521
1 INTRODUCTION
Atthepresentday,everyoneoralmosteveryonetalks
about the fourth (some talks even about fifth)
industrial or rather technological (otherwise digital)
revolution (Grantham 2016). Indeed, now we
experienceastageofdevelopmentwhereitseemsthat
there is no limit to the growth of the technological
capability of humankind, in other words there is
nothing that cannot be achieved through the
developmentofmoderntechnologies.
Shipping is undoubtedly a lot of promising
playgroundfortheintroductionandimplementation
ofnewtechnologies.Inrecentyears,quiteanumber
ofseriousshippingmarketplayershavedeclaredthat
they
haveseriouslyaddressedthedevelopmentofso‐
called “intelligent ships”, the main expression of
which is remotely controlled and autonomous ships
(Cowan2018).Thefirstautonomousshipsarealready
sailing along the sea, though not very far and, as a
rule, along precisely defined shipping lanes, but
anyway a precedent has
been created (The Beam
2018).
Seaports are also not lagging behind in todayʹs
development. The so‐calledʺsmart portʺ concept is
widespread, which in turn means the maximum
automation of port processes and the application of
The Main Challenges and Barriers to the Successful
“Smart Shipping”
A.Alop
EstonianMaritimeAcademyofTallinnUniversityofTechnology,Tallinn,Estonia
ABSTRACT:Aswiththepowerfuldigitalizationoftheworldinthe21stcentury,maritimeaffairs,likeallother
areas,arefacingnotonlynewopportunities,butalsonewbigchallengesandproblems.Fromthepointofview
ofthedevelopment
ofnewtechnologies,itseemsthateverythingispossible,forexamplethebringingofso‐
calledʺintelligentshipsʺand“smartports”intooneglobalsystemonbaseofinternetofthingsandbig data
applications.However,iftolookatthematterfurther,anumberoffactorsandobstaclesmayappear
which
couldbemajorthreatstothenormalfunctioningofsuchasystem.
Whileitisclearthatsystemswithsuchhighdegreeofcomplexityareeventechnicallyvulnerable,itseemsto
theauthorofthispaperthatquestionsthatarenolessdifficultareinthefieldofhuman
relations.Forexample,
whenshipsandportsarebecomingmoreandmoreʺsmarterʺandneedlessandlesspeopletointerveneintheir
interactions,whoattheendwillberesponsibleforeverythingthatcananddefinitelywillhappenedatseaorin
theport?Whataboutliabilityofcargocarrier
if“carrier”isanautonomousshipwithoutanypersonon‐board
during the entire journey? How to ensure cyber security? How to be secured against the risks of so‐called
artificialintelligencesystemicerrors?
Itispossiblethatonlynewnon‐trivialapproachescanleadtoacceptableresultsinthis
area,butwhattheymay
beandwhethertheseapproachesarepossibleatall‐thesequestionsarestillwaitingforanswers.
http://www.transnav.eu
the International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 13
Number 3
September 2019
DOI:10.12716/1001.13.03.05
522
new intelligent technologies for the processing of
goodsandshipsinports(Bernsetal.2017).
Infact,continuousgettingseparateshipsandports
more,moreautonomous,and smarteris notamajor
challenge in shipping today. Thanks to the
improvement of information technologies, the rapid
growth of the volume
and processing speed of the
information(bigdata)anddevelopmentofinternetof
things, connection, interaction and exchange of data
in global transportsystemshas become so real as it
waspossibleneverbefore.Suchsystemsmaybealso
referred to asʺartificial intelligenceʺ, the number of
components of
which may be huge and these
components may be locatedanywhere in the world,
acting simultaneously as a whole and performing
coordinatedcommontasks.Itislogicalthatforgoods
transportation by sea, such a common system could
becalledʺsmartshippingʺ,whereshipsandportsare
connected to one
global system and operated in the
mostoptimalwayusingcommonalgorithms.
At first glance, it seems like a great idea and an
impressive breakthrough in the field. For example,
wise machines in port can process information
coming from other ports, ships, weather services,
cargo shippers and other sources, and
inform
continuouslytheshipsgoingtotheport,whatshould
be their optimal speed and other seagoing
characteristics so that they can reach the port in
exactlyrighttime andshould notwaitinorder.The
intelligenceship,inturn,continuallyadjustswithout
human intervention its sailing parameters based on
incoming
information.
Itisclearthatithasseveralpositiveinfluences.At
present,ships areinmanycasesflyingatfullspeedto
reach the port before the other ships or for a fixed
arrival time, burning large amounts of fuel and
pollutingtheenvironment.Ultimately,however,they
maybelate
orothershipscongesttheport,andthey
areforcedtostayontheanchoragesforwaiting,not
only once again burning fuel and polluting the
environment but wasting time and money. Smart
shipping makes it possible fully implementation the
just‐in‐timeprinciple,whichiscurrentlynotworking
verywell
intheshipping.
Undoubtedly,thereareimportantpositivefactors
that author names in following sections, but at the
same time there are numerous difficulties and
potentialthreatsthatcanmakesuccessfuloperationof
suchasystem complicatedor even unrealistic.They
arealsodescribedbytheauthorintheSWOT
analysis
and are analysed in more detail in the following
sections.
