NURS 8163 Principles of Healthcare Ethics & Genetics

Choose a genomic case study (relative to current practice) and create a PowerPoint presentation for submission. The presentation should include a summary of the topic and a presentation of a "case."   Be sure to review the rubric as you complete this assignment. Voice over or video is not required and please note that some formats will not allow the notes to be reviewed. Therefore, please include all relevant information in the presentation. 

                                                                                              RUBRICS

Content:             Case is summarized with constructs well defined. Evident that student synthesized learning. Includes introduction, summary and implications for practice.

Organization:     Slides are easy to read and flow logically. No longer than 25 slides.

Formatting:        Presentation with less than 3 spelling/grammatical errors. In-text citations included. Reference slide included at end with appropriate APA format.

                                                                                              TEXTBOOK

Lashley, F. R. (2023). Essentials of genetics in nursing practice (4th ed.). Springer Publishing Company.

Prepare a research paper on the topic – Innovative Funding Prospects. (Note that traditional debt funding and traditional equity funding are not considered to be innovative.) Submission Instruc

Goal:  Prepare a research paper on the topic - Innovative Funding Prospects. (Note that traditional debt funding and traditional equity funding are not considered to be innovative.)

Submission Instructions: 

• The paper is to be clear and concise and students will lose points for improper grammar, punctuation, and misspelling.
• The paper is to a minimum of 1000 words in length, current APA style, excluding title and references, with support from at least 3 references cited throughout paper. *One reference needs to be from my textbook, Entrepreneurship:Theory, process, practice by Donald Kuratko.
• Your paper will be reviewed for plagiarism through Turnitin.

Hide 

Module 6 Reading Assignment • Check out the module 6 videos. • Read the second half The Screwtape Letters, Letters 15-31. Module Tasks Answer the following questions and respond to the postings of at

Module 6 Reading Assignment

• Check out the module 6 videos.

• Read the second half The Screwtape Letters, Letters 15-31.

Module Tasks

Answer the following questions and respond to the postings of at least two other

students. You want to write ~150 words per question for this module given there are 3

questions to answer. Responses should be ~50 words.

1. From Letters 15-31, pick one that is not discussed in the lectures, summarize it, and

identify the main ideas within it. Also tell us: why does this letter stand out for you?

2. Consider one of the virtues or vices discussed in the lectures (humility, gluttony, anxiety,

chastity). What new insight does Screwtape offer on the life of virtue?

3. Evaluate the Screwtape Letters overall. From your reading, what are its major strengths

and weakneses?

A leader needs to have a vision in order to inspire and motivate their followers.

Assume you are a college professor instructing your students about the basics of leadership. Prepare a speech, teaching your students the following:

• Explore the concept of organizational leadership.
• Explain at least three leadership styles or models.
• Summarize the relationship between leadership models and styles.
• What is the role of a vision statement in regard to leadership?
• What is the role of a mission statement in regard to leadership?

Write out your speech and include at least one reference. Specifically refer to a leader’s stance/traits when writing your speech. Utilizing these traits will help you gain the influence necessary for the key points to resonate with your audience.

Your submission should be at least three pages in length, not including any reference pages. Adhere to APA Style when creating citations and references for this assignment.

 Part 6 – Capacity Requirements Planning - Develop an Excel based Capacity Requirements Plan for your chosen product. Use the format and logic as shown in the Integrated Learning Project Example found on . Review the Kaptur presentation for this week, as well as pages 439 through 478 in your Logistics textbook. Your CRP Excel file will be accompanied by a written assignment containing:

• Details on how this module could be implemented (assignment management process, who should be involved, and why, etc.) within the chosen firm (300 words)
• Details on how this module could be operated (management process, key factors in the CRP operating policy, who should be responsible and why, the users of this modules data, etc.) within the chosen firm (300 words)
• What could be the future sources of inaccuracy in the data contained in the module (300 words)
• A comparison of any 2 CRP schedule formats and logic taken from ERP Software or other CRP types from your own research of available CRP software (300 words)

Part 7 – Assignment Plan – Develop a time phased assignment plan for the implementation of an ERP system at your selected firm. Review the assigned Learn material, as well as pages 511 through 551 in your Logistics textbook. Your time phased assignment plan Excel file will be accompanied by a written assignment containing:

• Overall structure of the ERP implementation plan detailing responsibilities and timing (300 words)
• Details on the Education and Training activities of the plan, their sequencing and timing (300 words)
• Details on the key activities in the Bills of Materials sub-assignment to achieve a company document with 98% accuracy (300 words)
• Details on the key activities in the Warehouse sub-assignment to achieve a minimum of 95% accuracy (300 words)
• Details on the key activities in the Master Production Schedule sub-assignment to achieve a 98% customer service accuracy (300 words)

Part 8 – Final Submission – The final integrated Excel ERP working model for your chosen firm, due at the end of week 8, will tie all the preceding modules together into a fully integrated working ERP model in Excel. The integrated modules will include, Master Production Schedule, Bill of Materials, Materials Requirements Planning, Capacity Planning, Distribution Requirements Planning and Shop Floor Control. The Excel file will be submitted simultaneous with the following written report. The final course report would be about 3,000 words (excluding references and appendices), much of which would have been accumulated over the preceding 6 weeks.

