Abstract
Introduction
Physical environments influence both how tasks are completed and the behaviour of people within a space [1, 2]. Integration between the end-user(s), machine(s), work environment and control is required for optimal human-centred design [3]. The benefits of designing a usable system include increased productivity, reduced errors, reduced training and support, improved user trust and enhanced reputation [4]. In general, technological change has, and continues to alter the workplace through computer-based systems [5]. However, new technologies can create unintended complexities and alterations to task strategies and functioning for end-users [6, 7].
A ship’s basic functions are divided between two operational units: the navigation department, and the engine department. A common seafaring analogy is that if the navigation department is a ship’s “brain” – the centre of decision making and overall operations – then the engine department is its “heart”, which powers and drives the structure. The contemporary ship engine department on larger vessels have dedicated crew who are responsible for the operation, monitoring, troubleshooting and maintenance of various systems [8]. A ship’s engine department, with a manned or periodically unmanned engine room can generally be divided between two contrasting operational areas: the engine room and engine control facilities [8]. The engine room contains the ship’s machinery and equipment which may be spread through various machinery spaces and over several deck levels, while engine control facilities are often located in close proximity to, or within this space.
Traditionally, the job of the engine crew is physically demanding and involves, mechanic-style, hands-on tasks performed in the harsh working environment of the engine room. Advancements of machinery technology and digitization throughout the twentieth and twenty-first centuries have moved the operational emphasis from traditional direct, hands-on interaction with equipment to increased time spent utilizing mobile operational solutions and highly automated functions.
Advancing technological developments and increased system digitization and automation has reduced the number of crew necessary for operation, thus evolving traditional work tasks and demands [9, 10]. This has increased the prevalence and importance of centralized control facilities within a system [11]. As a result, modern ships’ engine rooms are normally unmanned, while crew generally only need to enter the area for inspection and maintenance [8]. Crew spend increased time in control facilities where work can be monotonous, requiring remote equipment monitoring which may or may not need human intervention [12].
Control facility designs across domains have an increasing division between technology, the work environment and end-users [13]. Engine department designs are less generic compared to other operational departments, as well as have a greater diversity of work environment layouts [14]. Previous research has revealed deficiencies within engine control facilities work environment [15], while lack of regulatory guidance has been identified as a contributing factor to poor engine room designs [16].
Implementing human factors and ergonomics knowledge in the design process
The human-centred design approach aims to provide adequate working conditions for human safety, health and wellbeing, while accounting for technological and economic efficiencies [3]. The earlier human factors and ergonomics (HF&E) knowledge and end-user experience is utilized in the design process, the easier and more effective it can be successfully integrated into a product or system’s design [17–19]. However, end-user involvement in the development process is difficult and can produce uncertain outcomes [20]. End-users should be empowered throughout the process in order to facilitate effective participation in a project by influencing design and design making, rather than put in a position of validating pre-existing or developed systems. There is a continued need for organizational strategies which better incorporate and utilize end-users in all stages of the planning and development of technical systems.
The shipping domain
The international shipping domain is governed by rules and regulations stipulating minimum safety standards in construction, equipment and operation, while further compliance with national state and classification societies is required [21]. Ship design and construction is not fully standardized; marine structure design is dependent upon the purpose and demands specified by stakeholders [22]. Even vessels designed and constructed for the same operational purpose can vary greatly in physical design and general arrangement. Thus, work environments within a ship are dependent upon the skills and experience of the naval architects, ship yards and builders involved in the project. The International Maritime Organization [23] provides human-centered guidelines for engine department layout, design and arrangement primarily focusing on physical ergonomics and safety aspects of the engine room; however, these guidelines are non-mandatory and fail to consider engine control facilities.
Many factors combine to influence ship-owners decisions in the procurement process, but maximizing economic return on investment is of central importance [24]. Design decisions and trade-offs are influenced by the need to increase a ship’s economic utility, primarily maximizing payload in relation to operating costs. The engine department and majority of the operational machinery must be located within the hull of a ship, below deck. Consequently, economic decisions which impact a ship’s cargo carrying capacity can invariably impact engine department space allocations, general arrangement and thus, the physical environment.
