MONALISA 2.0 – Activity 3 BBS ICT tool adapted to maritime ... · MONALISA 2.0 - BBS ICT TOOL...

MONALISA 2.0 - BBS ICT TOOL ADAPTED TO MARITIME DOMAIN 1

MONALISA 2.0 – Activity 3

BBS ICT tool adapted to maritime domain

Document No: MONALISA 2 0_D3.1.2


Project MONALISA2.0SecuringthechainbyintelligenceatseaFoundedby TheTrans-EuropeanTransportNetwork(TEN-T)oftheEuropean

UnionActivity 3-SaferShipsWorkPackage 3.1-HSQE(HealthSafetyQualityEnvironment)

HistoryVersionTable

Version Date Author Comments1.0 20140210 IB DRAFTtoMIT2.0 20140228 IB ApprovedbyMITforreleasetotheconsortium


TableOfContents

1 Introduction...........................................................................................................4

1.1 General.................................................................................................................4

1.2 Aboutthisdocument...........................................................................................4

1.3 Conclusions..........................................................................................................5

2 BBSflow................................................................................................................6

3 ExistingBBSICTtool(s)...........................................................................................7

4 BBSICTtoolformaritimeapplication...................................................................10

AppendixA-HUMAN-CENTEREDDESIGNAPPROACH(ERGOPROJECT).......................12

A.1Human-CentreddesignfordevelopingICTtools..................................................14

A.2Human-CenteredDesignapproachinmaritimedomain......................................16

A.3Humanerrorandtechnologicaldevelopmentchallenges....................................16

A.4TowardsHumanFactors&Ergonomics................................................................17

A.5EuropeaninterestfromHFEtoaHCDapproachproposal....................................17

A.6ThemostrecentapplicationofaHCDapproach:IMO’sGuidelinesforE-navigationSystems........................................................................................................................19

A.7CriticalitiesinapplyingaHCDapproachinmaritimedomain...............................22

AppendixB–DataBase®executable(storedinIBdatacenter)....................................23


1 Introduction

1.1 GeneralAccording to theSAP (pages14and25), theaimssub-activity3.1are toassess thepossibilityand benefits of transferring the BBS approach to the maritime sector as a tool to improveoperationalsafetybyreducingunsafebehaviorsduringnormaloperations. Hence,thegoalofthe sub-activity is to adapt the BBS methodology and related ICT tools for use in maritimeapplicationsandtestthemasappropriatethroughsuitableprototype(s).Themethodusedencompassesthefollowingsteps:•adaptBBSpracticesandICTtools(widelyapplied inother industrialsectors)toMoS.Theso

adaptedpracticesandtoolsareindicatedas“BBStools”inthefollowing;•testtheBBStoolsinatleastonerealisticpilotapplicationinvolvingsuitableoperators;• calibrate/refine the BBS tools based on the feed-back from the field and identify possible

obstaclestoitsvoluntaryapplicationbytheshippingindustry;•assess,throughouttheprocess,compatibilitywithIMOaswellasClassrequirementsThreedifferentorganisationsco-operate(IBandErgoprojectas implementingbodiesof ItalianMinistryofTransportandCIMNEfromSpain),undertheleadofIB,asfollows:• analysis of BBS best practice and success factors in other industries, possibility that the

same/similar success factors can be triggered in the maritime sector. Identification ofavailable BBS methodology and certification standard(s) and of their applicability to themaritime sector, identification of possible and meaningful test cases/scenarios for amaritimeapplication(IBandCIMNE).WorkcompletedandreportedinD3.1.1.Methodologyadaptedtomarinedomain;

•adaptationoftheBBSmethodologyandBBSICTtoolstotheselectedmaritimescenarios(IBandCIMNE).WorkcompletedandreportedinthisdocumentD3.1.2:BBSICTtooladaptedtomarinedomain;

•definition,specification,planning,preparation(e.g.tuningofICTtoolstothespecifiedcases)ofat leastonedemonstrator in realistic scenario (IBandCIMNE).Workongoingand tobereportedinD3.1.3:User,taskandenvironmentalprofilesanddeveloperrequirements

•developmentofdemonstrator(s) includingadhoc(preliminaryversion)ICTtoolformaritimeBBS applications. Work ongoing and to be reported in D3.1.5: Customization for pilotapplications;

• execution of at least two pilot applications (one in Italy and one in Spain) using thedemonstrator(s). Feedback frompilots andapplicationof aHuman-CenteredDesign (HCD)approach,basedoncurrentandfutureregulations(e.g.IMO’se-navigation),toevaluateitsapplicabilityandeffectivenesstoICTtoolsandpromoteeaseofuseandacceptancebythetarget users. Work ongoing and to be reported in D3.16: Execution and Report on pilotapplications.

1.2 AboutthisdocumentThisdocumentisorganizedasfollows:- ashortoverviewoftheBBS“process”(BBSflow)isprovidedinChapter2- resultsofa surveyonexisting ICT toolsused inother industrial sectors forapplicationof

BBSissummarizedinChapter3;onthebasisofsuchsurvey,areferenceexistingICTtoolwasselected;


- requiredadditionalfeaturesneededfora“maritimeBBS”ICTtoolsarelistedinChapter4;- HumancenteredaspectsareanalyzedinAppendixA.

