supporting participatory practices in ship design and ...

Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2016 Annual Meeting

1004

SUPPORTING PARTICIPATORY PRACTICES IN SHIP DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION – CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES Steven C. Mallam, Monica Lundh & Scott N. MacKinnon Maritime Human Factors & Navigation Division Department of Shipping & Marine Technology Chalmers University of Technology Gothenburg, Sweden The maritime shipping industry is a safety-critical domain where onboard work organization continues to evolve with advancing technologies. Recent research has revealed that altering operational conditions and task demands are not supported or optimized by typical onboard working environments. The application of ergonomics and participatory design practices in ship design and construction is generally not well supported by regulation or implemented by designers. The purpose of this paper is to systematically analyse the potential of practical application of ergonomics and participatory design practices in ship design and construction. SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) and PEST (political, economic, social and technological) analyses were used to investigate the internal, and of particular interest, the external macro-environmental factors of the shipping industry which influence the success of ergonomics applications in ship development processes.

Copyright 2016 by Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. DOI 10.1177/1541931213601233

INTRODUCTION Approximately ninety percent of global cargo trade occurs via maritime shipping (Allen, 2009; Stopford, 2009), representing hundreds of billions of dollars annually and millions of jobs worldwide (IHS Global Insight, 2009). Although the primary goals of the maritime shipping domain remain essentially unchanged - to transport as much cargo as economically efficient and safely as possible - advancements in technology, shipping practices and society have altered how these goals are achieved. Improvements in ship design and equipment sophistication and reliability have reduced the frequency and severity of shipping accidents. However, these improvements have revealed the influence and dominating trend of maritime accidents to some degree are caused by human error (Hetherington, Flin & Mearns, 2006). Technological advancements have reduced crew numbers, altered personnel task demands, and increased equipment and system complexity (Barnett, Stevenson & Lang, 2005; Grech, Horberry & Koester, 2008). It is critical that the work organization and ship design focus on the end-user’s operational tasks and work demands in order to optimize efficiency and safety. Designing, constructing and operating a ship is a competitive, globalized business requiring input from multidisciplinary stakeholders (Stopford, 2009). Ship construction and operation standards are set forth primarily by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), as well as national authorities and classification societies which register and insure ships and offshore structures. Although the majority of documents from the IMO pertain to structural design, technical specifications of equipment and construction requirements, organizations have been increasing their focus on the human element in shipping, human-centred design and ergonomics through the formation of sub-committees and nonmandatory guidelines (e.g. IMO, 2004; 2006a; 2006b; 2006c). The IMO supports a participatory approach and the inclusion

of end-users when formulating a ship’s design and layout, acknowledging the domains contribution to enhanced safety and efficiency in shipping operations (IMO, 1998). However, the ergonomics research-practice gap is expanding (Chung & Shorrock, 2011). Ergonomics in the shipping domain is generally under-researched (Österman & Rose, 2015; Österman, Rose & Osvalder, 2010) and underapplied due a general lack of knowledge, mandatory regulatory support and practical, value-added methods and tools for naval architects (Mallam & Lundh, 2013; Mallam, Lundh & MacKinnon, 2015). A fundamental requirement for survival in the shipping industry is maximizing the efficiency of operations (Bhattacharya, 2015; Stopford, 2009). Ship owners and investors place particular importance on a ship’s cargo carrying capacity, speed and versatility, rather than detailed design factors (Veenstra & Ludema, 2006). Without measurable and accountable cost-benefit analyses of investment in ergonomics, the competitive, globalized marketplace of mercantile shipping will not be interested in what is commonly viewed today as an unnecessary expense. PURPOSE The purpose of this paper is to analyze the opportunities and challenges of pragmatically implementing ergonomics and participatory design procedures effectively throughout ship design and construction phases. The focus of this analysis is predominantly on the external macro-environmental factors affecting ergonomics application in shipping. MATERIALS & METHODS Information used in the analyses were derived from a review of literature from both general ergonomic, as well as shipping-specific materials. Primarily academic, peerreviewed research and journals were used in the analysis,

