International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 1
Number 4
December 2007
399
Economic Analysis on Substitution of Paper
Chart with ECDIS Onboard for Turkish Flag
Ships
O. Gurel
Maritime Transportation and Management Engineering Department, Istanbul
Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
I.D. Er
Marine Engineering Department, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
ABSTRACT: ECDIS as a real-time navigation system integrating variety of charts and navigation-related
information that replaces the usage of paper chart. Nowadays, ECDIS usage is getting more recognized as
being used for both navigation and collision avoidance tasks. In this consideration, Turkish ship management
companies are at the right cornerstone to take a decision for the substitution of paper chart with ECDIS. Cost
factor has a significant role during the selection process and it needs to be optimized with cost-benefit ratios
of each alternative. This study originally tends to describe decision making process with alternative solutions
that could be applied to ship’s bridge operations. By utilizing multi-criteria decision making model, it is
aimed to facilitate the selection of two alternatives with “Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)”. Consequently
quantifying the influence of related factors to the selection of two alternatives for Turkish management
companies, a hierarchical analysis framework is developed and applied by AHP method.
1 INTRODUCTION
Electronic charts have been under active develop-
ment since 1981 and appeared as a commercial
product from early 1983. They are, as the name
implies, an electronic version of a nautical chart,
reproducing those items on the chart intended to
promote navigation safety at sea. Electronic chart is
rapidly gaining acceptance as the preferred means of
displaying ship's position, especially since GPS can
be used to accurately place its location on the chart.
The ability to see the ship's position relative to
dangers on the bottom and the course to its
destination is what makes the use of the electronic
chart so compelling. When radar is added to the
display, the picture is complete: the whole tactical
situation is displayed. GPS by itself is not very
useful until its measured ship's position is placed on
the chart. When radar is added the display combines
a view of ship's position with objects on the surface
and with a portrayal of the bottom that is essential
for safe navigation. (Shea & Grady 1998)
The introduction and use of electronic charts in
marine service has taken an odd path compared to
the many new marine electronic devices. (Er &
Celik, 2005) There is a complication that sets it apart
from virtually every other advance in marine
navigation. (Akten, 2004) The nautical chart is a
legal document, and ocean-going ships are required
to carry them under a combination of rules laid down
by the International Maritime Organization. Besides
this if ECDIS fulfil the performance requirements
that are defined by International Hydrographic
Organization (IHO) and International Electro
technical Commission (IEC), is equivalent to an up
to date paper chart. In this consideration, Turkish
ship management companies need to take a decision
for the substitution of paper chart with ECDIS.
(Rodriguez & Dauer, 2006) Making a decision
implies that there are alternative choices to be
considered, and in such a case we want not only to
identify as many of these alternatives as possible but
to choose the one that best fits with our goals. (Yang
2006) In this multi criteria decision making process,
400
to facilitate the selection of two alternatives Analytic
Hierarchy Process (AHP) model is being used. In
order to quantify the influence of related factors to
the selection of two alternatives of Turkish ship
management companies, this study developed a
hierarchical analysis framework being applied by
AHP method. (May 1999, Smeaton 1995)
2 THE ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS
METHODOLOGY
The main purpose of this paper is to solve the
selection of route planning equipment by employing
AHP method. As it is well-known, the AHP consists
of decomposing a complex problem into its
components, organizing the components, organizing
the components, organizing the components into sets
and locating the sets into levels to generate a
hierarchical structure. The aim of constructing such
a hierarchy is to determine the impact of lover level
elements on an upper level criterion, which is
achieved by pair wise comparisons provided by the
decision maker. The AHP is a simple decision
making tool to deal with complex, unstructured an
multi attribute problems which has been developed
by Saaty. (Saaty, 1980) The most creative part of
decision making, that has an important effect on the
outcome, is modeling the problem. Identification of
the decision hierarchy is the key to success in using
AHP. AHP is essentially the formalization of a
complex problem using a hierarchical structure and
it is a multi criteria decision making approach that
employs pair wise comparisons. The AHP consists
of three basic steps;
− Design of the decision hierarchy,
− The prioritization procedure,
− Calculation of results.
