343
1 INTRODUCTION
A proper implementation of new technology includes
implicitly social and technical factors affecting system
functionality and usage. The implementation of new
technology based on social and technical elements
considers not only human, social and organizational
factors, but technical factors of the organizational
systems’ design as well. Such an approach to
implementation of technology leads to systems that
are more acceptable to end users [4].
Automation can improve productivity, efficiency
and production quality of almost every industry [1].
In most of the cases, automation has improved on
board processes. It contributes to the efficiency
enhancement, reduction of maintenance costs and
crew expenses, extension of the ship’s operating life
and it brings other advantages as well [2]. Automation
on board reduces the number of the crew. Reduction
of the crew members leads to the automation
application on higher levels [3].
As a result of new technology implementation,
modification of existing knowledge, skills and ways of
executing a task has become an important factor in the
process of developing and using technologiy on
board. Therefore, an efficient inclusion and
implementation of new technology has become a huge
challenge in almost every industry or an organisation
[10]. One of the major obstacles of the successful
implementation of automation systems is the crew’s
lack of their understanding. An increasing number of
rapidly developing systems, parameter changes
within a system and their interrelation with other
parts of the system as well as with other elements of
the process, makes the understanding of how the
system works more difficult [5]. User’s system
understanding has a crucial role in the successful
application of new technology [6]. Therefore, when
Determining Competences in MET of Ship Officers
A. Gundić, D. Županović, L. Grbić & M. Barić
University of Zadar, Zadar, Croatia
ABSTRACT: Organizational structure of a ship changes under the influence of technological development.
Processes on board a ship change as well. Major change refers to the role of the crew and consequently leads to
the change of a method of determining competences. Equipment and working processes are becoming more
complicated. They have a strong impact on the crew, i.e. on their competences. Competences prescribed in
STCW Convention are not in accordance with the changed role of the crew in the processes on board. In STCW
Convention, competences have been grouped according to the ship’s functions at different levels of
responsibility. Competences have not been prescribed on the basis of the working processes within a system.
Such a situation has led to the absence of the proper upgrade of needed competences. Based on the analysis of
the functional organizational structure of a ship, the paper suggests more elaborated approach to defining
competences. Such an approach links competences with equipment and working processes on board a ship.
http://www.transnav.eu
the International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 15
Number 2
June 2021
DOI: 10.12716/1001.15.02.10
344
developing technologies on board, it is of utmost
importance to include the end users in the process, i.e.
the crew, since it is the only way of ensuring its
successful application.
New technology has brought many advantages;
however, it is important to mention its negative side
as well, i.e. a drastic change of the man’s role in
performing operation (activity, action). In past times,
a man executed an operation/ activity on his own.
However, with automation development his role
changes. Instead of executing an operation, a man has
started supervising automated systems [5]. When a
man only supervises the system, his detection of
system flaws could be very slow, which,
consequently, can affect an in time reaction expected
of him. Such a change turns a man into a passive
observer who is not conscious of the complexity of the
performed operation (activity) [12].
Technological development and automation on
board should enable the crew to upgrade their
existing competences, which should enable them to
manage automated processes. However, if a system
complexity increases, the operation complexity can
increase as well. Automation changes the structure of
a task and creates new ones. This situation can lead to
the development of new types of errors, e.g. when
working with paper charts, officer of the watch will
cross check his colleague’s work, they will share
problems and train each other [9]. In this particular
case, automation can make a detection of the mistake
more difficult and it can affect the officer’s in time
reaction [9].
Generally speaking, only routine processes are
automated. Nowadays however, more complex and
critical processes have been automated as well as the
processes that need coordination [14].
The introduction of new technology and
automation imply a development of new competences
for the crew and/ or the upgrade of the already
existing ones. Automation reduces the number of
simple, physical tasks and affects development of
more complex tasks [11] that need more knowledge
and understanding to be carried out. Therefore, the
need for the already existing skills can diminish.
Automation can change task nature and structure in a
way that it can make carrying out of simple tasks
easier and of complex tasks harder [13].
Experienced crew members can more easily and
promptly detect system flaws than the non-
experienced ones, i.e. because of their experience they
know the system better. Furthermore, the prolonged
monitoring of the automatic control can reduce the
ability of the crew to react to system malfunctions
properly and in time [9].