2 ADVANTAGESANDDISADVANTAGESOF
SMARTSHIPPING
2.1 FixingtheproblemandSWOTanalysis
Based on modern information technology solutions,
thecreationofaunifiedsystemofportsandships,in
whichcomponentsare constantlyincommunication,
transaction and interaction,
seems at least
theoreticallypossibleinthenearfuture.
If such a system could be created, it would
undoubtedlybeaverycomplexsysteminfluencedby
huge amountof factors.Evenfinding andlisting all
thesefactorswouldbeadifficulttask,nottomention
reliably identifying the positive and
negative effects
of all these factors and the consequences of these
effects.In anycase,itis notpossibleto dosotothe
full in the context of this paper. Nevertheless, the
authortriestodefinesomemostobviouspositiveand
negative factors of the system in the first approach.
These factors are presented in the form of a SWOT
analysis; after the strengths and weaknesses, the
authoridentifiesthemainthreatstothesystem,while
alsomentioningtheopportunitiesthatsuchasystem
functioning may bring. The author also discusses
what measures or solutions can be applied to
eliminate
oratleastalleviatethenegativeimpacts.
Strengths
1 Fortheshipowners‐optimaltimingofarrivalto
each port, cargo and other operations in port,
departure from port; this leading to a significant
reductionoreven zeroingof waitingtime on the
anchorages.
2 Forthecargoshippersandconsignees
–maximum
use of direct variant in loading/unloading of
vessels.
3 For the port owners‐a significant reduction of
portcongestions(ideallynot atall),minimization
oftheamountandcapacityofportwarehouses.
4 Fortheconsumers‐moregoodsinshopsatlower
prices.
Weaknesses
1 Theultimatecomplexity
ofthesystem.
2 Need to coordinate simultaneously the personal
needsandinterestsofverylotsofstakeholders.
Opportunities
1 Inthecontextofships:a)anoptimaltriptimethat
can be always be optimized, b) minimum fuel
consumption, c) minimizing environmental
damage.
2 Inthecontextofcargoshippers
andconsigneesas
well as consumers: a) minimization of good
storage costs, b) the goods reach the consumer
faster–keeping thebest qualityof goodsfor the
consumer.
3 In the context of ports: (a) lower costs for the
exploitationandmaintenanceofwaitingareasfor
ships, (b) significant
reduction of costs for
medium‐andlong‐termwarehouses.
Threats
1 Becauseoftheextremecomplexityofthesystem,it
canbeeasilyvulnerableandunstable.
2 It is extremely difficult to create sufficiently
reliableandflexiblealgorithmsforoptimalsystem
managementinallpossiblesituations.
3 Collapse of the system
due to the influence of
externalfactors.
4 Collapseofthesystemduetotheoccurrenceand
accumulationofinternaldisturbances.
5 Completedisappearanceofhumancontrol overa
systemwithsuchhighdegreeofautonomy.
6 Inefficientenergyconsumptioninwholesystem.
7 Ship owners are reluctant to accept
high‐risk
innovations.
523
8 Theineffectivenessoftheinsurancesystem.
2.2 Systemreliabilityandefficiency
2.2.1 Systemicerrorsandpossibleinstability
Simplerobjectscanbeoperatedlocallyanditcan
bedonebypeoplebutconsiderthathumancontrolis
largely intuitive. Human thinks linearly, it is not
applicable for more complex objects
and systems
(Langheetal.2017).Themorecomplexthesystemis,
the more complex its connections and needs are, so
therequirement ofefficiency ismore complicatedto
perform. Linear models work in small‐localized
systemsonly.Theoperationmodelsofmorecomplex
systemsarenon‐linear,thesystem
mustworkreliably
inawiderarea,whichmeansthatthesystemshould
ideallybefreeofdisruptions,i.e.maximumefficient.
From the other side, while becoming very
effective, the system becomes proportionally very
vulnerable, a small internal mistake or external
impact can lead to system break up like avalanche.
This
meansthatthesystemmustbeenoughrobustat
thesametime,butthereisacontradictionhere,which
is very difficult or even impossible to overcome:
efficiency and robustness take place in opposite
directions, the more efficient the system, the less
robust it is and vice versa. It is
dangerous to put
efficiency at the forefront, almost the only valuable
thing. Efficiency is always at the expense of
robustness. If in a maximally efficient system a
permanent disturbance occurs that could not be
resisted at the right moment, the whole system will
move in the direction of the disturbance and
its
impactmayincrease exponentially.As examplemay
behackerattackthatcouldnotberespondedtoatthe
right moment and eliminated or minimizing timely;
in this case, the system goes out of control,
disturbances/ inconsistencies grow exponentially, so
thecostofmaximumefficiencyoftheglobalsystemis
the probability of a global collapse of the system.
There should be a balance between efficiency and
robustness.
Apart from non‐linearity, the object‐relatedness
playsamajorrole.Theconnectionsaffecteachother,
thenumberandnatureoftheconnectionsdetermine
the functioning of the system; the more these links
are, the more unstable the system. Development of
information technology‐more memory, faster
processors,moreandfasterdataexchange,etc.–leads
to that the robustness decreases, the risk of system
collapse increases. Separate elements are copied
multipletimes,buttheartificialworldbecomesmore
andmoreundefined.