Scope and purpose
The purpose of this paper is to explore subject-matter expert (SME) perspectives of engine department control and its relationship with physical environment design and layout. This investigation aims to understand how the physical design and layout of an engine department and engine control facilities can be enhanced to facilitate the operations and logistics of end-users. Rather than focusing explicitly “inside” the control facility or engine room, the relationship between engine control and its links within the department, as well as the rest of a ship are examined. In adapting the general International Organization for Standardization (ISO) ergonomic design process for control centers as a template [3], domain-specific engine department control issues are investigated from a user-centric perspective.
Methods
Participants
Nine male marine engineering graduates with seafaring experience (see Table 1) participated in three separate focus groups, each group consisting of three individuals. All individuals freely volunteered and were recruited from Northern and Western Europe (Nationality: 6 Swedish; 2 Dutch; 1 British) by various means, including contact with shipping companies and industry personnel, advertising in maritime universities and training centers and snowball sampling–recruiting additional subjects through participant contacts and acquaintances. Participants were informed of the research scope and their rights both verbally and via printed consent forms prior to participation.
Experimental framework
Control facility design, and in a broader scope, product design is directed by an iterative process of verification and validation. General control facility design frameworks and guidelines exist; most notably the ISO standards [3, 25–30]. These documents provide prescriptive and goal-based control facility design and evaluation guidance for mobile and non-mobile industries. The experimental procedure is guided by the conceptual phase of the control facility design framework for ergonomic design process in Ergonomic design of control centres–Part 1:Principles for the design of control centres. The adaptation of the ISO framework aimed to use a more exploratory approach to adapt and generalize across the individualities of respective ships and engine department specifications.
Procedure
Prior to data collection an extensive review of engine department and marine-specific literature, as well as general control facility research was conducted to establish a basis for operations, identify job demands and tasks required for general control facility functioning. This information was used to compile a list of questions and topics which helped guide and structure the initial focus group discussion script. All sessions of the three focus groups were held in a land-based board room. Sessions were audio recorded while notes and diagrams on both a whiteboard and individual papers were photographed and collected for analysis. On average, Session 1 lasted approximately seventy-five minutes, while Session 2 lasted approximately thirty minutes (see Fig. 1).
Session 1
Session 1 was intended to establish a baseline understanding of the engine department as a point of departure for exploration into physical design issues. First, participants were asked to describe the general competencies, job demands and tasks required of marine engineers and other crew operating the engine department. Each were given a sheet listing engine department functions and engine crew responsibilities based on International Maritime Organizations: International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarer, which outlines mandatory crew training and competency requirements. Marine engineering officers must demonstrate and maintain a range of competencies, and depending on position are divided between operational, management and support levels. Competencies required for the three levels vary in scope but ultimately combine to contribute to safe watch and efficient operation of the department. This includes technical and safety knowledge of optimal machinery, electrical and pumping operations, troubleshooting and maintenance abilities, as well as management, teamwork and communication skills. Participants were then asked to discuss how they saw themselves and team members within the work system and elaborate on important aspects of engine department operations.
Second, they described their perspectives on key issues of engine department control operations, focusing on how general arrangement and the physical design of a ship connect and influence work tasks. The focus group discussion script was based on the general categories of the ISO Ergonomic design of control centers–Part 1: Principles for the design of control centres [3]. The discussion script was based on the following categories of the conceptual design phase of the ISO framework: functional linkages, control facility location, arrangement, layout, space allocations, communication and information flows. These topics were systematically discussed with each focus group with regards to their application to engine department design and were exploratory in nature.
Session 2
Session 2 began with a review of the topics covered during Session 1. This allowed participants the opportunity to review, verify and clarify the main discussion points of the previous session. Participants were then given a case study that required them, as a team, to analyze the cross-sectional general arrangement drawings of a tanker ship, including its engine department and engine control facilities. This exercise assessed how their design criteria formulated in Session 1 applied to a common practical example. In addition, it was intended to activate additional discussion, clarify concepts and encourage participants to further explore control facility design properties through descriptions and drawings. Participants were supplied with large sheets of paper, markers and white boards in order to sketch their control facility designs and illustrate ideas. The session concluded with a discussion of the process, key engine control design parameters and overall comments on the profession and shipping domain.
