Breaking the ice: a work domain analysis of icebreaker operations
Tóm tắt
Icebreakers are special-purpose ships designed to operate in different ice-covered waters, either independently or during assistance of weaker ships. In the Baltic Sea, as well as elsewhere, they are essential for maintaining continuous sea transport services during wintertime. Icebreaker operations are complex, and every situation in which a vessel requires assistance is unique, due to, e.g. changing ice and weather conditions, geographical location or language proficiency of the crew on board the icebreaker or assisted vessel. The icebreaker crew has considerable freedom to adapt to each situation, yet, for safe operations, there are constraints to which the crew has to conform. The study presented in this paper aims at identifying the constraints on nautical officers on board icebreakers during operations, as well as special situations that increase cognitive load. A work domain analysis based on a group interview with nautical icebreaker officers shows the multitude of tasks performed on board icebreakers. Furthermore, it identifies constraints specific to icebreaker operations such as ice assessment and direct icebreaking, but also generic constraints such as language and communication skills. At times, safety and efficiency come into conflict, resulting in a trade-off between the two. When that happens, safety gets priority, and the operation stops until the situation has been evaluated. In addition, several situations that increase cognitive load are identified, with the common denominator that they add elements of uncertainty, e.g. severe weather and technical malfunctions. Finally, further research within the area of icebreaker operations is recommended, with a continued focus on the system constraints, and their potential for system improvement.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Akhtar MJ, Utne IB (2014) Common patterns in aggregated accident analysis charts from human fatigue-related groundings and collisions at sea. Marit Pol Manag 42:1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2014.926032
Belling P, Suss J, Ward P (2015) The effect of time constraint on anticipation, decision making, and option generation in complex and dynamic environments. Cogn Technol Work 17:355–366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-015-0334-2
Birrell SA, Young MS, Jenkins DP, Stanton NA (2012) Cognitive Work Analysis for safe and efficient driving. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 13:430–449. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922X.2010.539285
Boström M, Österman C (2017) Improving operational safety during icebreaker operations. WMU J Marit Aff 16:73–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-016-0105-9
Bourne LE, Yaroush RA (2003) Stress and cognition: a cognitive psychological perspective. University of Colorado, USA
Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 3:77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Buysse J (2007) Handling ships in ice: a practical guide to handling class 1A and 1AS ships. The Nautical Institute, London
Chai T, Weng J, De-qi X (2017) Development of a quantitative risk assessment model for ship collisions in fairways. Saf Sci 91:71–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.07.018
Chambers TP, Main LC (2015) Symptoms of fatigue and coping strategies in maritime pilotage. Int Mari Health 66:43. https://doi.org/10.5603/IMH.2015.0011
Dekker S, Pruchnicki S (2013) Drifting into failure: theorising the dynamics of disaster incubation. Theor Issues Ergon Sci. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922X.2013.856495
Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (2011) The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Sage, Thousand Oaks
Dhukaram AV, Baber C (2015) Modelling elderly cardiac patients decision making using Cognitive Work Analysis: identifying requirements for patient decision aids. Int J Med Inform 84:430–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2015.01.001
Effken JA, Brewer BB, Logue MD, Gephart SM, Verran JA (2011) Using Cognitive Work Analysis to fit decision support tools to nurse managers’ work flow. Int J Med Inform 80:698–707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2011.07.003
Elfering A, Grebner S, Leitner M, Hirschmüller A, Kubosch EJ, Baur H (2017) Quantitative work demands, emotional demands, and cognitive stress symptoms in surgery nurses. Psychol Health Med 22:604–610. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2016.1200731
Etikan. I, Musa. SA, Alkassim. RS (2016) Comparison of Convenience Sampling and Purposive Sampling. Am J Theor Appl Stat. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11
Gillham B (2005) Research interviewing: the range of techniques. Open University Press, Maidenhead
Goerlandt F, Montewka J, Zhang W, Kujala P (2017) An analysis of ship escort and convoy operations in ice conditions. Saf Sci 95:198–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.01.004
Goldratt EM (1988) Computerized shop floor scheduling. Int J Prod Res 26:443–455. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207548808947875
Hetherington C, Flin R, Mearns K (2006) Safety in shipping: the human element. J Safety Res 37:401–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2006.04.007
Hockey RJ (1997) Compensatory control in the regulation of human performance under stress and high workload: a cognitive-energetical framework. Biol Psychol 45:73–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-0511(96)05223-4
