587
1 INTRODUCTION
From a transportation perspective, Sweden is an
island, relying heavily on sea transport services. In
2015,26millionpassengers were transportedto and
fromSwedishports,whichrepresents74%ofallport
calls. Despite the global economic recession,
passengertraffictoand from Sweden, especially the
numbersof
cruiseliners, hassteadilyincreasedover
the past decade [1]. Through the past 60 years, the
constantgrowthofpassengershippinghasledtothe
developmentofawidevarietyofspecializedvessels,
reaching from commuter ferries to cruise liners that
provide a full vacation experience including hotel
services, entertainment,
shops etc. In comparison to
othersegmentsofthemaritimedomain,cruiseliners
areslightly different as the businessisfocusedon a
directinteractionwithcustomers,andcompetitorsare
notonlytobefoundinshipping,butalsointhehotel
andtourismbusinessashore[2].
Theso‐calledBaltic
Ferriesrepresentaspecialized
typeofpassengervesselcommonwithinEuropeand
especially around the Baltic Sea. Baltic ferries
generally provide full hotel service and
entertainment,but,unlikecruiseships,theyalsooffer
roll‐on roll‐off cargo services – so called RoPax
vessels [2]. Compared to many international cruise
ships, the working conditions on these Swedish
controlledRoPaxvesselsdiffer.Commonly,thecrew
are onboard for 1‐2 weeks, rather than several
months, many are employed on a permanent 1:1
contractthatallowsforoneweekpayedleaveforone
weekworkedonboard.Swedishflaggedvesselsare
alsocovered
bytheSwedishWorkEnvironmentAct
(AML),whichinmanyrespectsismorestringentthan
IMOrules.Forexample,theAMLdemandsthatthe
Strategies and Measures to Improve the Work
Environment of Service Crew on Board Swedish
Passenger Vessels
G.Praetorius,C.Österman&C.Hult
KalmarMaritimeAcademy,LinnaeusUniversity,Sweden
ABSTRACT:Thispaperpresentsfindingsfromthreeworkshopsfocusedonthephysical,organizationaland
social work environment of service crew working on board Swedish passenger vessels. The first workshop
aimedtoidentifyunderlyingcausesoflong‐termsickleaveamongemployeesintheservicedepartment,
and
potentialmeasuresthatcanbetakentoreduceill‐health.Thesecondandthirdworkshopexploredknowledge
ofavailablemethodstoidentifyoccupationalsafetyandhealthrisks,andsuggesthealth‐promotionstrategies
atindividual,teamandcompanylevels.Atotalof58personsfromtheSwedishmaritimeclusterparticipated
in
theworkshops.Duringtheworkshops,openandstructuredbrainstormingwasusedtocreateaffinitydiagrams
tosystematicallysummarizetheidentifiedcauses,risksandstrategies.Althoughtheresultspresentedinthis
article stem from a research project focused on Swedish passenger vessels, many of the findings may be
transferable to an
international maritime setting towards a deeper understanding of seafarers’ work
environmentandworkingconditions.
http://www.transnav.eu
the International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 12
Number 3
September 2018
DOI:10.12716/1001.12.03.19
588
crew are given the possibility to influence their
working conditions and participate actively in the
systematicworkenvironmentmanagement.
Although the service department on board a
passengershipisthe largest department in terms of
numberofemployees–inSwedentheyrepresentthe
largest share of seafarers in the
national register of
seafarers–thisgrouphasnotreceivedmuchattention
in research yet. The large body of research on
maritime work environment has focused mainly on
the deck and engineering departments [e.g. 3, 4, 5].
Publications with a specific focus on the service
department’sworkenvironmentarerare
andmostly
focusoncruiselinersfroma morebusiness‐oriented
perspective, addressing the impact of employee
satisfaction and motivation on customer satisfaction
[e.g. 6, 7]. Other research in the cruise liner domain
has among others addressed occupational
communities [8], work perceptions [9] and working
and living conditions onboard [10]. A
wider
perspectiveisneededwheninvestigatingcausesofill
health and possible measures towards improved
workandlivingconditionsforallseafarers.
Recently, two studies that address the service
department onboard of Swedish passenger vessels
have been published. Forsell et al. [11] found
indicationsofworkenvironmentproblemsassociated
with
noise exposure and heavy workload on neck,
back and arms. Ljung and Oudhuis [12] primarily
focusedonthesafetyperceptionsofemployeesinthe
service department. However, they also discuss the
increased need for flexibility among the service
department’s employees because of a constantly
decreasing number of crew, as well as
temporary
work contracts and economic pressure on the
business.
Toaddtotheknowledgebase,thispaperpresents
findingsfromaseriesofworkshopsfocusingonthe
work environment and work‐related health in the
service department on board Swedish passenger
vessels.Theworkshopswereheldaspartofa
larger
research project analysing work‐related experiences
based on interviews, observations, survey data and
socialinsurancestatisticsconcerningsickleavelonger
than 60 days [13]. The project was conducted in
cooperationbetweenresearchersatKalmarMaritime
Academy, Linnaeus University and the Swedish
Social Insurance Agency for Seafarers
(Försäkringskassan Sjöfart). The project
was split in
twoparts,onepartfocusing ontheanalysisofseveral
data sources and one focused on disseminating
project results to employees in shipping companies,
regulators and other professionals in the maritime
domain.
