447
1 INTRODUCTION
TheArcticmaybecomeintegralpartoftheshipping
industry on a global scale if current climate trends
continue. If that does happen it will involve a
transitional period, where many lessons will be
learned as the boundaries of normal shipping
operations are broadened. Experienced shipping in
the
Arctic is limited, information is scarce, and not
widelyshared.Inordertobecomepreparedforsuch
an increase in shipping traffic in the Arctic (and
Antarctic), information we do have should be
examinedasthoroughlyaspossible.Thismayhelpus
betterunderstandtheconditionsandhowtooperate
inthem.
The present work uses the Functional Resonance
AnalysisMethod(FRAM)tobuildanunderstanding
ofArcticshipnavigationandusestheExxonValdez
grounding as a case to examine the model’s utility.
Thisworkisintendedtoinitiatediscussionacrossthe
maritime domain about FRAM and understanding
Arctic operations.
We can use the FRAM to help
understand different elements of ship navigation,
including the so called “soft factors,” which are
difficult to assess with traditional techniques. This
willbecomeeven more important whenconsidering
Arcticshippingbecausetheinformationisbothvague
andscarce(ArcticCouncil,2009).TheFRAM
provides
a structured framework to consider anecdotal
experience from successful shipping operations,
which can help formalize lessons learned and share
themacrossthedomain.Byconsolidatinginformation
acrossthedomainitwillimproveourunderstanding
ofshippingsafety. Byimprovingour understanding
this way, we can then improve ship operations (the
way they function) and safety in the maritime
domain.
Using the FRAM to Understand Arctic Ship Navigation:
Assessing Work Processes During the Exxon Valdez
Grounding
D.Smith,B.Veitch,F.Khan&R.Taylor
M
emorialUniversityofNewfoundland,St.John’s,NL,Canada
ABSTRACT:Arcticshippinginvolvesacomplexcombinationofinterrelatedfactorsthatneedtobemanaged
correctlyforoperationstosucceed.Inthispaper,theFunctionalResonanceAnalysisMethod(FRAM)isusedto
assessthecombinationofhuman,technical,andorganizationalfactors
thatconstituteashippingoperation.A
methodology is presented on how to apply the FRAM to a domain, with a focus on ship navigation. The
methoddrawsonshipnavigatorstoinformthebuildingofthemodelandtolearnaboutpracticalvariations
thatmustbemanagedtoeffectivelynavigatea
ship.TheExxonValdez caseisusedtoillustratethemodel’s
utilityandprovidesomecontexttotheinformationgatheredbythisinvestigation.Thefunctionalsignatureof
theworkprocessesoftheExxonValdezonthenightofthegroundingispresented.Thisshowsthefunctional
dynamicsofthatparticular
shipnavigationcase,andservestoillustratehowtheFRAMapproachcanprovide
anotherperspectiveonthesafetyofcomplexoperations.
http://www.transnav.eu
the International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 12
Number 3
September 2018
DOI:10.12716/1001.12.03.03
448
2 BACKGROUND
Ashippingoperationisasociotechnicalsystemthat
requires many combinations of social and technical
factors to be managed to succeed. There has been a
movementtowardsadaptiveapproachestosafety to
help manage such systems (Borys et al., 2009). This
approachreliesonnotonlymodeling
theelementsin
the system, but the relationships in the system, eg.
how elements interact together (Vicente, 2004).
Becauseofthisshiftinthinking,othertechniques are
being adopted from resilience engineering to help
managecomplexsystemsaswell(Ayyub,2015,2014;
Hollnageletal.,2006).
Additionally,thereisacceptance
thatmanyofthe
conditionsthat operationsare beingsubjectedto are
sodynamicthatitisverydifficulttoprescribeasingle
safetyprotocolto managethem.The Society ofRisk
Analyst’srecentreviewstatesthatinthesecasesitis
bettertohaveadynamicsetofsolutionsto
adaptto
thesedynamicconditions(Avenetal.,2015).Safetyis
then approached by understanding how to best
monitorareasofthesystemandhowtocontrolthem:
inotherwords, by designing systemsthatadapt(or
maintain control) when subjected to dynamic
conditions.
Thereare anumber ofmethods
thatarefounded
on adaptive safety methodologies: the Functional
Resonance Analysis Method (FRAM), Systems
Technical Accident Model and Processes (STAMP),
andHumanTech approach (Hollnagel,2012;
Leveson, 2004; Vicente, 2004, respectively). Each
method has the potential to improve safety by
incorporatingsystemsthinkingintothe approach.In
this paper the FRAM
is used to perform an
investigation of ship navigation in the Arctic. The
FRAM was chosen for two reasons: 1) it focuses on
functionality, and 2) it promotes communication
between assessors and workers. To understand
functionality, you must understand the conditions
thatcanbeoperatedin,andtheconditionsthat
cause
problems.Thismeansthataccidenteventsshouldnot
be isolatedfrom thetypicaloperationaloutcomes to
develop understanding of accident mechanisms. By
isolating the accidents, biases may enter the
interpretations of events. Safety solutions should
show consideration of both the event(s) one would
like to prevent and promotion of the
event(s) one
would like to achieve. When understanding
functionality, it is best to obtain an understanding
from the operational perspective. This concept
promotesunderstandingtheworkasitisdone,rather
than as it is imagined by assessors. This can help
reduce the communication gap that exists between
assessors and
operators, thereby, promoting safety
solutionsthataregroundedinreality.
