Ergonomics

ISSN: 0014-0139 (Print) 1366-5847 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/terg20

The human element in future Maritime Operations

– perceived impact of autonomous shipping

Steven C. Mallam, Salman Nazir & Amit Sharma

To cite this article: Steven C. Mallam, Salman Nazir & Amit Sharma (2020) The human element
in future Maritime Operations – perceived impact of autonomous shipping, Ergonomics, 63:3,
334-345, DOI: 10.1080/00140139.2019.1659995

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2019.1659995

Published online: 06 Sep 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 3094

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 38 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=terg20
ERGONOMICS
2020, VOL. 63, NO. 3, 334–345
https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2019.1659995

ARTICLE

The human element in future Maritime Operations – perceived impact of

autonomous shipping
Steven C. Mallam, Salman Nazir and Amit Sharma
Training and Assessment Research Group, Department of Maritime Operations, Faculty of Technology, Natural Sciences and Maritime
Sciences, University of South Eastern Norway, Borre, Norway

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The role of the human element within complex socio-technical systems is continually being Received 31 October 2018
transformed and redefined by technological advancement. Autonomous operations across vary- Accepted 15 August 2019
ing transport domains are in differing stages of realisation and practical implementation, and
KEYWORDS
specifically within maritime operations, is still in its infancy. This study explores the potential
Autonomous systems;
effects of autonomous technologies on future work organisation and roles of humans within digitisation; work
maritime operations. Ten Subject-Matter Experts working within industry and academia were organisation; trans-
interviewed to elicit their perspectives on the current state and future implications of autono- port; training
mous technologies. Four main themes emerged: (i) Trust, (ii) Awareness and Understanding, (iii)
Control, (iv) Training and Organisation of Work. A fuzzier fifth theme also appeared in the data
analysis: (v) Practical Implementation Considerations, which encompassed various sub-topics
related to real-world implementation of autonomous ships. The results provide a framework of
human element issues relevant for the organisation and implementation of autonomous mari-
time operations.

Practitioner summary: As autonomous shipping rapidly moves closer to real-world implementa-

tion, it is critical to develop an understanding of future roles of humans in autonomous maritime
operations. By eliciting expert knowledge from academics and practitioners, we establish a frame-
work of relevant issues facing humans in emerging autonomous systems and operations at sea.

Abbreviations: AVG: average; COLREGS: International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at

Sea; ECDIS: Electronic Chart Display and Information System; IMDG: International Maritime
Dangerous Goods Code; IMO: The International Maritime Organization; MASS: Maritime
Autonomous Surface Ships; MAX: maximum; MIN: minimum; PACT: Pilot Authorisation and
Control of Tasks; SD: standard deviation; SME: subject-matter experts; SOLAS: The International
Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea; STCW: The International Convention on Standards of
Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers

1. Introduction coastal tourism operate in frequently harsh, isolated

Advancing technologies and digital transformation
continue to alter how work tasks and systems are
designed, organised and operated. As the sophistica-
tion 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 will continue to transform.
Thus, the role of the human, including their training,
work tasks and competencies required for managing
complex socio-technical systems are continuously
redefined by technological advancements.
Maritime-related industries, such as shipping, off-
shore energy, commercial fishing, aquaculture and
and hazardous environments. As such, they have
developed as engineering and technology-rich
domains, typically interested in applying new solutions
that can enhance both safety and efficiency of opera-
tions (Allen 2009; Stopford 2009). Over the past sev-
eral decades technological advancements in naval
engineering, computerisation and the codification of
international regulatory standards for ship design, con-
struction and operations have contributed towards
steadily increasing safety performance, reducing the
likelihood of maritime accidents (Allianz (Allianz Global
Corporate & Specialty) 2012, 2018; Chauvin et al.
2013). The general trend of increased safety at sea
across the global fleet is occurring even whilst an

CONTACT Steven C. Mallam steven.mallam@usn.no Training and Assessment Research Group, Department of Maritime Operations, Faculty of
Technology, Natural Sciences and Maritime Sciences, University of South Eastern Norway, Borre, Norway
ß 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

