631
1 INTRODUCTION
While climate change continuously manifests itself for
the world's inhabitants, societies increasingly focus on
solutions that will prevent Earth’s hospitality level
from deteriorating further. Sustainable initiatives such
as the ability to reduce fossil fuel consumption are
investigated intensively. Compared to other logistics
and transportation industries, shipping has not been
change-effective due to the complex challenges that
international shipping actors point out themselves (1).
Shipping has become essential to today’s
standards of living as it connects the world. So much
so that up to 80% of the world's goods are transported
through shipping (2). These living standards have a
heavy price as shipping mainly relies on fossil fuels
for propulsion (3). Shipping is heavily judged for
contributing to human-generated Greenhouse gasses
(GHG) and is held accountable for 2.7% of GHG
emissions. Without averting actions, the number is
projected to reach 17% by 2050 (3,4). The cases for
radical change are overwhelming and something
must change (5). The International Maritime
Organization (IMO) has vowed for GHG to reach net
Barriers for Inclusion of User Practices in Technology
Development in Blue Denmark
R.G. Kristensen & T. Børsen
Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark
ABSTRACT: As the world collectively looks to technology to drive sustainable transition and salvage what is
left of our world, users are increasingly exposed to technological solutions claimed to drive sustainable
transition. These solutions are rarely developed with an offset in their practice, and this is a challenge as
technology can only aid in deconstructing the climate crisis if end-user practices are reflected in the technical
solutions. Nothing is gained if no one is motivated or able to pick up these solutions. Sustainability is rarely
used in conjunction with how end-users will adopt and utilize technology. Wasted or inefficient distribution of
resources should be addressed to optimize and increase the chances of a green transition. This also holds for the
maritime sector in Denmark, where technology development is limited to the applicability of technological
artifacts without taking notice of end-user practices. This paper applies qualitative ethnographic research to
show that there is a disconnect between, on the one hand, funders, technology developers, and decision-makers
and, on the other hand, technology end-users and practitioners in the Danish maritime sector. The first does not
consider the latter's perspective even though it is claimed important. We argue that if technology is to replace or
assist any human practice and solve for example the climate crises, then knowledge of users’ practices must be
key to developing technological solutions for sustainable development. During the ethnographic work, the
stage of funding the development of sustainable technology was observed to be the very first point in the path
of technological development, where user inclusion should be considered. Therein lies the connection to
sustainability: If users are omitted, technology cannot effectively and positively assist sustainable transition.
http://www.transnav.eu
the International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 18
Number 3
September 2024
DOI: 10.12716/1001.18.03.17
632
zero by or around 2050 (6). Yet, it is unclear what that
means or how to get there (7)!
Research shows simple low-cost energy efficiency
measures in shipping can cut up to 75% of GHG,
while also reducing the cost of operation (8,9).
However, this proves difficult to enact (10). A myriad
of research has investigated the many barriers in
shipping to implement energy-efficient measures and
identified barriers such as changing practices,
governance, company and vessel policies, and
adoption of technology (1,4,8,1113).
In 2022 Denmark ranked as the world's 6th largest
commercial fleet (14,15). The Danish government
released a report on ensuring Blue Denmark gains
status as a global hub for maritime digital expertise.
Blue Denmark refers to maritime businesses and
industries, maritime researchers and educators,
legislators, etc., nearly occupying a hundred thousand
people. A major point of the report is that a
digitalization strategy can change our current
trajectory. By claiming quality assurance from being
made in Denmark, political backing, and quantum
leaps in technological development, the future looks
brighter (16). Digitalization has long been a part of the
agenda of Blue Denmark (17). Danish Shipping, an
important voice in Blue Denmark, affirms the coming
changes:
“Shipping companies face new challenges led by
ambitious climate goals, environmental regulation,
increased digitalization, and new business models,
with large parts of possible solutions for the future
being unknown. Innovation is, therefore, higher on
the shipping companies' agenda than ever before.
Development, new research, and innovation projects
are, among other things, crucial for Danish shipping
companies to achieve the climate goals and remain
competitive in an increasingly digital world” (18)
Developing newer technology, such as
autonomous vessels, has arguably been established as
a superpower in society as the only solution to the
climate crisis; and steals focus from the low-hanging
fruits of current technology, governance, policy-
making, and changing human practice. It parallels the
plot dramatized in the Hollywood movie “Don’t Look
Up”, where known methods to avert certain
destruction are waived to make way for untested
futuristic technology that eventually fails, without
ample time to revert to old methods (19).
The belief that liberation through technology is
succumbing to a total technocracy where solutions are
based on technical expertise alone, is worrying. It
appears forgotten to consider alternatives to new
technology and its dependencies. Technological
advancement must also deal with the social context of
the user's practice (8,9). While eyes are set on the
development of technology, not much attention is
devoted to the user and the changing technology
landscape their practice is going through and
technology is thought to effectivize (20).
We need to broaden the perception of what
constitutes technology to a nexus of the artifacts and
the human practices, in which it is embedded. Critical
authors in Technology Studies, e.g., Andrew Feenberg
(21) and Langdon Winner (22), suggest that if we
neglect the fact that technology is supposed to help
and emancipate people it adds the opposite,
inevitably generating animosity towards technology.
A more inclusive definition of technology could offer
us the chance to consider how technology is utilized
in the real world and to discover how to design more
sustainable, democratic, and adaptable technology
that can be applied in practical contexts, ultimately
increasing the chances of our future generations'
survival.
2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The presented research is based on Rasmus
Gammelby Kristensen's Master Thesis (46), and some
of the paper’s formulations are taken from there. Our
study investigates the barriers to an equilibrium, in
developing technology between technical artifacts and
human practices and to understand its socio-technical
configurations. In doing so we call for a democratic
intervention in Blue Denmark’s technology. In other
words: What are the barriers to democratizing the
system of technological development underpinning
sustainable development in Blue Denmark?