Specifically,theaimoftheworkshopsreportedin
thispaperwastoi)identifyunderlying
causesinthe
physical,organizationalandsocialworkenvironment
that can cause work‐related long‐term sick leave
among employees in the service department; ii)
suggest methods on how to identify and assess
occupational safety and health risks within the
systematic work environment management, before
they lead to ill‐health; and
iii) suggest appropriate
health‐promotion strategies at individual, team and
companylevel.
2 METHODSANDPROCEDURE
Three workshops were conducted, based on a
participatory ergonomics approach. Participatory
ergonomics is concerned with including workers’
feedback in the design, evaluation and development
ofworksystemsandprocesses[e.g.14,15].Thus,the
workshop attendees took an active role in the
identification of underlying causes and occupational
risks, as well as in the development of tools and
strategiestopromotehealthy,safeandefficientwork
environmentsonboard.
ThefirstworkshopwasheldinOctober2016and
focused on identifying underlying causes for the
increasing
number of long‐term sick leave in the
service department. It served as a validation
workshop for data from insurance statistics, a
questionnaire, interviews and several onboard visits
[13].
ThesecondandthirdworkshopwereheldinApril
2018andaimedtodisseminatethestudy’sresults,as
well as to
motivate the participants to develop risk
mitigating and health‐promotion strategies for the
physicalandsocialworkenvironment,aswellasfor
theorganizationofworkprocessesonboard.
2.1 Participants
2.1.1 Workshop1
Twenty‐eight representatives from the Swedish
maritime cluster participated in the first workshop
that were held in Stockholm.
The participants
represented a wide variety of organizations: six
shipping companies were represented (n = 17), the
Mercantile Marine Foundation (n =4), SEKO
Seafarers’Union(n=2),theSwedishConfederationof
Transport Enterprises (n=2), the Maritime Officers’
Association(n=1)andtheSwedishTransportAgency
(n=2). The participants further represented
a variety
offunctionswithintheirorganizationsreachingfrom
ManagingDirectorandHRrepresentatives,tosafety
delegates, healthcare and service personnel working
onboard.
2.1.2 Workshop2
Nineteen participants attended the second
workshop in Stockholm. Of these, three had
previously attended the first workshop. The
participants represented four different shipping
companies(n
=13),theSwedishTransportAgency(n
=1),SEKOSeafarers’Union(n=2)andtheSwedish
Maritime Joint Work Environment Council (n=2). In
addition, two Master students currently conducting
thesisworkaboutoccupationalaccidentsandinjuries
on board Swedish merchant vessels participated in
the workshop. The participants from
shipping
companiesrepresentedawidevarietyofshore‐based
andonboardfunctions.
2.1.3 Workshop3
Thirteen people participated at the third and last
workshop that was held in Gothenburg. The
participants represented four different shipping
589
companies(n=9),theSEKOSeafarers’Union(n=1),
the Swedish Shipping Gazette (n=1), Swedish
Transport Agency (n=1) and the Maritime Officers’
Association(n=1).
2.2 AffinityDiagram
AllthreeworkshopsappliedtheAffinityDiagram,or
KJmethod.ThismethodwasdevelopedbyKawakita
Jiro as a method to systematically organize
large
amounts of data derived through brainstorming to
reveal connections and underlying relationships
between ideas [16]. The KJ‐Method has been widely
used in quality management [17], but has also been
recognizedasaneffectivetoolwithinusabilitytesting
andidentifyinguserneedsandrequirements[18].
An affinity diagram is
built bottom‐up, which
means that relationships and connections are
developed based on a wide range of ideas and
concepts. The first step is a brainstorming activity,
whereallideasarenoteddown.Eachideaisputonto
a single sticky note. In a second step the ideas are
discussedand
orderedintocategories.Inathirdstep
the connections between ideas and categories are
developed through discussion. This can also mean
thatnewrelationshipsemergeandnewconceptsare
builtbasedonthediscussion[16].
Whilethefirstworkshopaimedtoidentifycertain
aspects associated with causes and countermeasures
for
long‐term sick leaves, the second and third
workshopalsofocusedonparticipantslearningtheKJ
method so that they would be able to continue to
develop strategies for the design of the physical,
organizational and social work environment in their
ownworksettings.
2.3 Workshopprocedures
Prior to each workshop,
all participants received a
shortsummaryoftheworkshop’stopicandtheday’s
schedule.Further,eachworkshopstartedwithashort
introductiontotheresearchproject’sbackground, its
aim and results obtained through interviews,
observations, statistics and the survey. Further, the
focus of the workshop was presented and what
would
be expected of the participants, including
information about anonymity, confidentiality and
informedconsent.
