63
Making Sense of Sensemaking
There are many examples where the interaction with electronic navigation equipment contributes to incidents and accidents ( Chauvin, Lardjane, Morel, Clostermann, &
Langard, 2013; Nilsen et al., 2017). The grounding of Royal Majesty earlier in this
chapter is one example. Another example is the grounding of the S pain-registered bulk
carrier Muros in 2016, as it was on passage between Teesport, UK, and Rochefort,
France ( MAIB, 2017). Although the route was planned and monitored using the vessel’s Electronic Chart Display and Information System ( ECDIS), the “ system and procedural safeguards intended to prevent grounding were either overlooked, disabled or
ignored” ( MAIB, 2017, p. 20). For example, the track over Haisborough Sands was
not planned or checked in an appropriate scale chart and the audible alarm and guard
zone was disabled. The report states that “ The ECDIS on board Muros had not been
used as expected by the regulators or equipment manufacturers” ( MAIB, 2017, p . 22).
The latter sentence demonstrates a gap between how regulators and equipment manufacturers imagine work on board a maritime vessel is performed and how the seafarers actually go about solving their daily tasks. As the design of maritime technology
often lack usability ( Lützhöft & Vu, 2018), it hampers rather than help the navigator’s
sensemaking.
Despite today’s extensive knowledge about how design of technology influence work performance and safety, the h uman–technology interaction problems
persist ( Strauch, 2017). Part of the challenge in the maritime sector is the many
stakeholders and processes involved in the design of a ship’s bridge, like regulations, shipowners, classification companies, designers and equipment manufacturers
( Johnsen, Kilskar, & Danielsen, 2019; Jones, 2009; Lützhöft & Vu, 2018; Meck,
Strohschneider, & Brüggemann, 2009; Merwe, 2016).
SenSemaking anD meaningfulneSS through Work
The increasing digitalization and automation of work is a general trend in our society. In the maritime sector, the development from a being a navigating navigator to
a monitoring operator of automated systems may have unintended consequences.
Introduction of new technology, automated systems and increasing proceduralization of work are seen by experienced seafarers as “ marginalisation of professional
competence, skills and judgements” ( Kongsvik, Haavik, Bye, & Almklov, 2020).
Work is a central human activity and meaningful work is a fundamental human need
( Yeoman, 2014). Does it make sense to have a job where you are reduced to a set of
eyes and ears, where a particular sensory input should trigger the use of a particular
procedure? What makes work meaningful? Sensemaking is also the tool for which
people experience their work as meaningful. Individual’s perceptions of the significance of their work, experiencing a sense of purpose through their work efforts, are
contributing to the experience of meaningful work ( Rosso, Dekas, & Wrzesniewski,
2010). In turn, the meaning of work influences work motivation, behavior and performance ( Rosso, Dekas, & Wrzesniewski, 2010) which are all crucial for safety in
organizations ( Gregory & Shanahan, 2017). The increasing automation of the workplace not only causes problems like human out- of- the-loop ( Endsley & Kiris, 1995),
automation surprise ( Sarter, Woods, & Billings, 1997) and other issues concerning
Making Sense of Sensemaking
There are many examples where the interaction with electronic navigation equipment contributes to incidents and accidents ( Chauvin, Lardjane, Morel, Clostermann, &
Langard, 2013; Nilsen et al., 2017). The grounding of Royal Majesty earlier in this
chapter is one example. Another example is the grounding of the S pain-registered bulk
carrier Muros in 2016, as it was on passage between Teesport, UK, and Rochefort,
France ( MAIB, 2017). Although the route was planned and monitored using the vessel’s Electronic Chart Display and Information System ( ECDIS), the “ system and procedural safeguards intended to prevent grounding were either overlooked, disabled or
ignored” ( MAIB, 2017, p. 20). For example, the track over Haisborough Sands was
not planned or checked in an appropriate scale chart and the audible alarm and guard
zone was disabled. The report states that “ The ECDIS on board Muros had not been
used as expected by the regulators or equipment manufacturers” ( MAIB, 2017, p . 22).
The latter sentence demonstrates a gap between how regulators and equipment manufacturers imagine work on board a maritime vessel is performed and how the seafarers actually go about solving their daily tasks. As the design of maritime technology
often lack usability ( Lützhöft & Vu, 2018), it hampers rather than help the navigator’s
sensemaking.
Despite today’s extensive knowledge about how design of technology influence work performance and safety, the h uman–technology interaction problems
persist ( Strauch, 2017). Part of the challenge in the maritime sector is the many
stakeholders and processes involved in the design of a ship’s bridge, like regulations, shipowners, classification companies, designers and equipment manufacturers
( Johnsen, Kilskar, & Danielsen, 2019; Jones, 2009; Lützhöft & Vu, 2018; Meck,
Strohschneider, & Brüggemann, 2009; Merwe, 2016).
SenSemaking anD meaningfulneSS through Work
The increasing digitalization and automation of work is a general trend in our society. In the maritime sector, the development from a being a navigating navigator to
a monitoring operator of automated systems may have unintended consequences.
Introduction of new technology, automated systems and increasing proceduralization of work are seen by experienced seafarers as “ marginalisation of professional
competence, skills and judgements” ( Kongsvik, Haavik, Bye, & Almklov, 2020).
Work is a central human activity and meaningful work is a fundamental human need
( Yeoman, 2014). Does it make sense to have a job where you are reduced to a set of
eyes and ears, where a particular sensory input should trigger the use of a particular
procedure? What makes work meaningful? Sensemaking is also the tool for which
people experience their work as meaningful. Individual’s perceptions of the significance of their work, experiencing a sense of purpose through their work efforts, are
contributing to the experience of meaningful work ( Rosso, Dekas, & Wrzesniewski,
2010). In turn, the meaning of work influences work motivation, behavior and performance ( Rosso, Dekas, & Wrzesniewski, 2010) which are all crucial for safety in
organizations ( Gregory & Shanahan, 2017). The increasing automation of the workplace not only causes problems like human out- of- the-loop ( Endsley & Kiris, 1995),
automation surprise ( Sarter, Woods, & Billings, 1997) and other issues concerning