573

1 INTRODUCTION

The shipping industry can be identified as a high-risk

domain with a significant complexity in operations

(Perrow, 1999). As in many other high-risk domains,

safety regulatory work follows in the aftermath of an

incident or accident reflecting a reactive approach to

safety with little to no guidance on how to implement

proactive means and measures based on socio-

technical system concepts (Chauvin, 2011).

Consequently, safety improvements in the maritime

domain are generally reactive, thus not explicitly

aimed to avoid future incidents of new kinds, but

mainly address the causes of what has already

happened (Schröder-Hinrichs, Hollnagel, and

Baldauf, 2012).

As a globalized industry, shipping is regulated at

an international level by a specialized agency of the

United Nations, the International Maritime

Organization (IMO). IMO works to promote a safe,

efficient and secure shipping industry with a limited

impact on the environment. In practice, this is

achieved by adopting regulations, technical standards

and non-binding instruments (Harrison, 2011).

Through the past 70 years, IMO has created an

exhaustive framework including some of the most

important conventions in international shipping, such

as the International Convention for the Safety of Life

at Sea (SOLAS) (IMO, 1974). International Convention

for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL)

(IMO, 2017a) and International Convention on

Standards of Training, Certification and

Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW) (IMO, 2017b).

Maritime Resource Management: Current Training

pproaches and Potential Improvements

G. Praetorius

Kalmar Maritime Academy, Linnaeus University, Kalmar, Sweden

University of South

-Eastern Norway, Borre, Norway

Hult & C. Österman

Kalmar Maritime Academy, Linnaeus University, Kalmar, Sweden

ABSTRACT: Shipping can be regarded as a high-risk domain with a large complexity in operations. Accidents

and incidents may involve serious danger for seafarers and passengers, as well as for the environment and

society at large. Education and training play a crucial role for the safe conduct of ships. While technical skills

have been at the core of a mariner’s skillset, non-technical skills (NTS) have become increasingly important for

the safe conduct of merchant vessels. Therefore, knowledge in NTS has become a mandatory requirement for

officers serving on board. This knowledge is normally taught in courses labelled Bridge Resource Management,

Engine room Resource Management, or Maritime Resource Management. While the number of courses in the

industry is steadily increasing, research focused on NTS training and its relation to safety in operation seems

sparse. This review article aims to provide an overview of scientific literature focused on training NTS for

maritime operations published between 2000 and 2018. Based on the reviewed literature the article identifies

and discusses current research gaps, trends and potential future directions to improve maritime resource

management training.

http://www.transnav.eu

the

International Journal

on Marine Navigation

and Safety of Sea Transportation

Volume 14

Number 3

September 2020

DOI:

10.12716/1001.14.03.08

574

Two important measures to promote proactive

safety work are education and training. Since the

grounding of the Torrey Canyon in 1967 (Liberian

Board of Investigation, 1967), which initiated the

MARPOL (1973) and the STCW Convention in 1978

(Schröder-Hinrichs, Hollnagel, Baldauf, Hofmann, &

Kataria, 2013), it has been highlighted that there is a

need for well-defined competence and training

requirements to equip the crew onboard with all

necessary skills and knowledge to work as safe as

possible.

STCW addresses the requirements for training and

certification of seafarers with a specific focus on the

master and officers onboard. The aim of the

convention is to establish the preconditions for

comparable training standards world-wide (IMO,

2017b). This includes both technical skills, such as

how various parts of the equipment onboard are to be

operated and maintained, and non-technical skills,

such as communication, teamwork and decision

making. The latest revision of the STCW in 2010

increased the demands on non-technical skills (NTS)

for officers onboard, i.e. the need to show proficiency

in knowledge concerning the human element,

leadership, management, and teamwork skills, which

are normally trained as part of Bridge or Engine room

Resource Management (STCW A- II/I, A-II/2, A-III/2,

A-III/6) sometimes called Maritime Resource

Management (MRM). However, while the number of

MRM courses is steadily increasing, research focused

on NTS training and its relation to safety in operation

seems sparse.

The aim of this article is to explore and discuss

resource management training in the maritime

domain against the background of research from

other high-risk domains. Based on a literature review,

the article discusses current research gaps, trends and

potential future directions to improve MRM training.

The following questions have guided this review:

1 What is the current state of Maritime Resource

Management training?

2 How can Maritime Resource Management training

be improved based on lessons learned in other

high-risk domains?

3 How can resilience engineering help to create

improved Maritime Resource Management

through its complementary focus on systems, i.e.

teams, in real life settings?

2 THEORETICAL FRAME OF REFERENCE

The following section provides the theoretical

backdrop for this article. We will first introduce the

concept of non-technical skills (NTS) and its relation

to resource management training approaches.

Secondly, we will provide an overview of resilience

engineering (RE), which is a rather novel approach to

safety in high-risk domains. In comparison to NTS

which is focused on skills in individuals, RE has

systems and teams in operations as its unit of

analysis.

2.1 Non-technical skill training

Non-technical skills (NTS) can be defined as “the

cognitive, social and personal resources skills that

complement technical skills, and contribute to safe

and efficient task performance” (Flin, O'Connor, &

Crichton, 2008, p.1). The NTS concept has been

applied to a large number of domains, such as

healthcare, firefighting, mining, oil and gas and

nuclear power (Flin, O’Connor, & Mearns, 2002;

Helmreich, & Foushee, 2019; Thomas, 2018). These

skills are normally split into seven areas; situation

awareness, decision-making, communication,

teamwork, leadership, as well as the ability to manage

stress and cope with fatigue. These areas reflect skills

normally trained in crew resource management

(CRM) courses or their equivalent in other high-risk

domains adopting this type of training (Thomas,

2018).

NTS training in the maritime domain gained

recognition during the early 1990s after the aviation

domain attributed increased operational safety to

successful implementation of crew resource

management. By the end of the 1970s several

accidents had been associated to human error and

investigations had identified deficiencies in the

coordination of work, communication and decision

making as causes for these adverse events. One of the

prominent accidents often associated with the

development of CRM is the collision of two aircraft on

a runway at the Tenerife airport in 1977. Decision

making, fatigue and leadership were among the

identified causes for the accident that caused 583

fatalities (Flin, O’Connor, & Mearns, 2002). As a

consequence of this and other incidents, the aviation

industry started to investigate pilot error and to

develop courses focused on how to prevent these

errors in the end of the 1970s. By the beginning of the

1980s, NASA introduced its first CRM training as

outcome of a human factors workshop (Helmreich, &

Foushee, 2019).

NTS training has since been transferred to and

adopted by several other high-risk domains

(Hayward, Lowe, & Thomas, 2019). The courses

normally encompass a mixture of classroom-based

lectures and group discussions in combination with

simulator training. The lectures generally address

issues related to human performance in high risk

systems, such as decision making, communication,

leadership, teamwork, fatigue, stress and situation

awareness. Further, courses often make use of a

number of exercises, including discussions of

incidents and accidents (Salas et al., 2006).

A first maritime version of the CRM course

package focused on bridge operations was developed

1992 (Hayward, Lowe, & Thomas, 2019). In 1995, the

IMO introduced the concept of Bridge Resource

Management (BRM) - the effective use and allocation

of all resources available on the bridge - into the

STCW Code (Chauvin et al., 2013). Since then, the

concept has been transferred to other departments

onboard as the development of courses for ERM and

MRM has continued. Through the latest amendments

to the Code, NTS knowledge has become mandatory

(IMO, 2017). Officers in different departments

onboard need to provide proof of their knowledge of

BRM/ERM/MRM principles; including the allocation,

575

assignment and prioritization of resources, effective

communication between and within teams,

assertiveness and leadership, teamwork and having

situational awareness (IMO, 2017b).

