Somebody else’s problem? usability in ship bridge design seen from the perspective of different maritime actors

• Autorzy: Danielsen B. E. , Petersen E. S.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.12716/1001.16.04.10

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Navigation is a complex interaction between human, organizational, environmental, and technological factors on the ship’s bridge. Today, ships bridges include a broad suite of equipment with both digital and analogue interfaces, covering a range of functions and purposes. Suboptimal usability in equipment and interface design as well as layout of the ships bridge has been reported by researchers for decades. This paper aims to contribute to our understanding of why there has been limited progression in usability in ship bridge design over the last decades, by investigating the stakeholders’ different perspectives of their influence, interest and responsibility for usability in ship bridge design. The study is based on interviews with seafarers, shipowners, equipment manufacturers, shipyard, insurance companies, classification societies and a flag state. Usability in navigational equipment and systems on a ship’s bridge is required by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) SOLAS Regulation V/15. We find that this goal-based requirement is challenging to follow up both in design, development, and survey work. To achieve usability in maritime equipment and bridge systems ideally requires the actively involvement of end-users throughout the design and development process. We find that the seafarers, the direct end-users, do not have a clear voice in the ship bridge and bridge equipment design and the associated purchasing processes. The other stakeholders appear to recognize the existing shortcomings, and some do show interest in improvements, but the responsibility for usability seem to be fragmented, and they see the potential solutions as being somebody else’s problem. We conclude by suggesting both long-term and a short-term way forward for improving usability in ship bridge design.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

navigational bridge equipment; ship bridge design; navigational bridge; SOLAS convention; navigational equipment; bridge equipment; maritime actors; different maritime actors

• Wydawca: Faculty of Navigation, Gdynia Maritime University
• Czasopismo: TransNav : International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation
• Rocznik: 2022
• Tom: Vol. 16 No. 4
• Strony: 685--700
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 68 poz., rys., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Danielsen B. E.

• Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway

autor

Petersen E. S.

• Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway

Bibliografia

• 1. International Maritime Organization. Maritime Safety. 2022 30.01.2022]; Available from: https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Safety/Pages/default.aspx.
• 2. European Maritime Safety Agency, Annual overview of marine casualties and incidents 2021. 2021.
• 3. Lützhöft, M. and J.M. Nyce, Integration work on the ship's bridge. Journal of Maritime Research, 2008. 2: p. 59-74.
• 4. da Conceição, V.P., J. Dahlman, and A. Navarro. What is maritime navigation? Unfolding the complexity of a Sociotechnical System. in Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. 2017.
• 5. Hutchins, E., Cognition in the Wild. 1995, Cambridge: MIT press.
• 6. Caranyon, P., Human factors of complex sociotechnical system. Applied Ergonomics, 2006. 37(4): p. 525-535.
• 7. Grech, M., T. Horberry, and T. Koester, Human factors in the maritime domain. 2008: CRC press.
• 8. Norman, D.A., The design of everyday things. Rev. and exp. ed. ed. 2013, New York: Basic Books.
• 9. Lützhöft, M. and V.D. Vu, Design for Safety, in Managing Maritime Safety, H.A. Oltedal and M. Lützhöft, Editors. 2018, Routledge: New York.
• 10. Nordby, K., S.C. Mallam, and M. Lützhöft, Open user interface architecture for digital multivendor ship bridge systems. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 2019. 18: p. 297-318.
• 11. Lützhöft, M., “The technology is great when it works”: Maritime Technology and Human Integration on the Ship’s Bridge. 2004, Linköping University: Linköping.
• 12. Abeysiriwardhane, A., et al., Human-centred design knowledge into maritime engineering education; theoretical framework. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 2016. 21(2): p. 49-60.
• 13. Costa, N. and M. Lützhöft. The values of ergonomics in ship design and operation. in Human Factors in Ship Design & Operation. 2014. London, UK: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects.
• 14. Wilkinson, G.R., Wheelhouse and bridge design. Journal of Navigation, 1971. 24(3): p. 313-324.
• 15. Millar, I.C., The need for a structured policy towards reducing human-factor errors in marine accidents. Maritime Policy & Management, 1980. 7(1): p. 9-15.
• 16. Bhardwaj, S., et al., Technology introduction on ships: The tension between safety and economic rationality. Safety Science, 2019. 115: p. 329-338.
• 17. Hollnagel, E., D.D. Woods, and N. Leveson, Resilience Engineering : Concepts and Precepts. 2006, Abingdon: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
• 18. Wilson, J.R., Fundamentals of systems ergonomics/human factors. Applied Ergonomics, 2014. 45: p. 5-13.
• 19. MAIB, Report on the investigation of the grounding of Muros Haisborough Sand North Sea 3 December 2016. 2017, Marine Accident Investigation Branch UK.
• 20. International Organization for Standardization, ISO 9241 Ergonomics of human-system interaction - Part 210 Human-centred design for interactive systems. 2010: www.standard.no.
• 21. International Maritime Organization, Resolution A.850(20) Human element vision, principles and goals for the organization ed. I.M. Organization. 1997, London: International Maritime Organization.
• 22. Reason, J., Managing the risks of organizational accidents. 1997, Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.
• 23. MAIB and DMAIB, Application and Usability of ECDIS. A MAIB and DMAIB collaborative study on ECDIS use from the perspective of practitioners. 2021.
• 24. Danielsen, B.-E. The contribution of ship bridge design to maritime accidents. in AHFE. 2022. New York: Springer.
• 25. Chauvin, C., et al., Human and organisational factors in maritime accidents: Analysis of collisions at sea using the HFACS. 2013. 59: p. 26-37.
• 26. Mallam, S.C., et al. The digitalization of navigation: examining the accident and aftermath of US navy destroyer John S. McCain. in Damaged Ship V. 2020. The Royal Institution of Naval Architects.
• 27. Lützhöft, M.H. and S.W.A. Dekker, On your watch: Automation on the bridge. Journal of Navigation, 2002. 55(1): p. 83-96.
• 28. Danielsen, B.-E., M. Lützhöft, and T. Porathe. Still unresolved after all these years: human-technology interaction in the maritime domain. in International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics. 2021. Virtual Conference: Springer, Cham.
• 29. Grech, M.R. and M. Lutzhoft. Challenges and opportunities in user centric shipping: Developing a human centred design approach for navigation systems. in 28th Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference, OzCHI 2016. 2016. Association for Computing Machinery, Inc.
• 30. Costa, N.A., E. Holder, and S.N. MacKinnon, Implementing human centred design in the context of a graphical user interface redesign for ship manoeuvring. International Journal of Human - Computer Studies, 2017. 100: p. 55-65.
• 31. Petersen, E.S., K. Dittmann, and M. Lutzhoft. Making the phantom real: a case of applied maritime human factors. in 3rd International Symposium on Ship Operations, Management and Economics 2011. 2011.