2.3.1 Procedureatworkshop1
The workshop was divided into four main
sessions;onesessionforidentifyingandcategorizing
potentialcausesforlong‐termsickleave,followedby
threesessionsforspecifyingtheidentifiedcausesand
measures and
how they relate to the physical,
organizational, or social work environment. Each
session started out by a short presentation of the
currenttopicandwasfollowedbyajointdiscussion.
The sessions lasted about 40 minutes to one hour
each.
Beforethefirstsession,theparticipantswereasked
tobrainstorm
withthehelpofstickynotes.Theywere
asked to individually write down their opinion of
which underlying causes could be related to the
increased long‐term sick leave within the service
departmentonpassengervessels.Inconjunctionwith
thecauses,theparticipantswerepromptedtoidentify
onetotwopotential
measuresforthecausestheyhad
identified.After10minutes,theparticipantsputtheir
stickynotesonawallforalltosee.
The first session focused on discussing and
grouping the potential causes for long‐term sick
leave.Thesecondtofourthsessionswerefocusedon
countermeasures within the
physical, social and
organizational work environment. The discussions
wereledbyamoderatorwhomodifiedthegrouping
ofstickynotesandaddednewconcepts,ifmentioned
in plenary. The participants were asked to confirm
each modification to ensure that the developing
affinity diagram still matched the intent uttered as
partof
thediscussion.
As an outcome of the workshop, an affinity
diagram grouping potential measures to long‐term
sick leave was created in plenary with the
participants. To increase the overall credibility and
transferabilityoftheworkshop’soutcome,theresults
were compiled and sent to the participants for as a
means
ofexpertauditing[19,20].
2.4 Procedureatworkshop2and3
Workshop 2 and 3 followed the same procedure.
Upon arrival, the participants were assigned to
groups of 3‐6 people with the aim to avoid
representatives from the same organization or
companyworkingtogetherduringtheworkshop.
The workshops
were divided into three separate
sessions of approximately 30‐40 minutes each. The
sessions each focused on one of the following
questions:
1 Whichmethods/indicatorscanbeusedtoidentify
risksforlong‐termsickleaves?
2 What risk reducing measures can be used on an
individual,team,andthe
company‐level?
3 How can health‐promoting factors in the work
environmentbestrengthenedtopromoteworkers’
well‐being?
Thesessionsstartedwithabriefintroductionand
apresentationofthecurrentquestiontodiscuss.The
questionwasdisplayedonscreeninthegroups’sight
sothatallparticipantscouldre
‐readitwhileworking
withit.Aftertheintroduction,thegroupswereasked
to brainstorm for 10‐15 minutes. To obtain a wide
spread of ideas, each group was assigned a certain
area, either physical, organizational or social work
environment to provide a focus for the brain
storming.Tostructure
thebrainstormingfurther,the
participantswerealsoaskedtoassignthecategories
individual,work team, shippingcompany, or others
to each aspect that was identified during the
brainstorming.
After15minuteseachgrouppresentedtheirsticky
notesinplenaryandpostedthemon a board in the
centre of the room.
After all groups had presented
theirresults,thenoteswereorderedthroughagroup
discussion, to create a joint affinity diagram to
uncover relationships among what had been
identified (see example in Figure 1). After the
workshop, the affinity diagrams created were
590
digitalizedasmindmapandsenttotheparticipants
to provide an opportunity to comment and validate
theresults.
3 RESULTS
The following section presents a summary of the
results from the workshop with an emphasis of the
resultsobtainedduringworkshop2and3.Adetailed
description of the
outcome of workshop 1 can be
foundin[21].
3.1 Resultsfromworkshop1
Workshop 1 focused on discussing the underlying
causes of and potential countermeasures for long‐
term sick leaves among employees in the service
department. Causes and measures were split into
three categories; physical, organizational and social
work
environment.
3.1.1 Physicalworkenvironment
Causes for long ‐term absences were said to be
mainlyrelatedtothephysicalworkandthedesignof
workspaces and equipment. Many work tasks
performed by the service personnel imply a high
physical load, leading to an increased risk of
musculoskeletal disorders. It was
specifically
emphasizedthatsomesourcesofphysicalload,such
as weight of glasses and plates, might go unnoticed
bythosemakingdecisionsabouttablewareonboard.
Often,thedifferencebetweenacertainglassorplate
designisjustafewgrams.However,theaggregated
weight to be handled by the staff can
easily lead to
this difference increasing to a considerable weight
considering the large numbers of guests that are
served during a shift. Further, the design of
workspaces is not always properly adapted to the
work as it is performed. Workspaces may be very
narrow, making certain areas hard to reach
and
hindering the use of supportive equipment, such as
servingcartsintherestaurant.Inaddition,noiseand
vibrationscausedbyamovingworkenvironmentat
seawereidentifiedasaggravatingtheeffectsofheavy
loadandjointexposure.