1.3 ConclusionsInD.3.1.1,theapplicabilityofBBSmaritimeoperationswasconfirmed.Basedontheworksummarizedinthisdocument,itisconcludedthat:a) anbrandnew ICT tool formaritimeBBS isnotnecessarysinceexistingoneswouldcover

mostoftheneeds;morespecificallytheDataBASE®tool1emergedtobethebestsuitedforadaptationtomaritimeapplications;

b) the resulting adapted to maritime applications ICT tool, DataBASE 2.0®, in preliminaryversionisunderdevelopmentandwillbedeliveredadD3.1.5.

InD.3.1.5detailsofthe,currentlyunderdevelopment,DataBASE2.0®willbeprovided.

1 The DataBase® ICT tool has been designed and developed by AARBA (Association forAdvancementofRadicalBehaviorAnalysis) that inEuropeactsonbehalfogCCBS (CambridgeCenterforBehavioralStudies).AARBAReference:http://www.aarba.eu/CCBSReference:http://www.behavior.org/


2 BBSflowTheBBSprocessisdescribedinFigure2.1,whereinparticularthefollowingaredescribed:

• TheActors:ü Observer;ü SafetyManager.

• TheActions:ü Tofillintheobservation;ü Torecordtheobservation;ü Tocheckandtoverify.

Fig.2.1:BBSBusinessflow


3 ExistingBBSICTtool(s)ICTtoolstoenabletheapplicationoftheBBSapproachareavailablefromindustrialfieldsotherthanmaritime.BelowashortdescriptionofDataBase®2which,basedontheanalysiscarriedoutwithin Sub Activity 3.1, was judged to be the best existing BBS ICT system (the version ofDataBase®analisedisavailable-asAppendixB–storedintheIBdatacenter).TheBBSmethodologyrequirestheexecutionofthefollowingactivities:

• definition of the behaviour to be monitored and how to perform the observations(checklist),inthedifferentareasofindustrialactivity(process)underanalysis;

• identificationoftheobserversandwhatandwheretheyhavetolookfor;• recordingoftheobservations;• analysisofobservationsandrelatedreporting

intheformofhighlevelflow-chartofanICTsystem,thisisillustratedinpreviousfigure2.1.Itisnotedthatdecisionsand/orrecommendationsbasedonBBSanalysis’resultsarenottobeanoutputoftheICTsystem;inotherwords,BBSmethodologydoesnotforeseetheuseofanykindof“expertsystem”. In fact,accordingtoan“userdefined”schedule, theSafetyManagerdownloads information and/or reports from the BBS data base in order monitor/verify theprocessunderBBSanddecideonanynecessaryactions(seefig.2.1).In view of illustration, the main features of DataBase®, which will be retained in theDataBase2.0®arethefollowing:

- loginpage(fig.3.1)- exampleofapplicationonastepofanindustrialprocess(fig.3.2)- typicaloutput(fig.3.3)- synthesisingraphicalformoftheresults(fig.3.4).

2TheDataBase® ICTtoolhasbeendesignedanddevelopedbyAARBA(Association forAdvancementofRadical Behavior Analysis) that in Europe acts on behalf of CCBS (Cambridge Center for BehavioralStudies).AARBAReference:http://www.aarba.eu/CCBSReference:http://www.behavior.org/


Figure3.1:theuserlogin

Fig.3.2


IFig3.3

Fig3.4


4 BBSICTtoolformaritimeapplicationDuetothespecificcharacteristicsof“maritimeprocesses”suchase.g.:• Language (workers on board the same ship usually have several different native

languages,upto20incruiseships);• Highturnover;• Repetitivenessofworkingactions;• Highspecializationofjob;.• Workunderstress,farfromhomeandsubjectedtofrequentchangesofcolleagues;• Environmentpotentiallyharsh(e.g.duringastorm)

any existing ICT system cannot be used as it stands in the maritime sector. However, theselectedtoolDataBase®canbeadaptedandupgradedaccordinglyleadingtoDataBase2.0®.These adaptations belong to two categories, namely Technological and Methodological asoutlinedinTables4.1and4.2.MorespecificallytheTechnologicaladaptationsareneededsinceinmaritimeapplicationtheprocessiscarriedoutina“mobile”environment(theship)andmostifnotalltheanalysisisdoneinacentralizedlocationashore(e.g.thesafetydepartmentoftheshipoperatingcompany).

Tab.4.1:technologicaladaptations


Tab2:methodologicaladaptations.


AppendixA-HUMAN-CENTEREDDESIGNAPPROACH(ERGOPROJECT)The introductionofHuman-Centereddesign (HCD)approach representsoneof theoutcomesdriven by the diffusion of Human Factors methods and principles. For this reason, beforeintroducingHCD,wediscusstheoriginsofHumanFactors.

Inthelastdecades,asignificantnumberofaccidentsfosteredtheinterest in investigatingthefactorsunderlying“humanerror”.Severalresearchfound,forinstance,thatbetween70%and80%ofaviationaccidentsresultfromsometypeofhumanerror(Lourens,1989;O’Hareetal.,1994).

