Paying attention to ergonomics is regarded as an expensive luxury – but ignoring them could be even more expensive in the long run.

1. 8 | Seaways | September 2021 Read Seaways online at www.nautinst.org/seaways
Feature: Expensive ergonomics
Paying attention to ergonomics is regarded as an expensive luxury – but ignoring them could be even
more expensive in the long run.
Expensive ergonomics
I
t is commonly accepted that 80% of accidents in the maritime
industry are linked to human error, putting life, environment, and
financial resources at risk. This statistic has remained unchanged for
many years – particularly interesting considering that many systems
have been automated over the last 40 years. Despite this, most incidents
continue to be attributed to humans as operators. This situation suggests
that the definition ‘human error’ as it stands poses a significant omission.
Why do we humans make so many mistakes, and how much of a role
does ergonomics play in contributing to these errors?
Ergonomics is one of those concepts that is frequently referred to,
widely accepted but not well comprehended. We often misuse the term
‘ergonomics’ interchangeably with ‘comfort’. While comfort can be
an element of ergonomics, ergonomics itself is the scientific discipline
concerned with the understanding of interactions among humans and
other elements of a system. It is also a profession that applies theory,
principles, data and methods to optimise human well-being and overall
system performance.
In the shipping sector, the human element is of critical importance,
but ergonomics has often been given low priority. The article will
navigate the sources of this interesting dilemma where the importance
of ergonomics has been recognised by all, but this recognition has little
reflection on applications.
Are we exaggerating the significance of ergonomics, or are
stakeholders merely paying lip service to the concept?
Ergonomics matters
Human performance, either physical or cognitive, is dependent
on many factors which the science of ergonomics aims to address.
Scientific research into human behaviour reveals that humans have
difficulty adapting to any design that forces them to work in an
uncomfortable, stressful, or dangerous way. The study of ergonomics
aims to avoid this outcome by understanding how equipment,
workplace or systems can be designed to suit the human, rather than
the other way around.
The maritime industry is a large-scale socio-technical system with the
human at the centre of the system. Other high-hazard industries have
recognised the importance of minimising the risk from human error,
and taken action to address the factors leading up to that error. The
nuclear power industry is one of the exemplary sectors that has led the
way in understanding, measuring, and improving human reliability.
For decades, it has been dynamically researching and investing in
ergonomics to minimise human error for the sake of avoiding major
incidents.
Ergonomics on board
There are two key problems resulting from suboptimal ergonomics;
reduced cognitive ability and complacency. The cognitive ability of
the operator is critically important in demanding operations, especially
if there is an element of time pressure. At present, most of the work
about ergonomics on board ships relates to bridge design. Although
the reason for this is obvious, ergonomics is an issue everywhere
that humans need to operate. The engine room, cargo control room
and deck areas are no less important in terms of ergonomics. For
example, the move in recent years from marking ‘high risk’ snapback
zones to regarding the whole of the mooring deck as a danger zone is
ergonomics in action.
For the moment, however, let’s think about bridge operations by
way of example. Imagine a vessel arriving in Singapore at night.
The anchorage is congested, and the vessel is proceeding in water
dominated by complex tidal patterns.
The bridge team is expected to analyse information from multiple
systems simultaneously in this stressful environment, which is
constantly changing. Officers must communicate with VTS and
other vessels effectively while carefully monitoring other vessels by
sight and radar. The visual environment is cluttered by sight-offensive
lights coming from the urban landscape, fishing vessels, harbour areas
and anchored ships. Towing vessels make unpredictable movements.
The position of the vessel must be continuously monitored, and
the anchoring manoeuvre itself must be conducted with only small
clearance from other vessels. There is also the factor of time stress,
such as the need to arrive at the pilot station on time, tender notice of
readiness (NOR), etc.
In this context, the multiple human/machine interfaces on the
bridge causes additional and heavy cognitive load on the bridge team.
Operators are presented with excess information that is hard to process.
In the end, this leads to increased mental load which leaves less mental
capacity to handle any potential mishaps – creating ideal conditions
for the ‘human error’ and ‘poor judgment’ that is still cited as the main
reason in collision incidents by many official bodies.
Hypothetically, if the ship had been operated by human-like robots,
and if the environment they were working in was not in compliance
with their design criteria, would the investigation reports read ‘robot
error’ or would they be something more like ‘misuse of robot’?
Contrast this with the approach taken in the aviation industry,
which studied cognitive loads among pilots in simulators to measure
electrical activity in the brain and heart rates in critical demanding
situations (eg, a technical problem during flight). The studies revealed
that memory and attention span was significantly impaired in cockpits
equipped with multiple dials. This was minimised by the introduction
of multi-function screens which change the way information is
presented. This was a reorganisation of information, not a reduction.
Design issues and ergonomic implementation
To continue with the question of bridge design, most shipyards choose
one of a few standard console types to accommodate bridge equipment
on cargo vessels. These consoles mostly have sub-ergonomic standards;
straight-edged and greenish rather than rounded sides in sight friendly
colours. For major equipment such as ECDIS, radar, and main
engine control levers the locations are pre-designated. For less major
Captain Mert Daggecen
MNI
Ergonomics lrb.indd 8 20/08/2021 12:33

2. Read Seaways online at www.nautinst.org/seaways September 2021 | Seaways | 9
Feature: Expensive ergonomics
equipment and control panels, installation is subject to convenience,
depending on the wiring and circuit breakers behind the panel.