Figure 1 is to illustrate the research question. On
the left, we see the current technocratic view on
technological development in Blue Denmark, focusing
primarily on developing technical artifacts, while
scrutinizing the practice. On the right, we see the
desired situation where the development is balanced
with an equal focus. The line in the middle illustrates
the barriers to the requested transition that this paper
will display.
Figure 1 This figure illustrates the research question
structuring this study: What are the barriers to
democratizing the system of technological development in
Blue Denmark?
3 ETHNOGRAPHY
Ethnography strives to understand the meaning
humans ascribe to their lives. Not by quantifying
numerical global metadata, something the shipping
industry has long suffered from (9), but by spending
time with the people practicing that which technology
aims to enhance. As stated by Sunderland and Denny:
“if we accept the notion that technology refers to the
use of artifacts in practice then it becomes clear that
understanding human practice is an integral part of
developing technology” (23).
Actors of Blue Denmark constitute a diverse group
with multiple interests and expertise: fund and project
managers, customers, shipping companies (who have
the actual end-users as employees), etc. They vary in
location, purpose, organization, as well as influence.
633
Observing them, visually and audibly, in their socio-
technical configuration is a valuable way to attain
perceptions of contexts and constructions (24). Thus,
ethnographic work at different sites is the method
used to understand Blue Denmark as a system of
developing technology.
Traditional ethnography is characterized by
focusing on a single location to immerse oneself into a
socio-cultural instalment intensively. To observe and
make sense of a specific or unique group of people’s
lives. As the world became an interconnected system,
multi-sited ethnography appeared, as a local, single-
site, could no longer be understood as isolated from
its place in the global system (25). Multi-sited
ethnography moves away from focusing on internal
scenarios, objects, and meanings. Instead, zooming
out to understand a local setting's place in its larger
network, such as a user practices’ place in developing
technology. By including such a macro perspective,
this method is suitable for understanding the system
of the multi-situated processes of developing
technology.
The methodology guided us as researchers to
follow initially unknown sources to their origin. Thus,
investigating the original site in question through the
different perceptions of the system (25). When
researching the context in a socio-technical setting
(such as the system) it is possible to both follow the
people and follow the thing, the thing referring to
non-human actors, concepts, or in this case, a trend of
grand technologification without the user (25). The
people or the thing may be completely or partially
unknown as research begins. As people or a thing is
mobile and found in various settings so must the
researcher then move to understand the entirety of the
system.
To understand the system and how technology is
perceived and developed we conducted semi-
structured interviews, and formal and informal talks,
together with participation in various events,
discussions, and projects. The empirical material was
collected in the following sites: development of fund
strategies, project facilitation and management,
product testing, and project implementation. The
named sites represent different stations of
technology’s development. The sites’ embedded
barriers to user involvement will be brought forth in
the analysis. The list of interviewees from the sites can
be found in Table 1.
Table 1. This table provides an overview of the sites and
informants that generated the empirical material for this
study.
________________________________________________
Main affiliated Organization Description ID
site
________________________________________________
Development A fund in A private fund with a I5
of Fund Blue Denmark focus on wild ideas
Strategies
Product Testing Accident An organ conducting I11
Implementation, Investigation research and investigating
& Nursing the root causes of accidents
in Blue Denmark
Product Testing, A Captain An active captain who I13
Implementation, and active engages a lot with his
& Nursing practitioner shipping company to
address issues with technology
Project Execution Maritime A newly formed company I2
Startup developing a platform for
mutual learning at sea
Project Execution University An organ that organizes I3
and Project research and functions
Facilitator
Project Execution Shipping A shipping company I8
Company implementing new
solutions
Project Execution Maritime A start-up that has I15
Startup developed an innovative
location beacon for maritime
personnel
Project Execution Maritime A start-up that developed I6
Startup an intelligent searchlight
for vessels
Project Facilitation Project An independent I9
Facilitator collaborative platform for
other companies in Blue
Denmark
Project Facilitation Maritime An initiative to facilitate I7
Knowledge & and broadcast research
Project across Blue Denmark
Facilitator
Project Facilitation Project ShippingLab is a public- I1
Facilitator funded initiative to address
the climate crisis through
technical innovation directly
Societal Change University An anthropologist, Senior I12
of Direction Researcher, and Author
Creating Trends
Societal Change University A Professor in Techno- I4
of Direction Anthropology and Science
Creating Trends and Technology Studies
________________________________________________
The list of workshops and other events where
observations and informal talks were conducted is
shown in Table 2.
Table 2. This table provides an overview of events,
workshops and projects where empirical material was
generates for this study.
________________________________________________
Type Name (Dates)
________________________________________________
Events An Update on Maritime Autonomous Navigation
(07-03-22)
Autonomous Ships from the Perspective of
Operation and Maintenance (06-10-21)
Autonomy ships and new paradigm (25-10-21)
DanaDynamics Presentation 2021 (31-08-21)
Digital Harbor (01-03-22)
Digital Tech Summit 2021 (30-11, 01-12-21)
Human + Tech = Problems? (28-10-21)
InnoFounder and InnoBooster (04-03-22)
Marine Sustainability by Digitalization (2021-2022)
ShippingLab Conference (24-11-21)
Summer Business Networking 2021 (25-08-21)
TechBBQ 2021 (16,17-09-21)
The New AI Regulation (09-03-22)
Values and Norms of the Green Transition in Blue
Denmark (28-01-22)
World Maritime Technology Conference 2022 (26-
04-22)
Work- Maritime Competencies of the Future (01-10-21)
shops Predicting future trends based on past predictions
(26-04-22)
User Involvement (16-11-21)
Projects The Connected Ship (2021)
VHF Data Exchange System (2021)
________________________________________________
Figure 2 is a model of the technology development
processes in Blue Denmark. The model will scaffold
our empirical investigation of actors in different
stages of an artifact’s development. To comprehend
the processes that constitute development in Blue
Denmark (and why it excludes the users’ human
practices) actors in Blue Denmark were followed to
map them and place them in a development chain,
labeled the system. Processes of the system were
observed as follows: Directional change in society is
fostered by the climate crisis. This change influences
Blue Denmark to invest in greenifying shipping
634
operations. It is thus decided that funds will be
allocated to develop green technology. Funds are
requested by and provided to those who claim green
solutions. I.e., entrepreneurs, research and technology
organizations, project facilitators and managers, etc.