Undoubtedly,the
globalsmartshippingsystemis
subjecttotheprinciplesandlawsofautomaticcontrol
theory. Theoretically, the control system is a system
with a number of free parameters or variables that
operator can influence. For this operator needs to
have buttons, levers, etc. that he can change the
behaviourofthe
systeminthedesireddirection(e.g.
that the ship would move along the desired
trajectory). The automatic control system takes over
the function of operation by using predetermined
algorithms.
It is clear that the human brain is capable of
processinginformationwithsufficientefficiencyonly
tocertainvolumesofinformation;
forlargervolumes
andforfasterprocessingthisfunctionmustinevitably
betransferredtomachinesorcomputers.Atthesame
time, computers do not think off something
themselves; they are operating according to the
algorithms created, at least initially, by the same
imperfect people. At one point, probably, the
machines themselves
can also take on the
improvement of the algorithms, making the system
more independent and self‐evolving, but the
algorithmsforthedevelopmentofitsalgorithmswill
stillthoughtoutandwrittenbypeople.Atthesame
time,however,asystemthatconstantlyevolvingand
becomingmoreindependentisbecoming
lessandless
underthecontrolofthehumans,whichmaynotonly
haveadvantagesbutalsodisadvantages.
It is well known from the theory of automated
systemsthatthemorecomplexthesystem,thegreater
the probability of errors and disturbances in the
system (Chavaillaz 2016). The more complicated the
systemis,themoredisturbancesofa randomnature,
i.e.uncertainty,isinherentinacomplexsystem;itisa
constitutivefeatureofsuchsystems.Thisfactcannot
beeliminatedbyanyMetasystem;itcanbeimproved
a little here and there, but randomness is generated
into complex systems.
Even the thoughtful
complication of the system inevitably leads to the
additional uncertainties or unsteadiness. The
individual elements can be almost perfect, the
randomnessofthewholesystemconsistingofthemis
theinevitablebecauselawsofmathematics.Itcannot
beeliminatedbyanymeans;itmustbeaccepted.
It is
imperative that errors occur in complex
systems (Redundancy… 2018). The principle of
duplication of critical elements, known from the
theoryofautomatedsystems,onlyworkstoa certain
degree of complexity: at one point, the duplication
system becomes as complex as the basic system or
even more complex and in
turn requires
duplication…etc.Inotherwords,whenattemptingto
build control mechanisms into the system, these
mechanisms, beginning from a certain degree of
complexity,canprovetobeascomplexasthesystems
themselvesandthesecontrolmechanismsthemselves
become complex systems, which means that they in
turnneedcontrol
mechanisms.
Onelogicalwaytomakethesystemmorereliable
istosimplifythesystem,i.e.toreducethenumberof
itscomponentsand connections,and the complexity
ofthetasksset,whatultimatelycausesthesimplicity
ofthealgorithms.Here,however,toomuchsimplified
system may become ineffective, in
other words,
simplifying the systems may set the limits; it must
always be monitored whether the system is still
fulfillingthepurposeforwhichitiscreated.
Anotherwaytomakethesystemmorereliableis
tomakethesystemlayered,i.e.toapplytheprinciple
of independent management levels. In
other words,
the system is formatted not from a big amount of
separatecomponents,butfromseverallocalsystems,
betweenwhichthesecomponentsaredivided.These
local systems are much simpler and contain
significantly fewer components and connections,
while being relatively independent and better
524
protected from the effects of interference at other
levelsofthesystem.Thebottleneckofsuchasystem
iscommunicationbetweenlayersandmaintainingthe
efficiencyoftheentiresystem.
2.2.2 Possibleimpactofexternalfactors
Speaking of the systems with high degree of
complexity that the smart shipping system
undoubtedly is, one cannot overlook the potential
negativeimpactofsomepowerfulexternalfactorson
thesystem.Twooftheseexternalfactorsdeservetobe
mentionedfirst:problemswithsystempowersupply,
i.e.electricity andconsequently Internetconnectivity
andproblemswithunauthorizedmaliciousintrusion
into system (hacking). It is clear
that the impact of
thesefactorsonthewholesystemand,consequently,
onitsindividualcomponentscanbedevastating.
The global loss of electricity can be caused by
humanerrorsormalevolenceaswellasbyoneofthe
so‐calledcosmicfactors:bigmeteorite,powerfulsolar
prominence,cosmicradiation,and
thelike.Itshould
be borne in mind here that, as the prerequisite for
impeccablefunctioningofthesmartshippingsystem
is the undisturbed work of the global internet
network. There is no need for the meteorite or the
solarwindparticlestoreachthegroundofEarthand
cause
widespread destruction here; it is enough to
destroy a certain number of satellites. Providing
preventive measures against such possible natural
phenomenaisratherdifficult,ifnotimpossible;inany
case,thehumankindisnotabletopreventorcontrol
these events now, as well as to implement any
effectivemeasuresto
mitigatetheirimpacts.
For smart shipping is clear that in case of such
events,theshipsatseaarethemostvulnerable,first
autonomousand,largely,remotelycontrolled,asthey
are most likely can lose communication within
managing network. In order to prevent or at least
partiallymitigatethecatastrophic
consequencesofthe
eventsdescribed,therelativeautonomyofthevesselsʹ
ownenergysources andthemaximum protectionof
computer systems must be respected, as well as the
abilityofon‐boardcomputer systemstosuccessfully
solve local navigation and other vitally necessary
tasksifallinteractionsandinformationexchangewith
managementlevelswillbelost.