Countermeasurestoreducetheriskforsickleaves
corresponded to the design
of workspaces, working
techniques and health promoting measures. The
participants felt that end‐user involvement in the
(re)design of workspaces and work stations could
significantly contribute to an improved work
environment. It is believed that the knowledge and
experience of those working onboard can be a rich
source of information
for designers and naval
architects. Furthermore, providing personal
protective equipment, such as shoes to dampen the
vibrations, and reduce the risk for slips, trips and
falls, as well as training courses in working
techniques could also contribute to improved health
amongtheemployees.Lastly,moretimesetasidefor
a thorough
introduction to the workplace and
increasedrotationwerementioned.
3.1.2 Organizationalworkenvironment
Within the organizational work environment,
underlying causes for long‐term absences were
associated to aspects of leadership and organization
ofwork.Theparticipantspointedoutthattheremight
be a lack of knowledge on how to support
and
managestaffintheirwork,aswellasalackofclear
organizationalstructureswith salient responsibilities
assigned to team leaders. Furthermore, too little, or
suboptimal manning, time pressure, long working
hours and monotonous tasks were highlighted as
causesofill‐health.
To counterbalance the identified causes, the
participants pointed
out that clear communication
within the company, a better cooperation between
onboard and shore‐based personnel, as well as a
focused recruitment strategy offering career
advancements to the staff are prerequisites for a
healthyworkenvironment. Especiallyorganizational
changesshouldbecommunicatedearlyandofferthe
opportunity to provide input
and feedback for the
staff.
Further, when team leaders or managers are
recruited internally, it is important that they are
provided with adequate leadership training and
support to ensure that they have knowledge and
understandingoftheresponsibilitiesthatfollowwith
the assignment and to develop their management
skills.
Figure1. Example of an affinity diagram under development during workshop 2 illustrating causes of ill‐health and
potentialmeasuresthatcanbetakenatindividual,teamandcompanylevels.
591
Crew size and organization of work were also
highlighted as an area that could significantly
contributetoreduce long‐term sick leave. Suggested
measures were mainly directed towards offering
moreflexibleworkinghours,increasedmanningand
betteremploymentsecurity.
3.1.3 Socialworkenvironment
When discussing factors within the social work
environment, lack of identity and recognition as
seafarerwasidentifiedasacrucialcontributingfactor.
Although the service department on board a
passengervesselisthelargestintermsofnumberof
employees,theemployeesarenotalwaysrecognized
as seafarers by other crew members. Consequently,
there might be friction
between the service
department,andtheengineordeckcrew.Thismight
resultinanegative‘usandthem‐feeling’,as statedby
one of the workshop participants. Measures to
encourage a collective identity focused on joint
seminars or training, as well as activities across the
departments on board to
increase the mutual
understanding for each other’s work and work
identity,aswellascreatingafeelingofbelongingto
thesameteam/crew.
3.2 Resultsfromworkshop2and3
The following section summarize the findings from
workshop2and3.
3.2.1 Identificationofrisks
Theresultsfromworkshop2
and3showthateven
iftheparticipantsdisplayedsomepracticalexperience
of assessing work environment risks, available
methodsandtoolsforthisarenotwellknown.Hence,
theworkshopdiscussions duringthissessionwasat
first hesitant and resulted in few notes on the wall.
The participants could agree on
various indicators
and sources of information, but few tools to assist
when doing a risk assessment. One of the few
established methods for risk assessments that were
mentioned during the discussion was the Rapid
Upper Limb Assessment (RULA) method for
assessing musculoskeltal risks [22]. The RULA had
been used by
two safety delegates working in a
restaurantonboardtoassessthephysicalloadonthe
upperbodywhenservingfood.
Figure 2 provides an overview of the identified
indicators and sources of information that may be
usefulwhenperforming a riskassessmenttocapture
an increased risk for sick leave.
The indicators are
categorizedatindividual,teamandcompanylevel.
Atanindividuallevel,mostoftheindicatorsand
information sources are related to the individual
worker in the work settings, thus emphasizing the
importance of managers and colleagues to be
attentivetochangesinacolleague’s behaviour.
Figure2.Overviewofindicatorsandsourcesofinformation
toidentifyrisksforlong‐termsickleave.
Attheteamlevel,emphasizeisplacedonmanning
and the need for both adequate number of people,
compositionofcompetences,anda close monitoring
ofworkprocedures.Especiallyso‐calledcombination
shifts, where an employee rotate between work
stationswithlittleornotimeforrecovery.
Lackof,orpoorly
designedworkplaceinductions,
procedures and checklists, and a poor overall social
climatewithworkplaceconflictsorbullying,indicate
potentialrisksandneedsinthesocial,organizational
and physical work environment. At company level,
theworkshopparticipantsforemostemphasizedthat
a close monitoring of statistics concerning both sick
leave (short and
long‐term), as well as occupational
accidents and incidents can help to identify risks in
theworkenvironment.Furthermore,surveys,suchas
employee climate measurements, and analysis of
employee turnover can be effective tools for the HR
department to gain an overview of working
conditionsonboard,aswellasinsightsinto
potential
reasons for changes in the number of sick leaves
amongtheemployees.
