Cogn Tech Work (2008) 10:69–77 DOI 10.1007/s10111-007-0079-7
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Integration of the human factor into the design and construction of fishing vessels C. Chauvin Æ G. Le Bouar Æ C. Renault
Received: 2 May 2006 / Accepted: 9 March 2007 / Published online: 30 March 2007 Springer-Verlag London Limited 2007
Abstract Sea fishing is an extremely hazardous occupation. Since the eighties, several studies and reports have been made in an attempt to further the integration of safe working conditions into the design of fishing vessels. This paper presents various ergonomical interventions, performed on several very different projects: one industrial vessel, and smaller vessels built in co-operation with small firms. The ergonomical follow-up on the design and construction of a large halieutic research vessel was performed along standard principles: work analysis in typical situations, definition and simulation of possible future activity, and input from future users. The experience of work with smaller firms (when they were either the owner or the contractor) has shown the limitations of these principles. The difficulties were mainly related to the projects’ lack of structure (no specifications, no plans), the lack of availability of the different actors, and the lack of any real demand as far as safety was concerned. Keywords Fishing vessels Working conditions Safety Ergonomics Design and building projects
C. Chauvin (&) G. Le Bouar (&) GESTIC (Study Group on Health, Work, Information and Cognition), Ergonomy and Safety Laboratory on Maritime Activities (LESAM), Research Centre, University of South Brittany, Rue de Saint-Maude´, 56321 Lorient-F Cedex, France e-mail:
[email protected] G. Le Bouar e-mail:
[email protected] C. Renault Maritime Institute of Risk Prevention, 3 Bd Cosmao-Dumanoir, 56100 Lorient-F, France e-mail:
[email protected]
1 Introduction Sea fishing is among the most dangerous and hardest of occupations. In 2000, the incidence of work-related injuries in France was 44 injuries for 1,000 workers in other branches, and 143 injuries for 1,000 sea fishermen. Moreover, available data seems to show that these injuries are often more serious than those occurring in other occupations. For instance, the incidence of work-related fatalities in France, in the year 2000, was over 0.1% in sea fishery, and, respectively, 0.005% in other occupations, and 0.01% in the building trade, considered to be one of the most hazardous sectors on land (Chauvin and Le Bouar 2007). It seems therefore essential to find a way of integrating safety into the design of vessels, to limit occupational injuries... and also to offer more attractive working conditions, in the hope of keeping yet more workers from leaving the profession. The current trend clearly shows them turning away from this type of work. It is extremely difficult to observe sea fishermen at work, due to a lack of room aboard the vessels, the length of periods spent at sea, weather conditions... Because of this, designers very seldom have the opportunity of forming a clear perception of working conditions on board. The fact is that the technical and organisational decisions made at the preliminary design stages are vital to the future safety and working conditions of the crew. Any designer of fishing vessels has, thanks to his training and experience, a great deal of expertise—but without underestimating his competence, it is still important to guide, as best can be, his decisions all along the designing process. In the case of sea fishing, given the very specific nature of the profession, the ergonomist—by using the correct methods and his knowledge of the profession—can be of help to the designer.
123
70
Cogn Tech Work (2008) 10:69–77
During the eighties, the LSCTPM1 (today the LESAM) team made different methods and tools available to the shipyards in order to help designers accommodate for the safety and working conditions of the crews. A detailed guidebook was created (Andro et al. 1993), based on clinical and epidemiological analyses of occupational injuries (Dorval 1984), analyses of the tasks performed by the sailors, as well as elements gathered during several stays aboard fishing vessels (Andro et al. 1991). The general purpose of this guidebook, put together as part of the European Halios Project, was to pass on knowledge of the safety and working conditions of sea fishermen. It contained different types of information, including: • • • •
The provisions included in sea regulations regarding the fishermen’s safety. The ergonomic norms which could be applied to the design of the workstations. The actual tasks performed by fishermen and the impact of some of the designer’s decisions on their activity. The information to be exchanged for good interaction between the skipper and the shipyard.
