International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 50 (2015) 62e72

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ergon

Integrating Human Factors & Ergonomics in large-scale engineering

projects: Investigating a practical approach for ship design
Steven C. Mallam*, Monica Lundh, Scott N. MacKinnon
Division of Maritime Human Factors & Navigation, Department of Shipping & Marine Technology, Chalmers University of Technology,
SE-412 96 Gothenburg, Sweden

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The human element is a critical component of safe and efficient shipping operations but has struggled to
Received 30 March 2015 gain comprehensive acceptance across the industry. This investigation explores a practical approach to
Received in revised form introduce Human Factors and Ergonomics knowledge early in ship design by utilizing general arrange-
26 June 2015
ment drawings as a common platform for stakeholder input throughout ship development. An onboard
Accepted 10 September 2015
Available online 21 September 2015
data collection was completed using a cargo ship and its crew as a case study. A comparative analysis
between the ship's two-dimensional general arrangement drawings from which the structure was built,
and the constructed onboard work environment was performed. Additionally, the engine crew was job-
Keywords:
Naval architect
shadowed and interviewed to gain insight into their work demands and movement within the space.
Marine engineer General arrangement drawings were found to be incomplete and when directly compared to a finalized
Transport product indicated inaccuracies in design and work environment characteristics, making comprehensive
Participatory ergonomics human element evaluations difficult. However, general arrangement drawings were found advantageous
Link analysis in mapping and visualizing logistical routing which can be evaluated early in ship development, posi-
Task analysis tively contributing to crew operations once a ship is constructed. Solving the rudimentary design con-
cerns engine crew struggle with earlier in ship design will provide a better foundation for increasingly
detailed development.
Relevance to industry: This research investigates a design approach which integrates Human Factors and
Ergonomics knowledge in a pragmatic, resource-efficient manner which can positively impact onboard
crew operations. An integrative design approach is necessary for widespread acceptance and adoption of
human element considerations within naval architecture design and construction methodologies.
© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Coastguard Agency, 2010). HF&E integration is a particular chal-

The maritime shipping domain is one of the world's oldest and
truly international industries, continuing to globalize our society
and economies (Bloor et al., 2000; Stopford, 2009). Seafaring is a
safety critical domain and has a long history of shipwrecks and
disasters. There is a cultural association and acknowledged accep-
tance of relatively high levels of risk compared to other industries
(Bloor et al., 2000; Hetherington et al., 2006; Håvold, 2005). Over
the past several decades growing importance has been placed on
the role of the human within shipping operations and the benefit of
integrating Human Factors and Ergonomics (HF&E) within ship
design to contribute to overall safety and efficiency (International
Maritime Organization [IMO], 1997, 2006a, 2006b; Maritime
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: steven.mallam@chalmers.se (S.C. Mallam).
lenge in the mercantile shipping domain due to the competitive
globalized market and a drive for lean economic manufacturing and
operating models. This is attributed to, amongst other issues, the
difficulty in demonstrating the cost-savings and benefit derived
through HF&E practices (Beevis, 2003; Hendrick, 2003;
Koningsveld et al., 2005).
Ship design and construction are extensive engineering pro-
cesses with well-established industry traditions and methodolo-
gies. For HF&E to be utilized early and continuously during ship
design and construction, methods need to be created and marketed
to naval architects and marine designers which are user-friendly,
demonstrate cost-efficiency and are easily integrated throughout
a project. HF&E has yet to find this balance in ship design and
construction, failing to gain widespread organized application and
acceptance. Shipping companies are consistently reducing crew in
favour of automation in order to cut operational costs. Crew

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2015.09.007
0169-8141/© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 S.C. Mallam et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 50 (2015) 62e72
downsizing, which alters work demands and organization em-
phasizes the need to have well designed ships for the reduced
onboard personnel operating the vessel (Archer et al., 1996; Barnett
et al., 2005; Grabowski and Hendrick, 1993; Grech et al., 2008).
2. Background
2.1. Ship procurement
The procurement of a new ship is a large-scale, multi-disci-
plinary project which can span years from initial concept to
deployment (Rawson and Tupper, 2001; Veenstra and Ludema,
2006). With the opening of international marketplaces, increased
domain specialization and economic competition, ship design and
construction processes are often split between numerous stake-
holders and geographical locations (Stopford, 2009). Marine
structural design is dependent upon the purpose and demands
specified by stakeholders, and the requirement criteria set by
respective regulatory bodies (Schneekluth and Bertram, 1998).
2.1.1. Design methodologies & general arrangement development
The complexity and scale of a new ship design project requires a
comprehensive and proactive approach throughout development
in identifying inter-dependencies and associated risks (Chalfant
et al., 2012). Ship design and construction are seemingly exclu-
sively engineering and economic processes. However, the overall
project involves strong skills and organization in project manage-
ment, teamwork, communication, business, economics, art, crea-
tivity, leadership and domain experience (Rawson and Tupper,
2001).
While there are many differing project management method-
ologies used for ship development, they follow an approach
generally divided into two broad phases (i) basic design and (ii)
detailed design (Molland, 2008). The basic design stage develops
principle ship dimensions and power requirements that will satisfy
the ship's defined performance and techno-economic prerequisites
(Molland, 2008). As the design and project progresses from initial
general requirements and purpose, basic design evolves into
increasingly detailed variables which are introduced and evaluated
iteratively throughout the process (Evans, 1959; Lyon and Mistree,
1985; Mistree et al., 1990; Han et al., 2014). After being introduced
with the general purpose and specifications, naval architects begin
rough sketches or “thinking sketches” to pictorially represent and
communicate their ideas (Pawling and Andrews, 2011). Sketching is
used to externalize ideas and develop new ideas to understand a
coherent whole (Fallman, 2003) and may take place first with
pencil and paper or immediately using computer-aided design
(CAD) software. Sketches and concepts evolve through reiterative
cycles into more concrete and complete drawings of a ship's layout
and general arrangement (GA). GA drawings illustrate the basic
physical dimensions and layout of a ship, including side and cross-
sectional views of the different compartments, location and
arrangement of bulkheads, superstructures and major equipment
(van Dokkum, 2011). The greatest influence on designers formu-
lating a GA is how to best achieve a ship's predefined purpose,
deadweight, capacity and speed requirements (Watson, 1998). Ship
designers are primarily concerned with ship powering, stability,
strength and seakeeping, with less focus and importance placed on
the end-users who will eventually operate the constructed ship
(Andrews et al., 2008).