As in many other settings, the shipping industry is

currently undergoing substantial changes through an

increased complexity in technology, which pushes

seafarers farther away from the original core

processes, such as navigating or operating machinery,

towards a more supervisory role. Thus, technical and

non-technical skills are increasingly becoming more

critical for the safety of people and cargo onboard and

for the assurance that resources (people and

technology) are used and allocated in an efficient

way. Since communication and teamwork are

fundamental for a merchant vessel’s safe operation

(Grech, Horberry, & Koester, 2008), it is important to

explore and understand how NTS are trained and

maintained, as well as how the requirements for such

knowledge can be demonstrated.

2.2 Resilience and safety in high-risk industries

Through the past decade, resilience engineering (RE)

has received an amplified amount of attention from

researchers and practitioners in high-risk domains.

The theoretical framework of RE was developed in

the early 2000s with the purpose to increase the

understanding of human performance and its

contribution to system safety, instead of focusing on

the human operator as being the source of potential

failure.

The concept of resilience has its origin within

ecology in the early 1970s referring to an ecological

system’s ability to arrive at an equilibrium. The

concept emphasizes that the equilibrium is achieved

through adaption to a dynamic and changing

environment over time (Holling, 1973), i.e. it requires

constant change in the system’s behavior. Within the

RE and in the context of socio-technical systems,

resilience has been defined as the ability to sustain

required functioning and attain to operational goals

under a variety of operating conditions (Hollnagel,

2011). Thus, RE focuses on understanding systems’,

i.e. teams, everyday performance in changing

operating environments with an emphasis on how

safe performance is achieved. It highlights how

systems successfully adapt their behavior to the

shifting demands in the environment, hence to stay in

control and produce a stable performance output

(Hollnagel, 2011). System goals, such as efficiency and

safety, often require trade-offs because they cannot

always be attained to simultaneously. As a

consequence, human operators in high-risk industries

are often forced to improvise and discover

workarounds to be able to cope with limited resources

(Hollnagel, 2009). When this type of adaption is

successful, safety emerges as a property, as the system

balances goals and demands in the current context

(Woods, 2006).

The concept of resilience cornerstones, or abilities

(respond, monitor, anticipate and learn) (Hollnagel,

Woods & Levenson 2006) has been widely used to

analyze everyday work in socio-technical systems.

These four abilities are essential for a system to be

able to recognize challenging conditions, respond to

them, evaluate the response and prepare for future

events. The four abilities are mutually dependent,

and each represents one facet of a system’s

functioning. By analyzing everyday operations with

the aid of the abilities, ways in which the system’s

capacity for knowing what to do (respond), what to

look for (monitor), what to expect (anticipate) and

what has occurred (learn) can be strengthened may be

identified (Hollnagel, 2011). Additionally, Woods

(2015) has identified the following facets of resilience;

capacity to recover from unanticipated events

(rebound), the ability to cope with everyday

complexity (robustness), and the ability to adapt to

and cope with current and future operating

conditions and events (gracefully extensibility and

sustained adaptability).

RE approaches generally focus on work-as-done

(WAD) rather than work-as-imagined (WAI)

(Hollnagel, 2015). WAD is focused on the sharp-end

of operations and explores how human operators in

complex systems adapt their work to a variety of

operating conditions, balancing limited resources and

sometimes shifting organizational and operational

goals. In contrast, WAI is often associated to

guidelines, management systems and other formal

descriptions of work. It does not take into concern

that performance occurs in situ and is thus variable,

i.e. requires adaption to maintain the functioning. A

RE approach based on WAD therefore has the

potential to guide the development of safety measures

and guidance that emphasize positive performance

rather than risks and human error (Lay, Branlat, &

Woods, 2015; Praetorius, Hollnagel & Dahlman, 2015;

Sujan, Spurgeon, & Cooke, 2015; Woltjer, Pinska-

Chauvin, Laursen, & Josefsson, 2015; Woods, 2015).

While the RE framework has been applied across

multiple domains, such as aviation (e.g. Studic,

Majumdar, Schuster, & Ochieng, 2017; Woltjer, et al.,

2015), healthcare (Wachs, Saurin, Righi, & Wears,

2016; Wachs, Weber Righi, & Saurin, 2012), and

critical infrastructures (e.g. Labaka, Hernantes, &

Sarriegi, 2015; Ouyang & Wang, 2015), this type of

research has yet not been developed extensively in the

maritime domain. There are only few studies, which

mostly focus on learning from accident scenarios

(Patriarca & Bergström, 2017) or understanding

complexity of operations onboard (Praetorius &

Lützhöft, 2011) or ashore (Praetorius & Hollnagel,

2014).

Despite the fact that resilience engineering has

gained an increased popularity among practitioners

and researcher in high-risk domains, there is little

research on how to design team training to improve

resilience (Righi, Saurin, & Wachs, 2015). Onboard

operations are complex and need to take place in a

large variety of conditions, i.e. an increased

understanding for how to promote flexibility and

adaptability is crucial. As resource management in the

maritime context can be understood as the effective

and efficient use of resource (people and technology),

the resilience engineering framework may provide a

viable lens to understand onboard operations and

how different demands, opportunities and goals are

attained to in everyday work. This in turn may

generate knowledge on how to potentially identify

essential skills for safety in everyday operations, as

576

well as means and measures to improve mandatory

resource management training.

3 METHODS AND MATERIALS

3.1 Search strategy and inclusion criteria

To identify relevant articles for this review, the

Scopus and ScienceDirect were used. Scopus

(www.scopus.com) is one of the largest databases for

research in humanities, science, engineering and

medicine encompassing more than 21000 titles

including scientific journals, as well as conference

proceedings. ScienceDirect (www.sciencedirect.com)

features around 2000 different journals within among

others biology, medicine, engineering and economics.

The scope of the literature search included peer

reviewed work published over the 18-year period

from 2000 and 2018. The literature search strategy and

selection process are presented in Figure 1.

The review was initiated with a search for studies

on MRM training in the maritime domain. The

keywords (or a combination of keywords) used for

the search were maritime resource management

(MRM), crew resource management (CRM), maritime,

bridge resource management (BRM) and engine room

research management (ERM). The following search

strategy was adopted; ("maritime resource

management") OR ("crew resource management")

AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (maritime) OR ("bridge

resource management") OR ("engine room resource

management").

Secondly, studies on NTS training using the

resilience engineering framework in other domains

than maritime were searched for. The keywords were

non-technical skills, crew resource management and

resilience. For this purpose, the following search

strategy was adopted; TITLE-ABS-KEY (resilience)

AND TITLE-ABS-KEY ("crew resource

management"), followed by TITLE-ABS-KEY ("non-

technical skills") AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (resilience).

Finally, a complementary literature search using the

same strings was conducted in the PubMed database

(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/) to identify

any additional relevant studies that could

complement the dataset. However, this search did not

return any new matches.

The inclusion criteria in the first phase of the

review was defined as articles, which have undergone

a peer review process and are published in scientific

journals or conference proceedings. Only studies

written in English were included. All identified

matches were organized in a spreadsheet eliminating

duplicates in the search results.

Figure 1. Overview of the article selection process

3.2 Selection process

The research questions were used to guide the

selection process. In a first step, all abstracts were

read by the authors to identify whether these

addressed CRM, BRM, ERM, MRM, or non-technical

skill training, and its contribution to safety or

resilience in a high-risk domain. In a qualitative

analysis, all abstracts were first independently judged

by each of this article’s authors and assigned one of

the following values; include, exclude or maybe

include. All articles assigned the value exclude by

more than one of the authors were eliminated in this

first step.

In a second step, all articles assigned include or

maybe include were read in their entirety and

screened for the following:

− Reports findings from studies on CRM, MRM,

BRM or ERM

− Discusses MRM, BRM or ERM training

− Discusses the relationship between non-technical

skill training and resilience, or safety, in a high-

risk domain other than maritime

− Reviews of literature addressing CRM training or

its adoptions in other domains

After reviewing all remaining articles in phase 2,

40 of the originally 205 matches were deemed

relevant for this review. All included articles were

categorized according to type of article (review,

research study, other) and summarized in a

spreadsheet using the following categories; domain,

central concepts, method(s), results, conclusions,

suggestions and future research.

205

Articles in all

identified for

first screening

Articles meet

first inclusion

criteria

165

Articles

excluded

Articles on

NTS

Articles on

MRM

Articles on

NTS AND

resilience

Articles within

maritime

domain

Articles within

other high-risk

domains

577

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The following section will present the findings of the

literature review and discuss these in line with the

research questions. Firstly, the current state of MRM

will be explored and research gaps presents in the

published literature will be highlighted. In the second

section, potential improvements to MRM based on

lessons learned in other high-risk domains will be

presented. Finally, we will discuss whether, and if so

how, resilience engineering may present a

complementary perspective to improve current MRM

training approach to promote and increase safety in

operations.

4.1 What is the current state of Maritime Resource

Management training?

Despite the increased attention towards MRM

training in the past decade, only 11 articles addressing

this topic were identified. An overview of the

identified literature is presented in the appendix of

this article.

Seven articles report findings from empirical

studies of training in various settings. Three of these

address work coordination and communication on

the bridge; two focus on anchor handling (Håvold,

Nistad, Skiri, & Ødegård, 2015; Vederhus, Ødegård,

Nistad, & Håvold, 2018), one on pilotage operations

(Hontvedt, 2015), and one on the attitudes among

navy surface warfare officers (SWOs) (O’Connor,

2011). The articles neither address any aspects of

resource management and its impacts within the

engine-room department, nor training across

department borders. However, Vederhus, et al. (2018)

and Wahl and Kongsvik (2018) advocate the joint

training of crews as a result of their analyses.

Further, the training reported in the studies varied

greatly in length, content, instructional methods, and

focus. For example, Espevik, Saus, and Olsen (2017)

provided a short 4-hour course focused on the ability

to speak up, while other researchers studied courses

that were several days long addressing NTS such as

cooperation, communication, leadership, decision

making, attitudes and motivation, performance under

stress, and situation awareness (Håvold et al., 2015;

O’Connor, 2011, Röttger, Vetter, & Kowalski, 2013;

Röttger, Vetter, & Kowalski, 2016). Additionally,

some studies, such as reported in Vederhus et al.

(2018) and Hontvedt (2015), did not solely focus on

NTS training, but on certain aspects, such as

communication, coordination and demanding

operations. In general, the instructional methods

across the studies differed, but included a mixture of

classroom-based lectures, group discussions, and

simulator or real-life exercises.

Only five studies evaluated the effectiveness of the

training (Espevik, Saus, & Olsen, 2017; Håvoldt et al.,

2015; O’Connor, 2011, Röttger, Vetter, & Kowalski,

2013; Röttger et al, 2016) with regards to attitudes,

perceived learning outcome, and knowledge. In those

studies, all but Håvold et al. (2015), used

questionnaires developed based on Kirkpatrick’s

taxonomy (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006) level 1

“reaction” (participants’ reaction towards a course)

and level 2 “learning” (attitudinal changes and

knowledge gain) to evaluate the effectiveness of the

course. Level 3 “behavior” (assessment of knowledge

transfer from classroom to work environment) and

level 4 “organization” (tangible effect, such as

increased safety or productivity) were not addressed.

Three of the studies utilized an adapted Flight

Management Attitude Questionnaire for the

evaluation of the course (O'Connor, 2011; Röttger et

al., 2013, 2016). Röttger et al. (2016) distributed the

questionnaire prior and after the course to determine

changes in the participants’ attitudes. In addition to

attitudes, the participants’ knowledge and skills with

regards to non-technical aspects for maritime

operations were assessed. O'Connor (2011) used a

multiple-choice questionnaire to determine the

surface warfare officers’ CRM-knowledge, while

Röttger et al. (2016) used a behavioral marker system

based on Flin and Maran (2015) to determine

performance during a real-life navigational exercise.

The reported findings in the studies do not

provide an empirical proof of the effect of the training

in real-life operations. Although several studies were

able to show a change in attitudes and a knowledge

gain, the only study including a field exercise and

NTS behavioral markers did not identify positive

effects on the participants’ performance (task

competition, decision making, situation awareness,

leadership) in comparison to the study’s control

group (Röttger et al., 2016). Results from long-term

studies addressing effectiveness in terms of

transferability between training and work settings, or

measuring effects on operational safety are currently

missing and represent an important research gap to

be addressed.

The results of this review also illustrate a general

lack of training needs analyses in the development of

courses. As guidance by the IMO on how to design

courses that reflect the complexity of human behavior

in ship operations are sparse (Pekcan et al., 2005),

they are often built upon ready-made training

packages developed for other domains, such as

aviation, and are simply translated to the maritime

domain (Wahl and Kongsvik, 2018). This may explain

the limited training effects reported by O’Connor

(2011) and Röttger et al. (2013, 2016). Further, through

the lack of studies observing the long-term effect of

training in real-life settings, it remains unclear what

and how knowledge is translated into work practices

The published work shows a strong emphasis on

simulators as training tools. Among others, Pekcan et

al (2005), Hontvedt (2015), Håvold et al. (2015) and

Nazir et al. (2015) discuss the potential of simulators

to provide an environment for enhanced skill training

in which technical skills and NTS can be improved.

Especially safety-critical and demanding situations

can be trained (Håvold et al., 2015, Vederhus et al.,

2018), as well as professionals are provided with the

opportunity to explore their work context in a safe

setting (Hontvedt, 2015). However, simulated settings

can also provide drawbacks when scenarios are not

carefully matched to training objectives and the

operational context in which the knowledge is

supposed to be applied (Hontvedt, 2015; O’Connor,

2011). In addition, high fidelity simulation may draw

the attention towards technical skills, i.e. how to

navigate and use the equipment, rather than

578

emphasizing the need for task coordination,

communication and decision making in teams.

Further, the assessment of NTS in the reported

research largely focuses on a limited set of skills with

the individual, not the team, in focus. Fjeld et al.

(2018) explored generic NTS for bridge officers

divided into two categories; cognitive skills

(workload management, situation awareness,

decision making) and interpersonal skills (leadership

and communication). They found that studies have

generally focused on one or a few skills, but neither

developed nor explored a full taxonomy of NTS for

bridge officers. Therefore, the authors (Fjeld et al.,

2018) advocate the need to explore the relationship

between work environment (technology,

organization, context) and the bridge officers further.

It is argued that a deeper understanding of how

technical skills and NTS – both cognitive and

interpersonal skills – complement each other in the

work onboard.