Downloaded from pro.sagepub.com at Chalmers Univ of Technology on September 25, 2016


however grey literature (e.g. maritime magazines, union publications, etc.) was also included in order to gather anecdotal evidence, perspectives and experiences from industry. SWOT Analysis To systematically structure a review identifying positive characteristics and limitations impacting potential success of ergonomics application in ship design and construction the SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) framework was utilized. The SWOT analysis is a strategic planning framework used to understand sources of competitive advantage (Barney, 1995; Dyson, 2004). SWOT analyses can determine whether individuals, groups, teams, organizations or developed strategies are able to deal effectively with their environment (Chermack & Kasshanna, 2007). SWOT was developed for, and is most commonly associated with business applications, however is applied across a wide variety of domains (Rizzo & Kim, 2005). Generally utilized for initial investigations into the factors which help or hinder the introduction of new concepts (e.g. ergonomics in shipping), SWOT reveals areas of weaknesses and facilitates the development of strategies to increase efficiency and efficacy (Kuiper & Thomas, 2000; Thomas, Chie, Abraham, Raj & Beh, 2014). The elements of the SWOT analysis are divided into internal forces (building upon strengths and eliminating weaknesses to the organization) and external forces (exploiting opportunities and mitigating the effects of threats to the organization) (Chermack & Kasshanna, 2007).

1005

PEST Analysis While SWOT examines internal strengths and weaknesses, and external opportunities and threats, it should be supplemented with other methods for a more complete understanding of the system’s issues (Thomas, Chie, Abraham, Raj & Beh, 2014). The PEST (Political-EconomicSocial-Technological) analysis was also used which examines external macro-environmental factors of political, economic, social and technological determinants in greater detail (Ho, 2014). Utilizing both SWOT and PEST together in the same study provides a deeper, more comprehensive analysis of the overall context of a system (Ha & Coghill, 2006). FINDINGS Findings from the SWOT and PEST analyses are presented in Table 1. The internal strengths and weakness of ergonomics and external opportunities and threats of the shipping industry are presented with strategies aimed to exploit positive aspects and neutralize drawbacks of ergonomics application in the domain. Results of the PEST analysis are presented for the external factor, the shipping industry. Each SWOT external factor opportunity and threat finding has been categorized as political (P), economic (E), social (S) or technological (T), found in brackets at the end of each point. The PEST categories which most strongly represented each SWOT finding is presented. However, these are not necessarily mutually exclusive and may have crossover between several PEST categories for each SWOT finding.

Table 1. SWOT & PEST of predominant issues regarding ergonomic integration in ship design and construction Internal (Ergonomics) Strengths

Weaknesses

Proven benefits of ergonomics programs:

Viewed as a “soft science” by engineering domains.

e.g. increased productivity, safety, user satisfaction, worker retention, comfort and trust in the system, etc.

Initial, upfront investment required.

Reduced absenteeism, injury rates, design, operational costs, etc. Corporate responsibility.

Showing consistent and measurable results: demonstrating long-term cost savings.

External (Shipping Industry) Opportunities IMO/governing bodies have shown increased interest in ergonomics. (P, S) Many “low hanging fruit” to capitalize on in ship design development. (T, S)

Threats Global economic and competition pressures. (E, P) Geographically distributed & multi-disciplinary stakeholders/processes. (S, T)

Increasing education at postsecondary-level for designers and end-users. (S, T)

IMO have few mandatory rules or regulations in place – lacks formality in the domain. (P, E)

Forming direct partnerships with design firms and shipyards. (E, P, S)

Current loopholes in international laws contribute to easy cost-savings. (P, E)

Develop lean, pragmatic ergonomic solutions which are easily understood and implemented by stakeholders (e.g. engineers, financers). (S, T)

Lack of shipping-specific cost-to-benefit data (E)


Multi-disciplinary teams (S) “Old” seafaring traditions/mindset. (S)