Thehackingofthesystemoritselementsis,inthe
authorʹsopinion,amorerelevantandseriousexternal
source of potentia l problems for a smart shipping
system. The events of recent years show that the
number and extent of unauthorized entry into
computer
systemsaregrowingrapidly,andtheyare
leadingtoincreasinglysevereconsequences.Itshould
be mentioned here that the purpose of hackers may
notalways be to attack aparticular ship or ships, it
maybeanintentiontousecomputationalcapabilities,
whichispotentiallyenabledbytheInternetofThings,
where all elements of the system are connected
throughtheso‐calledthecloud.Thiskindofhacking
isalsodangerous,becauseinsomecases,forexample,
in an emergency, a power of calculation might be
missingtomakeaquickdecision.
2.3 Possiblesolutions
2.3.1 Partitioningthesysteminto
relativelyautonomous
parts
According to EMSA, as of the end of 2017, the
worldmerchantfleetconsistedof56,963vesselswith
a gross tonnage of over 500 GT (The world…2018).
Onlythemajorseaandinlandportsnumber,through
which99%oftheworldʹsmaritimetradetakesplace,
are 835,
but there are additionally thousands of
smaller ports; in total more than 8,000 ports and
harbours there are in the world (Seaports…2019).
Therefore,aworldwideglobalsmartshipping system
thatwouldincludeevenonlylargercargoportsand
merchant ships that are continuously in constant
interactionandinterconnection,andthat
isconstantly
coordinated by the central artificial intelligence,
would contain a huge number of components and
links between them. It is clear that such a system
would be too complicated and therefore too
vulnerableandunstable.
To make the system described above less
complicated taking it in use only partially may
be
recommended. Randomly reducing the number of
actorsinvolvedseemstobea uselessact,becausein
thiscase,thesystemloses,completelyorlargely,the
unique benefits listed in section 2.1. Such a system
seemstobeeffectiveonlyifallactorsinthefield(in
thiscaseshipping)
areactivelyinvolved.Nonetheless,
theauthoristryingtosuggestsomesolutionsthat,if
not solving the problems arising of systemʹs
complexity then at least make the system more
realistic.
Oneofwaytomakethesystemmorereliableisto
makethesystemlayered,i.e.toapplytheprinciple
of
independentmanagementlevels.Inthecaseofsmart
shipping, the indispensable condition of system
stratification is the relative independence of each
layer.Theremaybetwoapproacheshere.Thefirstis
thespecializationaccordingtothetypeofgoods,e.g.
the entire worldʹs container ports/terminals and
container ships
can be connected to one network.
Anotherexampleofsuchasystemwouldbeasystem
of crude oil terminals and tankers. These systems
should be sufficiently autonomous to maintain the
benefits of a smart shipping network, it should be
ensured that in the first case no goods other than
containerized
goodspassthroughtheseportsandno
ships other than container ships go there, i.e. this
system would be both global (worldwide) and
autonomous (containers only). The same principle
shouldbeappliedforcrudeoilterminalsandtankers
aswellasforanyothersimilarvariants.
As of January 2018,
there were more than 6,000
active container ships and 7244 crude oil tankers
(World…2019). Although these numbers are also
high,itisclear that the complexity of such different
systems is, of course, much smaller and thus
reliabilityissignificantlyhigherthanwouldbeinthe
caseof a global system.
However, the problem with
this solution may be the unwillingness of the port
ownerstobesonarrowlyspecialized,ortomeetthe
requirementofprocessingonlyonetypeofgoodsin
the port, which will largely eliminate for them the
advantage of free choice of suitable business
developments. From
other side, if the interactivity
betweentheseautonomoussystemsisindispensable,
525
the question arises of how to combine the
ʺindependentʺlayersintoonewholesystemandwho
orwhatiscontrollingandoperatingtheco‐ordination
betweentheselayers?
Anotheroptionmaybetheseparatesystemsbased
on a territorial feature: e.g. sea freights within a
certain area, where the
vessels carrying the goods
neverleavetheboundariesofsomegeographicalarea
andtravelbetweencertain(probablyrelativelysmall)
ports.However,itismoredifficulttoachieveahigh
degree of autonomy for such variants because
probably ships from other regions or those carrying
other types of cargo will call this
ports being
inevitably in the role of the systemʹs external
disturbances. However, for feeder container lines, at
leasttheoretically,ispossible,forexample,withinthe
Europeanregion.Atthesame time,suchatransport
system cannot be enough autonomous, because the
containerstheycarryarriveeitherfromoceanlines
or
from other modes of transport. Ideally, all these
external agents inevitably have to be implemented
into system, which ultimately does not allow the
systemtobesufficientlysimplified.
2.3.2 Semi‐autonomyship‐3MandMPconcepts
InSection 2.2.1, we talked about the factthat the
human brain thinks and
processes information in a
linearmanner,andtakesdecisionslargelyintuitively,
whichsomepeoplemaydefineasaprimitivewayof
thinking.Beingexcitedabouttherapiddevelopment
of information technology, humanity tends to
overestimateitsefficiencyandperfection,considering
thatthekeytosuccessinanyfieldliesin
thespeedof
information processing and the capacity of
information being processed. The common belief is
that powerful quantum computers can handle
everything.Isitevereverywhereandalwaystrue?