Analysis
The focus group sessions were transcribed verbatim, while participant sketches and designs were collected in order to strengthen and clarify verbal transcriptions. Grounded Theory was used in the analyses in order to reveal emerging patterns throughout focus group discussions. Grounded Theory establishes codes and categories, building theory from collected data [31]. The method strives to construct explanatory propositions which the real world corresponds to [32], allowing concepts to emerge out of the data [33]. The data were coded and analyzed using qualitative data analysis software (MAXQDA 11, VERBI GmbH, Berlin, Germany).
The ISO control facility design framework [3] structured the initial focus group scope, broadly defining questions and topics as a starting point for deeper exploration guided by Grounded Theory. The discussion script and questioning evolved as data collection progressed, enhancing and focusing on topics of interest. Theoretical memoing and constant comparisons – reviewing the data continuously throughout the data collection sessions in order to guide the discussions and investigate additional topic areas and questions – were performed throughout data collection and analyses to keep track of ideas and content. This allowed for the development and revision of concepts and emerging categories throughout the research process, achieving greater precision and consistency in the data [34]. Memos provided a base for the formulation of data coding. Open coding (breaking data apart to generate initial concepts) and axial coding (developing and relating concepts into larger categories) were used to develop a basis for core categories and the creation of more general theoretical frameworks relating to engine control facility function and design within the scope of the maritime domain [33]. Data collection and analyses cycles were terminated upon sufficient saturation of concepts, ensuring no additional data was found which could be developed further [33, 36].
Results
Analyses of the focus groups reported several categories which influence the physical environment and work organization for engine crew. In keeping with the research scope, work tasks within the human-machine-work environment system were organized and connected to their relationship with general arrangement and layout topics. However, the data analyses revealed a dominant core category, operational flexibility, which permeated all discussions relating to work tasks, general arrangement and the physical environment.
Operational flexibility
Participants described physical design and layout decisions made in a ship’s general arrangement drawings impact and how end-users are able to organize and accomplish their tasks. This included how the physical design and layout between differing ship areas, equipment and crew can positively or negatively impact work organization, efficiency, and crew health and safety. Through the context of physical design, participants described the work environment required inherently adaptable properties which allowed crews to create flexibility within their work organization and task execution. Due to the diverse number of variables present throughout a ship’s operation, including voyage conditions, weather, geography, traffic density and maintenance schedules, crews have differing demands and focuses which are frequently changing. Expert end-users must accomplish tasks dependent on a particular situation, mitigating threats to safely and efficiently run an engine department, thus wanting “flexibility” in their task organization and execution, including performance in the work environment. The term “flexibility” was used broadly to encompass socio-technical concepts from work organization and crew resource management, to utilization of technological solutions and physical ergonomics.
Location of control facilities: Proximity and access to key areas
Participants detailed functional trade-offs associated with the location, access and proximity of control facilities in relation to relevant areas of a ship for the engine department. They stressed that the engine department and its crew are not in isolation within ships; rather the engine control facilities and machinery are critical components which must be increasingly integrated to achieve a more complete system perspective. Physical links, inter-departmental ship communication and mobile data retrieval between key areas, equipment and other crew were described to be important to engine crew both on and off duty.
Three key ship areas were identified where physical access, proximity and direct communication links were of interest to/from the main engine control facility. These were: (1) the operational equipment concentrated in the engine room & machinery spaces and located throughout a ships structure, (2) other operational departments and crew (e.g. navigation and cargo) and (3) the accommodation areas (living quarters, mess and common recreational spaces) (see Fig. 2).
Work location linkages
Control facility location and physical design optimization was described as being contingent on the operational state of a ship, which dictates the demands and task responsibilities of the crew. Participants described a contrasting balance between remote, computerized operation and direct interaction with the physical equipment. The main concern of the crew working in control facilities in close proximity to the engine room was the dynamics and sustained exposure to the work space itself, primarily, heat, noise, vibrations, and poor air quality. Participants described the challenging work environment of typical engine control facilities located below deck and close to the engine room. Even though the control facility is comparatively protected from direct exposure to the noise, heat, vibration and toxins emitted by the equipment in the engine room, exposure levels are relatively high compared to the rest of the ship. In addition, participants discussed that typical engine control locations generally provide little to no opportunity for natural light exposure throughout a workday and is inherently in an isolated location relative to the rest of a ship and its crew. One participant described his outlook on engine control development:
“(Control facilities) weren’t designed for the personnel in the first place. I mean, the first reason why they introduced control rooms was to protect the equipment from vibration and heat. That’s why they sort of boxed them in and put some kind of air conditioning in there. It wasn’t to keep the people in there, the people sort of sneaked in the backdoor.”
Participants did express the advantages of a control facility located near the engine room; facilitating an immediate on-site physical presence where critical assessment and decision making of equipment and operations can be implemented. Participants discussed how close proximity and ease of access to the engine room allows crew to sense and appraise system functions, subsequently being able to better mitigate the development of threats to equipment, ship operation and overall safety. This perspective places continued relevance on expert knowledge, training and experience within an increasingly complex, automated and “hands-off” system.
Close proximity and access to the engine room was seen as a particular advantage during critical periods of operation, for example, while a ship is in port, manoeuvring in high traffic areas or in emergency situations. This was seen to be important in these scenarios, as opposed to a ship cruising in open waters, because in the instance of equipment or system failure, immediate onsite intervention would be beneficial in troubleshooting, decision making and acting on the issue in a timely and effective fashion. Participants also noted the value and convenience of access to the engine room for walk-throughs during normal operation, routine inspection and maintenance tasks. In addition to physical access and proximity between the central control facility and equipment concentrated in the engine room, participants described the importance of proximity and access between the engine control facility and other operational departments, as well as between the engine control facility and accommodation areas of a ship. The ship was described as a holistic system, where operations require interface between crew (both in person and via mobile communication) and in the cases of unmanned engine room, the accommodation areas, where crew off duty or on break may have to immediately respond to engine department alarms.
Participants noted that optimal proximity and access throughout a ship or engine room is dependent on the type of ship, number of crew and layout of equipment. Some ships have a smaller engine room with a high concentration of key equipment in relatively close proximity to each other. While some vessel types generally have larger engine rooms with equipment spread throughout the ship. Furthermore structures such as piping, valves and varying electrical connections permeating the entire ship are the responsibility of the engine department. Thus, efficient access to and from the centralized control facility is relative to the issue requiring an on-site presence. Efficient crew deployment hinges not only on distance but also the environment which must be traversed. Participants discussed how obstacles such as stairs, ladders, elevators, hatches and watertight doors impede travel efficiency on routine and critical movements throughout a ship which can be overlooked on general arrangement drawings.
Engine control paradigms and general arrangement
The analyses revealed differing physical engine control paradigms, which subsequently affect engine department organization and function. These paradigms are generally divided between the “traditional” or “typical” structured engine control general arrangement and a more abstract “other(s)” category. The latter focused predominantly on the future – how the tasks and profession would and could evolve, while the former drew upon past and present examples of engine control work and facilities.
The traditional engine control paradigm, described as the contemporary norm is categorized as being generally within, or adjacent to the engine room, relatively isolated in the hull of a ship and outfitted with combination of digital and analogue control consoles. The traditional seafaring engine control paradigm is placed predominantly in the control facility, and thus the crew is responsible for the equipment that is in close proximity. Anecdotal evidence has reported that marine engineers may attain a greater awareness and knowledge of the engine room and system when in close physical proximity, citing the ability to gain status operations via their senses. This was discussed within the focus groups and participants acknowledged the advantages of using human senses on-site. A chief engineer described the importance of being close to the machinery:
“It also has to do with your senses, sometimes you can smell a fuel leak if you have an engine that has sprayed fuel. I can smell that, all of a sudden I smell fuel. Sometimes you hear something ... I just hear something’s wrong, whether it’s propulsion, or diesel, or a pump. You can’t be too far away; you still need your other senses not just automation. You need your ears and your eyes and your smell.”
Debate occurred over whether or not this perspective was becoming progressively irrelevant due to automation, large ship sizes and the growing complexity of operating systems. Counter-arguing the above perspective, one participant discussed the actual effectiveness of having an on-site presence, stating:
“more and more things get automated, so the argument that we need to be close to the engine room to do any physical manoeuvring of valves and things like that is also getting more invalid ... because if all the valves are automated, even if you go down (to the engine room) you cannot manoeuvre any of them from there.”
These two statements represent conflicting viewpoints on engine department work demands, the capabilities of current technology and the role of end-users within the system. The data reveals a system and profession at a crossroads not only technologically, but also in the differing mentalities and approaches end-users have for engine department operation.
Discussion
General seafaring and more specifically, engine department research from a human-element perspective has primarily focused on working conditions and environmental hazards of the engine department, as well as occupational disease, injuries and fatalities of crew [15, 37–42]. Specific engine department literature and research also investigated socio-technical issues and implications of engine control and control facility design and layout [9, 39]. The objective was to fill a gap in the literature investigating how holistic ship connections between the engine control facilities, crew and key areas of a ship can be optimally organized to enhance physical layout and design for engine crew.
Creating operational flexibility within the general arrangement of a ship
Ships and their facilities are common, shared work areas. The engine department and control facility are both shared by team members of the engine department during operation at sea, but also between ship crew changes. The engine department and its control facilities are occupied and operated by a variety of expert individuals, with continuously altering crew combinations and therefore, team dynamics. Although individual crewmembers and the varying combinations of teams have the same principal tasks and goals – safe and efficient operation of the engine department and its machinery – work practices and organization of how the job is accomplished can differ greatly.
General arrangement decisions made in the early conceptual stages of a new build project fundamentally affect physical linkages, access, proximity and interactions that formulate the basis for how the human-element functions within a system. Trade-offs between the engine control locations relative to key areas of a ship impact the department’s possibilities to organize crew and carry out operations. However, within the defined physical structures and work environment, crew must be able to create and define a priori how their work tasks are organized and accomplished. Therefore, the optimal physical environment forms an adaptable, flexible platform which an expert end-user or team of expert end-users implement their preferred operational parameters and organization.
Continued use of the traditional engine control paradigm
In general, the shipping industry continues to implement traditional engine control paradigm. However, the advancements of technology, digitization and automation have made it less significant for the control facility and its crew to be directly within or adjacent to the engine room. The implementation of unmanned engine departments for large periods of the operating cycle is a testimony to the reduced need for a constant on-site human presence. Several of the participants discussed the continued prevalence of the traditional control paradigm, questioning if the traditions, history and cultural mentality of the shipping domain were the reasons for the evolutionary stagnation. Regardless, a general hesitancy exists amongst the shipping industry and marine engineering profession to move away from the traditional control paradigm. Crew have a lack of confidence in the reliability of machinery systems and current engine control solutions which, in some opinions do not provide adequate information or feedback, failing to fully replace the value of a human presence on-site.
Control facility placement and design must primarily address the mitigation of poor environmental factors associated with close proximity to the engine room. The most effective measures are not indirect solutions of insulating and protecting the control facility within the traditional control paradigm, but rather to distance the control facility and its crew from the engine room. This removes engine control crew from the potential of long duration exposure to the engine room, however as results report, has implications for operations, pertinent not only for routine procedures but also in unforeseen emergency circumstances.
Balancing physical proximity and access to key areas
Depending on vessel type and design, the concentration of equipment and size of engine room can vary greatly [8]. With generally decreasing crew sizes [14] the engine department has fewer human resources to perform control facility work, as well as dispatch to sites and equipment throughout a ship. Within the design of large vessels there are physical proximity and access trade-offs between the engine room, engine control facilities, other operational departments and areas of a ship (see Fig. 3).
