The Psychology of Ship Architecture and Design

  • Margareta Lützhöft
  • Erik Styhr Petersen
  • Apsara Abeysiriwardhane
Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

This chapter aims to provide an insight into how ship design can have an impact on the psychology and behaviour of the ship’s crew. As such, the psychology of ship architecture/design refers to how ships are designed to support the physiological processes and the associated cognitive functions of their users. Ships are however almost exclusively designed by members of the engineering discipline. We advocate that there is room for improvement in the psychology of ship design by incorporating psychological factors into the shared knowledge base, design practice, individual and social characteristics and behaviour of these designers. The chapter goes on to suggest that in order to improve on the psychology of ship design, the required knowledge and methodology made available to ship designers needs to be reworked—translated—to more convincingly and operationally be relevant to this target group. Thus transformed, this knowledge may help to provide an enhanced working environment for seafarers, in terms of work safety, effectiveness, efficiency, satisfaction, cognitive workload and other crucial factors that exist in the interplay between humans and their working environment. Considering that seafaring is one of the few professions living in their working environment for extended periods of time, such transformed knowledge, and the subsequent skilful application of the psychology of ship design, could positively impact on the interaction between the crew and their living quarters. The ship designer has a decisive impact on such qualities as comfort, privacy, noise, vibration and heat, factors which eventually have a significant bearing on the performance of the individual crew members as well as team performance.

