136
Sensemaking in Safety Critical and Complex Situations
The concept development started by involving the user from the ideation phase and
throughout the product development process towards a finished product. The final
product was released into the market as a ( unified) ship bridge environment designed
with a holistic perspective including a redesign and rearrangement of the physical
consoles, input devices and software interfaces located in the environment to support
four design criteria: safety, simplicity, performance and proximity.
THE DESIGN CRITERIA AND SENSEMAKING
The ship bridge environment is a safety-critical environment related to operations/
navigation where errors may cause significant damage to vessel, crew and environment. The first of the main design criteria, safety, originates from the numbers
presented that 75%–96% of maritime accidents can involve some sort of human
error ( Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty, 2012). The contemporary view is
that human error is a consequence of deeper issues with the system. This can be a
combination of issues such as poor design, poor training, mental overload, fatigue
( Dekker, 2004). The aim was to address especially poor design and mental overload, hence increasing safety by providing the operator with a ship bridge work
environment where during standard operations, the cognitive load on the operator was as low as possible. The operator could then spend time and effort on the
ongoing operation, rather than to operate the vessel. Supporting this would leave
the operator with a clear mind and a ship bridge environment that supports fast
decision-making rather than providing the operator with increased workload as the
environment gives room for interpretations that introduce misunderstandings and
doubts during s afety-critical events. The operator could then have increased performance during safety-critical situations. To fulfil this criterion, the ship bridge work
surfaces needed simplification and decluttering, hence simplicity. When simplifying the environment in immediate vicinity to the operator, important functionality
such as touch screens and operator devices could then be brought to a closer proximity of the operator. The design criteria support the human factor and sensemaking.
Literature and previous research within other domains state that human factors and
ergonomics ( HF/ E) research demonstrate that extreme levels of cognitive workload
decrease an individual’s ability to react to incoming information and increase the
likelihood of human error ( Nocera et al., 2007). In addition, an example from the
power industry by Holzinger et al. ( 2012) illustrates how it is possible to reduce
the complexity of user interfaces for safety-critical power-plant control systems.
The operators need to make sense of the information presented to them; they need
to perceive and interpret to be able to make decisions ( Weick, 1993). The design
criteria support this.
To fulfil the criteria, an iterative approach including insight studies, operator
interviews and eye-tracking was selected. The continuous feedback loop from the
crew on board the vessel using the ship bridge in daily operation was important to
gain further insight and continue improving the concept. After 5 years in the market, a benchmark insight study was carried out ( Danielsen et al., 2019), where the
feedback from the vessel operators was positive, with reluctance to return to a more
conventional ship bridge environment.
Sensemaking in Safety Critical and Complex Situations
The concept development started by involving the user from the ideation phase and
throughout the product development process towards a finished product. The final
product was released into the market as a ( unified) ship bridge environment designed
with a holistic perspective including a redesign and rearrangement of the physical
consoles, input devices and software interfaces located in the environment to support
four design criteria: safety, simplicity, performance and proximity.
THE DESIGN CRITERIA AND SENSEMAKING
The ship bridge environment is a safety-critical environment related to operations/
navigation where errors may cause significant damage to vessel, crew and environment. The first of the main design criteria, safety, originates from the numbers
presented that 75%–96% of maritime accidents can involve some sort of human
error ( Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty, 2012). The contemporary view is
that human error is a consequence of deeper issues with the system. This can be a
combination of issues such as poor design, poor training, mental overload, fatigue
( Dekker, 2004). The aim was to address especially poor design and mental overload, hence increasing safety by providing the operator with a ship bridge work
environment where during standard operations, the cognitive load on the operator was as low as possible. The operator could then spend time and effort on the
ongoing operation, rather than to operate the vessel. Supporting this would leave
the operator with a clear mind and a ship bridge environment that supports fast
decision-making rather than providing the operator with increased workload as the
environment gives room for interpretations that introduce misunderstandings and
doubts during s afety-critical events. The operator could then have increased performance during safety-critical situations. To fulfil this criterion, the ship bridge work
surfaces needed simplification and decluttering, hence simplicity. When simplifying the environment in immediate vicinity to the operator, important functionality
such as touch screens and operator devices could then be brought to a closer proximity of the operator. The design criteria support the human factor and sensemaking.
Literature and previous research within other domains state that human factors and
ergonomics ( HF/ E) research demonstrate that extreme levels of cognitive workload
decrease an individual’s ability to react to incoming information and increase the
likelihood of human error ( Nocera et al., 2007). In addition, an example from the
power industry by Holzinger et al. ( 2012) illustrates how it is possible to reduce
the complexity of user interfaces for safety-critical power-plant control systems.
The operators need to make sense of the information presented to them; they need
to perceive and interpret to be able to make decisions ( Weick, 1993). The design
criteria support this.
To fulfil the criteria, an iterative approach including insight studies, operator
interviews and eye-tracking was selected. The continuous feedback loop from the
crew on board the vessel using the ship bridge in daily operation was important to
gain further insight and continue improving the concept. After 5 years in the market, a benchmark insight study was carried out ( Danielsen et al., 2019), where the
feedback from the vessel operators was positive, with reluctance to return to a more
conventional ship bridge environment.