Human-system concurrent task analysis for maritime autonomous surface ship operation and safety

Abstract Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS) are the subject of a diversity of projects and some are in testing phase. MASS will probably include operators working in a shore control center (SCC), whose responsibilities may vary from supervision to remote control, according to Level of Autonomy (LoA) of the voyage. Moreover, MASS may operate with a dynamic LoA. The strong reliance on Human-Autonomous System collaboration and the dynamic LoA should be comprised on the analysis of MASS to ensure its safety; and are shortcomings of current methods. This paper presents the Human-System Interaction in Autonomy (H-SIA) method for MASS collision scenarios, and illustrates its application through a case study. H-SIA consists of an Event Sequence Diagram (ESD) and a concurrent task analysis (CoTA). The ESD models the scenario in a high level and consists of events related to all system's agents. The CoTA is a novel method to analyse complex systems. It comprises of Task Analysis of each agent, which are preformed concurrently, and uses specific rules for re-description. The H-SIA method analyses the system as whole, rather than focus on each component separately, allowing identification of dependent tasks between agents and visualization of propagation of failure between the agents’ tasks.

[1]  Ø Rødseth,et al.  A risk based approach to the design of unmanned ship control systems , 2014 .

[2]  Manolis Samuelides,et al.  Elements of risk analysis for collision and grounding of a RoRo passenger ferry , 2002 .

[3]  Ali Mosleh,et al.  Incorporating software failure in risk analysis--Part 2: Risk modeling process and case study , 2020, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[4]  Carol Smidts,et al.  The Event Sequence Diagram framework for dynamic Probabilistic Risk Assessment , 1999 .

[5]  Jakub Montewka,et al.  Towards the Development of a Risk Model for Unmanned Vessels Design and Operations , 2016 .

[6]  Ali Mosleh,et al.  Cognitive modeling and dynamic probabilistic simulation of operating crew response to complex system accidents: Part 1: Overview of the IDAC Model , 2007, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[7]  Jan Erik Vinnem,et al.  A systems approach to risk analysis of maritime operations , 2017 .

[8]  Ali Mosleh,et al.  Phoenix - A model-based Human Reliability Analysis methodology: Qualitative Analysis Procedure , 2016, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[9]  Ali Mosleh,et al.  A human reliability analysis methodology for oil refineries and petrochemical plants operation: Phoenix-PRO qualitative framework , 2020, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[10]  Asgeir J. Sørensen,et al.  Risk management of autonomous marine systems and operations , 2017 .

[11]  Ali Mosleh,et al.  Cognitive modeling and dynamic probabilistic simulation of operating crew response to complex system accidents. Part 2: IDAC performance influencing factors model , 2007, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[12]  Ørnulf Jan Rødseth,et al.  Risk Assessment for an Unmanned Merchant Ship , 2015 .

[13]  Jakub Montewka,et al.  Towards the assessment of potential impact of unmanned vessels on maritime transportation safety , 2017, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[14]  Klaus D. McDonald-Maier,et al.  Autonomous Ship Collision Avoidance Navigation Concepts, Technologies and Techniques , 2007, Journal of Navigation.

[15]  Barry Kirwan,et al.  A Guide to Practical Human Reliability Assessment , 1994 .

[16]  Stein Haugen,et al.  Assessing ship risk model applicability to Marine Autonomous Surface Ships , 2018, Ocean Engineering.

[17]  S. Swaminathan,et al.  The mathematical formulation for the event sequence diagram framework , 1999 .

[18]  Qiang Meng,et al.  An Overview of Maritime Waterway Quantitative Risk Assessment Models , 2012, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[19]  Andrew Shepherd,et al.  Hierarchical task analysis , 2001 .

[20]  P. Terndrup Pedersen.  Review and application of ship collision and grounding analysis procedures , 2010 .

[21]  Ingrid Bouwer Utne,et al.  Collision avoidance on maritime autonomous surface ships: Operators’ tasks and human failure events , 2019, Safety Science.

[22]  Jan Erik Vinnem,et al.  Deriving verification objectives and scenarios for maritime systems using the systems-theoretic process analysis , 2018, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[23]  Neville A. Stanton,et al.  Book preview , 2003, INTR.

[24]  Ali Mosleh,et al.  Cognitive modeling and dynamic probabilistic simulation of operating crew response to complex system accidents. Part 4: IDAC causal model of operator problem-solving response , 2007, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[25]  Ali Mosleh,et al.  Hybrid causal methodology and software platform for probabilistic risk assessment and safety monitoring of socio-technical systems , 2010, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[26]  Bjarne Stroustrup.  A Tour of C , 2013 .

[27]  Marialena Vagia,et al.  A literature review on the levels of automation during the years. What are the different taxonomies that have been proposed? , 2016, Applied ergonomics.

[28]  Carol Smidts,et al.  The IDA cognitive model for the analysis of nuclear power plant operator response under accident conditions. Part I: problem solving and decision making model , 1997 .

[29]  Jaeyoung Cho,et al.  Models and computational algorithms for maritime risk analysis: a review , 2018, Ann. Oper. Res..

[30]  Jan Erik Vinnem,et al.  On the use of the hybrid causal logic method in offshore risk analysis , 2009, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[31]  Morten Breivik,et al.  Development of a Dynamic Positioning System for the ReVolt Model Ship , 2018 .

[32]  Ali Mosleh,et al.  Incorporating software failure in risk analysis - Part 1: Software functional failure mode classification , 2020, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[33]  John Annett.  Hierarchical Task Analysis , 2003 .

[34]  A. Mosleh,et al.  Cognitive modeling and dynamic probabilistic simulation of operating crew response to complex system accidents: Part 3: IDAC operator response model , 2007, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..