Ship designers rarely spend time onboard ships at sea and
seldom have the opportunity of forming an understanding of the
real working conditions and demands of crew during ship opera-
tions (Chauvin et al., 2008). In recent years, ship computerization
and automation have been related to a concurrent reduction in
63
onboard crew, changing operational tasks and work organization
(Archer et al., 1996; Barnett et al., 2005; Bloor et al., 2000). The
addition of new technologies to work systems can create unin-
tended alterations in original work processes for end-users (Barnett
et al., 2005; Cook and Woods, 1996; Ivergård and Hunt, 2009;
Woods and Dekker, 2000). Recent research has investigated the
challenging work environments and dangers crew face onboard
contemporary ships, revealing that ship design does not optimally
support their operational demands (Forsell et al., 2007; Grech et al.,
2008; Lundh et al., 2011; Nielsen and Panayides, 2005; Orosa and
Oliviera, 2010). Ship designers are removed from how their
conceived end-products are actually used in the real world. With
continually evolving technologies and evolving ship operational
procedures, designers who are disconnected from the realities of
onboard demands will never be able to visualize nor create a ship
optimized for the capacities of the end-user.
2.2. HF&E integration in ship procurement
Human-centred design requires integration between the hu-
man, machine(s) and work environment (International
Organisation for Standardization, 2000). The benefits of thought-
ful human-centred design should increase productivity, reduce
errors, reduce training and support, improve user trust and
enhance system reputation (Maguire, 2001). HF&E participation
can facilitate overall system design outcomes, improve project
management resources and improve lifecycle cost-savings
(Hendrick, 2008). Effectively integrating HF&E into engineering
projects such as ship development can be challenging and stake-
holders may not realize or understand the full potential of HF&E.
The value of HF&E is often questioned by the design community,
thus it is important to identify the source of significant cost-savings
and human performance benefits due to an HF&E intervention in
design (Stanton and Young, 2003). Hendrick (1996, 2008) notes
that “good” HF&E is not only appropriately applied knowledge, but
also cost-effective.
The earlier HF&E is utilized in a project the better guidance it
can give in identifying the most appropriate design (Stanton and
Young, 2003). HF&E professionals should be involved as early as
the request for authorization to build a new ship, before concept
brainstorming begins (Chauvin et al., 2008). Decisions made early
in the design process can have large impacts on functionality which
cannot necessarily be identified or understood until the design and
project progresses (Kassel et al., 2010). In reality, designers place
little attention and value on HF&E in ship design and if considered
at all are generally late in the development process (Andrews et al.,
2008; Dul and Neumann, 2009). Thus, HF&E application must then
be made within the overall design constraints of a project, after
resources have been allocated and strategic decisions have been
made. This leads to a focus on micro-ergonomic solutions within
the established design, while larger perspective ergonomic issues,
such as personnel movement, cannot be effectively addressed or
altered so far into the process (Andrews, 2006).
The later HF&E is applied in a project timeline the less effective
its impact on design is, while subsequent changes become
increasingly expensive (Alexander, 1999; Dul and Neumann, 2009;
Miles and Swift, 1998). Additionally, once in operation, crew devise
ways to “work around” poor design solutions in order to increase
work efficiency and mitigate the negative impact of poor design on
their work tasks. Engaging in this practice can encourage unsafe
work procedures, putting engine crew, other ship personnel, pas-
sengers, assets and the external environment at risk (Forsell et al.,
2007; Lundh et al., 2011). Thus, optimal design of a ship's work
environment incorporates knowledge of end-user work demands
and tasks that facilitate work efficiency, system usability and safety.
64 S.C. Mallam et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 50 (2015) 62e72
Two categories of stakeholders are particularly important for
HF&E application in ship procurement: management and de-
signers. Both management and organization must support HF&E, as
well as be easily accessible and integrative for designers in their
work. A gap in communication and understanding can exist be-
tween multi-disciplinary project stakeholders (i.e. end-users, de-
signers, construction personnel, management, owners) (Barrett
and Baldry, 2003; Barrett and Stanley, 1999). Stakeholders with
varying educational and professional backgrounds have differing
priorities and demands in their positions within a project
(Hendrick, 2003). A similar disconnect exists between researchers
and practitioners. New knowledge is insufficiently promoted and
applied in practice, thus advancements in new and novel tech-
niques are limited and slow to adapt (Parent et al., 2007), as is the
case for HF&E utilization in contemporary ship design.
HF&E is often associated primarily with health and safety issues,
while the wider value and perspective of the field is not fully un-
derstood (Dul and Neumann, 2009; Jenkins and Rickards, 2001).
Historically, many ergonomic solutions are simply examples of bad
ergonomics and HF&E professionals have been accused of not being
able to justify the costs of their activities. The discipline is viewed as
a softer science, lacking the ability to demonstrate the cost-benefit
of investment (Hendrick, 1996). However, HF&E methods will have
a tendency to be used by other domains if they appear accessible
and originally developed from engineering methods (Stanton and
Young, 2003). Initially, HF&E interventions should address “low
hanging fruit” by analysing obvious deficiencies in design which
can be easily fixed and show results, which gains more immediate
credibility with stakeholders and financiers (Hendrick, 2008).
2.2.1. A strategy for new ship development to be further explored
Effective management of distributed organizations on a global
level requires knowledge to be transferred from one individual,
team or geographical location to another (Argote et al., 2000). The
creation and management of common factors amongst multi-
disciplinary stakeholders is vital in developing and maintaining
coherence amongst stakeholders (e.g. HF&E professionals and na-
val architects) (Star and Griesemer, 1989). Effective management
can facilitate communication, establish a common language and
foster understanding between project colleagues (Broberg et al.,
2011).
Creating a participatory design process more directly involves
end-user with production engineers and designers in creating new
work systems (Sundin et al., 2004). This creates an inclusive envi-
ronment where problems are detected early in the design process
and optimal solutions can be implemented, thus creating a more
effective and ergonomic design. To facilitate joint problem-solving
between stakeholders boundary objects can establish concrete
means for individuals to share and represent their knowledge in a
shared context (Carlile, 2002, 2004). Boundary objects in design
processes can include such things as CAD, computer simulations,
brainstorming sessions, worker training, scale or full-size physical
mock-ups, drawings, surveys, injury reports (Broberg et al., 2011).
Initial concept GA ship sketches and more detailed layout drawings
have been identified as a potential platform where HF&E can be
meaningfully integrated into the traditional design process in order
to better support participatory design practices (Mallam and
Lundh, 2014; Lundh et al., 2012). Simulation of mass evacuation
and general crew movement using three-dimensional (3D) CAD
software has been performed in early ship design, although
without comprehensive consideration of crew work demands
(Andrews, 2006; Andrews et al., 2008; Ginnis et al., 2010). However,
a GA analysis in early ship concept design for specific crew work
tasks could provide an opportunity for effective HF&E integration
early and continuously throughout ship development.
One of the most challenging and dangerous work environments
onboard a ship is the engine department. Engine room safety and
efficiency can be enhanced by utilizing end-users (i.e. subject-
matter experts [SME]) and HF&E professionals when formulating
its design and layout (IMO, 1998). Thus, the engine department can
benefit from GA drawings analysis early in design as a mode for
HF&E integration and evaluation (Mallam and Lundh, 2014).