This guidebook was structured into six sections: general layout of the vessel, living conditions on board, workstation design generalities, trawler design and safe operation of the fishing gear, processing of the catch, bridge. Over the past 10 years, through the medium of several vessel design and construction projects, the transfer of information to the shipyards has acquired a more dynamic character than the simple creation of a guidebook. The purpose of this article is to show the process of ergonomic input on two types of projects: an industrial vessel, and projects on a smaller scale. For each of these two types of projects, the objective is to identify the difficulties encounter and, more precisely, to provide some answers to the two basic questions which come up in any attempt to integrate the working point of view into a design (Bellemare et al. 2004): how should the data, acquired through an analysis of the work, be transmitted to the designers, to ensure that they understand the constraints of the activity? What type of interaction must take place between the actors of a project to ensure that the working point of view will be heard?
2 Integration of the human factor into the design and building of a fishing vessel The design (and construction) of a large vessel can be considered as an industrial project, in that it includes four 1
University of South Brittany Safety and Working Conditions Laboratory for Sea Fishing
123
phases: preliminary studies, studies, construction, and sea trials. The entire process is headed by two key actors: the owner and the contractor. It is based on all-important documents: the specifications (called tender or bid specifications in naval construction), and the blueprints or plans. •
•
•
•
The preliminary study phase belongs to the contracting authority, in this instance the ship owner. The objective of this phase is to define the basic characteristics of the project; it ends with the writing of the tender or bid specifications. The studies are performed by the contractor, i.e. the shipyard’s design department. Their purpose is to plan the general layout and provide detailed blueprints, in accordance with the specifications, and integrating the technical constraints found in naval construction. The general plans show all the vessel’s decks in sections, the size and arrangement of the different areas and also, fairly roughly, their layout. The detailed drawings define more precisely the layout of the different spaces, and show them from different angles. The construction of a vessel often begins before the detailed drawings are finalised. It begins with the hull and lower decks, and ends with the fitting of the superstructure. The sea trials are meant to end with the ship owner’s acceptance of every function of the vessel.
2.1 Description of the ergonomic approach in a large vessel design and construction The human factor can be integrated into a project of this type through the standard procedure of ergonomic action, and tools like work analysis and definition of possible future activity (Daniellou and Garrigou 1993; Daniellou 1996), but also through work groups including members of the future crew. The plan of an ergonomic approach during ship design and shipbuilding is described in Fig. 1. It includes three main steps: project analysis, analysis of working situations that have features similar to the working situations onboard the future ship, elaboration of ergonomic recommendations to take into account during the design stage and evaluation of designer’s proposals thanks to the use of scenarios describing possible future activities. 2.1.1 Project analysis During shipbuilding, this stage consists in identifying the future ship’s characteristics (commercial requirement, level of automation, organisation...) as well as the phases and actors of the design process. It also consists in pointing out situations that could require an ergonomic approach in
Cogn Tech Work (2008) 10:69–77
Project
71
Situation to be referred to
Hyothpesis about consequences in the future
Possibilities for future activity
Knowldege in: - Ergonomics - Crew's activities
Modifications
Recommendations
room layout, work organisation. They must be included throughout the design process. Scenarios make the appraisal of designers’ proposals possible. The example of the design and construction of a research vessel illustrates the implementation of this type of process in an industrial vessel design project; it shows both its usefulness and its limitations. This example has already been detailed in several communications (see, for instance, Chauvin and Binot 1999).