• 32. Lurås, S., Systemic design in complex contexts : an enquiry through designing a ship's bridge. 2016, Oslo School of Architecture and Design: Oslo.
• 33. Javaux, D., et al., Model-based Adaptive Bridge Design in the Maritime Domain. The CASCADe Project. Procedia Manufacturing, 2015. 3: p. 4557-4564.
• 34. Bjørneseth, F.B., Unified Bridge - Design Concepts and Results, in Sensemaking in safety critical and complex situations: Human factors and design, S.O. Johnsen and T. Porathe, Editors. 2021, CRC Press.
• 35. Rumawas, V. and B.E. Asbjørnslett, A content analysis of human factors in ships design. The International Journal of Maritime Engineering, 2014. 156: p. 251-264.
• 36. Vu, V.D. and M. Lützhöft. Improving human-centred design application in the maritime industry - challenges and opportunities. in Human Factors. 2020. London, UK: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects.
• 37. Garcia, J.J., et al., Overspecified vessel design solutions in multi-stakeholder design problems. Research in Engineering Design, 2019. 30(4): p. 473-487.
• 38. Gernez, E., Connecting ship operation and architecture in ship design processes. Journal of Ship Production and Design, 2019. 35(01): p. 88-101.
• 39. Puisa, R., Lin, L., Bolbot, V., & Vassalos, D., Unravelling causal factors of maritime incidents and accidents. Safety science, 2018. 110: p. 124-141.
• 40. Mallam, S.C., M. Lundh, and S.N. MacKinnon, Integrating participatory practices in ship design and construction. Ergonomics in Design, 2017. 25(2): p. 4-11.
• 41. Österman, C. and L. Rose, Assessing financial impact of maritime ergonomics on company level: a case study. Maritime Policy & Management, 2015. 42(6): p. 555-570.
• 42. Ralph, P. and Y. Wand, A proposal for a formal definition of the design concept, in Design requirements engineering: A ten-year perspective. 2009, Springer: Berlin. p. 103-136.
• 43. Dul, J., Bruder, R., Buckle, P., Carayon, P., Falzon, P., Marras, W. S., Wilson, J.R., van der Doelen, B. , A strategy for human factors/ergonomics: developing the discipline and profession. Ergonomics, 2012. 55(4): p. 377-395.
• 44. International Ergonomics Association, Triennial Report of the International Ergonomics Association 2018-2021. 2021.
• 45. Gulliksen, J., et al., Key principles for user-centred systems design. Behaviour and Information Technology, 2003. 22(6): p. 397-409.
• 46. Maguire, M., Methods to support human-centred design. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 2001. 55: p. 587-634.
• 47. Österman, C., Beyond the ethic case: a value proposition of proactive human factors management. AMET Maritime Journal, 2013. 1: p. 14-41.
• 48. Brugha, R. and Z. Varvasovszky, Stakeholder analysis: a review. Health policy and planning, 2000. 15(3): p. 239-246.
• 49. Lelea, M.A., et al., Methodologies for stakeholder analysis-for application in transdisciplinary research projects focusing on actors in food supply chains. 2014: Witzenhausen, Germany.
• 50. Lützhöft, M., M.R. Grech, and T. Porathe, Information environment, fatigue, and culture in the maritime domain. Reviews of human factors ergonomics, 2011. 7(1): p. 280-322.
• 51. Edwards, K. and P.L. Jensen, Design of systems for productivity and well being. Applied Ergonomics, 2014. 45: p. 26-32.
• 52. Gernez, E., Nordby, K., Seim, Ø., Brett, P. O., & Hauge, R., Human-centered, collaborative, field-driven design—a case study, in Marine Design XIII, K. Lu, Editor. 2018, Taylor and Francis. p. 291-305.
• 53. Bader, G. and J.M. Nyce, When only the self is real: theory and practice in the development community. Journal of Computer Documentation, 1998. 22(1).
• 54. Österman, C., M. Ljung, and M. Lützhöft. Who Cares and Who Pays?: The Stakeholders of Maritime Human Factors. in Human Factors. 2009. Royal Institute of Naval Architects: Royal Institute of Naval Architects.
• 55. Danielsen, B.-E., et al., "Seafarers should be navigating by the stars": barriers to usability in ship bridge design. Cognition, Technology & Work, 2022.
• 56. Walters, D. and N. Bailey, Lives in Peril: Profit or Safety in the Global Maritime Industry? 2013, Hampshire, UK: Palgrave MacMillan.
• 57. Solesvik, M.Z. A collaborative design in shipbuilding: two case studies. in 5th IEEE International Conference on Industrial Informatics. 2007. IEEE.
• 58. Parsons, J. and C. Allen, The history of safety management, in Managing maritime safety, H.A. Oltedal and M. Lützhöft, Editors. 2018, Routledge.
• 59. International Maritime Organization. Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS). 2022 30.01.2022]; Available from: https://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/Pages/International-Convention-for-the-Safety-of-Life-at-Sea-(SOLAS),-1974.aspx.
• 60. International Maritime Organization, SOLAS Chapter V Regulation 15 Principles relating to bridge design, design and arrangement of navigational systems and equipment and bridge procedures, ed. International Maritime Organization. 2002, London: International Maritime Organization.

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MEiN, umowa nr SONP/SP/546092/2022 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki i promocja sportu (2022-2023).