Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:15:16.608Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Development of a Decision Support System in Ship-To-Ship Lightering

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2016

Dagfinn Husjord
Dagfinn Husjord*
Affiliation:
(UiT The Arctic University of Norway)
*
(E-mail: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper focusses on the development of a tool for decision-making, tailored for personnel involved in complex Ship-To-Ship (STS) operations, to enhance the efficiency and safety of these operations. A step-wise approach has been selected. The first step includes specification, development and testing of the tool in a simulated work environment using full-mission simulators. In the second step the findings from application of the tool in the simulated work environment will be used to develop a prototype which will be tested during real life STS operations. This paper describes work done in the first of these two steps. During four iterations, a Graphical User Interface (GUI) has been made following Interaction Design (IxD) principles. The designs have been iteratively developed and tested by experienced ship's officers in a ship-handling simulator to clarify key information to enhance their Situation Awareness (SA) and decision-making process. In order to find indicators for performance, an initial performance test was carried out in a ship-handling simulator. The test indicates that a logic based Decision-Support System (DSS) can improve existing simulator-based training activities in STS operations.

Keywords

LighteringNavigationGraphic User Interface (GUI)
Type
Review Article
Information
The Journal of Navigation , Volume 69 , Issue 5 , September 2016 , pp. 1154 - 1182
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Navigation 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Chen, G. and Kotz, D. (2000). A Survey of Context-Aware Mobile Computing Research. Dartmouth Computer Science, Technical Report TR2000-381.Google Scholar
Converse, J.M. and Presser, S. (1986). Survey Questions — Handcrafting the Standardized Questionnaire. Sage Publications, London.Google Scholar
Cooper, A., Reimann, R. and Cronin, D. (2007), About Face 3. The Essentials of Interaction Design. Wiley, xxviii–319.Google Scholar
Dand, I.W. (1977). The Physical Causes of Interaction and its Effects. Nautical Institute Conference on Ship Handling, Plymouth, 34–73.Google Scholar
Dand, I.W. (1987). On modular manoeuvring models, Proceedings of the International Conerence on ship manoeuvrability, prediction and achievement, RINA, London.Google Scholar
Eisenfuhr, F., Weber, M. and Langer, T. (2011). Rational Decision Making. Springer, New York.Google Scholar
Endsley, M.R. (1988). Design and evaluation for situation awareness enhancement. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 32nd Annual Meeting. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 97–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Endsley, M.R. (1993). Situation awareness in dynamic human decision making: Theory. Paper presented at the First International Conference on Situational Awareness in Complex Systems, Orlando, FL.Google Scholar
Endsley, M.R. (1995). Toward a Theory of Situation Awareness in Dynamic Systems. Human Factors, 37(1), 32–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Endsley, M.R. (1996). Automation and Situation Awareness. In Parasuraman, R. & Mouloua, M. (Eds.), Automation and human performance; Theory and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 163–181.Google Scholar
Endsley, M.R. and Garland, D. J. (2000). Theoretical Underpinnings of Situation Awareness: A Critical Review. Situation Awareness Analysis and Measurement. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Endsley, M.R., Bolté, B. and Jones, D.G. (2003). Designing for situation awareness: An Approach to User-Centered Design. Taylor & Francis, London, UK.Google Scholar
Endsley, M.R. and Kiris, E. O. (1995). The Out-of-the-Loop Performance Problem and Level of Control in Automation. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 37(2), 381–394.Google Scholar
Farrell, J.L. (2007). GNSS Aided. Navigation & Tracking. American Literary Press, Baltimore, Maryland.Google Scholar
Forssell, B. (1991). Radionavigation systems. Prentice Hall International.Google Scholar
Greitzer, F.L. and Podmore, R. (2008). Naturalistic Decision Making in Power Grid Operations: Implications for Dispatcher Training and Usability Testing. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.Google Scholar
Hollnagel, E. (1998). Cognitive Reliability and Error Analysis Method (CREAM). Elsevier Science, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
Husjord, D. and Pedersen, E. (2009). Operational Aspects on Decision-making in STS Lightering. Proceedings of the 19th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference and Exhibition, ISOPE 21–26 June. Osaka, Japan.Google Scholar
