Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Karahalios, H; Yang, Z; Wang, J
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: HE, HF
The shipping industry operates in a regulatory framework, where the International Maritime Organization (IMO) is the leading regulatory body. The role of the IMO is to propose maritime regulations to its member states. The successful implementation of a maritime regulation depends on how many member states adopt it. However, many maritime regulations are not adequately implemented worldwide. As a result, ship operators have found themselves in an uncomfortable\ud position in developing their business. This paper proposes an extendable and applicable methodology involving a System of Hierarchical Scorecards (SHS) to measure the implementation cost and benefit analysis of a newly introduced or existing maritime regulation by ship operators. The regulators may use the results in evaluating newly introduced and/or existing regulations through taking into account the economical burden that will be generated to ship operators. In this paper, System of Hierarchical Scorecards (SHS) is extended to demonstrate its applicability on evaluating a stakeholder’s organisation with regard to his regulatory implementation performance\ud by the means of a case study.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 22. Karahalios H., Yang Z.L., Williams V., Wang J. (2011a). A proposed system of hierarchical scorecards to assess the implementation of maritime regulations, Safety Science, Vol.49, pp. 450-462.
    • 23. Knapp S., Franses P.H. (2009). Does ratification matter and do major conventions improve safety and decrease pollution in shipping? Marine Policy Vol. 33, pp. 826-846.
    • 24. Knudsen O., Hassler B. (2011). IMO legislation and its implementation: Accident risk, vessel deficiencies and national administrative practices Marine Policy Vol. 35, pp. 201- 207.
    • 25. Kwong K.C., Bai H. (2003). Determining the importance weights for the customer requirements in QFD using a fuzzy AHP with an extent analysis approach. IIE Transactions, Vol. 35, pp. 619-626.
    • 26. Lee T.R, , Nha Le T.P., Genovese A., Lenny S.C. Koh L.S.C. (2012). Using FAHP to determine the criteria for partner's selection within a green supply chain The case of hand tool industry in Taiwan Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management Vol. 23 (1), pp. 25-55.
    • 27. Li K.X., Cullinane K. (2003). An economic approach to maritime risk management and safety regulation. Maritime Economics & Logistics, Vol. 5, pp. 268-284.
    • 28. Linstone H.A., Turoff M. (1975). The Delphi method: Techniques and applications. Addison Wesley, Reading, MA.
    • 29. Lyridis D.V., Fyrvik T., Kapetanis G.N., Ventikos N., Anaxagorou P., Uthaug E., Psaraftis H.N. (2005). Optimizing shipping company operations using business process modelling. Maritime Policy & Management, Vol. 32(4), pp. 403-420.
    • 30. Panayides P.M. (2003). Competitive strategies and organizational performance in ship management. Maritime Policy & Management, Vol. 30(2), pp. 123-140.
    • 31. Panayides P.M., Cullinane K.P.B. (2002). The vertical disintegration of ship management: choice criteria for third party selection and evaluation. Maritime Policy & Management, Vol. 29(1), pp. 45-64.
    • 32. Perepelkin M., Knapp S., Perepelkin G., Pooter M. (2010). An improved methodology to measure flag performance for the shipping industry. Marine Policy 34, pp. 395-405
    • 33. Plomaritou E., Plomaritou V., Giziakis K. (2011). Shipping Marketing & Customer Orientation: The Psychology & Buying Behaviour of Charterer & Shipper in Tramp & Liner Market. Journal of Management, Vol.16(1), pp. 57-89.
    • 34. Progoulaki M., Theotokas I. (2010). Human resource management and competitive advant age: An application of resource-based view in the shipping industry. Marine Policy, Vol. 34, 575-582.
    • 35. Psarros G., Skjong R., Eide M.F. (2010). Under-reporting of maritime accidents. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol.42, pp. 619-625.
    • 36. Punniyamoorthy, M. and Murali, R. (2008). Balanced score for the balanced scorecard: a benchmarking tool. Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 15, pp. 420-43.
    • 37. Saaty T.L. (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, Vol. 15, pp. 234-281.
    • 38. Saaty T.L. (1994). How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process Interfaces, Vol. 24(6), pp. 19-43.
    • 39. Shafia M.A., Mazdeh M.M., Vahedi M. and Pournader M. (2011). Applying fuzzy balanced scorecard for evaluating the CRM performance Industrial Management & Data Systems Vol. 111(7), pp. 1105-1135.
    • 40. Sii H.S., Wang J. (2003). A design-decision support framework for evaluation of design options/proposals using a composite structure methodology based on the approximate reasoning approach and the evidential reasoning method. Proceedings of the I MECH E Part E Journal of Process Mechanical Engineering, Vol. 217(1), pp. 59-76.
    • 41. Silos J.M ,Piniella F., J.Monedero J.,J.Walliser J. (2012) Trends in the global market for crews: A case study. Marine Policy Vol.36, pp 845-858
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article