227
1
INTRODUCTION
ECDIS is defined as a complex, safety‐relevant
software‐based system with data fusion, integration
andsynergyasmainfeatures[1].Thepurposeofthe
system is the reduction of the navigator’s workload
and ease and automation of navigation tasks,
primarily voyage planning and conducting of the
navigation venture. The
system comprises hardware
(PC, display and console), software (the ECDIS
program and additional software) and data (charts,
additional data and information) [2]. The essential
systemcomponentsaresensorsprovidingmandatory
data feed regarding the vessel’s movement position
andmovement[3,4].Thenavigationinformation(the
position of own vessel, and
its movement over
ground and through the water obtained from
Electronic Position Fixing System (EPFS),
gyrocompass, and speed log) placed on an
appropriatesuitablebase(theElectronicNavigational
Chart – ENC) represent the basis of the system
operability. Together with mandatory navigation
information, the full ECDIS display can be roughly
divided
in fourmain categories: cartographic (chart)
data, environmental and other external related
information, target tracking information received
from radar equipment and AIS, and user‐defined
layers, such as routes, customized maps, additional
sailinginformationetc.InFigure1,relationsbetween
Evolving ECDIS: Concept Development Through
Different Manufacturer Models Comparison
S.Žuškin,D.Brčić,M.Uroda&M.Strabić
UniversityofRijeka,Rijeka,Croatia
ABSTRACT: The Electronic Chart Display and Information Systems (ECDIS) became inevitable central
navigational tool for effective voyage planning and voyage monitoring execution. Furthermore, each model
comprisesnumerousnavigationalandotherdisplaycomponents,eachofthemwithitslimitations,reliability
andsimplicity.Thisisalsosupportedby
thefactthatthereisalargenumberofapprovedmanufacturersystems
on the market. Apart from fulfilling the performance standards regulated by the International Maritime
Organization(IMO),thesystemmodelsdiffersignificantlyregardinghandling,interface,andinterpretationof
dataandinformation,thereforebiasingtherequiredknowledgeandthepurposefulness
ofthesystem.
The aim of this study is to determine navigators’ response in ECDIS comparison of different manufacturer
modelstoidentifyprosandconsofspecifictasks,featuresandothernavigationalfunctions.Thepresentwork
isbasedoninternationalsurveyinformofquestionnaireconductedamongECDISstakeholders.Answersare
presentedanddiscussed,revealingcertainshortcomingsofspecificmanufacturerECDISsystem.Ontheother
hand,theanalysesshowthesignificantadvantagesofeachsystem,potentiallyleadingtocreationoftheideal
systemfromtheend‐user’sperspective.TheproperconfigurationofECDISshouldstandardisefunctionsand
displayconsideringdifferenttypes,
andundoubtedlyresolveaproblematicissueasaconsequenceofnumerous
ECDISmodelsandtheirdiversities.
http://www.transnav.eu
the International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 17
Number 1
March 2023
DOI:10.12716/1001.17.01.25
228
permittedlevelsofinformationarepresentedwiththe
finaloutcomeonthenavigator’sdisplay.
Figure1. ECDIS display: Relations between information
categories. Adapted, modified and supplemented on the
basisof[5]
Table1.ApprovedECDISmodels.Adoptedfrom[9]
________________________________________________
Manufacturer/Model ApprovalsA M
________________________________________________
Adveto/ECDIS4000 DNV/USCGx x
Alphatron/NaviSailor4000 CCS/DNV/RMRSx x
Highlander/HLD‐ECDIS1000 CCSx
ChartWorld/eGlobeTM DNV/USCGx x
ChartWorld/eGlobeG2TM DNVx x
Consilium/ConsiliumECDIS DNVx x
DanelecMarine/DM‐800EDNVx x
Furuno/FEA‐2107&2807 BSHx x
Furuno/FMD3200&3300 ClassNKx x
GEMelettronica/ECD‐700DNVx
x
Headway/HeadwayECDIS GLx x
Hyundaye‐MARINE/ DNV/KRx x
e‐Navigator
Imtech/Seaguide
Imtech/(W)ECDIS4500
JRC/JAN‐2000QinetiQx x
JRC/JAN‐901BQinetiQx x
JRC/JAN‐701BQinetiQx x
KelvinHughes/MantaDigitalQinetiQ/BSHx x
Widescreen
Kongsberg/K‐Bridge CCCSx x
Lilley&Gillie/Navmaster DNV/CCS/GLx x
ECDIS
Marine
Tech/BridgeMate DNVx
ECDIS900
Maris/ECDIS900DNVx x
MartekMarine/iECDIS
MECys/ECDISx
NAUDEQ/Master‐DEQ10/20 BSHx x
OSI/OSIECPINSGLx x
PCMARITIME/Navmaster DNV/CCS/GLx x