3.2.2 Riskmitigatingmeasures
In the second part of the workshop, the
participants were asked to suggest measures to
mitigate or decrease the risks for long‐term sick
leaveleave (summarized in Figure 3). At individual
level, the
participants emphasized the need for
supportive work equipment and personal protective
equipment. Further, the individual responsibility to
follow procedures and routines at work and report
when routines are not functioning as planned. The
workshopparticipantsalsostatedthatitisthedutyof
the employees to foster and participate in an
open
and active exchange of knowledge and expertise
betweencolleagues.
At team level, many of the suggested mitigation
measures were similar to those identified during
workshop 1. The organization of work, including
clearprocedures,responsibilities,workdemandsand
instructionsareseenasnecessarypreconditionsfora
safe work environment. Furthermore,
employees
need to be supported by their manager, which also
includesregularfeedback,anopendialoguebetween
managerandemployees,aswellastheopportunityto
holdteammeetings.Specificallyhighlightedat team
levelwasthepossibilitytoraiseconcernsaboutwork
environment issues with the local safety delegates
andwhen
necessarytothesafetycommitteeonboard.
592
Figure3. Identifiedriskmitigation measuresatindividual,
teamandcompanylevels.
Safety delegates were seen as important partners
in the systematic work environment management
towardssustainable work environments, and the
company should enable an effective cooperation
between managers, safety delegates and employees.
Thisalsoincludethatthesafteydelegatesparticipate
in regular risk assessments of work tasks, and that
riskassessmentprotocols
aredevelopedtofacitiliate
assessments and follow‐up that proper actions are
taken.
To counteract workplace bullying, victimization
and a development of a negative social climate, the
workshop participants emphasized the need for
establishing and maintaining good working
relationships,whereteammembersinworktea ms,as
wellasinthe
crewasawhole,supporteachother.It
is important that the company has policies and
routines in place to identify potential risks in this
respect at an early stage, and make sure that any
wrong‐doingscanbereportedandinvestigated.
3.2.3 Health‐promotionstrategies
Inthefinalpartof
theworkshop,theparticipants
wereaskedtoidentifywaysofpromotinghealthyand
sustainable work environments. An overview of the
identified aspects is depicted in Figure 4. At
individual level, the participants once more
emphasized the responsibility of the employees to
take charge of their working conditions. It is
important
to clearly communicate needs and
demands with regards to work tasks and
preconditions, especially highlighting positive
examples in the daily work, but also being able to
clearly draw boundaries for their own work.
According to the participants, being an employee
means both to be loyal, but also to protect oneself
with
an emphasis on the fact that not all work
conditions need to be accepted. Especially time to
recoverandrestbetweenshiftswasseenasimportant
to promote well‐being on a physical and
psychologicallevel.Inaddition,asworkisconducted
in teams, sensitivity towards co‐workers was
identified
as being of outmost importance so that
situationswereacolleaguemayneedextrasupportis
recognized.
The second level of health‐promotion strategies
was identified as related to the work team, the
department and the vessel as a whole. The
participants highlighted that there should a some
kind of activity
and task mapping to identify those
tasksthatareexperiencedasparticularlydemanding,
either in a physical or psychological way. These
demanding tasks should be distributed equally
amongtheemployees,aswellaspositivefeedbackto
supportandencourageemployeesduringparticularly
stressful situations. Again, clear leadership structure
and communication
within and across departments
onboard were named as preconditions for a healthy
workenvironment,aswellasroomforteambuilding
activities within and across departments.
Participationinworkmeetingsandsafety committees
shouldalsobeencouraged,astheseposecornerstones
to workplace and work task design based on risk
assessmentsand
safetyrounds.
Figure4. Identified health‐promotion strategies at
individual,teamandcompanylevels.
With regards to the company level, the
participants stated that clear policies, goals, values
and norms for the work onboard and within the
company constitute the frame for a healthy and
sustainableworkenvironment.Employeesshouldfeel
valued and structures to provide feedback, career
opportunitiesandencouragepersonaldevelopment.
Furthermore,
work materials and tasks should be
reviewedonaregularbasistoensurethatemployees
are not exposed to unncessary risks and that
supportive equipment is availableto ease the
physical and mental load at work. This includes the
need to keep a knowledge bank with updated
information on research
concerning ergonomics and
work environment design to promote a closer
cooperation between ship and shore in workplace‐
andorganizationaldesign.
4 DISCUSSION
Thethreeworkshopswereconductedwiththeaimto
provide a deeper insight in how to promote and
create sustainable and healthy work environments
onboard Swedish passenger vessels, as
seen by the
people closest to the workplace. A wide variety of
representatives from the Swedish shipping cluster
participated in the three events. Through a
participativeapproach,theparticipantswereactively
engaged in uncovering important relationships
amongaspectsthatrelatetothe physical, social and
organizational work environment, and the
way in
whichthesemightcauseorcounteracttheincreasing
numberoflong‐termsickleaveamongemployeesin
the service department onboard Swedish registered
passengervessels.
