 1996) was generally
characterized by ideation, idea refinement, knowledge creation, evaluation, verification, etc.
These steps do not follow a linear approach, but are rather unorganized, following an unpre-
dictable circular path. Since then, scholars (Iversen et al. 2009; Shani and Divyapriya 2011) have
introduced new idea management concepts based on a life-cycle perspective on innovation. This
has greatly contributed to idea management models, such as idea generation, evaluation,
implementation, and links.
8 S. BAŞTUĞ ET AL.

Table 3. Various idea management models.

Author Year Model Characteristics
Ahmed 2008 A process of suggestion with various partners and rewards for their involvement.
Brem and Voigt 2009 Unification of pull and push strategies in the process of the idea management
Iversen et al. 2009 A life-cycle perspective on innovation for idea management
Neagoe and Klein 2009 Using cycles with the encouragement and motivation of ideators in idea management
Bailey and Horvitz 2010 Submission of ideas within a limited time challenge
Sandström and Björk 2010 Development and evaluation of ideas
Westerski et al. 2010 Analysis of all information during the life cycle of ideation
Wilson et al. 2010 Submission of various communication approaches for generating and promoting ideas
Xie and Zhang 2010 Automatic idea selection based on software
Shani et al. 2011 The role of innovative idea management in human resource management
Westerski et al. 2011 The connection between phases and involved parties in idea management
Bothos et al. 2012 Mutual idea support system with a web-based platform
Vagn et al. 2013 Handling of ideas in front-end innovation
Bergendahl et al. 2014 Integration of cooperation and competition with idea management
Source: Adopted from Gerlach and Brem (2017)

3. Methodology
This section explains how the conceptual model of this study was developed step by step. It then
explains how the literature review and patent search were performed and the conceptual model
developed, as presented in Figure 2.
The literature review focuses on the Seven C’s success factors, Idea Management Systems, and
Safety Management Systems. A literature research procedure was developed for this study by
analyzing relvant e data sources, time frames, and keywords. This search suggested a very broad
range of databases covering diverse publications, including EBSCOHost, Academic Search Premier,
Science Direct, Taylor & Francis, Emerald, ABI Inform, Ulakbim, Jstor, and ProQuest, along with
classic library cataloging systems.
The chosen keywords were directly associated with safety management and idea management
(‘safety management system’, ‘maritime safety’, ‘idea management system’, ‘idea management
models’, ‘innovation’, ‘SMS’, ‘IMS’, ‘ISM Code’, ‘maritime safety’, ‘marketing’). Many were also
integrated to ensure their relevance. This keyword set was then enlarged and refined as relevant
articles were discovered. While the search concentrated on literature published between 1996 and
2016, their citations were cross-checked to capture previous relevant publications.
This keyword oversearch generated many article titles. After removing any duplicate records,
the titles were rechecked to ensure their relevance. The abstracts of all remaining articles were
then reviewed and, unless thought inappropriate, the full paper was then read. In total, 13
articles on safety management, 49 articles on idea management, and 14 articles on IMS models
were found.
According to Allen and Oppenheim (1979), only 6% of information in the American patents and
only 11% of information in the Canadian Patents appear in journal articles while Asche (2017)
showed that 70–90% of technical information in patents is never published anywhere else. For this
study, we therefore also carried out a patent search about safety and idea management systems in
digital patent databases, including the European Patent Office (Espacenet), the United States Patent
and Trade Office (USPTO), and Google Patent Search Engine. The keywords and phrases used to
query the patent databases were ‘safety management system’, ‘idea management system’, ‘idea
management models’, ‘SMS’, ‘IMS’, and ‘ISM Code’. The study did not query patents by company
names to narrow the search to manageable proportions. Duplicate and irrelevant patents were then
excluded. Of 1,230 identified patents or applications, none had any combination of the manage-
ment systems. The patent search also considered the current status of the patent or application
(active, expired, abandoned, pending, rejected, etc.).
Before building a conceptual model and increasing its reliability, scholars also conduct
empirical studies using in-depth phenomenological interviews. Such interviews are useful tools
 MARITIME POLICY & MANAGEMENT 9

Figure 2. Research methodology.

to develop full understanding of a new phenomenon, such as building a new management

model (Sekaran and Bougie 2016; Maxwell 2012; Wright 1996; Hannabuss 1996). Flinders
(1997) explains the phenomenological characteristics of data fetching during such interviews
as follows: ‘It is completely an interview, an exchange of opinions between two persons talking
about a theme of bilateral interest’ in which scholar tries to ‘comprehend the world from the
topic’s point of view, to open the understanding of personal life’. At the root of phenomen-
ology, ‘the purpose is to explore the phenomena in their own aspects—to ensure a picture of
personal life as it is experienced by the individual’ (Bentz and Shapiro 1998).
In this study, the in-depth phenomenological interviews aimed to determine the require-
ments of effective ISM Code implementation by looking at what respondents experience in
their sea life. This can provide understanding to support effective ISM Code implementation
intergrated with another management system. More specifically, the following questions need
answering:
10 S. BAŞTUĞ ET AL.

● What are the common difficulties in ISM Code implementations?

● What kinds of system may help to support effective ISM Code implementation apart from
Idea Management Systems?
● How does an IMS work with SMS?

Purposive sampling was used to meet eight experts from Turkey’s maritime higher education
institutions and shipping companies. The shipping sector interviewees were selected for solid
expertise and being currently active. Random sampling was not used due to the small population
in this field. Instead, the sample was cross-checked through desk research into Turkish academic
and professional publications. Interviewees from the shipping sector included ocean-going masters
and marine engineers with long sea life experience, especially marine pilots. The two interviewees
with long experience as an ocean-going masters came from the same maritime university. As the
topic of the research questions was of significant interest to the interviewees, it was easy to organize
interviews without rejections.
A pilot interview was conducted in an informal setting to check if any questions needed
modifcation. Open-ended questions were used in the unstructured interviews. On average, the
interviews lasted 75 minutes and were all recorded.
The term ‘data analysis’ was consciously avoided in analyzing the interview data because Hycner
(1985) warns that it has risky meanings for phenomenology. It refers to ‘breaking into parts’, which
generally means losing the phenomenon as a whole. Coffey and Atkinson (1996) argue that
methodical procedures to describe the crucial elements and the links. That is, it is a way of
transforming the data through interpretation. This process has five phases: bracketing and phenom-
enological reduction, delineating units of meaning, clustering of units of meaning to form themes,
summarizing each interview, and extracting general and unique themes from all the interviews.
In the first step, the researcher listens repeatedly to each interview to become familiar with the
interviewee’s words. Then, to delineate units of meaning, unrelated meanings are removed. The
next stage involves identifying significant topics to form themes, also called the clustering of units of
meaning. They are also classified as units of significance (Sadala and Adorno 2002). In the present
study, the identified themes were ‘implementation difficulties in ISM Code’, ‘management systems
that support ISM Code implementation’, and ‘the working structure of an integrated system’. All
the themes must then be incorporated into a summary. However, before doing so, its validity must
be confirmed by consulting with the interviewees to determine whether the essence of the inter-
views has been correctly captured. Finally, explicitation involves addressing a summary, which must
be projected onto the context or ‘horizon’ from which the themes came out (Hycner 1985;
Moustakas 1994).
After the empirical study, the conceptual model building concept was discussed. Social science
researchers approach a task first with models and later with concepts that mean an identified
research problem within a subject matter. They then gather data to interpret and build linkages
between these concepts. According to Uys and Puttergill (2000, 19), theories are constituted
through concepts, so certain aspects of a theory may be used as a conceptual framework.
A conceptual framework is best depicted diagrammatically, particularly through flow charts to
depict key concepts and their relationships (Huberman 1994:33; Silverman 2013). Diagrammatic
representations of concepts are variously known as concept maps, integrative diagrams, systems,
Venn diagrams, and conceptual modeling (Robson 2002, 63). As graphic tools, concept maps
provide ‘a schematic device for representing a set of concept meanings embedded in a framework
of propositions’ (Novak and Gowin 1984, 15). Concept mapping links, differentiates, and relates
concepts to one another (Daley, Durning, and Torre 2016; Novak and Gowin 1984). The most
general concept is placed at the top of the map. The specific concepts that relate to the general
concepts are then identified and linked to each other, with the general concepts at the top forming
an elegant conceptual framework for the inquiry, or a map of the literature demarcating the
 MARITIME POLICY & MANAGEMENT 11