Someauthorsdefinedtheconceptofhumanerroras“aninappropriateorundesirablehumandecisionorbehaviorthatreduces–orhaspotentialforreducingsystemeffectiveness,safetyorperformance”(Sanders&McCormick,1993).Although inthisreportweusetheterm“humanerror”,wedonot considerhumanerrors as somethingentirely attributable to the individual.Instead, we support the literature view arguing that the human error causes should beinvestigated in the people/system relationship (Vicente, 2004). This assumption founds alsosupport in thesociotechnical systemmodel (Koester,2007),which representsanevolutionofthe well-known SHEL model originally developed by Edwards (1972) and Hawkins (1987).ComparedtootherSHELmodelversions,thesociotechnicalsystemmodelbyKoester(1997)isspecifically conceived for maritime domain and it presents a clear graphic and taxonomicrepresentationofthefactorsinvolvedinvesselsystem.Inparticular,themodeldescribessevenfactors (or domains) that determine system performance; each factor is connected to oneanother(seeFigureA1).

FigureA.1.Thesociotechnicalsystemmodel(Koester,2007)

Themodelalsoindicateshowdifferentfactorsinteracttoinfluencesystemperformanceanditconceivesthedomain“individual”asafactorincludingindividualphysicalorsensorylimitations,human physiology, psychological limitations, individual workload management, skill and

Individ

GroTechnol

Practi

Physicenvironm

Society cult

Organizatienv ironm


knowledge. This specific view about the “individual” within a system comes from HumanFactors.

Due to different geographical areas of development, the discipline received differentdenominations. Currently, the term “Human Factors” and the term “Ergonomics” areconsidered as synonyms but also the term “human element” is often used, especially inmaritimedomain. In this report,weuse the acronymHFE that represents an abbreviationofboth “Human Factors” and “Ergonomics”. The different areas of development also producedseveraldefinitionsofHFE.OneofthemostvalidatedcomesfromtheInternationalErgonomicsAssociation(http://www.iea.cc/)thatdefinesHFEas“thescientificdisciplineconcernedwiththeunderstanding of the interactions among humans and other elements of a system, and theprofessionthatappliestheory,principles,dataandmethodstodeigninordertooptimizehumanwell-being and overall system performance”.More specifically, HFE focus on the interactionsbetween the humans and other components of a system such as other humans, machines,servicesandtools.Tomeettheseobjectives,thedisciplineconsidersthefollowingfactors:

• Purposeofthesystem,productorservice;• Characteristicsoftheintendedtargetpopulation;• Goalstobeachievedandtaskstobeperformed;• Existingconstraints;• Factorsofthephysical,organizationalandsocialenvironment;• Lifecycleandanydynamicchangeswithinit.

ISO26800:2011offersanexampleoffactorstobetakenintoaccountinanergonomicapproach(seeFigureA.2).

FigureA.2.Thefigureshowsasetoffactorstobetakeintoaccounttoimprovesystemperformance.The

activityofapersoniscentraltothefunctionalityofthesystem.

http://www.iea.cc/


As mentioned above, an ergonomic approach should consider a set of factors to enhancesystemperformance.WithregardtoHFE,thedefinitionofthesefactorsresult fromacademicresearchand militarydomain that supported itsapplicationanddevelopmentusingdifferenttools andmethods.Outside the academic environment andother fields of research (military,aeronautical,etc.) those toolsandmethodsappearedunlikely toapply.With theobjective toextend the application of HFE principles to other contexts and to simplify HFE tools andmethods,anewapproachdevelopedinthelasttwentyyears,theHuman-Centreddesign(HCD).

Since 1999 the International Standard Organization (ISO) introduced the concept of Human-CentreddesignwiththepublicationofISO13407entitled:“Human-centreddesignprocessesforinteractive systems”. The latest ISO 26800:2011 regarding general ergonomic approach,principlesandconceptsdefinestheHCDasfollows:“AHuman-Centredapproachmeansthatalldesignable components of a system, product or service are fitted to the characteristics of theintendedusers,operatorsorworkers, rather thanselectingand/oradaptinghumans to fit thesystem, product or service. This should be done by consideration of: the intended targetpopulation; the task, goal or intended outcome of the system, produce or service, and theenvironmentinwhichdesignistofunction”.Thoseaffectedbythedesign(e.g.workersorusers)shouldbeinvolvedthroughoutthewholedesignprocess,includingevaluation.Thiswillhelptooptimize solutions (e.g. by providing specific experience and requirements). Their early andcontinued participation and involvement is regarded as an efficient design strategy withinergonomics.

Inthelastyears,thisapproachhasbeenusedinvariouscontexts.AnimportantexamplecomesfromtheUnitedStatesDepartmentofDefensethatpublishedalistofdesigncriteriastandardinAugust1999.Among thedifferent standards, theDepartmentalso illustrates requirements toemployaHCDwithreferencetoanthropometry,displaysandlayoutofcontrols.Althoughthesestandardsrefer to themilitarydomain, theywereapplied invarious fields,dueto their freelyavailable perspective. A more practical example of HCD originates from the web-basedplatform.Agovernmentinitiative,forinstance,producedoneofthemostinterestingwebsitetoprovideoverviewsoftheUser-Centreddesignprocesswithparticularattentiontowebusabilityand design (http://www.usability.gov/). The website also covers the related information onmethodology and tools for making digital content more usable and useful. The initiativerepresentsoneofmostimportantfreelyavailablediffusionofHCDhighlightingthesignificanceoftheapproachanditsefficiency.