inverse relationship exists between ship sizes and
crew numbers: larger and larger ships are being built,
requiring relatively smaller numbers of onboard crew
to successfully operate them (Mallam 2016). This
reduction of onboard crew is enabled by the increas-
ing reliability and efficacy of automated equipment
and operations. Modern ships are able to receive and
transmit increasingly large amounts of data. While this
has enabled improved coordination and execution of
many maritime operations, it has also given rise to the
possibility for remote command and control of ships
via shore-side control centres where land-based opera-
tors monitor unmanned ships at sea (Rødseth and
Burmeister 2015). Furthermore, shipping companies
and suppliers are now beginning to invest in the
development of autonomously operated unmanned
ships. There are several commercial projects, such as
the Yara Birkeland, which aims to deliver an
unmanned ship for short sea coastal commercial util-
isation by the end of the year 2020 (KM 2018).
Industry giants such as Wilhelmsen and Kongsberg
have already announced the establishment of the
world’s first autonomous shipping company aiming to
address the complete value chain for autonomous
shipping (Wilhelmsen 2018).
However, as new technologies and methods
develop there is typically a delay between its initial
creation, feasibility and adoption (Doraszelski 2004;
Mallam, Lundh, and MacKinnon 2017). New technolo-
gies can also have unintended and unforeseen conse-
quences that may even negatively affect a system, its
users and its processes. For example, numerous acci-
dents in safety-critical domains, including maritime
industries, have occurred not despite, but because of,
automation and technology (Lutzhoft and Dekker
2002; Nazir, Kluge, and Manca 2014). Humans are fun-
damentally poor passive monitors of automated sys-
tems (Parasuraman 1987), and issues such as loss of
skills, out-of-loop syndrome, mental workload and a
lack of trust in automated systems contribute to acci-
dents (Bainbridge 1983; Endsley and Kiris 1995; Hoff
and Bashir 2015; Kim, Nazir, and Øvergård 2016;
Strauch 2017). Thus, as emerging autonomous tech-
nologies become increasingly viable, a better under-
standing of how to facilitate these applications and
the human element is not only new but also existing
systems must be investigated. Merchant shipping is
conventionally classified as an industry slow to react
to disruptive changes. It may, therefore, be beneficial
to take a proactive stance to facilitate smoother and
safer transition to this new era of operations.
ERGONOMICS 335
1.1. Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to explore the perceived
impact and implications of autonomous technologies
on shipping operations and the human element in the
maritime domain. This research is based on interview
data from Subject-Matter Experts in order to elicit
expert perspectives on how applications of autono-
mous systems can, and have already, impacted their
work and system processes. Individuals from a broad
spectrum of areas and competencies within the mari-
time domain were recruited. Two distinct cohorts
emerged: academic researchers (e.g. human factors
and ergonomics researchers working within academia)
and industry practitioners (e.g. former operators, engi-
neers and computer scientists working within mari-
time-related and process industries) in order to better
understand emerging technologies’ perceived implica-
tions, benefits and challenges.
2. Background
2.1. Defining automation and autonomy
To illustrate the contemporary state of development in
autonomous systems, it is useful to depict automation
as a continuum and to clarify associated definitions. In
its most rudimentary definition, ‘autonomy’ refers to
self-regulation or self-government. ‘Automation’ can be
defined as the execution of a machine agent(s) (usually
computerized) of a function or task that was previously
performed by a human (Parasuraman and Riley 1997).
Most of the agents in modern industrial applications
fall somewhere between being completely manually
operated (by humans) and completely autonomous (by
technology). Therefore, in the context of work systems,
the level of ‘autonomy’ can be described by defining
the roles and relationships between humans and
machines in operations. There have been various mod-
els proposed that describe the degrees of autonomy as
a function of who makes the decisions in complex
socio-technical systems: human or machine (e.g.
Endsley and Kiris 1995; Parasuraman, Sheridan, and
Wickens 2000; Sheridan 1992). Figure 1 illustrates a
five-level continuum of automation as defined by
Endsley and Kiris (1995), ranging from an absence of
automation (i.e. Level 0) through increasing levels until
reaching full automation (i.e. Level 4), where a system
has complete autonomy to pursue its goals and exe-
cute desired actions.
Different transportation domains have adopted spe-
cific frameworks for defining the levels of automation
in their operations. Although details, such as the
336 S. C. MALLAM ET AL.
Figure 1. Levels of automation in socio-technical systems (adapted from Endsley and Kiris 1995).
number of levels in a model or operational-specific
nomenclature may vary, similarities across differing
frameworks are apparent. For example, in the aviation
sector, the Pilot Authorisation and Control of Tasks
(PACT) framework outlines the six different levels of
automation that can exist between humans and the
system (Bonner et al. 2000). These different levels
demarcate control between humans and the system.
PACT defines these operational levels of an aircraft in
one of the three modes for routine, as well as safety
critical events: (1) human command, (2) assisted and
(3) automatic (Richards and Stedmon 2016). Within the
automotive sector, the Society of Automotive
Engineers has proposed six levels of driving automa-
tion for cars: (0) no automation, (1) driver assistance,
(2) partial automation, (3) conditional automation, (4)
high automation and (5) full automation (Society of
Automotive Engineers 2018). It is expected that auto-
mation levels 3 and 4 will be introduced by 2020, and
by 2030 more than 50% of automobiles could have
level 5 (full automation) features (Kyriakidis et al.
2019). The maritime domain has recently introduced
similar frameworks to cater for design, operation and
legislative issues arising with the recent developments
and planned implementation of autonomous shipping
(IMO 2018b).
2.2. Automation and autonomy in shipping
Though characterised as a generally conservative busi-
ness in comparison to other industries, merchant ship-
ping has undergone vast transformations in order to
remain competitive (Stopford 2009). The technologies
and operations of contemporary merchant ships stand
in stark contrast to those of just a few decades earlier.
Many operational functions relating to navigational
tasks and equipment (e.g. bridge systems, such as
autopilot, Electronic Chart Display and Information
System [ECDIS], Dynamic Positioning, etc.) are now
digitised and highly automated, moving operations
closer to automation levels 2, 3 and 4 of the Endsley
and Kiris (1995) model.
Automation has allowed for the redistribution of
operational duties between human and technical
agents, resulting in ships operating with far less crew
today than in the past (Grech, Horberry, and Koester
2008; Progoulaki and Roe 2011). Reducing the amount
of onboard crew is a relatively simple and straightfor-
ward method for shipping companies to cut
operational overhead costs (Allianz (Allianz Global
Corporate & Specialty) 2017; Hummels 2007). For
example, crew costs for bulk carriers over a five-year
period averaged approximately 10% of total charter
expenses, and in some instances up to 36% of total
costs (Rødseth and Burmeister 2012). Although
unmanned and autonomous ship operations will not
completely reduce these operational expenses (e.g.
some level of onshore control and/or monitoring by
humans will be necessary, as well as ship and equip-
ment maintenance), it will reduce and reorganise the
human element within the system.
There are a myriad of potential societal benefits
with autonomous shipping, including: environmental
advantages due to fuel savings, enhanced safety,
increased cost efficiency and productivity, and opti-
mised logistical chains and infrastructure (DMA 2017).
Unmanned and autonomous shipping operations also
contribute to the sustainability of maritime transport
as a whole, through increased economic, ecological
 ERGONOMICS 337