boundaries of the study. In this study, the conceptual framework from the literature established the
proposed conceptual management model.

4. Building a model for effective ISM code implementation

This section consists of two parts based on the research questions. The first part discusses what kind
of supporting system to SMS is needed for effective ISM Code implementation while the second
part explains how the system should work smoothly.
Many studies (Karakasnaki et al. 2018; Pantouvakis and Karakasnaki 2016) have concentrated on
success factors for implementing the safety management system. These are generally derived from
maritime accidents or near misses rather than suggestions from maritime personnel. The literature
provides limited guidance to practitioners without any holistic approach to combine good ideas for
effective implementation of safety management system. Additionally, while efficient ISM Code
implementation deals with success factors, it is also majorly concerned with designing management
systems. A few studies in the same field have been observed. Dionis et al. (2016) offer a one-
dimensional approach to the environmental management system while Banda and Goerlandt
(2018) propose a safety system engineering process for designing maritime safety management
systems. Igwe et al. (2019) construct a model for adapting a modernized management-based
approach to occupational maritime safety and health. None of these studies, however, combines
both management systems for designing the SMS.
There are several regulatory amendments related to maritime safety: the circular (Maritime
Safety Committee (MSC) and the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) circular. In
particular, MSC-MEPC.2/Cir.3 of 5 June 2006 provides a management system for effective safety
management through top management commitment and leadership; employee involvement;
hazard estimation, recognition, assessment, and inspection; training of all attendants in the
program (both officers and crew members); appropriate custody of records; contract or third
party personnel involvement; fatality, injury, illness, and incident investigation; and a systematic
program for evaluation and continuous improvement. In this regard, idea management may offer
several advantages to the ISM Code alongside new regulatory amendments: human motivation and
innovation.
The literature indicates that the efficient implementation of the ISM code must not only deal
with the simplicity of the ISM procedures but it is also directly related to the human element.
Effective implementation of the ISM code requires active employee involvement both ashore and at
sea. This includes achieving organizational goals by using their concerns and ideas, creating a sense
of ownership of the safety management system (Anderson 2003), and involving employees in
decision-making processes. Involvement will not only increase empowerment, job satisfaction,
and employee motivation but also help to achieve organizational safety goals. Although employee
involvement can be achieved by various means, this study proposes the idea management system to
achieve this objective.
Employee involvement is not easy or straightforward. It can be hindered by various factors
(Bhattacharya 2009): job insecurity, low-trust work environment, and lack of organizational
support for seafarers. Short-term contracts make seafarers feel vulnerable and uncertain about
their future employability. Hence, there is a considerable gap between the expected outcome of
the Code and the practice. Rewards for seafarers to promote employee involvement in the
management of shipboard and support self-regulation is largely absent in the maritime context.
Most studies either ignore human motivation or investigate how to improve the safety manage-
ment system by reviewing past accidents to determine the success factors to implement the
system effectively.
International and national regulations develop slowly through IMO working groups and the
international community, with limited capacity to cover new solutions and innovation. Because of
the fast-growing nature of the shipping industry and the degree of freedom in implementing SMS,
12 S. BAŞTUĞ ET AL.

regulatory bodies and shipping companies may need a system to collect innovative safety ideas,
promote the safety culture among seafarers, and decrease accidents and hazardous events. However,
no studies have supported innovation for the safety management system.
Considering this background, a new conceptual model is needed to address these shortcomings of
the model in the literature. An integrated system is needed to make ISM Code implementation more
effective. However, it is unclear how a well-integrated system performs in real life. Sandström and
Björk (2010) warn that the dual idea management system may create a superfluous structure and
bureaucratization. They also note that it is largely in line with managerial practices connected to
innovation. Their proposed model is not a dual idea management system and they suggest that idea
management can accelerate safety management. Cormican and O’Sullivan (2003) found that impe-
lementing an integrated system is extremely complex, although they also concluded that adopting this
approach to the management system can increase the likelihood of success.
Turning to the second research question, the proposed conceptual model has nine sections:
policy, planning, implementation, training, monitoring, audit and review, ideas, suggestions, and
cooperation. These sections are integrated with the Seven C’s approach. The following section
explains the model’s development (see Figure 3).

Figure 3. Proposed Seven C’s management system model.

 MARITIME POLICY & MANAGEMENT 13

Table 4. Relationship of management systems under the Seven C’s management system.
Steps of Phases of Seven C’s
Management Management
Systems System Short Definitions
Safety Management Policy Commitment This involves direct involvement by top-level executives in
System specific and critically important aspects such as
policymaking.
Planning Compliance This process ensures that a set of people are following a given
Implementation set of rules (SOLAS, STCW, etc). It consists of planning safety
procedures regarding SOLAS requirements or
implementing the ISM Code effectively.
Training Competence This enables organizational objectives to be met, which
closely relates to maintaining performance by increasing
the training of seafarers.
Monitoring Continuous This involves an ongoing effort to improve safety
Audit and Improvement implementation. The onboard operations can be regularly
Review monitored and audited to ensure continuous
improvement.
Idea Management Ideas Communication Ship management executives and seafarers exchange their
System ideas, thoughts, and perceptions through communication.
Suggestions Collective This refers to the responsibilities of all maritime staff who may
Responsibility participate in safety innovation through their suggestions.
Organizational Cooperation This concerns the voluntary arrangement whereby ideas
Cooperation engage in a mutually beneficial exchange instead of
competing.
Source: Authors

