157
Supporting Consistent Design
solutions can become more readily introduced and embedded in bridge design, and
thus affect seafarers and their sensemaking during operations. The OpenBridge
Design Guideline is presented, which addresses these deficiencies by developing
interface guidelines based on web technologies, us er-centred design principles and
component libraries. We detail the background and philosophy of OpenBridge,
including how it fills gaps in current industry processes and regulatory frameworks,
and strive for a more integrated approach through open innovation. Finally, we present a case study applying the OpenBridge Design Guideline to the development of an
ECDIS ( Electronic Chart Display and Information System) and discuss its contributions for enhancing sensemaking in ship operations.
CURRENT SHIP PROCUREMENT PROCESSES
INTRODUCE INHERENT DESIGN DEFICIENCIES
There are a range of influencing factors for why inconsistent bridge systems are
prevalent across the maritime industry. The typical contemporary procurement process for ship bridges have different systems provided by multiple vendors; however,
this is not in and of itself the reason for such drastic design inconsistencies across
bridge systems. The design and construction of ships are large-scale projects that
typically take years from initial concept to a constructed vessel sailing in water
( Eyres & Bruce, 2012; Veenstra & Ludema, 2006). Shipbuilding processes are often
split between numerous stakeholders and geographical locations ( Stopford, 2009;
Österman, Ljung & Lützhöft, 2009). Ultimately, ship owners and investors generally
focus on big picture issues of a ship’s construction and specifications, such as cargo
carrying capacity, speed, versatility and efficiency, as opposed to detailed design of
the working environment ( Eyres & Bruce, 2012).
Typical ship design processes are inherently engineering centric ( e.g. ship design
spiral [Evans, 1959]) and normally do not include the perspectives and knowledge of the seafarers themselves, or operational demands within design cycles ( de
Vries, Costa, Hogström & Mallam, 2017). Furthermore, those in charge of maritime equipment design generally do not have an understanding of operations or seafarer demands, leading to poor design choices ( Chauvin, Le Bouar & Renault, 2008;
United States Fleet Forces Command, 2017). A t echnology-centric implementation
of bridge systems can lead to designs that do not support the users or sensemaking
in operations ( Johnsen, Kilskar & Danielsen, 2019). Without expert user knowledge
integrated throughout design development, a disconnect can emerge between the
final ship design, including its onboard equipment, and how the crew use the ship
to accomplish their tasks ( Mallam, Lundh & MacKinnon, 2015). This can lead to
suboptimal and unsafe working practices, increasing the likelihood of errors and
accidents.
Current bridge mandatory design regulations and non-mandatory design guidelines also fail to adequately support design consistency across bridge equipment
( Mallam & Nordby, 2018). The International Maritime Organization’s International
Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea ( SOLAS Convention) provides predominantly goal-based objectives for bridge work environment design ( e.g. SOLAS chapter
V/ 15) ( International Maritime Organization, 2009). Additional guidance notes and
Supporting Consistent Design
solutions can become more readily introduced and embedded in bridge design, and
thus affect seafarers and their sensemaking during operations. The OpenBridge
Design Guideline is presented, which addresses these deficiencies by developing
interface guidelines based on web technologies, us er-centred design principles and
component libraries. We detail the background and philosophy of OpenBridge,
including how it fills gaps in current industry processes and regulatory frameworks,
and strive for a more integrated approach through open innovation. Finally, we present a case study applying the OpenBridge Design Guideline to the development of an
ECDIS ( Electronic Chart Display and Information System) and discuss its contributions for enhancing sensemaking in ship operations.
CURRENT SHIP PROCUREMENT PROCESSES
INTRODUCE INHERENT DESIGN DEFICIENCIES
There are a range of influencing factors for why inconsistent bridge systems are
prevalent across the maritime industry. The typical contemporary procurement process for ship bridges have different systems provided by multiple vendors; however,
this is not in and of itself the reason for such drastic design inconsistencies across
bridge systems. The design and construction of ships are large-scale projects that
typically take years from initial concept to a constructed vessel sailing in water
( Eyres & Bruce, 2012; Veenstra & Ludema, 2006). Shipbuilding processes are often
split between numerous stakeholders and geographical locations ( Stopford, 2009;
Österman, Ljung & Lützhöft, 2009). Ultimately, ship owners and investors generally
focus on big picture issues of a ship’s construction and specifications, such as cargo
carrying capacity, speed, versatility and efficiency, as opposed to detailed design of
the working environment ( Eyres & Bruce, 2012).
Typical ship design processes are inherently engineering centric ( e.g. ship design
spiral [Evans, 1959]) and normally do not include the perspectives and knowledge of the seafarers themselves, or operational demands within design cycles ( de
Vries, Costa, Hogström & Mallam, 2017). Furthermore, those in charge of maritime equipment design generally do not have an understanding of operations or seafarer demands, leading to poor design choices ( Chauvin, Le Bouar & Renault, 2008;
United States Fleet Forces Command, 2017). A t echnology-centric implementation
of bridge systems can lead to designs that do not support the users or sensemaking
in operations ( Johnsen, Kilskar & Danielsen, 2019). Without expert user knowledge
integrated throughout design development, a disconnect can emerge between the
final ship design, including its onboard equipment, and how the crew use the ship
to accomplish their tasks ( Mallam, Lundh & MacKinnon, 2015). This can lead to
suboptimal and unsafe working practices, increasing the likelihood of errors and
accidents.
Current bridge mandatory design regulations and non-mandatory design guidelines also fail to adequately support design consistency across bridge equipment
( Mallam & Nordby, 2018). The International Maritime Organization’s International
Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea ( SOLAS Convention) provides predominantly goal-based objectives for bridge work environment design ( e.g. SOLAS chapter
V/ 15) ( International Maritime Organization, 2009). Additional guidance notes and