ECDIS
RaytheonAnschutz/Synapsis CCSx x
SAMElectronics/ECDISPilot BSHx x
Basic
SAMElectronics/ECDISPilot BSHx x
Platinum
Samsung/Naru2000(INS)x
Seall/SeallECDISDNVx x
SIMRAD/CS68DNVx x
SODENA/GECDISDNV/BVx
NorthropQinetiQx x
Grumman/VisionMasterFT
TELKO/TECDISDNVx x
TokyoKEIKI/ECDISEC‐8000/ DNVx x
8500
TotemPlus/TotemECDISDNVx x
Transas/Navi‐Sailor4000 DNV/CCS/RMRSx x
TRESCO/Navigisx
________________________________________________
A–A.817(19).M–MSC.232(82)
Presented components imply additional ECDIS
equipment elements. Besides mandatory sensors
providing navigational information, majority of
connectednavigationbridgeequipmentprovidewith
additional information. Besides the equipment,
variety of databases provide with navigational and
non‐navigationalinformation,suchastidetables,list
oflightsandotheressentialnavigationalpublications.
Apart from databases,
additional software enables
additional functionalities and possibilities, such as
datum transformation, playback functions, functions
related to charts (installation, update, purchase
reports etc.). However, the primary system task is
voyage appraisal, planning, execution and the
monitoringofthevessel’sprogress.i.e.navigation.
Apart from system and data issues [1, 6, 7]
recognized through years, the emphasis has been
given on differences between ECDIS models.
Although all approved systems meet Performance
Standardsdefinedinbothsystem‐relatedresolutions
[2,8],severaldozen,approvedmodelscanbefound
on the global market (Table 1). Each system is
characterised by its own features and handling
principles,which,to agreater orlesserextent, differ
fromothers.Thementionedcanreflectnegativelyon
the sole operation with the system, besides the
defined ECDIS Education and Training (EET). The
ECDIS Generic Training (EGT) is conceived as to
ensurethat navigators understand the systemin the
contextof
navigation,andtooperatethesystemsafely
[1]. The ECDIS Equipment Specific Training (EST)
refers to specific equipment. The EST emerged as a
responseto large numberof ECDIS equipmentfrom
varietyofmanufacturers,where,apartthefulfilment
of IMO Performance Standards, systems and their
usagediffertoagreateror
lesserextent.Thistraining
remains the responsibility of a particular company
[12,13,14].TheESTrepresentsanindustrystandard,
ratherthanformalregulation.Theequipmentspecific
trainingshouldensurethatthenavigatorimprovesits
knowledgeandespeciallyskills,usageandhandling
withaspecific,approvedECDISmodel.Considering
beforementioned
variety of system models, the
conductionofESTcoursesdiffersaccordingly.Unlike
the generic training, the EST can take form of a
regular course, a ship‐specific familiarisation, a
computer‐based training and cascade training [15],
and it is less standardised than the EGT, referring,
among other, to discrepancies in official
existing
requirements, training duration and means of
conducting, etc. [16]. Regulated by IMO, ISM and
STCW, both trainings are basic, and they refer
primarily to existing and future navigational ranks.
Also, both represent one‐time training, with no
furtherneedforimprovementsinaccordanceinpace
withtechnology,newfeatures
etc.Moreover,theyare
orientedtowardsthenavigationalrankingeneral,not
the specific rank onboard. There is more system‐
related training designed for the other ECDIS
stakeholders,withadifferentperspectiveandaspect.
There is additional training referring to the further
improvements and knowledge on the system,
however those training
is not mandatory and
regulated as EGT and EST, and their achievement
mostlydependsontheindividualrank.
Considering all above‐mentioned statements and
observations, a need for elaboration of different
229
ECDISmodelsasseenfromtheend‐usersintofview
appears.Thefollowingchapterrepresentsaresearch
designdescriptioncoveringthewholeresearch,after
whichthisspecificsegmentisintroduced,referringto
surveyondifferent(andmostfrequent)models.The
mainfeaturesandsystemtaskswereanalysedwithin
the
handling with the system. Results are presented
and discussed in the following chapter. The main
findingsarepresentedintheconclusionchapter,with
possible guidelines for the continuation of the
research.