Despite the increasing number of publications on

NTS training in maritime operations, there are several

research gaps that need to be addressed. They can be

summarized as followed:

− There is a large ambiguity concerning the concepts

NTS and MRM training which makes them appear

to be labels, rather than thoroughly defined

training approaches

− There is a lack of reported training needs analyses

to underpin the development of training courses

− There is a need to develop assessment approaches

that evaluate both training outcome and

transferability of what is trained to real-world

settings

− There is lack of exploring the transfer long-term

effects of training in operational settings

− Training concepts need to address the interaction

among departments to acknowledge the

complexity of everyday work, which occurs across

department borders

− Training approaches need to explore advantages

and disadvantages of different instructional

methods

4.2 How can Maritime Resource Management traiing be

improved based on lessons learned in other high-risk

domains?

A total of 24 articles addressing CRM and NTS

training across the healthcare, oil and gas, and

aviation domains, as well as operations research and

driving research were identified in this review.

In these articles, NTS are referred to as being a

generic skill set that is trained and enforced through

CRM training (e.g. Burkhardt, Corneloup, Garbay,

Bourrier, Jambon, Luengo, Job, Cabon, Benabbou, &

Lourdeaux, 2016; Kontogiannis & Malakis, 2013;

Malakis et al., 2010; Tawfik, Adair, Kaplan, & Profit,

2017; Youngson, 2016). CRM and NTS training are

believed to increase safety through improving

decision making, communication task coordination

and leadership on a team level (Bennet, 2018; Cahill,

Hurley, & Caughan, 2018; Kuy & Romano, 2017;

Tawfik et al., 2017), as well as situation awareness,

problem recognition, workload management and

problem-solving strategies when faced with complex

operational settings (e.g. Malakis, Kontogiannis, &

Kirwan, 2010; Kontogiannis & Malakis, 2013;

Véronneau & Cimon, 2007). However, Havinga, de

Boer, Rae, and Dekker (2017), Salas et al. (2006), and

Jimenez, Kasper, Rivera, Talone, and Jentsch (2015)

also observe that tools and practices related to CRM

and NTS training may differ greatly between the

various domains. Aviation and its CRM concepts

have mostly been translated into other domains, but

not necessarily based on domain-specific training

needs and preconditions for work. Much of the

research reported in scientific articles lacks an

assessment of how the trained skills are transferred

into operational settings, and to which extent

participants use the training content once they return

to the workplace (Havinga et al., 2017). Furthermore,

it can be recognized in the reported studies that the

definition and understanding of NTS differs greatly

including both individual and team-level skills.

Despite the heterogeneity of the articles identified

in the review, there are several important aspects that

may help to improve MRM and NTS training in the

maritime domain. These aspects can be clustered into

the three main categories; organizational commitment

and anchoring in work practices; simulation-based

training and performance evaluation, and team

training

4.2.1 Improvements through commitment from the

management and anchoring work practices

The identified literature in this review shows a

concern for the transferability of training into real life

settings. A course may provide certain terminology,

technique or practice, however, if not anchored

properly in the operational context (Crichton, 2017),

the learning outcome and long-term effects may

decrease (O’Connor & Flin, 2003). An example is

provided by Kuy and Romero (2017). The authors

explored whether CRM training with focus on team-

building and communication could potentially help to

improve the safety climate perceptions among

operating room staff. The study reports that briefly

after the course the perception of the safety climate

and teamwork had improved, but that the effect

decreased over time (Kuy & Romero, 2017). Thus,

successful CRM training only has an effect if values,

norms and practices are reinforced as culture at a

workplace. This requires organizational and

individual engagement in the change. Similar

findings were also obtained by Thorogood and

Crichton (2014). Through interviews with

management representatives they highlighted the

need for leadership and organzinational procedures

to enable the integration of Threat and Error

Management in workplace practices. If not supported

and encouraged at all levels of the organization, CRM

remains a single training intervention in the eye of

operators, but will neither necessarily be transferred,

nor integrated into the daily work. Consequently,

anchoring and integrating NTS into workplace

practices requires a continuous process throughout

the education and professional life (Baker, Salas,

King, Battles, & Barach, 2005; Youngson, 2016; Todd,

2017).

579

Commitment from the management is an

important aspect for the successful transfer of training

into practice. Therefore, MRM courses should not

solely be directed at seafarers, i.e. the sharp end of

operation, but also at the management level. As

Tawflik et al. (2017) and Youngson (2016) emphasize,

NTS need to be considered as a form of culture that

involves a continuous learning within the

organization. Thus, there is the potential to improve

resource management in everyday operations only if

it is defined as more than a skill-set or particular

training unit. Training courses need to be provided

regularly and should take place in simulated settings

an in the workplace. Support and encouragement by

the management are further of outmost importance

for the transfer and adoption of trained practices.

Only if integrated in the work settings, training

benefits, such as increased operational safety, can be

obtained. The management is responsible to provide

the organizational frame and right precondition for

this.

4.2.2 Improved simulation-based training and

performance evaluation

Similar to the maritime domain, simulation-based

training is one of the foremost instructional methods

for NTS training across domains. The sampled

literature reports the use of high-fidelity (e.g.

Burkhardt et al., 2016; Moffat & Crichton, 2015;

Crichton, 2017) and low-fidelity simulation (Guinea et

al., 2018). These simulations offer an opportunity to

train critical events safely in controlled settings

allowing to evaluate operator behavior and

performance throughout a scenario (e.g. Salehi et al.,

2018). While simulation offers a valuable tool for NTS

training, it needs to be considered that scenario

design, performance evaluation and debriefing have

to be carefully aligned (Crichton, 2017) to ensure that

desired training outcomes are achieved.

Simulator exercises often present trainees with

challenging scenarios. Hence, scenario design

becomes central to create a learning environment

which can help to achieve specific training goals.

These goals should be developed in conjunction with

clear objectives during the design phase and should

be accompanied by the formulation of contextualized

measures to evaluate trainee performance (Moffat &

Crichton, 2015; Crichton, 2017, Burkhart et al., 2016).

Further, to increase the perceived meaningfulness of

the NTS knowledge, domain experts should be

involved in the design of training units and scenarios

(O’Connor & Flin, 2003, Thorogood & Crichton, 2014).

Additionally, current research in NTS training shows

inconsistency among approaches, measures and

concepts (Nicolaides, Cardillo, Theodoulou,

Hanrahan, Tsoulfas, Athanasiou, Papalois, & Sideris,

2018). This is important to consider when adopting

training and evaluation methods across domains, as

transferability may be limited.

Performance evaluation can build on quantitative

measures and qualitative measures. Examples for the

former are behavioral markers (e.g. Malakis,

Kontogiannis & Kirwan, 2010, O'Connor & Flin, 2003,

Moffat & Crichton, 2015) or human factors

measurements such as eye-tracking, voice response

rate and situation awareness ratings (e.g. Salehi et al.,

2018), while the latter concern criteria such as

fostering shared understanding, reflection or

interaction among participants (Guinea et al., 2018).

Regardless which performance evaluation approach is

used, it should be carefully matched to the context of

work and training needs of the targeted group of

participants (Crichton, 2017, Burkhart et al. 2016).

This can potentially be achieved through observing

taskwork strategies in simulated or real-life settings

(Malakis et al, 2010; Bennet, 2018), using incident and

accident reports as case studies (Bove & Andersen,

2000), or developing domain-specific behavioral

markers addressing team-level NTS (Moffat &

Crichton, 2015). It is also important to note that

measures based on observations, such as behavioral

marker ratings, require repeated measurements and a

well-grounded evaluation team to overcome

reliability and validity issues of the measure (Baker et

al., 2005).