House D, Toomey P, Lloyd M, Dickins D (2010) The ice navigation manual. Witherby Seamanship International Ltd., Edinburgh
Jalonen R, Riska K, Hänninen S (2005) A preliminary risk analysis of winter navigation in the Baltic Sea. Winter Navigation Research Board, Research Report No 57
Karahalios H (2014) The contribution of risk management in ship management: the case of ship collision. Saf Sci 63:104–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2013.11.004
Kitzinger J (1994) The methodology of focus groups: the importance of interaction between research participants. Soc Health Illn 16:103–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.ep11347023
Kujala P, Arughadhoss S (2012) Statistical analysis of ice crushing pressures on a ship’s hull during hull–ice interaction. Cold Reg Sci Technol 70:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coldregions.2011.09.009
Lind M (2003) Making sense of the abstraction hierarchy in the power plant domain. Cogn Technol Work 5:67–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-002-0109-4
Lipshitz R, Strauss O (1997) Coping with uncertainty: a naturalistic decision-making analysis. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 69:149–163. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1997.2679
Naikar N (2005a) A methodology for work domain analysis, the first phase of cognitive work analysis. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet 49:312–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120504900321
Naikar N (2005b) Theoretical concepts for work domain analysis, the first phase of cognitive work analysis. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet 49:249–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120504900308
Naikar N, Sanderson PM (1999) Work domain analysis for training-system definition and acquisition. Int J Aviat Psychol 9:271–290
Naikar N, Treadwell A, Brady A (2014) Cognitive work analysis beyond human factors and engineering: application to military doctrine and strategy development. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet 58:330–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931214581068
Pidgeon N (2010) Systems thinking, culture of reliability and safety. Civ Eng Environ Syst 27:211–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286608.2010.482660
Rahman S-u (1998) Theory of constraints: a review of the philosophy and its applications. Int J Oper Prod Manag 18:336–355. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443579810199720
Rasmussen J (1985) The role of hierarchical knowledge representation in decisionmaking and system management. IEEE Trans Syst, Man Cybern SMC 15:234
Regan MA, Lintern G, Hutchinson R, Turetschek C (2015) Use of cognitive work analysis for exploration of safety management in the operation of motorcycles and scooters. Accid Anal Prev 74:279–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2014.07.009
Ronen B, Spector Y (1992) Managing system constraints: a cost/utilization approach. Int J Prod Res 30:2045–2061. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207549208948137
Salmon PM et al (2015) More than meets the eye: using cognitive work analysis to identify design requirements for future rail level crossing systems. Appl Ergon. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2015.06.021
Simon HA (1996) The sciences of the artificial, 3 edn. MIT Press, Cambridge
Şimşit ZT, Günay NS, Vayvay Ö (2014) Theory of constraints: a literature review. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 150:930–936. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.09.104
Snider D (2012) Polar ship operations—a practical guide. The Nautical Institute, London
Stanton NA, Bessell K (2014) How a submarine returns to periscope depth: analysing complex socio-technical systems using Cognitive Work Analysis. Appl Ergon 45:110–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2013.04.022
Stanton N, Salmon P, Rafferty L, Walker G, Baber C, Jenkins D (2013) Human factors methods: a practical guide for engineering and design. Ashgate Publishing Company, Burlington
Stewart DW, Shadmasani PN, Rook DW (2007) Focus groups: theory and practice, 2nd edn. SAGE, Thousand Oaks
Strauch B (2015) Investigating fatigue in marine accident Investigations. Procedia Manufac 3:3115–3122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.859
Valdez Banda OA, Goerlandt F, Montewka J, Kujala P (2015) A risk analysis of winter navigation in Finnish sea areas. Accid Anal Prev 79:100–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2015.03.024
Valdez Banda OA, Goerlandt F, Kuzmin V, Kujala P, Montewka J (2016) Risk management model of winter navigation operations. Mar Pollut Bull 108:242–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.03.071
Vicente KJ (1999) Cognitive work analysis: toward safe, productive, and healthy computer-based work. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah
Waller MJ, Gupta N, Giambatista RC (2004) Effects of adaptive behaviors and shared mental models on control crew performance. Manage Sci 50:1534–1544. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1040.0210
Xiao T, Sanderson P (2014) Evaluating the generalizability of the Organizational Constraints Analysis framework: a hospital bed management case study. Cogn Technol Work 16:229–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-013-0260-0