2.1 FRAM
The FRAM is built on identifying functional
resonance. Functional resonance is an analogy to
stochastic resonance, where multiple signals of low
amplitude noise are inputted to a system and, if
resonanceoccurs,theoverallsystemsignalcanhavea
muchgreateramplitude.Infunctionalresonance,the
outputofthesystemfunctionsarevariableandslight
variations between the many functions in a system
have the potential to combine in such a way that
resonance occurs. The resonance will be some
variationoftheoverallsystemperformancethatgoes
beyond
what is typical or expected, regardless of
whether the outcome is viewed as good or bad. By
modeling the system functions and variability in
sufficient detail, safety solutions will emerge that
focusonmonitoringandcontrollingthesystem.
TheFRAMisbasedonfourunderlyingprinciples
(Hollnagel,2012):
Failures and
successes are equivalent in the way
thattheyhappenforthesamereason.
Alternatively,itcanbesaidthatthingsgowrong
forthesamereasonsthattheygoright.
Daily performance of sociotechnical systems,
includinghumansindividuallyandcollectively,is
alwaysadjustedtomatchthesystemconditions.
Many of the outcomes of the system that we
notice, and also the ones we don’t notice, are
emergentratherthanresultant.
Relationsanddependenciesmustbedescribedas
they develop in a particular situation and not as
causeeffectlinks.Thisisdonethroughfunctional
resonance.
The first
step of the FRAM is to describe the
functions of the system and the aspects of the
functions that occur when work happens. Each
functioncanhave6aspectsthatshouldbeconsidered,
asseeninFigure1.
Output:Eachfunctionshouldhaveanoutput(s).If
work is being done
there should be something
producedbythe work. Theoutputsare thenpassed
throughoutthesystemand have theability to affect
otherworkinthesystemin5possibleways.
1 Input:Theinputstartsthefunctions.Iftheinputis
anoutputthatarriveslatefromanotherfunction,it
will affect the functionality of the downstream
function.
2 Preconditions: Preconditions must be available
prior to the function starting, but they do not
initiatethefunction.Theycanlaydormantinthe
systemuntilthefunctionbegins.
3 Resources: These are things that are processed
during the function. To limit
the resources that
considered, focus should be placed on resources
that are consumed and subsequently need to be
resupplied by another function in the system.
Resources such as computers, which are not
consumed, should not considered here. They
would be considered as execution conditions,
which can be assessed when understanding the
functionitself.
4 Time:Otherfunctionaloutputshavethepotential
toaffecttheavailabletimetocarryoutafunction.
5 Control: Other functions may interact with
downstream functions in a way that acts as a
control.
After the system functions and aspects are
described at some level of detail.
The variability
should be considered. Step 2 considers the internal
variabilityofthefunctionandthevarietyofwaysan
output can be produced under dynamic conditions.
Step3assessesthecoupledsystemvariability,which
isthewaythevariationsfromupstreamfunctionscan
affect the downstream functions, and in turn
the
449
entire system performance. The final step is to
identifyappropriatewaystomonitorthesystemand
control the variability in it. In practice, it is very
difficult to obtain all the necessary information at
once,sothisprocessmayneedtoberepeatedasnew
informationisobtained.
Figure1.FRAMfunctiondiagram(Hollnagel,2012)
3 METHODOLOGY
In order to build a FRAM model for Arctic ship
navigation the following methodology was used.
First, the scope was defined. Then the system
functions and connections were imagined by the
assessor(s). The conceptualized model was then
checked with operators to verify that the model
reflects the way the
work is actually done. At this
point,themodelrepresentedthepotentialfunctional
paths thatcouldbe taken forthesystem to produce
someoutcome.Then thevariabilityof thefunctional
outcomescanbeunderstood.Itisbesttolearnabout
the variability of the functions by either monitoring
the
functionaloutputdirectlyorcommunicatingwith
the workers who carry out each function. Once the
functional model was built and some variability
documented, the model was applied to cases. By
examining cases through the lens of the FRAM,
different findings may emerge that pertain to
functional execution and system variability. These
findingscanthenbeusedtoeitherupdatethemodel,
or manage the operation. This methodology is
mappedoutinFigure2.
3.1 Definingthescope
Thefirststepistodefinethescopeoftheassessment.
This assessment focuses on (Arctic) ship navigation.