Overestimation of technical solutions and blind
beliefs to them have also occurred in the past,
includingatsea.Forexample,in
thefirsthalfofthe
last century, problems with the takingin use radars
on ships could be mentioned. Initially, the common
phenomenonwastheresistanceanddistrustofolder
masters and other seafarers against new technical
solutions because “the human eyes are still king”.
However,astimepassed,the
pendulummovedinthe
oppositedirectionandinsomecases,theshipmasters
encountered aʺblind beliefʺ in the technique, e.g.
sailing with full‐speed in thick fog and high traffic
areas. Some majoraccidents at sea have taken place
becausetheshipʹsofficerstrustedtheradartoomuch,
although the
information obtained from it was
incorrect or misinterpreted. As example, a collision
betweenʺAndreaDoriaʺandʺStockholmʺin1956may
benamed.(Andrews2016)
In previous sections, the author described
problemsrelatedtotheoccurrenceofrandomerrors
inultra ‐complicatedsystems.Nevertheless,evenifit
would be possible to
avoid these errors with some
technologicaltechniquesoreliminatethematanearly
stage,itisnotcertainthatthesystemwillwork hard
and the result will always be the best. As is well
known,thebasicprincipleoftheevenmostcomplex
computersystemsistoanswer questionsor
respond
toemergingsituations,withonlytworesponsesʺyesʺ
orʺnoʺ or, in computer language,ʺoneʺ orʺzeroʺ. It
can be said that the accuracy and quality of a
computational result depends not on how fast and
how much the computer answers theseʺyesʺ and
ʺnoʺ,buton
whethertheseanswersarealwayscorrect
and ultimately lead to optimal decisions and
solutions.
However,always achieving thisbestresult is not
soclear.Whendecidingwhethertoanswer“yes”or
“no” in each case, the computer is guided by the
algorithm provided to it. It is assumed that the
algorithm is more perfect, the more initial data is
processed putting it together, i.e. the application of
so‐called Big Data processing principles. Here,
however,twopotentialthreatscanoccur.
First,arethesebigdataʺbig”enough?Whetherin
processofcompilingthealgorithmandcollectingthe
data all the facts,
factors, impacts important for
programming of behaviour models are taken into
account.Returningtotheideaofʺsmartshippingʺ,it
isfearedthat,initsoperation,thisamountofessential
data is so large and unnoticed that not all possible
situations can be pre‐programmed. Particularly, it
becomes vague
when factors related to human’s
behaviour come into game, which in many cases
cannotbepredictedandprogrammed.
Another place of uncertainty is that the basic
principle of data processing is statistical analysis.
Moreover,the“bigger”thedata,themorelikelyitis
that the averaged results will become not enough
reliable. Even more so when a human has the
opportunity to influence the system. Predicting
peopleʹsbehaviourbecauseofstatisticaldataanalysis
maynotbevery reliable,whatkindofphenomenon
economy scientists know well. While one hundred
people have behaved in a particular way in a
particular situation,
statistical analysis suggests that
one hundred first person with almost 100%
probabilitybehavesexactlythesame way.However,
thisisnotthecaseforpeople.Theonehundredfirst
person can unexpectedly do something about the
opposite,andthestrangestthingisthathemaynotbe
able to explain later
why he did just that. The
computer processes a large number ofsimilar cases,
theirsolutions,and theconsequences, and calculates
statisticallywhatismostlikelytofollowinone case
oranotherandwhatwouldbe themost appropriate
next step. However, even with the biggest, nearly
100%probability,
solutionsarejuststatisticsandthere
isnoguaranteethatthenextsimilareventwillnotbe
interrupted by a random factor, whether it is the
human error or malicious activity. Thus, these
methodscanneverbeonehundredpercentconfident
whenitcomestomakingdecisionsandputtingthem
into
actiononlybyartificialintelligence.
The author concludes that although at first sight
thepossibilityofhumaninterventionintheworkofa
globalorverylargeport/shipnetworkisnotdesirable
duetotheunpredictableimpactofthehumanfactor,
thetotalexclusionofahumanfromthesystem
may
beevenmoredangerous.Ifthesystemiscompletely
out of human control, the coincidence of many
negative effects is possible, and if human cannot
intervene or even has not idea of what is really
happening,theriskofseriousconsequencescannotbe
ruledout.
526
For example, it is possible, at least theoretically,
that the computer may not have an unambiguous
ʺyesʺorʺnoʺresponseinaparticularcase;theanswer
tends to beʺdonʹt knowʺ. However, the computer
workprinciple doesnotsee suchan option,andthe
ʺyesʺorʺno
ʺresponsemustbeachievedinanycase.
In this case, it is not excluded to exhaust energy
resources, and even to collapse thecomputer or the
entire system. Here is a simple example: two ships
havetogotothestormshelterharbourtoescapefrom
thehurricane.Thesystem
calculatesthebestoptions
anditturnsoutthatbothships shouldgotothesame
nearestport,butthereisfreespaceonlyforonethere.
The information background in the system for both
ships is equal and how the computer can make the
choice?Whenahumancouldtake
thepowertomake
decisionsatthispoint,heorshewillmakeadecision,
either intuitively, as stated above, or by applying
purely psychological and social qualities that the
computerwillnothaveanyway.
It seems to the author that for a smart shipping
global system, the optimal ship
would be an
intermediate variant of a fully manned and
autonomousship,the so‐calledsemi‐autonomyship.
Theremaybetwopossibleoptionshere.
Theconditionalname ofthe firstoptioncould be
3M(threemasters)anditisthemostsuitableforuse
on deep‐sea lines. Artificial intelligence,
which
connectsportsandshipstoonesystem,continuously
collectsalargeamountofdata,processesthemwitha
quantum computer speed, and outputs according to
algorithms optimal operation parameters for system
in whole and for each single ship as well. Ship’s
crewmembers keep things under control and are
ready
and able to intervene if needed. Artificial
intelligence also does not turn out to be intervening
bycrewmembers,butisalwayshelpingthemwithall
itspower.
For every single ship, this means that it should
have at least three people on board throughout the
voyage, who keep watch on board
like usually, but
willnotinterfereinthenormaloperationoftheship
as an autonomous unit. At the same time, they are
alwaysaware of the situation and are ableto assess
thesituationandtheneedforintervention.Ifsucha
need arises, for example in an emergency,
they will
take control of the ship. This means, among other
things,thatthesepeopleareexcellentICTspecialists,
at the same time well trained, and experienced
seafarers (with the captainsʹ qualifications). It is
because“threemasters”.
Forexample,ifthesituationwiththestormshelter
port described above has arisen
and the artificial
intelligence is unable todecide, or it is necessary to
avoid collision of two ships, violating the COLREG
rules or even directing the ship to ground what the
artificial intelligence algorithm does not provide in
any case, masters on different vessels will
communicate directly with each other
and take
decisions in a coordinated manner using, of course,
themaximumhelpprovidedbyartificialintelligence.
The AI could, for example, quickly analyse all
circumstances, offer grounding place with optimum
conditions,quicklycalculatetheminimumdangerous
endspeedandevenmanageprocessofgroundingbut
the final decision must remain
to the master.
Otherwise, an artificial intelligence in which two or
more contradictory commands begin to fight may
eventually end up or overload the shipʹs energy
system, causing it to turn off. Maybe, the only
possible solution here that there is a person who at
onepointdecides to
ignoreallthe momentsof logic
and rationality and does it intuitively. Of course,
artificial intelligence can spend a lot of energy and
computational power on finding aʺlogicalʺ solution
thatrunscountertohumanintuitivedecisions,butis
it always the best? It can be compared to the well‐
known
(though rather fictional) situation in
cosmologywhereyougothroughthewormhole,not
usinglongtime‐spacejourneys.
Man thinks linearly, but maybe just in such
moments such aʺdirect goʺ is essential? Sometimes
withhislinearthinking,mancanbemoreeffectivein
solvinglocalproblemsthanartificialintelligence
with
its complex mathematical solutions. If the system is
veryeffective,evenasmallsystemerrorcanbringthe
system to a standstill. System efficiency vs. human
simplicitysomewhereisagoldencentre,asalways.
The second option semi‐autonomy is called MP
(master‐pilot) and it would be a part
‐time vessel
crewing. This option would be better suited for
shorter lines and feeder line services where the
autonomouspartofthejourneygoesalongrelatively
safe shipping fairways with quite well predictable
weatherandvesseltrafficconditions.Shipdiversions
fromtheprogrammedrouteareminimal(ideallynot
atall),
andtheshipsailsasautonomousthroughthis
part.Duringthistime,therearenocrewmemberson
board (indispensable condition is that artificial
intelligence is fine and can handle). Upon arrival at
the boundary of pilotage or high‐risk trafficareas, a
person who can be called master and pilot
simultaneously,
arrives on board and takes over the
controlovership.Itdoes notnecessarilymeanthathe
will immediately intervene in the process of
navigating the ship, but he is ready to do it at any
moment.Themaster‐pilotwillremainresponsiblefor
theshipthroughoutherstayin
theportandwilltake
partinthedepartureofthevesselfromtheportand
pilotage area. This person must also have good ICT
education and excellence knowledge, skills and
experienceinseafaringthatmeansshipmasterlevel.
Fromthepointofviewoftheship‐ownerandthe
owners
ofthegoodsonboard,the3Mconcepthasone
undoubted advantage over fully autonomous and
semi‐autonomy (MP concept) ships, even over
remote‐controlled ships. This is the fact that
throughout the voyage there are real persons on
boardwhoareresponsiblefortheshipandthegoods.
These
abovementionedthree mastersareresponsible
jointlyandseverally.Ofcourse,manyeffortshastobe
madetodeveloplegalregulationsthatalsotakeinto
account the responsibility of artificial intelligence or
more correctly speaking the responsibility of the
people who have developed the algorithms that
manage the artificial intelligence or who
operate it.
Nevertheless,itshouldbemucheasierfor3Mconcept
thanforshipinfull‐autonomouspassage,whereitis
stillunclearwhatlegalprinciplesashipoperatedby
anartificialintelligenceshouldfollow.