Therefore, technological development and
automation on board can be analysed through their
impact on processes on board as well as on
competences the crew needs to participate in
processes. In other words, in order to analyse the
impact of technological development on processes on
board, it would be advisable to analyse the processes
on board, organizational units and devices first [7].
2 IMPACT OF TECHNOLOGICAL
DEVELOPMENT ON PROCESSES ON BOARD
In order to monitor changes resulting from
technological development and automation, the ship
has been defined as a system consisting of the
following elements: organizational units, devices in an
organizational unit and processes carried out within
organizational units. In the text that follows,
interrelations between the afore-mentioned elements
and their correlations have been shown. A special
attention has been given to the description of
processes on board and their basic characteristics. For
the purpose of this paper, a ship has been presented as
a system whose goal is transport. Set of elements of
that system (S) can be presented like this:
1 2 1 2 1 2
, ,..., , , ,..., , , ,...,
n m k
S OU OU OU D D D P P P=
where:
OU – Organizational unit
D – Device
P – Process.
Many organizational units and different devices
participate in processes on board, which means that
various combinations of organizational units, devices
and processes are possible [8].
Process analysis (Figure 1) refers to identification
of sub-processes (if they exist within a process) within
organizational units that participate in a process, to an
operation within a process, to decision-making within
a process, and to their executors. The number of sub-
processes, organizational units, operations, decisions
and their executors within one process determine its
complexity [7, 8].
Figure 1. Process analysis
345
Every process consists of operations and decisions
carried out in order to achieve the result. One
operation can be divided into more tasks which
cannot be further divided. In every process,
operations should be arranged according to the order
of execution (Figure 2 and 3).
START ID O1 D1 O2T
F
D2
F
On DnT T
F
END
Figure 2. Example of on board process
where:
ID – Input data
O – Operation
D – Decision
START ID ZR1 ZR2 ZRn END
Figure 3. Example of tasks in an operation
where:
ID- Input data
ZR1 – Task within an operation 1
Most of the on-board processes are carried out
simultaneously. Some of them have their logical units
that can be referred to as lower rank processes (sub-
processes). Basic processes on board were determined
on the basis of the ship departments’ classification by
STCW Convention:
1. Navigation process,
2. Cargo maintenance process, and
3. Ship maintenance process [7].
Technological development has almost entirely
changed the way processes are carried out on board.
The impact of the introduction of new technologies on
a process can be analysed through their impact on:
1. Operation executors (crew members or devices),
2. Operations within a process, and
3. Decision-making style [8].
For example, before the “real time
communication”, the master had to inform the
shipping company and charterer about the processes
on board whenever it was possible. Nowadays
however, the master does not make important
decisions on navigation, cargo or the crew without the
prior consultation with shipping companies or
charterer’s services, although his legal responsibility
has not changed.
In the text that follows, three examples have been
given when:
1. Introduction of Electronic Chart Display and
Information System – ECDIS has affected the
navigation process,
2. SRV - Shuttle and Regas Vessels and FSRU -
Floating Storage and Regasification Unit have
affected cargo handling (one more operation has
been added to the process), and
3. Communication system development has affected
the communication with all stakeholders as well as
the crew’s welfare.
Ad 1) ECDIS introduction on board has changed
the navigation and position control. Traditional
navigation control implied work on paper charts,
gathering data and information from navigational and
other devices, data transfer on charts, i.e. their usage
during navigation. Charts were corrected manually on
a regular basis. With the ECDIS introduction, the
whole process has been entirely automated. It
includes gathering digital charts, publications and all
the accompanying corrections.
Ad 2) Development of versatile SRV and FSRU
ships, has affected operations within the process of
loading, unloading and handling liquefied gas, i.e. a
new operation has been added. Units for liquefied
cargo regasification have been integrated into the SRV
and FSRU ships enabling gas unloading from the ship
into the gas supply system. In this case, there is no
need for tank terminals and regasification units
onshore.
Ad 3) In the beginning of its development, ship-to-
ship or ship-to shore communication was used in
dangerous situations, i.e. when the safety of the ship,
crew, passengers or the environment was in danger.
Afterwards, a system used for communication with
maritime authorities and for navigation was
developed. At the same time, communication systems
started to be used for commercial purposes, e.g. when
dealing with cargo, logistics, communication between
the ships and companies and when gathering and
sending data from the ship to the company. Finally,
communication systems started to be used for
improving the crew’s welfare, which implies available
phone and internet connections.
Today, the way in which operations on board have
been carried out is changing, some of the operations
are not needed anymore, whereas some new
operations have been developed. It can be concluded
that the major change refers to the crew’s role in
processes on board. Modified crew’s role in carrying
out operations and tasks resulted in need to adjust
existing competences of the vessel’s crew [7, 8].
3 IMPACT OF TECHNOLOGICAL
DEVELOPMENT ON THE CREW’S
COMPETENCES
Technological development on board has affected
competences in the following way:
1. The already existing competences have been
upgraded,
2. New competences have been developing, and
3. Some competences are becoming redundant [8].
Ad 1) Introduction of new systems whose goal is
to improve a process implies the upgrade of the
crew’s existing competences. The impact of
technology on the existing competences can be
analysed through its effect on the existing knowledge,
understanding and skills. When a new technology has
been introduced on board in order to improve a
process, the following changes usually occur:
1. The upgrade of the existing knowledge,
2. The upgrade of the existing understanding, and
3. Some of the existing skills are becoming redundant.
The upgrade of the existing knowledge implies
acquiring new knowledge referring to the system it
has been implemented in. The upgrade of the existing
understanding refers to understanding the way in
which a new, upgraded system executes tasks within
an operation. If some of the existing skills are
346
becoming redundant, it means that a man does not
use the skills he had needed before the introduction of
the new system. These skills are not needed anymore
since the system itself is executing tasks.
Ad 1) Navigation on paper charts requires using of
navigational instruments for measuring, determining
and comparing physical values and measurements of
the vessel environment (distance, vertical and
horizontal angle, time, speed, depth etc.). It is
important to continuously “place” oneself and the
ship spatially on the basis of measured and obtained
results. ECDIS usage can result in a non-critical
reliance on the ship’s position shown on monitor. In
this case, the skill to use navigational instruments
decreases, whereas the skill to use ECDIS develops.
This situation can reduce the spatial orientation skills
since the only skill that has been developing is the
skill to use the computer.
Ad 2) Development of new competences can be the
result of technological development that has enabled
the crew to carry out operations they were not able to
do precisely enough (e.g. dynamic positioning system
development), and of the introduction of new
technology in the existing process.
FSRU ship’s crew has to possess additional
competences referring to regasification unit installed
on this type of ship. On the other hand, long-term
mooring when the ship serves as a temporary
regasification terminal lessens the usage of all
competences referring to conventional ships, most of
all to navigation and manoeuvring.
Technological development does not have an
impact on the operation only, but on the whole
process as well, which, consequently can lead to the
development of new professions. Electro-Technical
Officer – ETO is a new profession and an example of
how a new organizational unit can lead to the
development of the new profession.
Ad 3) As a result of technological development, a
man has been replaced with new systems. Therefore,
some of his competences are becoming redundant. It
can happen that the crew rarely uses the competences
they used every day since they do not need them
anymore. Therefore, the need for some professions
can diminish (e.g. radio operator).
In order to adjust the crew’s competences to
processes on board, it is important to analyse the
process itself, i.e. sub-processes, operations and
decisions within the process, and their executors as
well [7, 8]. Such an approach of adjusting
competences to processes on board is called the
process approach, and is shown in the Figure 4.
In the text that follows, the process approach will
be applied to the process called Ship’s Arrival to Port
and Cargo Loading on LNG ships with membrane
tanks. This process can be divided into six sub-
processes:
1. Ship Navigation (PPA),
2. Communication with External Stakeholders (PPB),
3. Pilot Boarding (PPC),
4. Manoeuvring with Assistance of Tug Boats (PPD),
5. Ship Berth (PPE), and
6. Cargo Loading (PPF).
START
PROCESSES
IDENTIFICATION
ORGANIZATIONAL
UNITS
SUB-PROCESSES
SUB-PROCESSES
IDENTIFICATION
T
OPERATIONS AND
DECISIONS
IDENTIFICATION
IDENTIFICATION OF
TASKS WITHIN
OPERATION
EXECUTIONER
IDENTIFICATION
F
EXECUTOR IS A
CREW MEMBER
DEVICE
IDENTIFICATION
THE ROLE OF THE
CREW MEMBER
F
COMPETENCES
DETERMINATION
END
T
Figure 4. Process approach of determining competences
Source: [8]
PPB
P
PPC PPD PPEPPA PPF
PPFa PPFb
PPFa1 PPFa2
R1
ZR2-1
R7
R2
R4
R5
R6
R3
O1O2
O3
O5
ZR2-2
ZR4-1ZR4-2
ZR6-1ZR6-2
da
ne
ne
da
ne
ne
da
ZR3-1ZR3-2ZR3-3
ZR5-1ZR5-3 ZR5-2ZR5-4ZR5-5
ZR6-6
ZR7-1ZR7-2ZR7-7 ZR7-3ZR7-6 ZR7-4ZR7-5
K
O4
da
ne
Figure 5. Sub-process “Cooldown of Cargo Tanks” on board
LNG ships
Each of these subprocesses can be divided into one
or more subprocesses, within which one or more
actions and decisions may be performed that have one
or more executors. Given the complexity of the whole
process, only the sub-process Cooling Down of Cargo
Tanks has been described in the following text (Figure
5). The sub-process Cargo Loading consists of the sub-
347
processes Cargo System Preparation (PPFa) and Cargo
Loading (PPFb). The Cargo System Preparation sub-
process consists of two sub-processes: Cooling Down
of Cargo Tanks (PPFa2) and Checking of all Cargo
Loading Systems (PPFa1).
Cooling down of cargo tanks is an integral part of
the preparation of tanks for loading, which has to be
carried out according to the cooling down plan. On
older ships, crew members control and supervise the
process of cooling down the cargo tanks in manual
mode. Nowadays, on ships of newer construction,
cooling down of cargo tanks is carried out in
automatic mode, and the whole process is supervised
by an officer of watch from the bridge or from the
cargo control room.
The sub-process Refrigeration of Cargo Tanks
consists of seven actions (R), 10 decisions (O) and 22
tasks in actions (ZR):
1. R1 - generating cargo cooldown plan (man),
2. O1 - decision on the commencement of cooldown
(man), based on an estimation of time,
temperature, ship speed and cooldown schedule,
3. O2 - decisions on the temperature of the cofferdams
between tanks (man),
4. R2 – preparation of device for heating the
cofferdams between tanks (device),
a) ZR2-1 - checking of glycol pumps (device),
b) ZR2-2 - testing of high pressure and glycol
temperature alarms (device),
5. O3 - decision on the schedule of operations of the
nitrogen generators and operating mode (man),
6. R3 – checking of nitrogen system (device),
− ZR3-1 - checking both nitrogen generators
(device),
− ZR3-2 - checking pipelines and valves on the
cargo tanks (device),
− ZR3-3 - checking whether the system is
connected to both of the nitrogen generators
(device),
7. O4 - decision on the schedule of use and on
compressors capacity (man),
8. R4 - checking gas detection system (device),
− ZR4-1 - checking operation of the pump and
gas concentration analysis device (device),
− ZR4-2 - checking and, if necessary, calibration
of sensors that activate ESD (device),
9. R5 - checking the equipment and instruments in the
compressor and electric motor room (device),
− ZR5-1 - checking both of the compressors
(device),
− ZR5-2 - setpoint setting on pressure control
valve (device),
− ZR5-3 - nitrogen pressure check (device),
− ZR5-4 - checking the ventilation system
(device),
10. O5 - decision on the selection of the tank for the
return of LNG (man),
11. R6 - checking of main liquid cargo line, vapour line
and cool-down line (device),
− ZR6-1 - visual inspection (human),
− ZR6-2 - opening of the valve on the cool-down
line (device),
− ZR6-3 – checking of the LNG return valve
(device),
12. R7 - cooling down of cargo tanks (device),
− ZR7-1 - starting cool-down pump (device),
− ZR7-2 - opening cool-down pump discharge
valve to a given setpoint (device),
− ZR7-3 - adjustment of the cool-down line valves
on cargo tanks (device),
− ZR7-4 - monitoring cargo tank pressure
(device),
− ZR7-5 - monitoring pressure difference between
cargo tanks and insulation space (device),
− ZR7-6 - monitoring pressure in the nitrogen
system (device), and
− ZR7-7 - monitoring the trend of decreasing
temperature in the cargo tanks (device).