From a systemic perspective, there are
many
functionsthatinfluencetheperformanceofashipping
operation and trying to model all of them at once
could be overwhelming.As there is so much
informationtolearnabouttheworkthatiscarriedout
inashippingoperation,theinitialassessmentfocuses
on navigating the vessel. This is
the most basic
objective for a ship and all other work is
complementary to it. This allows the initial
understanding to reflect the most immediate
functionsrequiredfornavigation,andthenthescope
can be gradually broadened in the future. Also, the
focuswillbeontransitshipping; stationaryoffshore
installationsareoutofscope.
Figure2:MethodologyforbuildingFRAMmodel
Figure3:GeneralshipnavigationFRAMmodel(scope)
First,buildaFRAMmodeltohelpdefinethescope
(Figure 3). We define a function, “Navigate ship,”
which describes the function that is carried out to
physicallymovetheshipfromporttoport.Thenwe
can define the aspects of the “Navigate ship”
function.Theoutputcanbethat
theshipisnownear
the destination, and other functions involved in,
“Arrive at port,” can begin bringing the ship to the
destination.Theinputisthefunction“Decidetoleave
port.”Whilethisdecisiontoleaveisinfluencedbythe
shippingschedule,theshipdoesnotnecessarilyleave
exactly
whenscheduled.Manyfactorscouldaffectthe
time at which the ship actuallyleaves port, but this
decisionis controlledbytheschedule.Thetime that
thisdecisionwillbemadewillberoughlyaroundthe
scheduled time, but could be ahead or behind
schedule, due to inspections, cargo or consumable
loading,etc.Theshippingschedulecanalsoinfluence
theshipnavigationfunctionwithrespecttotime.The
ship navigator may make decisions to speed up or
changeroutetostayonschedule.Amajorcontrolling
aspectforshipnavigationisto“Consideroperational
regulations.” By considering these operational
450
regulations, best practices, and guidance can be
transferred to the ship navigator, helping to control
thefunctionality.Apreconditionisthat a shipmust
eitherbedesignedand/orprocuredandcrewmustbe
hired in order to navigate this ship. This is a
preconditionbecauseitmusthappenpriorto
theship
navigation,butitdoesnotinitiatetheshipnavigation
as theinputdoes.The ship and crew can remain at
portuntilthe decisiontoleave port has beenmade,
then“Navigateship”canbegin.Lastly, let’sconsider
the resources necessary to navigate a ship. In the
FRAM,
resourcesshouldbefocusedonitemsthatare
consumed during or need to be resupplied after a
function is executed. While, we could think of the
shipasbeingaresource,itwillnotbeconsumed(at
least not over a single voyage), and is more
appropriately considered as a precondition
aspect.
Resources such as cargo and consumables (fuels,
stores, ballast, maintenance materials) will be
consumedduringavoyageandshouldberesupplied
beforeanothervoyageistobegin.
This generalized model (Figure 3) has helped us
definescopeandstartthinkingaboutshipnavigation
intermsoftheFRAM.However,
themodelisnotyet
detailedenoughtoprovidemuchusefulinsight.Now
thatthescopeis betterunderstood, thefocus canbe
shifted to understanding how ship navigation is
carriedout.
3.2 BuildingaconceptualizedFRAMmodel
In the FRAM, it is best to have your assessment
informed by the
workers who carry out or interact
closely with the system functions. However, it is
usefultofirstbuildaconceptualizedmodelfromthe
perspective of the assessors to help illustrate the
FRAM to the worker(s) in the context of their
operation.Thisconceptualizedmodelcanbeseenin
Figure4.
In Figure 4, the ship navigation process is
describedasacontinualassessmentoftheconditions
that result in a decision to maintain a course or to
change course.Thiscan be done many times overa
single voyage. The decision then leads to the
navigatorfollowingthe chosen courseand
notifying
thecrewofanyadjustments,ifnecessary. Inorderto
reasonably make an assessment, the ship navigator
must consider many conditions comprehensively to
makethemostinformeddecisions.Theoutputsfrom
these functions may be produced at different rates
andassessmentsbythenavigatorwillbemadewith
varying
levelsofinformation.Someoftheinputsthat
we can imagine are important to a navigator’s
assessmentare:
Observingthecurrentweatherconditions
Obtainweatherforecasts
Observetheiceconditions
ObtainIceforecasts
Considertheintendedorpredictedroute
Monitortheconditionofthevessel
Be aware of the surrounding location and
geography.
Figure4:ConceptualizedFRAMmodelforshipnavigation
451
3.3 Verifyingwithworkers
To inform our assessment, we spoke with 3 ship
captains. The discussions were focused on
understanding how ship navigators navigate ships,
and making note of any unusual variations or
conditions that they shared. The representation of
shipnavigation(Figure4)wascritiquedbythe3 ship
navigatorsanditcontainedmanyofthefunctionsthat
thenavigatorsused butit was incomplete.Consider
thefunctionaldescriptionsandtheinitialdescription
oftheaspectsforshipnavigationinTable1.Theonly
times that an output will by omitted is when it has
been left out to
define the scope of the analysis.
