Appendix C

Notes on the Matrix

Background

A primary goal of the workshop was close examination of the responsibility and authority of UNOLS diving cruise participants. This needed to be done so that workshop recommendations established congruency between the items and events that each cruise participant had authority over and those that the participant was responsible for. This is an exceedingly complex task, made more formidable by the conflict between the tradition that a ship's Master is answerable for all that happens, and the reality that research divers, once they are in the water, are not in contact with the ship and operate independent of any outside control.

The matrix was designed as a tool that would supply a structure for evaluating the assignment of authority and responsibility for each component of a cruise to all personnel involved in the cruise. It was designed to provide:

• A) a starting point for the workshop that would focus on the critical issues;
• B) a level of objectivity to the questions raised, particularly those involving authority and control;
• C) an objective means of dissecting the administrative layers involved with shipboard diving;
• D) a framework for discussing the complex, interrelated topics; and
• E) a check for conditions where a solution would exacerbate or cloud another issue(s).

The actual development of the workshop version of the matrix included:

• A) A list of all the cruise participants (individuals and organizations) who might be involved in a diving cruise was prepared. This list was arranged into functional units, such as ship's personnel, science party and diving administration.
• B) Similarly, the events (real as well as conceivable) of a diving cruise were compiled and arranged into chronological order.
• C) The cruise participants were placed on the ordinate of a chart and the events on the abscissa.
• D) The matrix was circulated so that overlooked cruise participants or events could be added.
• E) The matrix was applied to case studies from diving cruises as a check for completeness.

At that point the matrix was sent out to all workshop members. They were asked to inspect it and to apply it to any diving cruise case studies they had.

Early in the workshop, a session was held to present a short example of the application of the matrix to a case study. The workshop participants divided into three task groups to examine the matrix in detail. Each task group was carefully designed to include members from each constituency (operator, science, diving administration). One task group was chaired by a representative of each constituency. The task groups were asked to perform two assignments:

• A) Review each cruise event, determine which listed individuals and organizations were involved in that event (adding any overlooked participants) and rank the participants' involvement with respect to their own subjective appreciation of the participants' level of combined authority and responsibility.
• B) conduct a detailed examination and review of several case studies and determine that their rankings were appropriate.

The workshop members' initial impression was that the matrix might be an unreasonable amount of work; however, all the task groups completed their review and at least one case study in the allotted three-hour time period. There was agreement that the matrix met the three goals listed above.

It was more useful than a simple checklist. The matrix deals in two dimensions, while a checklist is unidimensional. Since the major workshop task deals with interfacing groups of people, the matrix's contribution to identifying the points (and effects) of interaction was vital.

Three assumptions were identified and concern over them was expressed:

• A) Different institutions conduct their business in different ways using different structures, titles, etc. This complicates deliberations and could lead to misconstruing findings and recommendations.
• B) The matrix design was based on cruises funded through NSF which are conducted aboard UNOLS vessels. This could bias the matrix analysis and results and lessen the applicability of findings and recommendations to other types of diving cruises (e.g., platforms of opportunity, NOAA, institutionally funded cruises, EPA).
• C) The matrix starts with proposal writing and is oriented to events and actions. It does not address the skills, knowledge and experience (or lack thereof) that the various cruise participants bring to the process. As a result, findings and recommendations concerning the training of cruise participants will be missed by analysis of the matrix.

Specific recommendations for changes in the matrix included:

• A) Addition of a line for specialized training in the diving techniques to be employed during a cruise such as a dive that is conducted at the start of the cruise.
• B) Addition of a 'brief dive team' item which includes 'assign dive team roles.'
• C) Addition of an 'identify potential hazards on site' line.
• D) Addition of a line for keeping watch on the dive team from the ship.
• E) Addition of a line for medical oxygen.
• F) Combination of the 'small boat equipment' and the 'small boat emergency equipment' lines.
• G) Elimination of lines concerning special personnel which could be subsumed under other categories.
• H) Elimination of the redundancy of separate lines for specifying, obtaining, inspecting and approving.

The workshop participants thought that, in a fully developed form, the matrix would serve as an effective guide for assuring compliance with regulations and standards. It would also be of help in analyzing accidents/incidents with an eye to clearer definition of responsibilities so that problems could be avoided in the future. The participants recommended that further development of the matrix be organized to illustrate that a cruise has three phases where different primary groups interact:

• A) At the start of a program the Principal Investigator develops a proposal and communicates frequently with the Marine Office and home campus diving administration.
• B) The next phase begins when the proposal has been funded and preparation for the cruise begins. This phase involves the campus diving administration of the home and operating institutions and the science party interacting in a variety of ways.
• C) During the operational phase, the interactions are primarily between the people on board the ship, the Master, crew, science party, On-Board Diving Supervisor. etc.

Cases of equal ranking of responsibility were Identified by all the task groups. This did not mean that everyone identified had to perform the task, or check on the item, but that all those identified had veto power over the outcome. For example, approving the emergency plan was seen to involve the Marine Office, the ship's Master, the home and operator Diving Safety Officers and campus diving administrations and the On-Board Diving Supervisor. All these participants did not have to be involved in the preparation of the plan, but all of them had the right to send it back to the drawing board.

Fifteen different matrix cells where the Master was involved were identified by one task group. This result surprised the task group. It was seen as a clear-cut step in the right direction and was cited as a valuable contribution of the matrix that should be brought out if there is future development of the matrix.

There exists, by design, a high correlation between the matrix, the UNOLS Shipboard Safety Standards, the AAUS standards and the diving safety manuals of most institutions. Future work on the matrix design will recognize these existing systems of standard practices. As much as possible the matrix will also reflect the non-formal practices that currently assure cruise participant communication (e.g., the Marine Office contacts the Master. the Master contacts the bridge or engine room and vice versa).

It was suggested that a condensed form of the matrix be used as a checklist. If all the items listed on the matrix were part of a checklist, that would be the basic backbone of what should take place on a cruise. Such a checklist should start even before the proposal is submitted, since it would result in the early identification of requirements for diving-safety-related equipment and personnel. A Principal Investigator would thus cover all the safety bases and there would be no surprises after a budget has been approved.

Summary:

In a fully developed form, the matrix would serve as an effective guide for assuring compliance with regulations and standards. It would also be of help in analyzing accidents/incidents with an eye to clearer definition of responsibilities so that problems could be avoided in the future. The workshop recommends that efforts be made to develop the matrix further.