Above is a description of one standard process
carried out on board of the LNG carrier. LNG carriers
are merchant ships with high level of technology and
complex equipment required for maintaining cargo
condition and standard vessel operation. Thus, taking
a standard process on board LNG carrier, gives good
example where technological process is analyzed in
detail pointing out actions, tasks and decisions carried
out by crew or automation system. This process
approach is applicable for analyzing any process on
any ship in order to determine required competences
for particular action or task.
4 CONCLUSION
Successful application of new technology on board
depends on the crew’s understanding of it. One of the
problems with new technology is that there is no
ergonomic standard, i.e. new technologies do not
adapt to people, people must adapt to new
technologies. Under the impact of new technologies
and automation, processes and devices on board
become more complicated which, consequently,
affects competences.
If competence changes are not in accordance with
changes of processes on board, a delayed upgrade of
the crew’s existing competences needed for on board
processes can occur. The approach suggested in this
paper, which encompasses a detailed analysis of
processes on board, can enable a proper and in time
modification of needed competences with changes
that occur on processes on board under the impact of
new technologies and automation.
When interviewing active professional seafarers, it is
obvious that working and operating principle of the
equipment on board is not a problem, but
technological complexity of hardware and software of
this equipment. Thus, including active seafarers in
this detailed analysis of processes on board are of the
utmost importance.
REFERENCES
1. Ahvernjiirvi, S.: Management of the safety of automation
challenges the training of ship officers. Presented at the
The 12th Annual General Assembly of IAMU , Gdynia,
Poland 14.06 (2011).
2. Antonić, R.: Brodsko Automatsko Upravljanje. , Split
(2010).
3. Bagarić, I.: Menadžment informacionih tehnologija.
Univerzitet Singidunum, Beograd (2010).
348
4. Baxter, G., Sommerville, I.: Socio-technical systems:
From design methods to systems engineering.
Interacting with Computers. 23, 1, 4–17 (2011).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2010.07.003.
5. Endsley, M.R.: Automation and situation awareness. In:
Automation and human performance: Theory and
applications. pp. 163–181 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Inc, Hillsdale, NJ, US (1996).
6. Griffith, T.L.: Technology Features as Triggers for
Sensemaking. The Academy of Management Review. 24,
3, 472–488 (1999). https://doi.org/10.2307/259137.
7. Gundić, A., Maglić, L., Šimić Hlača, M., Maglić, L.:
Analysis of types of competences in MET of deck
officers. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs. 20, 1, 99–114
(2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-020-00222-y.
8. Gundić, A., Maglić, L., Šimić Hlača, M., Maglić, L.:
Process approach for determining competencies. In:
Sviličić, B. (ed.) Proceedings of the International
Association of Maritime Universities Conference. pp.
329–339 International Association of Maritime
Universities, Tokyo, Japan (2019).
9. Lee, J.D., Seppelt, B.D.: Human Factors in Automation
Design. In: Nof, S.Y. (ed.) Springer Handbook of
Automation. pp. 417–436 Springer Berlin Heidelberg,
Berlin, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
540-78831-7_25.
10. Monga, P.: A System Dynamics Model of the
Development of New Technologies for Ship Systems.
Virginia Tech (2001).
11. National Transportation Safety Board: Marine Accident
Report: Grounding of the U.S. Tankship Exxon Valdez
on Bligh Reef, Prince William Sound Near Valdez,
Alaska. United States. National Transportation Safety
Board (1989).
12. Parasuraman, R.: Human-Computer Monitoring. Hum
Factors. 29, 6, 695–706 (1987).
https://doi.org/10.1177/001872088702900609.
13. Wiener, E.L.: Human factors of advanced technology
(glass cockpit) transport aircraft. University of Miami,
Coral Gables, Florida, NASA (1989).
14. Yi, F.: Process Automation Criteria Identification and
Selection: A Case Study in a Payroll Company. The
Pennsylvania State University (2008).