593
Theresultspresentedanddiscussedinthispaper
is part of a larger research project and it is duly
acknowledged that a synthesis of the results of the
entire project show that employee health and job
motivation is influenced by myria d of complex and
interrelated factors [13]. Hence, it is
necessary to
adopt a systems perspective when designing and
organizing work to avoid sub‐optimizations and
createsafe,efficientandhealthworkenvironments.
Within the physical work environment many of
the underlying causes, risks and risk mitigation
measures were related to the workspace design and
the overall lack of ergonomic
design onboard. Long
workinghoursandexposureofthebodytoaheavy
physicalworkloadcharacterizetheworkonboardthe
Baltic ferries. Narrow spaces, exposure to ship
movements and vibrations, as well as the lack of
supportive equipment, such as serving carts or
protective shoes, were some of the factors
that
additionallycontributetolong‐termsickleaveofthe
personnelintheservicedepartment.Furthermore,the
overalllimitedknowledgeonworkplace ergonomics
andhowtointegratethatintothedailyworkroutines
werealsohighlightedascontributingtothenegative
effectsonthephysicalhealthoftheemployees.
Further,
manyofthecausesoflong‐termsickleave
capturedbytheworkshopparticipantsarerelatedto
high levels of job demands, performed with limited
decisionlatitude,acombinationwellknowntocause
stress related ill‐health [23]. The adaption to a
continuousinfluxofnewcolleaguesandtheforming
of
interpersonal relationships can be a significant
stressor[24].
Theworkandlivingenvironmentonboardaship
has a high incidence of physical and psychosocial
stressors that can affect the individual seafarer, and
especiallysofortheservicedepartmentthatperforms
onanarenawheretheirworkisconstantlyevaluated,
and sometimes commented upon, by the guests.
These results confirm some of the perceptions
highlightedbyDennettetalintheirstudy ofthework
undertaken by the service personnel on cruise ships
[9] They identified five main metaphors that the
personnel used in their relation to their occupation;
beinga
slave,anactor,acarer,atacticianandarobot.
Especially the metaphor of actor is easily associated
withtheworkenvironmentintheservicedepartment.
Sincetheyareindirectcontactwiththeguests,itcan
be experienced that they are performing on stage
duringworkinghours,duringwhich
theirprojection
ofmotivationandjobsatisfactionmaydirectlyaffect
theguests’experience.
Theresultsclearlyshowthatthereisawiderange
ofcausesthatcanbeassociatedtofinancialpressures
within the maritime domain. However, many of the
potentialmeasuresneednottocomeatacost.Rather,
improved
structures for cooperation between ship
andshore,andbetweendepartmentsandworkerson
board are likely to have a positive impact on both
individual and overall performance and reduce the
risks for accidents and ill‐health, as illustrated for
instance by [25]. Similarly, the benefits of involving
the crew as
end‐users in purchase, design and
development processes of new work systems,
workspacesandequipmentarewell established also
withinthemaritimedomain,seeforinstance[26‐28].
Thecrewcanbringimportantanduniquecontextual
knowledge about processes, tasks, equipment and
potential risks into the development process that
navalarchitects,
interiordesignersorcontrolleratthe
technicalorpurchasingdepartments generally lacks.
This knowledge of how the work is actually done
contribute to the quality of the end‐result, but also
towards an increased acceptance of the outcome. A
participatoryapproachwithintheworkenvironment
management has been demonstrated to
create
ownershipandestablishcommitmenttoagreed‐upon
solutions, more rapid implementation of workplace
changes, and increased learning within the
organization[29,30].
A participatory approach is also needed when
identifying and assessing risks in the physical,
organizationalandsocialworkenvironment.Despite
theplethoraofmethodsandtoolsthatare
available,
often free of cost, to facilitate work place risk
assessments, these are not well known among the
participants. Rather, there seem to be an ad‐hoc
retrospective approach to occupational risks.
Knowledge and application of appropriate tools
would allow managers, employees and safety
delegatestodomorewithless
resourcesandresultin
more comprehensive assessments of better quality
[31].
Asreflected in the health promotion strategies at
individual, team and company levels, a systems
approach to the design of workspaces and work
procedures[32]onboardmightofferanopportunity
toincreasebothwell‐beingandjobsatisfactionof
the
personnel in the service departments, but also the
overall system performance. To be able to do a job
well requires a good fit between an employee’s
physical capabilities, workspace and organizational
environment.Ifalreadyconsideredduringthedesign
stage, end‐user requirements for increased
workability and safety of operation
can be
incorporated, often even at a lower cost. By
understanding work from the perspective of the
employees,shippingcompaniesmaygaininsightson
theoverallworksituationandmay understandhow
variousactivitiesandteamsintheservicedepartment
interact and engage to achieve the common goal of
providinghigh
qualityservicetotheguestsonboard.