Once funds are secured project execution can
commence. The system ends in a potential
implementation with the following nursing phase
pursued.
Figure 2. The figure illustrates the synthesis of the
technological development system in Blue Denmark.
4 BARRIERS TO USER INVOLVEMENT IN THE
SYSTEM
The analysis will identify barriers to involving users
of technology in its development. Therefore, it was
imperative to understand what constitutes the system,
and its representatives' perception of what constitutes
technology. Following technology and people in the
system from the perspective of the user through the
sites of the system showed that it fails to involve them
from the beginning. This fact is acknowledged by a
project facilitator: “[...] it is a hole in the process [of
development] that is being dug with open eyes, which
is paradoxical since one assumes that one has the
interest [to implement technology] at heart” (I1). The
terminology barrier might be perceived as physical
and concrete, but a barrier can also be on a social-
technical conceptual level.
Researching the system indicated that attention to
user involvement appears late, after initial
implementation attempts. As the complexity of the
real world unfolds it becomes clear that human
practices are not confined to a restricted set of
scenarios. Thereby indicating that user-technology
collaboration is dealt with reactively instead of
proactively i.e. recognizing problems that could have
been identified at a much earlier stage. Indeed, value
is not necessarily only created if the technology
prospers. However, suppose failure purely occurs
because of deficiency to appreciate the actual
problem, failure with no gain seems accurate. If
nothing is learned from failure it is arguably a
complete waste of time, money, and resources.
4.1 Barrier One - Users
When developing technology, it is difficult for the
creator to understand the various ways in which it can
be used. The focus of technology’s development needs
to be readjusted from the artifact to the practice.
Allegedly technology cannot succeed without both.
“If you think all you need to develop technology is
technical insight, or to just get it to work according to
some criteria of functionality, then you have not
understood what technology is” (I4). Research
underlines the importance of user involvement.
Research such as human-computer interaction,
different methods of user involvement, participatory
design, and user ethnography (23,2630).
Informants have acknowledged the uneven
distribution of focus on artifact and practice: “there
has been an exaggerated focus on the technology
[artifact]” (I9). We see this in the maritime sphere with
investments in autonomous vessels and navigational
aids. Such systems, among others, are not understood
nor functioning optimally because the user was
excluded from the development of the system (31).
All sites recognize the importance of user input for
a successful implementation. An informant concedes:
“if it [technology] is not adopted, the other half of the
calculus is missing, and that is the end-user” (I9). The
system appears to want to involve users but is often
obstructed by the shipping structures (7). Overall,
there is consensus that user involvement is important,
but it is debatable as to what extent it is practiced: “I
am not sure, but I think it has always been the
intention to incorporate end-users” (I9).
4.1.1 Who Constitutes Users
User involvement is not just involving people.
There seems to be ambiguity as to what and who the
users are, like what a user is and when/what users
should be involved in. Looking at technology
deployability, this is exactly the knowledge that
developers need and that users can help with. By
listening to inputs from seafarers, they feel included,
and they can illuminate problems that developers
alone could never foresee. Seafarers are often exposed
to complex technology in a top-down implementation
(20).
An important defining parameter is that while
preferable to the exploitative and applicable
technology, user involvement might be less relevant
on a conceptual level.
“Regarding exploitative technology, I think it is
extremely important to incorporate them, otherwise it
will not work. With explorative technology, I do not
think it is that important at the first stage that is about
understanding the potential but to apply the
technology to solve a problem, involvement is vital”
(I9).
While exploring the system, different conceptions
appeared of who the users are. These are summed up
as 5 misconceptions.
The first misconception is that the customer is the
user. Reaching out to a private maritime fund they
were assured that their project facilitator has user
contact through applied sciences. When interviewing
a project facilitator they replied: “[...] that [applied
science] is together with the companies [...]” (I3). I.e.,
not the user but the company. When discussing user
involvement, it sometimes appears misunderstood
635
and instead referred to as customer involvement:
“you could say that our end-users are the
manufacturers and the shipping companies” (I1).
Customers do not understand the practice as a user.
As agreed by an informant. “I would say it should be
the end-users, as the customers are constructed by a
financial relation” (I9).
The second misconception is, that when users are
involved, it is often only specific ones: “[...] there were
the darling captains who always were brought in on
the projects [...]” (I5). This leaves few candidates and
limits the available practitioner knowledge to one or a
few positions. Various positions and individuals can
have greatly different tasks on a vessel.
The third misconception is that users could also
refer to former users. This introduces the risk of
patenting knowledge from when leaving life at sea. I
have observed, there are many [ex-seafarers] know-it-
alls with the solution for all the world’s problems”
(I2). This is problematic because there is a risk that
extracted knowledge is not grounded in
contemporary seafaring practices: “[...] the end-users
are often represented by former seafarers [...]” (I9).