AHP initially breaks down a complex multi
criteria decision making problem into a hierarchy of
interrelated decision elements (criteria, decision
alternatives). With The AHP, the objectives, criteria
and alternatives are arranged in a hierarchical
structure similar to a family tree. A hierarchy has at
least three levels: overall goal of the problem at the
top, multiple criteria that define alternatives in the
middle, and competing alternatives at the bottom.
The process of building this structure not only helps
to identify all the elements of the decision more
accurately, but also to recognize the inter-
relationships between them. The AHP process
involves defining the various alternatives, organizing
the objectives and goals, developing the decision
hierarchy, synthesizing the result, examining how
modifying the variables affects the results. The top
level of hierarchy consists of only one element,
which is the overall objective. The elements that
affect the decision are called attributes or criteria.
The lowest level of hierarchy is referred to as
alternatives, which are decision options. (Forman &
Selly, 2000)
Once the problem has been decomposed and the
hierarchy constructed, prioritization procedure starts
in order to determine the relative importance of the
elements within each level. The pair-wise judgment
starts from the second level (first level of criteria)
and finishes in the lowest level, alternatives. In each
level the elements are compared pair-wise according
to their levels of influence and based on the specified
element in the higher level. The decision maker must
express his preference between each pair elements
(collecting input data of decision elements). (Golden
& Wasil & Harker 1989, Zahedi, 1986)
After forming the preference matrices, the mathe-
matical process commence in order normalize and
find the priority weights for each matrix (using the
eigenvalue method to estimate the relative weights
of the decision elements and rating the decision
alternatives). (Chin & Chiu & Tummala, 1999)
It should be noted that the quality of the output of
the AHP is strictly related to the consistency of the
pair wise comparison judgments given by managers.
Saaty (Wind & Saaty, 1980) suggests a simple
procedure for checking on consistency. Then the
AHP process determines the consistency ratio (CR)
for all matrices. If the CR value is larger than 0.10
(which is the acceptable upper limit for CR , it
implies that there is a 10% chance that the elements
have not been properly compared. In this case the
decision maker must review the comparisons made.
In using the AHP to model this problem, we
developed a hierarchic structure to represent the
problem of selecting route planning equipment and
made pair wise comparisons. The factors, which
affect this problem, are analyzed in a hierarchy
having 5 levels. (Kuruuzum & Atsan 2001)
3 AHP APPLICATION ON SELECTING ROUTE
PLANNING EQUIPMENT
3.1 Structuring the decision hierarchy
The first step of the AHP consists of developing a
hierarchical structure of the assessment problem. In
order to determine the best alternative, a four level
hierarchical model is devised. The first level,
objective, here is referred to as the selection of route
planning equipment (SRPE). (Hadley 1997)The goal
is divided into two main criteria, which are
economical (E), navigational safety (NS) factors.
The third level of hierarchy includes sub-criteria;
401
− Economical factors: Installation costs (IC),
maintenance and update costs (MUC), training
expenses (TE), navigational efficiency (NE).
− Navigational safety factors: Human factor (HF),
Technical factors (TF), emergency situations (ES).
− (Sullivan & Alexander 1997, Shaw & Pettus
2000,)
− The fourth level of hierarchy includes sub-
criteria;
− Human factor: Ease of use (Eu), workload (Wl),
error chain (Ec), training needs (Tn).
− Technical factors: Integration (I), reliance and
sensitivity (Rs), situational awareness (Sa).
− Emergency situations: Electrical breakdown (Eb),
meteorological factors (Mf), abandons ship (As).
(Gillard & Heim 2002, Devogel & Baccei & Shaw
2001)
GOAL: Selecting Route Planning Equipment
EF
Paper Chart
ECDIS
NS
IC
MUC
TE
TF
ES
HF
Eu
Wl
Ec
Tn
Sa
Rs
I
As
Mf
Eb
NE
Fig. 1. Hierarchy structure
Finally, the fifth and the last level consists of two
decision alternatives of route planning equipment
that the ship management companies want to
compare; ECDIS (E), paper chart (PC).
Figure 1 shows the performance hierarchy we
have designed for this problem.
3.2 Pair wise comparison of criteria and
calculating the relative weights
After developing the performance hierarchy, we
have to determine the relative weights of the factors.