Similarly,when“notinitiallydescribed”islisted,this
doesnotmeanthatthataspectisnotpresent.Itmeans
thatthescopehasinitiallybeenlimitedtodescribing
the coupling of the immediate functions that have
been described. This will help prevent becoming
overwhelmed with
complexity initially. Additional
aspectscanbefurtherdescribedlater,ifneeded.
Itcanbeseenthatadditionalfunctionshavebeen
identified through conversations with ship
navigators. The visual representation of the FRAM
modelwithinputfromshipnavigatorscanbeseenin
Figure 5. It can be seen that this
more detailed
descriptionofshipnavigationshowsamorecomplex
representationthantheoneinFigure4.Itisimportant
understandthecomplexities that arepresentin ship
navigation beca use these complexities must be
managed in the operation, whether we decide to
modelthemornot.
Table1.InitialdescriptionofFRAMfunctionsandaspectsforshipnavigation
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Nameoffunction Obtainweatherforecast Setnew/maintaincourseObserveIceconditions
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Description ObtainweatherforecastfromAdecisionismadetoeither Observethecurrenticeconditions.
meteorologicalorganization maintainthecurrentcourseortoThiscanbedonefromthebridgeoron
ordepartmentmakeadjustmentstocourse. deck,butalsotheconditionsahead
canbeobservedvia
helicopteror
aircraft
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
AspectDescriptionofAspectDescriptionofAspectDescriptionofAspect
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
InputNotinitiallydescribedCompleteorpartialassessmentNotinitiallydescribed
made
OutputWeatherforecastobtained RoutingdecisionmadeIceconditionshavebeenvisually
observedonboard
Uprouteiceconditionsassess.with
Helicopter
Precondition NotinitiallydescribedNotinitiallydescribedNotinitiallydescribed
ResourceNotinitiallydescribedNot
initiallydescribedNotinitiallydescribed
ControlExperiencebasedweather NotinitiallydescribedExperiencedvisualassessmentofice
judgementRadarimageobserved
TimeNotinitiallydescribedNotinitiallydescribedNotinitiallydescribed
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Nameoffunction ForecastIceconditionsAssesslocationandInformcrewofcourse
surroundinggeography
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Description Obtaintheforecastedice Locatethevesselwithrespect Informcrewofanychangeofcourseif
conditions.Thismaybedonetointendedroute,shipping necessary.
byhistoricaltrendsinarea lanesandregionalgeographic
and/ortacticalicedriftmodelsfeatures.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
AspectDescriptionofAspectDescriptionofAspectDescriptionofAspect
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
InputNotinitiallydescribedNotinitiallydescribedNotinitiallydescribed
OutputObtainedforecastedice GeographicalassessmentmadeResponsiblecrewmembernotified
conditions
Dailyicechartobserved
Precondition NotinitiallydescribedAwareofthepresentroute Routingdecisionmade
ResourceIcechartdownloadedNotinitiallydescribedNotinitiallydescribed
ControlExperience
basediceforecast HaveshippinglanemapsNotinitiallydescribed
Improvedknowledgeofregional
specificconditions
TimeNotinitiallydescribedNotinitiallydescribedNotinitiallydescribed
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Nameoffunction AssesslocationandMakesituationalassessmentPerformcrewwork
surroundinggeography
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Description LocatethevesselwithrespectThecaptainandbridgeteam Thecrewwillperformtheirnecessary
tointendedroute,shipping makeasituationalassessment worktomaintaincourseoradjusttheir
lanesandregionalgeographicbasedontheavailableworktoaccommodateanychanges.
features.informationata
giventime.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
AspectDescriptionofAspectDescriptionofAspectDescriptionofAspect
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
InputRoutingdecisionmade Weatherforecastobtained Responsiblecrewmembernotified
Uprouteiceconditionsassess.
withHelicopter
Obtainedforecastediceconditions
Geographicalassessmentmade
Weatherhasbeenobserved
Awareofapparentvesselcondition
Iceconditionshavebeenvisually
452
observedonboard
Proximatetrafficcommunicatedwith
OutputNotinitiallydescribedCompleteorpartialassessmentNotinitiallydescribed
made
Precondition NotinitiallydescribedNotinitiallydescribedNotinitiallydescribed
ResourceNotinitiallydescribedNotinitiallydescribedNotinitiallydescribed
ControlNotinitiallydescribedIceNumeralcomputedNotinitiallydescribed
Time
NotinitiallydescribedNotinitiallydescribedNotinitiallydescribed
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Nameoffunction ObserveweatherConsiderpredicted/updatedComputeIceNumeral
route
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Description Thecurrentlocal(ship) Considerthecurrentrouteyou Computetheicenumeralasper
weatherconditionsare aretransiting.Thismaybe Canadianregulatoryrequirements.