Criterion
2.2 Example: an ergonomic intervention in an industrial vessel project Final Project
Fig. 1 Description of the ergonomic accompaniment in a ship design project
order to improve the crew’s interaction with their working environment. The following situations are typical: activities fulfilled on the bridge, on the deck, in the engine room, in the galley. On the bridge, dominant problems were encountered with the mental load of the operator, the interfacing of the electronic equipment, the vision lines and communication to and with the decks and the surrounding traffic, and the layout of the bridge and the steering console. On the deck, particularly onboard fishing vessels, the aim is to reduce the risk of accidents during the handling of gear, winches and cables. In the engine room, the main concern is to take into account maintenance in the early phase of the design process and to evaluate the influence of remote controlling on the operator’s activity. When it comes to the galley, the problem is to define a layout and a work organisation, which meet the demands of the task as well as the demands of sanitary regulations. 2.1.2 Analysis of existing situations Voyages on existing and similar vessels make observations and analyses of ‘‘critical’’ activities in the various workstations possible. The different activities are thoroughly examined with special emphasis on the loads handled, motion of people, communications, information processed, and difficulties encountered. Factors that may affect work efficiency, and the comfort and safety of the crew during their routine operations are investigated; i.e. noise and lighting levels, space configuration, layout of consoles, equipment location. 2.1.3 Ergonomic requirements and recommendations Results of analyses are translated into ergonomic recommendations and into scenarios, which try to foresee future activities. Recommendations deal with noise, lighting,
This example deals with a 74.5 m (225 ft) vessel principally designed for halieutic research, in the areas of: • • • •
ecology of populations of marine species, evaluation of species for fishing purposes, survey of the distribution of resources in space and time, fishing and processing techniques.
Because of this, it resembles a large-sized fishing vessel: its working deck is similar to that of a fishing vessel, and it includes a fish-sorting room. In this project, the ergonomic aspect was introduced at the end of the preliminary studies. The preliminary studies were mainly devoted to a definition of the vessel’s purpose and its main characteristics (size, engine power, autonomy, crew, ...). They ended with the writing of bid specifications which were then submitted to several shipyards. During this initial phase, the ergonomists performed an analysis of requirements, based on input from several meetings with representatives of the vessel’s future users (both seamen and researchers). The initial surveys of activity were performed during a weeklong sea trip on an existing halieutic research vessel. These analyses—as well as general ergonomic knowledge—were translated into recommendations, which were then worked into the specifications. They were concerned with: noise levels, passageways, safety equipment, and the allocation of tasks between the bridge and the deck during the operation of the fishing gear. The selected shipyard performed the study phase, drawing up plans for the vessel (general arrangement plans and detailed drawings). At this point, the analyses made in typical operating situations were translated into scenarios describing the crew’s activities, on the bridge and the fishing deck, as well as the researchers’ tasks in the fish sorting room. These scenarios were validated during meetings with representatives of the future users, the owner and the contractor. These scenarios were formulated, according to the activity’s characteristics, as graphics, flow charts or written reports; used as simulations of probable
123
72
future activities, they made it possible to evaluate the overall plans, and to help to make the detailed drawings. Scenarios and simulations turned out to be efficient, and were later used to arbitrate decisions to the benefit of health and safety in negotiations between the owner and the contractor. During construction, the project team supervises the work of the subcontractors. At this point, the basic decisions (particularly regarding the size of the different work areas) are already made. But new questions are now coming up, related to normative ergonomics, the type of workstation (sitting, standing), the lighting of the work areas, the communication equipment and the positioning of the workstations. During the sea trial phase, the ergonomists listed the requests for alterations made by members of the staff, especially the domestic staff (cooks and stewards). Each request was made into a report card which was then used as a communication medium between the users and the head of project. 2.3 Assessment of the ergonomic intervention The assessment of this experience led to an additional emphasis on the common aspects of all industrial vessel projects, regarding the means of communication between the owner, contractor, users and ergonomists, and the interaction between the project’s various actors. 2.3.1 The means and supports used Scenarios and simulations of Possible Future Activity (PFA) are essential means of communication during the study phase. A scenario gives ‘‘the opportunity to visualise the quality of people’s experiences in interaction with potential products or systems, to support interdisciplinary team learning about use and contextual issues, before committing substantial resources to development’’ (Suri and Marsh 2000). The elaboration of a scenario goes through three phases: an analysis of the project’s characteristics, an identification of the operations requiring human action, and an analysis of activities in typical situations. The scenario includes data on the actors involved, their activities, the space and time necessary for a given task, and possible incidents. It can take the shape of a written report, graphics or flow charts. A simulation recreates the different stages of an activity by projecting them on plans, scale models or through computer modelling. Ideally, the work analysis process should modify the actors’ perception of the project, through meetings attended by designers, users and ergonomists. The object of these