Table 1. Degrees of autonomy of MASS (adapted from snowball sampling) were utilised to recruit participants
IMO 2018b). from the researcher’s network. Participants worked for
Degree of autonomy Description various academic institutions, government and private
Ship with automated Seafarers are on board to operate
processes and and control shipboard systems
sector companies in Northern Europe and the United
decision support and functions. Some operations States. All participants completed an informed consent
may be automated.
Remotely controlled ship with The ship is controlled and operated
form prior to participation in the interviews. This
seafarers on board from another location, but research project and its interview questions were reg-
seafarers are onboard.
Remotely controlled ship The ship is controlled and operated
istered and approved by the Norwegian Centre for
without seafarers on board from another location. There are Research Data (project no. 56374).
no seafarers onboard.
Fully autonomous ship The operating system of the ship is
able to make decisions and
determine actions by itself.
3.2. Procedure
and social sustainability (Rødseth and Burmeister The interviews followed a semi-structured question
2012). The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) script that focussed on three general areas: (1) the
has established a regulatory scope for what they call definition and concept of autonomy and autonomous
‘Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships’ (MASS), which systems, (2) perceived challenges, and (3) the role of
can operate independently of human interaction (IMO humans in future training and work paradigms (see
2018a). Similar to the Endsley and Kiris (1995) model Table 3). Six of the ten participant interviews were in
of generalised automation levels, the IMO has estab- English; four were in Norwegian (due to both inter-
lished degrees of autonomy for MASS operations viewer and interviewee being native speakers).
(see Table 1). These degrees are non-hierarchal and a Norwegian-spoken interviews were translated to
MASS can operate at one or more degrees of auton- English for data analysis. Participants were interviewed
omy throughout a single voyage (IMO 2018b). For individually and audio recorded.
example, a ship would use differing degrees of auton-
omy at different phases of a voyage (e.g. berthing vs.
port entry/departure vs. sailing in open waters)
(NFAS 2017). 3.3. Data analysis
All interviews were transcribed verbatim post-hoc from
3. Methods the audio recordings. The interview transcripts were
analysed using Thematic Analysis (Braun and Clarke
3.1. Participants 2006). The six-step process of Thematic Analysis was
Ten Subject-Matter Experts (SME) participants were used as a framework to code content and define com-
recruited for individual interview sessions. SMEs con- mon patterns within the data: (1) familiarisation with
sisted of (i) academic researchers (working experience the data; (2) generating initial codes; (3) searching for
in field: AVG ¼ 17.4 yrs; SD ¼ 5.0 yrs; MIN ¼ 10.0 yrs; themes among codes; (4) reviewing themes; (5) defin-
MAX ¼ 25.0 yrs), and (ii) industry practitioners (working ing and naming themes; (6) final reporting. Three
experience in field: AVG ¼ 25.0 yrs; SD ¼ 10.5 yrs; members of the research team first independently
MIN ¼ 5.0 yrs; MAX ¼ 35.0 yrs) working within various reviewed and analysed the interview transcripts. This
positions (e.g. researchers, training instructors, market- was followed by a workshop where the researchers
ing, managers, analysts) where automation and auton- presented their individual findings in order to validate
omy are influencing their areas of interest (see individual interpretations and analysis of the qualita-
Table 2). Non-probability sampling (convenience and tive data and establish final results.

Table 2. Participant backgrounds and expertise.

Discipline
Academic researchers
Industry practitioners
Current position/employer Domains of expertise
 3 Full Professors Safety Management, Design, Maritime Technology,
 1 Associate Professor Human Factors, Training
 1 Research Scientist
 2 Training Centres Competence Development/Assurance, Maritime
 1 Equipment Manufacturer Transport, Simulation/Modelling, Human
 1 National Transport Agency Factors, Energy Sector
 1 Classification Society
338 S. C. MALLAM ET AL.

Table 3. Participant interview question transcript.

1 Introduction and definition questions:
1.1 What is your definition and concept of “autonomy”?
1.2 Could you please discuss an example(s) of advancing
automation and/or autonomy in your field?
2 Perceived challenges and changes questions:
2.1 What will be the biggest challenge faced in implementing
autonomous systems?
2.2 What will be the biggest challenge faced in operating
autonomous systems?
2.3 How will autonomy change every day processes/operations in
your field of interest?
2.4 How do you see the future impacts of autonomy in
your domain?
3 Role of human questions:
3.1 What is the new role of the human/operator in
autonomous systems?
3.2 How will increasing automation and autonomy affect the
training of new and existing workers?
3.3 What type of skills will be required for these emerging
technologies?
3.4 What solutions are needed in training?

Figure 2. Overview of themes that emerged from partici-

4. Results
The Thematic Analysis revealed four major themes
related to the human element and autonomy in com-
plex safety-critical systems: (i) Trust; (ii) Awareness &
Understanding; (iii) Control, and (iv) Training and
Organisation of Work. Several other themes emerged,
although with less frequency and attention across
participant interviews, which are categorised within
an additional theme: (v) Practical Implementation
Considerations (see Figure 2). This fifth theme consists
of various sub-topics that arose where participants dis-
cussed pragmatic threats and limitations, not of the
technology, or technological development itself, but
rather of real-world implementation issues regarding
such areas as regulations, cybersecurity and economic
considerations.
4.1. Trust
A predominant theme throughout participant inter-
views was the concept of trust. Participants stressed
the need to trust the operations and decisions of
autonomous systems as human operators continue to
move further away from the sharp-end of processes.
Trust was a pervasive topic that transcended most
areas of participant interviews, and the subsequent
themes presented in the results.
Trust was viewed as a function of successful and pro-
ven operations, which participants discussed in terms of
societal norms and acceptance in technology. The devel-
opment of trust in autonomous applications in a com-
plex safety-critical domain, such as shipping, requires
the acceptance from many actors. For example, several
participants discussed the concept of multi-modal
pant interviews.
shipping control configurations having to share the
same physical environment (i.e. traditionally manned
and operated ships, fully autonomous unmanned ships,
unmanned manual shore-controlled ships, fishing ves-
sels, pleasure crafts, etc.). The participants highlighted
that the actors must be able to trust each other and
each other’s technological systems in order to operate
confidently and successfully.
4.2. Awareness and understanding
It was revealed that the concept of ‘trust’ in autono-
mous systems was closely associated with the require-
ment for a certain level of awareness and
understanding of a particular system, its operations
and what/how decisions are made. Several participants
saw the development of trust as a function of aware-
ness and understanding of a system and its decision-
making. For example, in shipping, an awareness of
external entities (i.e. the operations of other ships and
external actors) is achieved through common rules
and regulations (e.g. The IMO’s industry standard reg-
ulations all ships/operators must abide by [i.e. STCW,
COLREGS, etc.]). These common regulatory frameworks
standardise procedures, and thus create shared
expectations and promotes trust between seafarers,
ships and other stakeholders. Participants felt these
qualities were necessary between humans and emerg-
ing technologies, with one participant stating:
‘The system needs to know your intentions. If you are
acting as a team member or team it is very important
that you know what the other persons intention is, so
you can support that and you can also predict what