While safety management and idea management systems are different disciplines, they both
analytically measure company performance to increase the efficiencies of company assets. While the
main aim is to ensure safety in the workplace, a safety management system needs the innovation
provided by idea management. Before building a new model, the relationship between these systems
must be constructed using the principles of the Seven C’s management system, as in Table 4.
In the commitment phase, policymakers set the strategic policies to ensure the safety standards
of the maritime company. They develop policies regarding company culture, structure, and
resources. Meanwhile, they need feedback from company employees to enable easy implementation
of ISM-related policies. The commitment and involvement of all company personnel are required
for innovations in company policies or work methods.
During the compliance phase, the company should establish the necessary plans, objectives, and
targets. In this stage, company management must be committed to improving procedures regarding
company plans, objectives, and targets. They should encourage and promote the high levels of
awareness that such standards demand. They should then implement operational controls and
manage contractors, emergency responses, and safety records. The company should respond
positively to ideas from both shore and sea staff that identify changes in procedures, practices, or
equipment necessary to improve standards.
The competence phase of the management model consists of training seafarers and measuring
their occupational performance. The STCW Code aims to meet the training requirements of
seafarers and help assess their occupational performance. The company should identify its princi-
ples of competence regarding the STCW convention.
The company should ensure continuous improvement by monitoring and reviewing the system.
Regarding monitoring, maritime personnel should report all deficiencies, near misses, and accidents.
The system should then be reviewed by including the outcomes of deficiencies, near misses, and
hazardous accidents. In traditional ISM systems, the safety meeting committee generally consists of
top management, managers, and the DPA (Designated Person at Shore). The DPA is the main
collector of information about seafarer training and occupational performance, vessel maintenance,
survey conditions, deficiencies, etc. However, there is no system for channeling valuable ideas upwards
14 S. BAŞTUĞ ET AL.

in a hierarchical system. Instead, ship personnel simply implement the safety procedures and complete
the necessary checklists according to the system schedule. The DPA may focus on collecting potential
ideas from ISM checklists and interpret them individually. However, the cognitive perceptions of
DPAs may prevent ideas from being communicated to top management because top management
assessment might not match the company vision. Thus, the DPA should maintain an idea pool of
personnel who are involved in the company’s safety management.
In the communication phase, the Seven C’s management system gathers ideas from all personnel
while increasing the vertical and horizontal involvement of all employees. This certainly supports
effective communication between management levels within the company. Idea management
systems vary in applicability to different kinds of ideas and concentrate on resolving problems in
particular fields only (Bailey and Horvitz 2010; Bothos, Apostolou, and Mentzas 2012). If an
organization is only trying to solve a distinct problem, then an idea discussion may be appropriate
(Gamlin, Yourd, and Patrick 2007). However, the organization may choose to use crowdsourcing
because the nature of maritime safety means there will be more problems.
Figure 4 presents the conceptual model of idea management in the Seven C’s management
system in detail. In this management system, management reviews and audits identify problems
and the themes of problems for new ideas. The company should facilitate the collection of new
safety ideas as creativity may be critical during this stage. While its generation is the economical
phase of the process, the product of the idea might be rich (Flynn et al. 2003).
In the collective responsibility phase, the ideator may create productive ideas and suggestions for
the Seven C’s management system. The system may strengthen the idea by collecting supplemen-
tary information, such as through reviews, market research, or scientific studies (Brem and Voigt
2009). The suggested ideas can also be enhanced through idea discussion groups that can identify
unclear points or provide tips for modifying the idea. These groups may include the master, chief
engineer, DPA, managers, and top management.
One of the important steps in idea management is idea selection from a large idea pool, which
helps ensure the organization’s future success (Brem and Voigt 2007). This phase, which involves
evaluation, selection, and feedback, is managed by the DPA. Ideas are assessed according to various
selection criteria determined by the company (Neagoe and Klein 2009; Sandström and Björk 2010).
Table 5 shows several such criteria for idea management, which determine whether an idea should
be accepted or not (Gerlach and Brem 2017).

Table 5. Idea selection criteria for Seven C’s management systems.

Criteria Definition Citation
Novelty This criterion is related to an idea that is original and modifies Dean et al. 2006; Neagoe and Klein
a paradigm. 2009
Originality An idea may not only be rare but it may also be ingenious, Hender et al. 2002; Dean et al. 2006;
imaginative, and surprising. Xie and Zhang 2010
Relatedness in This assesses whether the paradigm of an idea is protecting or Hender et al. 2002; Dean et al. 2006
the Paradigm adapting.
Workability/ This is for a situation where an idea can be easily implemented and Dean et al. 2006
feasibility does not jeopardize known constraints.
Technical In case of possible technical implementation, the idea is technically Dean et al. 2006; Sandström and
feasibility feasible. Björk 2010; Xie and Zhang 2010
Admissibility This assesses the level of admission of the idea in every aspect. Dean et al. 2006
Implementability This measures how easily the idea can be implemented. Dean et al. 2006
Relevance The quality of being closely connected or appropriate. Dean et al. 2006; Xie and Zhang
2010
Effectiveness This measures problem-solving effectiveness. Dean et al. 2006
Benefit An idea is useful if it ensures onboard safety requirements/standards. Sandström and Björk 2010
Specificity The degree to which an idea is clear and can be worked out in detail. Dean et al. 2006
Implicational This measures the level of relationship between expectation and Dean et al. 2006
explicitness performance.
Completeness This refers to how many independent variables decompose the idea Dean et al. 2006
and the coverage of who, what, where, when, why, and how.
Source: Adapted from Gerlach and Brem (2017)
 MARITIME POLICY & MANAGEMENT 15

Figure 4. Conceptual model of idea management process in Seven C’s management systems.

After an idea has been selected, it must be implemented, which requires clear responsibilities and
good teamwork (Gamlin, Yourd, and Patrick 2007). The team may include the master and chief
engineer.
In the cooperation phase, the deployment should be performed by rewarding. Rewards are an
important means of promotion for those involved to motivate them and feel valued (Wilson,
Duplessis, and Marx 2010). Rewards can be defined in terms of their incentives: the type of reward
(financial or non-financial), the amount and frequency, and whether they are collective or indivi-
dual (Neagoe and Klein 2009).
In the proposed system, companies would have different reward systems. This could include no
rewards, one-off standard payments regardless of the effect of the suggestion, or one-off payments
dependent on the savings made. Because the turnover rate of seafarers can sometimes be very high
due to short-term contracts, some Japanese companies, for example, prefer to pay a nominal fee for
each suggestion once it is approved by op management, even before it is implemented or its effects
evaluated. The model presented here recommends this practice. Apart from payments or bonuses,
the shipping company can provide some entertainment to encourage seafarers to offer suggestions.
These can be motivational events, such as selecting the seafarer of the month for his/her safety
suggestion, hosting a dinner to acknowledge a particular seafarer, or offering long-term contracts to
increase seafarers’ job security. Vecchio-Sadus and Griffiths (2004) suggest further promotional
strategies to motivate employees in the safety management system:
16 S. BAŞTUĞ ET AL.

● Mission statements, slogans, and logos

● Published materials (library, statistics, newsletters)
● Media (posters, displays, audiovisual, e-mail, Internet)
● Seminars and training (short talks, group meetings)
● Special campaigns (safety week, safety promotion, emergency response, inductions, incident
reporting and investigation, risk assessment, environment)

Ultimately, the accepted suggestions may lead to new policies for the company. This makes the
company more innovative in implementing its safety management system and developing its safety
management policies.