DISCUSSION External Environment Opportunities & Threats The results of the SWOT and PEST analyses presented in Table 1 reveal that social and technological factors are more strongly associated with opportunities for ergonomics application in ship design and construction, while economic and political factors are more strongly associated with threats. Mitigating major economic & political threats. Ergonomics is often considered a softer science, failing to justify costs of activities or tangibly demonstrating the benefits of resource investment (also strongly related to each internal ergonomics weaknesses factors) (Falck & Rosenqvist, 2012; Hendrick, 1996). Specifically, within the shipping industry there is little data on the cost-to-benefit of investing in ergonomics (Österman & Rose, 2015; Österman, Rose & Osvalder, 2010). This is a major issue for the failure of widespread application of ergonomics and participatory design practices in shipping. The wider value of ergonomics is often not fully understood and is frequently associated primarily with health and safety issues and programs (Dul & Neumann, 2009; Jenkins & Rickards, 2001). Ship-owners have traditionally focused their investments in improving shipping technologies, without the same focus or enthusiasm for the people working onboard (Bhattacharya, 2015). This can be attributed to a lack of knowledge and understanding of the benefits (particularly of interest to ship owners and operators: productivity and economic benefits) of investing and integrating ergonomics concepts in ship design and construction processes. Any successful ergonomics or participatory design program requires strong support from management (Vink, Koningsveld & Molenbroek, 2006). This managerial support is imperative for ergonomics professionals wanting to break into, and thrive within the shipping industry. As the two primary threats to ergonomics application in ship development relate to economics and politics further investigation must be taken to mitigate these negative factors. Politics (more specifically in this context – shipping rules and regulations) and economics are extremely interconnected. Mercantile marine shipping is a highly regulated domain (Chauvin, Lardjane, Morel, Clostermann & Langard, 2013). However, as an industry its fundamental purpose is to trade, and ultimately to survive and proliferate economically. Regulatory bodies in general have conflicting relationships between balancing safety and economic measures (Rosario, 2000). Within the international governing body of ship construction and operation, there is no clear systematic support in the rules and regulations for ergonomics or participatory design (Mallam & Lundh, 2013), even though the IMO encourages its practice in theory. The international nature of the shipping business has also created various loopholes in international laws which allows significant costreduction in ship construction, insurance and registration (i.e. flags of convenience), international labor laws, operating practices and decommissioning. Authorities have difficulties exercising control and implementing safety measures, which

1006

leads to a patchwork regulatory climate (Lindøe, Engen & Olsen, 2011; Psaraftis, 2002). Ideally, stakeholders involved in ship design and construction (i.e. customers, designers, operators, shipyards, etc.) will understand the value of ergonomics and the benefits derived from their investment throughout the lifecycle of a ship’s operations regardless of whether it is supported by mandatory rules and regulations. However, it is the burden of the ergonomics domain to demonstrate its added value to the shipping industry. The results indicate that this may be best achieved first through an economic argument to shipping stakeholders primarily concerned with finances (e.g. shipping companies, operators, designers, builders, etc.). Developing the rules and regulations of the shipping industry is a highly political process involving many international stakeholders who hold an array of vested interests. This creates a slow moving, inefficient process which would “force” ergonomics onto the industry through legislation which may have unintended negative consequences. Conversely, a more productive pursuit may be a bottom-up approach where industry trendsetters apply and test ergonomics applications because of its potential added value to their business. Ultimately, if ergonomics has true pragmatic and economic benefits to the shipping industry which can be demonstrated, the industry as a whole, including regulatory bodies will support and push for its utilization. However, this bottom-up approach requires research and practical applications which stem from first building relationships and performing longitudinal studies with design firms, shipyards and stakeholders from industry willing to investigate this issue further. Opportunities – social & technological. Capitalizing on opportunities for ergonomics integration in shipping is critical. Results indicate that social and technological factors are strongly associated opportunities. From both the wider societal perspective and in specific industrial applications there is a greater awareness and understanding of the importance of people within a system, and their contributions to overall safety, productivity and the economic bottom-line. There are several social factors relating to ergonomics application in shipping which can be facilitated through technological factors. Although ergonomic concepts are becoming more visible outside the domain itself, there should be a push to increase the education and knowledge transfer through formal education, particularly to engineering and design disciplines (Vicente, 2006). This requires specific, pragmatic, engineering and design-oriented methodologies and tools which can be readily understood and applied by engineers in their work. Ergonomics methods have a tendency to be used by other domains if they appear accessible and originally developed from engineering methods (Stanton & Young, 2003). These opportunities are particularly relevant for the shipping industry because of the discrepancy between ship design and the modern work required of onboard personnel (Lundh, Lützhöft, Rydstedt, & Dahlman, 2011). There are many “easy”, low cost design improvements which can be made in early ship development that can improve crew work processes and the work environment. However usable



methods and tools are necessary to achieve buy-in from engineers and designers which can effectively facilitate the ship design process and naval architecture work procedures. Closing Gaps in Ship Design & Construction Geographically distributed teams. Increasing globalization has created highly distributed networks in the way ships are designed, built, classified, insured, regulated, crewed and operated (Bloor, Thomas & Lane, 2000). With stakeholders spread across geographically distributed locations communication and knowledge sharing can be a challenge (Coar, 2004). Distributed project settings deal not only with differing geographical locations, but also cultural differences and perspectives on information access and management (Gumm, 2006). Multi-disciplinary teams. Large engineering projects such as ship design and construction are inherently complex and demand heterogeneous resource requirements where multidisciplinary project teams and stakeholders must work together throughout the process (Liu, Chua & Yeoh, 2011). These teams, made from stakeholders with varying educational and professional backgrounds have differing perspectives, priorities, work approaches and professional languages which ultimately hinders a ubiquitous understanding, team cohesion and project execution (Dougherty, 1992). Solutions. Promoting ergonomics and participatory design processes can be leveraged through the external macroenvironmental opportunities revealed by the SWOT and PEST analysis, and may explain why Bhattacharya (2015) found that employee engagement levels within the shipping industry are lower than in shore-based domains. There is a twofold issue in mitigating both the social factors of differing professional groups working together on design solutions (i.e. naval architects, end-users and ergonomists), as well as overcoming the geographical distances between stakeholders who are involved in a geographically distributed network. Technological applications designed to provide both a ubiquitous platform for multi-disciplinary communication, and a software-based solution which allows distributed stakeholders, including crew at sea, to participate in ship design development online is a pragmatic topic to investigate further (Mallam, Lundh & MacKinnon, 2015). E-SET. Developing customized tools for the shipping industry can facilitate and encourage ergonomics and participatory design processes by creating solutions which both adhere to naval architecture design methodologies and seamlessly integrate into computer-aided design technologies. One such solution being prototyped and tested is E-SET (Ergonomic Ship Evaluation Tool). E-SET is a diagnostic visualization tool which utilizes digital renderings of ship’s drawings to quantitatively calculate, map and evaluate physical movement of crew work tasks throughout a ship’s structure in early design stages. The philosophy of E-SET revolves around a pragmatic, streamlined approach for ergonomics integration in ship development. It aims to attract the interest of both naval architects, through straightforward, pragmatic methods which provide tangible design input, as