Inthissection,wefirstdescribedsomeissuesthatledtoanewperspectiveofindividualwithinasystem.Then,weexaminetheacademicbackgroundofHCDsummarizingtheHFEprinciples.Finally,wediscusstheHCDdevelopmentillustratingsomereferencesandapplications.

A.1Human-CentreddesignfordevelopingICTtoolsThe previous section described the development of the HCD approach. In this section, wediscussthereasonsunderlyingtheapplicationofHCDinICTtoolsdevelopment.

http://www.usability.gov/


Asmentionintheprevioussection,thefirststandardreferringtoHCDwasISO13407:1999thatconcernedHCDprocessesforinteractivesystems.In2010,thisstandardhasbeenrevisedbyISO9241-210:2010thatdefinestheHCDas“anapproachto interactivesystemsdevelopmentthataimstomakesystemsusableandusefulbyfocusingontheusers,theirneedsandrequirements,and by applying human factors/ergonomics, and usability knowledge and techniques”. Morespecifically, this part of ISO 9241-210:2010 provides requirements and recommendations forHCDprinciplesandactivities throughout the life cycleof computer-based interactive systems.Another standard regarding the application of the HCD approach is ISO/TR 16982:2002(complementary to revised ISO 13407:1999). The standard constitutes a technical reportproviding information on human-centred usabilitymethodswhich can be use for design andevaluation.

Inaddition to thestandards therealsosomeevidencesupporting theapplicationofHCDthatcomefromdifferentfieldsofapplication.Sincethe1960ssomeauthors,inthefieldofproductdesign, advocated the inclusion of users in product design as a solution to the widelyacknowledged problem of poor design (e.g., Bayazit 2004; Norman 1988; Sorrell et al. 2006;Wixon,Holtzblatt,andKnox1990).Astudyof310newproductdevelopmentprojectsindicatedthat involvingthecustomer inaprofessionalway in theproductdevelopmentstagesof“ideageneration,conceptdevelopment,assessmentandselectionofprototypesandmarketlaunch”(Ernst 2002, 11) contributes considerably to the realization of commercially successful newproducts. Maguire (2001a, 2001b) has summarized the benefits of following user-centereddesignprinciplesinsystems.

•Reducedtrainingandsupport:User-centereddesignandusabilityprincipleshelpreducesmartproductprovidertrainingtimeandtheneedforusersupport.This isofspecial importancetonovelsystemssincenewlyintroducedsmartsystemsmostoftenrequirededicatedtrainingandsupport.

• Reduced errors: Poorly designed smart systems significantly increase human error due toinconsistencies,ambiguities,orotherinterfacedesignfaults.

• Increased productivity: A smart system employing user-centered design and usabilityprinciples will enable users to concentrate on the task rather than the interface in order tooperateeffectively.

• Improved user population acceptance:Most users would be more likely to trust a smartsystem that provides well-presented information that is easily accessed, increasing end useracceptanceandenhancingcustomersatisfaction.

• Enhanced reputation: A well-designed system will enhance the vendor’s reputation in themarketplaceandguaranteeprofitabilityandcustomersupportforfutureproductsandservices.

There are also other reasons to employ aHCD approach in ICT tools development. First, theheterogeneity characterizing ICT tools (web-based, mobile, etc.) leads to the necessity toconsiderthecontextofuse,theuser’sneedsanduseracceptance.Theserequirementscanbe


satisfiedbyadoptingaHCDapproach.Second, theapplicationof ICT tools toacomplexworkenvironment requires a specific analysis of job activities to examine tool accessibility andusabilitythatcanbecarriedoutonlyusingaHCDapproach.

A.2Human-CenteredDesignapproachinmaritimedomainThis chapter aims to provide an overview of the presence and the evolution of the HCDapproach in maritime domain in the most relevant recommendations, regulations and EU-researchprojects’results,whichhavebeenpublishedforabouttwodecades.Itwillpossibletonoticethatthefirstinterventionswerebasedonexamininghumanelementissuestominimizeor mitigate the effects of human error aboard ship. In the last years, at the same speed oftechnological progress, the international interest hasmoved to the implementationof aHCDapproachtothedevelopmentofmarinesystems.

A.3HumanerrorandtechnologicaldevelopmentchallengesMaritimeaccidentimplieseachextraordinaryeventthatcausesnoxiousconsequences,puttingindanger crews, vessels andworkingenvironment. Theextraordinaryevents aredivided intothosewhichwere “about to” cause harmful consequences, and accidentswhich indirectly ordirectlycausedthelossoflife,endangeringhealth,materialdamageatseaorashore,pollution,and other consequences. According to the EuropeanMaritime Safety Agency (EMSA)3, about75%ofmarineaccidentsarecaused,atleastinpart,bysomekindofhumanerror,meantinasystemicway,asalreadymentionedinthepreviousChapter.Ithasbeenspecifiedthathumanerrorcontributesto89%ofimpacts,75%ofexplosions,79%ofcollapsesand75%ofcollisions(Hanzu-Pazara,R.,Barsan,E.,Arsenie,P.,Chiotoriou,L.,Raicu,G.,2008).

