Trans RINA, Vol 156, Part C1, Intl J Marine Design, Jan - Dec 2014
attributable to early Human Factors analysis have been calculated by the French, Canadian and Royal Navy.
2.3 ERGONOMICS AND THE TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY
Previous unsuccessful transfers equipment
and sociotechnical
focused almost entirely on the engineering associated with the
have ignored the
technology that was not ergonomically re-designed to the requirements of its
system. Shahnavaz [52] new environment
labelled ‘transplanted
technology’, and observed that such transfers were ‘doomed to failure’. Ergonomic re-design and evaluation goes beyond user-centred design and testing and now requires the appraisal of the technology within a broader, sociotechnical system context. This is one of the key concepts in HFI. Transfer of technology will often involve the cross-fertilisation of engineering principles among application areas but will always involve an operator; therefore, it will always involve ergonomics. The user is the component that determines the success of the transfer of technology. Furthermore, ‘Technology’ is not really a ‘thing’; it is better characterised as an approach. It is the application of scientific principles to solve
practical problems. Technology has been
described as having three facets: material artefacts; the use of artefacts to pursue a goal; and the knowledge to use these artefacts [53]. Technologies can be product technologies
(associated with the physical and
engineering aspects of equipment) and process technologies (associated with the processes by which problems are solved). Not all transfers of technological concepts among application areas are
likely to be
unsuccessful, though: far from it. The flight deck management approach to promote good team working and safe
operations in civil aircraft (CRM) has
successfully transferred to the air traffic control application domain, aircraft maintenance and the surgical operating theatre. In the maritime industry it has been implemented either as Bridge Resource Management or Maritime Resource Management, and is shortly to become a mandatory training requirement.
Previously, the five ‘M’s framework has only been presented as a sociotechnical system framework, but it can be used to consider the likely success of technology transfer from one domain to another (Harris and Harris, [16]). Essentially, the more characteristics described within the Five ‘M’s that the donor and recipient application areas have in common, the more likely it is that a technology will transfer. Transfer of technology is a key principle;
ensuring lessons learned in one
application area do not need to be relearned when addressing related problems in a different area. Transfer of technology is all about transfer
of appropriate
solutions to problems. However, it may be the case that the transfer of technology from a sector such as aerospace to the marine industry is not motivated by such
of technology have wider
a problem-solving requirement; hence the transfer of technology may not be particularly successful. The framework is not intended as a checklist, but as a frame of reference for taking into account the key issues that need to be considered before transferring a technology into a different domain. A key part of this proposal is to investigate the transfer of design principles and solutions from other transportation (and high-risk industries) to the maritime industry (for example, in the
design and
operation of display systems on the bridge and ship automation).
3. PROGRESS BEYOND THE STATE OF THE ART
3.1 PRELIMINARY DESIGN PROCESS OPTIMISATION
Wagner [54] presented the results of an early application of a packing approach on the design of deepwater drilling vessel, as a test case in order to evaluate its practical capabilities. The 3D packing routine for the early stage configuration design of ships has the potential to enable a more thorough consideration of a large number of alternative designs early in the design process. Their work illustrate that a large and diverse set of compact and coherent drilling vessel configurations can indeed be obtained on the basis of one single
input model,
demonstrating its capability to generate a large number of alternative designs. They demonstrated a two-step approach, in which a designer first generates a large amount of configuration alternatives and consequently evaluates and select solutions, can flexibly be applied, demonstrating its utility in the early stage design of deepwater drilling vessels. The generated configuration alternatives were shown to be logical in configuration, reasonably compact and all satisfy a basic level of feasibility. Application
of
developing a suitable model which is generate a comprehensive
the approach starts with then used to
cloud of configuration
alternatives. On the basis of the available alternatives the designer manually evaluates and selects solutions. Any of the modelling, generation and evaluation steps may need to be revisited in order to adjust the focus of the search for designs of interest.
In the field of Naval Architecture, decisions in the design process, and their justification, are extremely important and influential. Although
decisions are taken (and
rationale expressed) during all phases of the design process, they are most important during concept design. It is estimated that 90% of the major design decisions have been made when less than 10% of the design effort has been extended. These
influence on the quality of the resulting design.
decisions have a direct If
improper or inferior decisions are taken, the resulting design can be suboptimal, or in the worst case, fail. Although design rationale occurs in multiple areas of concept design, it would be particularly valuable during the configuration design of complex vessels. The layout
©2014: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects
C-15
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188