5. Findings and discussion

While shipping companies try to develop more effective safety systems, researchers focus on
improving the success factors for successful implementation of the ISM Code (Mišković, Jelaska,
and Ivče 2019; Karakasnaki et al. 2018; Pantouvakis and Karakasnaki 2016; Lappalainen, Kuronen,
and Tapaninen 2012; Ek and Akselsson 2005; Anderson 2003; Pun, Yam, and Lewis 2003).
However, these factors are not sufficient alone as the safety management system should be
supported by some way. Now that the maritime safety performance of many companies has leveled
off, the shipping industry needs truly innovative, approaches that revitalize seafarers’ motivation to
be interested in maritime safety culture.
To implement a safety management system with both the idea management system and Seven
C’s, this study adopted a phenomenological approach, which is neglected in this research field. The
following section provides a composite summary of the themes that emerged from the interview
data (implementation difficulties in ISM Code; management systems that support ISM Code
implementation; working structure of an integrated system).
Regarding implementation difficulties in ISM Code, the prevalent feeling of all interviewees was
that ISM Code implementation was very poor due to the difficulties experienced in the SMS. Several
participants strongly agreed that these difficulties generally resulted from low seafarer involvement
and management resistance to innovation. Although shipping companies focus on improving
behavioral safety and building effective safety management implementations, such efforts have
barely succeeded. This was illustrated by one senior manager who said:
The necessity for the ISM Code implementation is indisputably important for the safe operations of the ships. However,
due to the difficulties encountered in practice, the ISM Code system is frequently a burden for ship personnel. Some
procedures and checklists were produced as a result of some dreadful events, and there was no personnel involvement
regarding the risk-related experiences before this accident happened. When the office added many procedures and
checklists, SMS turned into a stationery business as opposed to an improvement in system functionality.

This apathy is not caused by a lack of friendly communication or a directive management style;
rather, it is the lack of social support from managers to the workforce and the wider context within
which the Code is practiced.
Concerning the second theme, management systems that support ISM Code implementation,
the interviews indicated that some shipping companies try to innovate to implement the Code
effectively by, for instance, encouraging seafarers to come up with new ideas and suggestions. One
of the masters who articulated this issue well said:
My company took care about how its seafarers improved the effective implementation of SMS. Additionally,
those who contributed to the safe management system were also rewarded. For example, there was no checking
procedure for fire safety equipment when I worked for them as a third officer. I prepared a check card system to
monitor all safety equipment including navigational equipment. In this check card, all items required by SOLAS
were included so that the responsible person could regularly check them individually. For my effort, my company
rewarded me with a bonus (USD 100). My idea was then announced as best practice and circulated to all the
fleet. This idea was later added into the computerized planned maintenance system named—‘shippernetix’.
 MARITIME POLICY & MANAGEMENT 17

Another good, lived expereince was provided by a marine engineer with a long seafaring career:

When I worked as a chief engineer, I found that the drums for safe operation of luffing and hoisting did not work
properly because they did not have oil lubricators installed on the drums. I advised them how to solve this hidden
problem with the manufacturer and I added a required maintenance checklist for winches. Afterwards, my
company nominated me as a technical supervisor on shore. I got promotion because I found hidden problems
from the manufacturer. This case led the company to demand that all engineers should check their vessels for any
kind of malfunction due to the mistakes of manufacturers so that the company could reclaim all maintenance
costs from the manufacturer during survey times, especially special surveys.

Such companies, which named this application as best practice, improved their ISM Code perfor-
mance although it was not well-integrated with their SMS. However, this is not the same across the
whole shipping industry because seafarers fear getting fired or losing the chance to get another
contract. They therefore do not dare to express their ideas for fear of being ignored or punished. As
one experienced ship’s master put it:

I have a family and that’s why I need a job. Our efforts were measured by the appraisal report. However, we were
afraid of talking too much about the system because any bad remark might lead to a big problem for the next
contract. I was always worried about my job.

Bhattacharya (2012) also finds that seafarers are worried that their involvement could make them
appear ‘loud and disobedient’ while De Spiegelaere et al. (2014) show that job insecurity reduces
overall work engagement, making employees less willing to invest in innovative behaviors. Thus,
shipping companies that want to stimulate idea generation should ensure job security for their
workforce. The more secure employees feel about their job, the more likely they are to generate new
ideas. Therefore, shipping companies might benefit from implementing an integrated model that
reduces perceptions of job insecurity, such as improving organizational communication and
involvement in SMS.
For the third theme, the working structure of the integrated system, the respondents were firstly
informed about what an idea management system is. They then discussed this in relation to efficient
ISM Code implementation. A marine pilot said that:

The working structure of an integrated system sounds interesting. This manual is updated by our officers. To
facilitate their innovative ideas by a formal system, it will make them to encourage innovative idea generation.
I agree that idea generation should be managed by the company, and the company should have a good reward
system to facilitate personal involvement. Otherwise, it won’t make any sense.

Such rewards may be cheaper than traditional incentive or compensation systems, so many
organizations see very few downsides. However, monetory rewards can reduce employee motiva-
tion so that they lose their focus on work tasks or can result in workers gaming the system to win all
costs. Non-monetary rewards do not suffer these disadvantages. One ocean-going master, who was
acting as a designated person at shore in a shipping company, said that:

Rewarding can be a very effective and crucial tool to help shipping companies motivate seafarers. However, like
any other important tool, it isn’t costless. You still need to apply it correctly. The major problem is that shipping
companies may underestimate the real cost. It also provides a good sign of the seriousness of management
commitment. If there is insufficient management commitment, your seafarers will be unhappy because of
concerns about a lack of fairness and equity. The system won’t work. Besides, they have an opportunity to
provide employees with a reward or benefit similar to monetary compensation and in designing them, they have
to realize they’ll be viewed that way by the crew.

All participants agreed that an integrated model may improve ISM Code implementation with
a well-designed rewarding system and full management commitment by capturing new innovative
ideas in maritime safety culture.
18 S. BAŞTUĞ ET AL.

6. Managerial implications
This study makes several academic and practical contributions. The Seven C’s management model
offers many advantages to shipping executives and practitioners. Specifically, it helps shipping
executives to make shipping companies more innovative by encouraging their staff to generate
valuable ideas and involve themselves in the organization’s safety culture. New ideas are a crucial
component of safety development and continous improvement. By defining an ideation process
within the safety management system, managers should introduce clear responsibilities that hold
people accountable for progress, as well as creating a set of common rules that make progress
transparent and understandable for seafarers. Currently, although some companies may allow
seafarers to offer ideas about the SMS, these ideas are not pooled, neither is there any formal
system to reward employees for accepted ideas. Hence, shipping companies could benefit from
a broader and more balanced approach to the safety system, building the capabilities that formalize
the procedures about collecting, evaluating ideas, and rewarding their employees.
The information accumulated from suggestions can give a valuable indication of whether
a maritime safety culture is developing successfully. This information can also be used to confirm
the effectiveness of safety management actions for practitioners. Thus, shipping companies may
also co-operate more with each other to improve innovativeness in safety development. Maritime
administrations and shipping companies can also use the model presented here to support efficient
ISM Code implementation and ensure successful completion.
Shipping executives largely subscribe to human error theory, which assumes that the main
causes of hazardous events and accidents are irrational behavior by seafarers, poor motivation,
insufficient innovation in the safety culture, and misapplication of the ISM Code. Executives have
taken various measures to address these perceived failings. The Seven C’s management system
reflects this line of maritime safety thinking for ship management companies.
According to Oltedal and Engen (2010), there is substantial under-reporting of experience
data from vessels while reports may also be intentionally altered to avoid describing events
accurately. The proposed system may decrease seafarers’ fear of negative consequences,
a complex safety management system, lack of seafarer involvement, and deliberate breaching
of procedures by the crew. This system may also ensure that seafarers believe that their jobs are
secure and make them more motivated. Shipping managers can build an effective reward system
based on this approach, for example by promoting an employee to a higher position.
Practitioners may use a various marketing tools to promote management commitment and
seafarer involvement in the SMS by fostering participation and co-operation at all levels while
collecting innovative ideas.
Most of the literature has concentrated on the actual improvement process of idea management
systems as the key area where service innovation is substituted. However, in continously changing
environments where technology and market demands alter instantly, managing maritime safety
innovations requires not only the capability to ensure the maritime safety but also continuous redesign
and modification of new and existing services to address periodic external changes and emerging
opportunities. Future studies should therefore concentrate on processes to gain a better understanding
of interactions with maritime authorities and other stakeholders in the maritime ecosystem.