So, even nowadays,whennavigation instruments use advanced technologies, human error isstillusuallyconsideredthemaincauseofsuchcasualties.Inrelationtothis,itispointedoutthewrongtrendtothinkthatthesenewandimprovedtechnologiescanopposethehumanlimitsincreasingsafetyatsea.

Asforotherapplicationfields(i.e.aviation,military),technologicaldevelopmentshavecertainlycreated newopportunities inmaritime, but also have presented negative consequences (e.g.the lack proper coordination could bring to lack of standardization on board and ashore,incompatibilitybetweenvesselsandtoanincreasedandunnecessarylevelofcomplexity).

Starting by this, the real challenges for an effective implementation is to ensure that newsystemsaredevelopedaccording tousers’needs, skills andabilities, as to sayaccording toanapproachwhichconsidersthecentralityofthehumanelement.

3EuropeanMaritimeSafetyAgency,MaritimeAccidentReview2010


A.4TowardsHumanFactors&ErgonomicsOver recent years, a growing body of documents, guidelines, and resolutions has becomeavailable to focus on the importance and themajor role of the Human Element inmaritimedomain.

These include some international classification societies (e.g. American Bureau of Shipping,BureauVeritas,Lloyd'sRegisterGroup,DNVGL,Registro ItalianoNavale,NipponKaijiKyokai),EuropeanCommission-fundedprojects,andtheInternationalMaritimeOrganization(IMO).

On the classification front, the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) was between the firstauthorities to intervene, introducing in 1998 the industry standard “Guidance Notes on theApplicationofErgonomicstoMarineSystems”4,whichunderwentafirstrevisionin2003anditslastonFebruary2014.

ABShascontributedtosupplyamulti-facetedapproachtofindananswertothehumanerrorissues. The chief virtue of theseGuidanceNotes has been to introduce anHuman Factors&Ergonomics(HFE)approachasnecessaryinasystemdesigndevelopmenteffort:featureswhicharenotdevelopedaccordingtoanergonomicapproachcouldcontributetoagreaterincidenceofhumanerroroccurence.

ThemainaimoftheseGuidanceNotesandtheiradditionalupdatesistocontinuethediffusionand application of ergonomic principles to maritime domain, at the same pace of interfacedesignprocesses,tointegratehumansandsystems,andtherebytoimprovecrews’safetyandperformanceandtolowerhumanerror.

From this first model, and considering the increased complexity of ships’ systems and thegrowingtechnologicalsophisticationofonboardequipment,alsoatEuropeanlevelithasbeenputgreateremphasisontheimportanceoftheHumanFactorinmaritimedomain.

A.5EuropeaninterestfromHFEtoaHCDapproachproposalIn the years, the European Commission has funded several reseach projects focusing on thehumanelement inrecognitionof thecrucial importanceof thisaspect tomaritimesafetyandsecurity.

Inadditiontoconsideringtheattraction,trainingandretentionofseafarers,alltheEU-fundedprojects have and will examine the interaction of the human element in all its facets withaspectsofshipoperationanddesign,andthedevelopmentofenhancedcompliancecultures.

These projects represent an extension of ongoing EU level work to share information, todevelop best practice guides, and to consider the possible need to request a change in thelegislation.

4AmericanBureauofShipping,GuidanceNotesontheApplicationofErgonomicstoMarineSystems,lastupdatedFebruary2014


Oneofthefirsttopicswhichwereanalysedistheroleoffatigue5atthecostofmaritimesafety.So,whenseafarer fatiguewasunderstoodtobeoneof thesector’sbiggesthealthandsafetyrisks,therehavebeenfundedprojectstohelpinfindingeffectiveandlong-lastingsolutions.

ThefirstandmostimportantEUprojectonthistopichasbeentheCardiffResearchProgrammeabout seafarers’ fatigue. Through surveys, analysisof existingdatabasesand field research, itwasshowedthatthefatigueatseaisprincipallyduetoseafarers’exposuretoathecombinedeffectofrecognizableriskfactors,suchasoperational(e.g.portfrequency),organizational(e.g.job support), and environmental (e.g. physical hazards) ones. The main quality of CardiffProgrammehasbeentopavethewaytotheinvestigationofhumanelementrelatedaspects.

AlsoapartofProjectHorizon(endedin2012),examinedseafarers’fatigueusingsimulatorsandelectrophysiologicalrecording.TheprincipalachievedgoalofProjectHorizonhasbeenadeeperand more rigorous understanding of the complex and multiple effects of standard maritimewatchschedulesonsleepinessandfatigue.

It should be observed, nonetheless, that this was an all simulator-based project that wasdesigned to study some basic aspects of the effects of some of the most common workingpatterns for seafarers.Althoughevery effort to design realistic simulatedworking conditions,there were recognised some inevitable practical limitations (e.g. timescales and workingenvironment).

The European Commission is now sponsoring projects which are mostly set in real workingenvironments and that take into account the real users’ central position inmaritime systemsdevelopmentthroughaHuman-CentredDesign(HCD)approach.