Compared to other operational areas of a ship, engine department
designs are less generic and have a greater diversity of work
environment layouts (Hetherington et al., 2006). The most critical
element for engine room design is the placement and installation of
machinery, due to its influence on structural design, architectural
stability and operational performance (Okumoto et al., 2009). En-
gine department design is caught in a paradoxical situation: as the
purpose of any ship is to maximize its carrying capacity and
payload, space allocated to the engine room is in direct competition
with cargo space. Minimizing the physical footprint of the engine
room is in the interest of designers and owners because it is
beneficial in maximizing carrying capacity, making the ship more
profitable once put into service. Thus, the engine department work
environment and engine crew work demands within this space are
considered less important to the overall ship's purpose and goals.
The design and layout of equipment is critical for engine crew
movement and labour-intensive work, thus an ideal focus of HF&E
analyses in basic GA drawings and ship design.
3. Objectives
The purpose of this paper is to explore a design philosophy and
method that better aides the utilization and integration of HF&E
and end-users early in ship design. In order to appeal to non-expert
stakeholders who finance (i.e. ship owners, investors, etc.), design
and construct ships (i.e. naval architects, shipyards, construction
companies, contractors, sub-contractors, etc.), a pragmatic HF&E
framework is explored to optimize resources. This investigation
takes a four-pronged approach using a cargo ship and its engine
department as a case study:
(i) complete an general onboard work environment analysis of
the ship's physical structure and work environment
characteristics;
(ii) compare the aforementioned work environment analysis to
the two-dimensional (2D) GA drawings from which the ship
was built;
(iii) conduct onboard crew interviews and job shadowing in or-
der to understand end-user demands and how the space
within the structure is used;
(iv) investigate the Link Analysis method as a mapping and or-
ganization technique to visualize crew movements and work
demands in 2D GA ship drawings.
Overall, the goal of the investigation is to document the
strengths and weaknesses of using GA drawings as a platform for
HF&E integration throughout ship design and construction. By
better understanding the benefits and drawbacks of using GA
drawings as a tool for evaluating the human element in shipping
operations HF&E practitioners can become a more effective
resource in complex engineering projects.
4. Methodology
4.1. Field data collection
A Roll-on, Roll-off cargo ship (Gross Tonnage: 23128.0 Metric
Tons; Overall Length: 191.8 m; Breadth: 26.4 m; Draft: 7.8 m) built
 S.C. Mallam et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 50 (2015) 62e72
and in operation since 2006 was used as a case study. Onboard data
were collected over a period of eight days during the ship's oper-
ation in the Gulf of Bothnia, Baltic and Kattegat Seas. During this
period were stops in five ports in three different countries.
4.1.1. General onboard work environment analysis
The onboard workspace analysis focused on the ship's engine
department. This included detailed documentation of all engine
rooms and engine control facilities. A generalized checklist was
used to catalogue basic physical characteristics of each identified
area, dimensions, type of equipment, auxiliary installations and
ergonomic considerations. In order to capture a holistic perspective
of engine crew work, passageways and access points throughout
the engine rooms and ship that were of interest to engine crew
were documented. Each area was photographed and videotaped in
detail for post hoc analysis.
4.1.2. GA drawings comparison
A comparison between the cargo ship's 2D GA drawings (from
which the structure was built) and an analysis of the onboard work
environment was performed. This aimed to document how closely
the conceptual drawings reflected reality, specifically how the
construction differed from the original design. 2D GA drawings
(top-view, side-view and front-view of all decks) of the ship and its
detailed machinery arrangement were acquired from the shipping
company in both digital and large-format physical copies prior to
data collection (see Fig. 1).
GA drawings are a ubiquitous platform for multi-disciplinary
project stakeholders throughout design and construction phases.
HF&E professionals working within design projects must better
understand the information that can be derived from, and utility of
basic GA drawings for specific HF&E evaluations because they are of
critical importance for engineering and design domains. Thus, a
better knowledge of the potential for utilizing GA drawings for
HF&E evaluations can better inform integration and work package
strategies throughout the development large-scale engineering
projects.
4.1.3. Crew interviews & job shadowing
To complement the static structural analysis and to provide a
more comprehensive perspective of the work environment and
expert knowledge of how the system operates in practice the en-
gine crew were utilized throughout the process of data collection.
The engine crew consisted of an officer team which included a
Chief, Second and Third Engineer. In addition, a motorman, part-
time electrician and engine cadet were onboard during this
period. All engine crew were job shadowed over the course of the
eight days. Semi-structured interviews were set up with each en-
gine crewmember and unstructured questioning occurred
throughout job shadowing opportunities.
4.1.4. Link analysis: visual mapping on ship drawings
Link analysis is a task description method that produces a more
generalized summary of activities performed by end-users, focus-
sing on operator actions rather than work-defined tasks (Hollnagel,
2012). Link Analysis is an evaluation tool that is used to investigate
interface design and usability “links” or connections in a system,
determining nature, frequency and importance (Stanton et al.,
2005). The Link Analysis method can visualize key areas
throughout a ship structure important for crew tasks. Node links
represented and mapped on GA drawings reveal relationships be-
tween objects and areas within a physical space. After the data was
collected and analysed key nodes for engine crew operation were
identified and linked in the ship's 2D GA drawings. Through this
process and interaction the HF&E professionals and marine
65
engineers created a database of key areas, linkages and tasks
located and executed throughout the engine room and ship
important for crew operations. The concept drawings and results
from the onboard analysis of the actual work environment were
then compared against each other to reveal the benefits and
drawbacks using GA drawings for HF&E evaluation.
5. Results
5.1. Conceptual design vs. constructed reality
Differences between the ship's GA drawings and the constructed
work environment were revealed. As its name suggests, GA draw-
ings are a general and incomplete representation of the finalized
work environment. The GA drawings primarily detail the hull
structure, divisions and dimensions of differing compartments
throughout the ship including the location and type of primary
equipment and operational systems. Additionally, space and
clearance levels between equipment, crew passageways, emer-
gency exits, stairs and door placement throughout the structure are
included.
The onboard data collected revealed that although the primary,
large equipment and operational systems were accounted for
within the GA drawing, an abundance of auxiliary equipment and
installations were absent. By comparing the GA to reality, what first
looks like adequate clearance between equipment and unob-
structed passageways for crew or spare-parts logistics is in reality
occupied by various installations added in throughout the devel-
opment and construction of the ship. The design and placement of
items such as piping and electrical systems, manual valves,
switches, lifting aides and smaller auxiliary equipment installations
impacted the finalized dimensions of work areas and passageways,
revealing many cases of impeded access to equipment throughout
the engine rooms.