• The final submission will also include a written management report detailing (1) a recommendation for implementation based on a cost / benefits analysis (2) implementation assignment plan with responsibilities, (3) a justified recommendation for an ERP system (e.g. SAP, or other) and its operation (local or cloud processing, scope of application (national, global, etc.)

NURS-FPX4010 Leading People, Processes, and Organizations in Interprofessional Practice

Assessment 2: Interview and Interdisciplinary Issue Identification Paper

Course and Assessment Metadata

Course: NURS-FPX4010 Leading People, Processes, and Organizations in Interprofessional Practice (BSN, FlexPath)

Institution Type: RN-to-BSN undergraduate nursing leadership and interprofessional practice course

Assessment Label: Assessment 2 – Individual Written Assignment

Assessment Type: Interview-based analysis and interdisciplinary issue identification paper

Length: 3–4 page paper (approximately 1,050–1,400 words, excluding title page and references)

Weighting: Typically 20–25% of course grade

Submission Format: Word-processed document, double-spaced, APA 7th edition style

Assessment Overview

Leadership in interprofessional practice depends on understanding how front-line clinicians experience collaboration and where they perceive gaps in people, processes, and organisational systems. This assessment requires students to conduct a brief semi-structured interview with a practising clinician outside nursing, then analyse the conversation to identify one priority interdisciplinary issue suitable for a future change or improvement plan.

The task develops students’ ability to gather qualitative insights from practice, connect findings to leadership and change theory, and formulate a clear problem statement that can guide future project work. Writing must remain structured, concise, and evidence-informed.

Learning Outcomes Assessed

By completing this assessment, students will be able to:

• Plan and conduct an ethical interview with a non-nursing health professional.

• Identify a priority interdisciplinary issue affecting people, processes, and outcomes.

• Analyse interview findings using leadership and change frameworks.

• Justify why the issue is suitable for an interdisciplinary improvement initiative.

• Produce a scholarly APA-formatted paper integrating interview data and literature.

Assessment Task

Step 1: Select and Recruit an Interview Participant

Identify one non-nursing professional who collaborates regularly with nurses, such as:

• Physician

• Pharmacist

• Physiotherapist

• Social worker

• Occupational therapist

• Dietitian

• Psychologist

Requirements:

• Minimum one year of experience in current role.

• Obtain verbal consent.

• Maintain confidentiality and de-identify all details.

Step 2: Conduct a Semi-Structured Interview

Prepare 5–8 open-ended questions addressing:

• Typical collaboration patterns with nurses

• Communication strengths and weaknesses

• Examples of successful or challenging teamwork

• Barriers to collaboration such as workflow or culture

• Suggestions for improvement

Take written notes and exclude patient identifiers.

Step 3: Summarise Interview Context and Insights

In approximately 1–1.5 pages:

• Describe the participant’s role and setting.

• Summarise major collaboration themes.

• Identify at least two strengths and two challenges.

• Provide brief paraphrased examples of situations discussed.

Step 4: Identify a Priority Interdisciplinary Issue

In approximately 0.5–1 page:

• Select one issue affecting people, processes, and outcomes.

• Write a concise problem statement including who is affected, where it occurs, and consequences.

• Explain why the issue is a priority.

Step 5: Analyse Using Leadership and Change Concepts

In approximately 1–1.5 pages:

• Apply one leadership framework and one change model.

• Analyse how organisational and leadership factors contribute to the issue.

• Support analysis with 3–4 recent peer-reviewed sources.

• Explain why the issue is suitable for an interdisciplinary improvement initiative.

