Maritime navigation is a complex task, involving an ever-increasing number of stakeholders and technologies. As complexity is growing, attention turns to the human element as the major cause of accidents and incidents. However, it is also the human element that might bring coherence and reasoning to the complex sociotechnical system that comprises maritime navigation. Thus, it is essential to develop an interpretative framework that could make sense of this complex system. This research project aims to enhance safety in maritime navigation, by developing a conceptual framework. This enables the design of Joint Cognitive System (JCS) in support of maritime navigation, including unmanned vessels, by focusing on the interactions. Results suggest that common ground is created in two dimensions: control system and shared domain. It is also found that planning helps to create a common cognitive map that supports the distributed control of the JCS.
CreswellJ. (2014). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed). Thousand Oaks Calif.: SAGE Publications, Inc.
5.
DekkerS. W. A.PruchnickiS. (2013). Drifting into failure: theorising the dynamics of disaster incubation. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, (June2014), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922X.2013.856495
FlachJ. M.BennettK. B.JagacinskiR. J.MulderM.PaassenR.van.. (2013). The closed-loop dynamics of cognitive work. In LeeJ. D.KirlikA. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Engineering. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199757183.013.0002
8.
GlaserB. G.StraussA. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Observations (Vol. 1). New Brunswick: Aldine Transaction. https://doi.org/10.2307/2575405
KleinG.FeltovichP. J.BradshawJ. M.WoodsD. D. (2005). Common Ground and Coordination in Joint Activity. Organizational Simulation, 139–184. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471739448.ch6
18.
ManssonJ. T.LutzhoftM.BrooksB. (2016). Joint Activity in the Maritime Traffic System: Perceptions of Ship Masters, Maritime Pilots, Tug Masters, and Vessel Traffic Service Operators. Journal of Navigation, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0373463316000758
19.
MikkersM.HenriqsonE.DekkerS. W. A. (2013). Managing multiple and conflicting goals in dynamic and complex situations: Exploring the practical field of maritime pilots. Journal of Maritime Research, 9(2), 13–18.
20.
ParasuramanR.MolloyR.SinghI. L. (1993). Performance Consequences of Automation-Induced “Complacency.” The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327108ijap0301
PattonM. Q. (2011). Developmental Evaluation: Applying Complexity Concepts to Enhance Innovation and Use. New York: The Guilford Press.
24.
PerrowC. (1999). Normal Accidents: Living with High Risk Technologies. Princeton University Press.
25.
PraetoriusG.LützhöftM. H. (2011). “Safety is everywhere” - The Constituents of Maritime Safety. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 55(1), 1798–1802. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181311551373
TalebN. N. (2010). The Black Swan. The Impact of the Highly Improbable (2nd Ed). New York: Random House Trade Paperbacks.
28.
TaylorH. A.BrunyéT. T.TaylorS. (2008). Wayfinding and navigation: Mental representation and implications for navigational system design. Reviews of Human Factors and Ergonomics, 4, 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1518/155723408X342835.
29.
van WestrenenF.PraetoriusG. (2014). Maritime traffic management: A need for central coordination?Cognition, Technology and Work, 16(1), 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-012-0244-5
30.
VicenteK. (2004). The Human Factor, Revolutionizing the way People live with technology. New York: Routledge.
31.
WoodsD. D.DekkerS. W. A. (2000). Anticipating the effects of technological change: a new era of dynamics for human factors. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 1(3), 272–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/14639220110037452
