>
> |
A brief history of Maritime Ergonomics
Research into bridge ergonomics and maritime Human Factors issues got underway in the 1950s. Earlier references to ergonomics (in the 30s and 40s) in trade journals and magazines are brief and infrequent and centre on visibility from the bridge and communications on and beyond the ship. In 1959 the British Ministry of Defence commissioned a study on integration of systems and layouts of bridges (Millar & Clarke, 1978), and a decade later a study was commissioned for merchant tanker bridges by ESSO (Clarke, 1978; Mayfield & Clarke, 1977). The first substantive treatment of bridgework with respect to Human Factors and ergonomics on merchant ships seems to be a paper by Wilkinson (Wilkinson, 1971), which gives a thorough view on the evolution of bridges and bridge equipment, in particular from an ergonomic viewpoint. In Holland Human Factors on the bridge have been considered and researched since the 1960s, see for instance Walraven and Lazet (Walraven & Lazet, 1964). In the 1970s there was a great deal of ergonomics research and development (Istance & Ivergård, 1978; Ivergård, 1976; Mayfield & Clarke, 1977). Ergonomists at this time believed that maritime ergonomics had ‘made a breakthrough’ but the positive trend did not continue. According to the Swedish Maritime Authority at least the Swedish ship-owners felt swamped by all the new regulations the Swedish Maritime Authority put out. It was too much, came out too fast, and the development of maritime ergonomic more or less ground to a halt around 1980, in part due to other issues as where ships were mainly built (Asia as opposed to Europe).
However, the necessity of considering ergonomics on board, in the context of technology, has been written about by HF researchers for at least 35-40 years. The following quote is representative of the stance to the issue:
“…human engineering needs as much attention as ergonomics and may even require more, until experience and training allows the human computer properly to appreciate and to accept the limitations of the electronic one.” (Pain, 1968).
Unfortunately the emphasis was then, and still is, on making the human adapt to computers and technology, whatever their limitations. Still, as new technology has been installed to make work safer by reducing ‘human error’ or more efficient by removing the ‘human factor’ (Goossens & Glansdorp, 1998), new types of accidents have started to emerge. Many papers on maritime technology or ergonomics start with detailing how large a percentage of accidents are due to the ‘human factor’. It ranges from 65% (Sanquist, 1992), 80% (Blanding, 1987) and a staggering 96% (Rothblum, n.d.). Even an apparently well-intended categorisation of causes presented by the Swedish Maritime Safety Inspectorate in the first pages of their yearly compilation of ship accidents is reduced in later pages of the report (Sjöfartsinspektionen, 2003). In all too many instances the only causes listed are ‘human factor’ and ‘technical factor’ or even worse ‘other factors’. Some research indicates that such categories are not only misdirected but also ineffective when it comes to increasing safety in general and maritime safety in particular (Dekker, 2004). Accident investigations tend to reflect the view of the research community, i.e., first measure, then evaluate and finally correct any problems. This of course leaves open the question of what one is ‘measuring’ and ‘evaluating’. In turn this makes any attempt to ‘fix’ the problem rather problematic.
Many trials and studies tend to assume there is a technology that will solve a (or the) ‘human factors’ problem. There are several examples of how a technological ‘solution’, even when tested in realistic circumstances, gives small benefits in low-workload situations and only tendencies or no benefit at all in high-workload situations (Grabowski & Sanborn, 2001; Kristiansen, Mathisen, & Villabø, 1990; Lützhöft, 2004). Many maritime studies have focused on the impact of new technology. However, many studies are carried out within the traditional ergonomics framework and most of this research is carried out on simulators, with little or no reference to what goes on aboard a real ship. Today, this is changing - maritime ergonomics is becoming important again, and many researchers perform field work, a much needed complement to classic studies.
Reference list
- Blanding, H.C. (1987). Automation of Ships and the Human Factor. Proceedings of Ship Technology and Research Symposium of The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Philadelphia, PA.
- Clarke, A. (1978). Coping with the human factor. Marine Design International, Supplement to Marine Week, March 31st, 1978, 23-24.
- Dekker, S.W.A. (2004). Why we need new accident models. Journal of Human Factors and Aerospace Safety, 2, in press.
- Goossens, L.H.J., & Glansdorp, C.C. (1998). Operational Benefits and Risk Reduction of Marine Accidents. Journal of Navigation, 51(3), 368-381.
- Grabowski, M., & Sanborn, S.D. (2001). Evaluation of Embedded Intelligent Real-time Systems. Decision Sciences, 32(1), 95-123.
- Istance, H., & Ivergård, T. (1978). Ergonomics and reliability in the ship handling system, SSF Report 157, Project 5311. Göteborg, Sweden: Stiftelsen Svensk Skeppsforskning (SSF).
- Ivergård, T. (1976). Bridge Design and Reliability: An ergonomic questionnaire study, SSF Project 5311:13. Göteborg, Sweden: Stiftelsen Svensk Skeppsforskning (SSF).
- Kristiansen, S., Mathisen, L.E., & Villabø, M. (1990). Integrated bridge control, Proceedings of ICMES 90: Maritime Systems Integrity (pp. 119-132). The University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Great Britain: Marine Management (Holdings) Ltd.
- Lützhöft, M.H. (2004). "The technology is great when it works": Maritime Technology and Human Integration on the Ship's Bridge. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Linköping University, Linköping. Available at: http://www.ep.liu.se/diss/science_technology/2004/index.html.
- Mayfield, T.F., & Clarke, A.A. (1977). The Ships Bridge And Wheelhouse Ergonomics Design Study. Proceedings of HF in the Design and Operation of Ships, Gothenburg, Sweden.
- Millar, I.C., & Clarke, A.A. (1978). Recent Developments in the Design of Ships' Bridges. Proceedings of Proceedings of the Symposium on the Design of Ships' Bridges, 30th November, London.
- Pain, H. (1968). Bridge Control. In J. A. Hind (Ed.), Automation in Merchant Ships. London: Fishing News (Books) Ltd.
- Rothblum, A.M. (n.d.). Human Error and Marine Safety. USCG. Available: http://www.uscg.mil/hq/gm/risk/old%5Fsite/e%2Dguidelines/html/vol4/volume4/gen%5Frec/humanerr.htm [2004, October].
- Sanquist, T.F. (1992). Human Factors in Maritime Applications: A New Opportunity for Multi-Modal Transportation Research. Proceedings of Proceedings of the Human Factors 36th Annual Meeting.
- Sjöfartsinspektionen. (2003). Sammanställning av rapporterade fartygsolyckor och tillbud samt personolyckor i svenska handels- och fiskefartyg. Norrköping: Sjöfartsverket.
- Walraven, P.L., & Lazet, A. (1964). Human factors in Bridge and Chartroom Design. Journal of Navigation, 17(4), 405-407.
- Wilkinson, G.R. (1971). Wheelhouse and Bridge Design - A Shipbuilder's Appraisal. Proceedings, Transactions of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects, Vol. 113.
|