This has caused [...] many half-hearted solutions
from a former navigator or marine engineer with old
knowledge” (I2). The industry keeps on evolving, so it
can be a big problem if former seafarers are used to
reflect current life at sea.
The fourth misconception reflects that user
perspectives are represented by maritime academies.
The maritime academies have also been pointed to as
a source of contemporary knowledge: “we depend on
the maritime academies, SIMAC [a maritime school in
the Danish city of Svendborg] e.g., and their facilities
[...]” (I1). While training facilities, teachers, etc., can
provide valuable knowledge, they cannot replace real-
life scenarios, experience, and expertise.
The fifth misconception is that industry and user
perspectives are aligned. The industry and the agenda
of the funds were identified as an outcome-altering
factor: “we are driven by the industry’s interest as
they are our core stakeholders [...] (I1). If project
facilitators cannot secure their interest and funds,
there will be no technology development for
sustainable transition.
It must be understood who the users are. It is the
active seafarers. The above illustrates the first barrier
to real end-user involvement as important actors can
be under the illusion that end-user involvement takes
place. A user’s input is needed in Blue Denmark, as an
informant states: some of the projects we have are
very technical and very engineer savvy, but there are
no marine engineers connected [...]” (I1). It is
indisputable that domain-specific knowledge can help
verify potential in development. But it must stay
diverse and current; “it is important to be observant of
the diversity of knowledge [...] also within maritime
knowledge, that you are aware that there is a seafarer
from China and India who also are end-users of the
product” (I2).
4.2 Barrier Two - Technology
The second barrier is the false idea of what technology
should be developed for and why. Arguably there is
more than one truth, but for the sake of the green
transition we can look to a dictionary definition of the
word technology, “the use of tools and machines to
help people conduct tasks more efficiently and with
less effort” (32). I.e., technology can reduce emissions
from shipping, as a project facilitator mentions:
“moving people and goods creates a lot of value for
the world. However, there is also a dark side, in this
case, a negative impact on the environment, we work
to bring that down” (I9). We have to remember that
technology should be developed, invested in, and
committed to, so we can ensure our future on this
planet. The disconnect between land and sea along
with the construction of the world of shipping often
results in sub-optimal conditions for change when
deploying new technology. Therefore, it is important
to see how the perceived purpose of developing new
technology changes throughout the system. The
system has shown two main categories of false beliefs:
removing humans and technological glorification.
4.2.1 Removing Humans
The first false belief is that technology should
replace humans. Aside from the expense, that crew
needs to be paid and therefore will result in fewer
expenses, it will allegedly also result in fewer errors,
i.e., it equals fewer disasters, higher efficiency, and
more revenue (20). However, removing human
operators from ships is implausible for three reasons.
First, technology is not capable e.g., the unmanned
autonomous vessel is not able to deal with the
dynamics of the seas or to possess the level of
adaptability of humans while being built on the
collision regulations that are dependent on human
intervention. And, if technology was able, it would
have happened already as the business case would be
too lucrative for any shipping company to pass, as an
informant argues: if the technology were a product,
you could just go and buy off the shelf, then it would
already be implemented” (I14).
Secondly, the false belief that seafarers solely exist
on the vessel to steer the vessel. The auto-pilot
technology has existed for years, the ship is steering
itself. Most of the work that happens on a ship is
maintenance (33). Along with other workloads,
maintenance is not something an autonomous vessel
is exempt from, even though Danish Shipping
anticipates robots will be able to overtake this task
(34). The workload from digital systems is still
increasing (35). An informant said: “companies, at the
moment, have more crew than legislation requires,
because there is too much maintenance work” (I10).
Thirdly, the argument that computers are safer,
and the concept of human error. The main argument
is that roughly 85% of accidents can be attributed to
human error (36). The problem is that human error
does not classify as an error isolated to a human
making a mistake, but rather because of multiple
factors failing. As noted by Rothblum: “human errors
are generally caused by technologies, environments,
and organizations which are incompatible in some
way with optimal human performance” (37). It is also
636
explained as a human error if the operator is
incapable of comprehending the complexity of a
system (31). When asked, an informant answered:
“[...] show the other perspective, if that statement is to
have any validity, I want to know how many
accidents did not happen because a human told a
computer it was wrong” (I14). As no apparent data
exists on how many times a human prevented a
system from making a critical error, it is a very one-
sided argument, though a study on the near-miss
system shows that 87% of such occurrences had been
discovered by humans (38).
Furthermore, an informant says: “it is important to
say that safety cannot be understood by some
numerical value as it is bound by the context in which
it emerges” (I11). Ultimately, an informant assesses
that we should: “let humans do what humans do best
and let machines do what they do best, then assist
each other” (I14). The crew is present to act on
sudden, unforeseen, dangerous situations and handle
such situations all the time without drawing on
external parties (38).
4.2.2 Technological Glorification
The second false belief is that one should do
technology simply because it is technologically
possible and cool (I14). There appears to be a
discrepancy between the land-based actors’ idea of a
modern vessel and what is currently possible with the
infrastructure of the sea. Such misalignments and
unreal expectations lead users to abandon technology
as critical issues and constant problems inhibit
adoption (39). The reliability of systems at sea carries
important significance. The technician is not just
around the corner and consequences can be
devastating at unfathomable levels. Where an
entrepreneur might be willing to take risks of losing
their investment, the risk measures greater for a
Captain and their crew. Risks include human lives,
man-made natural disasters, and innumerable
amounts of monetary loss. Toying with new and
fancy technology just because one can, should not be
an argument for the pursuit. Such a discrepancy can
be harmful to the much more useful technological
development that we so desperately need (3941). As
an informant describes the technical characteristics of
a ship are spot on and need to be understood by all;
“We need to remember when characterizing a
ship, it is extremely low-tech [...] nothing like a plane
or a train [...] a ship is multiple different systems
connected from multiple different brands and
manufacturers using different methods and having
different rules, so nothing is standardized. A ship
works, yes, but at the same time, it never really works
[...] so you place 20 crew members on board, running
around 12 hours a day to try to keep the vessel afloat
and get from A to B. This is the context we should
think about when thinking about automating ships”
(I11).