MRM training has heavily relied on the use of

high-fidelity simulation-based training (e.g. Espevik

et al., 2017; Håvold et al., 2015, Hontvedt, 2015;

Vederhus et al., 2018). While these types of simulation

offer advantages, one major disadvantage is that they

combine training technical and non-technical skills.

This may make it hard to define concrete learning

objectives and evaluation criteria for NTS in

challenging and complex scenarios. If the line

between technical skills and NTS is blurred, there is a

risk that scenario design, learning objectives and

evaluation criteria are not aligned. This may decrease

the training outcome and make hard for participants

to understand the importance of NTS in operations. It

is therefore recommended to explore whether low-

fidelity simulation approaches, such as demonstrated

by Guinea et al (2018) may offer a valuable tool to

activate participants and foster reflection on both

team and individual level, as well as draw more

attention to NTS.

Training design should also be based on thorough

needs analysis to support the alignment of goals,

instructional methods and performance measures

(e.g. Crichton, 2017). While it is important to

understand how courses are perceived by

participants, there is a need to explore how to

approach training effects on a team level, i.e.

evaluating teamwork, task coordination and the

overall distribution and use of resources in different

operating settings. This knowledge is essential to be

able to identify which practices should be explored as

potentially viable approaches to feed operational data

back into training to improve the overall training

content and design. Further, if behavioral makers or

other quantitative assessment methods based on

observations are employed, it is necessary to ensure

that the developed scales are reliable so that the

evaluation does not suffer from validity issues

(O'Connor & Flin, 2003; Baker et al, 2005). As also

noted by Fjeld et al. (2018), there is a lack of a

coherent behavioral maker taxonomy for the maritime

domain. Therefore the complexity of the work tasks

and settings need to be properly understood before

measures are applied in the evaluation. Further,

Salehi et al. (2018) suggest that advanced human

factors measurements may provide a complementary

set of assessment tools that can also provide input

towards scenario design for different trainee groups

580

with regards to levels of expertise. This might be a

valuable input for the design of performance

measures in simulator-based training.

4.2.3 Stronger emphasis on team training

The reported findings in the maritime domain

show a strong training focus on the individual level,

which is exemplified by the training evaluation

focusing questionnaires about attitudinal change,

course reception and knowledge gain (e.g. Håvold et

al, 2015; O’Connor, 2011, Röttger et al. 2013), as well

as performance measurements through behavioral

markers (Röttger et al. 2016).

In contrast to this, the literature from other high-

risk domains has a stronger emphasis on the team as

target level for training to foster NTS (Kuy & Romero,

2017, Guinea, Andersen, Reid-Searl, Levett-Jones,

Dwyer, Heaton, Flenady, Applegarth, & Bickell, ,2018,

Murphy, McCloughen, & Curtis, 2018). Training

should include a number of practices and exercises,

such as standardized briefings, debriefing techniques,

the establishment of a critical language, and

assertiveness measures. Ideally, the entire team unit

should be involved to foster both cultural change

within the organization and within the team itself

(Paige, 2010). As highlighted by Bennet (2018), CRM

supports interaction among team members and

provides a basis for communication, as well as

behavioral norms in the work setting. Bennet (2018)

observed that CRM practices were applied by the

flight crew up to medium strain to cope with the

variability of normal operations. This is also

supported by Kontogiannis and Malakis (2013), who

found that communication and coordination are part

of the team factors that can offer support in the

process of error detection, analysis and correction.

Especially team communication may trigger reflection

and become a valuable resource during the

assessment of a situation. Further, addressing NTS on

a team level has the potential to serve as a taxonomy

providing a common language and concept which can

be used to identify, teach and apply these skills in the

context of everyday work (Youngson, 2016, Bennet,

2018). Domain-specific hierarchies, differences in

expertise and seniority, or other factors embedded in

the working context may play a significant role in the

interaction, communication and task coordination

among team members in highly complex

environments. NTS potentially offers a way of making

these factors visible (Youngson, 2016). This has also

been emphasized in Moffat and Crichton (2015) who

focused their study on team situational awareness,

teamwork and communication, and team decision

making, as well as team workload and stress

management.

An increased focus on the team as unit of analysis

can be of great benefit for current MRM approaches.

Training should be provided, if possible, for those

usually working together, i.e. are part of the same

company or crew (e.g. Vederhus, et al., 2018, Wahl

and Kongsvik, 2018). This may help to increase the

mutual understanding within and across departments

and create social norms and a behavioral baseline that

can support the crew in their complex work settings.

Factors positively and negatively affecting

communication, coordination and cooperation within

and across departments could potentially be

discovered and made visible as consequence of joint

training. Additionally, a stronger team focus may also

facilitate the overcoming of differences in hierarchy

and culture among crewmembers that may otherwise

create barriers in their successful cooperation.

4.3 How can resilience engineering help to create

improved Maritime Resource Management through

its complementary focus on systems, i.e. teams, in real

life settings?

As highlighted above, the current approaches to

MRM show a lack of team performance measure.

Thus, it can be important to explore theoretical

underpinnings that specifically address a systems

perspective. As pointed out initially, resilience refers

not only to the functioning of a team, but also to the

performance of a socio-technical system as a whole

(Hollnagel, 2011). This is emphasized in e.g. Tawfik

et al (2017) who identify resilience as organizational

or team capability essential to promote safety in

operations. A more critical stance is presented by

Morel, Amalberti, and Chauvin (2009) showing that

resilience may include certain risk taking by operators

and organizations. Their study reveals that safety

measures are often used to increase the

competitiveness and production rather than

improving safety. Further, in this review only three

articles that explicitly addressed NTS and training

from a resilience engineering perspective could be

identified (Wachs, Saurin, Righi, & Wears, 2016;

Wachs, Weber Righi, & Saurin, 2012; Wahlström,

Seppänen, Norros, Aaltonen, & Riikonen, 2018).

In a case study of electricians, Wachs et al. (2012)

explored the relationship between NTS and

procedural adaption. Based on interviews, documents

and field observations, they defined an own set of

NTS categories grounded in the workers’ perspective.

Through an analysis based on a RE lens, conflicting

procedures and work goals, as well as input to the

overall system design was identified. The authors

thereby show that system design may influence the

need for specific NTS in operations. Similar findings

are presented in Wachs et al. (2016), who identified

resilience skills in frontline staff in emergency

departments in Brazil and the United States.

According to the authors, resilience skills concern

collaboration and cooperation, communication,

anticipation of demands and managing trade-offs, as

well as leadership, and matching capacity and

demand in the department (Wachs et al., 2016). They

found that the development of resilience skills is

largely a spontaneous process influenced by the

context of work, including work constraints, such as

time, information or available resources.

As resilience skills are developed in the context

and rather spontaneously, it might be difficult to

identify exact training needs, as well as results may

show limited generalizability across settings. This is

discussed in Wahlström et al. (2018) who focused on

resilience in robotic surgery for prostate removal. The

authors conclude that teamwork becomes a social

enabler and a source of system resilience defined

through task-sharing, coordination and shared

581

understanding in a complex task environment with an

inherently high degree of uncertainty.

Despite the sparse number of articles addressing

the relation between NTS and resilience, the literature

still indicates that resilience skills (Wachs et al., 2016)

may become a fruitful approach for understanding

teamwork and performance in highly complex work

setting. This may include what resilience skills

constitute in specific settings and how these are

developed. As workers are forced to balance and

adapt to workplace constraints (Wachs et al., 2016),

understanding trade-offs in everyday work becomes

an essential building block to be able to create

resource management training that fits the

operational settings and makes sense to those

working at the frontline.