123
Cogn Tech Work (2008) 10:69–77
meetings is to show typical PFA situations. Ideally again, various forms of work analysis should be implemented during the intervention. Obviously, as the project progresses, new questions occur which might require additional on-site observation. Concerning the mentioned example, it is to be regretted that scenarios were not initially used in the preliminary design phase, but only at a later stage, to evaluate and alter the shipyard’s plans. Looking back, we believe the impact of these scenarios would have been greater had they been presented in computer-modelling form: the simulation would have been more eloquent, it would have been possible to integrate activity simulation into the different versions of the arrangement plans. The possibility of creating a computer program taking into account the human factor, to be used by designers, was raised as early as the LSCTPM’s first projects. On the basis of a development scheme focused on the definition of the volumetric entities of the vessel, of their arrangement, and the means of access from one to the other, a computer model was developed (Le Bouar and Rio 1993, 1994). Its purpose was to provide the designer with an evaluation of the impact of work organisation and life on board, requirements on the safety and efficient operation of the vessel (Andro et al. 1987). This model was never developed, but the principle of PFA simulation was implemented in a project devoted to the ergonomical design of a merchant ship’s bridge (Gomes et al. 2001). The FPA viewpoint should be integrated into a project from the earliest stages (Eklund and Daniellou 1991). At best, it should be included in the bid specifications. This document is the only one that is binding, the only one the designer is committed to respect. As Maline (1994) points out, this would imply transforming the specifications into a brief of objectives aiming at ‘‘informing the designer in a precise and structured manner, and guaranteeing a successful designing process’’. The brief of objectives should provide a description of future activities, including some initial answers to the questions the designer will have to resolve, like the size of the various spaces, and the arrangement and atmosphere of the workstations. In the specific case of a vessel’s design, it seems relevant to link the description of possible future activities to each given space. In the mentioned project, this notion of future use was specified for the areas used for scientific research, and for the engine and maintenance areas, but not for the main deck. The main deck was defined through its ground tackle (in the ‘‘hull equipment and fittings’’ category), the installations for the use of the scientists (in the ‘‘special fittings’’ category), and through a presentation of the trawlboard fittings (in the ‘‘metallic hull’’ category). This fragmented view makes it impossible for the designers to
Cogn Tech Work (2008) 10:69–77
have a clear notion of the different activities to be performed in that particular area. 2.3.2 Interaction between actors The assessment of this project also made it possible to point out the main actors of the project, and to define their input and their interaction. The ship owner makes use of the naval construction service, and the project manager is an engineer working full time on the project. Thanks to his training and availability, he worked with the technical overseer of the project (to turn to Raynaud’s typology, Raynaud 2001), in a co-author to co-author paradigm, rather than in a contracting party to service supplier paradigm. Having requested ergonomic support, and also the creation of different work groups (computers, fishing deck, life on board, scientific installations, engine, acoustics), he widened this paradigm to include the ergonomist and the future users, to allow them to influence the project efficiently, and to have a say in the design. This paradigm has however shown its limitations. Practically, it turned out to be difficult to get the different actors to work together on the design. The work groups did not have enough reactivity to stay abreast of the evolution of the plans provided by the shipyard. This ‘‘inertia’’ of the work groups was linked to the number of members; these included seagoing personnel and the different types of researchers involved in the vessel’s missions. It was sometimes difficult to set a date to gather together people who were either at sea, or based as far apart as Boulogne, Brest, Nantes, Se`te, or Saint-Jean-de-Luz. Faced with the need to get a rapid approval of the plans produced by the shipyard, the ergonomist often served as a go-between between the users and the designers, communicating the proposals of the former to the latter, and attempting first with one, then the other, to imagine typical probable future action situations.
