269
1 INTRODUCTION
This discussion paper takes its departure in the
currentdevelopmenttowardsthefutureofshipping.
Itisbelievedthatterminologyandtimeframesneedto
beanalyzedinthelightofpossibilitiesandobstacles
for the transformation into the next generation of
maritime transport. The steppingstone is the belief
thattechnicaldevelopmentsanditsterminologyneed
to be kept in‐tuned with changing educational
demandsandorganizationalchanges.
The main arguments in the paper stem from
discussions in seminars, conferences, and several
interviews with industry‐related respondents. These
activities have all taken place within the research
projectAutonomyand
responsibility–Thehumanrolein
the future of shipping, financed by the Swedish
TransportAdministration.
1.1 Thebackground
In recent years, there has been an intense focus on
transforming maritime transport based on increased
automation and digitalization. The initiatives focus
primarily on the development of technical systems
thataim
tosupportsafetyandefficiencyinmaritime
transport where the ultimate outcome is often
describedasautonomousandunmannedvessels(e.g.
MUNINproject,2016;Rylander&Man,2016;WMU,
2019). Related projects have also addressed the
interaction between operators and advanced
technologiesonboardandashore(e.g.Porathe,2015;
Porathe&
Billesø,2015).Whathasbeenmissingupto
recently are analytical attempts to forecast the
organizational development and the role of human
operator in the future of maritime transport (c.f.
Rellingetal.,2018).
On the Future of Maritime Transport
–
Discussing
Terminology and Timeframes
C.Hult,G.Praetorius&C.Sandberg
KalmarMaritimeAcademy,LinnaeusUniversity,Sweden
ABSTRACT:Thispaperoffersananalyticaldiscussionontheterminologyandtimeframesrelatedto thefuture
ofshipping.ThediscussionisbasedonissuesthathavesurfacedwithintheSwedishresearchprojectAutonomy
and responsibility. The paper argues that the concept ‘autonomous ships’ has become
an indicator of that
seafarers soon will become obsolete – which may have negative consequences for the supply of maritime
competenceincomingyears‐andthattheproperdefinitionoftheterm‘autonomous’describessomethingthat
will never apply toa ship. Ships can be given the possibility, but hardly
the full right or condition of self‐
government. It is argued that ‘smartships’, or perhaps ‘intelligent ships’, are more appropriate, since these
termsdescribethecurrentandfuturestateoftechnologywithoutpredictinghowhumanswillprefertouseit.
Theestimatedtimeframesforimplementationofunmannedshipssuggestno
threattotheseafaringoccupation
forcominggeneration.Thecontentoftheoccupationwillofcoursechangeduetothephaseofimplementation
ofdegreeofdigitalization,buttherewillalwaysbeaneedformaritimeknowledgeandunderstanding.
http://www.transnav.eu
the International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 13
Number 2
June 2019
DOI:10.12716/1001.13.02.01
270
From a historical point of view, the technical
developmentinshippinghasresultedinsomemajor
changes in organization, competence requirements,
and in the preconditions for professional motivation
andidentification.Oneexampleisthetransitionfrom
sails to steam‐driven shipping. This transition
broughtabouta shiftincompetencedemands
and–
over time – a change from hard physical work and
exposure, into the environment that nowadays is
often associated with physical inactivity, paperwork
andfatigue(Allenetal.,2007;Lützhöftetal.2010).
Changesareoftenforthebetter,buttheyalsohave
atendencytobringabout
unforeseensideeffects.One
sourceofsuchsideeffectsisthattechnologychanges
onboardwiththeaimtoincreasesafetyinoperations,
in reality foremost will be used to increase
productivityandefficiency.Oneexampleofthisisthe
introductionofradartechnologythatnotonlyledto
betternavigation
guidancebutalsototheincreaseof
possiblespeedofthevessels,whichinturnledtothe
presence of so‐calledʺradar‐assisted collisionsʺ
(Perrow,1999).Withthisinmind,ithasbeenargued
thattheanalysisofchangeswithinasystemshouldbe
based on a holistic approach
(Perrow, 1999). This
means that we should not only consider how
organization, technology and operator roles change
but also how their interactions are affected by these
changes. In this paper, the attempt is to take one
careful step towards such a holistic approach
consideringthepre‐transitionterminologyinrelation
to
obstacles and possibilities surrounding the
transformationintothenextgenerationofshipping.