2
THERESEARCHDESIGN
2.1
Generalfeaturesoftheresearchmethodology
This research segment is based on ECDIS Concept
Development(ECDISCoDe)forincreasingnavigation
safetyandenvironmentprotection.TheECDISCoDe
relies on the previous research educational‐scientific
project ECDIS Experience, Handling and Opinion
(ECDISEHO),towhichtheHuman‐MachineInterface
(HMI) segment followed.
Previous achievements
withintheresearch[16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23]have
given the significant contribution considering
growing changes in development of maritime
technologies, especially in Maritime Education and
Training(MET)referringtonavigationalinformation
systems.Apartfrommentioned,thepreviousresearch
and respective results established a basis
towards
further development of concepts and capabilities of
navigational information systems [24, 25, 26]. The
wholesomeresearchdesignispresentedinFigure2.
Figure2. The general research methodology design with
emphasisontheECDISCODEsegment
The ECDIS CoDe research continuation refers to
new electronic navigation information systems that
nowadays have fundamentally replaced traditional
navigational equipment. Navigational means have
beenchangedduetocompleteuseofECDISsystemas
primary means of navigation together with marking
of new navigational era approach. Possibilities of
educationalprocessimprovements,but
alsopotential
safety risks and dangers resulting from improper
handlingwiththesystemandinsufficientknowledge
were recognized.Furthermore, the ECDIS CoDe isa
concept‐based development project aiming to
improve navigational safety and environmental
protection through the development of new ECDIS
main system functionalities: enhanced voyage
planning and voyage
monitoring together with
developmentECDISsystemitself.Inotherwords,the
research purpose is based on innovative ECDIS
conceptdevelopmentandsystemcapabilitiesthrough
the Integration Navigation System (INS)
improvement. The initial step of ECDIS system
concept development begins with ECDIS end‐users
and theirsystem experience, handling level together
with
concrete opinion regarding improvement. The
aimofthisstudyistodeterminenavigators’response
in ECDIS comparison of different manufacturer
models to identify pros and cons of specific tasks,
featuresandothernavigationalfunctions.
2.2
ECDISCoDe
TheresearchmodeloftheECDISCoDeMethodology
is based on international questionnaire distributed
afterECDIScourses,throughshippingcompaniesand
directly to international seafarers worldwide. The
datawerecollectedfromtheperiodfrom2018to2022.
In this research, the introductory questions have
elaborated the respondents’ navigational rank,
seagoingandECDISexperience,andstatusonboard
regarding ECDIS mandatory carriage requirements.
These questions have been used to define the end‐
users’ profiles which are participated in the
international questionnaire. Furthermore, the
followingquestionshavebeenusedintheresearch:
State the ECDIS Manufacturer and model?
(AbbreviatedfurtherasQ1)
State the level of ECDIS usability for voyage
planning with answer explanation? (Abbreviated
furtherasQ2)
State the level of ECDIS usability for voyage
monitoring with answer explanation?
(AbbreviatedfurtherasQ3)
State the Level of ECDIS usability for manual
corrections with answer explanation (daily e.g.
Navtexcorrections)?(AbbreviatedfurtherasQ4)
State the Level of ECDIS usability for weekly
manual corrections (e.g., ENC update)?
(AbbreviatedfurtherasQ5)
StatethelevelofECDISusabilityforworkingwith
the chart (display category) with answer
explanation?(AbbreviatedfurtherasQ6)
StatethelevelofECDISusabilityforworkingwith
the ECDIS display (e.g., moving cursor on the
display) with answer explanation? (Abbreviated
furtherasQ7)
State the level of ECDIS usability for Line of
position (LOP) with answer explanation?
(AbbreviatedfurtherasQ8)
State the level of ECDIS usability for additional
information (e.g. communication and NO GO
AREA) with answer explanation? (Abbreviated
furtherasQ9)
230
ThequestionsfromQ2toQ9wereanalysedforthe
different ECDIS manufacturer from the collected
international questionnaire results. The level of
usabilityispresentedintheratingscalefrom1to5as
follows:
1–verydifficulttouse,
2–difficulttouse,
3–moderatetouse,
4–easytouse,
5–veryeasytouse.
Besides the scale answers, a description answers
have been introduced and elaborated in the results
chapter.
