seatec - Finnish marine technology review 2/2016 - Page 10

A ccording to a recent University of top priority as such. On the list of desired the use of a quality system as such. Ade- Turku study (composed by Brahea, features, ‘Necessary certification (e.g. CE quate proof of expertise must be provided, the Centre for Maritime Studies) top qual- markings)’ is ranked 11th. With a grade of of course, but this can be achieved via e.g. ities in a subcontractor are perceived to 3.73/5, the certification issue is assessed references, recommendations and audits. be the ability to stick to the schedules, to be between ‘important’ and ‘somewhat The report also shows that ‘Neces- reliability, quality and know-how. These important’ (and a lot closer to the afore- sary certification’ is one rare area where issues keep surfacing in the report time mentioned, one may add). the study participants do not see eye-toeye, as is the case with most other issues. and again. In addition, when looking into the development efforts – and the reasons NICE TO HAVE: QUALITY SYSTEM? The views on certification are, in fact, quite that led to the termination of subcontract- The failure of certification to make it to mixed: some value it quite high, while oth- ing – this very same criteria was cited. TOP10 is explained, in part, by the report’s ers downplay its significance. For example, finding that most customers do not require the interviewed shipyards do not require Being certified, however, is not a 8 seatec 2/2016