the other one needs … you need an idea of the
intention of the other system or the person.’
Participants discussed that regardless of whether
humans are in active control of a system, or in more
passive monitoring and supervisory roles, they require
some level of understanding of how an autonomous
system works, its capabilities, strengths, weaknesses,
and ultimately knowledge of how decisions are made.
In summary, it was emphasised by the participants
that the future operators working in these systems
should have the ability to ‘zoom out’ and think at
more abstract systemic level to enable efficient prob-
lem solving and troubleshooting if required.
4.3. Control
Participants questioned the value, relevance and pur-
pose of humans in increasingly automated and
autonomous systems of the future. Although shipping
operations, in general, have become increasingly auto-
mated over the past several decades, with seafarers
taking on increasingly supervisory roles, participants
stressed the concept of whether the relationship
between humans and autonomous systems was one
of collaboration or one of support. In particular, sev-
eral participants noted that systems are generally reli-
able and trustworthy in normal operations, however
when abnormal situations occur, humans have many
strengths, including the ability to adapt, be creative
and think ‘outside of the box’. Furthermore, as
humans take on increasingly supervisory roles one
participant feared the loss of relevant skills and know-
ledge of operations:
‘(we need to) generally prevent them (operators) from
becoming deskilled. This is a huge problem with
automation because once the system breaks down
you are so untrained you have forgotten all about
how to actually work with it.’
4.4. Training and organization of work
‘There would be new kinds of jobs, there will be a
new kind of careers.’
Several of the participants (particularly those working
with training and assessment research and within pro-
fessional training facilities) discussed the types of skills
people involved with autonomous systems will require
in the future:
‘I think so far everyone is very occupied with the
technology but not with how we train people in using
these systems.’
ERGONOMICS 339
Participants asked if the traditional seafaring career,
and thus if a traditional seafaring education would be
relevant in the future. They proposed differing future
skills that will be required highlighting the perceived
likelihood that programming and serious gaming skills
will be relevant. One participant likened future seafar-
ing to that of Air Traffic Controllers or Vessel Traffic
Service operators where a highly specialised education
with differing skills than today would be required.
4.5. Practical implementation considerations
The fuzzier fifth theme encompassed several sub-
topics, which related to the real-world practical con-
siderations of implementing autonomous technologies
within the maritime domain. Several topics were men-
tioned, including cybersecurity, economic, safety,
environmental and ethical issues. However, the pre-
dominant sub-topic addressed the rules and regula-
tions of international autonomous shipping:
‘The technology is already there, it is just the question
of implementing it. The main issue is going to be
regulations, particularly in the maritime domain … ’
Participants were generally impressed with both the
pace and direction of technological development, how-
ever, continually brought up the conservative nature of
the international regulatory body and the possibility of
inhibiting real-world application within the industry. This
was a general reflection of the human perspective in
autonomous systems that was discussed across partici-
pants: are we moving too fast and do we know the
impacts of these emerging technologies? As one partici-
pant made a cautionary remark of ‘unknown unknowns’,
stressing the inherent lack of understanding at present
as how these systems may impact safety in daily opera-
tions that is difficult to conceptualise at present.
5. Discussion
5.1. Future roles of the human element in the
Maritime domain
The results from participant interviews revealed five
prevalent themes regarding the issues of implementing
autonomous systems and the future role of humans in
the maritime industry. With the incremental shift of
operations to increasingly automated and autonomous
functioning, future maritime operators are finding
themselves in progressively supervisory (and/or redun-
dant) roles that are physically separated from sharp-end
operations. Traditional seafaring skills may become
unnecessary and obsolete, just as in the past differing
340 S. C. MALLAM ET AL.
maritime skills have evolved and changed with techno-
logical advancements (Mallam and Lundh 2016).
Participants discussed what type of profile and skillset a
future ship operator may need. This ranged from a trad-
itional seafaring education, certification and at-sea
experience, to non-seafarers who have a computer sci-
ence background with coding skills, to video game
enthusiasts comfortable with command and control of
virtual agents and virtual worlds.
Future maritime operators may never go to sea
themselves, but instead, receive training of ship opera-
tions remotely through simulator exercises or shore-
side centres. Despite the argument that removing
humans from ships will reduce ‘human error’, which is
attributed to the majority of maritime accidents, this
simply reorganises humans within the system, reduc-
ing or eliminating some weaknesses but also creating
new and differing threats to safety (Wahlstro €m et al.
2015). As these operators likely will obtain a supervis-
ory role, the question of required skills is highly rele-
vant. The participants in the interviews revealed a
common prediction of skills related to programming,
Information Technology, analytics and serious gaming
being valuable assets. However, participants also
described how basic knowledge and experience of
seafaring would be needed to comprehend the
actions of autonomous systems in order to interact
and interpret operations when necessary.
These interactions will also require humans to have a
level of trust in highly automated and autonomous sys-
tems (Lee and See 2004). According to Lee and
Moray (1992) there are four dimensions of trust: (1) foun-
dation (2) performance (3) process and (4) purpose.
Technological systems are typically predictable and reli-
able in order to satisfy foundation and purpose dimen-
sions. However, due to the use of sophisticated
algorithms in adaptive automation systems, the response
of a system (i.e. performance and processes) might not
be what the user had anticipated (Inagaki 2003). This
phenomenon is referred to as an ‘automation surprise’
(Sarter, Woods, and Billings 1997; Wickens 1995).
Therefore, it will be necessary to support the trust of sea-
farers with the technological systems in dimensions of
performance and process with increasing automation.
Trust will become an increasingly important aspect
in the future of surface activity at sea as differing enti-
ties sharing the same physical space operate under
different types of control. A shared waterway may be
occupied by an endless combination of manned and
unmanned structures with varying levels of automa-
tion and autonomous technologies. Thus, a level of
trust and understanding in external systems is
required for successful operation in a multi-modal
operating paradigm. Today, trust and understanding is
established between seafarers and ships with an
underlying knowledge that operators are certified (e.g.
hold valid certificates and minimum levels of compe-
tence) and are following a shared set of rules, similar
to the trust motorists put in each to operate within a
shared space (i.e. the road, traffic signals, signage,
etc.). In addition, there have been concerns voiced by
researchers and practitioners regarding the need for
cultivation of soft skills, such as creativity, leadership
and collaboration amongst the operators working in
tandem with automated agents and Artificial
Intelligence in order to better leverage the traditional
strengths of humans in socio-technical systems
(Bainbridge 1983; Bradshaw et al. 2013; Deming 2017).
Similar issues are faced across transport domains.
For example, a feature of autonomous automobiles
that presents a unique challenge is the Take Over
Request; the event when the automated system
expects the driver to take manual control of vehicle.
The driver, after a period of supervision, is notified to
take control of the automobile within a certain time
limit. In this scenario, prior familiarisation with the sys-
tem and its limitations help users maintain trust and
set expectations (Beggiato and Krems 2013). This trust
and knowledge of the system is relevant for both the
operators and passengers within the automobile, as
well as external agents in the surrounding area (e.g.
fellow drivers, automobiles, pedestrians, cyclists shar-
ing the roadways). In the aviation sector, the type of
information provided to pilots affects their trust in air-
craft systems. Ferris, Sarter, and Wickens (2010) found
a benefit to providing pilots information related to the
likelihood or confidence measures of an event, rather
than a reporting a binary presence or absence of dan-
ger. This was found to better assist pilots in correctly
diagnosing and addressing abnormal situations. A
similar approach might help in supporting seafarers
working with autonomous systems onboard ships and
help users build trust and knowledge in how autono-
mous systems make decisions and operate. Prior famil-
iarisation to the capabilities and limitations of a
system will be necessary to instill trust, thus highlight-
ing the importance of developing new education and
training programmes based on new and evolving skills
required for ‘seafarers’ of the future.
5.2. Thinking outside the box
Highly automated ships have been predicted to operate
with increased safety levels in comparison to