Noting that this quote only deals with the
complexity of one ship and does not recognize that
similar ships in a fleet further differentiate in
equipment and systems. It is sort of a microcosmos
composed of elements from all over the world. It is
quite normal for systems to be supplied by more than
15 different manufacturers (39).
The need for streamlining systems is problematic
for progress. Manufacturers often worry about
production costs, not integration capacities resulting
in a low ability for the system to work together with
the operator. This causes technology, even though
introduced to reduce error, to in some cases directly
contribute to accidents (31).
As technology increasingly becomes a vital
support function for humans, the role of the navigator
is changing from being a controller to a supervisor of
systems. Technology is becoming increasingly
complex, and systems’ full capabilities can be
overwhelming, while the human operator has
remained stationary and does not follow the
exponential path (20,31,42). It is a known challenge
within shipping companies to provide attention to
crew competency development (43). It is a major
democratic problem as responsibilities are not
subjected to change. As the final decision maker, the
seafarers should be included to ensure the operator
has the required skill and knowledge to sufficiently
operate and supervise the system (20). Seafarers still
have the final call. They will decide what action to
take and be held responsible. The importance of the
system’s ability to facilitate the navigator in the
unique settings where the pot is boiling and an
overview of the situation is vital, e.g., in the
unavoidable case of system or machinery breakdown.
Those are the situations where input from end-users is
needed most (31). These are the situations that can
only be prepared for by involving those who have the
experience. And the deliberate absence of the same
means that the scope of technological glorification is
undemocratic.
4.3 Barrier Three - Funding
The last selected barrier requires a short prelude. As
an example of the technology criticized in the
previous chapter, autonomy in navigational systems
has been described as a pinnacle for bringing down
emissions from the shipping industry (by Danish
Shipping). Looking at a Danish university’s Shipping
Lab, half of the budget is earmarked for autonomy
research and development (44). When opening the
discussion on the topic of technologification, whether
one believes in total digitalization and autonomy, it
does seem peculiar to address self-sailing crewless
vessels as a solution when global connectivity
infrastructure is unable to sustain usable connections
for daily operation. Sunbae Hong from the Korean
Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, in a presentation at
Digtal@Sea 2021 conference, calls for addressing the
challenges in global maritime digitalization. He calls
for collaboration between stakeholders to reach a state
within shipping that can support the very basic level
of digitalization on a global scale (45). Going back to
Blue Denmark, it leaves one wondering about the
actions taken when autonomous shipping becomes a
top priority when, simultaneously, the world’s
maritime stage is trying to figure out how to ensure
basic connectivity to the world’s oceans.
The third barrier is funding strategies. Is the
technology to be developed chosen in accord with
637
trending hot and sexy topics while leaving more
boring yet necessary-for-us-as-all projects for others?
It poses a problem if funding focuses on individual
success and not the progress of the world, as declared
by Hong; “focus on progress, not perfection, one step
made together is more powerful than 10 steps made
by one country (45).
An informant mentions that: “we see the same
logic in many other places in society” (I4). This can
mean that research and projects can be influenced by
trending topics. There are similarities to global social
trends, something that an informant concurs with: “if
we take society as a whole, I think we can establish
that there is an overexcitement towards technology
[...] that technology will come and fix all the problems
of the world” (I9). Arguably this trend has gotten a
foothold within Blue Denmark, as the informant
continues: “like the rest of society, there is overweight
of focus on the technology, but I do not think it is with
bad intentions, it is just following society where fancy
exponential technologies are mentioned everywhere,
so naturally, that is what attracts funding” (I9).
Hard science and quantitative data have mainly
been in focus in shipping when presenting the state of
business (9). Similarly, it appears that trends decide
what research gets prioritized and that appears to be
reflected by funding structures. Funding strategies
rarely specify expectations for user involvement but
focus on hard science statements, as an informant
shares: “it is my opinion that it is easier to get funding
for technical research in place of social sciences, I do
not carry in statistics, but it is my opinion, the
technical stuff is the big trend right now” (I7). Which
is peculiar as it is common to assume that having a
more humanistic instead of purely technical approach
would enable a higher applicability” (I7).
The funding system appears to influence how Blue
Denmark seemingly chooses to focus on technical
experts and their artifacts more than the users and
their practices. When discussing what impacts the
operation of project facilitators it seems plausible that
they are influenced by more powerful actors, as an
informant states: it is about creating jobs, and
promoting the Danish maritime industry, if you
cannot do that, then it is not a Fund’s project
[depending on the Fund]” (I9).
Furthermore, technical experts try and keep their
current societal validation, as an informant talks about
the power of technical experts: [...] they hold on to
the idea that pure technology is fantastic, so when
they tell the story they make it seem like it was
technology in itself that did it” (I4). AI, e.g., is
extremely resource-demanding and dependent on
human work such as setting the framework, sorting
the data, and maintaining it. Granted, quantification is
next to impossible for a human to do but as an
informant explains: “[...] at the end of all that work,
indeed, you can say, AI did it. It is like saying it was
the nuclear physicists that won World War 2” (I4).
After which they address “[...] the same as every other
sector, not because the tech industry is worse than
others, they are simply extremely privileged at the
moment. A sort of unjustified power that lets them
dominate the narrative” (I4).