Ontheotherhand,the3Mconceptalsohasabig
deficiency for the ship
owner. One of the greatest
527
advantages in case of an autonomous ship, where
there is no one people on board during the whole
voyage, that the equipment and systems of the ship
may be greatly simplified. There is no longer a
requirement for the obligatory living and working
conditions for the crew and, that is
even more
importantly,theownersdonothavetospendmoney
onwages and maintenance of the crewmembers on‐
board.Thus,theautonomousshipʹsconstructionand
operational costs may be significantly reduced.
However,ifevenone(inthiscasethree)peopleareon
board all the time at sea,
then all the systems that
ensure the safety of human life and normal living
conditions must be developed on the ship: the
presence of fresh water and washing water, living
cabinsandtheirheatingandventilationsystems,life‐
savingequipment,cookingfacilities,etc.Insummary,
there is no big difference in
such kind of costs
dependingonhowmanypeopleonboard‐threeor
thirteen.
2.4 Deviationineconomicphilosophyandsocial
psychology
Becausetheideaofsmartshippingisglobalinnature
andshippingisanintegralpartoftheeconomyofthe
world, the author is forced to look
at the economic
paradigms and principles of functioning of todayʹs
societyandeventouchhumannature. Theauthor is
trying to reconcile the principles of smart shipping
andthemarketeconomyandmustadmitthatitdoes
notcomeoutverywell.
Almost 250 years ago, the Scottish scientist A.
Smithcameoutwithhiseconomictheoryinthebook
ʺAninquiryintothenatureandcausesofthewealth
of nationsʺ, in which the postulates that have been
madeareactuallythefoundationsofamodernliberal
economytothisday.Smithfoundthatthe sourceof
wealth
is any effective work, and that the best
incentive for a person to act is self‐interest, i.e. the
profit of a private entrepreneur is the basis of
collectiveprosperity and well‐being,in other words,
humangreedisgoodandadrivingforce.ʺTheprofits
from the production must
be reinvested in the
expansionofproduction;ʺsaidSmith;thatisthewell‐
knownnowadayssayingʺmoneymustmakemoneyʺ.
In order not to collapse, the market economy must
constantly grow and be based on competition
betweenmarketplayers.(McCreadie2009)
Speaking of the feasibility of developing a global
smart
shipping system and its realism, it should be
stated that its key word isʺcooperationʺ rather than
ʺcompetitionʺ.Thisinturnmeansthatparticipantsin
the system should be tuned not only at earning
personal profits, but be prepared even to give up
somepartofthisinorder
toachievethoughlong‐term
butwelltargetedgoals.Forthis,however,a broader
visionisneeded,theabilitytostrategicallythinknot
only about building up the plans of oneʹs own
company and even a changing a personʹs natural
qualities.Unfortunately,thelatterseemsparticularly
unrealistic.
It
is by no means certain that stakeholders (ship
owners, port owners, merchants, buyers) will be all
readytojointhesmartshippingsystemsimmediately.
There are, of course, very innovative entrepreneurs,
but generally, they tend to be more conservative in
theirmass.Inhisarticle,M.Stopfordgivesexamples
ofhowlongtherevolutionarychangesinshippingin
recent centuries have taken. For example, the total
transferfromsea‐goingsailing vesselstosteamboats
tookover ahundredyears, the finalconquest of the
world by containers over fifty. It was not that
entrepreneurs did not understand the benefits of
innovations,
butratherthattherevolutionarychanges
required a radical reorganization of the entire
shippingindustry.(Stopford2015)Inotherwords,in
orderfortheinnovationstoworkeffectively,moreor
lesseveryoneintheindustrywouldhavetoembrace
them.Sowhataboutsmartshipping?Inthiscase,the
necessarychanges
needto beevenmoredrasticand
broader,meaningthatthesmartshippingrevolution
willbebynature themost total andcomprehensive.
However,theauthordarestobeindeeplydoubtthat
aquickandpainlesstransitionispossible.
In recent decades, many scientists and experts
haveconcludedthat
themainstreameconomicmodel
isunsustainableinlong‐termperspective,firstdueto
its unstoppable wasteful nature and its destructive
impactontheenvironment.Anumberofeconomists
havealsocomeupwithothereconomictheories,but
themoderneconomicsystembasedonthecontinuous
growthof the economy,chasing of
personal benefits
andruthlesscompetition,hasnotbeeninfluencedby
themonaglobalscale.Thepointisthattheeconomy
isnotsomuchtheresultofmodelsdevelopedinthe
officesofscientists,butofthecollectiveconsciousness
that is the amount of what happens in everyoneʹs
head.
Shipping as a part of global economy is no
exception. Today, a very large number of very
differentgoodsaretransportedbyships,forexample,
in the year 2017 there were ca 10,7 billion tons of
cargo transported by ships (United…2018), a
significantpartofwhichisfoodproducts,both
asraw
materialsandasfinishedproduct.Atthesametime,
studiesshowthatnear25%ofthefinalproductofthe
food industry never reaches the final consumer
(Kummuetal2012),buttakingintoaccountthelosses
attheconsumptionstage,anumberofso‐calledwaste
foods
risesto around40%(Kuldna 2016).According
tomarketeconomylaws,goodsmovewherethereis
greaterpurchasingpower,notwheretheyareneeded,
butwhere they are already more than enough. As a
result,a bigpartofthemendsup onwaste ground,
getting there either directly from shops
or from
customers’homes.