Thefirst intemporalsequencehasbeentheFAROS(HumanFactors inRisk-BasedShipDesignMethodology) project (2012-2015). FAROS project will use a Risk-Based Design (RBD)methodology to integrate the human element into the ship safety framework. This will beachieved by experimental data, simulations, parametric ship designmodels and optimisationprocessestoassimilateHFEintotheshipdesignprocesssinceaconceptualstage.

InCyClaDes(Crew-centredDesignandOperationsofshipsandshipsystems)project(2012-endof2014)thereisamorewell-definedaddresstotherecoursetoaHCDofequipmentonboardships to investigate human-machine interaction on ships, and to support the general goal ofreducingmaritimerisk.

According to the criteria ofHCDapproach, theCycladesproject considers amulti-disciplinaryteamtofocusonallthekeystepsinthesystemlifecycle(i.e.fromconcept,design,application,evaluationandapproval, tomaintenance), lookingcontinuously (directlyand/or indirectly) forstakeholdersanduserssuggestions,opinionsandapproval.

5Fatigueisgenerallyunderstoodtobeastateofacutementaland/orphysicaltiredness,inwhichthereisaprogressivedeclineinperformanceandalertness.


Themostrecent(2013–toendin2015)Euproject,CASCADe(CooperativeandAdaptiveShipbasedContextAwareDesign),isathreeyearsresearch,whichaimistoclosethegapbetweenthedesignofthebridgesystemandtheprocedures,optimizinghuman-machine interfacesonthebridge.

The project uses safety-based scenarios to investigate bridge procedures: it will analysepotential failures due to human errors caused by loss of situational awareness, during thedesignphaseofabridge.Theexpectedresultwillbe thedevelopmentof anadaptivebridgesystemthatwillidentify,preventandrecoverfromhumanerrorsbyrisingcooperationbetweencrew and machines on the bridge. This goal will be achieved through a HCD approach as asupporttotheanalysisofcrewperfomanceattheveryearlydevelopmentstages.

The three above mentioned projects6prove the general trend in EU’s Seventh FrameworkProgramme for Research to develop a methodology for integrating harmonization tools ofsystem and procedure development and HFE, promoting an affordable HCD approach tomaritimesystems.

A.6ThemostrecentapplicationofaHCDapproach:IMO’sGuidelinesforE-navigationSystemsIn the last years, the address to a Human Centred Design approach for the development ofmaritimesystemshasbeenspreadatinternationallevel,aswell,mainlythroughtheinterestofthe InternationalMaritimeOrganization (IMO).The IMOwork related toHumanFactordatedbacktothe1990s(Schröder-Hinrichsa,J.,Hollnagelbc,E.,Baldaufa,M.,Hofmanna,S.,Katariaa,A.,2013)oftenastheresultofresponsestomaritimeaccidents.Thetypical reactionstosuchcasualtyfromtheOrganizationhavebeenacombinationof(technical)regulations,procedureschangingandworkers’training.TheIMOrecommendedthatthestudyofHFE(andinparticularhumanerror)wouldbeanimportantfocusforimprovingmaritimesafety.Asaresult,theIMOstartedtointroducenewregulationsthatincorporatedahumanelementviewpoint.

Statementsmade by IMO in recent years claim a shift towards a new approach inmaritimesafetythroughsystemicevaluationsandcentralizationonseafarersneeds.

This plan of action found its way alongside the gradual automation through constanttechnological advances in maritime systems development. In 2008, the IMO drew up theconcept of e-Navigations based on the harmonisation of marine navigation systems andsupportingshoreservicesdrivenbyuserneeds7,anditisexpectedtohaveasignificantimpact

6TheareasofinterestbetweenCASCADe,CyClaDesandFAROSprojectareeasilysuperimposableandtherehavebeenandtherewillbein2015someworkshopsinwhichtherewillbediscussedtherespectiveachievedresults.7 <<e-Navigationistheharmonisedcollection,integration,exchange,presentationandanalysisofmaritimeinformationonboardandashorebyelectronicmeanstoenhanceberthtoberthnavigationandrelatedservices,forsafetyandsecurityatseaandprotectionofthemarineenvironment>>,InternationalMaritimeOrganization,December2008


onthefutureofmarinenavigation. InDecember2008,the IMO’sMaritimeSafetyCommittee(MSC85) set theE-NavigationStrategy,which is fouryearworkprogramme for relevant sub-committeestodevelopaStrategic ImplementationPlan(SIP),whichoverallgoal isto improvesafetyofnavigationandtoreduceerrors,throughmodern,proven,optimizedtools,accordingtousers’characteristicsandneeds.

WithintheSip,Australiahasbeenthemostactivecountryinthedevelopmentofguidelinesfortheusabilityofnavigationequipmentandsystems,presentingandpromotingaHCDapproach.

In2012Australiapresidedatthe58thsessionof IMO’sSub-Commiteeonsafetyofnavigationwhichproducedtworeports,whichpowereduptothedefinitionoftheHCDprocessappliedtothemaritimesector:

• NAV 58/INF.10 (Australia) - The Human Element Analysing Process (HEAP) 8 in e-navigation, that introduces the review and the application of the Human ElementAnalysingProcess(HEAP)tothee-navigationgapanalysis.