Onesideeffectfromthepresentfocusontechnical
development towards the shipping industry of the
future is that the concept ‘autonomous ships’ has
become a buzzword that easily can be perceived as
indicatingthatsocietyison
thebrinkofanerawhere
seafarersarenolongerneeded(e.g.Sjöfartstidningen,
2016; Aftonbladet, 2017; MAREX, 2017; World
Maritime News, 2018). As such, the terminology
signalsthatitwouldbeamistakeforyoungpeopleto
applyformaritimestudiesbecausetherewillsoonbe
no jobs in the sector.
In fact, with start in 2016 the
applications for ship officer studies has dropped
dramatically in Sweden (Sjöfartstidningen, 2016,
2017),whichwillhavenegativeimpactonthesupply
ofcompetenceincomingyears(Lighthouse,2018).
1.2 Theterminology
Asalreadymentioned,theterm‘autonomy’hasbeen
frequently used when predicting
the future of
shipping.Inanattempttodescribethetransitioninto
thefuture,differentstepsorlevelsofautonomyhave
been elaborated. Lloyds Register has suggested six
levelsabovemanual,wherethesixthisfullautonomy
(DMA,2016),whileDNVGLhassuggestedfivelevels
(including manual as level one)
for navigation
functions, where the fifth is autonomous (DNV GL,
2018). As the latest of those framework‐like
definitions, IMO has instead suggested four non‐
hierarchicaldegreesofautonomy(Table1),indicating
that one or more degrees can be used for the same
journey although the ship technically may be
preparedforfullautonomy(IMO,2018).
Table1.Degreesofautonomy,IMO
_______________________________________________
‐ Shipwithautomatedprocessesanddecisionsupport:
Seafarersareonboardtooperateandcontrolshipboard
systemsandfunctions.Someoperationsmaybe
automated.
‐ Remotelycontrolledshipwithseafarersonboard:The
shipiscontrolledandoperatedfromanotherlocation,
butseafarersareonboard.
‐ Remotelycontrolled
shipwithoutseafarersonboard:
Theshipiscontrolledandoperatedfromanother
location.Therearenoseafarersonboard.
‐ Fullyautonomousship:Theoperatingsystemoftheship
isabletomakedecisionsanddetermineactionsbyitself.
_______________________________________________
The introduction of ‘non‐hierarchical degrees’
helps to envision different possible scenarios in the
transition to the maritime future. Indeed, continued
adjustments of the terminology is important for
achievingacommonperspectiveoftheprocess.
The existing terminology has already been
challenged by Relling et al., (2018: 350‐362) who
stressed
the lack of coherence in how the terms,
‘autonomy’, ‘automation’ and ‘unmanned’ are at
timesinterchangeablyusedinthemaritimeindustry.
The authors further discussed that there are several
standard definitions of ‘autonomy’ presented; for
example:“Therightorconditionofself‐government”
andthe“Freedomfromexternalcontrolor
influence;
independence” (Oxford Living Dictionaries, 2018).
Relling et al. also make the interesting observation
thatthedefinitionsarewellsuitedforthe“explorers
who sailed into the unknown more than 700 years
ago”(Rellingetal.,2018:352).However,theauthors
decidetosticktotheterm,arguingthatitrefers
toa
process that ”implies a significant change to the
system”(Rellingetal.,2018:352).
It seems agreeable that the definition of
‘autonomy’ applies to the explorers in the Middle
Agessincetheyhadvirtuallynopossibilitiesforlong
distancecommunication.However,itdoesnotapply
atallto
theirships.Theship’sperformancewasatthe
timestrictlydependentonthecrew.Tobeprecise,it
was rather the long distance maritime transport,
which was autonomous at the time. However, the
level of autonomy in maritime transport has since
then steadily decreased following the technological
developments of communication.Today,
and thanks
to the technology, the autonomy of maritime
transportisclosingintonil.Giventhisdevelopment,
we should ask ourselves if we sincerely believe that
wewillseeautonomousmaritimetransportagain.
Does this mean that the proper definition of the
term ‘autonomous’ describes something that may
never
applyto a maritimeconcept in the shapeofa
ship?Well,itcanbearguedthatitdoesnotmatterto
what degree the ship’s technology is developed, its
intelligence has anyway been programmed by
humans,atonepoint.Itcanalsobestressedthat its
activities will for the
foreseeable future be overseen
and controlled by humans. This is not to say that it
would be technically impossible for vessels to
navigatewithouthumaninterferenceunderthemost
complex circumstances. Instead, the argument rests
on the assumption that ship owners and other
stakeholders most likely will keep hold of
the
possibilitytomonitorandinteractatanypointofthe
journey.Ifthatargumentiscorrect,ashipwill,asfar
271
aswecanseefromnow,neverbecomeautonomous.