observed.Thiscanbefrom suggestedbyoperational
thebridgeorondeck.plannersoradjustedbythe
navigator.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
AspectDescriptionofAspectDescriptionofAspectDescriptionofAspect
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
InputNotinitiallydescribedNotinitiallydescribedDailyicechartobserved
OutputWeatherhasbeenobserved Awareofthepresentroute IceNumeralcomputed
Precondition NotinitiallydescribedNotinitiallydescribedShipclassificationassigned
ResourceNotinitiallydescribedNotinitiallydescribedNotinitiallydescribed
ControlNotinitiallydescribedNotinitiallydescribed
Notinitiallydescribed
TimeNotinitiallydescribedShippingschedulemadeNotinitiallydescribed
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Nameoffunction Monitorvesselcondition AssignshipclassificationDownloaddailyicecharts
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Description Thevesselʹsconditionis TheshipisassignedaDownloadthedailyicechart(s)that
monitoredtounderstandtheclassification.Inparticular,thisareapplicabletoyourregion.These
vesselʹscurrentcapabilities. classificationherepertainstothe chartsareproducedbyCanadianIce
categorythatwill
beusedto Services (CIS)inCanada.
computetheicenumeral.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
AspectDescriptionofAspectDescriptionofAspectDescriptionofAspect
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
InputNotinitiallydescribedNotinitiallydescribedNotinitiallydescribed
OutputAwareofapparentvessel Shipclassificationassigned Icechartdownloaded
condition
Precondition Engineroommaintenance/ NotinitiallydescribedNotinitiallydescribed
issuesinformed
Awareofvesselʹstypical
capability
ResourceNotinitiallydescribedNotinitiallydescribedNotinitially
described
ControlNotinitiallydescribedNotinitiallydescribedNotinitiallydescribed
TimeNotinitiallydescribedNotinitiallydescribedNotinitiallydescribed
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Nameoffunction IcenavigatormakesObtainmapofshippinglanes Observeradarimage
assessments
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Description IcenavigatormakesPriortoshippingthroughan Theradarimageisobservedandthen
assessmentsoftheconditionsareaitisgoodpracticetoobtain shouldbevisuallyinspectedto
andupcomingtasksand mapsoftheshippinglanes.The determinewhatcausedtheradar
sharesexperience
withships shippinglanestypicallyhasmoreimagetobeproduced
bridgeteam.reliablesoundingsandhavebeen
practicedovertheyears.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
AspectDescriptionofAspectDescriptionofAspectDescriptionofAspect
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
InputNotinitiallydescribedNotinitiallydescribedNotinitiallydescribed
OutputExperiencedvisualHaveshippinglanemapsRadarimageobserved
assessmentofice
Experiencebasediceforecast
Improvedknowledgeof
regionalspecificconditions
Experiencebasedweather
judgement
Precondition IcenavigatorhasbeenNotinitiallydescribedAradarsignal
hasbeendetected
assignedbyshipsradar
ResourceNotinitiallydescribedNotinitiallydescribedNotinitiallydescribed
ControlNotinitiallydescribedNotinitiallydescribedNotinitiallydescribed
TimeNotinitiallydescribedNotinitiallydescribedNotinitiallydescribed
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Nameoffunction ObserveothertrafficCommunicatewithproximate Communicatewithengineroom
traffic
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Description Observeanyothershipping Communicatewithproximate Thereiscommunicationbetweenthe
trafficthatmaybeinthearea traffic.Thiscanbedonevia engineroomandthebridgetodiscuss
lights,hornsorradio.anyissuesorneededmaintenance.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
AspectDescriptionofAspectDescriptionofAspectDescriptionofAspect
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
InputNotinitiallydescribedOthertrafficobservedNotinitiallydescribed
OutputOthertrafficobservedProximatetrafficcommunicated Engineroommaintenance/issues
453
withinformed
Precondition NotinitiallydescribedNotinitiallydescribedNotinitiallydescribed
ResourceNotinitiallydescribedNotinitiallydescribedNotinitiallydescribed
ControlRadarimageobservedNotinitiallydescribedNotinitiallydescribed
TimeNotinitiallydescribedNotinitiallydescribedNotinitiallydescribed
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Nameoffunction Assigncertifiedicenavigator DetectradarimageBecomeawareofvesselʹscapability
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Description Toassignanicenavigatorto Radarsignalhasbeensent fromThenavigatorbecomesawareofthe
assistwithnavigationofthe shipsradarandisreadyto vesselʹscapabilities.Thenavigational,
vessel.Thisisrequiredfor receiveanysignalsthatbounce structuralandoperationalcapabilities.