Thesadstoryisthatiftoapplysmartshippingto
an existing economic system, it amplifies not only
positivebutalsonegativeeffectsofit.Thismeansthat
smart ships will increasingly carry more and more
goods with greater efficiency and lower costs,
including, largely,
the “waste ground” as the final
destination.Mayitbeinsteadtherightgoaltoreduce
thevolumesofgoodstransported,whileatthesame
time making their destination more efficient, ideally
tolostnothingandprovidingthateverythingwillbe
reach the right place at the right time? Thanks to
technologicaldevelopments,itispossibleforthefirst
time in human history, at least theoretically. When
artificialintelligencethatmanagesmartshippingwill
be able to obtain complete additional information
fromwholesalersandretailers,governmentagencies,
528
etc.,uptotheendconsumersʹhomerefrigerators(the
InternetofThings),itcancalculateatevery moment
whatgoodswhere toandhowmuchshouldgo.Itis
anidealpictureandrequiresthetransformationofall
the basic economic paradigms, the most difficult of
which is not only
to embrace the principles and
beliefs of the business community, but also of the
wholeconsumersociety,whichisofcoursequitehard
tobelieve.
3 CONCLUSIONS
The author of this publication is convinced that the
advent of digital shipping to the worldʹs seas is
inevitableasatroublesome
andfullof setbacks,this
journey would not be. However, even a brief
overviewmade inthisarticleshows that there are a
number of different risk factors and obstacles that
makeitdifficulttodo.
Theauthorhasplacedthemainthreatsdescribed
in the article in the rankings firstly
by their
probabilityandcomplexity,andsecondlytheseverity
oftheconsequences.Therankingcameoutlikethis:
1 Humanfactor
Unauthorized malicious intrusion into system
(hacking);
The lack of readiness of entrepreneurs to
contributetothesystem;
The imperfection of the leading global
economicmodelandhumanqualities;
2 Internaldisturbancesandfaultsinthesystemasa
supercomplexsystem;
3 Effects of external factors (natural forces such as
cosmicimpacts).
The influence of external factors is placed in the
lastplace,despitethefactthattheirconsequencescan
be very serious. This has been done because the
probabilityoftheseeventsislow.
Toavoidmistakesthatmaybefatalto
thesystem
or parts of that, the effects and factors described in
thisarticle,andmanyothersthatwerenotreflectedor
mentionedquitebriefly,certainlyneedseriousfurther
researchandanalysis.
REFERENCES
Andrews, E. 2016. The Sinking of Andrea Doria.
https://www.history.com/news/the‐sinking‐of‐andrea‐
doria.
Beam 2018. The World’s First Electric Autonomous
Container Ship To Set Sail In Norway. CleanTehnica:
https://cleantechnica.com/2018/08/23/the‐worlds‐first‐
electric‐autonomous‐container‐ship‐to‐set‐sail‐in‐
norway/.
Berns,S.,Dickson,R.,Dragt,J&Vonck,I.2017.Smart
Ports.
PointofView.TheNetherlands:DeloittePortServices:
https://www2.deloitte.com/.
Chavaillaz, A., Wastell, D. & Sauer, J. 2016. System
reliability, performance and trust in adaptable
automation.AppliedErgonomics52,333‐342.
Cowan,D.2018.Areautonomousshipsthefuture?Finance
/ Maritime Economy. Raconteur:
https://www.raconteur.net/finance/autonomous‐ships.
McCreadie,K.2009.Adam
SmithʹsTheWealthofNations:
A modern‐day interpretation of an economic classic.
InfiniteIdeas,Oxford,UK.
Grantham, R. 2016. The 4th industriaal revolution and
maritime transport. Linkedin:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/4th‐industrial‐
revolution‐maritime‐transport‐robert‐
grantham?trk=portfolio_article‐card_title.
Kuldna, P. Säästva arengu foorum 2016 (in Estonian).
Tallinn:SEI,2016.
Kummu,M.,Moel
de,H.,Porkka,M.,Siebert,S.,Varis,O.&
Ward, P. J. 2012. Lost food, wasted resources: Global
food supply chain losses and their impacts on
freshwater, cropland, and fertiliser use. Science of the
Total Environment, Volume 438, November 2012, Pages
477‐489.
Langhe de, B., Larrick, R. & Puntoni,
S. 2017. Linear
ThinkinginaNonlinear World. UK: HarvardBusiness
Review: https://hbr.org/2017/05/linear‐thinking‐in‐a‐
nonlinear‐world.
Redundancy (engineering) 2018. Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redundancy_(engineering
).
Seaports of the World by Country 2019.
http://exportvirginia.org/wp‐
content/uploads/2014/04/Seaports‐of‐the‐World.pdf.
Stopford,M.2015.SmartShipping‐Revolutioncanbeslow.
The Naval Architect, September 2015.
https://www.rina.org.uk/Smart‐Shipping
‐
Revoltion.html.
The world merchant fleet‐statistics from Equasis 2018.
EMSA: http://www.emsa.europa.eu/equasis‐
statistics/items.html?cid=95&id=472.
United Nations 2019.Review of Maritime Transport 2018.
NewYorkandGeneva:UNCTAD/RMT/2018.
World Shipping Council 2019.
http://www.worldshipping.org/about‐the‐
industry/liner‐ships/container‐vessel‐fleet.
