A new reality for safe, compatible shipboard procedures

A founding member of the Human Element Working Group, and recipient of the UK’s Merchant Navy Medal for services to Merchant Shipping and Ship Safety Systems, Dr Paul Doherty FIMarEST explains why the integration of new technologies requires a richer understanding of compatibility with the system, its environment and the end user.

While researching a related subject matter a few years ago, it became apparent that the industry was void of any credible guidance for the standard of shipboard procedures. One decade later and organisations and individuals are still in need of safe and compatible shipboard procedures.

Despite the many purported claims, the ISM Code yields little more than verifying that a procedure exists. Too many confidential accounts and too many accident reports cite debilitating standards of procedures to suggest otherwise. Little attention is paid to the compatibility of a procedure with the system, environment in which the system exists and the capacity of the end user. 

Developing a credible framework for the standard of usability of shipboard procedures draws from multiple disciplines, and there needs to be a willingness to step beyond the conventional boundaries of our profession to bring them together. Jeanne Farrington, a distinguished instructional designer once wrote, 

“Sometimes ideas that are in common use do not have the validity one might think given their ubiquity. It’s fairly easy to be caught up in the belief that something that seems logical or has been repeated often enough has evidence behind it that we might respect—even when it does not…”

Much of what is written in terms of guidance in the maritime industry falls foul of Dr Farrington’s assertion. Industry guidance is often cited from existing guidance…cited from earlier guidance…cited from even earlier guidance…and so on. Determining a credible origin (based on empirical study) for industry guidance is a challenge, and more often than not, all roads lead to conjecture. 

As a founding member of HEWG, one of my first acts was a collaborative submission in 2014 to the IMO Human Element, Training & Watchkeeping (HTW) Sub-commitee, with the Chair of the Simplified Technical English Maintenance Group (STEMG) Committee (the aviation industry’s body governing controlled language). It was an INF paper, designed to highlight the gains of the aviation industry, in proposing the use of a formal controlled language in maintenance procedures. It demonstrated the potential influence of the (then) newly formed HEWG and the utility of industry collaboration. The group has matured in stature under former chair, Martin Shaw, now IMarEST President-elect, and demonstrates what our professional body can achieve.  

Augmented opportunities?

As with any technical revolution, emergence of intelligent knowledge systems onboard ships will be granular. Augmented Reality is here and one does not need to delve too deep into the literature to discover the obvious benefits to situational awareness, diagnostic and decision support. However, the real prize lies not with just augmenting localised data, but integrating with the reservoirs of external resources.

If for a moment, we conceive all the possible challenges facing an ocean-going vessel. According to Ashby’s Law of Requisite Variety, to maintain safe operations, the vessel should have the equivalent variety of responses to these challenges. However, our current approach is to manage endogenous systems of response. In other words, the variety of procedures are limited and contained solely within the rule-based strategies of automation, seafarer long-term memory (through training) and/or written documentation found onboard. This is the limited and localised resource we expect our vessels to draw from when faced with developing hazards.

There are significant limitations associated with endogenous systems. One of the biggest challenges is that of ‘ostensive conditions,’ requiring ‘implicit responses.’ In other words, variable events yet to happen, requiring a varying response. For example, few seafarers will ever experience a condition which requires them to abandon ship, but procedures are in place, and in fact are routinely drilled. However, even in our recent history, from the MS Herald of Free Enterprise to the Costa Concordia, one can rarely predict the exact events leading to such actions, yet we continue to drill as if we can. 

An end to serendipity 

So, to the future. Viable knowledge systems are fast approaching, capitalising on external data systems, assimilating existing internal knowledge with new knowledge, instantaneously harvested from external deep data resources. Unlocking this potential and removing the limitations of the endogenous system we currently rely on, ultimately yields a rule-based strategy with seemingly infinite variety of proceduralised responses. 

However the future unfolds, the integration of technology must be achieved with a rich understanding of compatibility with the system, environment and end user, and not repeating the serendipitous strategy of the past and present. 

Dr Paul Doherty CEng CMarEng FIMarEST is a founding member of the Human Element Working Group. In 2022 he established HUMARC™ a learning platform to support organisations and individuals in pursuit of safe and compatible shipboard procedures.

To become a member of the IMarEST Human Element Working Group, log into My IMarEST, click on My Special Interest Groups and then tick the boxes of the SIGs you’d like to join. You can then also join the group(s) on Nexus, our networking platform.