contemporary manned ships, with the intention of
removing the human, and thus ‘human error’
(Hetherington, Flin, and Mearns 2006). Under normal
operating parameters it is likely that ship operations
will be generally successful. However, limitations may
be revealed if a ship encounters a situation completely
unfamiliar and unrelated to previous experiences or
expectations, or where no official procedures are yet in
place. As discussed by Lutzhoft and Dekker (2002),
automation can create new error pathways, prevent
error detection and transfer its consequences. In such
abnormal situations, an autonomous system may be
deficient, whereas a human could employ creative and
adaptive solution-oriented thinking and decision-mak-
ing. Humans may be relatively unpredictable agents in
complex systems, but they are also able to interpret sit-
uations and find solutions where current technologies
may falter. The predicted increase in safety may be
highly dependent on the flexibility and adaptability of
the system. Future applications of Artificial Intelligence
and machine learning may negate any strengths and
advantages of having humans within complex opera-
tions with systems that are able to adapt, optimise and
learn from vast amounts of data and scenarios.
Just as traditional shipbuilding performed today,
the design and development of autonomous ships is
implemented and controlled by humans. Thus, a ships’
quality is dependent on the decision-making, compe-
tencies and constraints of a particular shipbuilding
project, ranging from initial planning, design and con-
struction. Any ‘error’ or compromise (whether foreseen
or unforeseen) introduced in the design of automated
systems, therefore, contributes to potential unpredict-
ability and safety issues later in the ships’ lifecycle
(Ahvenjaravi 2016). The occurrence of navigational
accidents (e.g. collisions and groundings) is expected
to decrease in unmanned ships, however, the rate of
non-navigational accidents (e.g. onboard fires and sys-
tem failures) could increase due to the complexity of
the autonomous ships and their onboard equipment
(Wrobel, Montewka, and Kujala 2017).
5.3. The way forward
The introduction of autonomous shipping requires
amendments of many international treaties (e.g. SOLAS,
STCW, IMDG, Polar Code, etc.), necessitating a departure
from well-established regulatory frameworks (IMO
2018a). This presents significant regulatory barriers to
the practical implementation of autonomous shipping
(DMA 2017). The participants discussed this practical
implementation issue, feeling that it is the largest barrier
ERGONOMICS 341
to overcome, rather than technological aspects related
to autonomy. This lies partially in the history of how the
IMO and other regulatory bodies have evolved to man-
age the international shipping industry. Maritime safety
policy has traditionally been highly reactive, generally
developing in response to specific accidents or incidents
(Schro€der-Hinrichs et al. 2013). Regulatory bodies may
also have conflicting relationships between balancing
safety and economic interests of the stakeholders it rep-
resents (Rosario 2000). A prescriptive regulatory regime
may not be suitable for autonomous ships, due to the
pace of technological development, and would thus
require more goal-based and functional requirements
(Mahapatra 2018). Furthermore, questions regarding the
responsibility, liability and insurance of autonomous
ships and shipping are still unclear (Mahapatra 2018).
The rapid developments in autonomous technologies
and ongoing autonomous shipping projects is forcing
the IMO and associated stakeholders to rethink its
approach in dealing with technology in operations, and
their far-reaching impacts on the industry as a whole.
The push for autonomous shipping is being led by
technologists while other maritime stakeholders, in par-
ticular, regulatory bodies and insurers, are struggling to
keep pace. Similarly, from a pedagogic and competency
development perspective maritime education and train-
ing institutions are confronted with the need to adapt
future courses and programmes for cadets and profes-
sionals working within maritime industries. New training
and education programmes will need to be developed
to match learning objectives with the new and emerg-
ing operational demands created by unmanned and
autonomous maritime systems.
Utilising autonomous ships could save costs by
reducing or eliminating crews (Rødseth and Burmeister
2012), including the facilities required for having
humans onboard (i.e. hotel facilities [kitchen, dining hall,
sleeping quarters, recreational areas, toilets and show-
ers, etc.] through savings on weight, space and con-
sumption of electricity, freshwater and supplies). Yet
these ships will likely still require some level of supervi-
sion, as well as maintenance of onboard systems (if and
when equipment breaks down at sea what procedures
would be in place?). If the reduction of onboard crew
leads to increased onshore manning, cost savings
related to crew reduction may be minimal, as the crew
would simply be ‘moved’ onshore. Furthermore, the
increased costs of specialised equipment, sensors,
Information Technology infrastructure, transport to/from
remote ships at sea for unforeseen maintenance,