Fig. 2 demonstrates a typical case of the absence of auxiliary
installation detail in GA drawings compared to the finalized work
environment (The arrow superimposed over the GA drawing in-
dicates the position and direction the photograph e as seen directly
below the GA drawing e was taken from). In this example, the
midsection of deck 1 is magnified to reveal a section of the engine
room where the fire, cooling and ballast pumps are located. The GA
drawing illustrates an open area between the large ballast tanks
where only the pump machinery and an overhead lifting aid are
included. The information derived from this GA drawing indicates
that there is essentially unobstructed access for crew and equip-
ment movement between each pump and the main area of the
engine room. However, as revealed by the photograph reality is
very different. Large deck-level piping and valve installations, as
well as overhead piping and overhead electrical tray systems
dramatically alter the finalized work environment, dimensions and
access possibilities.
Additionally, the comparative analysis showed that exact mea-
surements of equipment components, size and shape, distance
between equipment and passageways, flooring features, door sizes
and stairway characteristics (width, railings and number of stairs in
each flight) were not accurately described in the GA drawings
compared to reality. Analysis of the GA drawings revealed that the
placements of structures within the ship were used more as
placeholders to represent where equipment and components were
to be installed and not completely representative of the finalized
construction and work environment. The differences found be-
tween the GA drawings and the constructed ship has altered the
finalized work environment from concept, ultimately imposing
operational and safety implications for crew that were not initially
foreseen in the GA design.
66 S.C. Mallam et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 50 (2015) 62e72
Fig. 1. Partial GA drawings of a Roll-On Roll-Off cargo ship.
5.2. Crew demands: how end-users work within the designed space
Engine crew interviews and job shadowing revealed specific
work tasks that were impacted by overall ship design and engine
department layout. Crew also discussed how they actively modified
the originally constructed work environment due to the design
failing to optimally support their operational demands. Differences
between the original design and how the structure was actually
used by the crew became apparent during interviews and job-
shadowing. These were divided into two categories:
(i) the intended design failed to adequately facilitate the crew
and/or ship demands;
(ii) the design did not consider certain crew tasks at all.
As an example of a design-outcome mismatch, the original
locker room, intended to be shared by engine and deck crew, was
deemed to be too inconvenient and far away (three decks above)
from the engine department entrance. Due to the need for marine
engineers to change clothes and safety equipment each time they
enter and exit, as well as wash themselves upon exiting the engine
room, they created a new “locker room” in a smaller but free space
next to the engine control facilities which was more convenient for
their work tasks. This consisted of 2 sets of lockers, a bench and
hooks installed along the walls of the engine department hallways.
This retrofitted, small and exposed space at the entrance of the
engine department was considered a far better option for the en-
gine crew then the purpose-built locker room and showers three
decks above.
Operational examples within the engine rooms themselves
involve the original design failing to include an equipment washing
station in the design or after finalized construction of the ship. A
washing station is critical for day-to-day operation of an engine
department as it is necessary for the cleaning of dirty parts needing
maintenance. Equipment cleaning requires the use of, and exposes
crew to various types of hazardous chemicals, industrial cleaners
and high volumes of water. A purpose-built area with proper
equipment, adequate drainage, ventilation and isolation is impor-
tant for safe and efficient maintenance; the evaluated ship
completely lacked these facilities. In response, once the ship was
operating the onboard crew designed and built a washing area on
their own on one of the decks of the engine room. They retrofitted
an open, empty and accessible space by installing waterlines, hoses,
drainage and makeshift curtains around the area to keep water and
chemicals contained.
5.3. Link analysis in ship design: key nodes identified & visualized
Although marine engineers have specific routines, tasks and
maintenance schedules (varying in frequency of daily, weekly,
 S.C. Mallam et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 50 (2015) 62e72
Fig. 2. Absence of detail in design: GA drawing vs. finalized construction.
monthly, yearly and multi-yearly events) it is difficult to categorize
a typical work shift into consistent task lists and daily operations.
There is planned and unplanned maintenance on equipment, while
port calls (entering and exiting ports) are required to be completed
at varying intervals throughout operation. Instead of creating an
exhaustive list of Task Analyses, the scope of this work was to
investigate marine engineering activities in terms of key locations
around the structure and logistics from a broad physical ergonomic
perspective.
5.3.1. Crew logistics
Crew described differing nodes throughout the engine room and
ship that were key areas where work either directly took place or
was a “starting point” for execution of tasks elsewhere in the ship.
For example, for the engine crew each workday generally begins
with a trip to the locker room: to change in/out of their regular
clothes into one-piece overalls, protective footwear and safety
equipment. This is followed by entering the main crew node for
engine department functioning: the engine control facilities. Crew
are briefed on the current status of the system and the plan for the
upcoming work shift. Work is delegated and discussed between the
67
team before travelling off throughout the ship to onsite work tasks.
The third engineer described that most onsite manual or mainte-
nance tasks carried out in the engine rooms first require a trip to
the workshop, where the appropriate tools would be collected,
stating: “from the workshop you load up a bucket of tools for wherever
you need to go”. Similarly, a trip to/from the storage area for spare-
parts or equipment would be necessary before travelling to the
specific work site.
5.3.2. Stores & equipment logistics
Stores and equipment logistics were described and planned by
crew in a similar way as their own personal movement. Stores and
equipment are transported on the ship from shore-side docks via
cranes and deposited on the main deck of the ship. It then has to be
transported down three levels to the entrance of the engine room
and dispersed to the appropriate site or down one additional deck
level to the main storage area until it is needed. Transportation of
heavy and awkward equipment must be thoroughly planned
throughout the structure. Links between key nodes should be
mapped and provide clear unobstructed routes which permit easy
logistical flow and lifting aides (supply hatches, overhead cranes,
68 S.C. Mallam et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 50 (2015) 62e72
Fig. 3. Link analysis of workshop, main storage area and entrances/exits.
chain blocks, etc.) to facilitate movement from node to node. The
engine crew revealed that ease of equipment movement to/from
the workshop, storage area, and equipment washing area were
critical for their work tasks and logistical flow throughout the en-
gine rooms. Fig. 3 visualizes equipment transport throughout a
deck of the engine room using Link Analysis over the ship's original
GA drawings.
6. Discussion
6.1. GA drawings: HF&E evaluation in early ship design
The investigation revealed that GA drawings are advantageous
and strategic in assessing general crew and equipment movement
throughout the engine room and overall ship. Its strength is in
identifying general dimensions, clearances, links and relationships
between differing areas and equipment. Characteristics of the work
environment can be highlighted from evaluations of the 2D envi-
ronments that may be optimized for crew work demands. As the
results reveal, crew modified their original work environment after
the ship was constructed because final construction did not support
their operational demands. This further supports the value of the
participatory design process and the inclusion of end-users (i.e.
crew experience) throughout ship development (Haines et al.,
2002).
As demonstrated, finalized GA drawings do not provide a
completely accurate representation of the constructed work envi-
ronment. It is not that the GA drawings give inaccurate results, but
rather that the design represented in the GA is far too early in its
process to provide a comprehensive HF&E work environment
evaluation. Installation of sub-systems including auxiliary equip-
ment, piping, electrics and valve placements may not be decided
until well into the ships construction at a shipyard. Additionally,
naval architecture methods and GA development simply do not
account for, or include design criteria necessary for HF&E analyses.