73
In 1999, the IMP began the implementation of a program called ‘‘integrated safety in vessel design’’. This name could be translated to mean ‘‘an ergonomical approach of the design and construction of seagoing vessels’’. This practice could be applicable to vessels of all types, but for the purpose of this report, only the sea fishing sector will be considered. In the sea fishing sector, the ‘‘integrated safety in vessel design’’ program meant offering ship owners, whenever they were authorised to build a new vessel, a support scheme for the purpose of improving the crew’s working and living conditions aboard the future vessels. In theory, three benefits can be expected from this support: • •
•
For the IMP: a decrease in the number of occupational injuries at sea, extremely frequent in sea fishing. For the ship owners: a decrease in indirect expenses linked to an occupational injury (loss of time caused by the accident, reduced manpower after an injury, ...) and also, in a context in which manpower is difficult to attract, an improvement of the sector’s image, liable to attract and keep new workers. For the sea fishing sector in general: faced with a plummeting manpower, an improvement of the sector’s image which could attract new workers and keep fishermen from leaving the profession.
In 1999 and 2000, this program was only open to trawlers from 16 to 25 m (48–75 ft, the type of vessels aboard which the greatest proportion of occupational injuries occur). The program was co-financed by the EEC and the ENIM. For ship owners, the service was entirely free, provided the project remained within its timeframe. Since 2001, this program is open to every type of vessel. In sea fishery, the services include an ENIM co-financing, the amount of which depends on the size of the companies involved. 3.1 Distinctive features of the design and building of small vessel
3 Integration of the human factor into small-scale design projects The Maritime Institute of Risk Prevention, (IMP), is a nonprofit organisation created in 1992, acting for the prevention of professional hazards in the maritime sector, in sea fishing, the merchant marine and some areas of marine cultivation. The IMP is financed by a yearly subsidy from the National Bureau of Disabled Seagoing Workers (ENIM), the social security of registered seagoing personnel, or sailors. The financial link with the ENIM allows us to consider the IMP as the prevention branch of a specific social security subdivision.
The halieutic resource is decreasing, and European regulations aim at reducing the fishing effort. These new dispositions limit both the number of authorisations to build new vessels, and the public subsidies which can be given by the States. Every European State has a certain amount of volume and power to dispatch. To build a new fishing vessel, a ship owner has to work out a file. If his project is accepted, he receives an operating licence (Permis de Mise en Exploitation, PME) determining the vessel volume (in tonnage or Universal Measurement System, UMS) as well as its power (in KW). These regulations drastically limit the amount of new constructions, which depend on the destruction of existing vessels.
123
74
When he gets the PME, the ship owner contacts a design department (inside or outside a shipyard) and specifies, as requirements: the vessel length, motorization and his type of fishing. The naval architect takes these requirements into account, as well as the authorized volume, to propose a draft showing the general arrangement. From this draft, the specification is defined, as well as the bid and the delivery time. The specification includes the equipment and fittings: engine, power pack, electronic instruments fitting the bridge... When an agreement has been reached between the ship owner and the shipyard, the study itself begins. It lasts between 2 and 3 months for a 21 m vessel and provides detailed section and structural blueprints. The construction of a vessel often begins before the detailed drawings are finalised. It lasts (for a 21 m long vessel) around 10 months. The ergonomic intervention in such a project is constrained by the fact that the vessel volume is set. 3.2 Some examples of ergonomic intervention into the design and building of small fishing vessels 3.2.1 Design and construction of a 21.5 m (65 ft) trawler This project involved the design and construction of a 21.5 m prawn trawler in Brittany. It was carried out in 1999–2000. The initial request for support, dated September 1999, came from the contracting authority, i.e. the owner of the future vessel. At this point, the possibilities of altering the design of the future vessel were already limited. The basic design, a near-reproduction of another vessel, was already finalised and difficult to question. On the face of it, the intervention was to be focused on the inner arrangement of already defined workspaces and living quarters. The IMP intervention began by putting an ergonomist on board a reference vessel (in September–October 1999, for 13 days). In November 1999, an initial meeting to hand in conclusions had already been called. It served to warn the owner about an architectural problem concerning the relative locations of the shower and galley aboard the future ship. An alteration was immediately requested and implemented by the shipyard. A promising beginning... but this alteration turned out to be the only improvement the ergonomist managed to make in the design of this vessel. Every subsequent action was a failure, the most representative of which was certainly the attempt to draft specifications for the design of the wheel house. It seems that this shipyard had never worked in this way before. No plan was even provided for the arrange-