While such a systems approach might seem
expensiveatafirstglance,itcan be argued that the
implementation of a human factors approach has
potentialfinancialbenefitstothecompany.Asargued
by for instance [33], the application of a human
factors
approach,includingasystemsperspectiveand
end‐user engagement in design, may have a
multitude of positive effects for a company such as
improved physical, psychological and social well‐
being, as well as a higher degree of motivation,
growth and job satisfaction leading to an overall
improvedperformance.
Naturally, several workshop
participants raised
questions about work‐life balance and the impact of
life at home on the health and well‐being of an
employee. It is inevitable that the private arena will
have affect the professional arena as well, but these
questionsareoutsidethescopeofthisstudy.Tosome
extent,thishasbeenexploredin[34]thatinvestigates
seafarers job commitment in light of gender and
594
family situation. Beyond a moral and ethical
responsibility,anemployerhasnoobligationtowards
an employee’s personal and family issues. More
researchisneededtoaddressandexplorethetopicof
work‐lifebalanceforactiveseafarersinthemerchant
fleettoget a deeperunderstandingforhowlifeand
lifestyle at home are connected to an employees’
abilitytoworkandwell‐being.
Furthermore, one of the core outputs of the
workshopaddressedthe needformoretrainingand
education.However,itwasneverspecifiedin, greater
detail, what type of training is needed and if the
needsfor
certaineducation,e.g.coursesinleadership,
addresses a more global concept, or requires to be
adaptedtothespecificcircumstancesoflifeandwork
onboard.Thisshouldbeexploredfurther.
Overall, the results of this study illustrate how
knowledge of systematic work environment
managementintheoryandpracticecanbeused
asa
toolforemployeeandmanagementcollaboration,and
forachievingbenefitsinterms of reduced sick leave
and improved employee health, well‐being and job
satisfaction.
5 CONCLUSION
Theresearchworkinthispaperpresentshowpeople
working within Swedish passenger shipping view
factorsinthephysical,organizationaland
socialwork
environment of service crew on board passenger
vessels.Causesforlong‐termsickleaveweresaidto
be mainly related to the physical work environment
and poor design of workspaces and equipment,
leading to an increased risk of musculoskeletal
disorders.Suggestedmeasuresincludeaparticipatory
approach in the (re)design
of workspaces where
knowledgeandexperienceofthoseworkingonboard
is utilized in the design and development process.
Providing training in work technique, supportive
tools that reduce physical load, and personal
protectiveequipment,areothermeasuresmentioned
topreventill‐health.
Adverseconditionswithintheorganizationaland
social work environment,
were largely associated to
aspects of leadership and the organization of work.
Suggestions for preventive organizational measures
include allocating time for proper workplace
induction for new employees and designing work
schedulestoallowforsufficientmanning–innumber
andincompetence–andensureclearcommunication
structures within the company
and management
trainingtomanagersandteamleaders.
Theresultsalsodemonstratealackofknowledge
ofthetoolsandmethodsthatareavailable,oftenfree
of cost, to facilitate when doing risk assessments of
the physical, organizational and social work
environment.
Although these results stem from a research
project
focusedon Swedish passenger vessels,many
ofthefindingsmaybetransferabletoaninternational
maritime setting towards a deeper understanding of
seafarers’workenvironmentandworkingconditions.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to express their deepest
gratitude towards the financial support of the
SwedishMercantileMarineFoundationfortheproject
“Intendenturens arbetsmiljö på passagerarfartyg”.
Furthermore,wewouldliketothanktheparticipants
inourworkshops.Theirinputhasbeeninvaluablefor
ourresearch.
REFERENCES
[1]Trafikanalys,Sjötrafik2015.2016.
[2]Stopford, M., Maritime Economics. 2009, New York:
Routledge.
[3]Allen,P.,E.Wadsworth,andA.Smith,Thepreventionand
managementofseafarers’fatigue:a review.IntMaritHealth,
2007.58(14):p.167‐77.
[4]Kataria, A., et al., Exploring Bridge‐Engine Control Room
Collaborative Team Communication. TransNav‐the
International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety
ofSeaTransportation,2015.9(2):p.169‐176.
[5]Nielsen, M.B., K. Bergheim, and J. Eid, Relationships
betweenworkenvironmentfactorsandworkers’well‐beingin
themaritimeindustry.IntMaritHealth,2013.64(2):p.80‐
88.
[6]
Sehkaran,S.N.andD.Sevcikova,‘AllAboard’:Motivating
ServiceEmployeeson CruiseShips.Journal ofHospitality
andTourismManagement,2011.18(1):p.70‐78.
[7]Larsen,S.,E.Marnburg,andT.Øgaard,Workingonboard
– Job perception, organizational commitment and job
satisfaction in the cruise sector. Tourism Management,
2012.33
(3):p.592‐597.
[8]Lee‐Ross, D., Cruise Tourism and Organizational Culture:
The Case for Occupational Communities in Cruise Ship
Tourism,R.K.Dowling,Editor.2006,CABInternational:
Wallingford,UK.
[9]Dennett, A., et al., An investigation into hospitality cruise
ship work through the exploration of metaphors. Employee
Relations,2014.