3
RESULTS
As to date present, the international questionnaire
was fulfilledby 187 respondents. After first filtering
andexcludingtherespondentswhicharenotdirectly
related to the ECDIS system and carriage
requirementson‐boardvessel,totalnumberis159of
activeECDISend‐users:45Masters,39ChiefOfficers
(1stOfficer),
45SecondOfficers(2ndOfficer),27Third
Officers (3rd Officer), and 3 Others (2 Deck Cadets
and 1 Superintendent). The ECDIS CoDe survey
respondentsispresentedinthefollowingFigure.
Figure3.ECDISCoDesurveyrespondents
Additionally, respondents with seagoing
experience(inyears)rangesfrom0.4(DeckCadet)to
32 years (Master), with the mean value of 8.77 and
standarddeviationof14years.Therespondentswith
ECDIS working experience is presented in the
followingFigure.
Figure4 Survey respondents with ECDIS working
experience
Eventually, more than half of the ECDIS CoDe
survey respondentshave ECDIS working experience
onboardvessel.Afterdefiningtheend‐users’profiles
which are participated in the international
questionnaire, the following cornerstone questions
wereelaborated.TheshareofansweronquestionQ1
is presented in the following Figure and Table,
respectively.

Figure5.Shareofrespondents
Among all the survey respondents with ECDIS
working experience, 76 % has a working experience
on more than one ECDIS model. These results
classification is desirable when comparing several
ECDIS manufacturer models. The following table
represents the results regarding different ECDIS
manufacturersandmodelsstatedintheinternational
survey.
Table2ECDISManufacturersandmodelsconsideringQ1
________________________________________________
ECDISManufacturerRespondents
________________________________________________
Furuno(FMD3300)61
JRC(JAN‐9201)43
Transas‐Wärtsilä(Navi‐Sailor4000)39
Kongsberg(K‐Bridge)24
SamElectronics‐WärtsiläNACOSPlatinum22
Sperry(VisionMasterSperryMarine)24
Other19
________________________________________________
According to the survey results, participants
mostly dealing with Furuno, JRC and Transas‐
Wärtsilä (Navi‐Sailor 4000). ECDIS Manufacturers
withlessthan10participantsinsurveyparticipation
warenotobservedforthisresearch(statedasOther).
OtherECDISmanufacturerswhicharenoticedinthe
surveyresults areMARIS, KelvinHughes,Raytheon
AnschützandChartworld.
3.1
SurveyresultsforECDISmanufacturerFuruno
(FMD3300)
Accordingtothesurveyresults,ECDISmanufacturer
Furuno (FMD 3300) has 61 respondents. The results
arepresentedinthefollowingFigure.
231
Figure6. End‐user results regarding ECDIS Furuno
handling
Additionally,byanalysingthesurveyresultsinthe
followingtablethe Averagevalue andMode forthe
ECDISFurunoispresented.
Table3.AveragevalueandModefromsurveyresultsfor
theECDISFuruno
________________________________________________
Furuno Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9
________________________________________________
Average 4.31 4.51 4.10 4.46 4.48 4.34 3.92 3.84
value
________________________________________________
Mode4 5 5 5 5 5 4 4
________________________________________________
Accordingto the end‐userresults, ECDIS Furuno
is very user‐friendly ECDIS manufacturer for
handling.Thebestfunctionaccordingtotheusability
is based on one of the primary ECDIS function:
voyage monitoring (Q3), then weekly corrections
relatedtotheENCupdatingtogetherwithAdmiralty
InformationOverlay‐AIO(Q5)and
workingwiththe
ENC chart for adjusting safety parameters and
displaycategory(Q6).AdditionalinformationorUser
charts regarding Navigational and communicational
additional information (e.g., NO GO AREA) is in
category Easy to use while in other models this
functionishigherratedaccordingtotheparticipants
result.Theoverall
averagevalueforthismodelis4.24.
3.2
SurveyresultsforECDISmanufacturerJRC(JAN‐
9201)
Accordingtothesurveyresults,ECDISmanufacturer
JRC (JAN‐9201) has 43 respondents. The results are
presentedinthefollowingFigure.
Figure7.End‐userresultsregardingECDISJRChandling
Additionally,byanalysingthesurveyresultsinthe
followingtablethe Averagevalue andMode forthe
ECDISJRC(JAN‐9201)ispresented.