In the AHP, weights are determined using pair wise
comparison between each pair of criteria. To
determine the relative weights, managers are asked
to make pair wise comparisons using a 1-9
preference scale on Table 1. Each comparison is then
transformed to a numerical value. For instance, if
economical criteria is judged to be "very strongly
more important" than navigational safety for
selecting the route planning equipment, a score 7 is
given.
The pair wise comparison data are organized in
the form of a matrix and are summarized on the
basis of eigenvector procedure. AHP method
computes w as the principal right eigenvector of the
matrix A. The pair wise comparison data are
translated into the absolute values and the
normalized weight vector w = (w
1,
w
2,
….. ,w
n
) is
obtained by solving the following matrix equation;
max
Aw w
λ
=
(1)
Where A is the pair wise comparisons matrix, w is
the normalized weight vector and
max
is the
maximum eigenvalue of the matrix A (used to
calculate the consistency index).
i
j
n
j
ij
w
w
aw
∑
−
=
1
max
λ
(2)
The result is a positive reciprocal matrix A = {a
ij
}
with a
ji
= 1/a
ij
, where a
ij
is the numerical equivalent
of the comparison between criteria i and j.
A judgment or comparison is the numerical
representation of a relationship between two
elements that share a common parent. (Saaty, 1991)
Each judgment represents the dominance (relative
importance) of an element in the column over an
element in the row. (Millet, 1998)
After this point experts were asked to compare
the relative importance of the three criteria on a pair
wise scheme by questionnaire. From these data, a
square pair wise comparison matrix was constructed.
Each judgment represents the dominance (relative
importance) of an element in the column (Rangone,
1996).
In order to help the pair wise comparisons, Saaty
created a nine-point scale of importance between
two elements. (Saaty, 1999) The suggested numbers
to express degrees of preference between the two
elements are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Importance scale
Definition
Intensity of
importance
Equally importance
1
Moderately more important
3
Strongly more important
5
Very strongly more important
7
Extremely more important 9
Intermediate values (2, 4, 6 and 8) can be used to
represent compromises between the preferences. The
relative priorities can be considered the results of
using the geometric mean of the pair wise relative
importance obtained from a set of participants. AHP's
results are obtained with the software, the Super
402
Decisions (Decision Support Software) software
package (Creative Decision Foundation, 2006)
3.3 Results of AHP Application
After setting up the hierarchy and pair wise compari-
sons of the criteria and alternatives, it is necessary to
calculate the global value of priority of the alter-
natives. The optimal set of scores is the principal
eigenvector of the pair wise comparison matrix.
The principal vector is the relative ranking of the
evaluation criteria with respect to the goal. Applying
eigenvector method to these data, estimates of the
weights are calculated for each pair wise comparison
matrix for each level of the hierarchy. To synthesize
the results over all levels, the priorities at each level
are weighted by the priority of the higher level
criterion with respect to which the comparison was
made. The eigenvector scaling technique of AHP
then modeled the relative weights for each category
(priorities) and for each ratio (local weights). Global
weights for each ratio were calculated as the product
of its local weight and its category's priority.
Once the matrices in each level are completed, the
relative importance of the elements in that level is
given by the principal right eigenvector of the matrix
of judgments. The number of eigenvectors is therefore
equal to the number of criteria. The results quantify
the decision maker's preference for each alternative
and provide a means for solving the problem.
In order to determine which route planning
equipment to select, AHP was applied to determine
the priority values for two alternatives (Figs. 2-3).
The priority rankings for each alternative were
determined from a hierarchy that was based upon 2
criteria, 17 sub-criteria and 2 alternatives. The
criteria and sub-criteria were compared on a pair
wise basis.
Fig. 2. Hierarchy structure
Fig. 3. Alternative weights with respect to navigational safety
and economical factors
4 MODEL EXTENSION ON COST BENEFIT
ANALYSIS
To find out cost benefit ratio, we need to change the
decision hierarchy. Firstly, it is considered to
structuring problem on benefit criteria only, hence
the relevant attributes on cost are neglected. The new
structure has shown on figure 4.
The first level, objective, here is referred to as the
selection of route planning equipment (SRPE). The
goal is divided into two main criteria, which are
Navigational efficiency (NE), navigational safety
(NS) factors. The third level of hierarchy includes
sub-criteria;
− Navigational safety factors: Human factor (HF),
Technical factors (TF), emergency situations
(ES).