amongst other issues, may also negate any cost savings
argued for by reducing or eliminating crew.
342 S. C. MALLAM ET AL.
Autonomy is a highly disruptive technology for an
industry that is generally considered conservative and
traditional. Autonomous technologies have created
emerging operational paradigms that are creating
completely new possibilities for how to work within
maritime transport is organised and performed. The
maritime domain must also look across disciplines to
the research and development performed in other sec-
tors of transport and industries who have greater
experience with both developing and applying
autonomous systems in the real-world. This can better
enable the successful implementation of autonomous
technologies to the maritime domain.
5.4. Methodological discussion and limitations
The qualitative research design utilised a semi-
structured interview format for individual participant
interviews. This provided an opportunity to elicit descrip-
tive responses to questions within our broadly defined
scope of three areas of interest: (1) autonomy definition
and concepts, (2) perceived challenges and changes
with autonomous systems, and (3) the role of humans
within autonomous systems. The semi-structured inter-
views allowed for more exploratory and descriptive
answers from participants (Corbin and Strauss 2008).
Furthermore, in-person interviews offered the opportun-
ity for interviewees to clarify or rephrase questions in
order to achieve mutual understanding, and thus more
accurate data (Do €rnyei 2007). As the sample was highly
international and interviews were carried out in both
English and Norwegian (for participants who were native
speakers), the semi-structured interview format allowed
for immediate clarification between researcher and
interviewee.
The participant sample consisted of ten SME’s work-
ing within academia (five) and as industry practitioners
(five). The inherent individual characteristics and back-
ground of the recruited participants, as well as the
interview manuscript scope and interview sessions
may have primed participants and biased (e.g. expect-
ancy bias) their responses towards more human fac-
tors-centric topics than typical. The educational and
professional profiles of the participants varied widely,
but all ten had strong connections to human element
issues in highly automated and autonomous safety-
critical systems within their current work.
Due to the specialisation of the research and the
desire to have SME participants who are actively
engaged in safety-critical domains, recruitment for the
data collection was limited to ten. Although, this num-
ber of participants may be considered low, because of
the relatively narrow research scope and questions the
sample provided rich descriptions from which thematic
saturation occurred (Saunders et al. 2018) and clearly
defined themes emerged from the data analysis (Braun
and Clarke 2006). The data was collected and analysed
using the six-step Thematic Analyses framework (Braun
and Clarke 2006). All interviews were audio recorded
and transcribed verbatim. Three researchers independ-
ently analysed the transcripts and then convened in an
interactive workshop to validate their individual find-
ings and finalise the results. Having multiple coders
work independently increases the validity and reliabil-
ity of the data analyses through inter-coder agreement
(Corbin and Strauss 2008; MacQueen et al. 1998).
However, ensuring sufficient validity and reliability in
qualitative interview data is challenging and qualitative
interviewing has its limitations as a research instrument
(Alshenqeeti 2014). In particularly, the external validity
of our research findings may be difficult to generalise
to other domains, as autonomy and autonomous tech-
nologies and systems are rapidly developing and much
of the discussion was focussed on maritime-specific
issues. Regardless, at this early stage in both research
and real-world application for autonomous maritime
applications, this exploratory study provides initial
input and frameworks for areas of interest regarding
the human element and autonomous maritime sys-
tems and operations.
6. Conclusions
The pace of the technological development of autono-
mous systems is rapid, resulting in current scaled pilot
projects and full-scale autonomous ships under devel-
opment. The obstacles of implementing such solutions
are no longer necessarily technological, but rather
related to human-technology aspects of new operating
paradigms and emerging regulatory, liability and secur-
ity concerns. Despite recent attention and practical
demonstrations of utilising autonomous technologies
across other transport domains, challenges continue to
reveal themselves. Issues relating to system trust,
understanding and predictability of decision-making, as
well as the skills required to develop, operate and
maintain such technologies will become increasingly
relevant to the successful and sustainable functioning
of highly automated and autonomous maritime sys-
tems. As autonomous technologies continue to rapidly
advance, it is critical to develop a better understanding
of how and where humans fit into operations in ever
evolving complex safety-critical systems.