36(5):p.480‐495.
[10]Gibson,P.,Cruisinginthe21stcentury:Whoworkswhile
others play? International Journal of Hospitality
Management,2008.27(1):p.42‐52.
[11]Forsell,K.,etal.,Workenvironmentandsafetyclimatein
the Swedish merchant fleet. International Archives of
OccupationalandEnvironmentalHealth,2017.
90(2):p.
161‐168.
[12]Ljung, M. and M. Oudhuis, Safety on Passenger Ferries
from Catering Staff’s Perspective. Social Sciences, 2016.
5(3):p.38.
[13]Hult, C., et al., OSH in the catering department. Work
environment, perception of work, motivation and sick‐leave
onboard passenger ships [In Swedish]. 2017,
Kalmar:
LinnaeusUniversity,KalmarMaritimeAcademy.
[14]Wilson,J.R.a.H.H.M.,ParticipatoryErgonomics.2006.
[15]Cervai, S. and F. Polo, The impact of a participatory
ergonomics intervention: the value of involvement.
TheoreticalIssuesinErgonomicsScience,2017:p.1‐19.
[16]Beyer,H.andK.Holtzblatt,Contextualdesign:defining
customer‐centered systems
. 1998: San Francisco, Calif. :
MorganKaufmannPublishers,cop.1998.
[17]Babbar, S., R. Behara, and E. White, Mapping product
usability. International Journal of Operations &
ProductionManagement,2002.22(10):p.1071‐1089.
[18]Kuniavsky, M., Observing the user experience. A
practitionerʹs guide to user research. 2003, San
Francisco:
ElsevierScience.560.
[19]Lützhöft,M.,J.M.Nyce,andE.S.Petersen,Epistemology
inethnography:Assessingthequalityofknowledgeinhuman
factorsresearch.TheoreticalIssuesinErgonomicsScience,
2010.11(6):p.532‐545.
595
[20]Fishman, D., The case for pragmatic psychology. 1999:
NYUPress.
[21]Praetorius, G., C. Osterman, and C. Hult, Underlying
CausesofandPotentialMeasurestoReduceLong‐termSick
LeaveAmongEmployeesintheServiceDepartment onBoard
Swedish Passenger Vessels, in: Weintrit A., Neumann T.
(Eds) Safety of
Sea Transportation. 2017, CRC Press/
Balkema.p.287‐293.
[22]McAtamney, L. and E. Nigel Corlett, RULA: a survey
method for the investigation of work‐related upper limb
disorders.AppliedErgonomics,1993.24(2):p.91‐99.
[23]Karasek, R. and T. Theorell, Healthy work: stress,
productivity, and the reconstruction
of working life. 1990,
NewYork:BasicBooks.381.
[24]Carter,T.,Workingatseaandpsychosocialhealthproblems
‐ Report of an International Maritime Health Association
Workshop.TravelMedicineandInfectiousDisease,2005.
3:p.61‐65.
[25]Grech,M.,T.Horberry,andT.Koester, Humanfactorsin
the
Maritime Domain.2008,BocaRaton,FL: CRC Press.
Taylor&FrancisGroup.
[26]Österman, C., C. Berlin, and L.‐O. Bligård, Involving
usersina shipbridgere‐design processusingscenariosand
mock‐up models. International Journal of Industrial
Ergonomics,2016. 53:p.236‐244.
[27]Costa,N.A.,E.
Holder,andS.MacKinnon,Implementing
human centred design in the context of a graphical user
interface redesign for ship manoeuvring. International
JournalofHuman‐ComputerStudies,2017.100:p.55‐65.
[28]Kataria, A., et al. Making the case for Crew‐Centered
Design (CCD) in merchant shipping. in 19th
Triennial
CongressoftheIEA.2015.Melbourne,Australia.
[29]Wilson,J.R.andH.M.Haines,ParticipatoryErgonomics,
in International Encyclopedia of Ergonomics and Human
Factors,W.Karwowski,Editor. 2001,CRCPress:London
andNewYork.p.1282‐1286.
[30]Vink, P., E.A.P. Koningsveld, and J.F. Molenbroek,
Positive outcomes of participatory
ergonomics in terms of
greater comfort and higher productivity. Applied
Ergonomics,2006. 37(4):p.537‐546.
[31]Lenhardt, U. and D. Beck, Prevalence and quality of
workplaceriskassessments– Findingsfroma representative
company survey in Germany. Safety Science, 2016. 86: p.
48‐56.
[32]Wilson, J.R., Fundamentals of
systems ergonomics/human
factors.AppliedErgonomics,2014.45:p.5‐13.
[33]Dul, J., et al., A strategy for human factors/ergonomics:
developingthedisciplineandprofession.Ergonomics,2012.
55(4):p.377‐395.
[34]Hult,C.andC.Österman,TheImpactofFamilyandJob
ContentonSwedishSeafarers’OccupationalCommitment–A
Gendered Issue? TransNav: International Journal on
Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation,
2016.10.