For the maritime domain, and MRM training in

specific, this implies the need to consider skills

beyond what is normally defined as NTS (e.g.

situation awareness, decision making, leadership).

Seafarers often have to work in settings characterized

by limited resources (e.g. manning, time available for

operations) and a high degree of uncertainty due

many external factors, such as the weather, which

require flexibility and the capability to adapt quickly.

As maritime operations need to be conducted despite

the large variety of operating conditions, it is essential

to understand how required functioning of the crew

can be sustained. As a first step, it is therefore

essential to study work onboard in order to formulate

training needs, goals and skill requirements for what

is needed to cope with the large variety of operating

conditions. Work-as-done (WAD) needs to be

acknowledged and understood in situ with a specific

focus on how the crewmembers onboard

communicate, coordinate and distribute tasks, as well

as how workload and operational trade-offs are

handled within and across department borders. While

the current organizational framework consisting of

training requirements, guidelines and

recommendations, as well as standard operation

procedures provides a backdrop for maritime

operations, it fails to acknowledge and uncover

adaptive processes and behaviors of the crew

(Hollnagel, 2015). Adaptive processes are essential for

identifying training needs that promote the capacity

of teams concerning functions such task coordination

and communication in relation to resource limitations

and other operational trade-offs (Woods, 2015). The

results obtained by Wachs et al (2016) and Wahlström

et al (2018) may provide a first guidance on how to

approach WAD and the gain through the application

of resilience, but to be able to transfer this into

concrete training design a deeper understanding of

task coordination, task and information sharing, as

well as communication within and across teams in

complex environments is needed.

With its focus on systems, flexibility and adaptive

processes, resilience may offer a lens to gain a deeper

understanding of the complexity mariners onboard

face in everyday work. Making complexity visible

and identifying needs, means and measures for

training design will remain a challenge that requires

more research.

5 CONCLUSIONS

This article has explored the current state of maritime

resource management and discussed how non-

technical skill training can potentially be improved.

The review shows that research in the maritime

domain has been sparse and that NTS training has

mainly focused on adopting concepts from the

aviation domain without any thorough training needs

analyses. Evaluations and assessments of training

effects have largely focused on attitudinal change and

course perception, but long-term effects and the

degree of transferability to work settings have not

been explored further. It remains therefore unclear if

MRM has a long-term effect on operational settings.

Further, training approaches have mostly focused

on individual NTS trained in high-fidelity simulators

without thoroughly defined training goals. This may

explain the lack of reported results with regards to

training outcomes. Based on literature from other

high-risk domains, this review has identified three

key areas (organizational commitment, team focus,

simulation-based training and performance

evaluation), which may guide improvements to

current training and evaluation approaches. The

potential improvements particularly address the need

to enhance the training regime with a focus on team

performance, as well as the importance of training

being anchored in operational practices and being

supported by the management.

While NTS training traditional draws attention to

mishaps and accidents, and how to prevent those

through effective resource management in various

domains (Flin et al., 2008), there is little known on

how positive performance can be integrated and

exploited for the design of training. Thus, RE offers a

novel perspective with the potential to update current

MRM regimes and offer new knowledge on how

adaptability, flexibility and safety in operations can be

promoted through team training.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This article is part of the SjöResA-project financed by the

Swedish Mercantile Marine Foundation. The authors would

like to express their gratitude to the foundation for their

support.

REFERENCES

Andersen, V., & Bove, T. (2000). A feasibility study of the

use of incidents and accidents reports to evaluate effects

of Team Resource Management in Air Traffic Control.

Safety Science, 35(1), 87-94.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-7535(00)00024-2

Baker, D. P., Salas, E., King, H., Battles, J., & Barach, P.

(2005). The Role of Teamwork in the Professional

Education of Physicians: Current Status and Assessment

Recommendations. Joint Commission Journal on Quality

and Patient Safety, 31(4), 185-202. doi:10.1016/S1553-

7250(05)31025-7

Bennett, S. A. (2018). The training and practice of Crew

Resource Management. Recommendations from an

inductive in vivo study of the flight deck. Ergonomics, 1-

20. doi:10.1080/00140139.2018.1506159

582

Burkhardt, J. M., Corneloup, V., Garbay, C., Bourrier, Y.,

Jambon, F., Luengo, V., Job, A., Cabon, Ph., Benabbou,

A., & Lourdeaux, D. (2016). Simulation and virtual

reality-based learning of non-technical skills in driving:

critical situations, diagnostic and adaptation. IFAC-

PapersOnLine, 49(32), 66-71.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2016.12.191

Cahill, J., Hurley, O., & Caughan, C. M. (2018). Addressing

teamwork problems in healthcare: lessons learned from

aviation and sport. 24(9), 448-457.

doi:10.12968/bjhc.2018.24.9.448

Chauvin, C. (2011). Human Factors and Maritime Safety.

Journal of Navigation, 64(4), 625-632.

doi:10.1017/S0373463311000142

Chauvin, C., Lardjane, S., Morel, G., Clostermann, J.-P., &

Langard, B. (2013). Human and organisational factors in

maritime accidents: Analysis of collisions at sea using

the HFACS. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 59, 26-37.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2013.05.006

Clay-Williams, R., Hounsgaard, J., & Hollnagel, E. (2015).

Where the rubber meets the road: using FRAM to align

work-as-imagined with work-as-done when

implementing clinical guidelines. Implementation

Science, 10(1), 125. doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0317-y

Crichton, M. T. (2017). From cockpit to operating theatre to

drilling rig floor: five principles for improving safety

using simulator-based exercises to enhance team

cognition. Cognition, Technology & Work, 19(1), 73-84.

doi:10.1007/s10111-016-0396-9

Espevik, R., Saus, E. R., & Olsen, O. K. (2017). Exploring the

core of crew resource management course: speak up or

stay silent. Exploring the core of crew resource

management course: speak up or stay silent, 68(2), 126-

132-126-132. doi:10.5603/IMH.2017.0023

Fjeld, G. P., Tvedt, S. D., & Oltedal, H. J. W. J. o. M. A.

(2018). Bridge officers’ non-technical skills: a literature

review. 17(4), 475-495. Retrieved from

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-018-0158-z.

doi:10.1007/s13437-018-0158-z

Flin, R., & Maran, N. (2015). Basic concepts for crew

resource management and non-technical skills. Best

Practice & Research Clinical Anaesthesiology, 29(1), 27-

39. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpa.2015.02.002

Flin, R., Martin, L., Goeters, K., Hoermann, J., Amalberti, R.,

Valot, C., & Nijhuis, H. (2003). Development of the

NOTECHS (Non-Technical Skills) system for assessing

pilots' CRM skills. Human Factors and Aerospace

Safety, 3, 95-117.

Flin, R., O’Connor, P., & Mearns, K. (2002). Crew resource

management: improving team work in high reliability

industries. 8(3/4), 68-78.

doi:doi:10.1108/13527590210433366

Flin, R. H., O'Connor, P., & Crichton, M. (2008). Safety at the

Sharp End: A Guide to Non-technical Skills: Ashgate.

Furniss, D., Curzon, P., & Blandford, A. (2016). Using

FRAM beyond safety: a case study to explore how

sociotechnical systems can flourish or stall. Theoretical

Issues in Ergonomics Science, 17(5-6), 507-532.

doi:10.1080/1463922X.2016.1155238

Guinea, S., Andersen, P., Reid-Searl, K., Levett-Jones, T.,

Dwyer, T., Heaton, L., Flenady, T., Applegarth, J., &

Bickell, P. (2018). Simulation-based learning for patient

safety: The development of the Tag Team Patient Safety

Simulation methodology for nursing education.