NavigationintheCanadian backfromobjects
Arctic.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
AspectDescriptionofAspectDescriptionofAspectDescriptionofAspect
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
InputNotinitiallydescribedNotinitiallydescribedNotinitiallydescribed
OutputIcenavigatorhasbeenAradarsignalhasbeendetected Awareofvesselʹstypicalcapability
assignedbyshipsradar
Precondition NotinitiallydescribedNotinitiallydescribedNotinitiallydescribed
ResourceNotinitiallydescribedNotinitiallydescribedNotinitially
described
ControlNotinitiallydescribedNotinitiallydescribedNotinitiallydescribed
TimeNotinitiallydescribedNotinitiallydescribedNotinitiallydescribed
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Nameoffunction Makeshippingschedule
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Description Expecteddepartureandarrivaltimesaredetermined.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
AspectDescriptionofAspect
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
InputNotinitiallydescribed
OutputShippingschedulemade
Precondition Notinitiallydescribed
ResourceNotinitiallydescribed
ControlNotinitiallydescribed
TimeNotinitiallydescribed
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Figure5.FRAMmodelforshipnavigationwithinputfromshipnavigators
3.4 LearningVariations
Figure5showsamapofthepotentialwaysthata
shipcouldbenavigated.Buttherearemanywaysthe
ship could be navigated, including combinations of
thepotentialfunctionalpathsshowninFigure5.This
variabilitymustbeunderstood,ifitistobeproperly
managed. Also, there will be more Arctic specific
knowledge here, because Arctic shipnavigationisa
variationofshipnavigation.SeeTable2forsourcesof
variability and additional notes along with some
ways this variability has been managed in the past.
This model can help to better understand some
shipping
scenarios.
454
Table2.Variability,notesandmanagementstrategieswithfocusonArcticshipping
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
AssociatedFunction SourcesofpotentialvariabilityNotesandManagementtechniques
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Setnew/maintaincourse MorethanonepossiblecourseSlowdown‐allowtimetoreceivemore
informationmakemoreinformeddecision
Schedulingandexpectedprofitscan
influencedecisionmaking
Theamountofconsumableonboardalso
affectdecisionmaking(routeselection)
Assesslocationand GPSmaynotbe
accurateathighlatitude
surroundinggeography Coastlineandunderwatermappingmay
bepoorinareasofArctic
Soundingcouldbeinaccurateoutsideof
shippinglanes
Considerpredicted/Possiblemultipleroutes‐NWPhas3Dynamicsetofsolutions
updatedrouteIceconditionsmaytakeyououtsideof
shippinglanes

Searchandrescueoperationcantakeyou
outsideofshippinglanes
ComputeIceNumeralThisiscomputedoncedaily‐whenanew
icechartispublished.
Thecomputationisbasedontheiceassessment
fromtheicechart‐Ifthechartcontainserrorsit
willaffecttheappropriateness
ofthecomputation
DetectradarimageSmallicebergs(growlers)canbedifficult Reducespeed‐increasereactiontimeifdetected
todetectinicelate
Smallicebergs(growlers)canbedifficult
todetectinlargeseastates
Domeshapedicebergsmaybeproblematic
todetect
Sleetcanaffectperformance
ofradar
Qualityoftheinstalledradartechnology
ObserveIceconditionsDarknessaffectsabilitytoseeiceconditions Goodsearchlight‐veryvaluableandbackup
searchlights
ExperienceofIcenavigatorandCaptainWithuncertainconditions,reducespeedto
minimizeforceofunexpectedimpacts
Realconditionscanbeworsethan
was Dealwithitand/orturnaround
forecasted
Icechartsarepublished24hours‐over Trytouseicechartandradartopredictships 
24hourstheicewillmovepositioninchangingicefield.Alsosend
helicopterforvisualinspectionifavailable.
Importanttorememberthat
icemoveswithwind
andicebergswillmovewithcurrent
ForecastIceconditionsQualityofIcechartQualityusuallyimprovesifaerialassessmentof
theregionhasbeendone
Forecastmodelsmaybepoorforcertain Experiencedicenavigatorcanalsoprovide
regionsexperiencebasedforecasts
Obtainweather
forecast ForecastmaybepoorqualityornonexistentExperiencedicenavigatorcanalsoprovide
forsomeregionsoftheArcticexperiencebasedweatherforecastsoflocal
weatherpatterns
Howmanyweatherforecastsareavailable
daily?
Communicationsproblemsathighlatitudes
canaffectabilitytoobtainforecast
Observeweather
conditionsCanobservevarietyofconditions‐Wind
andsnowcanaffectvisibility‐Coldraincan
expecticing
Noticedifferencesfromweatherforecasts Icenavigatormaybeabletohelpdeterminehow
weathermightchange
MakesituationalIsfullbridgeteampresent?Otherworkcommitmentsmaytakethemfrom
assessmentbridgewhenassessmentismade
HowmuchtimetomakeassessmentCanslowdowntomakemoretime
Hereisthefunctionthatinfluencedby Variationsofeveryupst reamfunctionwill
allotheranalysisfunctionsinfluencethequalityoftheassessmenthere
FatiguecanaffectassessmentsandShift
schedulescanaffectfatigue‐Iceinduced
decisionmakingvibrationscanaffectfatigue
Icepressurecanbeproblematicforship
navigation,eveninlowicethickness
Longerperiodsofdarknesscanaffect
decisionmaking
SlushhasthepotentialtoclogcoolingwaterFinerscreenoverwaterintakes
intakes,
andrisklosingengine‐thishas
beenseeninthepast
Icebreakerassistancemaybecalledforif Whenfollowing/beingtowedbyicebreaker: Keep
conditionsbecomeunmanageableforvessel. propturning,Mayhavetofollowverycloselyin
455
Thiscouldtakesometimeifnotplannedfor highicepressurefield(channelwillclosein).