• NAV58/INF.11 (Australia) -Humanerrormanagement in theeraofe-navigation, thatsummarisesthehumanelementprincipleswhichsupporttheapplicationoftheHumanElement Analysing Process (HEAP) within the e-navigation gap analysis (i.e. analysisbased on data from real-time observation of normal operations, along with riskmitigationstrategiesbasedonhumanerrormanagementtheory).

Australia’s intervention culminated in March 2013, when the Australian Maritime SafetyAuthority hosted an e-NavigationUsabilityWorkshop at Kingscliff, New SouthWales. The 44delegates, representing 11 countries and four key stakeholder areas for e-navigation (i.e.maritime administrations, marine electronics industry and users -seafarers and shoreorganizations suchasVessel Traffic Services andpilots - and research/academia) sat downatthe table to compose thedraft “Guidelines onHumanCentredDesign (HCD) for E-navigationSystems”, that has become theAnnex 4 of the IMO report “Development of an E-NavigationStrategy Implementation Plan, by the Correspondance Group on e-Navigation”, under thecoordinationofNorway,whichwillbereleasedinitslatestversioninthenextmonths.

ThescopeoftheseguidelineistooutlineaHCDprocessforensuringusabilityandsafetyine-navigation systems. They present the HCD approach as the common process to implementusability goals, with the basic premise that designable systems have to be apt to the users’characteristicsandtasks,insteadthanrequiringuserstoadapttoanalreadydevelopedsystem.

ThisHCDapproachemploysanUsabilityTesting,EvaluationandAssessment(U-TEA)9processtoobtainaformalfeedbackineachdesignphasetopledgecontinuedsafetyandusability.

8 TheHEAPisapracticalandnon-scientificchecklisttoassistregulatorsinensuringthathumanelementaspectsrelatedtotheshipanditsequipments,themasterandcrew,training,managementashoreandon board, and work environment conditions have been taken into consideration when introducing oramendingIMOinstruments.


Thisprocessshould,atleast,consistofsixactivities:

Pre-activity:ConductEarlyHumanElementAnalysis

Activity1:Understandandspecifythecontextofuse(inwhichthesystemis/willbeused)

Activity2:Specifytheuserandstakeholderrequirements

Activity3:Producedesignsolutionstomeetuserrequirements

Activity4:Evaluateandtestthedesignsagainstrequirements

Activity5:Maintainoperationalusability

HumanCentredDesignProcess

Conceptdevelopment

Activity1Understandandspecify

thecontextofuse

U-TEA

Planning&Analysis

Activity2Specifytheusability

requirements

U-TEA

Activity3Producedesignsolutionstomeetusabilityrequirements

U-TEA

Design IntegrationandTesting

Activity4Evaluatethedesignsagainst

usabilityrequirements

U-TEA

SystemConcept

UsabilityRequirements Prototype Systemand

UsabilityGoals

achievesusabilityand

safety

Operational

Activity5MaintainOperationalUsabilityPre-Activity

ConductEarlyHumanElementAnalysis

UsabilityandOperationalRequirements

FeedbackLoop

Iteratewhereappropiate

OperationalSystemFeedback

ContinuedUsabilityandOperationalRequirements

FormativeU-TEA

UsabilityTesting,Evaluation&Assessment

SummativeU-TEA RegulatoryApproval

FigureA.3:Overviewofthee-NavigationHumanCentredDesignProcess

Thesestepsproposeapossibilitytoimproveuserperformance,toconsidererrormanagementandrecovery,andtoimprovetimeandresourceswhicharenecessaryforsystemsmaintenance.In the guidelines, it is highlighted inmore asides the innate iterative nature of HCD process:eachactivitymayberevisitedthroughoutthesystemdevelopment,withacontinuousfeedbackbetweeneachof theactivities (i.e. increaseddefinitionof thecontext-of-usecould impactonuser requirements, or user-requirements may be changed after initial prototyping andevaluationofadesignsolution).The main objective of these guidelines is to ensure that the general HCD requirements andcriteriahavebeendescribed inasystematicandeffectivemannertobeapplied inamaritimeenvironment.Most importantly, the intention of this document is tomake clear that a HCD approach canactuallyhelp indeveloping systemswhich supportusers in lowandhigh stress environments(e.g. during challenging navigation conditions), when they are most vulnerable to make

9 U-TEA was developed by Japan, which is the responsible for the draft “Guidelines for usability evaluation of navigational equipment”