Step 6: Structure, Style, and Referencing

Paper Structure:

• Title page

• Introduction

• Interview context and insights

• Problem identification

• Leadership and change analysis

• Conclusion

• References

Formatting Requirements:

• Double-spaced

• 1-inch margins

• Standard academic font

• APA 7th edition referencing

Assessment Rubric

Effective interdisciplinary collaboration is strongly influenced by leadership behaviours that promote psychological safety and shared accountability within teams. Research demonstrates that when leaders encourage open communication, clarify roles, and facilitate collaborative decision-making, team members are more likely to engage in proactive problem solving and coordinated care planning. Such leadership approaches support improved patient safety outcomes and reduced workflow fragmentation because they strengthen trust and mutual respect among disciplines (Buljac, van Woerkom & Paauwe, 2020).

An interview with a hospital-based clinical pharmacist revealed that fragmented communication during discharge processes disrupts workflow and patient counselling. The pharmacist described frequent last-minute medication orders lacking sufficient clinical context, which resulted in rushed verification and delays in patient discharge. The absence of structured discharge planning meetings involving all disciplines was identified as a major contributing factor. Transformational leadership combined with a structured change model could help establish shared discharge planning practices and improve interdisciplinary coordination.

 Peer-Reviewed and Professional References

Costa, P., Alves, R., Fernandes, S. & Martins, J., 2025, Leadership development in undergraduate nursing students: A scoping review, International Journal of Nursing Studies, vol. 145, 104623.

Gottwald, M. & Lansdown, G., 2021, The role of change management in improving patient safety, Nursing Management, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 26–33.

Rampersad, N., Govender, I. & Singh, S., 2023, Implementing Kotter’s 8-step change model to reduce medication errors, BMC Health Services Research, vol. 23, 1154.

Buljac, M., van Woerkom, M. & Paauwe, J., 2020, Interprofessional collaboration and quality of care, International Journal of Quality in Health Care, vol. 32, no. 7, pp. 445–452.

World Health Organization, 2019, WHO Global Framework for Interprofessional Education and Collaborative Practice, WHO, Geneva.

Reeves, S., Pelone, F., Harrison, R., Goldman, J. & Zwarenstein, M., 2017, Interprofessional collaboration to improve professional practice and healthcare outcomes, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, no. 6, CD000072.

NURS-FPX4010: Leading People, Processes, and Organizations – Assessment 3: Interdisciplinary Plan Proposal

Assessment Overview

This assessment asks you to create an interdisciplinary plan proposal based on the organizational issue identified in your previous interview. You will outline objectives, change theories, leadership strategies, and collaboration approaches in a 3-5 page proposal.

Context

Interprofessional collaboration is essential for addressing complex issues in health care organizations. This assignment develops your skills in proposing plans that integrate diverse team perspectives to enhance processes and patient care.

Task Description

Use the context from your Assessment 2 interview to propose a plan that an interdisciplinary team could implement to improve the identified issue. Include clear objectives, relevant change theories, leadership strategies, and collaboration methods supported by literature.

Requirements

• Length: 3-5 pages, excluding title and reference pages.
• Format: APA 7th edition, double-spaced, 12-point Times New Roman font.
• Sources: Incorporate at least 3-4 scholarly sources from the last 5 years.
• Submission: Upload to the course platform by the deadline.

Scoring Guide (Rubric)

Your work will be evaluated using these criteria. Target Proficient or Distinguished levels for success.

1. Competency 1: Write an objective for an interdisciplinary team’s work that will enable the team to improve outcomes related to a specific issue.
   • Distinguished: Writes a clear, concise, and measurable objective that directly addresses the issue and incorporates team input for optimal outcomes.
   • Proficient: Writes an objective for the team’s work.
   • Basic: Writes an objective but lacks clarity or measurability.
   • Non-Performance: Does not write an objective.
2. Competency 2: Identify potential change theories and leadership strategies from the literature that could inform an interdisciplinary solution.
   • Distinguished: Identifies theories and strategies with explanations of their relevance and potential impact.
   • Proficient: Identifies potential change theories and leadership strategies.
   • Basic: Mentions theories or strategies without clear connection to the issue.
   • Non-Performance: Does not identify theories or strategies.
3. Competency 3: Describe collaboration approaches from the literature that could facilitate establishing or improving an interdisciplinary team.
   • Distinguished: Describes approaches with rationale for their effectiveness in the context.
   • Proficient: Describes collaboration approaches.
   • Basic: Lists approaches without detail.
   • Non-Performance: Does not describe approaches.
4. Competency 4: Organize content logically with clear written expression and APA formatting.
   • Distinguished: Organizes content flawlessly with scholarly tone and no errors.
   • Proficient: Organizes content logically with proper APA.
   • Basic: Content has some organization issues or formatting errors.
   • Non-Performance: Lacks logical organization or proper formatting.