7. Conclusion, limitations, and future research

This study proposed a holistic conceptual management system for maritime safety. Based on the
literature review, it identified the steps in the Seven C’s management model as well as the hidden
criteria to improve the conceptual framework. The resulting model can serve as a tool for
shipping companies and legal authorities to build or review their policies. Procedures and
checklists that deal with policies can be developed regarding the idea selection criteria that this
study has identified.
 MARITIME POLICY & MANAGEMENT 19

A large number of ship management companies can support shipowners in successfully imple-
menting the ISM Code and meeting the demands of charterers or legal authorities. Hence, the
integrated model described in this article contributes towards securing the reputations of ship
management companies for flag and class authorities.
The classic approach to implementing safety management systems does not let stakeholders
develop innovations themselves. Most scholars certainly consider the classic SMS as a static system.
Thus, to ensure the future of the Seven C’s management system, this concept should be adapted to
changing economic, political, social, technological, and ecological environments. The conceptual
model has to be developed in the future depending on new research insights. Additionally, future
research can explore how shipping companies can further nurture and steer breakthrough ideas
towards implementation since it is only then that their full potential materializes. Safety manage-
ment systems are normally based on a ‘Plan, Do, Check, Act’ routine to ensure continuous
improvement. However, this study extends this to ‘Plan, Do, Check, Act, and Innovate’.
This study has several limitations. The proposed management model is based on a conceptual
framework. Therefore, when applying this model, it is important to keep in mind that the single
elements have several limitations, specifically different aspects of the ideators like personality and
cultural motives. This study could, therefore, be usefully extended or integrated with research from
other disciplines, such as design, information systems, organization theory, operations, public
policy, or strategy.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID
Sedat BAŞTUĞ http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7121-2882
Ender ASYALI http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4747-5391
Turgay BATTAL http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0710-4692

References
Aagaard, A. 2012. “Idea Management in Support of the Pharmaceutical Front End of Innovation.” International
Journal of Technology Policy and Management 12 (4): 373–386. doi:10.1504/IJTPM.2012.050138.
Ahmed, A. M. M. B. 2008. “Staff Suggestion Scheme (3ss) within the UAE Context: Implementation and Critical
Success Factors.” Education, Business and Society: Contemporary Middle Eastern Issues 2 (2): 153–167.
doi:10.1108/17537980910960717.
Allen, J., and C. Oppenheim. 1979. “The Overlap of US and Canadian Patent Literature with Journal Literature
Literature with Journal Literature.” World Patent Information 1 (2): 77–80. doi:10.1016/S0172-2190(79)90038-3.
Anderson, P. 2003. Cracking the Code: The Relevance of the ISM Code and Its Impact on Shipping Practices. London,
Great Britain: Nautical Institute.
Asche, G. 2017. “80% of Technical Information Found Only in Patents – Is There Proof of This?” World Patent
Information 48: 16–28. doi:10.1016/j.wpi.2016.11.004.
Asyali, E., and S. Bastug. 2014. “Influence of Scientific Management Principles on ISM Code.” Safety Science 68:
121–127. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2014.03.011.
Baez, M., and G. Convertino 2012. “Innovation Cockpit: A Dashboard for Facilitators in Idea Management.” Paper
presented at the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work Companion, Seattle,
Washington, United States, 47–48.
Bailey, B. P., and E. Horvitz 2010. “What’s Your Idea? A Case Study of A Grassroots Innovation Pipeline within
A Large Software Company.” Paper presented at the 28th international conference on human factors in computing
systems, Atlanta, March 2065–2074.
Banda, O. A. V., and F. Goerlandt. 2018. “A STAMP-Based Approach for Designing Maritime Safety Management
Systems.” Safety Science 109: 109–129. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2018.05.003.
20 S. BAŞTUĞ ET AL.