Husjord, D., Pedersen, E. and Øritsland, T.A. (2011). Integration and Testing of an STS Decision Support System in a Full-Mission Ship Maneuvering Simulator. 2nd International Conference on Ship Manoeuvring in Shallow and Confined Water. RINA, May 18–20. Trondheim, Norway.Google Scholar
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. MIT Press. Cambridge, 70–247.Google Scholar
ISO/IEC, 9241-11. (1998). Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDT)s - Part 11 Guidance on usability. ISO/IEC 9241-11.Google Scholar
Klein, G. (1997). The recognition-primed decision (RPD) model: Looking back, looking forward. In Zsambok, C. E. & Klein, G. (Eds.), Naturalistic decision making. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 285–292.Google Scholar
Klein, G.A. (1999). Applied decision making. In Hancock, P. A. (Ed.), Human performance and ergonomics. Academic Press, San Diego, CA., 87–107.Google Scholar
Klein, G., Orasanu, J., Calderwood, R. and Zsambok., C.E. (1994). Decision Making in Action: Models and Methods. Ablex, Norwood, NJ.Google Scholar
Klein, L. (2008). Presentation Concepts for Conformal Navigation Systems. Master thesis, Fakultat fur informatik der technischen universitat munchen, Munich.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: the embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. Basic books. Member of the Perseus Book Group, 5–125.Google Scholar
Lataire, E., Vantorre, M. and Delefortrie, G. (2009). Captive Model Testing for Ship to Ship Operations. International Conference on Marine Simulation and Ship Manoeuverability (MARSIM 2009), Panamà city, Panamà.Google Scholar
Lataire, E., Vantorre, M., Vandenbroucke, J. and Eloot, K. (2011). Ship to ship interaction forces during lightering operations, in: Pettersen, B. et al. (Ed.) 2nd International Conference on Ship Manoeuvring in Shallow and Confined Water: Ship to Ship Interaction. Trondheim, Norway. 211–222.Google Scholar
Lintern, G. (2005). What is a Cognitive System? Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Dayton, Ohio. 18–21 April 2005, 398–402.Google Scholar
Miller, R.B. (1968). Response time in man-computer conversational transactions. Proc. AFIPS Fall Joint Computer Conference. Vol. 33, 267–277.Google Scholar
Moggridge, B. (2007). Designing Interactions. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Norman, D. (1988). The design of everyday things. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
OCIMF & ICS. (2005). Ship To Ship Transfer Guide. Petroleum, 4, 3–50.Google Scholar
Parasuraman, R. (2000). Designing Automation for Human Use; Empirical Studies and Quantitative Models. Ergonomics, 43:931–951.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paris, C.R., Salas, E. and Cannon-Bowers, J.A. (2000). Teamwork in multi-person systems: a review and analysis. Ergonomics, 43(8), 1066–1070.Google Scholar
Pedersen, E., Husjord, D., Yoo, Y. and Shimizu, E. (2010). Field Testing of GPS Applications in Ship-to-Ship Lightering Operations. Proc. of the ION International Technical Meeting, 25–27 January. San Diego, California, USA.Google Scholar
Pedersen, E., Shimizu, E., Berg, T.E. (2008). On the Development of Guidance System Design for Ships Operating in Close Proximity. Position, Location and Navigation Symposium. IEEE-ION PLANS, 966–971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfautz, J.D. (2002). Depth perception in computer graphics. Doctor of Philosophy to the University of Cambridge, Trinity College. ISSN 1476-2986.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, J. (1982). Human reliability in risk analysis. In Green, A. E. (Ed.), High risk safety technology. John Wiley. Chichester.Google Scholar
Røed, B.K. (2007). Designing for high-speed ships. Doctoral Theses, NTNU.Google Scholar
Rust, C. (2004). Design Enquiry: Tacit Knowledge and Invention in Science. Design Issues: MIT Press, 20(4), 76–85.Google Scholar
Sand, O., Sjaastad, Ø.V., Haug, E. and Bjålie, J.G. (2006). Menneskekroppen – Fysiologi og anatomi. Gyldendal Forlag, Norway.Google Scholar
Sanders, E. B. N. and Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts, 4:1, 5–18.Google Scholar
Sharp, H., Rogers, Y. and Preece, J. (2007). Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction, Wiley, 2nd Ed.Google Scholar
Tenney, Y.J., Adams, M.J., Pew, R.W., Huggins, A.W. and Rogers, W.H. (1992). A principled approach to the measurement of situation awareness in commercial aviation. NASA contractor report 4451, Langley Research Center: NASA.Google Scholar
Tufte, E.R., 1983. The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Graphic Press. Google Scholar
Tufte, E.R., 1990. Envisioning Information. Graphics Press.Google Scholar
Wise, J.A., Hopkin, D. V. and Garland, D J. (2009). Handbook of Aviation Human Factors, CRC Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Husjord supplementary material

Appendix

Download Husjord supplementary material(File)
File 33.6 KB