Over time, the results may look like a standardised design, but if so,
they are one that is optimised to the needs of the equipment, not the
operators. This leads to a multitude of blinking buttons, all clustered
together, and eventually a massive mental workload for the operator.
The four fundamentals of ergonomic design are:
l Safety;
l Simplicity;
l Proximity;
l Performance.
Implementation
To implement ergonomics, interviews are conducted with
operators from different ship types. Nowadays, simulation technology
incorporated with eye-tracking equipment and footprint monitoring
systems is actively used to create prototypes over numerous iterations.
The aim is to select the most suitable position to place monitors,
identify critical elements, including where the operator looks, and
ensure that equipment is within arm’s reach. To remove clutter,
functional analyses are undertaken to identify critical functions,
frequent functions and others that can be merged or removed.
Why is ergonomics underrated in the maritime industry?
There are numerous reasons why the maritime industry has been
slow to implement ergonomics, but most of them come down to one
of two things; awareness and price.
The maritime industry has a tendency to regard ergonomics as an
issue of comfort or even luxury. Since it is hard to express the effects
of sub-optimal ergonomics in terms of return on Investment (ROI),
the ergonomics metric comes as a felt concept rather than measured.
It is highly unlikely that any major incident investigation report has
ever directly recorded [bad] ergonomics as the main root cause. At
best, incident reports cite fatigue as a contributing factor, but not
ergonomics. The cues for decision making are not always directly
observable.
Apart from awareness, ergonomics comes at a cost. Decision-makers
are generally motivated by economies of scale, and the extra costs
that come from ergonomics, as a result of better material or better
design, are multiplied by vessel number or capita. Acute competition
in the market leads to cost pressures and ergonomics are ultimately
considered to be an unnecessary expense.
There are valid grounds for this cost-centric approach, but it
overlooks the hidden costs of potential accidents, damage to reputation,
poor employee engagement and loss of loyalty – to say nothing of the
hidden savings of operational optimisation.
Although many systems have been automated, their performance
is very much dependent on human performance. This involves
technical issues such as predictive maintenance, fuel optimisation and
efficient use of spares. It also applies to operational issues; effective
communication with the company, operator, charterers, oil major
representatives, port state control officers. The issues that come from
these matters are many, and the losses caused by them in sum are large.
It is notable that these ‘hidden’ costs are not that hidden in other
human-intensive and high-hazard industries.
What can the industry do?
Pragmatic and viable solutions are in the hands of three major
maritime entities:
Regulatory bodies
MLC was a big step forward in bringing certain standards to crew
welfare and the same has to apply to ergonomic standards for onboard
applications.
Standardisation of ergonomics would not only eliminate cost
competition between ship managers but also prompt economies of
scale, diminishing the price premium for ergonomics over time. In the
absence of defined minimum standards, ship managers who invest in
ergonomics will have the sense of being punished for being good. In
most cases, however, it is the crew who are punished by working in a
sub-ergonomic environment.
Shipyards
Shipyards are at the heart of ergonomics implementation. Although the
equipment is chosen by ship managers, shipyards are in contact with
equipment manufacturers, and hold collective bargaining power to
pursue ergonomics standards on equipment designs.
The aviation industry provides a good example of this, with research
and developments run at the site of manufacturers. In a similar way,
shipyards should pioneer to elevate design standards as being the hub
of these affairs. It is the shipyards who finalise all implementation of
ergonomic design. Without their commitment, neither regulations nor
equipment manufacturers’ initiatives can meet ergonomic standards.
Academics
Full awareness of the impact of ergonomics can only come as a result
of established metrics and measurements conducted by academic
bodies. As long as there is a lack of measurement, we cannot
really comprehend what is at stake in the presence of suboptimal
ergonomics. More studies should be undertaken, in addition to the few
credible studies which are currently accessible, mostly conducted by
Scandinavian universities.
Almost all documents suggest the difficulty of assessing the financial
impact of ergonomics in the maritime sector. This leads us to the
issue of research methodology itself. Rather than looking at economic
outcomes or incident investigations, researchers in ergonomics should
put the focus on the human. Measurements and metrics need to be
set with reference to cognitive load, the impact of switching tasks in
ergonomic and sub-ergonomic conditions, response time and error
ratios, and the mental and physical features of the human. Systems and
processes should then be designed around humans to make the most of
their capability – a process referred to as Human Centred Design.
Much of this research can be adapted from the aviation industry.
The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has already
made advances and set standards for ergonomics under code ISO/
TC 159, while The Nautical Institute’s publication Improving Ship
Operational Design provides a framework for these improvements in
the maritime domain.
Conclusion
Shipping companies are capital ventures, and their financial
sustainability is important not only for their shareholders but also for
their employees and the welfare of society. Ship managers need to
be relieved of the need to make compromises between ergonomics
and unviable costs. To make ergonomics optimal is everyone’s
responsibility, but regulators, shipyards and researchers should take a
much stronger lead.
That said, those ship managers who can optimise and implement
ergonomics in today’s market would gain a distinctive strategic
capability by attracting more qualified crew – resulting in reduced
operational costs, increased reputation and benefits from the synergy
effect.
To come back to where we started, perhaps rather than saying that
‘80% of maritime accidents are due to human error,’ in the light of
science we should instead say ‘80% of maritime accidents are due to
humans working in suboptimal conditions’. Unless we can address
those conditions, that figure will not change.
Ergonomics lrb.indd 9 20/08/2021 12:33