Table4.AveragevalueandModefromsurveyresultsfor
theECDISJRC
________________________________________________
JRC Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9
________________________________________________
Average 4.26 4.33 4.09 4.19 4.40 4.49 3.81 4.28
value
________________________________________________
Mode5 4 4 4 5 5 4 4
________________________________________________
According to the end‐user results, ECDIS JRC is
alsooneoftheuser‐friendlyECDISmanufacturerfor
handling.Thebestfunctionaccordingtotheusability
is based on working with ECDIS display (Q7)
(moving cursor on the ENC Chart and main Menu)
together with easy access to the required position
with ETA calculation. Also, working with the ENC
chart for adjusting safety parameters and display
category(Q6)hasahighrate.LOPcategory(Q8)isin
lower usability category Easy to use while in other
models this function is more rated according to the
participants result. According to the participants
commentsinthesurvey,LOPfunctionhasafewmore
unnecessaryclicksinthissystem.Theoverallaverage
valueforthisECDISmanufacturermodelis4.23.
3.3
SurveyresultsforECDISmanufacturerECDIS
WärtsiläTransasNavi‐Sailor4000
Accordingtothesurveyresults,ECDISmanufacturer
ECDIS Wärtsilä Transas Navi‐Sailor 4000 has 39
respondents. The results are presented in the
followingFigure.
Figure8. End‐user results regarding ECDIS Wärtsilä
TransasNavi‐Sailor4000
Additionally,byanalysingthesurveyresultsinthe
followingtablethe Averagevalue andMode forthe
ECDISWärtsiläTransasNavi‐Sailor4000ispresented.
Table5.AveragevalueandModefromsurveyresultsfor
theECDISWärtsiläTransasNavi‐Sailor4000
________________________________________________
Wärtsilä Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9
Transas
________________________________________________
Average 3.85 4.13 3.79 4.03 4.23 4.08 3.46 3.87
value
________________________________________________
Mode4 4 4 5 5 4 3 4
________________________________________________
232
Accordingtotheend‐userresults,ECDISWärtsilä
Transas Navi‐Sailor 4000 is not in the top class
regarding level of usability. Mainly, improvement
should be considered regarding Line of Position for
manuallypositionfixing(Q8).Duetocomplexity,for
determine manually fix position more time and
accuracyisneeded
especiallyforyoungerend‐users.
Furthermore, lower rate of usability is noted
regarding manual corrections (Q4). The manual
correctioncomplexityisnotedforNavtexcorrections
and Temporary and Preliminary Notices (T&Ps).
Accordingtothesurveyresultsthemainstrengthlies
in ECDIS usability for working with the ENC chart
and
safety parameters adjustment (Q6). The overall
averagevalueforthisECDIS manufacturermodelis
3.93.
3.4
SurveyresultsforECDISmanufacturerKongsberg
Accordingtothesurveyresults,ECDISmanufacturer
Kongsberg has 24 respondents. The results are
presentedinthefollowingFigure.
Figure9.End‐userresultsregardingECDISKongsberg
Additionally,byanalysingthesurveyresultsinthe
followingtablethe Averagevalue andMode forthe
ECDISKongsbergispresented.
Table6.AveragevalueandModefromsurveyresultsfor
theECDISKongsberg
________________________________________________
Kongsberg Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9
________________________________________________
Average 3.25 3.50 3.13 3.50 3.38 3.88 3.08 3.63
value
________________________________________________
Mode3‐4 4 4 2‐5 4 4 3 3
________________________________________________
Accordingtothesurveyresults,ECDISKongsberg
hasalowerlevelofgeneralusability.Inotherwords,
the manufacturer system is not user‐friendly
regardingusageinterfaceorganisationwhichconsists
oftoomanytextboxes.Accordingtotheend‐usersthis
unintuitivesystemdemandsadditionalattentionand
practiceforsmoothhandling.Furthermore,
lowerrate
of usability is noted regarding Line of Position for
manually position fixing (Q8). Also, significant
complexityinsystemhandlingisrelatedtotheECDIS
usability for manual corrections (Q4). The overall
averagevalueforthisECDIS manufacturermodelis
3.42.
3.5
SurveyresultsforECDISmanufacturerWärtsilä
SAMPlatinum
Accordingtothesurveyresults,ECDISmanufacturer
Wärtsilä SAM Platinum has 22 respondents. The
resultsarepresentedinthefollowingFigure.
Figure10.End‐userresultsregardingECDISWärtsiläSAM
Platinum
Additionally,byanalysingthesurveyresultsinthe
followingtablethe Averagevalue andMode forthe
WärtsiläSAMPlatinumispresented.