Collegian.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colegn.2018.09.008

Havinga, J., de Boer, R. J., Rae, A., & Dekker, W. S. (2017).

How Did Crew Resource Management Take-Off Outside

of the Cockpit? A Systematic Review of How Crew

Resource Management Training Is Conceptualised and

Evaluated for Non-Pilots. Safety, 3(4).

doi:10.3390/safety3040026

Hayward, B. J. H., Lowe, A. R., & Thomas, M. J. W. (2019).

Chapter 15 - The Migration of Crew Resource

Management Training. In B. G. Kanki, J. Anca, & T. R.

Chidester (Eds.), Crew Resource Management (Third

Edition) (pp. 421-447): Academic Press.

Harrison, J. (2011). Making the Law of the Sea: a study in

the development of international Law (Vol. 80):

Cambridge University Press.

Helmreich, R. L., & Foushee, H. C. (2019). Chapter 1 - Why

CRM? Empirical and Theoretical Bases of Human

Factors Training. In B. G. Kanki, J. Anca, & T. R.

Chidester (Eds.), Crew Resource Management (Third

Edition) (pp. 3-52): Academic Press.

Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and Stability of Ecological

Systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics

1973, 4, 1-23.

Hollnagel, E. (2009). The ETTO Principle: Efficiency-

Thoroughness Trade-Off. Why Things. That Go Right

Sometimes Go Wrong. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing

Company

Hollnagel, E. (2011). The Resilience Analysis Grid In E.

Hollnagel, J. Pariès, D. Woods, & J. Wreathall (Eds.),

Resilience Engineering in Practice. A Guidebook.

Farnham, Surrey, UK: Ashgate Publishing.

Hollnagel, E. (2012). FRAM: the functional resonance

analysis method. modelling complex socio-technical

systems. Surrey, UK: Ashgate Publishing Limited.

Hollnagel, E. (2015). Why is Work-as-Imagined Different

from Work-as- Done? In R. L. Wears, Hollnagel, E., &

Braithwaite, J. (Ed.), Resilient Health Care, Volume 2:

The Resilience of Everyday Clinical Work: Ashgate

Publishing Limited.

Hollnagel, E., Woods, D. D., & Leveson, N. (2006).

Resilience Engineering: Concepts And Precepts:

Ashgate.

Hontvedt, M. (2015). Professional vision in simulated

environments — Examining professional maritime

pilots' performance of work tasks in a full-mission ship

simulator. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 7,

71-84. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2015.07.003

Håvold, J. I., Nistad, S., Skiri, A., & Ødegård, A. (2015). The

human factor and simulator training for offshore anchor

handling operators. Safety Science, 75, 136-145.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2015.02.001

IMO. (1974). SOLAS: International Convention for the safety

of life at sea. London: International Maritime

Organization.

IMO. (2003). Resolution A.947(23) Human Element Vision,

Principles and Goals for the Organization. Retrieved

from

IMO. (2017a). Marpol: Articles, Protocols, Annexes, Unified

Interpretations of the International Convention for the

Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, As Modified

by the Protocol of 1978 Relating Thereto: International

Maritime Organization.

IMO. (2017b). STCW International Convention on Standards

of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for

Seafarers: Including 2010 Manila Amendments : STCW

Convention Ans STCW Code: International Maritime

Organization.

The Joint Accident Investigation Commission of Estonia,

Finland and Sweden (1997) Final Report on the

Capsizing on 28 September 1994 in the Baltic Sea of the

Ro-Ro Passenger Vessel MV Estonia. Available at:

http://onse.fi/estonia/brindex.html

Jimenez, C., Kasper, K., Rivera, J., Talone, A. B., & Jentsch,

F. (2015). Crew Resource Management (CRM): What

Aviation Can Learn From the Application of CRM in

Other Domains. Proceedings of the Human Factors and

Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 59(1), 946-950.

doi:10.1177/1541931215591274

Jörgens, R. (2012). Demands on Ship Officers according to

the STCW Convention and Maritime Crew Resource

Management as a future challenge for shipping. In B.

Lemper, T. Pawlik, & S. Neumann (Eds.), The Human

Element in Container Shipping. Bern, Switzerland: Peter

Lang.

583

Kirkpatrick, D., & Kirkpatrick, J. (2006). Evaluating Training

Programs: The Four Levels: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Kontogiannis, T., & Malakis, S. (2013). Strategies in

controlling, coordinating and adapting performance in

air traffic control: modelling ‘loss of control’ events.

Cognition, Technology & Work, 15(2), 153-169.

doi:10.1007/s10111-011-0209-0.

Kuy, S., & Romero, R. A. L. (2017). Improving staff

perception of a safety climate with crew resource

management training. Journal of Surgical Research, 213,

177-183. Retrieved from

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2016.04.013.

doi:10.1016/j.jss.2016.04.013

Labaka, L., Hernantes, J., & Sarriegi, J. M. (2015). Resilience

framework for critical infrastructures: An empirical

study in a nuclear plant. Reliability Engineering &

System Safety, 141, 92-105.

doi:http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2015.03.009

Lay, E., Branlat, M., & Woods, Z. (2015). A practitioner’s

experiences operationalizing Resilience Engineering.

Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 141, 63-73.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2015.03.015

Liberian Board of Investigation Report on Stranding of

Torrey Canyon. (1967). International Legal Materials,

6(3), 480-487. doi:10.1017/S0020782900050294

Malakis, S., Kontogiannis, T., & Kirwan, B. (2010).

Managing emergencies and abnormal situations in air

traffic control (part I): Taskwork strategies. Applied

Ergonomics, 41(4), 620-627.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2009.12.019

Moffat, S., & Crichton, M. (2015). Investigating Non-

technical Skills through Team Behavioral Markers in Oil

and Gas Simulation-based Exercises. Procedia

Manufacturing, 3, 1241-1247.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.259

Morel, G., Amalberti, R., & Chauvin, C. (2009). How good

micro/macro ergonomics may improve resilience, but

not necessarily safety. Safety Science, 47(2), 285-294.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2008.03.002

Murphy, M., McCloughen, A., & Curtis, K. (2018).

Enhancing the training of trauma resuscitation flash

teams: A mixed methods study. Australasian Emergency

Care, 21(4), 143-149. Retrieved from

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.auec.2018.10.002.

doi:10.1016/j.auec.2018.10.002

Nazir, S., Øvergård, K. I., & Yang, Z. (2015). Towards

Effective Training for Process and Maritime Industries.

Procedia Manufacturing, 3, 1519-1526.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.409

NTSB (1990) Grounding of the U.S. Tank Ship Exxon Valdez

on Bligh Reef, Prince William Sound, near Valdez,

Alaska, March 24, 1989. NTSB/MAR-90/04. Available at:

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/R

eports/MAR9004.pdf

Nicolaides, M., Cardillo, L., Theodoulou, I., Hanrahan, J.,

Tsoulfas, G., Athanasiou, T., Papalois, A., & Sideris, M.

(2018). Developing a novel framework for non-technical

skills learning strategies for undergraduates: A

systematic review. Annals of Medicine and Surgery, 36,

29-40.