inadvanceUseicetohelpstopwhenfollowingclosely
(preventcollision)
CommunicatewithCommunicateupcomingmaintenance Workculturemayinfluencecommunication
engineroomfrequency
Communicateperformanceissues
Monitorvesselcondition Wet
conditionsoropenwatercanpromote Breakingofftheicecanalsobeadangerous
marineicingprocedureandisusuallyavoideduntilabsolutely
necessary
Thereareicingallowancesinstabilitybook Itisverydifficulttomonitortheweightofice
buildupanddistributionoftheweight
Parallelmidbodystresswillbehighif Avoidifpossible
enteringamobileicefieldfromfastice
(shearzone)
Difficulttomonitor(feel)bowimpactsif
bridgeispositionedastern
BackingupiniceKeeprudderstraightwhenmovingastern
PerformcrewworkCrewmaynot
bepreparedforandhave
experienceincoldclimate
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
4 DISCUSSION
Itisimportanttounderstandthatthismodelstillhas
missing elements.It can be expandedtoincorporate
more elements to improve our understanding of
sociotechnical system that is ship navigation. It is
acknowledgedthatthereareregulatoryfunctionsand
organizational functions omitted from this model.
These functions are carried out at lower frequencies
than the onboard functions, but will influence the
onboardwork.Thenextstepistobetterunderstand
how these regulations and organization affect the
functionality of ship navigation. It may be also
appropriate to further define some functions. For
example, it may be
appropriate to break down the
“Monitor vessel condition” function into separate
functions,asinFigure6.
Figure6.Breakingfunctionintosubfunctions
Thenitmaybeappropriatetoask:1)whenisthe
FRAMmodel“complete”?and2)Howdoweknowif
wehavesufficientgranularity?Themodelwillnever
be complete but each revision should improve the
understanding. There is no guarantee that future
operations will mirror past operations, so there
are
alwaysnewlessonstolearn.Aslongasthesystemis
operating, there will be new information to add to
your FRAM model. Itwilldepend on what you are
tryingtoexplainandtheexplanationsyouarewilling
toaccept.Thedetailofthefunctionmaybeacceptable
to explain one scenario, but inadequate to explain
another. In this case, it is important to not try to
categorize explanations into two discrete groups,
rightorwrong.Explanationscanrangefrompoorto
acceptable, and further examination will produce
better explanations. As more details are understood
acceptable explanations will emerge.
The question
then becomes, what is acceptable? Explanations
should be sought that not only describe what
happened, but how it happened and why it
happened. By understanding these 3 parts of a
scenario,bettermanagementstrategieswillbeableto
bedeveloped.
In order to demonstrate the utility of this
information, it should be used to explain certain
scenarios from the shipping domain. The FRAM
modelcanbe usedtoadd totheunderstandingthat
have been obtained from traditional examination
techniques.Insection4.1theExxonValdezcasewill
beconsidered.
4.1 Applyingacase:theExxonValdezgrounding
The
Exxon Valdez grounded on March 24, 1989 on
Bligh Reef in Prince William Sound while
transporting crude oil from Valdez, Alaska to San
Diego,California.Thisshippingaccidentisoneofthe
most wellknown, which garnered much media
attention and legal intervention because of its
environmental impact and ill
defined oil spill
responsepolicy.IntermsofArcticshippingaccidents,
theExxonValdez caseisthe mostwelldocumented
accident that is publicly available.This case may be
themostsuitablecasetoexaminethroughthelensof
the FRAM because of the extent of information
availablecomparedtoother
cases.
All information in this case is taken from the
National Transportation Safety Board’s (NTSB)
marineaccidentreportontheExxonValdezaccident
(NTSB, 1990). The NTSB performed an extensive
investigationandanalysisofthisaccident.Thereport
included 47 findings that were determined to be
relevanttotheaccident,
anaccountofprobablecause,
and recommendations to the
organizations/departments involved. The report has
beenaverysignificantdocumentforshippingsafety
andinfluencedtheadoptionofdoublehulltankships
across the industry. The adoption of double hull
tankships has improved safety of the tankship
456
industry,specificallywithrespecttoitsrelationshipto
theenvironment.
Theaccountofprobablecauseisasfollows(NTSB,
1990): “The National Transportation Safety Board
determinesthattheprobablecauseofthegroundingofthe
EXXON VALDEZ was the failure of the third mate to
properly maneuver the vessel because
of fatigue and
excessive workload; the failure of the master to provide a
proper navigation watch because of impairment from
alcohol;thefailureofExxonShippingCompanytoprovide
a fit master and a rested and sufficient crew for the
EXXON VALDEZ;thelack of an effective VesselTraffic
Service
because of inadequate equipment and manning
levels, inadequate personnel training, and deficient
management oversight; and the lack of effective pilotage
services.”