1007

well as crew, who can participate in design work by communicating their tacit knowledge and experiences through access and analysis of low-to-medium fidelity 2D and 3D ship development models. The concept of a flexible and easily accessible digital platform intends to facilitate multidisciplinary stakeholder knowledge transfer in order to implement and optimize user-centered design solutions iteratively throughout ship design. CONCLUSIONS Ergonomics as a discipline has many strengths, but has not been completely successful in influencing and integrating into the shipping domain. The results of the SWOT and PEST analyses identified that several key social and technological opportunities can be leveraged, while threats, in particularly economics, can be mitigated, and may be transformed into an opportunity through increased research and application. The SWOT and PEST analyses provided a tool to organize and understand what internal and external factors have influence over the success of ergonomics applications in the specific context of ship design and construction processes which must first be addressed to optimize chances of utilization in shipping and ultimately contribute to better design solutions. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to thank The Swedish Mercantile Marine Foundation, VINNOVA and ÅForsk for financial support. REFERENCES Allen, P. (2009). Perceptions of technology at sea amongst British seafaring officers. Ergonomics, 52(10), 1206-1214. doi: 10.1080/00140130902971924 Barnett, M. L., Stevenson, C. J., & Lang, D. W. (2005). Shipboard Manning – Alternative Structures for the Future? WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 4(1), 5-32. doi: 10.1007/BF03195062 Barney, J. (1995). Looking inside for competitive advantage. The Academy of Management Executive, 9(4), 49-61. Bhattacharya, Y. (2015). Employee engagement in the shipping industry: a study of engagement among Indian officers. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 14(2), 267-292. doi: 10.1007/s13437-014-0065-x Bloor, M., Thomas, M., & Lane, T. (2000). Health Risks in the Global Shipping Industry: An Overview. Health, Risk & Society, 2(3), 329-340. doi: 10.1080/713670163 Chauvin, C., Lardjan, S., Morel, G., Clostermann, J. P., & Langard, B. (2013). Human and organizational factors in maritime accidents: Analysis of collisions at sea using the HFACS. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 59, 26-37. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2013.05.006 Chermack, T. J., & Kasshanna, B. K. (2007). The Use and Misuse of SWOT Analysis and Implications for HRD Professionals. Human Resource Development International, 10(4), 383-399. doi: 10.1080/13678860701718760 Chung, A. Z., & Shorrock, S. T. (2011). The research-practice relationship in ergonomics and human factors - surveying and bridging the gap. Ergonomics, 54(5), 413-429. doi: 10.1080/00140139.2011.568636



Coar, K. (2004). The Sun Never Sits on Distributed Development. Distributed Development, 1(9), 32. doi: 10.1145/966789.966802 Dougherty, D. (1992). A practice-centered model of organizational renewal through product innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 13(S1), 77-92. doi: 10.1002/smj.4250131007 Dul, J., & Neumann, W. P. (2009). Ergonomics contributions to company strategies. Applied Ergonomics, 40(4), 745-752. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2008.07.001 Dyson, R. (2004). Strategic development and SWOT analysis at the University of Warwick. European Journal of Operational Research, 152(3), 631-640. doi: 10.1016/S0377-2217(03)000626 Falck, A. C., & Rosenqvist, M. (2012). What are the obstacles and needs of proactive ergonomics measures at early product development stages? – An interview study in five Swedish companies. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 42(5), 406-415. doi: 10.1016/j.ergon.2012.05.002 Grech, M. R., Horberry, T. J., & Koester, T. (2008). Human Factors in the Maritime Domain. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press. Gumm, D. C. (2006). Distributed Participatory Design: An Inherent Paradoxon? In Proceedings of 29th Information Systems Research Seminar in Scandinavia, IRIS 29, August 12th-15th, 2006, Elsinore, Denmark. Ha, H., & Coghill, K. (2006). E-Government in Singapore: a SWOT and PEST analysis. Asia-Pacific Social Science Review, 6(2), 103-130. Hendrick, H. (1996). Good Ergonomics is Good Economics. Santa Monica, USA: Human Factors & Ergonomics Society. Retrieved 2016 from: January 28th, http://www.hfes.org/Web/PubPages/goodergo.pdf Hetherington, C., Flin, R., & Mearns, K. (2006). Safety in shipping: The human element. Journal of Safety Research, 37(4), 401-411. doi: 10.1016/j.jsr.2006.04.007 Ho, J. K. K. (2014). Formulation of a Systemic PEST Analysis for Strategic Analysis. European Academic Research, 2(5), 64786492. IHS Global Insight. (2009). Valuation of the Liner Shipping Industry: Economic Contribution and Liner Industry Operations. 2016 from Retrieved January 28th, http://www.worldshipping.org/pdf/Liner_Industry_Valuation_Stu dy.pdf International Maritime Organization. (1998). Guidelines for Engine-Room Layout, Design and Arrangement (MSC/Circ.834). London: International Maritime Organization. International Maritime Organization. (2004). Human Element Vision, Principles and Goals For the Organization (A 23/Res.947). London: International Maritime Organization. International Maritime Organization. (2006a). Framework for Consideration of Ergonomics and Work Environment (MSCMEPC.7/Circ.3). London: International Maritime Organization. International Maritime Organization. (2006b). Role of the Human Element (MSD 82/15/4). London: International Maritime Organization. International Maritime Organization. (2006c). The Organization’s Strategy to Address the Human Element (MSC-MEPC.7/Circ.4). London: International Maritime Organization. Jenkins, S., & Rickards, J. (2001). The Economics of Ergonomics: Three Workplace Design Case Studies. In Alexander, D. C. & Rabourn, R. (Eds.), Applied Ergonomics (pp. 238-243). London: Taylor & Francis. Kuiper, S., & Thomas, M. W. (2000). A strategic consultancy model for establishing as center for business communication. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 63(2), 5267. doi: 10.1177/108056990006300204