Acknowledgement
This research was partially supported by MARKOM2020
under project number 1700111 (2017). The authors would
like to thank Sunniva Veie for her valuable contributions in
assisting with data collection and transcription. This paper
has been expanded from an earlier version presented at the
20th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association
in Florence, Italy (August 26th–30th, 2018) and published
within its conference proceedings:
Mallam S. C., Nazir S., Sharma A. & Veie S. (2019).
Perspectives on Autonomy – Exploring Future Applications
and Implications for Safety Critical Domains. In: Bagnara S.,
Tartaglia R., Albolino S., Alexander T., Fujita Y. (eds).
Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the International
Ergonomics Association (IEA 2018). IEA 2018. Advances in
Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 82, pp. 396–405.
Springer, Cham. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-96080-7_47
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
Ahvenjaravi, S. 2016. “The Human Element and Autonomous
Ships.” TransNav 10(3): 517–523. doi:10.12716/1001.10.03.18.
Allen, P. 2009. “Perception of Technology at Sea Amongst
British Seafaring Officers.” Ergonomics 52(10): 1206–1214.
doi:10.1080/00140130902971924.
Allianz (Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty). 2012. Safety
and Shipping 1912–2012: From Titanic to Costa Concordia.
Munich, Germany: Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty.
Allianz (Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty). 2017. Safety
and Shipping Review 2017. Munich, Germany: Allianz
Global Corporate & Specialty.
Allianz (Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty). 2018. Safety
and Shipping Review 2018. Munich, Germany: Allianz
Global Corporate & Specialty.
Alshenqeeti, H. 2014. “Interviewing as a Data Collection
Method: A Critical Review.” English Linguistics Research
3(1): 39–45. doi:10.5430/elr.v3n1p39.
Bainbridge, L. 1983. “Ironies of Automation.” Automatica
19(6): 775–779. doi:10.1016/0005-1098(83)90046-8.
Beggiato, M., and J. F. Krems. 2013. “The Evolution of Mental
Model, Trust and Acceptance of Adaptive Cruise Control
in Relation to Initial Information.”Transportation Research
Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 18: 47–57. doi:10.
1016/j.trf.2012.12.006.
Bonner, M., R. Taylor, K. Fletcher, and C. Miller. 2000.
“Adaptive Automation and Decision Aiding in the Military
Fast Jet Domain.” In Proceedings of the Conference on
Human Performance, Situation Awareness and
Automation: User-Centered Design for the New
Millennium, 154–159.
Bradshaw, J. M., R. R. Hoffman, M. Johnson, and D. D.
Woods. 2013. “The Seven Deadly Myths of ‘Autonomous
Systems.” IEEE Intelligent Systems 28(3): 54–61. doi:10.
1109/MIS.2013.70.
ERGONOMICS 343
Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2006. “Using Thematic Analysis in
Psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2):
77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
Chauvin, C., S. Lardjan, G. Morel, J. P. Clostermann, and B.
Langard. 2013. “Human and Organizational Factors in
Maritime Accidents: Analysis of Collisions at Sea Using the
HFACS.”Accident Analysis and Prevention 59: 26–37. doi:10.
1016/j.aap.2013.05.006.
Corbin, J., and A. Strauss. 2008. Basics of qualitative research.
3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Deming, D. J. 2017. “The Growing Importance of Social Skills
in the Labor Market.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics
132(4): 1593–1640. doi:10.3386/w21473.
DMA (Danish Maritime Authority). 2017. Analysis of
Regulatory Barriers to the Use of Autonomous Ships: Final
Report. Copenhagen, Denmark: Danish Maritime Authority.
Doraszelski, U. 2004. “Innovations, Improvements, and the
Optimal Adoption of New Technologies.” Journal of
Economic Dynamics and Control 28(7): 1461–1480. doi:10.
1016/S0165-1889(03)00112-X.
Do€rnyei, Z. 2007. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics.
Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
Endsley, M. R., and E. O. Kiris. 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. doi:10.
1518/001872095779064555.
Ferris, T., N. Sarter, and C. D. Wickens. 2010. “Cockpit
Automation: Still Struggling to Catch Up.” 2nd ed. In E.
Salas, T. Allard, D. Maurino (Eds.), Human factors in
Aviation, 479–503. Burlington, MA, USA: Academic Press.
doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-374518-7.00015-8.
Grech, M., T. J. Horberry, and T. Koester. 2008. Human
Factors in the Maritime Domain. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC
Press.
Hetherington, C., R. Flin, and K. Mearns. 2006. “Safety in
Shipping: The Human Element.” Journal of Safety Research
37(4): 401–411. doi:10.1016/j.jsr.2006.04.007.
Hoff, K. A., and M. Bashir. 2015. “Trust in Automation:
Integrating Empirical Evidence on Factors That Influence
Trust.” Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors
and Ergonomics Society 57(3): 407–434. doi:10.1177/
0018720814547570.
Hummels, D. 2007. “Transportation Costs and International
Trade in the Second Era of Globalization.” Journal of Economic
Perspectives 21(3): 131–154. doi:10.1257/jep.21.3.131.
IMO (International Maritime Organization). 2018a. Report of
the Maritime Safety Committee on its Ninety-Ninth Session.
London, United Kingdom: International Maritime
Organization.
IMO (International Maritime Organization) 2018b. “IMO takes
first steps to address autonomous ships.” Accessed
September 18 2018. http://www.imo.org/en/mediacentre/
pressbriefings/pages/08-msc-99-mass-scoping.aspx
Inagaki, T. 2003. “Adaptive Automation: Sharing and Trading
of Control.” In E. Hollnagel (Ed.), Handbook of cognitive
task design, 147–169. Mahwah, NJ, USN: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Kim, T. E., S. Nazir, and K. I. Øvergård. 2016. “A STAMP-Based
Causal Analysis of the Korean Sewol Ferry Accident.”
Safety Science 83: 93–101. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2015.11.014.
344 S. C. MALLAM ET AL.
KM (Kongsberg Maritime) 2018. “Autonomous ship project,
key facts about YARA Birkeland.” Accessed September 13
2018. https://www.km.kongsberg.com/ks/web/nokbg0240.
nsf/AllWeb/4B8113B707A50A4FC125811D00407045?Open
Document
Kyriakidis, M., J. C. G. de Winter, N. Stanton, T. Bellet, B. van
Arem, K. Brookhuis, M. H. Martens, K. Bengler, J. Andersson,