However, these variables which are not considered in GA drawings
subsequently create new challenges and obstacles which impact
the finalized work environment and crew operations. The con-
struction of a ship often begins before detailed drawings are
finalized with fitting the superstructure (Chauvin et al., 2008).
Recent research and accident statistics have revealed the chal-
lenges engine crew face including incidences of slips, trips and falls,
poor design encouraging unsafe work practices, work in confined
spaces and adopting awkward postures which lead to the
development of musculoskeletal disorders (Bloor et al., 2000;
Forsell et al., 2007; Jensen et al., 2005; Lundh et al., 2011). These
dangers can primarily be attributed to poorly defined and/or
implemented installations, which are added after the basic GA
drawings, are finalized.
Through ship development it may not always be possible or
practical to give attention to all elements that impact end-user
operations and work environment in the completed structure.
However, it is critical to have the foresight to consider the differing
components that will eventually fill the structure in a “puzzle-
like” fashion, becoming more complex as detailed designs emerge.
GA evaluations are an integrative method to facilitate HF&E in a
design project as a whole by facilitating a dynamic knowledge
transfer capacity which generates, disseminates and absorbs
knowledge in an adaptive and responsive manner (Parent et al.,
2007). This ultimately creates, captures, distributes and activates
knowledge throughout a project and/or organization to its
stakeholders.
By creating a process where HF&E and end-user knowledge is
more accessible and usable within design processes GA evaluations
can facilitate optimization of equipment placement, access, logis-
tical links and physical ergonomic issues from early in design
development. Initial GA drawings do not consider detailed design,
but having a strong foundation from the early stages of ship design
can optimize design decisions made in later stages of the devel-
opment process. This can limit and mitigate potential hindrances in
the finalized work environment for crew during ship operations.
6.2. Applying the hub-and-spoke model to crew work
Engine crew described their work locations within the ships
structure in a hierarchy of several key nodes. These key nodes are
first visited before crew dispatch throughout the ship for site-
specific tasks on equipment, systems or equipment logistics.
What the crew described corresponds to hub-and-spoke distribu-
tion. The hub-and-spoke model is used to establish networks and
widely applied across a variety of domains such as transport and
logistics (air, marine, ground, etc.), computing and telecommuni-
cations (Brueckner and Zhang, 2001; Elhedhli and Hu, 2005; Imai
et al., 2009; Jeong et al., 2007; Lin and Yang, 2011). Hubs are
centralized, key areas for work activities, while traffic/logistics
moves along spokes in an interconnected system. For example,
large commercial airlines operating between Europe and North
America would have more flights between major cities (i.e. hubs),
 S.C. Mallam et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 50 (2015) 62e72 69

Table 1
Seawater filter maintenance: sequence & location of events.

Sequence Location Deck Event

1 Engine Control 4 Alarm signal e port seawater chest blocked

2 Seawater Chest
3 Workshop
4 Seawater Chest
5 Washing Area
6 Storage Area
7 Seawater Chest
8 Workshop
9 Engine Control
10 Washing Area
11 Storage Area
1 Onsite inspection
2 Collection of appropriate tools/equipment
1 Manual maintenance tasks e dirty seawater filter inspected and removed
1 Transport of seawater filter to washing area
2 New filter transported from storage area to seawater chest
1 Installation of new filter
2 Tools/equipment returned
4 Confirmation of success in the remote monitoring and alarm system
1 Clean dirty seawater filter (performed the next day)
2 Transport cleaned sea water filter to storage area (performed the next day)

such as New York and London with complementing regional flights
to smaller cities throughout each continent (i.e. spokes).
The engine crew described differing hubs in their work envi-
ronment that were visited before travelling along spokes to on-site
work. This was generally described in equipment logistics and
maintenance tasks, but also extended to differing areas of the ship
(i.e. leaving one's personal cabin at night to check the engine
control facilities). Key operational areas and end-user demands
may be slightly different for each ship and engine department.
However, in identifying these links a map can be established and
utilized for early ergonomics intervention and evaluation in early
ship concept and design. Link Analysis offers immediate and useful
output that can be performed early and iteratively throughout the
design process to visualize concepts, identify potential problems
and prompt logical redesign (Stanton et al., 2005). Pairing the Link
Analysis method with a hub-and-spoke model for engine depart-
ment design that is based on end-user demands and tasks can
provide a powerful and organized tool for early HF&E integration in
ship design.
6.2.1. Seawater filter maintenance example
During data collection an unforeseen maintenance task
occurred which required the organization and resources of four
engine crew for several hours: one of the seawater filters was
blocked. Seawater is used to cool the propulsion systems of a ship
and filtration systems remove debris such as marine life (i.e. fish,
sea vegetation, etc.) and refuse picked up by the ship during its
operation. Periodically, the filter must be cleaned in order to
maintain appropriate water flow for adequate cooling of the ship
systems. Cleaning and maintenance intervals are highly variable,
but can range from weekly, monthly or longer periods of time. A
general Task Analysis that focuses on the relationship of event
sequence with location of work tasks is outlined in Table 1.
The sequence of tasks and locations for the entire process of
seawater filter maintenance can be represented in a hub-and-
spoke model (see Fig. 4). This can be visualized on GA draw-
ings and aide in ship development and design decisions for
logistical flow of crew and equipment, as distance, deck levels
traversed and major obstacles are easily visualized and mapped.
However, micro-ergonomic issues and detailed work site evalu-
ations are more difficult to evaluate in GA drawings because the
information is simply not available. The onsite tasks of extracting
the seawater filter from its casing was labour intensive for the
four crew involved. They encountered confined spaces, poor
biomechanical positions, absence of effective lifting aides and
interference of piping and auxiliary installations. This resulted in
challenging transportation and manual material handling of the
filter to/from the worksite. However, this type of information is
not effectively communicated to designers or represented in
design documents.
6.2.2. Three levels of logistics
Engine crew movement throughout a ship's structure can be
categorized into three levels for both personal and equipment
logistics (see Fig. 5). From a more global to local perspective this
entails work and logistics on the levels of inter-department lo-
gistics, intra-engine-department logistics, and site-specific micro-
ergonomics. Inter-department logistics and work is the move-
ment of the engine crew outside of the engine rooms and engine
department. This can include other operational departments (i.e.
bridge, deck crew, etc.) or areas of the ship such as crew accom-
modation. Intra-engine department logistics and work refers
specifically to the movement of personnel and equipment within
and throughout the engine department and engine rooms. Site-
specific work refers to the individual areas or equipment in
which work is carried out either within the engine department
(intra) or in other areas of the ship (inter). Permeating these three
levels is shore-side to ship connections for transport of supplies
from land (and in some circumstances supply vessels) onto the
ship, and vice-versa. This is generally outside of the responsibility
of the engine crew, but nonetheless vital to supplying the ship and
logistics of supplies once they are onboard. These connections are
non-linear, and ideally shore-side, ship and engine department
logistical connections could be made in the most efficient manner
possible (e.g. transporting heavy spare-parts from shore-side via a
crane, directly to the engine department decks and storage areas
within the ship, thus bypassing the need for crew manual material
handling).