123
Cogn Tech Work (2008) 10:69–77
ment of the bridge, as the shipyard’s joiner was used to working from a hand-drawn sketch... 3.2.2 Design and construction of three 24.4 m (74 ft) trawlers This project involved the design and construction of three 24.4 m trawlers. It was carried out in 1999–2000. The initial request for support, dated October 1999, came from a group of ship owners, three of which were leading a ‘‘sister ships’’ construction project. Once again, little leeway was left for alterations on the future ships. The general plans of the vessels were already drawn up; there was only room for improvement in the arrangement of already defined working and living spaces. The IMP intervention began by putting an ergonomist on board a reference vessel (in November 1999, for 5 days). In December 1999, a meeting to hand in the report had already been called by the ship owners involved in the project, to which all interested members of the ship owners’ groups were invited. This meeting served to point out problems identified aboard the reference vessel; problems which could be resolved in the design of future vessels. The three leaders of the ‘‘sister ships’’ construction project agreed with some of the points which were made, and pressured the shipyard to solve them. To this end, the lighting on the stern fishing deck was improved, and an alteration was made in the catch processing line, which reduced the number of processing tasks... 3.3 Assessment of ergonomic interventions in the design and construction of fishing vessels The examples set out in the previous chapter point to certain conclusions regarding IMP interventions in the design and construction process of fishing vessels. 3.3.1 Late interventions In sea fishing, any intervention in the design and construction process of vessels is generally only possible at a late stage. This limits the possibilities of improvement of the fishermen’s living and working conditions. This situation is caused in part by the procedure required to obtain the authorisation to build a new vessel. Certain characteristics of the future vessel must be specified when filing the request, and these cannot be altered afterward. 3.3.2 The means and support used Co-operation with fishing ship owners is often interrupted before the end of the project. In these cases, involvement in
Cogn Tech Work (2008) 10:69–77
the designing process generally stops with the handing in of a diagnosis report written after a trip in a similar vessel. Sometimes, the ergonomist provides a prognosis on the future situation. At best, the ship owner in person informs the shipyard of the problems identified, and requests some alterations, selected by him among the ergonomist’s recommendations. This situation is the consequence of the way interventions are managed: some services are provided free of charge, and no contracts are signed. For the free interventions, there is only a verbal agreement... The ship owners are not held to any type of commitment toward the IMP, they can put a stop to the project when they wish and are free to take into account or disregard the recommendations of the ergonomist. In these cases, the ergonomic intervention did not go far enough to run into scenarios. Moreover, it would be difficult to use scenarios because of the superficiality of some blueprints. 3.3.3 Interaction between actors In the design and construction of fishing vessels, the owners are often small (and even very small) companies. As would be the case in similar firms on land, these structures simply do not have among their staff the skills necessary for this type of project. This is sufficiently shown by the fact that ship owners almost never submit specifications. To the lack of specific skills is added a lack of time. Some ship owners are also skippers, and they continue fishing during the design and most of the construction of their future vessel. Because of these difficulties, ship owners generally delegate the design and construction of their vessel to a shipyard. In this case, we are in a contracting party to service supplier paradigm. As a result, the ship owner’s input is principally a matter of reacting to and altering the blueprints, usually general plans, provided by the shipyard. We note that the ergonomist is also limited to this reactive role. It is extremely difficult to question it; the rare attempts (drafting the specifications for the arrangement of a bridge) were failures. There is practically no organised involvement of the crew in the design of the future vessel. At best, the ship owner may ask his crew what they would like to see aboard the new vessel. In a fairly informal manner, he sometimes asks for their opinion on a blueprint (this can give good results). To be fair to the ship owners, it is not easy to organise this type of involvement. At sea, the work rhythms are