Bansemir, B., and A. K. Neyer 2009. “From Idea Management Systems to Interactive Innovation Management
Systems: Designing for Interaction and Knowledge Exchange”. Paper presented at the Wirtschaftsinformatik,
Nürnberg, January 861–870.
Barczak, G., A. Griffin, and K. Kahn. 2009. “Trends and Drivers of Success in NPD Practices: Results of the 2003
PDMA Best Practices Study.” Journal of Product Innovation Management 26 (1): 3–23. doi:10.1111/j.1540-
5885.2009.00331.x.
BASF. 2018. “Employee Ideas Save BASF around €58 Million Globally” 14 February 2020 https://www.basf.com/
global/en/media/news-releases/2018/04/p-18-171.html
Batalden, B. M., and A. K. Sydnes. 2014. “Maritime Safety and the ISM Code: A Study of Investigated Casualties and
Incidents.” WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs 13 (1): 3–25. doi:10.1007/s13437-013-0051-8.
Bentz, V., and J. Shapiro. 1998. “Mindful Enquiry in Social Research.” Critical Public Health 10 (1): 93–94.
doi:10.4135/9781452243412.
Bergendahl, M., and M. Magnusson. 2014. “Combining Collaboration and Competition: A Key to Improved Idea
Management?” European Journal of International Management 8 (5): 528–547. doi:10.1504/EJIM.2014.064603.
Bettoni, M., W. Bernhard, C. Eggs, and G. Schiller 2010. “Idea Management by Role Based Networked Learning.”
Paper presented at the 11th European conference on knowledge management, Portugal, 107–116.
Bhattacharya, S. 2009. “The Impact of the ISM Code on The Management of Occupational Health and Safety in The
Maritime Industry.” PhD diss., Cardiff University.
Bhattacharya, S. 2012. “The Effectiveness of the ISM Code: A Qualitative Enquiry.” Mar Policy 36 (2): 528–535.
doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2011.09.004.
Björk, J., and M. Magnusson. 2009. “Where Do Good Innovation Ideas Come From? Exploring the Influence of
Network Connectivity on Innovation Idea Quality.” Journal of Product Innovation Management 26 (6): 662–670.
doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2009.00691.x.
Boeddrich, H. J. 2004. “Ideas in the Workplace: A New Approach Towards Organizing the Fuzzy Front End of the
Innovation Process.” Creativity and Innovation Management 13 (4): 274–285. doi:10.1111/j.0963-
1690.2004.00316.x.
Bothos, E., D. Apostolou, and G. Mentzas. 2009. “Collective Intelligence for Idea Management with Internet-Based
Information Aggregation Markets.” Internet Research 19 (1): 26–41. doi:10.1108/10662240910927803.
Bothos, E., D. Apostolou, and G. Mentzas. 2012. “Collective Intelligence with Web-Based Information Aggregation
Markets: The Role of Market Facilitation in Idea Management.” Expert Systems with Applications 39: 1333–1345.
doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2011.08.014.
Brem, A., and K. I. Voigt. 2009. “Integration of Market Pull and Technology Push in the Corporate Front End and
Innovation Management - Insights from the German Software Industry.” Technovation 29 (5): 351–367.
doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2008.06.003.
Brem, A., and K.-I. Voigt. 2007. “Innovation Management in Emerging Technology Ventures - the Concept of an
Integrated Idea Management.” International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management 7 (3): 304–321.
doi:10.1504/IJTPM.2007.015113.
Bye, R. J., and A. L. Aalberg. 2020. “Why Do They Violate the Procedures?–An Exploratory Study within the
Maritime Transportation Industry.” Safety Science 123: 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2019.104538.
Carrier, C. 1998. “Employee Creativity and Suggestion Programs: An Empirical Study.” Creativity and Innovation
Management 7 (2): 62–72. doi:10.1111/1467-8691.00090.
Coffey, A., and P. Atkinson. 1996. Making Sense of Qualitative Data: Complementary Research Strategies. Cardiff:
Sage Publications.
Cooper, R. 2001. Winning at New Products. Cambridge: Perseus Publishing.
Cormican, K., and D. O’Sullivan. 2003. “A Collaborative Knowledge Management Tool for Product Innovation
Management.” International Journal of Technology Management 26 (1): 53–67. doi:10.1504/IJTM.2003.003144.
Daley, B. J., S. J. Durning, and D. M. Torre. 2016. “Using Concept Maps to Create Meaningful Learning in Medical
Education.” MedEdPublish 5: 11–29. doi:10.15694/mep.2016.000019.
Day, G. S., B. Gold, and T. D. Kuczmarski. 1994. “Significant Issues for the Future of Product Innovation.” Journal of
Product Innovation Management 11 (1): 69–75. doi:10.1111/1540-5885.1150460.
De Spiegelaere, S., G. Van Gyes, H. De Witte, W. Niesen, and G. Van Hootegem. 2014. “On the Relation of Job
Insecurity, Job Autonomy, Innovative Work Behaviour and the Mediating Effect of Work Engagement.” Creativity
and Innovation Management 23 (3): 318–330. doi:10.1111/caim.12079.
Dean, D. L., J. M. Hender, T. L. Rodgers, and E. L. Santanen. 2006. “Identifying Quality, Novel, and Creative Ideas:
Constructs and Scales for Idea Evaluation.” Journal of the Association for Information Systems 7 (10): 646–698.
doi:10.17705/1jais.00106.
Deichmann, D. 2012. “Idea Management: Perspectives from Leadership, Learning, and Network Theory.” PhD diss.,
Erasmus University Rotterdam.
Dionis, A., M. C. Adrián, J. A. González, S. R. Luis, F. Padrón, and A. Peña. 2016. “Implementation and Benefits of
Environmental Management System (Une-en ISO 14001: 2004 Standard) in Shipping Company.” Journal of
Maritime Research 13 (1): 79–83.
 MARITIME POLICY & MANAGEMENT 21

Ek, Å., and R. Akselsson. 2005. “Safety Culture on Board Six Swedish Passenger Ships.” Maritime Policy &
Management 32 (2): 159–176. doi:10.1080/03088830500097455.
Ekvall, G. 1971. Creativity at the Place of Work: A Study of Suggestors and Suggestion Systems in the Swedish
Mechanical Industry. Oxford, England: Routledge.
El Bassiti, L., and R. Ajhoun. 2013. “Toward an Innovation Management Framework: A Life-Cycle Model with an
Idea Management Focus.” International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology 4 (6): 551.
doi:10.7763/IJIMT.2013.V4.460.
Enkel, E., O. Gassmann, and H. Chesbrough. 2009. “Open R&D and Open Innovation: Exploring the Phenomenon.”
R&D Management 39 (4): 311–316. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9310.2009.00570.x.
European Maritime Safety Agency. 2016. “Annual Overview of Marine Casualties and Incidents 2016.” European
Maritime Safety Agency. Accessed Dec 10 2018. http://www.emsa.europa.eu/accident-investigation-publications/
annual-overview/download/4524/2713/23.html.
Fatur, P., and B. Likar. 2009. “The Development of a Performance Measurement Methodology for Idea
Management.” International Journal of Innovation and Learning 6 (4): 422-437. doi: 10.1504/IJIL.2009.024137.
Flinders, D. J. 1997. InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing: Steinar Kvale. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Flynn, M., L. Dooley, D. O’sullivan, and K. Cormican. 2003. “Idea Management for Organisational Innovation.”
International Journal of Innovation Management 7 (4): 417–442. doi:10.1142/S1363919603000878.
Galbraith, J. R. 1982. “Designing the Innovating Organization.” Organizational Dynamics 10 (3): 5-25.
Gamlin, J. N., R. Yourd, and V. Patrick. 2007. “Unlock Creativity with “Active” Idea Management.” Research
Technology Management 50 (1): 13–16. doi:10.1080/08956308.2007.11657413.
Gerlach, S., and A. Brem. 2017. “Idea Management Revisited: A Review of the Literature and Guide for
Implementation.” International Journal of Innovation Studies 1 (2): 144–161. doi:10.1016/j.ijis.2017.10.004.
Gish, L. 2011. “Experiences with Idea-Promoting Initiatives: Why They Don’t Always Work.” Paper presented at the
International Conference on Engineering Design, Denmark, August, 1–10.
Glassman, B. S. 2009. “Improving Idea Generation and Idea Management in order to Better Manage the Fuzzy Front
End of Innovation”, PhD diss., Purdue University.
Graham, D., and T. T. Bachmann. 2004. Ideation: The Birth and Death of Ideas. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Hannabuss, S. 1996. “Research Interviews.” New Library World 97 (5): 22–30. doi:10.1108/03074809610122881.
Hender, J. M., D. L. Dean, T. L. Rodgers, and J. F. Nunamaker Jr. 2002. “An Examination of the Impact of Stimuli
Type and GSS Structure on Creativity: Brainstorming versus Non-Brainstorming Techniques in A GSS
Environment.” Journal of Management Information Systems 18 (4): 59–85. doi:10.1080/07421222.2002.11045705.
Holtzblatt, L., and M. L. Tierney 2011. “Measuring the Effectiveness of Social Media on an Innovation Process.” Paper
presented at the CHI’11 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vancouver, May, 697–712.
Hrastinski, S., N. Z. Kviselius, H. Ozan, and M. Edenius 2010. “A Review of Technologies for Open Innovation:
Characteristics and Future Trends.” Paper presented at the 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences, Hawaii, United States, January, 1–10.
Huberman, A. M. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Thousend Oaks, London/New Dehli:
Sage.
Hycner, R. H. 1985. “Some Guidelines for the Phenomenological Analysis of Interview Data.” Human Studies 8 (3):
279–303. doi:10.1007/BF00142995.
Igwe, I. S., E. A. Ogbonnaya, T. J. Ajoko, and T. M. Ombe. 2019. “Experience from ISM Code as Implementation
Model for the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006.” European Journal of Engineering Research and Science 4 (5):
50–57. doi:10.24018/ejers.2019.4.5.1082.
IMO. 2005. Role of the Human Element – Assessment of the Impact and Effectiveness of Implementation of the ISM
Code. London: International Maritime Organization.
IMO - International Maritime Organization. 1996. STCW Convention Resolutions of the 1995 Conference. STCW
Code. London: IMO Publication.
Iversen, H., K. Kristensen, C. S. Liland, T. Berman, N. Enger, and T. Losnedahl 2009, “Idea Management: A Life-
Cycle Perspective on Innovation”, Paper presented at the 2009 IEEE International Technology Management
Conference (ICE), Leiden, Netherlands, 1–8.
Jiménez-Narvaez, L. M., and M. Gardoni. 2015. “Harnessing Idea Management in the Process of Technology Transfer
at Canadian Space Agency.” International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing 9 (3): 247–252.
doi:10.1007/s12008-014-0254-z.
Karakasnaki, M., P. Vlachopoulos, A. Pantouvakis, and N. Bouranta. 2018. “ISM Code Implementation: An
Investigation of Safety Issues in the Shipping Industry.” WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs 17 (3): 461–474.
doi:10.1007/s13437-018-0153-4.
Karanjikar, M. R. 2007. “Funnel-Reverse-Funnel: The Future Model of Idea Management in New Product
Development.” Futures Research Quarterly 23 (3): 21.
Klein, D., and U. Lechner 2010. “Ideenmanagement im Rahmen von organisatorischem Wandel.”, Paper presented at
the MKWI, München, Munich, Germany, 1831–1842.
22 S. BAŞTUĞ ET AL.