Unfortunately, this upholds the assumption that
technological greatness is a technical expert thing. As
an informant argues, campaigning and lobbying are
not free services: “researching technology is big
business so there is an ongoing quest of justifying
continued research” (I4). Arguably, when such
systems are driven by what is trending, it adds a layer
of ineffectiveness to technology-driven sustainable
transition.
The structures of funding sometimes remove the
true context from innovation as it becomes a goal to
secure funds. A project facilitator mentions: “[...]
sometimes it is very easy to see in the application that
they are trying to appease us with what they think we
want” (I1). It can be traced to trends like the use of
certain terminologies that are used simply because of
their power in society. The project facilitator
continues: sometimes it is more the fact that there is
an argument, than the quality of that argument, that
means something [...] like it does not matter what you
answer as long as you answer” (I1). Such projects are
doomed at once, as he states: “in those cases, for sure
it will not get implemented, because it does not matter
to them” (I1). Possibly we as a society do not have
unlimited time therefore it is a harmful way of
looking at progress, as an informant observes: “there
are seemingly no consequences from exaggerating
what a project is capable of achieving, they just get
another try” (I4).
The first two mentioned barriers to not involving
seafarers in the development of technology: replacing
humans and technologification, can be traced to a
defining trait of the system: funding strategies.
Involving users and assuring application in practice
must be considered already at the funding stages.
5 DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION
User involvement usually first emerges when
technology is implemented, and operational
malfunctions manifest themselves. There are no
formal standardized methods for ensuring user
involvement. Often, solutions are top-down
implemented and alien to their users, thus assessing
the system as rather undemocratic. There is a risk that
solutions will oppress seafarers, reducing the chance
of adoption. This means that the technologification for
sustainable transition is postponed. The system is
very complex which makes it difficult to determine
who should be responsible for keeping in touch with
the seafarers.
Sustainable transition through technological
development is a topic everyone knows and needs to
collaborate on. However, a disconnect to real-life
practices is detected in this study. The technology
development system in Blue Denmark is mainly
concerned with the artifact of technology as
influenced by trends and funding practices. User
involvement is not alien to any of the actors, but it is
not a normal and standardized practice either.
It is a challenge as Blue Denmark is too massive an
entity for anyone one individual to be held
responsible. The system is a mesh of so many
different actors with varying agendas. It is genuinely
638
a microcosmos. An informant mentions that project
facilitators collaborate on funding and stakeholders’
time (I9) and ensure a collaborative space for
technology development. This is something that is
constantly under development: “we have creators
who focus on action-based research and bring more
disciplines in [...] and through that evolve some
methodologies that can help in future development”
(I1). This appears to have a positive effect on the
system. However, it is only a place for ideas to grow
and nothing will change without the businesses'
support.
If a project facilitator does not interact with the
end-user but leaves it up to the shipping company to
take care of that part, the shipping company in
charge, end-users might not be involved at all. An
informant at a shipping company says: “no, we do not
have that much focus on the end-users on the ship,
but we ensure to collect as many perspectives as
possible when discussing these technologies” (I9).
Shipping companies can appear to act as gatekeepers
and designated user facilitators by other actors. Actors
seem aware of the value user involvement has, as they
continue; “gaining mutual understanding can help
avoid many of the traps of inducing change with
unwanted consequences that affect others negatively,
because you just did not see it from that perspective”
(I9).
Shipping companies might increasingly face this
responsibility if user involvement activities were
funded from the beginning when the technologies
were conceptualized and later when they are
developed and implemented. This would force and
award the different actors in Blue Denmark to reflect
and act on user involvement. It would also promote
sustainable transition in the maritime system through
well-functioning technological solutions.
However, understanding users' practices has been
revealed to be more problematic as ex-seafarers and
academies often represent actual users. In some cases,
actual seafarers are consulted but typically only
Captains. The system must ensure that the people
who get to represent the seafarers' practices represent
actual practices, not the academy’s, not the captain’s,
and not former seafarers’, but the real deal. The actual
end-users must be involved.
While there is consensus on the importance of user
involvement in the system, there are uncertainties as
to how it can be achieved. A challenge noticed by an
informant: “the end-user cannot be a technology
expert, of course, it is not their job, they have a ship to
navigate. So naturally, there is a difficult task
incorporating them in a workshop, etc.” (I9).
Furthermore, it can be a practical challenge to test the
technology on a vessel, as an informant assesses: “I
think it will be difficult to establish procedures for
testing the technology on vessels due to their trade
and the complexity of ship operations [...]” (I7).
While this might be speculative, something that is
not is that shelved technology caused by seafarers and
land-based actors not understanding each other,
resulting in technology holding no ground in reality,
does not solve anything. It does not make the operator
or their ship any safer, more environmentally
friendly, or better in any way. It is a waste of time,
money, and resources. Therefore, what can be done
regarding user involvement in the early stages of
developing technology for sustainable transition,
should be done. The true purpose of technology as a
tool for sustainability development should be known
and appreciated by all actors. It is damaging to
technological advancement for sustainable
development and the green transition if seafarers
understand technology as an enemy and not as a
digital colleague.
Based on multi-sited fieldwork at different sites of
technology development for green transition and
sustainable development in Blue Denmark (what we
call the system) we have in this contribution identified
three central barriers to the involvement of end-users.
The first barrier is an ambivalent understanding of
who constitutes the user to be involved. The second
barrier regards the purpose of developing new
technologies in Blue Denmark that are centered on
efficiency, automation of human work tasks, and
technological glorification rather than on promoting
sustainable development through addressing socio-
ecological challenges. The two mentioned barriers are
both underpinned by the third one that is existing
funding structures. Thus, if funding structures would
increasingly award user involvement, it could
generate clarification of who the users are and
reorient the goals of technological innovation for a
sustainable transition.
