Advertisement

Perspectives on Autonomy – Exploring Future Applications and Implications for Safety Critical Domains

  • Steven C. Mallam
  • Salman Nazir
  • Amit Sharma
  • Sunniva Veie
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 821)

Abstract

As the sophistication and feasibility of implementing highly automated and autonomous technologies increases, the way in which the human element interacts and contributes to achieve a system’s goals continues to transform. The role of the human, including their required training, competencies and work tasks within complex socio-technical systems is therefore constantly being redefined by technological advancement. This study explores the potential effects of autonomous technologies on future work organization and evolving roles of humans within maritime industries. Ten Subject-Matter Experts working within industry and academia were interviewed to elicit their perspectives on the current state and future implications of autonomous technologies in the maritime domain. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and assessed using Thematic Analysis. Four main themes emerged from the interviews: (i) Trust, (ii) Awareness & Understanding, (iii) Control, (iv) Training and Organization of Work. A fuzzier fifth theme also emerged from the data analysis: (v) Practical Implementation Considerations, which encompassed various sub-topics related to the realities of real-world implementation of autonomous ships and shipping, including regulatory, security and economic issues. The results provide valuable input and perspective of autonomous systems and the future organization of complex safety-critical systems, including the role of humans in ever evolving and increasingly technology-oriented operations.

Keywords

Maritime Automation Digitalization Work organization Macroergonomics Transport Safety 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research has been supported by the MARKOM2020 project, funded by the Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research. The authors would like to thank all the participants in the study for their time and for sharing their valuable insights.

References

  1. Bainbridge L (1983) Ironies of automation. Automatica 19(6):775–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 3(2):77–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Doraszelski U (2004) Innovations, improvements, and the optimal adoption of new technologies. J Econ Dyn Control 28(7):1461–1480MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Endsley MR, Kiris EO (1995) The out-of-the-loop performance problem and level of control in automation. Hum Factors 37(2):381–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Franklin S, Graesser A (1997) Is it an Agent, or just a Program? A taxonomy for autonomous agents. In: Müller JP, Wooldridge MJ, Jennings NR (eds) Intelligent agents III. Agent theories, architectures, and languages, ATAL 1996. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence), vol 1193. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  6. Grech M, Horberry TJ, Koester T (2008) Human factors in the maritime domain. CRC Press, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hetherington C, Flin R, Mearns K (2006) Safety in shipping: the human element. J Saf Res 37(4):401–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hoff KA, Bashir M (2015) Trust in automation: integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust. Hum Factors 57(3):407–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lutzhoft MH, Dekker SW (2002) On your watch: automation on the bridge. J Navig 55(1):83–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mallam SC, Lundh M (2016) The physical work environment & end-user requirements: investigating marine engineering officers operational demands & ship design. Work 54(4):989–1000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mallam SC, Lundh M, MacKinnon SN (2017) Evaluating a digital ship design tool prototype: designers’ perceptions of novel ergonomics software. Appl Ergon 59:19–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. National Research Council (NRC) (1990) Crew Size and Maritime Safety. The National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  13. Nazir S, Kluge A, Manca D (2014) Automation in process industry: cure or curse? How can training improve operator’s performance. Comput Aided Chem Eng 33:889–894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Parasuraman R (1987) Human-Computer Monitoring. Hum Factors 29(6):695–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Parasuraman R, Riley V (1997) Humans and automation: use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Hum Factors 39(2):230–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Stopford M (2009) Maritime economics, 3rd edn. Routledge, OxonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Strauch B (2017) The automation-by-expertise-by-training interaction: Why automation-related accidents continue to occur in sociotechnical systems. Hum Factors 59(2):204–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven C. Mallam
    • 1
  • Salman Nazir
    • 1
  • Amit Sharma
    • 1
  • Sunniva Veie
    • 1
  1. 1.Training and Assessment Research Group, Department of Maritime OperationsUniversity of South-Eastern NorwayBorreNorway

Personalised recommendations