− The fourth level of hierarchy includes sub-
criteria;
− Human factor: Ease of use (Eu), workload (Wl),
error chain (Ec), training needs (Tn).
− Technical factors: Integration (I), reliance and
sensitivity (Rs), situational awareness (Sa).
− Emergency situations: Electrical breakdowns
(Eb), meteorological factors (Mf), abandon ship
(As).
GOAL: Selecting Route Planning Equipment
Paper Chart
ECDIS
NS
NE
TF ESHF
Eu Wl Ec Tn
SaRsI As
Mf
Eb
Fig. 4. Hierarchy structure
403
After the AHP model calculation overall results
for the alternatives illustrated on figure 5.
Fig. 5. Overall rank of alternatives
Secondly, we need to calculate total costs for
route planning equipment to determine cost benefit
ratio. This calculation has implemented based on a
bulk carrier tramper ship that trade internationally
owned by a Turkish ship owner.
Table 2. Costs of alternatives
IC TE MUC Total Cost
Normalized
values
Annual For 5 years
Paper
chart
26500£ - 5923£ 56115£ 0.29
ECDIS 20000£ 9000£ 21210£ 135050£ 0.71
For five year projection, paper chart costs are
56115£ on the other hand, ECDIS costs 135050£.
Consequently, the ratio of normalized cost values
over priority weights of ECDIS and paper chart on
benefit attributes are computed. The results are
illustrated for each alternative correspondingly in
table 2.
Table 3. Cost benefit ratio calculation for alternatives
Costs
Benefit
Cost/Benefit
ECDIS
0,71
0,82
0,87
Paper Chart
0,29
0,18
1,61
Cost benefit ratio is determined by dividing the
projected benefits of the route planning equipment
by the projected costs shown on table 3. In general,
alternative with a low cost benefit ratio will take
priority over other alternatives with lower ratio.
Eventually, ECDIS alternative is appropriate
selection for route planning.
5 CONCLUSION
This paper introduces a model, based on AHP,
which determines the global priority weights for
selecting route planning equipment alternatives and
has examined the critical factors and benefits that
affect ship management companies.
Substantial practical experience shows that there
are numerous positive benefits from the use of
ECDIS, most significantly the increased situation
awareness. But also the possibility of savings in fuel,
of avoiding damage to ships due to collisions and
groundings and of preventing lost sailing days due to
repairs is evident. Finally, increased competitiveness
due to the ability to operate confidently in adverse
weather conditions should be mentioned. Now these
benefits are also backed by research results. The
findings in casualty investigations are that the human
factor accounts for the overwhelming majority of
accidents. Hence, schemes that limit the extent of
human errors, for example by means of better
education and training, ECDIS systems and other
policies are the most likely risk reduction factors.
However, there are several hurdles to overcome
in the process of full replacement of paper charts,
some legal, some economical, and some technical.
ECDIS to become mandatory carriage legislating
under current scheme is not realistic because of the
inadequate pricing and monopolistic situation. The
Maritime community will resist any such attempts.
This will result in further delay in implementation.
To overcome economical obstacles, International
Hydrographic Organization (IHO) proposes pay-per-
use licensing scheme (IHO, 2006). In this solution,
A daily amount of $40 levied for the time during
which the vessel was in the national waters of a
country. It costs to ship management company
approximately 15000 $/year per ship.
When fully mature, this technology will replace
the paper charts and plotting instruments used by
navigators since the beginning of sea exploration.
REFERENCES
Shea, I. P. and Grady, N., 1998. Shipboard Organizational
Culture in the Merchant Marine Industry, Proceedings of
the Safe Navigation Beyond, Gdynia.
Er, Z. and Çelik, M., 2005. Definitions of Human Factor
Analysis for the Maritime Safety Management Process,
IAMU AGA-6 2005.
Akten, N., 2004. Analysis of Shipping Casualties in the
Bosphorus, Journal of Navigation 57, 345–356.
Rodriguez, R. and Dauer, M., 2006. The Needs of Crews when
Arriving in Port, Maritime Transport 3. Barcelona, pp. 923–
928.
404
May, M., 1999. Cognitive Aspects of Interface Design and
Human-Centered Automation on the Ship Bridge: The
example of ARPA/ECDIS Integration, People In Control:
An International Conference on Human Interfaces in
Control Rooms, Cockpits and Commad Centres.
Smeaton, G.P., 1995. Display Requirements for ECDIS/ARPA
Overlay Systems, Journal of Navigation, 48, pp. 13–28.
Casey, M.J., 1993. Paradigm shift in Maritime Transportation
Ramping up for Electronic Charts Display, IEE Vehicle
Navigation & Information System Conference, Ottawa -
VNIS.
Rogoff, M., 1992. Electronic charts as the basis for integrated
marine navigation, Navigation Symposium, 2. Record. '500
Years After Columbus -Navigation Challenges of Tomorrow'.
IEEE PLANS '92., pp. 256–260.
Lanziner, H.H. and Michelson, D.G., 1990. Application of
electronic chart systems in the prevention of ship’s
groundings, Position Location and Navigation Symposium,
20-23 March, pp. 56–59.
Yang, S., Li, L. and Chaojian, S., 2006. ECDIS Based
Decision-Making System for Vessel Automatic Collision
Avoidance On Restricted Water Area, Proceedings of the
6th World Congress on Intelligent Control and Automation,
June 21 - 23, Dalian, China.
Sullivan, T.S. and Alexander L., 1997. Benefits of an integrated
navigation system: US Coast Guard cutter JUNIPER leads
the way, Electrical and Computer Engineering, 2, pp. 854–
857.
Shaw, P.T. and Pettus, W., 2000. An integrated approach to
electronic navigation: Oceans 2000 MTS/IEEE Conference
and Exhibition, Volume 1, pp. 299–308.
Gillard, D.G. and Heim, P.K., 2002. U.S. Navy Progress in
Electronic Navigation, Oceans, 2, pp. 1038–1041.
Devogel, G.F., Baccei, P.K. and Shaw, P.T., 2001. The United
States Navy navigating in 21st. century, Oceans, 3, pp.
1460-1465.
Hadley, M.A., 1997. Digital charting: a Royal Navy navigator’s
view,IEE Pror -Ruduur, Sonor Navir., Vol. 144, No. 3. pp.
143–147.
Pillich, B. and Schack, C., 2003. Next generation ECDIS for
commercial and military uses, Oceans '02 MTS/IEEE,
Volume 2, pp. 1025–1032.
Forman, E. and Selly, M. A., 2000. Decision by Objectives,
Expert Choice Inc.
Saaty, L.T., 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill
Comp., U.S.A.
Wind, Y. and Saaty, T., 1980. Marketing applications of the
Analytic Hierarchy Process", Management Science, 26 (7),
641–658.
Golden, B. L., Wasil, E. A. and Harker P. T., 1989. Introduc-
tion, The Analytic Hierarchy Process,, Springer Verlag, pp.
1–36.
Zahedi, F. 1986.The Analytical Hierarchy Process, A survey of
the method and its applications, pp. 96–108.
Chin K.S., Chiu, S. and Tummala, V. M. R., 1999. An evalua-
tion of success factors using the AHP to implement ISO
14001-based EMS, International Journal of Quality and
Reliability Management, pp. 341-361.
Kuruüzüm A. and Atsan N., 2001. The analytic hierarchy
process approach ant its applications in business, Akdeniz
İ.İ.B.F. Dergisi (1) pp., 83–105.
Rangone, A., 1996. An Analytic Hierarchy Process framework
for comparing the overall performance of manufacturing
departments, International Journal of Operation and
Production Management, pp. 104–119.
Saaty, T., 1991. Some Mathematical Concepts of the Analytic
Hierarchy Process, Behaviometrica,Vol. 29, 1–9.
Saaty, T., 1999. The Seven Pillars Of The Analytic Hierarchy
Process, 322 Mervis Hall, Pittsburg.
Creative Decision Foundation, 2006. Super Decision Software
Tutorials, http://www.superdecisions.com, Creative Decisions
Foundation, Pittsburgh.
IHO – WEND committee 2006. Increasing use/sales of Official
ENC’s, Proposing: Pay-Per-Use model, Marine Press of
Canada.