Kristiansen, S. 2013. Maritime Transportation: Safety Management and Risk Analysis. New York: Routledge.
Kuronen, J., and U. Tapaninen. 2009. Maritime Safety in the Gulf of Finland. Review on Policy Instruments. Turku:
Publications from the Centre for Maritime Studies.
Lappalainen, F. J., J. Kuronen, and U. Tapaninen. 2012. “Evaluation of the ISM Code in the Finnish Shipping
Companies.” Journal for Maritime Research (Print) 9 (1): 23–32.
Lendel, V., D. Moravčíková, and M. Latka. 2017. “Organizing Innovation Activities in Company.” Procedia
Engineering 192: 615–620. doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2017.06.106.
Lindross, M. 2006. “Developing Front-End Idea Management and Information Processing.” Innovation Management
Institute Working Paper.
Löwer, M., and J. E. Heller 2014. “PLM Reference Model for Integrated Idea and Innovation Management.”, Paper
presented at the IFIP International Conference on Product Lifecycle Management, Heidelberg, Germany, July,
257–266.
Marine Accident Investigation Branch, MAIB. 2014, April. “Report on the Investigation of the Grounding of Danio
off Longstone” Report No 8/2014, Farne Islands, England, 16 March 2013.https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/
media/547ʹC6f38ed915d4c10000013/Danio.pdf
Marine Accident Investigation Branch, MAIB. 2016, December. “Report on the Investigation of the Collision between
the General Cargo Ship Daroja and the Oil Bunker Barge Erin Wood 4 Nautical Miles South-east of Peterhead”
Report No 27/2016, Scotland, 29 August 2015 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/585a70e9ed915d0ae
b0000ea/MAIBInvReport27_2016.pdf
Marine Accident Investigation Branch, MAIB. 2017 December. “Report on the Investigation of the Grounding of
Muros Haisborough Sand North Sea” Report No 22/2017, 3 December 2016.https://assets.publishing.service.gov.
uk/media/59e601e7ed915d6aadcdaf18/MAIBInvReport22_2017.pdf
Marine Accident Investigation Branch, MAIB. 2018A, October, “Report on the Investigation of Heavy Contact with
the Quay and Two Shore Cranes by the UK Registered Container Ship CMA CGM Centaurus at Jebel Ali” Report
No 17/2018, United Arab Emirates, 4 May 2017 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/
5bc74a8ee5274a363bcf7b4c/2018_-_17_-_CMA_CGM_Centaurus.pdf
Marine Accident Investigation Branch, MAIB. 2018B, June. “Grounding of the General Cargo Vessel Ruyter Rathlin
Island” Report No 11/2018, UK, 10 October 2017 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5b30b379ed915
d587f69eee6/MAIBInvReport11_2018.pdf
Marine Accident Investigation Branch, MAIB. 2019A, April. “Safety Digest, Lessons from Marine Accident” Reports
No 1/2019 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/
790251/2019-SD1-MAIBSafetyDigest.pdf
Marine Accident Investigation Branch, MAIB. 2019B, October. “Reporton the Investigation of the Grounding of the
General Cargo Vessel Priscilla on Pentland Skerries, Pentland Firth” Report No 12/2019, Scotland 18 July 2018.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5d93631a40f0b65e5ec0dd35/2019-12-Priscilla.pdf
Matthew, R. C. 1997. An Introduction to Competence-Based Training with Framework for Vocational Qualifications in
Maritime Education and Training. London: The Retro Company.
Maxwell, J. A. 2012. Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. London: Sage publications.
Mejia, M. 2001. “Performance Criteria for the International Safety Management (ISM) Code.”, Paper presented at the
2nd general assembly of IAMU International Association of Maritime Universities, Kobe, October, 2–5
Miecznik, B. 2013. Suchfeldbestimmung und Ideenbewertung: Methoden und Prozesse in den frühen Phasen des
Innovationsprozesses, 143–168. London: Springer-Gabler.
Mišković, D., I. Jelaska, and R. Ivče. 2019. “Attitudes of Experienced Seafarers as Predictor of ISM Code
Implementation: A Croatian Example.” Promet-Traffic&Transportation 31 (5): 569–579. doi:10.7307/ptt.
v31i5.3118.
Moos, B., H. T. Wagner, D. Beimborn, and T. Weitzel 2011. “The Role of Innovation Governance and Knowledge
Management for Innovation Success.”, Paper presented at the 2011 44th Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences, Hawaii, January, 1–10.
Moustakas, C. 1994. Phenomenological Research Methods. USA: Sage publications.
Neagoe, L. N., and V. M. Klein 2009. “Employee Suggestion System (Kaizen Teian) - the Bottom-Up Approach for
Productivity Improvement.”, Paper presented at the International conference on economic engineering and
manufacturing systems, Romania, November, 361–366.
Nilsson, L., M. Elg, and B. Bergman. 2002. “Managing Ideas for the Development of New Products.” International
Journal of Technology Management 24 (5–6): 498–513. doi:10.1504/IJTM.2002.003067.
Novak, D. J., and B. Gowin. 1984. Learning How to Learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.
New Oxford Dictionary of English. 1998. “competency”. Accessed Dec 10 2019.
Oltedal, H. A., and O. A. Engen. 2010. “Tanker versus Dry cargo–The Use of Safety Management Systems within
Norwegian Dry Cargo Shipping.” In Reliability, Risk and Safety, J. M. Ale, I. A. Papazoglou, E. Zio
(Eds), 2118–2125. Florida: Taylor & Francis Group.
Pantouvakis, A., and M. Karakasnaki. 2016. “An Empirical Assessment of ISM Code Effectiveness on Performance:
The Role of ISO Certification.” Marit Policy Manag 43 (7): 874–886. doi:10.1080/03088839.2016.1169451.
 MARITIME POLICY & MANAGEMENT 23

