Evaluation & Feedback

Build evaluation templates with hierarchical criteria, scored questions and open-ended inquiries. Each evaluation model groups assessment dimensions into criteria groups. Individual questions carry configurable weight factors that set their influence on the final score.

Design models that reflect your organization's own competency frameworks, from technical skills and safety awareness to communication and leadership. Weighted scoring gives critical assessment dimensions more influence than supporting ones, so results reflect your priorities.

Build interview templates for the 3 conversations a crewing department has with people. They are selection before hiring, debriefing after a tour, and the exit interview. Each model is for crew, office staff or contacts. It is made of numbered sections, mandatory or conditional. Each section is scored with one of your published evaluation models by its own evaluator group.

Interviews are held in Crew Planning against a candidate lineup, a contract or a company. A section that does not apply can be excluded or waived, with the reason and who authorized it. The interview closes with a recommendation: highly recommended, recommended with training, or not recommended.

Each evaluation names who carries it out. Crew evaluations are assigned to ranks on board, or to an office user group. The master or chief engineer can evaluate the officers who sail with them.

Vendor evaluations go to an office user group. They can also go to the ranks on board when the purchase was made at a vessel. Or they go to the person who handled the purchase order, goods receipt or quotation.

Each interview section names its own evaluator group. So the technical and the HR sections of a selection interview can be scored by different people. Each evaluation keeps who scored it.

Create a crew evaluation on the spot when you need an immediate assessment. On board, an evaluator picks a seafarer who is aboard. The evaluator also picks one of the models the office has opened for on-demand use. The ad-hoc evaluation uses the same scoring models and criteria as the evaluations created at sign-on and sign-off.

Use ad-hoc evaluations for incident follow-ups and performance concerns. Use them in any case where you need a structured evaluation outside the regular cycle. Each evaluation is marked periodic or ad hoc, so you can tell scheduled assessments from event-driven ones.

Evaluate any person or entity in your maritime ecosystem with 4 subject types: Crew, Company, Contact and Employee. Crew evaluations assess seafarer competence, safety compliance and performance during vessel assignments.

Company evaluations rate vendors and the other companies you buy from. Contact and employee evaluations score individual people through the sections of an interview. These are people at partner companies and your shore-based staff.

Each subject type carries its own context. Crew evaluations link to the seafarer's contract and vessel. Vendor evaluations link to the purchase order, goods receipt or quotation behind them. Interview evaluations link to the interview. Each model states which subject types it can be used for.

Turn raw evaluation data into insight you can act on with the evaluation scores page. It shows how many crew evaluations were completed and scored across the fleet. It shows the median and average score and the lowest- and highest-scoring vessels. It also shows how scores spread across bands.

Break scores down by rank and by vessel. Filter by period, vessel, vessel type and rank, and open the evaluations behind any figure. This shows performance trends that inform training and promotion decisions.

Add qualitative feedback to scored criteria with open-ended inquiry questions. Evaluation questions produce numerical scores. Inquiry questions capture free-text observations, recommendations and contextual notes that numbers cannot convey on their own.

Mix inquiry questions freely with scored questions in any evaluation model. Use them to capture specific incident details, improvement suggestions, or subtle observations about performance.

Inquiry responses are stored with the evaluation record, each with its own attachments. Reviewers get the full picture behind the scores.

Enrich each evaluation with comments and supporting file attachments. Evaluators record the basis for each score. They attach photographs and documents to single answers as evidence, and discuss the evaluation in comments.

Attachments turn evaluations from plain score sheets into full evidence packages. Upload crew certification documents with competency assessments. Attach delivery photographs to vendor evaluations. Add incident reports to performance reviews. All attachments are stored with the evaluation record.

Both evaluation models and feedback models follow a controlled 3-stage lifecycle: Draft, Published and Deprecated. Only Published models can be used for live assessments.

Draft models allow rounds of refinement before use. Deprecated models are kept for historical reference but cannot be assigned to new evaluations.

The lifecycle keeps unauthorized or untested assessment templates out of production. Model creators prepare and refine in Draft. They publish when the model is ready, and retire outdated models through Deprecation. The result is a clean, controlled library of active assessment instruments. Interview models follow the same lifecycle.

Run evaluations in both ship and office environments, with each model set for use on board, ashore or both. Ship-based evaluations capture assessments done on board: crew competency checks, vessel-specific vendor ratings and operational performance reviews.

Office-based evaluations handle shore-side assessments: company HR reviews, fleet-wide vendor scoring and management evaluations.

Evaluations created at sea are available ashore, and the other way round. Vessel masters can start crew evaluations during voyages. Fleet managers can review and compare results across all vessels from the office. Both environments share the same models, scoring methods and analytics.

Capture satisfaction and effort data using 3 globally recognized feedback scoring methods, all within a single module. Net Promoter Score (NPS) uses a 1-10 scale to measure loyalty and likelihood to recommend.

Customer Satisfaction Score (CSAT) uses a simple -1/0/1 scale for instant sentiment capture. Customer Effort Score (CES) uses a 7-point Likert scale from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree.

Each feedback method has its own configurable feedback model, with its own lifecycle management. Choose the right method for each touchpoint. NPS suits overall relationship health. CSAT suits satisfaction with a specific interaction. CES suits how easy a process was. Compare scores across vessels, departments and time periods with consistent, standard metrics.

Each action across evaluation models, feedback models and evaluations is recorded in an event log. Editing a criterion, publishing a model, creating an evaluation, answering its questions, adding evidence and completing it are all logged. The event stream gives a complete account of the whole assessment process.

The audit trail supports accountability and compliance reporting. Each event carries full user attribution, a timestamp and contextual data.

For any external inspection, you can rebuild exactly when an evaluation was created and who answered each question. You can see when files and comments were added, and when the evaluation was completed.