1008

Lindøe, P. H., Engen, O. A., & Olsen, O. E. (2011). Responses to accidents in different industrial sectors. Safety Science, 49(1), 9097. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2009.12.007 Liu, Z., Chua, D. K. H., & Yeoh, K. W. (2011). Aggregate production planning for shipbuilding with variation-inventory trade-offs. International Journal of Production Research, 49(20), 6249-6272. doi: 10.1080/00207543.2010.527388 Lundh, M., Lützhöft, M., Rydstedt, L., & Dahlman, J. (2011). Working Conditions in the Engine Department – A qualitative study among engine room personnel onboard Swedish merchant ships. Applied Ergonomics 42(2), 384-390. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2010.08.009 Mallam, S. C., & Lundh, M. (2013). Ship Engine Control Room Design: Analysis of Current Human Factors & Ergonomics Regulations & Future Directions. Proceedings of the Human Factors & Ergonomics Society 57th Annual Meeting, 57(1), 521525. doi: 10.1177/1541931213571112 Mallam, S. C., Lundh, M., & MacKinnon, S. N. (2015). Integrating Human Factors & Ergonomics in Large-Scale Engineering Projects: Investigating a Practical Approach for Ship Design. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 50, 62-72. doi: 10.1016/j.ergon.2015.09.007 Psaraftis, H. N. (2002). Maritime safety: To be or not to be proactive. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 1(1), 3-16. doi: 10.1007/BF03195022 Rizzo, A., & Kim, G. J. (2005). A SWOT analysis of the field of Virtual Rehabilitation and Therapy. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments. 14(2), 119-146. doi: 10.1162/1054746053967094 Rosario, J. L. (2000). The role of maritime administration in ensuring quality shipping services: a guide to Cape Verde Maritime Administration (Master’s Thesis). Malmö, Sweden: World Maritime University. Stanton, N. A., & Young, M. A. (2003). Giving ergonomics away? The application of ergonomics methods by novices. Applied Ergonomics, 34(5), 479-490. doi: 10.1016/S00036870(03)00067-X Stopford, M. (2009). Maritime Economics (3rd ed.). Oxon, United Kingdom: Routledge. Thomas, S., Chie, Q. T., Abraham, M., Raj, S. J., & Bah, L. S. (2014). A Qualitative Review of Literature on Peer Review of Teaching in Higher Education: An Application of the SWOT Framework. Review of Educational Research, 84(1), 112-159. doi: 10.3102/0034654313499617 Veenstra, A. W., & Ludema, M. W. (2006). The Relationship Between Design and Economic Performance of Ships. Maritime Policy & Management, 33(2), 159-171. doi: 10.1080/03088830600612880 Vicente, K. (2006). The Human Factor: revolutionizing the way people live with technology. New York, NY, USA: Routledge. Vink, P., Koningsveld, E. A. P., & Molenbroek, J. F. (2006). Positive outcomes of participatory ergonomics in terms of greater comfort and higher productivity. Applied Ergonomics, 37(4), 537-546. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2006.04.012 Österman, C., & Rose, L. (2015). Assessing financial impact of maritime ergonomics on company level: a case study. Maritime Policy & Management, 42(6), 555-570. doi: 10.1080/03088839.2014.904946 Österman, C, Rose, L., & Osvalder, A. L. (2010). Exploring Maritime Ergonomics from a Bottom Line Perspective. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 9(2), 153-168. doi: 10.1007/BF03195172


supporting participatory practices in ship design and ...

supporting participatory practices in ship design and ...

Suggest Documents