Keywords

Ship design Naval architect Ship psychology Engineering knowledge Human-centred design 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Alert! (2003). The human element: Improving the awareness of the human element in the maritime industry. The International Maritime Human Element Bulletin, 1.Google Scholar
  2. Alert! (2004). Ergonomics: An ergonomic nightmare! Reflects a view of the bridge.. or the engineroom? The International Maritime Human Element Bulletin, 3.Google Scholar
  3. Alert! (2010). Design, build, maintain: The ultimate aim—always keep the human element in mind. The International Maritime Human Element Bulletin, 24(8). Retrieved from http://www.he-alert.org/
  4. American Bureau of Shipping. (2003a). Guidance notes for the application of ergonomics to marine systems. Houston, TX: American Bureau of Shipping.Google Scholar
  5. American Bureau of Shipping. (2003b). Guidance notes on ergonomic design of navigation bridges. Houston, TX: American Bureau of Shipping.Google Scholar
  6. American Bureau of Shipping. (2010). Guide for bridge design and navigational equipment/systems. Houston, TX: American Bureau of Shipping.Bader, G., & Nyce, J. M. (1998). When only the self is real: Theory and practice in the development community. Journal of Computer Documentation, 22(1), 5-10.Google Scholar
  7. Bader, G., & Nyce, J. M. (1998). When only the self is real: Theory and practice in the development community. Journal of Computer Documentation, 22(1), 5–10.Google Scholar
  8. Barker, R. G., & Wright, H. F. (1949). Psychological ecology and the problem of psychosocial development. Child Development, 20(3), 131–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Baxter, G., & Sommerville, I. (2011). Socio-technical systems: From design metods to systems engineering. Interacting with Computers, 23, 4–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Beevis, D., Davidson, P., Webb, R., & Coutu, E. (2000, September 27–29). Software support for sharing and tracking human factors issues during ship design. Paper presented at the Human Factors in Ship Design and Operation. London, UK: The Royal Institute of Naval Architects.Google Scholar
  11. Bella, D. A. (1987). Engineering and Erosion of Trust. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering, 113(2), 117–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Beyer, H., & Holtzblatt, K. (1998). Contextual design—Defining customer-centered systems. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. [Kindle ed.].Google Scholar
  13. Brooks, F. P. (1995). The Mythical Man-Month: Essays on Software Engineering. Boston: Addison-Wesley Longman Inc. [Kindle ed.].Google Scholar
  14. Bucciarelli, L. L. (1994). Designing engineers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Calhoun, S. R., & Stevens, S. C. (2003). Human factors in ship design. In T. Lamb (Ed.), Ship design and construction (Vol. 2, pp. 1–27). Alexandria VA: Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers (SNAME).Google Scholar
  16. Dekker, S. (2002). The field guide to human error investigations. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  17. Desurvire, H. W. (1994). Faster, cheaper!! Are usability inspection methods as effective as empirical testing? In J. Nielsen & R. L. Mack (Eds.), Usability inspection methods (pp. 173–202). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  18. Dobbins, T., Rowley, I., & Campbell, L. (2008). High speed craft human factors engineering design guide. Retrieved from http://www.highspeedcraft.org/HSC_HFE_Design_Guide_v1.0.pdf
  19. Earthy, J. (1998). WP5—Deliverable D5.1.4(s)—Usability maturity model: Human centredness scale. From London: Eberlein, T., Kampmeier, J., Minderhout, V., Moog, R. S., Platt, T., Varma‐Nelson, P., & White.Google Scholar
  20. Eberlein, T., Kampmeier, J., Minderhout, V., Moog, R. S., Platt, T., Varma-Nelson, P., et al. (2008). Pedagogies of engagement in science. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 36(4), 262–273.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Eriksson, E., Cajander, Å., & Gulliksen, J. (2009, August 24–28). Hello world!—Experiencing usability methods without usability expertise. Paper presented at the INTERACT, Part II, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
  22. Evans, J. H. (1959). Basic design concepts. Journal of American Society of Naval Engineers, 671–678.Google Scholar
  23. Felder, R. M., & Silverman, L. K. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Engineering Education, 78(7), 674–681.Google Scholar
  24. Gardner, H. (2006a). Changing minds. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.Google Scholar
  25. Gardner, H. (2006b). Multiple intelligences—New horizons. New York: Basic Books. (Kindle ed.).Google Scholar
  26. Grech, M. R., Horberry, T. J., & Koester, T. (2008). Human factors in the maritime domain (1st ed.). Florida: CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gulliksen, J., Göransson, B., Boivie, I., Blomkvist, S., Persson, J., & Cajander, Å. (2003). Key principles for user-centred systems design. Behaviour and Information Technology, 22(6), 397–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hemmen, H. F. V. (2003). The need for additional human factors considerations in ship operations. Paper presented at the Second International Symposium on Ship Operations. Athens, Greece: Management & Economics.Google Scholar
  29. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Holden, K. L., Boyer, J. L., Ezer, N., Holubec, K., Sándor, A., & Stephens, J.-P. (2013). Human factors in space vehicle design. Acta Astronautica, 92(1), 110–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (2009). Ergonomics of human-system interaction—Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems (ISO 9241-210). Geneva: ISO.Google Scholar
  32. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (2010). Ergonomics of human-system interaction—Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive system (ISO 9241-210:2010). Geneva: ISO.Google Scholar
  33. Johansen, R. (1978). Stress and socio-technical design: A new ship organization. In C. L. Cooper & R. Payne (Eds.), Stress at work. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  34. Karat, C.-M. (1994). A comparison of user interface evaluation methods. In J. Nielsen & R. L. Mack (Eds.), Usability inspection methods. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  35. Koen, B. V. (1985). Definition of the engineering method. Washington, D.C. American Society for Engineering Educations.Google Scholar
  36. Koen, B. V. (2003). Discussion of the method—Conducting the engineer’s approach to problem solving. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Koester, T. (2005, February 23-24). Human factors in the design process—A new approach to the design of maritime communication equipment. Paper presented at the RINA, Royal Institution of Naval Architects International Conference—Human Factors in Ship Design, Safety and Operation.Google Scholar
  38. Kossiakoff, A., Sweet, W. N., Seymour, S. J., & Biemer, S. M. (2011). Systems engineering—principles and practice. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kuo, C., & Houison-Craufurd, S. (2000, September 27–29). Managing human error in maritime activities. Paper presented at the Human Factors in Ship Design and Operation. London, UK: Royal Institute of Naval Architects.Google Scholar
  40. Lloyd’s Register. (2008). The human element—An introduction (p. 24). London: Lloyd’s Register Group.Google Scholar
  41. Lezaun, J. (2011). Offshore democracy: launch and landfall of a socio-technical experiment. Economy and Society, 40(4), 553–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lützhöft, M. (2004). “The technology is great when it works”: Maritime technology and human integration on the ship’s bridge. Doctor of Philosophy, University of Linköping.Google Scholar
  43. Lützhöft, M., Grech, M. R., & Porathe, T. (2011). Information environment, fatigue, and culture in the maritime domain. In P. R. DeLucia (Ed.), Reviews of human factors and ergonomics (pp. 280–320). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  44. Mack, R. L., & Nielsen, J. (1994). Executive summary. In J. Nielsen & R. L. Mack (Eds.), Usability Inspection methods. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  45. Maguire, M. (2001). Methods to support human-centred design. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 55(4), 587–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. McSweeney, K. P., Pray, J., & Craig, B. N. (2009, February). Integration of human factors engineering into design—an applied approach. Paper presented at the Human Factors in Ship Design and Operation. London, UK: Royal Institute of Naval Architects.Google Scholar
  47. National Transportation Safety Board (1997). Grounding of the Panamanian passenger ship Royal Majesty on Rose and Crown Shoal near Nantucket, Massachusetts. Retrieved from Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  48. Nielsen, J. (1994). Heuristic evaluation. In J. Nielsen & R. L. Mack (Eds.), Usability inspection methods. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Nielsen, J. (2006a). Corporate usability maturity: Stages 1–4. Jakob Nielsen’s Alertbox. Retrieved from www.useit.com/alertbox/maturity.html
  50. Nielsen, J. (2006b). Corporate usability maturity: Stages 5–8. Jakob Nielsen’s Alertbox. Retrieved from www.useit.com/alertbox/process_maturity.html
  51. Norros, L. (2014). Developing human factors/ergonomics as a design discipline. Applied Ergonomics, 45(1), 61–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Parker, A. W., Hubinger, L. M., Green, S., Sargent, L., & Boyd, B. (1997). A survey of the health stress and fatigue of Australian seafarers. Australia: Australian Maritime Safety Authority.Google Scholar
  53. Petersen, E. S. (2010). User-centered methods must also be user centered: a single voice from the field (Lic. Eng.). Göteborg: Chalmers Technical University.Google Scholar
  54. Petersen, E. S. (2012). Engineering usability (Doctor of Technology). Gothenburg: Chalmers Technical University.Google Scholar
  55. Petersen, E. S. (2013). Human-centric design challenges. Paper presented at the IMarEST MECSS 2013, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  56. Petersen, E. S., Dittmann, K., & Lützhöft, M. (2010, October 7-8). Making the phantom real: a case of applied maritime human factors. Paper presented at the SNAME SOME 2010, Athens, Greece.Google Scholar
  57. Petersen, E. S., & Lützhöft, M. (2009, February 25-26). A human factors approach to the design of maritime software applications. Paper presented at the Human Factors in Ship Design and Operation, London.Google Scholar
  58. Petersen, E. S., Nyce, J. M., & Lützhöft, M. (2011). Ethnography reengineered: The two tribes problem. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Sciences, 12(6).Google Scholar
  59. Petersen, E. S., Nyce, J. M., & Lützhöft, M. (2014). Interacting with classic design engineering. Interacting with Computers, 1–18.Google Scholar
  60. Petroski, H. (1982). To engineer is human—the role of failure in successful design. New York: Vintage Books (First Vintage Books Edition)Google Scholar
  61. Petroski, H. (2010). The essential engineer—why science alone will not solve our global problems. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  62. Quesenbery, W. (2005, July 10-13). Usability standards: Connecting practice around the world. Paper presented at the 2005 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference Proceedings, Limerick, Ireland.Google Scholar
  63. Rasmussen, J. (2005, February 23-24). Designing usable ships. Paper presented at the Human Factors in Ship Design, Safety and Operation. London, UK: Royal Institute of Naval Architects.Google Scholar
  64. Rogers, G. F. C. (1983). The nature of engineering—A philosophy of technology. London: The MacMillan Press Ltd.Google Scholar
  65. Ross, J. M. (2009). Human factors for naval marine vehicle design and operation (1st ed.). Farnham, England: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  66. Russel, J. S., & Stouffer, W. B. (2005, April). Survey of the National Civil Engineering Curriculum. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 118–128.Google Scholar
  67. Sanders, M. S., & McCormick, E. J. (1992). Human factors in engineering and design. Boston: McGraw-Hill Inc.Google Scholar
  68. Schaffer, E. (2004). Institutionalization of usability—a step-by-step guide. Boston: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  69. Schein, E. H. (1996). Kurt Lewin’s change theory in the field and in the classroom: Notes toward a model of managed learning. Reflections, 1(1), 59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective practitioner—how professionals think in action. London: Maurice Temple Smith Ltd.Google Scholar
  71. Sherwood Jones, B. (2001). Enabling and maintaining control. Paper presented at the IEE Conference Publication.Google Scholar
  72. Shneiderman, B., & Plaisant, C. (2005). Designing the user interface. Boston: Pearson—Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  73. Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  74. Squire, D. (2014, February 26-27). Human element competencies for the maritime industry. Paper presented at the Human Factors in Ship Design and Operation. London, UK. Royal Institute of Naval Architects.Google Scholar
  75. Strong, R. (2000, September 27-29). RN Habitability survey: Ship design implications: Some important social and architectural issues in the design of accommodation spaces. Paper presented at the Human Factors in Ship Design and Operation. London, UK: Royal Institute of Naval Architects.Google Scholar
  76. The Nautical Institute. (1998). Improving ship operational design. London: The Nautical Institute.Google Scholar
  77. Thomas, G., Harte, D., & Pointing, D. (2013, February 26-27). Developing student skills through industry-aligned and team-focussed design projects. Paper presented at the Education and Professional Development of Engineers in the Maritime Industry, Singapore.Google Scholar
  78. UK P&I CLUB. (2003). Just waiting to happen: The work of the UK P&I club. The International Maritime Human Element Bulletin, 1, 3–4.Google Scholar
  79. Vincenti, W. G. (1993). What engineers know and how they know it—analytical studies from aeronautical history. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  80. Walker, O. (2011, November 16-17). The human element competency required for design appraisal. Paper presented at the Human Factors in Ship Design and Operation. London, UK: Royal Institute of Naval Architects. Google Scholar
  81. Walton, H. J., & Matthews, M. B. (1989). Essentials of problem-based learning. Medical Education, 23, 542–559.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Organizational change and development. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 361–386.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. Wickens, C. D., Lee, J. D., Liu, Y., & Gordon Becker, S. E. (2004). An introduction to human factors engineering (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  84. Widdel, H., & Motz, F. (2000, September 27-29). Ergonomic requirements for the design of ship bridges. Paper presented at the Human Factors in Ship Design and Operation. London UK. Royal Institute of Naval Architects.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Margareta Lützhöft
    • 1
  • Erik Styhr Petersen
    • 1
  • Apsara Abeysiriwardhane
    • 1
  1. 1.Australian Maritime CollegeUniversity of TasmaniaTasmaniaAustralia

Personalised recommendations