The plan proposes implementing regular interdisciplinary rounds to address communication gaps in patient handoffs. Objectives include reducing errors by 20 percent within six months through structured meetings involving nurses, physicians, and support staff. Lewin’s change theory supports this by unfreezing current practices, moving to new protocols, and refreezing with training. Transformational leadership encourages team buy-in by inspiring shared vision and individual contributions. Collaboration tools like SBAR ensure clear information exchange and foster trust among members. Studies indicate such approaches improve outcomes in similar settings (Wei et al., 2020, https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.12954).

Course: NURS-FPX4010 Leading People, Processes, and Organizations

Term: Summer 2026

Weight: 25% of final grade

Due Date: End of Week 6

References

• Wei, H., Corbett, R.W., Ray, J. and Wei, T.L., 2020. A culture of caring: the essence of healthcare interprofessional collaboration. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 34(3), pp.324-331. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2019.1641476.
• Busari, J.O., Moll, F.M. and Duits, A.J., 2019. Understanding the impact of interprofessional collaboration on the quality of care: a case report from a small-scale resource limited health care environment. BMC Health Services Research, 19(1), p.1-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-3967-1.
• Reeves, S., Xyrichis, A. and Zwarenstein, M., 2018. Teamwork, collaboration, coordination, and networking: Why we need to distinguish between different types of interprofessional practice. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 32(1), pp.1-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2017.1400150.
• Morley, L. and Cashell, A., 2021. Collaboration in health care. Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences, 52(2), pp.S2-S6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmir.2021.01.004.
• Schot, E., Tummers, L. and Noordegraaf, M., 2020. Working on working together. A systematic review on how healthcare professionals contribute to interprofessional collaboration. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 34(3), pp.332-342. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2019.1636007.

MARSO702: Assessment 2 – Risk-Based Operational Analysis Report (2026)

Module Overview

Module Code: MARSO702
Module Title: Maritime Safety and Operations
Level: 7 (MSc)
Credits: 20
Delivery: UK/Australia/US maritime academies (e.g., Warsash Maritime School)
Assessment Type: Individual Technical Report
Weighting: 50% of module mark
Word Count: 3,000–3,500 words (±10%, excluding references/appendices)
Submission: Via LMS (Turnitin-enabled PDF/Word) by [insert date]

Assessment Context

Oil tankers handle over 50% of global crude oil transport, where operational risks like spills, fires, and structural failures demand rigorous analysis under IMO conventions such as MARPOL, SOLAS, and ISM Code. Regulators and class societies require operators to demonstrate risk-based decision-making through structured assessments that integrate hazard identification, quantitative evaluation, and barrier management. This task mirrors real-world safety cases used in flag state audits and aligns with Formal Safety Assessment (FSA) guidelines, preparing you for roles in tanker operations, safety management, or consultancy.

Task Description

Conduct a risk-based operational analysis of safe oil tanker operations, focusing on key phases: cargo loading, transit, and discharge. Select a realistic scenario, such as a VLCC loading crude at a Nigerian terminal or STS transfer at sea.

Your report must:

• Define operational boundaries, stakeholders (e.g., crew, terminal, charterer), and relevant regulations (e.g., ISGOTT, OCIMF guidelines).

• Identify hazards using HAZID/HAZOP or bow-tie method.

• Assess risks with a 5×5 matrix (likelihood x severity), prioritising top 5–7.

• Propose layered barriers (preventive/recovery) and evaluate residual risk.

• Recommend prioritised actions linked to SMS improvement.

Include at least two visual aids (e.g., risk matrix, bow-tie diagram) in appendices.

Report Structure

1. Executive Summary (200 words): Scenario overview, key risks, top recommendations.

2. Introduction (400 words): Scenario description, aims, scope.

3. Regulatory Framework (400 words): IMO/MARPOL/ISM alignment.

4. Hazard Identification (600 words): Method, tabulated outputs.

5. Risk Assessment (800 words): Matrix, assumptions, key drivers.

6. Control Measures (600 words): Barriers, effectiveness analysis.

7. Recommendations (400 words): Action plan, monitoring.

8. Conclusion (200 words): Findings synthesis.

9. References: 15+ Harvard-style sources (2018–2026).

10. Appendices: Matrices, diagrams.

Requirements

• Formatting: 1.5 spacing, Arial 11pt, Harvard referencing.

• Visuals: 2–4 diagrams/tables; label/cite.

• Originality: <15% similarity; AI detection checked.

• Sources: Peer-reviewed journals, IMO docs, OCIMF reports.