6.3. Developing an integration strategy for the maritime domain
There are apparent disconnects between project stakeholders
involved in ship design and construction. From an HF&E perspec-
tive, integration issues in engineering and design projects have
been well documented across various domains. Differences exist
between designer and end-user perceptions of a system, while it is
the users needs, not the designers, that should be taken into
consideration during the design process (Hsu et al., 2000; Battini
et al., 2011). However, a product or system is rarely designed or
studied from the end-users perspective, with the majority of the
focus placed on technical function and reliability (Sun et al., 2013).
Within traditional ship design processes there are discrepancies in
development that affect how HF&E can be integrated. The focus
should be on closing this gap of knowledge application in the
stratified and international context of bringing a ship from concept
to operation. Our approach to HF&E utilization and integration in
ship design has been one of pragmatism. The shipping domain is a
conservative business. Ship financers and operators desire imme-
diate, measurable cost-savings and return on investment, trumping
the long-term perspective of early HF&E commitment and imple-
mentation. The purpose of this strategy is to utilize a common
70 S.C. Mallam et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 50 (2015) 62e72
Fig. 4. Hub-and-spoke model for seawater filter maintenance.
platform within the project structure where positive ergonomic
contributions and design outcomes are organized and documented
in a streamlined, resource-efficient manner.
A ships GA drawings are a boundary object that can facilitate
knowledge mobilization between multi-disciplinary project
stakeholders. The drawings themselves are a common platform for
which HF&E methods and participatory design approaches can be
structured around. A participatory approach to ship development
requires strong management support, properly resourced at all
levels of implementation in order to systematically achieve overall
improved design solutions (de Looze et al., 2001; Haines et al.,
2002; Vink et al., 2006). However, unfortunately many contempo-
rary ship designers do not have the experience or knowledge of
ship operations necessary to support end-user needs (Chauvin
et al., 2008). Establishing a common platform creates a communi-
cation channel that not only exploits and integrates current HF&E
knowledge, but also captures tacit SME and stakeholder knowl-
edge, providing continual documented feedback and education for
the entire organization.
In practice, ergonomics is generally limited to the later stages of
implementation, while top management and designers work to set
goals and generate ideas and prototypes (Vink et al., 2008). How-
ever, rather than “pushing” ergonomics into a design process or
intervening throughout development, our strategy utilizes HF&E
professionals with a more design-oriented approach, which em-
phasizes a greater leadership role in organizing the design process
Fig. 5. Divisions of engine crew movement for work throughout a ship.
and facilitating collective stakeholder involvement (Kleiner, 2004;
Seim and Broberg, 2010). Our strategy is to develop a database of
HF&E knowledge and end-user experience specific to each onboard
ship department and crew position that can ultimately be repre-
sented in GA drawings. This approach utilizes simplified Task An-
alyses to inform Link Analysis mapping (using hub-and-spoke
modelling) which organizes end-user demands and visualizes
them in GA drawings, thus facilitating understanding and
communication with stakeholders of differing disciplines.
Mercantile ship procurement necessitates large financial in-
vestments and organization, requiring large cash-flow and assets.
Established companies looking to purchase new ships already
employ crew who work across their network: therefore they
already have access to a wealth of knowledge in the form of SMEs.
Utilizing SME experience in optimizing the organization and
environment for end-users is the very foundation of participatory
ergonomics and effective HF&E integration. In the past, utilizing
such resources would have been too difficult, time consuming and
expensive. SMEs in the field are spread out across trade routes
working at sea, while design and construction stakeholders may be
located around the world. Ineffective utilization is not because
companies do not necessarily have access to such resources, but
that it is too impractical to organize and manage throughout ship
development. However, with the advancements and ubiquity in
technology, file sharing and digital solutions, dissemination of
HF&E and SME knowledge can become the foundation for an
economically-sustainable model for integration in ship design and
construction.
7. Conclusions
Effective integration of HF&E knowledge throughout ship
design and construction has many challenges. This framework must
be accepted and supported by project stakeholders in order to gain
management support. Streamlining the process, minimizing re-
sources (human and capital), troubleshooting easy design changes
and utilizing a common platform are critical elements for successful
utilization and initial acceptance in naval architecture
methodologies.
GA drawings are not a complete representation of the finalized
work environment. However, they do provide a platform for early
and continuous input and evaluation for basic end-user tasks and
demands. This facilitates that rudimentary work environment
 S.C. Mallam et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 50 (2015) 62e72
necessities are established early in design, establishing a solid base
for detailed design to build upon in both 2D and 3D CAD applica-
tions. By better understanding how GA drawings can be used as a
tool for HF&E integration practitioners can better position them-
selves as a more effective resource to apply best practices, and ul-
timately make a meaningful impact in ship design and the finalized
work environment for onboard crew.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank VINNOVA and The Swedish
Mercantile Marine Foundation for financial support.
References
Alexander, D., 1999. The Cost Justification Process. Auburn Engineers, Inc, Auburn,
Alabama.
Andrews, D.J., 2006. Simulation and the design building block approach in the
design of ships and other complex systems. Proc. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci.
462, 3407e3433. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2006.1728.
Andrews, D., Casarosa, L., Pawling, R., Galea, E., Deere, S., Lawrence, P., 2008. Inte-
grating personnel movement simulation into preliminary ship design. In: Pro-
ceedings Human Factors in Ship Design. Royal Institution of Naval Architects,
London, pp. 117e128.
Archer, R.D., Lewis, G.W., Lockett, J., 1996. Human performance modeling of reduced
Manning concepts for Navy ships. Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet. 40
(19), 987e991. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/154193129604001907.
Argote, L., Ingram, P., Levine, J.M., Moreland, R.L., 2000. Knowledge transfer in or-
ganizations: learning from the experience of others. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis.
Process. 82 (1), 1e8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2883.
Barnett, M.L., Stevenson, C.J., Lang, D.W., 2005. Shipboard Manning e alternative
structures for the future? WMU J. Marit. Aff. 4 (1), 5e32. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/BF03195062.
Barrett, P., Baldry, D., 2003. Facilities Management: Towards Best Practice, second
ed. Blackwell Science Ltd, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Barrett, P., Stanley, C., 1999. Better Construction Briefing. Blackwell Science Ltd,
Oxford, United Kingdom.
Battini, D., Faccio, M., Persona, A., Sgarbossa, F., 2011. New methodological frame-
work to improve productivity and ergonomics in assembly system design. Int. J.
Ind. Ergon. 41 (1), 30e42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2010.12.001.
Beevis, D., 2003. Ergonomics e costs and benefits revisited. Appl. Ergon. 34 (5),
491e495. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0003-6870(03)00068-1.