Itcanbegiventhepossibility,buthardlythefullright
orconditionofself‐government.Ifnooneresponsible
is onboard, it is more likely that the degree of
surveillance and monitoring from shore to ship will
increase.
This is
why we will argue that ‘smart ships’, or
perhaps ‘intelligent ships’, would be more
appropriate terminology than ‘autonomous ships’
sincetheformerdescribethecurrentandfuturestate
oftechnologicaldevelopmentwithoutpredictinghow
humans will prefer to use it in some future state of
that development. Likewise, ‘degrees of
digitalization’ would be more appropriate than
‘degreesofautonomy’.
Let us briefly return to the concept ‘maritime
transport’.Givenmoderncommunicationtechnology,
itisdifficulttofindanygoodargumentsforturning
the clock back hundreds of years to the state of
autonomous maritime transport. Therefore, this
discussion could end here
if it was not for the
possibility of ‘unmanned’ maritime transport. A
futureofunmanned maritimetransportsonaglobal
scalewould indeedbe the real significant change to
thesystem.Itbringstomindafuturewithhugecargo
containers floating over our oceans like ghost‐ships,
constantlybeing
possibletargetsofcyber‐attacksand
incapabletoassistinanyemergencyonothervessels.
On the positive note, these unmanned transports
would most likely be monitored from distance with
theoptionofhumaninterference.
Giventhesearguments,weconcludethataproper
understanding of the real conditions at sea should
remain as a necessity for an employment as
navigation officer, regardless if it is on ship or in a
shore‐based control center. Thus, the maritime
academies should only sequentially adjust their
curriculums for requirements that lies ahead.
Therefore, we shall now look into the most likely
timeframes of implementation
given different
conceptsandcombinationsoftypeofshipandtraffic
area.
1.3 Thetimeframes
Unmanned and waterborne vehicles are already on
the verge of becoming a reality for relatively short
distancevesselsinshelteredareas. The Finnishferry
Falco has successfully made its first voyage,
monitoredfromacontrolcenter
inTurku(YleUutiset,
2018).InNorway,thecontainervesselYaraBirkeland
is waiting for its gradual transformation from
manned‐ to unmanned operation to start (Yara
Birkeland, 2019). In Sweden, the process is a bit
slower.However,duetotheSwedishclimategoalof
zero net emissions of greenhouse gases
by 2045
(GovernmentOfficesofSweden,2017),abigportion
of the country’s archipelago ferries are now quickly
modernized, which includes high levels of
digitalization.
The timeframe for implementation will of course
differdependingonthespecificconceptandsegment
that is considered to realize unmanned, or smart,
maritime traffic. The
concept suitable for the
unmanned vessels in domestic traffic would be
vessels remotely monitored from shore, equipped
with artificial intelligence, learning from situations
and being able to plan and implement the journey,
whichwouldcorrespondtodegreethreeandfourin
Table 1. When it comes to unmanned ships in
international water, things are getting more
complicated. In Table 2, four combinations of ship
typeand trafficarea are displayed(c.f.Praetoriuset
al.,(2019).Thecategoriesarenumbered1‐4,where1
representsthecombinationwhereitseemslikelythat
unmannedvesseltrafficappearfirstand4whereitis
likelytoappearlast(ornotatall).
Table2.Timeframesandship/areacombination
_______________________________________________
CargoShips PassengerShips
_______________________________________________
DomesticTraffic12
InternationalTraffic34‐?
_______________________________________________
Thus,unmannedcargo vesselsindomestictraffic
arelikelytobelesschallengingtoimplement(Table2,
cell 1.), followed by passenger vessels in the same
traffic area (Table 2, cell 2.). Based on seminars and
interviews, it is estimated that the timeframe for a
significant level of implementation of these
types of
combinations is about 10‐20 years from now,
depending on traffic system complexity with
recreational vessels and needs for adaptation of
surroundinginfrastructure.