ParisMOU. 2018. “An Inspections results, KPI's.” Paris MOU. Accessed Dec 10 2019. https://www.parismou.org/
inspection-search/inspections-results-kpis.
Perez, A., F. Larrinaga, and E. Curry 2013. “The Role of Linked Data and Semantic-Technologies for Sustainability
Idea Management.”, Paper presented at the International Conference on Software Engineering and Formal
Methods, Madrid, September, 306–312.
Poveda, G., A. Westerski, and C. A. Iglesias 2012. “Application of Semantic Search in Idea Management Systems.”,
Paper presented at the 2012 International Conference for Internet Technology and Secured Transactions, London,
December, 230–236.
Proctor, T., K. H. Tan, and K. Fuse. 2004. “Cracking the Incremental Paradigm of Japanese Creativity.” Creativity and
Innovation Management 13 (4): 207–215. doi:10.1111/j.0963-1690.2004.00310.x.
Pun, K. F., R. C. M. Yam, and W. G. Lewis. 2003. “Safety Management System Registration in the Shipping Industry.”
Int J Qual Reliab Manag 20 (6): 704–721. doi:10.1108/02656710310482140.
Pundt, A., and B. Schyns. 2005. “Führung im Ideenmanagement: Der Zusammenhang zwischen transformationaler
Führung und dem individuellen Engagement im Ideenmanagement.” Zeitschrift Für Personalpsychologie 4 (2): 55-
65. doi: 10.1026/1617-6391.4.2.55.
Robson, C. 2002. Real World Research. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Rowbotham, L., and N. Bohlin. 1996. Structured Idea Management As A Value-Adding Process. Massachusetts: Prism-
Cambridge.
Saatcioglu, A. 2002. “Using Grounded Inquiry to Explore Idea Management for Innovativeness.” Academy of
Management Proceedings 1: 1–6. doi:10.5465/apbpp.2002.7519452.
Sadala, M. L. A., and R. D. C. F. Adorno. 2002. “Phenomenology as A Method to Investigate the Experience Lived:
A Perspective from Husserl and Merleau Ponty’s Thought.” Journal of Advanced Nursing 37 (3): 282–293.
doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.2002.02071.x.
Sadriev, A. R., and O. V. Pratchenko. 2014. “Idea Management in the System of Innovative Management.”
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 5 (12): 155–158. doi:10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n12p155.
Sandström, C., and J. Björk. 2010. “Idea Management Systems for A Changing Innovation Landscape.” International
Journal of Product Development 11 (3): 310–324. doi:10.1504/IJPD.2010.033964.
Schuring, R. W., and H. Luijten. 2001. “Reinventing Suggestion Systems for Continuous Improvement.”
International Journal of Technology Management 22 (4): 359-372. doi: 10.1504/IJTM.2001.002969.
Sekaran, U., and R. Bougie. 2016. Research Methods Dor Business: A Skill Building Approach. West Sussex: John Wiley
& Sons.
Shani, N., and P. Divyapriya. 2011. “A Role of Innovative Idea Management in HRM.” International Journal of
Management 2 (1): 69–78.
Silverman, D. 2013. Doing Qualitative Research: A Practical Handbook. California: SAGE publications limited.
Størkersen, K. V., S. Antonsen, and T. Kongsvik. 2017. “One Size Fits All? Safety Management Regulation of Ship
Accidents and Personal Injuries.” Journal of Risk Research 20 (9): 1154–1172. doi:10.1080/13669877.2016.1147487.
Taylor, F. W. 1947. Scientific Management. New York and London: Harper and Brothers Publishers.
Thai, V. V., and D. Grewal. 2006. “The Maritime Safety Management System (MSMS): A Survey of the International
Shipping Community.” Marit Econ Logist 8 (3): 287–310. doi:10.1057/palgrave.mel.9100161.
Thomas, M. J. 2012. A Systematic Review of the Effectiveness of Safety Management Systems (No. AR-2011-148).
Canberra, Australia: Australian Transport Safety Bureau.
Tung, W. F., S. T. Yuan, and J. R. Tsai. 2009. “A Custom Collaboration Service System for Idea Management of
Mobile Phone Design.” Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries 19 (5): 494–509.
doi:10.1002/hfm.20147.
Tunidau, J., and V. V. Thai. 2010. “Critical Factors for Successful Implementation of the ISM Code in Some Pacific
Islands States.” WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs 9 (1): 63–80. doi:10.1007/BF03195166.
Uys, T., and C. Puttergill. 2000. Sampling. UK: Rossouw.
Vagn, A. R., C. Clausen, and L. Gish 2013. “Towards A New Perspective of Managing Ideas in Front-End Innovation
as Actor Networks.” Paper presented at the 19th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED13)
Design For Harmonies, Seoul, August, 1–10
Vecchio-Sadus, A. M., and S. Griffiths. 2004. “Marketing Strategies for Enhancing Safety Culture.” Safety Science 42
(7): 601–619. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2003.11.001.
Verespej, M. A. 1992. “Suggestion Systems Gain New Luster.” Industry Week 241 (22): 11-18.
Voigt, K. I., and A. Brem. 2006. "Integrated Idea Management in Emerging Technology Ventures". Paper presented at
the annual meeting for the 2006 IEEE International Conference on Management of Innovation and Technology.
Singapore, June. 211-215.
Westerski, A., and C. Iglesias 2011. “Exploiting Structured Linked Data in Enterprise Knowledge Management
Systems: An Idea Management Case Study.” Paper presented at the IEEE International Enterprise Distributed
Object Computing Conference Workshop, Spain, October, 395–403.
Westerski, A., C. A. Iglesias, and F. T. Rico 2010. “A Model for Integration and Interlinking of Idea Management
Systems.” Paper presented at the Metadata and Semantic Research, Spain, October, 183–194.
24 S. BAŞTUĞ ET AL.

Westerski, A., T. Dalamagas, and C. A. Iglesias. 2013. “Classifying and Comparing Community Innovation in Idea
Management Systems.” Decision Support Systems 54 (3): 1316–1326. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2012.12.004.
Wheelwright, S. C., and K. B. Clark. 1992. Revolutionizing Product Development: Quantum Leaps in Speed, Efficiency,
and Quality. USA: Simon and Schuster.
Wilson, G., A. Duplessis, and A. Marx. 2010. “The Use of Suggestion Systems as A Tool to Solicit Input from Internal
Customers.” Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business 2 (7): 212–223.
Wright, L. T. 1996. “Exploring the In-Depth Interview as A Qualitative Research Technique with American and
Japanese Firms.” Marketing Intelligence & Planning 14 (6): 59–64. doi:10.1108/02634509610182913.
Xie, L., and P. Zhang. 2010. “Idea Management System for Team Creation.” Journal of Software 5 (11): 1187–1194.
doi:10.4304/jsw.5.11.1187-1194.
Zaltman, G., R. Duncan, and J. Holbek. 1973. Innovations and Organizations. London: John Wiley & Sons.
Zejnilovic, L., P. Oliveira, and F. M. Veloso. 2012. “Employees as User Innovators: An Empirical Investigation of an
Idea Management System.” SSRN 1: 1–38. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2083422.