N. Merat., N. Reed, M. Flament, M. Hagenzieker, and R.
Happee. 2019. “A Human Factors Perspective on Automated
Driving.” Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science 20(3):
223–249. doi:10.1080/1463922X.2017.1293187.
Lee, J. D., and N. Moray. 1992. “Trust, Control Strategies and
Allocation of Function in Human Machine Systems.”
Ergonomics 35(10): 1243–1270. doi:10.1080/00140139
208967392.
Lee, J. D., and K. A. See. 2004. “Trust in Automation:
Designing for Appropriate Reliance.” Human Factors: The
Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
46(1): 50–80. doi:10.1518/hfes.46.1.50_30392.
Lutzhoft, M. H., and S. W. Dekker. 2002. “On Your Watch:
Automation on the Bridge.” Journal of Navigation 55(1):
83–96. doi:10.1017/S0373463301001588.
MacQueen, K. M., E. McLellan, K. Kay, and B. Milstein. 1998.
“Codebook Development for Team-Based Qualitative
Analysis.” Cam Journal 10(2): 31–36. doi:10.1177/
1525822X980100020301.
Mahapatra, A. 2018. “Digitalization and Maritime Autonomous
Surface Ships (MASS).” Accessed September 29 2018.
https://www.dma.dk/Vaekst/autonomeskibe/Documents/
Ashok%20Mahapatra%20Maritime%20Autonomous%20Surface
%20Ships.pdf
Mallam, S. C. 2016. Distributed participatory design in multidis-
ciplinary engineering projects: Investigating a sustainable
approach for ship design and construction. Gothenburg,
Sweden: Chalmers University of Technology.
Mallam, S. C., and M. Lundh. 2016. “The Physical Work
Environment and End-User Requirements: Investigating
Marine Engineering Officers Operational Demands and Ship
Design.” Work 54(4): 989–1000. doi:10.3233/WOR-162365.
Mallam, S. C., M. Lundh, and S. N. MacKinnon. 2017.
“Evaluating a Digital Ship Design Tool Prototype: Designers’
Perceptions of Novel Ergonomics Software.” Applied
Ergonomics 59: 19–26. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2016.08.026.
Nazir, S., A. Kluge, and D. Manca. 2014. “Automation in
Process Industry: Cure or Curse? How Can Training
Improve Operator’s Performance.” Computer Aided
Chemical Engineering 33: 889–894. doi:10.1016/B978-0-
444-63456-6.50149-6.
NFAS (Norwegian Forum for Autonomous Ship). 2017.
Definitions for Autonomous Merchant Ships. Trondheim,
Norway: Norwegian Forum for Autonomous Ships.
Parasuraman, R. 1987. “Human-Computer Monitoring.” Human
Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics
Society 29(6): 695–706. doi:10.1177/001872088702900609.
Parasuraman, R., and V. Riley. 1997. “Humans and
Automation: Use, Misuse, Disuse, Abuse.” Human Factors:
The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
39(2): 230–253. doi:10.1518/001872097778543886.
Parasuraman, R., T. B. Sheridan, and C. D. Wickens. 2000. “A
Model for Types and Levels of Human Interaction with
Automation.” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and
Cybernetics – Part A: Systems and Humans 30(3): 286–297.
doi:10.1109/3468.844354.
Progoulaki, M., and M. Roe. 2011. “Dealing with Multicultural
Human Resources in a Socially Responsible Manner:
A Focus on the Maritime Industry.” WMU Journal
of Maritime Affairs 10(1): 7–23. doi:10.1007/s13437-011-
0003-0.
Richards, D., and A. Stedmon. 2016. “To Delegate or Not to
Delegate: A Review of Control Frameworks for Autonomous
Cars.” Applied Ergonomics 53: 383–388. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.
2015.10.011.
Rosario, J. L. 2000. The Role of Maritime Administration in
Ensuring Quality Shipping Services: A Guide to Cape Verde
Maritime Administration. Malmo €, Sweden: World Maritime
University.
Rødseth, Ø. J., and H. C. Burmeister. 2012. “Developments
Towards the Unmanned Ship.” Paper presented at the
International Symposium “Information on Ships” (ISIS),
Hamburg, Germany, August 30–31.
Rødseth, O. J., and H. C. Burmeister. 2015. “Risk Assessment
for an Unmanned Merchant Ship.” Transnav, The
International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea
Transportation 9(3): 357–364. doi:10.12716/1001.09.03.08.
Sarter, N. B., D. D. Woods, and C. E. Billings. 1997.
“Automation Surprises.” 2nd ed. In G. Salvendy (Ed.),
Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics. 1926–1943.
New York, USA: Wiley.
Saunders, B., J. Sim, T. Kingstone, S. Baker, J. Waterfield, B.
Bartlam, H. Burroughs, and C. Jinks. 2018. “Saturation in
Qualitative Research: Exploring Its Conceptualization and
Operationalization.” Quality and Quantity 52(4):
1893–1907. doi:10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8.
Schro€ der-Hinrichs, J. U., E. Hollnagel, M. Baldauf, S. Hofmann,
and A. Kataria. 2013. “Maritime Human Factors and IMO
Policy.” Maritime Policy and Management 40(3): 243–260.
doi:10.1080/03088839.2013.782974.
Sheridan, T. B. 1992. Telerobotics, Automation, and Human
Supervisory Control. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.
Society of Automotive Engineers. 2018. “Taxonomy and
Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation
Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles” (J3016_201806).
Accessed June 23 2019. https://www.sae.org/standards/
content/j3016_201806/
Stopford, M. 2009. Maritime Economics. 3rd ed. Oxon, United
Kingdom: Routledge.
Strauch, B. 2017. “The Automation-by-Expertise-by-Training
Interaction: Why Automation-Related Accidents Continue
to Occur in Sociotechnical Systems.” Human Factors: The
Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
59(2): 204–228. doi:10.1177/0018720816665459.
Wahlstro €m, M., J. Hakulinen, H. Karvonen, and L. Lindborg.
2015. “Human Factors Challenges in Unmanned Ship
Operations – Insights from Other Domains.” Procedia
Manufacturing 3: 1038–1045. doi:10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.167.
Wickens, C. D. 1995. “Designing for Situation Awareness and
Trust in Automation.” IFAC Proceedings Volumes 28(23):
365–370. doi:10.1016/S1474-6670(17)46646-8.
Wilhelmsen , 2018. “Wilhelmsen and KONGSBERG Establish
World’s First Autonomous Shipping Company”.
 ERGONOMICS 345

Accessed October 14 2018. https://www.wilhelmsen. bel, K., J. Montewka, and P. Kujala. 2017. “Towards the
Wro
com/media-news-and-events/press-releases/2018/wilhelm- Assessment of Potential Impact of Unmanned Vessels on
sen-and-kongsberg-establish-worlds-first-autonomous-ship- Maritime Transportation Safety.” Reliability Engineering and
ping-company/ System Safety 165: 155–169. doi:10.1016/j.ress.2017.03.029.