The real difficultiesfor implementation will arise
whenitcomestolongerdistancetransportofvaluable
gods. The general concerns in the development of
unmanned
internationalmaritimetrafficisthatnew,
harmonizedregulationshavetobeinplace.Harbors
havetobepreparedortotallyrebuiltandthereisthe
needtoprovide sufficientIT‐infrastructure to enable
shore‐based traffic monitoring as complement to
currentsurveillanceandmonitoringservices,suchas
VTS, coastguard or pilotage.
Further, solutions for
unanticipated and sometimes sudden maintenance
and repairs must be in place. Sufficiently manned
control centers and a secure defense against cyber‐
pirates need to be defined and provided. An
additionalobstacleistheglobalpoliticaluncertainty,
such as possible shifts towards protectionism and
tradewars.
Given all
the above‐mentioned obstacles, a
significant introduction of worldwide traffic for
international unmanned cargo ships will probably
take more than 40 years (Table 2, cell 3). The
timeframe for international implementation of
unmannedpassengershipsremainsaquestionmark
(Table2,cell4).
Shipsoperated with helpof artificial intelligence,
learning
fromitsoperatingcontext,wouldpotentially
also be suitable for international unmanned traffic.
Theymayberemotelymonitoredfromshore,butnot
necessarily.Onealternativeconceptforlongdistance
voyagesmaybetheConvoysolutionorVesselTrain,
(NOVIMAR, 2017). Convoys have historically been
used in wartimes and in recent
years as protections
against pirates. For the future, the convoy solution
refers to one manned control vessel followed by
several unmanned cargo vessels. Thus, although the
transportation is manned the load capacityincreases
considerablyinrelation to thesizeofthe crew.This
conceptmayreceivesomescepticism,partlybecause
272
thebenefitofastand‐bycrewwouldbedependenton
theweatherconditions,andpartlybecausetheinitial
costsmaybecometoohigh.
Forthetransformationperiod,onepossiblyfaster
lane would be smart ships with lower manning,
includingpartialmonitoringfromshore‐basedcontrol
centers. This could probably
be implemented in
domesticwaterratherswiftly.However,theremaybe
a worry concerning this concept due to no backup
crew and negative effects on the social work
environment on board on longer voyages. The
digitalization process has so far made it possible to
decrease the crew to such a
minimum that it could
become socially harmful to decrease it further.
Moreover, the question of how and if partial
monitoring from distancecould ever be sufficient to
release the captain of the ship from responsibility
mustbesolved.
Thus,theimportantquestionhereisnotwhenthe
level of technologyis
mature enoughfor unmanned
maritimetransport.Theimportantquestionisinstead
when the ship owners will be prepared to invest in
unmannedships?Theanswerwouldbe–notuntilall
theabove‐mentionedobstaclesareabouttobesolved.
It also rather clear that for reasons of security and
responsibility it is impossible to even discuss
timeframes for oil tankers and passenger ships.
Basically, the question of when, and even if, comes
downtoeconomy,securityandresponsibility.
To be more precise, the transit from manned‐ to
unmanned maritime transport on a worldwidescale
will not be a transition from
contemporary smart
ships to even smarter ones. It will rather require a
totalchangeofaworldwidesystemoftransportation.
Innovations are indeed a source for growth and
productivity, but it would be “diffusion rather than
invention or innovation that ultimately determines
thepaceofeconomicgrowthandtherate
ofchangeof
productivity”(Rosenberg,1972;Hall&Khan,2002:2).
For the case of maritime transport, diffusion means
the rate to which ship owners, stakeholders and
authorities in the whole system will adopt the
technology outcome in the shape of unmanned
transports.Thereareusuallymanybarriersforsucha
rate to peek as it relies on individual decisions in
complexsystems.Thebarrierisnotduetotheoption
of adopting or not adopting to the new technology,
buttothe“choicebetweenadoptingnowordeferring
thedecisionuntillater”(Hall&Khan,2002:3).
2 CONCLUDINGSUMMARY
Thisarticlehasaimedtocontributetothediscussion
on the terminology and timeframes in the current
development towards the future of maritime
transport. Thefocus has mainly been on predictions
basedonissuesthathavesurfacedwithinthecurrent
researchprojectAutonomyandresponsibility.
Making predictions is indeed epistemologically
difficultandveryrisky.Itcan,howeverbeconcluded
that digitalization and automation will continue to
increase intertwined with changes to how work is
conductedand perceived onboard andby maritime
stakeholders ashore. We do believe that despite the
recent attention from industry and research
communities, seafarers will remain a
crucial part of
themaritimetransportsystem.Itisthusunfortunate
that the concept ‘autonomous ships’ has accidently
become an indicator of that seafarers soon will
become obsolete, which may have negative
consequencesforthesupplyofmaritimecompetence
incomingyears.