Table7.AveragevalueandModefromsurveyresultsfor
theECDISWärtsiläSAMPlatinum
________________________________________________
Wärtsilä Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9
SAM
________________________________________________
Average 4.27 4.27 3.86 4.32 3.91 3.77 3.68 3.68
value
________________________________________________
Mode5 5 4 5 5 5‐4 3 4
________________________________________________
According to the survey results, ECDIS Wärtsilä
SAMPlatinumisnotinthetop‐classregardinglevel
of usability. Mainly, improvement should be
considered regarding Line of Position for manually
position fixing (Q8) and additional information or
User charts (Q9) regarding navigational and
communicationaladditionalinformation(e.g.,NOGO
AREA).Also,
thecomplexity is notedwhen plotting
NavtexcorrectionsontheENCchart.Also,thesurvey
results show that the main strength lies in ECDIS
usability for weekly manual corrections (Q5) (e.g.,
ENCupdate).Furthermore,ECDISmainfunction,i.e.
voyage planning is also user‐friendly for handling
andleadingnavigation.The
overallaveragevaluefor
thisECDISmanufacturermodelis3.97.
3.6
SurveyresultsforECDISmanufacturerVisionMaster
SperryMarine
Accordingtothesurveyresults,ECDISmanufacturer
VisionMasterSperryMarinehas 24respondents.The
resultsarepresentedinthefollowingFigure.
233
Figure11. End‐user results regarding ECDIS VisionMaster
SperryMarine
Additionally,byanalysingthesurveyresultsinthe
followingtablethe Averagevalue andMode forthe
WärtsiläSAMPlatinumispresented.
Table8.AveragevalueandModefromsurveyresultsfor
theECDISVisionMasterSperryMarine
________________________________________________
Sperry Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9
Marine
________________________________________________
Average 3.79 3.71 3.25 3.75 3.75 4.25 3.00 3.08
value
________________________________________________
Mode4 5‐4 3‐4 3‐4 3 5 3 3
________________________________________________
According to the survey results, ECDIS
VisionMaster Sperry Marine has a lower level of
general usability. Mainly, improvement should be
considered regarding Line of Position for manually
position fixing (Q8) and additional information or
User charts (Q9) regarding navigational and
communicationaladditionalinformation(e.g.,NOGO
AREA). Furthermore, the ECDIS main
display and
interface organisation represen t a high level of
usabilityforend‐users.Theoverallaveragevaluefor
thisECDISmanufacturermodelis3.57.
4
CUMULATIVERESULTSANDDISCUSSION
The survey analysis shows pros and cons of each
manufacturer ECDIS system through the statistical
Average value. The following table show s the
cumulative results, the manufacturers comparison,
regarding established questions in the survey (Q2‐
Q9). These results also represent a concept
developmentthroughdifferentmanufacturermodel’s
comparison.

Table9.AveragevalueofECDISManufacturersregardingsurvey
questionanalysis
________________________________________________
ECDISmanufacturer F J T K SA Sp
________________________________________________
Q2(Voyageplanning) 4.31 4.26 3.85 3.25 4.27 3.79
Q3(Voyagemonitoring) 4.51 4.33 4.13 3.50 4.27 3.71
Q4(Manualcorrections– 4.10 4.09 3.79 3.13 3.86 3.25
Navtex)
Q5(Weeklycorrections–ENC4.46 4.19 4.03 3.50 4.32 3.75
update)
Q6(chartsettingsanddisplay4.48 4.40 4.23 3.38 3.91 3.75
category)
Q7(ECDISdisplaywith 4.34 4.49 4.08 3.88 3.77 4.25
interface)
Q8(LOP)3.92 3.81 3.46 3.08 3.68 3.00
Q9(additionalinformation’s/ 3.84 4.28 3.87 3.63 3.68 3.08
usercharts)
________________________________________________
Averagevalue4.24 4.23 3.93 3.42 3.97 3.57
________________________________________________
F–Furuno,J–JRC,T–Transas,K–Kongsberg,SA–SAM,Sp–
Sperry
According to the survey question analysis and
average value regarding usability level for different
ECDISmanufacturer,thelistisasfollows:
13.
Furuno(FMD3300)–AVG4.24,
14.
JRC(JAN‐9201)–AVG4.23,
15.
SAMELECTRONICS‐WärtsiläNACOSPlatinum
–3.97,
16.
Transas‐Wärtsilä(Navi‐Sailor4000)–3.93,
17.