75
intensive. Once ashore, the crew is on holiday and it is difficult to get them to come to a meeting. This same difficulty in obtaining the involvement of the crew members was met by the ergonomist. Except for rare exceptions, we were never able to involve the crew in the designing process. As a result, the interventions always remained in ‘‘expert’’ mode. Because of the crew’s absence, we were the sole representatives, on the basis of limited observations, of what is usually called ‘‘the worker’s point of view’’. This situation is far from satisfactory, and makes it even more difficult when we must suggest, from a purely personal standpoint, new alterations or improvements. 3.3.4 Cultural factors Particularities of the sea fishing sector tend to hold back any attempt to take safety and working conditions into account in the design and construction of the vessels... and at almost every other stage. Without claiming to list them all, we can mention: •
• •
•
A ‘‘cultural’’ factor: in the maritime sector in general, the concept of safety is focused, first and foremost, on the safety of the vessel. On land, this would be the safety of the workshop or premises. The vessel must not sink, and it must not catch on fire. This basic aspect of security is covered by tight rules and regulations, and is very much supervised by the administration of maritime affairs. In this context, the preoccupation of protecting the workers from professional hazards has always remained slightly in the background. The lack of spurs to ‘‘sell’’ the prevention of professional hazards: no financial incentive from the social security subdivision: the social security of other professions requires specific contributions for occupational injuries, which can vary with the number and seriousness of accidents. With the ENIM, a single contribution covers workrelated injuries, illness on board the vessel and illness ashore. This contribution varies only very slightly, and is not based on the cost of the maritime work-related injury; the profitability of the vessel is not related to the sailors’ work: the profitability of a fishing vessel depends on the quantity and selling price of the catch. In sea fishing, quantity and quality (which refers to the species captured) depend on the characteristics of the vessels, the characteristics of the fishing gear, and the skipper’s ability; it bears practically no relation to the sailors’ performance. Better working conditions for the crew will not make the vessel more profitable.
123
76
Cogn Tech Work (2008) 10:69–77
4 Conclusion Recently built fishing vessels still harbour design flaws which already existed in the eighties: fishermen leaning overboard to handle otter boards, fishermen sorting prawns on their knees on a deck open to the weather, fishermen forced to adopt the most uncomfortable postures to store heavy loads in the hold. Aside from ‘‘beacon’’ vessels—especially research ships—the working conditions on many vessels remain harsh and dangerous. However, the data detailing the work of sea fishermen and the impact of technical decisions on their working and living conditions are available. In conclusion, it seems therefore necessary to explain—on one hand—what the success factors are of an ergonomic intervention in a large vessel design and building project and to point out—on the other hand—the factors which could explain the difficulties encountered when ergonomic interventions concern the design process of small fishing vessels. Integration of ergonomics in a large vessel design and building project was useful to appraise proposals of designers and to choose design options, which fit in with work requirements. At the conclusion of the described project, emphasis may be laid on conditions leading to successful results in such an ergonomic approach: • •
•
Ergonomists must perform activity analysis onboard existing vessels before the drafting of specification. Results of these analyses must be translated not only into recommendations, but also into scenarios, which foresee future activities. These scenarios must be presented in such a form that they can be understood and used by all design actors (project team, designers, future users, subcontractors), throughout the design process.
In the case of small scale fishing vessels, a number of factors for successful design of ergonomics intervention are missing. Among the factors listed by Koningsveld (2005), we notice: •
• •
Weak worker participation and weak management support (from the ship owner as well as from the shipyard). Impossibility to simulate the future activities because of the lack of detailed drawing. Impossibility to establish the benefits of changes proposed by ergonomists because safety is not the main concern of stakeholders and because the intervention does not impact productivity, production costs, and competitive strength.