The steppingstone for this paper has been the
belief that the technical development and its
terminologyneedtobekeptin‐tunedwithchanging
educational demands and organizational
development.The attempt hasbeentotakeacritical
viewon the pre‐transitionterminologyinrelationto
obstacles and possibilities surrounding the
transformation into the next generation of shipping.
We
havearguedthattheproperdefinitionoftheterm
‘autonomous’ describes something that may never
applytoamaritimeconceptintheshapeofaship.All
shipscan,andeventuallyprobablywill,begiventhe
possibility, but hardly the full right or condition of
self‐government. We haveargued
that ‘smart ships’,
or perhaps ‘intelligent ships’, are more appropriate
than‘autonomous’.Theformerterminologydescribe
the current and future state of technological
development without predicting how humans will
prefer to use it in any future state of development.
Talking about smart or intelligent technology also
brings ideas of decision support,
rather than
somethingjusttakingover.Likewise,wearguedthat
the term ‘degrees of digitalization’ would be more
appropriatethan‘degreesofautonomy’.
The timeframe for a significant level of
implementation of relatively small, unmanned car
ferries and cargo vessels in domestic water was
estimated to about 10‐20 years
from now. Any
significant level of introduction of worldwide traffic
for international unmanned cargo ships was
estimatedtotakemorethan40years.Thisisduetoa
number of obstacles that for many years will have
impactonthechoiceforshipownerstoadoptnowor
postpone the decision
until later. Moreover, we
believe that the timeframe for implementation of
unmanned passenger ships for international traffic
willremainaquestionmarkforthefuture.
Finally,theestimatedtimeframessuggestnothreat
to the seafaring occupation for coming generation.
The content of the occupation will of course change
due to
the phase of implementation of degree of
digitalization, but there will always be a need for
maritime knowledge and understanding. This calls
for careful updates of curriculums in maritime
academies concerning specific competence
requirements related to different concepts and
combinations of type of ship and traffic area.
However, the proper understanding
of the real
conditions at sea will remain as a fundament for
maritimeeducation.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We would like to acknowledge the Swedish Transport
Administration’s funding of the project Autonomy and
responsibility – The human role in the future of shipping. We
alsoliketothanktheproject’sreferencegroupforindepth
273
discussions,lecturersatKalmarMaritimeAcademyandall
ship officers and pilots who have participated in different
phases of the project. Their input has been invaluable to
gainadeeperunderstandingofthefutureofshippinginthe
Swedish context. We also like to thank three anonymous
reviewersfortheirvaluable
comments.
REFERENCES
Aftonbladet, (2017).Retrieved 2018‐12‐10:
https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/MVrQB/har‐ar‐
varldens‐forsta‐sjalvkorande‐fartyg‐‐kallas‐havets‐tesla
Allen,P.,Wadsworth,E.,&Smith,A.(2007).Theprevention
and management of seafarers’ fatigue: a review. Int
MaritHealth,58(14),167‐177.
DMA, (2016). ‘A pre‐analysis on autonomous ships’.
Retrieved 2019‐04‐09: https://www.dma.dk/Documents/
Publikationer/Autonome%20skibe_DTU_rapport_UK.p
df
DNV GL, (2018): ‘Autonomous and remotely operated
ships’. Retrieved 2019‐04‐09: http://rules.dnvgl.com/
docs/pdf/dnvgl/cg/2018‐09/dnvgl‐cg‐0264.pdf
Government Offices of Sweden, (2017): ‘The Swedish
climate policy framework’. Retrieved 2019‐04‐08:
https://www.
government.se/495f60/contentassets/883ae8e123bc4e42aa
8d59296ebe0478/the‐swedish‐climate‐policy‐
framework.pdf
Hall, B. H & Khan, B. (2002). New Economy Handbook.
Retrieved 2018‐
12‐10: https://eml.berkeley.edu/~bhhall/
papers/HallKhan03%20diffusion.pdf
IMO,(2018).‘IMOtakesfirststepstoaddressautonomous
ships’ Retrieved 2018‐12‐10:
http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/PressBriefings/Pag
es/08‐MSC‐99‐MASS‐scoping.aspx
Lighthouse (2018). ‘Kompetensförsörjning inom den
svenskamarinaochmaritimanäringen’Retrieved2019‐
04‐09:
https://www.lighthouse.nu/sites/www.lighthouse.nu/file
s/webb_2.pdf
Lützhöft, M., Dahlgren, A., Kircher, A., Thorslund, B., &
Gillberg,M.