Ek & Akselsson [43] investigated the physical design of a high speed craft in which the engine departments main control panel was located on the bridge. The crew reported that this eliminated boundaries between departments and allowed for greater communication and cooperation between the crew. This was shown to impact crew perceptions of safety culture on board. Two participants in the present study had work experience on board similarly designed ships and discussed like advantages, including increased interaction between departments which fostered a more singular “ship team”, contributing to better and faster decision making processes. They explained that this control paradigm worked well because: (1) the ship’s machinery was relatively spread out throughout the ship; (2) the engine department had sufficient crew to deploy throughout the structure and (3) reliable and effective communication linkages existed between the crew regardless of location.
Digitization and remote control
The trade-offs of proximity, access and location between engine control and identified key areas of a ship are mediated by technological solutions. Remote control and monitoring systems, digitized data and information streams, mobile communication and visual coverage via video cameras are all currently utilized in shipping and engine department control. These solutions bridge the gap between crew and their physical presence to important areas throughout a ship, while attempting to keep the end-user “in-the-loop” of system functioning. This creates flexibility in crew location, movements and activities, instilling a sense of control and feedback within the automated, remote controlled system they are operating. A reorganization of current technology can remove end-users from work hours spent in close proximity to the engine room, redefining the control paradigm and traditional deficiencies. Digitization allows the same control tasks to be transferred to different areas of a ship, in comparatively favourable environmental conditions.
Currently, mobile solutions utilized by crew allow for information such as alarm signals to be transmitted directly to mobile devices, allowing greater flexibility of crew location and movement on board. Interestingly, these mobile solutions, amongst other remote data systems currently used in shipping are partially de-centralizing operations from the centralized engine control facility. Continued development and potential implementation of more sophisticated personal mobile monitoring and/or control devices will allow for increased remote operations, further reducing the need for manned engine spaces or even onboard control facilities.
Digitization, automation and the growing complexity of technical systems have had reported negative effects on control facility crew across domains, where end-users describe a reduced understanding of the system they control [2, 44]. Proliferation of remote and mobile technologies can increasingly threaten crew knowledge and understanding of complex operational environments. As with any highly regulated industry, major operational paradigm shifts require support and development from a host of stakeholders, ranging from regulators to owners and end-users. The move to emerging technologies must be systematically organized with overall ship design in order to maximize utility and mitigate unforeseen operational challenges that will inevitably occur.
Implementation strategies and future directions
The design life of a ship should be no less than twenty five years [45]. Thus, it is difficult for a new-build project team to foresee how the shipping domain and technological advancements will impact the human-element throughout a vessel’s life-cycle. New systems place altered demands on crew and system retrofit costs can be expensive [46]. Ergonomic and user-centred design issues should be considered early and continually throughout the design process to increase its effectiveness within a system [19].
New methods need to be implemented in order to facilitate and educate stakeholders involved in the design process with the knowledge necessary to bridge traditional engineering and HF&E disciplines. Ultimately, a new framework for ship design and construction processes must provide a platform where better decisions regarding the human-element within the ship system can be made. In order to be effective a greater scope of the domain, including economic and engineering requirements must be accounted for when formulating ergonomic solutions and integration methods [47]. Without regulatory support, stakeholder education or a champion for human-centred design, end-user experience and HF&E knowledge will not be effectively utilized. Future work needs to be performed which allows effective knowledge transfer throughout the ship design and construction phases of the international market.
Methodological discussion and limitations
The data collection drew from a sample size of nine participants, equally split between three separate focus groups. Data were collected qualitatively via group discussions and a common case study exercise within semi-structured sessions. This multi-phase structure directly involving SMEs implemented several human-centred design usability methods [18]. The focus groups provided a platform for SME participants to interact with each other, relay experiences and debate perspectives of the profession. The sample was relatively homogeneous, all participants being males, educated as marine engineers and exclusively of nationalities within Western and Northern Europe whose education and seafaring experience has been predominantly with European companies. Generalizations of results across the global shipping industry, differing global regions and cultures may be difficult, however, the homogeneity of participants and saturation of results gives confidence in the data set.
