Formal or informal human collaboration approach to maritime safety using FRAM

  • Joohee Lee
  • Wan Chul Yoon
  • Hyun ChungEmail author
Original Article


It has been argued that human and organizational factors are critical for accident analysis and safety management. The maritime domain represents a safety-critical system that has complex and temporary human collaborations. The level of collaboration includes not only human collaboration within a single ship, but also between ship-to-ship or ship-to-shore. From the safety-II perspective, these collaborations play a significant role in managing safety. Thus, this study suggests a framework to consider informal and temporary human collaborations using a functional resonance analysis method (FRAM) under the safety-II perspective. The framework is based on FRAM analysis and contributes by analyzing the level of human collaboration through establishing classifications of human collaborative relationships including the specified or unspecified relationships. Further, it supports organizing findings from the analysis and the derivation of strategy using templates and rules. The analyzed findings and derived strategy ultimately aim to help human’s decision-making to adjust variable and uncertain situations by enhancing human collaboration. In particular, this framework is applied to maritime accidents analysis and safety strategy derivation. The authors believe that FRAM has the potential to be employed to other safety-critical systems and to be combined with safety analysis and management methodologies related to human collaboration.


Functional resonance analysis method (FRAM) Safety-II Human collaboration Human factor Safety-critical system 



This material is based upon work supported by the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy (MOTIE, Korea) under Industrial Technology Innovation Program No. 10067156, ‘Development of heavy structure dimensional accuracy measurement and management software system for improving productivity in shipbuilding company.’

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

We wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest associated with this publication and there has been no significant financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome.