mistakes.AHCDdevelopedsystemwilloptimize learnabilityand familiarizationrequirements,aswell.ItisveryimportantandrealisticthatitwasspecifiedthatthesopresentedHCDprocesscanbeapplied to thedesignofbothnewsystems indevelopmentandalreadyexisting systemtobemodified.Assuch,detailedandprescriptivedesignrequirementswhichspecifydesignsolutionsarenotincluded.The drafting of these IMO guidelines is still ongoing, so their effective applicability could beevaluatedonlyatalatertime.Itisnowpossibletoexaminethediscussiontopicsonwhichtheworktableparticipantsarealreadyconfronting.TheguidelinesonHCDdonotreferevertothenecessary recourse to experts (i.e. User eXperience, Usability experts) for a focused andeffective support in some activities in HCD process, assuming that the guidelines themselvescould be sufficient for the audience of stakeholders10, which have an interest in developing,testingandevaluatinge-navigationsystems.Similarly,thereisnoaclearindicationandpracticalexamplesof theuser researchmethods (i.e.cardsorting,contextual interviews, focusgroups,heuristicevaluation,personas,prototyping,taskanalysis,usabilitytesting,usecases).Tillnow,therearenotrelevantexamplesofpracticalimplementationoftheseguidelines,soitcouldbeonlysupposedtheprobablestakeholders’difficultiesinputtingtheminpractice.Thesecriticalities could easily dissuade the stakeholder through and though in approaching a HCDprocessfordevelopingsystems.Projects like Monalisa 2.0, which considers the application of a HCD approach to thedevelopmentofe-Navigationsystemsinarealworkingenvironment(or,moregenerally,tothedevelopmentofready-to-useICTtools),couldbetherighttestbenchtocollectinformationandtocheckandrearrange,ifnecessary,theprocesswhichwaspresentedintheguidelines.To be thorough, in mutual cooperation with the IMO, also the International Association ofMarine Aids to Navigation and Lighthouse Authorities (IALA) has planned an interventionstrategy for e-Navigation,which principal aims are to develop user-friendly bridge design, toincreasereliability,resilienceandintegrityofbridgeequipmentandnavigationinformationandtoimproveCommunicationofVTSService.TheIALA’sactivitiesarejustpartiallysuperimposabletothetopicsofthisreviewaboutHCDapproachinmaritime,soitwillnotanalysedhere.

A.7CriticalitiesinapplyingaHCDapproachinmaritimedomainAs indicated in ISO 9241, criticalities about users’ acceptance of a HCD approach to systemsdevelopment couldbedetectedduring throughoutall theadvancement stepsof theprocess.So,inthisinitialphaseoftheresearchactivity,itispossibletoindicatethegeneralissuesaboutusers’acceptanceofaHCDapproach.AsillustratedinChapterA.6,toapplyaHCDapproachinaworkingenvironmentitisessentialtoinvolveintheprocessrealend-users,suchasseafarers,pilotsandrelevantshorepersonnel.

10 Stakeholders include equipment designers and manufacturers, system integrators, maritimeauthorities and regulators, shipbuilders, ship owners/operators, Vessel Traffic Service authorities andRescueCoordinationCentres.


In the maritime domain - as in others - the most common users’ reaction to a processimplementation could be a general resistance to change. Indeed, itwas argued (Baddoo andHall, 2003) that the most onerous obstacle in introducing any new approach in a systemdevelopmentistheunwillingnessofthepersonsconcernedtotakeitup.ThisresistancecouldeffectivelyworkevenfortheHCDapproachwhichintentistointroducegruadualchanges,thatarebasedprimarlyonusers’suggestions.Moreover, it could be possible meeting organizational obstacles (Bauer, 1991) in recruitingprofessionals as participants to HCD activities, both for the intense work rate and for theconstrictingphysicalworkingenvironment.Inthemaritimecase,theshipownerscouldnotbeverywillinginofferingspacesandtimetodevelopthesenecessaryactivities.As far as the debate about the effectiveness and ease in applying a HCD approach is still inprogress (MaguireM., 2011), there aremany evidences in other fields (i.e.medical, aviation,aeronautical, transportation) of thepositive effect of users’ participation to thedevelopmentstages, which revealed itself in a more serene changes acceptance by users and a generalimprovementinworkingsafetyandperformances(EndsleyM.R.,BoltèB.,JonesD.G.,2003).

AppendixB–DataBase®executable(storedinIBdatacenter)


39 partners from 10 countries

taking maritime transport into the digital age

By designing and demonstrating innovative use of ICT solutions MONALISA 2.0 will provide the route to improved

SAFETY - ENVIRONMENT - EFFICIENCY

Swedish Maritime Administration ◦ LFV - Air Navigation Services of Sweden ◦ SSPA ◦ Viktoria Swedish ICT ◦ Transas ◦ Carmenta ◦ Chalmers University of Technology ◦ World

Maritime University ◦ The Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute ◦ Danish Maritime Authority ◦ Danish Meteorological Institute ◦ GateHouse ◦ Navicon ◦ Novia

University of Applied Sciences ◦ DLR ◦ Fraunhofer ◦ Jeppesen ◦ Rheinmetall ◦ Carnival Corp. ◦ Italian Ministry of Transport ◦ RINA Services ◦ D’Appolonia ◦ Port of

Livorno ◦ IB SRL ◦ Martec SPA ◦ Ergoproject ◦ University of Genua ◦ VEMARS ◦ SASEMAR ◦ Ferri Industries ◦ Valencia Port Authority ◦ Valencia Port Foundation ◦

CIMNE ◦ Corporacion Maritima ◦ Technical University of Madrid ◦ University of Catalonia ◦ Technical University of Athens ◦ MARSEC-XL ◦ Norwegian Coastal Administration

www.monalisaproject.eu

http://www.monalisaproject.eu

MONALISA 2.0 – Activity 3 BBS ICT tool adapted to maritime ... · MONALISA 2.0 - BBS ICT TOOL...

Documents

Transcript of MONALISA 2.0 – Activity 3 BBS ICT tool adapted to maritime ... · MONALISA 2.0 - BBS ICT TOOL...