(2010).FatigueatseainSwedishshipping—
afieldstudy.American Journalof IndustrialMedicine,
53(7),733‐740.doi:10.1002/ajim.20814
MAREX, (2017). ’Autonomous Ships Before Autonomous
Cars?’. Retrieved 2019‐04‐09: https://www.maritime‐
executive.com/article/autonomous‐ships‐before‐
autonomous‐cars
MUNIN project, (2019). Retrieved 2018‐12‐10:
http://www.unmanned‐ship.org/munin/
NOVIMAR, (2017). ‘NOVIMAR and the vessel
train
concept’. Retrieved 2019‐04‐09:
https://novimar.eu/concept/
Oxford Living Dictionary (2018). Retrieved 2018‐12‐10:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/autonomy
Perrow,C.(1999).NormalAccidents.LivingwithHigh‐Risk
Technologies Princeton. New Jersey: Princeton
UniversityPress.
Porathe,Thomas&Billeso,Bentzen(2015):‘HumanFactors
in e‐Navigation: a study of Dynamic NoGo Area
Visualization
in Electronic Nautical Charts’, A‐Mast
2015, International Conference of Advanced Intelligent
Maritime Safety and Technology, Korea Advanced
InstituteforMaritimeSafetyandTechnology,MMUand
Korea Research Institute of Ships and Ocean
Engineering(KRISO).
Porathe,T;Prison,J&Y,Man(2014):‘Situationawareness
inremotecontrolcentresforunmanned
ships’,Human
Factors in Ship Design & Operation, 26‐27 February
2014.London,UK.
Praetorius, G, Hult, C & Sandberg, C (2019) ‘Towards
autonomousshipping–Exploringpotentialthreatsand
opportunities in future maritime operations’. Paper
accepted for publication at AHFE 2019, July 2019,
Washington,D.C.,USA.
Relling,Tore,Lützhöft,
Margareta,Ostnes,Runar&Hildre,
Hans. (2018). ‘A Human Perspective on Maritime
Autonomy’.350‐362.10.1007/978‐3‐319‐91467‐1_27.
Rosenberg,Nathan(1972).Factorsaffectingthediffusionof
technology. Explorations in Economic History. Vol.
10(1).
Ryllander, Robert & Man, Yemao (2016): ‘Autonomous
safetyonvessels:an internationaloverviewand trends
within
thetransportsector’,Lighthouse.
Sjöfartstidningen,(2016).’Autonomafartygsnartverklighet
i Finland’. Retrieved 2018‐12‐10:
https://www.sjofartstidningen.se/ autonoma‐fartyg‐
snart‐verklighet‐finland/
Sjöfartstidningen (2016). ’Allt färre vill bli sjöbefäl’.
Retrieved 2019‐04‐09: https://www.sjofartstidningen.se/
allt‐farre‐vill‐bli‐sjobefal/
Sjöfartstidningen, (2017). ’Tomma platser på
sjöbefälsutbildningarna’. Retrieved 2019‐04‐09:
https://www.sjofartstidningen.se/tomma‐
platser‐pa‐
sjobefalsutbildningarna/
World Maritime News, (2018). ‘Rolls‐Royce, Intel Launch
AutonomousShipCollaboration’. Retrieved2019‐04‐09:
https://worldmaritimenews.com/archives/262598/rolls‐
royce‐intel‐launch‐autonomous‐ship‐collaboration/
WMU, (2019). ‘Transport in 2040: how automation and
technology will impact the future of work’. Retrieved
2019‐04‐09:https://www.wmu.se/news/transport‐2040‐
how‐automation‐and‐technology‐
will‐impact‐future‐
work
Yara Birkeland, (2019). ‘Yara Birkeland press kit’
https://www.yara.com/news‐and‐media/press‐kits/yara‐
birkeland‐press‐kit/
Yle Uutiset, (2018). ‘Autonomous ferry makes first
demonstrationvoyageinFinland’.Retrieved2019‐04‐08:
https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/autonomous_
ferry_makes_first_demonstration_voyage_in_finland/10
537448