Ultimately user involvement in the system fails
because it generally focuses on the artifact and the
claims of technical experts while the constellation is
hostile to changing structures. It appears that there is
a need for a democratic intervention in Blue Denmark
to support further technological advancement in the
service of sustainable and green transition. This
democratic reorientation we suggest is initiated in the
funding structures of technological innovation in the
maritime sector. Actors of the system mean well and
strive for a better world. However, becoming lost in
the complexity of the shipping world. The funding of
transdisciplinary work could be a positive way to
structure and facilitate further sustainable
technologification of Blue Denmark. By bridging the
many different sites of the system, a holistic view of
how technology for sustainable development should
be developed can be acquired. The system’s
understanding of technology must become more
inclusive referring not only to the technical artifact but
also to the practices of people.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research received no external funding.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Rasmus
Gammelby Kristensen (R.G.K.) and Tom Børsen (T.B.);
methodology, R.G.K. and T.B.; validation, R.G.K. and T.B.;
formal analysis, R.G.K.; investigation, R.G.K.; resources,
R.G.K. and T.B.; data curation, R.G.K.; writingoriginal
draft preparation, R.G.K.; writingreview and editing,
R.G.K. and T.B.; visualization, R.G.K.; supervision, T.B.;
project administration, T.B. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
639
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank Thomas Roslyng Olesen of
the Maritime Research Alliance, for his support and
constructive comments.
REFERENCES
[1] Poulsen RT, Sampson H. A swift turnaround? Abating
shipping greenhouse gas emissions via port call
optimization. Transp Res Part Transp Environ. 2020
Sep;86:102460.
[2] OECD. https://www.oecd.org/. 2019 [cited 2021 Dec 29].
Ocean shipping and shipbuilding. Available from:
https://www.oecd.org/ocean/topics/ocean-shipping/
[3] Martin Cames J, Cook V. Emission Reduction Targets for
International Aviation and Ship-ping. EPRS Eur Parliam
Res Serv [Internet]. 2015 Nov 16; Available from:
https://policycommons.net/artifacts/1334721/emission-
reduction-targets-for-international-aviation-and-
shipping/1940504/
[4] Adland R, Cariou P, Wolff FC. When energy ef-ficiency
is secondary: The case of Offshore Support Vessels.
Transp Res Part Transp Envi-ron. 2019 Jul;72:11426.
[5] Mazzucato M. Mission economy: a moonshot guide to
changing capitalism. London: Allen Lane, an imprint of
Penguin Books; 2021. 244 p.
[6] IMO. 2023 IMO STRATEGY ON REDUCTION OF GHG
EMISSIONS FROM SHIPS RESOLU-TION
MEPC.377(80) (adopted on 7 July 2023) [Internet].
London; 2023. Available from:
https://wwwcdn.imo.org/localresources/en/OurWork/En
vironment/Documents/annex/MEPC%2080/Annex%2015
.pdf
[7] Møhl P, Krause-Jensen J, Skårup B. Grøn Omstilling i det
Blå Danmark. Copenhagen: Aarhus Universitet; 2022 Jan
p. 58. Report No.: 3.
[8] Johnson H, Andersson K. Barriers to energy ef-ficiency in
shipping. WMU J Marit Aff. 2016 Apr;15(1):7996.
[9] Viktorelius M, Varvne H, von Knorring H. An overview
of sociotechnical research on mari-time energy
efficiency. WMU J Marit Aff [Inter-net]. 2022 Feb 3 [cited
2022 May 5]; Available from:
https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13437-022-00263-5
[10] Poulsen RT, Johnson H. The logic of business vs. the
logic of energy management practice: understanding the
choices and effects of ener-gy consumption monitoring
systems in ship-ping companies. J Clean Prod. 2016
Jan;112:378597.
[11] Poulsen RT, Sornn-Friese H. Achieving energy efficient
ship operations under third party management: How do
ship management models influence energy efficiency?
Res Transp Bus Manag. 2015 Dec;17:4152.
[12] Johnson H, Johansson M, Andersson K. Barri-ers to
improving energy efficiency in short sea shipping: an
action research case study. J Clean Prod. 2014
Mar;66:31727.
[13] Trianni A, Cagno E. Dealing with barriers to energy
efficiency and SMEs: Some empirical evidences. Energy.
2012 Jan;37(1):494504.
[14] Steffensen A, Torstensen P. Danish Shipping. 2021
[cited 2022 Apr 14]. Dansk skibsfart rykker plads ned.
Available from:
https://www.danishshipping.dk/presse/nyheder/dansk-
skibsfart-rykker-plads-ned
[15] DMA. Danish Maritime Authority. 2022 [cited 2022 Apr
30]. Det Blå Danmark. Available from:
https://www.soefartsstyrelsen.dk/vaekst-and-
rammevilkaar/maritim-erhvervspolitik/det-blaa-
danmark
[16] Braat J. Business Review. 2022 [cited 2022 Apr 29].
Made in Denmark - En maritim industri i verdensklasse.
Available from: https://businessreview.dk/transport-
logistik/made-in-denmark-en-maritim-industri-i-
verdensklasse/
[17] Gyldensten R. Ministry of Industry, Business, and
Financial Affairs. 2017 [cited 2022 Apr 14]. New political
agreement will strengthen Danish businesses. Available
from: https://eng.em.dk/news/2017/november/new-
political-agreement-will-strengthen-danish-businesses/
[18] Vesterlykke S. www.danishshipping.dk. 2019 [cited
2021 Sep 14]. Ny maritim forsknings- og
innovationsstrategi. Available from:
https://www.danishshipping.dk/presse/nyheder/ny-
maritim-forsknings-og-innovationsstrategi/
[19] Don’t Look Up [Internet]. Netflix; 2021. Avail-able
from: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11286314/
[20] Man Y, Lundh M, MacKinnon SN. Facing the New
Technology Landscape in the Maritime Domain:
Knowledge Mobilisation, Networks and Management in
Human-Machine Collab-oration. Stanton N, editor. Adv
Hum Asp Transp. 2019;786:23142.