  1. Åhman J (2013) Analysis of interdependencies within the fire fighting function on an offshore platform. LUTVDG/TVBB.
  2. Albery S, Borys D, Tepe S (2016) Advantages for risk assessment: evaluating learnings from question sets inspired by the FRAM and the risk matrix in a manufacturing environment. Saf Sci. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bafoutsou G, Mentzas G (2002) Review and functional classification of collaborative systems. Int J Inf Manag. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Batalden BM, Sydnes AK (2014) Maritime safety and the ISM code: a study of investigated casualties and incidents. WMU J Marit Aff. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bjerga T, Aven T, Zio E (2016) Uncertainty treatment in risk analysis of complex systems: the cases of STAMP and FRAM. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bolstad CA, Endsley MR (2012) Tools for supporting team collaboration. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Camarinha-Matos LM, Afsarmanesh H (2012) Taxonomy of collaborative networks forms: FInES Task Force on Collaborative Networks and SOCOLNET - Society of Collaborative Networks. In: Roots and wings. European Commission.
  8. Celik M, Cebi S (2009) Analytical HFACS for investigating human errors in shipping accidents. Accid Anal Prev. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chauvin C, Lardjane S (2008) Decision making and strategies in an interaction situation: collision avoidance at sea. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chauvin C, Lardjane S, Morel G et al (2013) Human and organisational factors in maritime accidents: analysis of collisions at sea using the HFACS. Accid Anal Prev. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. de la Portela RC (2005) Maritime casualties analysis as a tool to improve research about human factors on maritime environment. J Marit Res JMR 18:3–18Google Scholar
  12. de Vries L, Bligård LO (2019) Visualising safety: the potential for using sociotechnical systems models in prospective safety assessment and design. Saf Sci. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Department of Transport (1987) The MV Herald of Free Enterprise: report of court no. 8074 (merchant shipping act 1894 formal investigations department of transport). H.M. Stationery Office, UKGoogle Scholar
  14. FRAM Model Visualizer ver. 0.4.1 (2016) Accessed 4 Apr 2019
  15. Goode N, Read GJM, van Mulken MRH et al (2016) Designing system reforms: using a systems approach to translate incident analyses into prevention strategies. Front Psychol. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gordon RPE (1998) The contribution of human factors to accidents in the offshore oil industry. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 61(1–2):95–108. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hayward BJ, Lowe AR (2010) The migration of crew resource management training. In: Crew resource management. Academic press, USA, pp 317–342. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hollnagel E (2012) FRAM, the functional resonance analysis method: modelling complex socio-technical systems. CRC Press, USAGoogle Scholar
  19. Hollnagel E (2014) Safety-I and safety-II: the past and future of safety management. CRC Press, USAGoogle Scholar
  20. Hollnagel E, Hounsgaard J, Colligan L (2014) FRAM -a handbook for the practical use of the method. Centre for quality, accessible at Accessed 1 Jul 2019
  21. Johnston N, McDonald N (2017) Aviation psychology in practice. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Ka D (2017) Application of functional resonance analysis method for analyzing combined system accidents. Thesis, KAIST, Daejeon, Republic of KoreaGoogle Scholar
  23. Lee J (2018) Maritime safety analysis framework considering human collaborative relation network. Dissertation, KAIST, Daejeon, Republic of KoreaGoogle Scholar
  24. Lee J, Chung H (2018) A new methodology for accident analysis with human and system interaction based on FRAM: case studies in maritime domain. Saf Sci. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Li W, He M, Sun Y, Cao Q (2019) A proactive operational risk identification and analysis framework based on the integration of ACAT and FRAM. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB) (2004) Bridge watchkeeping safety study. Safety study, 1/2004. MAIB, SouthamptonGoogle Scholar
  27. Moura R, Beer M, Patelli E et al (2017) Learning from accidents: interactions between human factors, technology and organisations as a central element to validate risk studies. Saf Sci 99:196–214. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Norazahar N, Khan F, Veitch B, MacKinnon S (2014) Human and organizational factors assessment of the evacuation operation of BP Deepwater Horizon accident. Saf Sci. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Norazahar N, Khan F, Veitch B, MacKinnon S (2017) Prioritizing safety critical human and organizational factors of EER systems of offshore installations in a harsh environment. Saf Sci. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ostergaard KJ, Summers JD (2003) A taxonomic classification of collaborative design. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Engineering Design ICED03, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  31. Ostergaard KJ, Summers JD (2009) Development of a systematic classification and taxonomy of collaborative design activities. J Eng Des. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ostergaard KJ, Wetmore WR, Divekar A et al (2005) An experimental methodology for investigating communication in collaborative design review meetings. CoDesign. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Perrow C (1999) Normal accidents. Princeton University Press, Princeton (Original work published 1984) Google Scholar
  34. Pourzanjani M (2001) Analysis of human error in co-ordinating ship’s collision avoidance action. In: Proceedings of ICCGS 2001: 2nd International Conference on collision and Grounding of Ships, Copenhagen, pp 85–91Google Scholar
  35. Praetorius, G, Lundh, M, Lützhöft, M (2011) Learning from the past for pro-activity a re-analysis of the accident of the MV Herald of Free Enterprise. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Resilience Engineering Symposium. Presses des Mines, Paris, France, pp 217–225Google Scholar
  36. Praetorius G, Hollnagel E, Dahlman J (2015) Modelling vessel traffic service to understand resilience in everyday operations. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rudan I, Komadina P, Ivče R (2012) Officers’ subjective near miss notion in situations of collision avoidance at sea. PROMET Traffic Transp. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schröder-Hinrichs JU, Hollnagel E, Baldauf M (2012) From Titanic to Costa Concordia—a century of lessons not learned. WMU J Marit Aff. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Marine Department (2007) Report of investigation into the Collision between the Hong Kong Registered ship “Hebei Spirit” and Korean Crane Barge “Samsung No. 1” on 7 December 2007Google Scholar
  40. The Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal (2008) Marine pollution accident from the collision between crane barge samsung no. 1 towed by tugboats samsung T-5 and samho T-3, and oil tanker Hebei SpiritGoogle Scholar
  41. Tian J, Wu J, Yang Q, Zhao T (2016) FRAMA: a safety assessment approach based on functional resonance analysis method. Saf Sci. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Transport Safety Board (TSB) (1995) A safety study of the operational relationship between ship masters/watchkeeping officers and marine pilots. TSB study SM9501Google Scholar
  43. Vanderhaegen F, Carsten O (2017) Can dissonance engineering improve risk analysis of human–machine systems?. Technol Work, Cogn. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Xi YT, Fang QG, Chen WJ, Hu SP (2009) Case-based HFACS for collecting, classifying and analyzing human errors in marine accidents. In: IEEM 2009-IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, Hong Kong, 8–11 Dec 2009Google Scholar
  45. Xue Y, Fu G (2018) A modified accident analysis and investigation model for the general aviation industry: emphasizing on human and organizational factors. J Saf Res. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Yang Q, Tian J, Zhao T (2017) Safety is an emergent property: illustrating functional resonance in air traffic management with formal verification. Saf Sci. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yoo B (2016) Identifying safety-II requirements for situation awareness through maritime accidents analysis. Thesis, KAIST, Daejeon, Republic of KoreaGoogle Scholar
  48. Zhan Q, Zheng W, Zhao B (2017) A hybrid human and organizational analysis method for railway accidents based on HFACS-Railway Accidents (HFACS-RAs). Saf Sci 91:232–250. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zhang S, Wang J (2015) Analysis of South Korea Sewol sunken ferry accident based on behavioral safety. J Coast Res. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical Engineering, Graduate School of Ocean Systems EngineeringKAISTDaejeonRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Department of Industrial and System EngineeringKAISTDaejeonRepublic of Korea
  3. 3.Department of Naval Architecture and Ocean EngineeringChungnam National UniversityDaejeonRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations