PARTICIPANTS
Invited guests
Tuomos Sipilä – Head of VTT Marine Laboratory Services
Martin Bergström – Naval Architect, University of Aalto
Journalists
Anastassios Adamopoulos – Lloyds List
Paul Bartlett – Various publications including The MotorShip
Rob O’Dwyer – Digital Ship
Katherin Lau – Ship and Offshore, Schiff & Hafen
Paul Gunton – Riviera Maritime Media
ABB Marine & Ports experts
Mikko Lepistö – Head of Digital Solutions
Kalevi Tervo – Global Program Manager
Eero Lehtovaara – Head of Regulatory and Development
Palemia Field – Digital Services Manager
The session was moderated by Peter Lovegrove, ABB Marine & Ports
Starting in the belly of the beast, moderator Peter Lovegrove kicked off the discussion with a question on the changing state of the engine room in an increasingly digital world, and the impact of that change on those charged with keeping the ship moving.
Tuomos Sipilä of VTT Marine Laboratory Services fielded the lead question, stating that one primary requirement will be an increased awareness of what is happening in the engine room: “With fewer people in that space, more monitoring will be required. That information can also be used to keep the people still working in the engine room better prepared.” He noted that new digital technologies can supply technicians with augmented reality solutions to help enhance knowledge and improve preparedness. “This can help them to predict and avoid the worst consequences of an incident.”
ABB’s Palemia Field commented that it isn’t just digitalisation leading to a reduction in the number of crew on ships: “Staff reduction has been coming on for a while. It’s not a new thing. The increase in computing power accelerated the trend, and now cheaper sensors and connectivity are driving it even faster.” He noted that ships already operate roughly 90 per cent of the time on autopilot, adding that this fact has “probably made the industry safer, including working conditions on board,” pointing out that remote technology can help to remove crew from the most dangerous on board environments.
Martin Bergström of the University of Aalto added that all crew members need to broaden their thinking in light of the growing connectivity between on board systems: “Everyone needs to see their role as being part of a larger system.”
Responding to a question concerning the business consequences of taking more people off the ship, ABB’s Mikko Lepistö offered a ‘glass is half full’ perspective: “Even though old patterns of communication and cooperation may be going away, there are new ways for us to connect, with the machinery, but also with customers. We can support them at a higher level, and help them to increase their situational awareness. But with fewer people, and more information coming from the machines, the biggest issue is how to use the data in the best way.”
The nature of power
The move to more electrical power on board would seem to be a natural, even irreversible progression. But for owners, economic issues often weigh more heavily than technical capabilities. The group agreed that owners will always need a valid business case to support change, but if the fit is good, the move to electrical has the opportunity to simplify many aspects of ship operation.
Staff reduction has been coming on for a while. It’s not a new thing. The increase in computing power accelerated the trend, and now cheaper sensors and connectivity are driving it even faster.
Palemia Field pointed out one shoal in the path of this progress: “The present skill set is not up to the transition we are talking about here.” The IMO minimum skill level is inadequate and out-dated, he pointed out, going back to the early 1970s, adding that high voltage requirements were not addressed until the 2010 Manila regulations. With this skills gap, “An operator can choose to sail without the right competence, and that increases risk. That means that an OEM like ABB needs to provide proper training guidelines together with the equipment.”
The weight of responsibility
Assuming that humans have the power of reason, giving them the ability to choose the action with lesser consequences in a complex situation, the question was posed whether smart machines could do the same?
In his reply, Eero Lehtovaara of ABB got straight down to basics, addressing perhaps the most fundamental human consideration in running a ship: “When you move the responsibility on board from the captain, it has to be placed with someone else. Who should that be, and where? When can a machine be given responsibility for a decision?”
Machines will always be programmed by humans, he pointed out, and humans can prepare machines to make the ‘least bad’ choices. “Then it becomes decision support, more than handing over full responsibility.”
Most accidents are triggered by trivial causes, Bergström observed, and most situations are simple to resolve. “These are the scenarios where machines could take over decision making.” Lepitsö added that technology could play the role of helper in the first stages: “Then everybody learns. And when trust is established, we can take the next step. But whether we move slowly or quickly, it is important to take the next step.”
Leap of faith?
To the question of how much learning ship ping can take from on-going experiments with self-driving cars, Sipilä acknowledged that cars on roads might present an easier case to solve than ships at sea, but still believed that some learning can be taken from the road.
But while cars simply have to be driven, shipping is much more than just navigation. “There are many aspects to be handled in running a ship,” Lepitsö commented. “If we are going to have a fully automated ship, we need to work toward replacing present technologies with solutions that do not require human interaction, like batteries instead of combustion engines.”
Even though old patterns of communication and cooperation may be going away, there are new ways for us to connect, with the machinery, but also with customers.
Kalevi Tervo of ABB raised the issue of how much faith humans should have in technology: “Automation can be safe. It just depends on how you implement it. In order to do it right, we need to understand how ships behave.” Humans are not good at understanding very slow, or very fast things, he noted, where machines perform better at both ends of the speed spectrum. “Machines are already making a lot of decisions that humans cannot. What we need now is to build trust in automation, and that starts with advisory systems, not complete machine control.”
With fewer people, and more information coming from the machines, the biggest issue is how to use the data in the best way.
The right skills
However close autonomous vessels are to being realised, there will still be people on board for some time to come, and running a ship in the future will require different skill sets than today. What considerations need to be addressed when matching crew competency with ever-smarter ships?
Margins are getting smaller in modern ships compared with more traditional vessels, Field noted. “Before there was more redundancy, and a higher tolerance for failure or error. Now design parameters may be too narrow, and that forces us to rethink what we need the crew to do.”
“Look at our own company,” Lepistö added. “We have gone from mechanical to digital in just a few years. Our competency profile is changing, and education levels are getting higher. We will see the same thing happening on ships, and that means we will need different skill sets.”
On counterpoint, the journalists observed that the opposite is occurring, that skill levels on board are falling, rather than rising. Crew are increasingly pressured by time constraints, they argued, leading to a lack of training time.
“It has already happened,” Lehtovaara confirmed. “Nobody can repair anything on the bridge anymore. Crews either cannot, or are not allowed to fix many things. This has been coming on for a while, but we are just starting to react now.”
One size doesn’t fit all
Addressing the need for increased standardisation in order to realise automated ships, Palemia Field commented that standardisation is still foreign to shipbuilding: “Ships are unique, not like planes or cars. I have heard stories where you couldn’t find the toilet if you went from one sister ship to the other. Standardisation will eventually be stipulated by the operators, but we have yet to see it.”
While cloud computing could aid in the work toward standardisation, making it easier to compare different solutions and learn which functions best, the problem remains that shipping is steered by the bottom line. “Shipping is too cheap,” Lehtovaara claimed. “They will not invest until they see that standardisation gives a higher return than what they are getting today.”
The group agreed that sharing data could help owners share expenses in the move toward standardisation, but that the most progressive players would have to go forward and set a good example. But are shipowners genuinely interested in sharing data?
“Some data will be protected, and some shared,” Lepistö offered. “It should not be a problem to share data that can benefit all parties.”
An operator can choose to sail without the right competence, and that increases risk.
Keep in touch
The question was put to the group whether advisory information was eroding the captain’s control over the ship.
Lehtovaara, a licensed ship’s captain with many years at the helm, observed: “The crew has too little information about their workplace. Before, they knew everything about the ship, and they could fix anything. Now decisions are being removed from the bridge, and in some cases, technology is not necessarily enhancing, but rather restricting decisions on board.”
He added: “Ship performance is being evaluated by many interested parties now, and not just within shipping. That will have consequences. The way we use data is affecting the entire industry, and crew and captains will have to adapt. They will need to become more competent in different areas than today.”
Referring to the ‘millennials’, those born around the last turn of the century, Field observed that the new generation only knows a world that is connected. “They see shipping as a more of a calculation, not an art form. But there is an art to knowing how far to trust yourself, what you need to learn, and where to learn it. Even with all the data we have available, we still have to learn from experience. We still need people who can find ways of solving problems on their own.”
What we need now is to build trust in automation, and that starts with advisory systems.
But as steadily more analysis is done remotely and processed by team members on shore, creative problem solving might just as well occur on land as at sea. “Remote operation is happening now, and many do not realise just how far it has come,” Lepistö underscored. “We may still need on-site care in order to satisfy customers, but that service can be more efficient, and resources can be used for other benefits.”
For now, though, good seamanship still requires many hours at sea. Yet digitalisation, connectivity, and remote operations are increasingly removing many seafarers from direct contact with the marine environment.
Addressing this paradox, Eero Lehtovaara took the day’s last look into the future of shipping, and the people in the picture:
“When will ships be fully autonomous? No one really knows. The technology has already moved so much faster than anyone thought. At the same time, legal requirements on crew experience are dropping. How much longer will you have to sail on a ship in order to keep your certificate? Or will simulation eventually take over?” And if that day comes, he mused, posing perhaps the most poignant question of the day, “How will seafarers keep in contact with the sea?”