[21] Feenberg A. Technosystem: the social life of reason.
Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard university press; 2017.
[22] Winner L. The whale and the reactor: a search for limits
in an age of high technology. Na-chdr. Chicago: Univ. of
Chicago Press; 2001. 200 p.
[23] Sunderland PL, Denny RMT. Anthropologists and
Anthropology in Consumer Research. In: Doing
anthropology in consumer research. Walnut Creek, CA:
Left Coast Press; 2007.
[24] Eriksen TH. Fieldwork and Ethnography. In: Small
places, large issues: an introduction to social and
cultural anthropology [Internet]. 3rd ed. London: Pluto;
2010 [cited 2022 May 6]. p. 2743. Available from:
http://www.dawsonera.com/depp/reader/protected/exte
rnal/AbstractView/S9781849645676
[25] Marcus GE. Ethnography in/of the World Sys-tem: The
Emergence of Multi-Sited Ethnogra-phy. Annu Rev
Anthropol. 1995;24:24.
[26] Hyysalo S, Jensen TE, Oudshoorn N, editors. The new
production of users: changing inno-vation collectives
and involvement strategies. London New York:
Routledge; 2016. 339 p. (Routledge studies in innovation,
organiza-tion, and technology).
[27] Oudshoorn N, Pinch T, editors. Introduction - How
Users and Non-Users Matter. In: How users matter: the
co-construction of users and technologies. Cambridge,
Mass: MIT Press; 2003. (Inside technology).
[28] Woolgar S. Configuring the User: The Case of Usability
Trials. Sociol Rev. 1990 May;38(1):5899.
[29] Børsen T, Botin L, editors. What is techno-
anthropology? 1st ed. Aalborg, Denmark: Aal-borg
University Press; 2013. 483 p. (Series in transformational
studies).
[30] Büscher M, Slack R, Rouncefield M, Procter R,
Hartswood M, Voss A, editors. Configuring User-
Designer Relations [Internet]. London: Springer London;
2009 [cited 2022 May 8]. (Computer Supported
Cooperative Work). Available from:
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-1-84628-925-5
[31] Grech MR, Lemon N. Human Centred Design for
Enhanced Navigation Systems: Shifting the Focus on
User Needs. 2015;13.
[32] Cambridge University Press.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/. 2021 [cited 2021 Jul
12]. Cambridge University Press. Available from:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/auto
mation
[33] Eriksen S, Utne IB, Lützen M. An RCM ap-proach for
assessing reliability challenges and maintenance needs
of unmanned cargo ships. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 2021
Jun;210:107550.
[34] RINA. Royal Institution of Naval Architects. 2018 [cited
2022 Apr 14]. “More than just Maersk”: Denmark stakes
its. Available from:
https://www.rina.org.uk/More_than_just_Maersk.html
640
[35] Ljung M, Lützhöft M. Functions, performances and
perceptions of work on ships. WMU J Ma-rit Aff. 2014
Oct;13(2):23150.
[36] AGCS. Allianz Global Corporate & Speciality Safety
and Shipping Review 2017. Cardiff University; 2017. (An
insurer’s perspective).
[37] Rothblum AM. Human Error and Marine Safe-ty. US
Coast Guard Res Dev Cent. 2011;9.
[38] Eriksen S. On-board Human Operators: Liabil-ities or
Assets? 2020;13.
[39] Krause-Jensen J, Hansen S, Skårup B.
Robotten/teknologien som “kollega.” Copen-hagen:
Aarhus Universitet; 2020 p. 62. Report No.: 1.
[40] Hancock PA, Jagacinski RJ, Parasuraman R, Wickens
CD, Wilson GF, Kaber DB. Human-Automation
Interaction Research: Past, Pre-sent, and Future. Ergon
Des Q Hum Factors Appl. 2013 Apr;21(2):914.
[41] Kristensen RG. Socio-technical configurations in Blue
Denmark. Copenhagen: Aalborg Uni-versitet; 2022 Jan
[42] Lundh M, Rydstedt LW. A static organization in a
dynamic context A qualitative study of changes in
working conditions for Swedish engine officers. Appl
Ergon. 2016 Jul;55:17.
[43] Froholdt LL. Getting closer to context: a case study of
communication between ship and shore in an
emergency situation. Text Talk - In-terdiscip J Lang
Discourse Commun Stud. 2010 Jan;30(4):385402.
[44] ShippingLab. ShippingLab. 2022 [cited 2022 Jun 4].
ShippingLab. Available from:
https://shippinglab.dk/about/
[45] Hong S. [Sunbae Hong, MOF] Global Maritime Digital
Clusters & GMDRT (Global Maritime Digital Route)
[Internet]. Conference Presenta-tion presented at:
Digital@Sea Asia Pacific; 2021 Sep 9 [cited 2022 Apr 15];
Sejong Conven-tion Center. Available from:
http://digitalsea-ap.org/p4/c4/
[46] Kristensen, Rasmus Gammelby. A Democratic
Intervention in Blue Denmark: A Call for Neu-tral
Transdisciplinary Facilitation and Bridge-Building
across Disciplines to Enhance the Possibility of a Future
Capable of Sustaining Human Lives. [Master thesis].
Aalborg Univer-sity, 2022.
.