Learning Outcomes

• Apply risk analysis to tanker operations.​

• Evaluate barriers under international standards.​

• Develop defensible safety arguments.​

Marking Rubric

 (Executive Summary Example)

Cargo loading on a 300,000 DWT VLCC at a West African terminal poses risks from overpressurisation, spills, and human error during ballast exchange. Primary hazards include vapour cloud explosions (likelihood: occasional, severity: catastrophic, initial risk: high) and manifold leaks (medium risk). Barriers such as high-level alarms and double-block valves reduce residual risk to ALARP, but fatigue monitoring gaps persist. Prioritised actions involve VR simulator training and AI predictive analytics for pump failures. Implementation within SMS yields 40% risk reduction, aligning with IMO FSA goals (Wang et al., 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2021.107956).[4]

References (Harvard)

• Guc, M. (2018) Safety assessment of crude oil tankers. Safety Science, 109, pp. 1–12. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2018.05.008.​

• Wang, C. et al. (2021) Operational safety evaluation of tanker cargo oil system. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 216, p. 107956. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2021.107956.​

• Dantsoho, A.M. (2015) Risk-based framework for safety management. PhD thesis. Liverpool John Moores University. Available at: https://researchonline.ljmu.ac.uk/id/eprint/4496/.​

• IMO (2020) Guidelines for formal safety assessment. MSC-MEPC.2/Circ.12/Rev.2. London: IMO.​

• Bhattacharya, S. (2022) Human factors in tanker risk management. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 21(1), pp. 45–67. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-021-00245-3.

The Safe Operation of Oil Tankers in the Maritime Industry: A Risk-Based Operational Analysis

1. Module Context and Assessment Overview

Oil tankers remain among the highest-risk vessel categories in global commercial shipping. The combination of flammable and toxic cargo, complex cargo-handling systems, and demanding operational environments means that safety cannot be managed through procedure alone. Effective tanker safety requires a structured, evidence-based approach rooted in formal risk assessment methodologies, international regulatory compliance, and robust Safety Management Systems (SMS).

This assessment asks you to apply risk-based thinking to real operational conditions on oil tankers. You are not simply describing what the rules say; you are evaluating how well risk management works in practice, where systemic gaps exist, and what a sound operational framework looks like. The task directly supports the module’s core learning outcomes and prepares you to operate confidently within regulated maritime environments, whether as a deck officer, marine engineer, marine superintendent, or maritime safety professional.

This brief has been developed in alignment with the International Safety Management (ISM) Code, the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), the SOLAS Convention, and the International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code, all of which form the regulatory backbone of this topic.

2. Learning Outcomes Assessed

On successful completion of this assessment, you will have demonstrated the ability to:

1. Critically evaluate the principal operational hazards associated with oil tanker operations using recognised risk assessment tools and frameworks.
2. Analyse the effectiveness of the ISM Code and related international conventions in managing safety risks specific to tanker operations.
3. Apply risk-based operational thinking to cargo handling, inert gas systems, tank cleaning, bunkering, and emergency scenarios.
4. Assess the role of human factors, crew competency, and safety culture in tanker accident causation and prevention.
5. Produce a structured, well-evidenced technical report that meets professional maritime industry standards.

3. Assessment Task

Write a 2,500–3,000-word individual technical report addressing the following scenario and analytical task:

Your technical report must address all four of the following analytical components:

Component A – Hazard Identification and Risk Classification

Identify and classify the five most significant operational hazards on crude oil tankers (e.g., cargo vapour ignition, tank entry asphyxiation, mooring failures, structural fatigue, cargo overflow). For each hazard, apply a standard risk matrix or bow-tie analysis to assess likelihood and consequence severity. Justify your classification using data from casualty investigation reports or industry statistics.

Component B – ISM Code Compliance and Safety Management System Evaluation

Evaluate how effectively the ISM Code addresses the identified hazards within a working SMS. Critically assess whether procedural compliance alone is sufficient, or whether a deeper safety culture change is required. Reference at least one real tanker casualty investigation (e.g., MAIB, NTSB, or IMO reports) to support your argument.

Component C – Operational Risk Controls and Permit-to-Work Systems

Analyse the role of operational risk controls including inert gas systems, enclosed space entry procedures, hot work permits, and cargo watch protocols. Evaluate the strengths and limitations of permit-to-work (PTW) systems as a risk control tool on tankers, drawing on industry evidence and, where applicable, human factors research.

Component D – Emergency Preparedness and Continuous Improvement

Assess the adequacy of emergency preparedness measures, including muster drills, oil spill contingency planning, and firefighting readiness. Propose two evidence-based recommendations for improving your company’s risk management framework, explaining how each recommendation would reduce residual risk and align with IMO guidelines or flag state requirements.

4. Format and Structural Requirements

Your technical report must follow a professional maritime industry reporting structure. It is not an essay. Use the following sections as your report framework:

1. Title Page – Report title, your student ID (not name), module code, submission date, word count.
2. Executive Summary (150–200 words, not counted in word count) – A brief overview of the report’s scope, key findings, and recommendations.
3. Table of Contents
4. Introduction (200–300 words) – Contextualise the report within the current tanker industry safety landscape. State your analytical approach clearly.
5. Hazard Identification and Risk Classification (Component A)
6. ISM Code Compliance and SMS Evaluation (Component B)
7. Operational Risk Controls and PTW Systems (Component C)
8. Emergency Preparedness and Recommendations (Component D)
9. Conclusion (200–250 words) – Synthesise your findings; do not introduce new material.
10. Reference List – Harvard format; minimum 8 academic and professional sources, published 2015–2026.
11. Appendices (if applicable) – Risk matrices, bow-tie diagrams, or annotated casualty summaries.

Formatting Standards

• Font: Arial or Times New Roman, 12pt, double-spaced.
• Margins: 2.54 cm (1 inch) all sides.
• Page numbers in the footer, right-aligned.
• All figures and tables must be numbered, titled, and cited.
• Submit as a single PDF or Word document via the LMS portal by the stated deadline.

5. Source and Evidence Requirements

A minimum of eight sources is required. At least five must be peer-reviewed academic journal articles or edited book chapters. The remaining sources may include IMO circulars, MAIB accident investigation reports, OCIMF guidance documents (e.g., ISGOTT, TMSA), or flag state maritime administration publications. Industry casualty reports are encouraged and should be cited as primary evidence where they directly support an analytical point.

Acceptable source categories include:

• Peer-reviewed journals: Ocean Engineering, Safety Science, Maritime Policy and Management, Journal of Navigation, Marine Technology and SNAME News.
• IMO publications: ISM Code (resolution A.741(18) as amended), MSC circulars, MARPOL Annex I.
• Casualty investigation reports: MAIB (UK), ATSB (Australia), NTSB (USA), EMSA (EU).
• Industry guidance: OCIMF ISGOTT (7th edition), TMSA3, ICS Tanker Safety Guide.
• Academic texts: Stopford (2022), Baird (2020), IMO Model Courses.

6. Marking Rubric and Assessment Criteria

This assessment is marked out of 100 points, weighted at 40% of the module grade. The four components are weighted as follows:

Grade Boundaries (UK/Australia/US Equivalencies)

7. Guidance for Students

Common Weaknesses to Avoid

• Describing regulations without evaluating their effectiveness. Every regulatory reference should be accompanied by an assessment of how well it works, with evidence.
• Listing hazards without applying a formal risk methodology. A risk matrix or bow-tie diagram in an appendix, with written interpretation in the body, is expected at distinction level.
• Using casualty investigations as decoration rather than argument. If you cite a tanker incident, explain precisely what it reveals about the systemic weakness you are analysing.
• Writing conclusions that simply restate the introduction. The conclusion must synthesise the findings from all four components and point toward a coherent risk management position.
• Over-relying on websites or maritime news articles as sources. Trade press can contextualise; peer-reviewed journals and official investigation reports must carry the analytical load.

Recommended Analytical Approach

Start with Component A before drafting any other section. The hazard classification you establish there should anchor every argument that follows. Each hazard you identify in Component A should trace directly into the regulatory gaps you discuss in Component B, the control failures in Component C, and the preparedness gaps in Component D. A tightly connected report reads like a single argument, not four separate short essays.

Use of Industry Sources

ISGOTT (International Safety Guide for Oil Tankers and Terminals), the OCIMF Tanker Management Self-Assessment (TMSA3), and MAIB investigation reports carry significant credibility in maritime technical reports. Treat them as primary professional evidence. Pair them with academic sources for the theoretical underpinning of human factors and safety management arguments.

Maritime Studies Assignment Brief: Risk-Based Operational Analysis of Oil Tankers

Assignment

• Target Level: Postgraduate / Final-Year Undergraduate (Level 6/7 UK, Senior/Master’s US, Level 8/9 AUS)

• Module Name: Maritime Safety, Risk, and Marine Operations (MAR7025)

• Assessment Type: Technical Report / Case Study Analysis (Task 1)

• Word Count: 2500–3000 words

• Weighting: 40% of overall module grade

• Academic Year: 2025/2026

Students are expected to demonstrate advanced analytical capability appropriate to Level 6/7 UK or Level 8/9 Australian Qualifications Framework standards. This includes critical evaluation of sources, synthesis of quantitative evidence, and application of professional maritime frameworks rather than descriptive summaries.

Module Instructor’s Context and Task Description

Welcome and Context

Welcome to your first major assessment for the Maritime Safety and Risk module. As future maritime professionals, marine engineers, and logistics managers, you already understand that the safe operation of crude and product oil tankers is paramount. The consequences of operational failure are catastrophic, not only financially but environmentally and in terms of human life.

The maritime industry is shifting toward proactive and predictive risk management rather than reactive compliance. In this assessment, you will step into the role of a senior marine superintendent or safety auditor. Your objective is not merely to restate conventions such as MARPOL or SOLAS, but to critically analyse how risk is actively identified, evaluated, and controlled on deck, in machinery spaces, and during cargo transfer operations. Your work should reflect the analytical depth expected of a maritime professional capable of advising senior management.

Task Instructions

You are required to produce a 2500–3000-word technical report that provides a risk-based operational analysis of oil tanker operations.

You must:

• Select a specific operational phase, for example ship-to-ship cargo transfer, berthing under severe meteo-oceanographic conditions, or navigation within confined port limits.

• Apply a formal risk assessment methodology such as Bayesian Networks, Fault Tree Analysis, Event Tree Analysis, or the IMO Formal Safety Assessment framework.

• Evaluate operational hazards using structured analytical reasoning rather than narrative description.

The chosen methodology must be clearly justified. You are expected to explain why it is appropriate for the operational context selected and demonstrate correct procedural application.

Specific Requirements

1. Hazard Identification

• Identify the primary risks associated with your chosen operational phase.

• Categorise hazards into human factors, machinery or system failures, and environmental conditions.

• Demonstrate understanding of causal chains rather than listing isolated risks.

• Show awareness of both immediate operational hazards and latent organisational failures.

Your hazard identification should reflect structured thinking, such as bow-tie logic, system mapping, or process breakdown analysis.

2. Risk Quantification

• Apply a recognised risk matrix, probabilistic model, or structured framework.

• Assess both likelihood and consequence using justifiable assumptions or available data.

• Where quantitative data are unavailable, provide reasoned estimations supported by scholarly literature.

Students should demonstrate numeracy and the ability to interpret probabilistic outputs in a maritime operational context.

3. Regulatory Alignment

• Critically evaluate how ISGOTT, the ISM Code, MARPOL, SOLAS, and related conventions address the identified risks.

• Identify any regulatory gaps or implementation weaknesses.

• Distinguish between compliance and effective safety management.

Strong submissions will demonstrate the ability to critique regulatory adequacy rather than simply describe requirements.

4. Risk Control Options (RCOs)

• Propose realistic, industry-applicable mitigation strategies.

• Evaluate feasibility, practicality, and potential cost-benefit implications.

• Link each proposed RCO directly to identified risks and quantified findings.

Recommendations should demonstrate professional judgement, operational awareness, and commercial realism consistent with industry practice.

5. Formatting and Academic Standards

Use a standard technical report structure:

• Executive Summary

• Introduction

• Methodology

• Analysis

• Recommendations

• Conclusion

• Reference List

The Executive Summary and Reference List are excluded from the word count.

All submissions must follow Harvard referencing conventions and use credible academic and industry sources. A minimum of 10 scholarly or industry references is recommended to meet postgraduate standards. Diagrams, risk matrices, and figures should be clearly labelled and referenced within the text.

Grading Rubric / Marking Criteria

Risk Identification and Context (25%)

Distinction / High Distinction (80–100%)
Exceptional framing of the operational scenario with exhaustive and highly accurate identification of complex hazards. Demonstrates systems-level thinking and deep contextual awareness.

Merit / Credit (65–79%)
Clear and thorough identification of hazards with strong understanding of operational context.

Pass (50–64%)
Basic identification of standard hazards. Context is acceptable but lacks depth or specificity.

Fail (Below 50%)
Incomplete or inaccurate hazard identification. Limited understanding of tanker operations.

Application of Risk Methodology (30%)

Distinction / High Distinction (80–100%)
Sophisticated and technically accurate application of a complex risk model such as Bayesian Networks or Fault Tree Analysis. Demonstrates confident synthesis of probabilistic reasoning and structured modelling.

Merit / Credit (65–79%)
Solid application of a standard risk matrix or Formal Safety Assessment framework. Logical and well-structured analysis.

Pass (50–64%)
Adequate use of a basic risk assessment tool but lacks analytical depth or methodological precision.

Fail (Below 50%)
Methodology is absent, misapplied, or purely descriptive without analytical rigour.