This situation is very much determined by the structure of the companies these two actors represent: as has already
123
been pointed out, they are usually small, loosely structured firms. It is obvious that the usual methods of project follow-up cannot easily be adapted to them; simulations based on plans are difficult because the plans are not sufficiently detailed; an involvement of future users is made almost impossible by the constraints of sea fishing. To adapt the methods of design ergonomics to the tools, interaction mode and constraints typical of these structures, it, therefore, seems necessary to understand more clearly the design and construction process as practised by the small shipyards. One possible solution would be to move the intervention up in time, bringing in the ergonomist as early as the request for authorisation to build a new vessel. The safety of the crew should be a factor of the project when it is submitted, and this objective should be highlighted in the construction specifications.
References Andro M, Dorval P, Le Bouar G, Le Pluart C, Le Roy Y, Roullot C, Meillat M, Prado J (1987) Se´curite´ et conditions de travail a` la peˆche artisanale et semi-industrielle. IFREMER, Brest Andro M, Dorval P, Le Roy Y (1991) Ergonomics in the development of fishing vessels building projects. Halios project: description of a trawler for the years 2000. In: Quiennec Y, Daniellou F (eds) Designing for everyone. Taylor and Francis, London, pp 1380– 1382 Andro M, Dorval P, Le Roy Y (1993) Se´curite´ et conditions de travail dans la conception d’un navire de peˆche. IFREMER, Brest Bellemare M, Trudel L, Ledoux E, Vincent P (2004) Contribuer a` un projet d’ame´nagement par l’analyse ergonomique du travail: le cas d’une bibliothe`que publique. Pistes 6(2) Chauvin C, Binot J (1999) Integration of ergonomics and safety during design and building of a research vessel. In: Proceedings of the 1st international congress on maritime technological innovations and research. UPC, Barcelona, pp 789–798 Chauvin C, Le Bouar G (2007) Occupational injury in the French sea fishing industry: A comparative study between the 1980s and today. Accid Anal Prev 39:79–85 Daniellou F (1996) Questions e´piste´mologiques souleve´es par l’ergonomie de conception. In: Daniellou F (ed) L’ergonomie en queˆte de ses principes—De´bats e´piste´mologiques. Octares Editions, Toulouse, pp 183–200 Daniellou F, Garrigou A (1993) La mise en œuvre des repre´sentations des situations passe´es et des situations futures dans la participation des ope´rateurs a` la conception. In: Weill-Fassina A et al (ed) Repre´sentations pour l’action. Octare`s, Toulouse, pp 295– 309 Dorval P (1984) Safety and working conditions in ocean fishing through a study of occupational accidents. In: Chaumel JL (ed) Labor developments in the fishing industry. Can Spec Publ Fish Aquat Sci 72:10–22 Eklund J, Daniellou F (1991) Ergonomics and project management. In: Quiennec Y, Daniellou F (eds) Designing for everyone.Taylor and Francis, London, pp 1332–1334 Gomes S, Sagot JC, Le Bouar G (2001) Activity simulation: an aid for a high speed craft bridge design process. In: Brebbia et al (eds) Maritime Technology IV. Witpress Editor, Southampton, pp 160–170
Cogn Tech Work (2008) 10:69–77 Koningsveld EA, Van Rhijn G, Vink P (2005) Enhancing the impact of ergonomics interventions. Ergonomics 48:559–580 Le Bouar G, Rio G (1993) Elaboration d’un logiciel inte´grant se´curite´ et conditions de travail a` la conception d’un navire de peˆche artisanale. ATMA Bull 93:225–241 Le Bouar G, Rio G (1994) Optimisation of volume arrangement with constraints—application to commercial fishing vessel conception’’. In: Proceeding of the 6th international conference on
77 engineering computer graphics and descriptive geometry. Tokyo, Japan, pp 19–23 August 1994 Maline J (1994) Simuler le travail, une aide a` la conduite de projet. ANACT, Lyon Raynaud D (2001) Compe´tences et expertise professionnelle de l’architecte dans le travail de conception. Sociol Trav 43:451–469 Suri J, Marsh M (2000) Scenario building as an ergonomics method in consumer product design. Appl Ergon 31:151–157
123