Sperry(VisionMasterSperryMarine)–3.57,
18.
Kongsberg(K‐Bridge)–3.42.
From statistical point of view, all six ECDIS
manufacturers have usability value more than
average. However, first stage level of usability
according to the end‐user’s survey results refer to
FurunoandJRC,secondstagelevelofusabilityrefer
toSAMELECTRONICSandTransas,andthird
stage
levelofusabilityrefertoSperryandKongsberg.
Furthermore, ECDIS Furuno has the first stage
level of usability mostly in all survey questions
(categories).Theresultofaveragevalueisloweronly
regarding ECDIS display with interface and textbox
organisation (Q7), and additional information’s/user
chartsusabilityforcommunicationaland
navigational
additional information (Q9). However, ECDIS
manufacturerJRChasthesetwoquestions(categories)
in a first level of usability. Consequently, the ideal
system from the end‐user’s perspective is a merge
betweentheFurunoandJRC.
5
CONCLUSION
The ECDIS system greatly facilitated maritime
navigationandhadasignificantimpactonimproving
thesafety,reliabilityandefficiencyofnavigation.Due
to its exceptional features, todayʹs navigators make
faster,moreaccurateandmoreprecisedecisionsthat
arecrucialforsafenavigation.However,althoughthe
ECDIS system is nowadays
primary means of
navigation,itshouldberememberedthatitisonlya
system that is there to help end users (OOWs and
masters) inmaking correctandtimely decisions,but
not to replace them. Therefore, it is extremely
importantthateach ECDIS end‐useris familiar with
theECDIS
system,withsufficientknowledge,proper
234
training level and adequate skill for timely and
correctlyactions.
The survey results created an ideal system from
theend‐user’sperspectivewhichisanECDISsystem
merge between the Furuno and JRC. These results
also represent a concept development through
different manufacturer model’s comparison. For
future development, proper configuration
of ECDIS
could standardise functions and display considering
different types, and undoubtedly resolve a
problematic issue as a consequence of numerous
ECDISmodelsandtheirdiversities.
To remain competitive, an ECDIS system
manufacturers constantly expand their system,
without concerning that the system is already
congested with additional options, applications, and
features,whichhalfofthemareveryrareused.This
leadstounnecessaryhandlingdifficultiesfortheend‐
user at sea. Furthermore, instead of adding new
options, ECDIS manufacturers should focus on
improvingprimaryfunctionswhicharenecessaryand
everydayinuse.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ThisstudyhasbeenfinanciallysupportedbytheUniversity
of Rijeka under the Faculty of Maritime Studies projects.
Authors are grateful to all the officers of the navigational
watchfortheirtimeandwillingnessforthefulfilmentofthe
survey,discussionsandtheiropinions.Authorsbelievethat
their answers have an
immense significance for the
appropriateness of the research deliverables. Additionally,
congratulationstoawonderfulfriendandcolleagueDavid
and his beloving Barbara. May the years ahead be filled
withlastingjoy!
REFERENCES
[1]International Maritime Organization (IMO), 2017.
MSC.1/Circ.1503 Rev.1: ECDIS – Guidance for good
practice.London:IMO.
[2]International Maritime Organization (IMO), 2006.
MSC.232(82): Adoption of the revised performance
standardsforElectronicChartDisplayandInformation
Systems(ECDIS).London:IMO.
[3]Weintrit, A., 2009. The Electronic Chart Display and
Information System (ECDIS):
An Operational
Handbook.London:CRCPress.
[4]Weintrit, A. 2018a. Accuracy of bathymetric data in
electronicnavigationalcharts.Sci.J.Marit.Univ.Szczec.
55(127),60‐69.doi:10.17402/302
[5]International Hydrographic Organization (IHO), 1997.
GlossaryofECDIS‐relatedterms.Ed.3.0.Monaco:IHO.
[6]Weintrit, A., Stawicki, K., 2008.
Operational
requirements for Electronic Chart Display and
Information Systems (ECDIS). Risk of overreliance on
ECDIS.Transp.Probl.3(2),67‐74.
[7]International Hydrographic Organization (IHO), 2014.
IHO Report on the Results of the ECDIS Survey
ConductedbyBIMCOandDenmark.Monaco:IHO.
[8]International Maritime Organization (IMO), 1995.
A.817(19): Performance
standards for Electronic Chart
Display and Information Systems (ECDIS). London:
IMO.
[9]eMaritime Group (2021). Approved ECDIS systems.
Available online: http://www.ecdisregs.com/approved‐
ecdis‐systems/,accessed2February2022.
[10]International Maritime Organization (IMO), 2010.
International Convention on Standards of Training,
Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW),
withamendments.London:IMO.
[11]
International Maritime Organization (IMO), 2012. MC
1.27: Operational use of Electronic Chart Display and
InformationSystem.London:IMO.
[12]International Maritime Organization (IMO), 2017.
STCW.7/Circ.24:Guidance for Parties,Administrations,
Port State control authorities, recognized organizations
and other relevant parties on the requirements of the
STCWConvention,1978,asamended.London:IMO.
[13]Weintrit, A., Kopacz, P., Bak, A., Uriasz, J., Naus, K.,
2012.PolishapproachtotheIMOModelCourse1.27on
operationaluseofECDIS.Annu. Navig.19(2),pp.155‐
170.
[14]International Maritime Organization (IMO), 2016. The
International Safety Management (ISM) Code. London:
IMO.
[15]Brčić,D.,
Žuškin,S.,Valčić, S., Rudan, I., 2019. ECDIS
transitional period completion: Analyses, observations
and findings. WMU J. Marit. Aff 18 (2), 359‐377. doi:
10.1007/s13437‐019‐00173‐z
[16]Car, M,. Tominac Coslovich, S., Brčić, D., Žuškin, S.,
2021. Cross section of ECDIS education and training
worldwide
and in the Republic of Croatia: Relations
betweenprograms anduserperceptions.TransNavInt.
J.Mar.Navig.Saf.SeaTransp.9(3),317‐326.(inpress)
[17]Car,M., Vujičić,S., Žuškin, S.,Brčić,D.,2019.Human
MachineInterface:InteractionofOOWswiththeECDIS
system.
In: Proceedings of the 1st International
Conference of Maritime Science & Technology – Naše
More2019.UNIDU.pp.74‐85.
[18]Brčić,D.,Žuškin,S.,2018.Towardspaperlessvessels:A
Masterʹs perspective. Journal of Maritime &
Transportation Sciences 55 (1), 183‐199. doi:
10.18048/2018.00.12
[19]Brčić,
D., Kos, S., Žuškin, S., 2016. Partial structural
analysisoftheECDISEHOresearch:Thehandlingpart.
In:Proceedingsofthe24ndInternationalSymposiumon
ElectronicsinTransport.ISEP.8p.
[20]Žuškin, S., Brčić, D., Kos, S., 2016. Partial structural
analysisoftheECDISEHOresearch:The
safetycontour.
In: Proceedings of 7th International Conference on
MaritimeTransport.UPC.pp.246‐262.
[21]Šakan,D.,Žuškin,S.,Brčić,D.,Valčić,S.,2019.Analysis
of Primary Position Validation in ECDIS system. In:
Advances in Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea
Transportation: Proceedings of 13th International
Conference on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea
Transportation.Leiden:CRCPress.pp.5‐15.
[22]Brčić, D., Kos, S., Žuškin, S., 2015. Navigation with
ECDIS: Choosing the proper secondary positioning
source.TransNavInt.J.Mar.Navig.Saf.Sea Transp. 9
(3),317–326.doi:10.12716/1001.09.03.03
[23]Car, M.,
Brčić, D., Žuškin, S., Svilicic, B., 2020. The
NavigatorʹsAspectofPNCBeforeandAftertheECDIS
Implementation: Facts and Possible Implications
Towards Navigation Safety Improvement. J. Mar. Sci.
Eng.8(11),842,12p.doi:10.3390/jmse8110842
[24]Kristić,M.,Žuškin,S.,Brčić,D.,Val
čić,S.,2020.Zoneof
ConfidenceImpactonCrossTrackLimitDetermination
inECDISPassagePlanning.J.Mar.Sci.Eng.8(8),566,12
p.doi:10.3390/jmse8080566
[25]Kristić,M., Žuškin, S.,Brčić, D. & Car, M. (2021). The
partial analysis of the ECDIS EHO research:
The Port
State Control. Nase more 68 (2), 93‐101. doi:
10.17818/NM/2021/2.5
[26]ŽuškinS., Brčić D., Valčić S., 2017. ECDISPossibilities
forBWE Adoption.TransNavInt.J.Mar.Navig.Saf.Sea
Transp.11(3),477‐482.doi:10.12716/1001.11.03.13