Regulatory and Industry Alignment (20%)

Distinction / High Distinction (80–100%)
Comprehensive integration of ISGOTT, the ISM Code, and relevant conventions. Demonstrates critical evaluation of regulatory sufficiency and practical enforcement.

Merit / Credit (65–79%)
Good referencing of maritime codes and standards with sound industry awareness.

Pass (50–64%)
Mentions key regulations but lacks depth in linking them to operational risks.

Fail (Below 50%)
Major regulatory frameworks ignored or inaccurately applied.

Recommendations and Risk Control Options (15%)

Distinction / High Distinction (80–100%)
Innovative, practical, and economically viable RCOs supported by strong professional reasoning.

Merit / Credit (65–79%)
Realistic and actionable recommendations logically derived from analysis.

Pass (50–64%)
Generic recommendations with limited operational specificity.

Fail (Below 50%)
Recommendations missing, unrealistic, or disconnected from analysis.

Academic Writing and Structure (10%)

Distinction / High Distinction (80–100%)
Impeccable technical structure, precise academic tone, and flawless Harvard referencing.

Merit / Credit (65–79%)
Well-structured and clearly written with minor errors.

Pass (50–64%)
Readable but contains structural weaknesses or referencing inconsistencies.

Fail (Below 50%)
Poorly structured, difficult to follow, or not aligned with academic conventions.

Crude oil cargo operations pose significant environmental and safety hazards despite stringent regulatory frameworks. Personnel must execute loading and discharging procedures with precision to mitigate the potential for catastrophic spills or structural failures. Quantitative risk analysis provides a robust mechanism for identifying operational vulnerabilities before they escalate into marine casualties. Employing methodologies such as Bayesian networks enables safety managers to model complex cause-and-effect relationships during tanker berthing and cargo transfer. Research indicates that the probability of oil spill incidents can be systematically quantified to improve safety protocols and operational decision-making during critical cargo phases (Akyuz et al., 2023). Terminal operators and shipmasters rely on empirical modelling to justify implementation of specific risk reduction options. Enhancing crew situational awareness through predictive modelling reduces the likelihood of human error during high-stress operations. Integrating probabilistic models into safety management systems strengthens the resilience of the global tanker fleet.

Risk-based operational analysis in tanker shipping reflects a broader shift in safety science from prescriptive compliance toward systems-based risk governance. Contemporary maritime research emphasises the importance of integrating human reliability analysis, probabilistic modelling, and organisational learning within formal safety management systems. Structured frameworks such as the IMO Formal Safety Assessment process enable decision-makers to balance technical risk reduction with economic feasibility while maintaining environmental protection standards. Empirical studies demonstrate that combining quantitative modelling with human factors assessment significantly enhances predictive capability in complex maritime operations (Klanac, Vladimir and Žiha, 2023). This integrated perspective is essential for ensuring that safety interventions are evidence-based, proportionate, and aligned with international regulatory expectations.

 Learning Materials / References

Akyuz, E., Karahalios, H. and Celik, M. (2023). A quantified risk analysis for oil spill during crude oil loading operation on tanker ship under improved Z-number based Bayesian Network approach. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 197, 115796. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2023.115796

Klanac, A., Vladimir, N. and Žiha, K. (2023). Update on Risk Criteria for Crude Oil Tanker Fleet. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 11(4), 695. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse11040695

Cordeiro, J.P., Moura, M.D., Silva, M.A. and Droguett, E.L. (2021). Methodology for Maritime Risk Assessment in Ports due to Meteo-oceanographic Factors: The Case of the Port of Suape, Brazil. Risk Analysis, 41(10), 1823–1839. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13677

International Maritime Organization (2018). Revised Guidelines for Formal Safety Assessment (FSA) for Use in the IMO Rule-Making Process (MSC-MEPC.2/Circ.12/Rev.2). London: IMO.

Reason, J. (1997). Managing the Risks of Organizational Accidents. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Next Assignment (Following Weeks)

Course Code: MAR7025
Next Assessment Title: Human Factors and Organisational Resilience in Maritime Safety Management

Description:
In this follow-up assessment, students will critically evaluate the role of human reliability, safety culture, and organisational resilience in preventing maritime incidents. The task will require application of human error models such as the Swiss Cheese Model or Human Reliability Analysis techniques to a documented tanker or bulk carrier incident. Students will analyse accident investigation reports and propose systemic interventions aligned with Safety Management Systems and international regulatory frameworks. This assessment will build upon the quantitative risk foundation established in Task 1 and deepen understanding of socio-technical safety systems in global shipping.