O'Connor, P. (2011). Assessing the Effectiveness of Bridge

Resource Management Training. The International

Journal of Aviation Psychology, 21(4), 357-374.

doi:10.1080/10508414.2011.606755

O'Connor, P., & Flin, R. (2003). Crew Resource Management

training for offshore oil production teams. Safety

Science, 41(7), 591-609. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-

7535(02)00013-9

Ouyang, M., & Wang, Z. (2015). Resilience assessment of

interdependent infrastructure systems: With a focus on

joint restoration modeling and analysis. Reliability

Engineering & System Safety, 141, 74-82.

Paige, J. T. (2010). Surgical Team Training: Promoting High

Reliability with Nontechnical Skills. Surgical Clinics of

North America, 90(3), 569-581.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suc.2010.02.007

Patriarca, R., & Bergström, J. J. C., (2017). Modelling

complexity in everyday operations: functional resonance

in maritime mooring at quay. Cognition, Technology

and Work, 19(4), 711-729. doi:10.1007/s10111-017-0426-2

Pekcan, C., Gatfield, D., & Barnett, M. (2005). Content and

context: Understanding the complexities of human

behaviour in ship operation. Paper presented at the

RINA, Royal Institution of Naval Architects

International Conference - Human Factors in Ship

Design, Safety and Operation, London.

Perrow, C. (1999). Normal Accidents. Living with High-Risk

Technologies Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton

University Press.

Praetorius, G., & Hollnagel, E. (2014). Control and resilience

within the maritime traffic management domain. Journal

of Cognitive engineering and Decision Making (Special

Issue on Resilient Cognitive Systems).

Praetorius, G., Hollnagel, E., & Dahlman, J. (2015).

Modelling Vessel Traffic Service to understand resilience

in everyday operations. Reliability Engineering &

System Safety, 141, 10-21.

doi:http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2015.03.020

Praetorius, G., & Lützhöft, M. (2011). “Safety is

everywhere”-The Constituents of Maritime Safety.

Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics

Society Annual Meeting, 55(1), 1798-1802.

doi:doi:10.1177/1071181311551373

Righi, A. W., Saurin, T. A., & Wachs, P. (2015). A systematic

literature review of resilience engineering: Research

areas and a research agenda proposal. Reliability

Engineering & System Safety, 141, 142-152.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2015.03.007

Röttger, S., Vetter, S., & Kowalski, J. T. (2013). Ship

Management Attitudes and Their Relation to Behavior

and Performance. Human Factors, 55(3), 659-671.

doi:doi:10.1177/0018720812461271

Röttger, S., Vetter, S., & Kowalski, J. T. (2016). Effects of a

classroom-based bridge resource management training

on knowledge, attitudes, behaviour and performance of

junior naval officers. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs,

15(1), 143-162. doi:10.1007/s13437-014-0073-x

Salas, E., Wilson, K. A., Burke, C. S., & Wightman, D. C.

(2006). Does Crew Resource Management Training

Work? An Update, an Extension, and Some Critical

Needs. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human

Factors and Ergonomics Society, 48, 392-412.

Salehi, S., Kiran, R., Jeon, J., Kang, Z., Cokely, E. T., &

Ybarra, V. (2018). Developing a cross-disciplinary,

scenario-based training approach integrated with eye

tracking data collection to enhance situational awareness

in offshore oil and gas operations. Journal of Loss

Prevention in the Process Industries, 56, 78-94.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2018.08.009

Schröder-Hinrichs, J.-U., Hollnagel, E., & Baldauf, M. (2012).

From Titanic to Costa Concordia—a century of lessons

not learned. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 11(2),

151-167. doi:10.1007/s13437-012-0032-3

Schröder-Hinrichs, J.-U., Hollnagel, E., Baldauf, M.,

Hofmann, S., & Kataria, A. (2013). Maritime human

factors and IMO policy. Maritime Policy &

Management, 40(3), 243-260.

doi:10.1080/03088839.2013.782974

Studic, M., Majumdar, A., Schuster, W., & Ochieng, W. Y.

(2017). A systemic modelling of ground handling

services using the functional resonance analysis method.

Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies,

74, 245-260. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2016.11.004

Sujan, M., Spurgeon, P., & Cooke, M. (2015). The role of

dynamic trade-offs in creating safety—A qualitative

study of handover across care boundaries in emergency

care. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 141, 54-62.

doi:http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2015.03.006

584

Tawfik, D. S., Sexton, J. B., Adair, K. C., Kaplan, H. C., &

Profit, J. (2017). Context in Quality of Care: Improving

Teamwork and Resilience. Clinics in Perinatology, 44(3),

541-552. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clp.2017.04.004

Thomas, M. J. W. (2018). Training and Assessing Non-

Technical Skills: A Practical Guide. Boca Raton: CRC

Press.

Thorogood, J., & Crichton, M. T. (2014). Threat-and-Error

Management: The Connection Between Process Safety

and Practical Action at the Worksite. SPE Drilling &

Completion, 29(04), 465-472. doi:10.2118/167967-PA

Todd, D. W. (2017). General Concepts of Patient Safety for

the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeon. Oral and

Maxillofacial Surgery Clinics of North America, 29(2),

121-129. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coms.2016.12.001

UNCTAD. (2017). Review of Maritime Transport 2017.

Retrieved from Geneve and New York:

https://unctad.org/en/pages/PublicationWebflyer.aspx?p

ublicationid=1890

UNCTAD. (2018). Merchant fleet by flag of registration and

by type of ship, annual, 1980-2018. Retrieved from:

http://unctadstat.unctad.org/wds/TableViewer/tableVie

w.aspx?ReportId=93 ‘

Vederhus, L., Ødegård, A., Nistad, S., & Håvold, J. I. (2018).

Perceptions of demanding work in maritime operations.

Safety Science, 110, 72-82.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2018.07.008

Véronneau, S., & Cimon, Y. (2007). Maintaining robust

decision capabilities: An integrative human–systems

approach. Decision Support Systems, 43(1), 127-140.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2006.08.003

Wachs, P., Saurin, T. A., Righi, A. W., & Wears, R. L. (2016).

Resilience skills as emergent phenomena: A study of

emergency departments in Brazil and the United States.

Applied Ergonomics, 56, 227-237.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2016.02.012

Wachs, P., Weber Righi, A., & Saurin, T. A. (2012).

Identification of non-technical skills from the resilience

engineering perspective: a case study of an electricity

distributor. Work, 41, 3069-3076.

Wahl, A. M., & Kongsvik, T. J. W. J. o. M. A. (2018). Crew

resource management training in the maritime industry:

a literature review. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs

17(3), 377-396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-018-0150-7.

Wahlström, M., Seppänen, L., Norros, L., Aaltonen, I., &

Riikonen, J. (2018). Resilience through interpretive

practice – A study of robotic surgery. Safety Science, 108,

113-128. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2018.04.010

Woltjer, R., Pinska-Chauvin, E., Laursen, T., & Josefsson, B.

(2015). Towards understanding work-as-done in air

traffic management safety assessment and design.

Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 141, 115-130.

doi:http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2015.03.010

Woods, D. D. (2006). Essential Characteristics fo Resilience.

In E. Hollnagel, D. D. Woods, & N. Leveson (Eds.),

Resilience Engineering: Precepts And Concepts (pp. 21-

34). Abingdon: Ashgate Publishing Group.

Woods, D. D. (2015). Four concepts for resilience and the

implications for the future of resilience engineering.

Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 141, 5-9.

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2015.03.018

Youngson, G. G. (2016). Nontechnical skills in pediatric

surgery: Factors influencing operative performance.

Journal of Pediatric Surgery, 51(2), 226-230.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2015.10.062