Bloor, M., Thomas, M., Lane, T., 2000. Health risks in the global shipping Industry:
an overview. Health, Risk Soc. 2 (3), 329e340. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
713670163.
Broberg, O., Andersen, V., Seim, R., 2011. Participatory ergonomics in design pro-
cesses: the role of boundary objects. Appl. Ergon. 42 (3), 464e472. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2010.09.006.
Brueckner, J.K., Zhang, Y., 2001. A model of scheduling in airline networks: how a
hub-and-spoke system affects flight frequency, fares and welfare. J. Transp.
Econ. Policy 35 (2), 195e222.
Carlile, P.R., 2002. A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: boundary ob-
jects in new product development. Organ. Sci. 13 (4), 442e455. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.4.442.2953.
Carlile, P.R., 2004. Transferring, translating, and transforming: an integrative
framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organ. Sci. 15 (5),
555e568. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0094.
Chalfant, J., Langland, B., Abdelwah, S., Chryssostomidis, C., Dougal, R., Dubey, A., El
Mezyani, T., Herbst, J., Kiehne, T., Ordonez, J., Pish, S., Srivastava, S., Zivi, E., 2012.
A Collaborative Early-stage Ship Design Environment. The Office of Naval
Research Electric Ship Research and Development Consortium Technical Re-
ports, Retrieved March 12th, 2014 from. http://esrdc.mit.edu/library/ESRDC_
library/Chalfant_1205_1.pdf.
Chauvin, C., Le Bouar, G., Renault, C., 2008. Integration of the human factor into the
design and construction of fishing vessels. Cognition, Technol. Work 10 (1),
69e77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10111-007-0079-7.
Cook, R.I., Woods, D.D., 1996. Adapting to new technology in the operating room.
Hum. Factors 38 (4), 593e613. http://dx.doi.org/10.1518/001872096778827224.
de Looze, M.P., Urlings, I.J.M., Vink, P., van Rhijn, J.W., Miedema, M.C.,
Bronkhorst, R.E., van der Grinten, M.P., 2001. Towards successful physical stress
reducing products: an evaluation of seven cases. Appl. Ergon. 32 (5), 525e534.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0003-6870(01)00018-7.
Dul, J., Neumann, W.P., 2009. Ergonomics contributions to company strategies. Appl.
Ergon. 40 (4), 745e752. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2008.07.001.
Elhedhli, S., Hu, F.X., 2005. Hub-and-spoke network design with congestion.
Comput. Operations Res. 32 (6), 1615e1632. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.cor.2003.11.016.
Evans, J.H., 1959. Basic design concepts. J. Am. Soc. Nav. Eng. 71 (4), 671e678. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-3584.1959.tb01836.x.
Fallman, D., 2003. Design-oriented human-computer interaction. In: Proceedings of
71
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2003), pp. 225e232.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/642611.642652. Fort Lauderdale, USA.
Forsell, K., Hagberg, S., Nilsson, R., 2007. Lung cancer and mesothelioma among
engine crew - case reports with risk assessment of previous and ongoing
exposure to carcinogens. Int. Marit. Health 58 (1e4), 5e13.
Ginnis, A.I., Kostas, K.V., Politis, C.G., Kaklis, P.D., 2010. VELOS: a VR platform for
ship-evacuation analysis. Comput. Aided Des. 42 (11), 1045e1058. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2009.09.001.
Grabowski, M., Hendrick, H., 1993. How long can We go? validation and verification
of a decision support system for safe shipboard Manning. IEEE Trans. Eng.
Manag. 40 (1), 41e53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/17.206648.
Grech, M.R., Horberry, T.J., Koester, T., 2008. Human Factors in the Maritime
Domain. Boca Raton. CRC Press, Florida.
Haines, H., Wilson, J.R., Vink, P., Koningsveld, E., 2002. Validating a framework for
participatory ergonomics (the PEF). Ergonomics 45 (4). http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/00140130210123516.
Han, D., Abdelkhalek, H., Chen, M., 2014. Design methodologies of ship general
arrangements-a review. Adv. Mater. Res. 936, 2344e2351. http://dx.doi.org/
10.4028/. www.scientific.net/AMR.936.2344.
Hendrick, H., 1996. Good Ergonomics Is Good Economics. Santa Monica. Human
Factors & Ergonomics Society, USA. Retrieved January 23rd, 2014 from. http://
www.hfes.org/Web/PubPages/goodergo.pdf.
Hendrick, H.W., 2003. Determining the cost-benefits of ergonomics projects and
factors that lead to their success. Appl. Ergon. 34 (5), 419e427. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/S0003-6870(03)00062-0.
Hendrick, H.W., 2008. Applying ergonomics to systems: some documented “lessons
learned”. Appl. Ergon. 39 (4), 418e426. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.apergo.2008.02.006.
Hetherington, C., Flin, R., Mearns, K., 2006. Safety in shipping: the human element.
J. Saf. Res. 37 (4), 401e411. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2006.04.007.
Hollnagel, E., 2012. Task analysis: Why, what, and how. In: Salvendy, G. (Ed.),
Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics, fourth ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc,
Hoboken, New Jersey.
Hsu, S.H., Chuang, M.C., Chang, C.C., 2000. A semantic differential study of de-
signers' and users' product form perception. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 25 (4), 375e391.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0169-8141(99)00026-8.
Håvold, J.I., 2005. Safety-culture in a Norwegian shipping company. J. Saf. Res. 36
(5), 441e458. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2005.08.005.
Imai, A., Shintani, K., Papadimitriou, S., 2009. Multi-port vs. Hub-and-Spoke port
calls by containerships. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 45 (5), 740e757.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2009.01.002.
International Maritime Organization, 1997. Human Element Vision, Principles and
Goals for the Organization (A 20/Res.850). International Maritime Organization,
London.
International Maritime Organization, 1998. Guidelines for Engine-room Layout,
Design and Arrangement (MSC/Circ.834). International Maritime Organization,
London.
International Maritime Organization, 2006a. Framework for Consideration of Er-
gonomics and Work Environment (MSC-MEPC.7/Circ.3). International Maritime
Organization, London.
International Maritime Organization, 2006b. Role of the Human Element (MSD 82/
15/4). International Maritime Organization, London.
International Organization for Standardization, 2000. Ergonomic Design of Control
Centres e Part 1: Principles for the Design of Control Centres (ISO 11064e1:
2000). International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.
Ivergård, T., Hunt, B., 2009. Handbook of Control Room Design and Ergonomics: a
Perspective for the Future, second ed. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
Jenkins, S., Rickards, J., 2001. The economics of ergonomics: three workplace design
case studies. In: Alexander, D.C., Rabourn, R. (Eds.), Applied Ergonomics. Taylor
& Francis, London, pp. 238e243.
Jensen, O.C., Sørensen, J.F., Canals, M.L., Hu, Y., Nikolic, N., Mozer, A.A., 2005. Non-
fatal occupational injuries related to slips, trips and falls in seafaring. Am. J. Ind.
Med. 47 (2), 161e171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ajim.20119.
Jeong, S.J., Lee, C.G., Bookbinder, J.H., 2007. The European freight railway system as a
hub-and-spoke network. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 41 (6), 523e536.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2006.11.005.
Kassel, B., Cooper, S., Mackenna, A., 2010. Rebuilding the NAVSEA Early Stage Ship
Design Environment. In: Proceedings of the American Society of Naval Engi-
neers Day 2010, April 8th-9th, 2010, Arlington, Virginia.
Kleiner, B.M., 2004. Macroergonomics as a large work-system transformation
technology. Hum. Factors Ergon. Manuf. Serv. Ind. 14 (2), 99e115. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1002/hfm.10060.
Koningsveld, E.A., Dul, J., van Rhijn, G.W., Vink, P., 2005. Enhancing the impact of
ergonomics interventions. Ergonomics 48 (5), 559e580. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/00140130400029136.
Lin, J.R., Yang, T.H., 2011. Strategic design of public bicycle sharing systems with
service level constraints. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 47 (2), 284e294.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2010.09.004.
Lundh, M., Lützho €ft, M., Rydstedt, L., Dahlman, J., 2011. Working conditions in the
engine department e a qualitative study among engine room personnel on-
board Swedish merchant ships. Appl. Ergon. 42 (2), 384e390. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.apergo.2010.08.009.
Lundh, M., Mallam, S.C., Smith, J., Veitch, B., Billard, R., Patterson, A.,
MacKinnon, S.N., 2012. Virtual creative tool: next Generation's simulator. In:
Proceedings of Maritime Simulation (MARSIM) 2012: International Marine
72 S.C. Mallam et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 50 (2015) 62e72
Simulator Forum, April 23rd-27th, 2012, Singapore.
Lyon, T.D., Mistree, F., 1985. A computer-based method for the preliminary design of
ships. J. Ship Res. 29 (4), 251e269.
Maguire, M., 2001. Methods to support human-centred design. Int. J. Human
Computer Stud. 55, 587e634. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.2001.0503.
Mallam, S.C., Lundh, M., 2014. Conceptual ship design, general arrangement &
integration of the human element: a proposed framework for the engine
department work environment. In: Proceedings of the 46th Nordic Ergonomics
Society Conference. August 17the20th, 2014, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Maritime and Coastguard Agency, 2010. The Human Element: a Guide to Human
Behaviour in the Shipping Industry. The Stationery Office, London.
Miles, B.L., Swift, K., 1998. Design for manufacture and assembly. Manuf. Eng. 77 (5),
221e224.
Mistree, F., Smith, W.F., Bras, B.A., Allen, J.K., Muster, D., 1990. Decision-based
design: a contemporary paradigm for ship design. Trans. e Soc. Nav. Archit. Mar.
Eng. 1 (98), 565e597.
Molland, A.F., 2008. The Maritime Engineering Reference Book: A Guide to Ship
Design, Construction and Operation. Elsevier Ltd, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Nielsen, D., Panayides, P., 2005. Causes of casualties and the regulation of occupa-
tional health and safety in the shipping Industry. WMU J. Marit. Aff. 4 (2),
147e167. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03195071.
Okumoto, Y., Takeda, Y., Mano, M., Okada, T., 2009. Design of Ship Hull Structures: A
Practical Guide for Engineers. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Orosa, J.A., Oliviera, A.C., 2010. Assessment of work-related risk criteria onboard a
ship as an aid to designing its onboard environment. J. Mar. Sci. Technol. 15 (1),
16e22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00773-009-0067-0.
Parent, R., Roy, M., St-Jacques, D., 2007. A systems-based dynamic knowledge
transfer capacity model. J. Knowl. Manag. 11 (6), 81e93. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1108/13673270710832181.
Pawling, R.G., Andrews, D.J., 2011. Design sketching e the next Advance in computer
aided preliminary ship design?. In: Proceedings of the 10th International
Conference on Computer and IT Applications in the Maritime Industries
(COMPIT ’11), 426e441. Berlin, Germany.
Rawson, K.J., Tupper, E.C., 2001. Basic Ship Theory, fifth ed., vol. 2. United Kingdom:
Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford.
Schneekluth, H., Bertram, V., 1998. Ship Design for Efficiency & Economy, second ed.
Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Seim, R., Broberg, O., 2010. Participatory workspace design: a new approach for
ergonomists? Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 40 (1), 25e33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.ergon.2009.08.013.
Stanton, N.A., Salmon, P.M., Walker, G.H., Baber, C., Jenkins, D.P., 2005. Human
Factors Methods: A Practical Guide for Engineering and Design. Ashgate Pub-
lishing Ltd, Farnham, England.
Stanton, N.A., Young, M.A., 2003. Giving ergonomics away? the application of er-
gonomics methods by novices. Appl. Ergon. 34 (5), 479e490. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/S0003-6870(03)00067-X.
Star, S.L., Griesemer, J.R., 1989. Institutional ecology, ‘Translations’ and boundary
objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of vertebrate
zoology, 1907-39. Soc. Stud. Sci. 19 (3), 387e420. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
030631289019003001.
Stopford, M., 2009. Maritime Economics, third ed. Routledge, Oxon, United
Kingdom.
Sun, H., Houssin, R., Gardoni, M., de Bauvrond, F., 2013. Integration of user behavior
and product behaviour during the design phase: software for behavioural
design approach. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 43 (1), 100e114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.ergon.2012.11.009.
Sundin, A., Christmansson, M., Larsson, M., 2004. A different perspective in
participatory ergonomics in product development improves assembly work in
the automotive industry. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 33 (1), 1e14. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.ergon.2003.06.001.
van Dokkum, K., 2011. Ship Knowledge: Ship Design, Construction & Operation,
seventh ed. DOKMAR Maritime Publishers BV, Enkhuizen, Netherlands.
Veenstra, A.W., Ludema, M.W., 2006. The relationship between design and eco-
nomic performance of ships. Marit. Policy & Manag. 33 (2), 159e171. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/03088830600612880.
Vink, P., Imada, A.S., Zink, K.J., 2008. Defining Stakeholder involvement in partici-
patory design processes. Appl. Ergon. 39 (4), 519e526. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.apergo.2008.02.009.
Vink, P., Koningsveld, E.A.P., Molenbroek, J.F., 2006. Positive outcomes of partici-
patory ergonomics in terms of greater comfort and higher productivity. Appl.
Ergon. 37 (4), 537e546. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2006.04.012.
Watson, D.G.M., 1998. Practical Ship Design. In: Elsevier Ocean Engineering Book
Series, vol. 1. Elsevier Science Ltd, Kidlington, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Woods, D., Dekker, S., 2000. Anticipating the effects of technological change: a new
era of dynamics for human factors. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. 1 (3), 272e282.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14639220110037452.