There are a wide variety of scientific opinions regarding the ideal size and number of focus groups necessary to draw conclusions from data. Three individuals per focus group are considered small, while mini-focus groups generally consist of between four and six individuals [48]. Krueger & Casey [36] note that smaller groups can be can be advantageous for investigating specialized topics, allowing for increased participant interaction and detailed explanations. In addition, the fewer people in a group, the higher likelihood they will interact and engage with each other [49]. Qualified marine engineers with seafaring experience are a difficult sample to recruit. It is a relatively small, specialized profession with unique working hours, shift and travel patterns. Each participant held a specialized degree, various industry certifications and level of training; which is coupled with practical experiences at sea makes the focus group discussion content very rich. Due to the complex, focused research topic and questions the smaller focus groups were found to be advantageous. The groups allowed the SME participants to discuss and describe their perspectives in depth. This might bedifficult to achieve with larger groups, where a threat of more superficial comments, cohort domination and less interaction may have occurred. Similar to number of participants within each focus group, the scientific debate over the optimum number of focus groups varies. The most important consideration for the adequate number of focus groups is the level of response saturation within the data [33, 36]. Due to the homogeneity of the participants and the specialization of the research scope the data saturation of data collection and analyses was found to be sufficient after the completion of three focus groupsets.
The largest difference between the nine participants was the varying levels of practical on board experience at sea (ranging from one to over forty years). Although, the varying experience levels threatened group homogeneity, it was found to be beneficial. All participants were educated and licensed as marine engineers, but their differing levels of experience, biases and training enhanced focus group discussion and data content. Participants’ historical knowledge and evolutionary perspective of the domain over years of experience provided a rich contrast to recent marine engineer graduates with limited time at sea and a differing pedagogical experience.
Grounded Theory was used to analyze the results in order to categorize themes found within the transcripts and find emerging concepts [31]. Researcher biases and theoretical sampling pose potential threats to the Grounded Theory analysis [33, 50]. Dey [35] states that a researcher’s prior knowledge can be valuable in Grounded Theory, but must be used to inform analyses, not direct it. The best effort was made by the research team to formulate the methodology and discussions to mediate this during data collection and analyses. The discussion leader followed a general questioning dialog which adapted the conceptual design phase of the ISO ergonomic design process [3]. This proved advantageous, as Grounded Theory allowed the analyses to separate categories beyond the generalities of the ISO structure and investigate deeper into the shipping domain and engine control to establish codes and categories. In addition, the ship design case study exercise of Session 2 created an iterative process where the content generated in Session 1 was reviewed and applied to a practical example. This further extended the investigation and analyses by applying the previously collected data in a common participant exercise.
Conclusions
The dynamic nature of engine department operations and task demands are dependent on a host of variables pertaining to a particular crew, ship and voyage. The de-manning of operational crew is a global trend in the shipping domain and concern current crew. Smaller crews have increased pressures and altered task demands, yet are still ultimately responsible for the safe and efficient operation of a vessel, crew and transportation of cargo. The work environment must allow effective and flexible transitions and modifications of work organization while keeping crew in-the-loop with equipment and system processes. There is no single optimal physical design solution or control paradigm for engine control facilities in shipping due to the sheer variety of ship types, operational purposes and variables. However, the organizational relationships between key areas influence optimal work environment design and layout which can help the overall efficacy, health and wellbeing of crew, ship equipment and operation. With regards to engine department operation, tradeoffs exist between the differing engine control paradigms and impact crew logistics between key areas of a ship.
Traditional engine control paradigms are typically found in contemporary shipping and the well documented work environment and design challenges will persist if this paradigm is not revisited and revised. The basic challenges of, and solutions for, the engine department are not due to lack of evidence, rather the failure to implement current knowledge and experience effectively. Consolidation of information is necessary to promote effective application within ship design and construction processes. For practitioners and stakeholders new organizational methods and platforms must be created to better inform and facilitate design trade-off decisions which impact engine department control and overall shipoperations.
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflict of interest to report.
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank VINNOVA and The Swedish Mercantile Marine Foundation for financial support.