This account of probablecausecanbe visualized
bythecausaldependencydiagraminFigure7.
Figure7. Causal dependency diagram produce from the
account of probable cause given in the in the Marine
AccidentReport
Nowconsiderhowthegroundingwouldlookby
applying theinformationinthe groundingreportto
the FRAM model for Arctic ship navigation. The
FRAM model shown in Section 3.3 displays the
potential functional paths to navigating the vessel.
The Exxon Valdez case can be used to illustrate the
functional dynamics
thatcontributed tothe
grounding. The generalized FRAM model seen in
Figure5representsthepotentialwaysthatanArctic
ship navigator could operate the ship. However,
when a ship navigator operates the vessel, many
combinationsofselectedfunctionsmaybeused.The
marine accident report of the Exxon Valdez
grounding can be used to help understand the
functional dynamics that occurred during that
accident(NTSB,1990).
Figure8 showsthat atabout23h55 onMarch 23,
1989 the Navigator (Third Mate) and his team were
assessingthelocationoftheExxonValdezrelativeto
BusbyIslandLighttodetermineif
itwastimetoturn
backtowardstheshippinglanethatthey hadleft to
avoidglacialice.Atthistime,thenavigatorwasusing
theradartoestimatethevessel’spositionfromBusby
IslandLight,whichheestimatedtobe0.9milesaway.
Also, a fix was plotted on
a chart of the vessel’s
position from visua l observations, which estimated
BusbyIslandLighttobe1.1milesaway.Therewasa
discrepancyof0.2miles of the navigator’s estimates
of the vessel’s position. Additionally, during this
functional snapshot there was an additional
functional relationship learned that existed between
observingthe
radarimageandassessingthevessel’s
location and surrounding geography. This
relationshipwas notnoticedin previousdiscussions
withshipcaptainsandwasaddedtothemodel(one
of the blue lines in Figure 8) to add to the model’s
comprehensiveness.
In this analysis, the functional signature of the
Exxon
Valdezwaspresented.Thisrepresentsa single
voyage for this vessel. From this data alone, it is
difficulttodeterminewithhighcertaintywhatcaused
this accident. However, if there was data available
aboutother voyagesthatthe ExxonValdezhad and
successfully navigated through Valdez Narrows,
there would be a
better understanding of the
functional signatures that promoted better
performance of the Exxon Valdez. Presumably, the
vessel successfully navigated the Narrows before
while the captain was away from the bridge, while
workers were fatigued, or while glacial ice entered
into the shipping lanes. By using a method that is
capable
ofalsoanalyzingsuccessfulvoyages,thereis
a better chance of identifying what was different
about the functional signatures that promote such
different outcomes. Additionally, if this information
was available, the value of this analysis could be
increased.
By considering systemic safety solutions and
understandingthe navigationalprocesses, additional
safetyrecommendation
canbemade.Forinstance,in
addition to recommending minimizing fatigue by
analyzing ideal shift schedules, elements could be
introduced into the system that help navigators
performbetterevenwhenfatigued.Itcanbereasoned
that even under ideal sleeping conditions, e.g. a
personworkinga95deskjob,
apersoncanarriveat
worktired orfatigued.Additionalrecommendations
ofupdatingtheautopilotsystemto bemoreevident
astowhenitwasengagedordisengaged,asthiswas
a source of confusion for the crew of the Exxon
Valdez during the grounding. This could help
fatigued workers be
more aware of the conditionof
theirvessel.Additionally,othertechnologiescouldbe
recommended that help ship navigators more
accuratelyassesstheir locationinawaterway.Inthe
present,theadditionofGPSonvesselsmayhelpwith
thisalthough,someoftheCaptainsusedinsection3.3
have expressed
concern aboutGPSaccuracyat high
latitudes.
457
Figure8. Functionalrepresentation ofthe ExxonValdez grounding atabout 23h55 with updated functionalrelationship
(bluelines)
5 CONCLUSIONS
In this work, the FRAM has been used to start an
investigation into Arctic shipping by trying to
understandshipnavigationanditsvariations in ice.
TheprocessofbuildingaFRAMmodelwasdiscussed
andanapplicationofthemodelwasillustratedusing
theExxonValdezgrounding.After
speaking withthe
ship navigators, a more detailed FRAM
representationofshipnavigation hasbeendeveloped.
Someofthevariationsandconditionsthatarepresent
in Arctic navigation are discussed along with the
ways that ship navigators manage these conditions.
The grounding of the Exxon Valdez was examined
and provided
context to the information that was
made available by the Marine accident report. This
case allowed for an alternative perspective and
complementary discussion of the case than could
havebeenhadwithouttheFRAM.
Itisacknowledgedinthisworkthattherearestill
elementsthatfactorintotheshipnavigation
process
thatareomittedfornow,includingmanyregulatory
functions and organizational functions. This work
servesasaninitialstartingpointtousetheFRAMto
helpbetterunderstandthecomplexitiesthatexistfor
ship navigation in the Arctic. This work can be
improved in the future by further defining
the
functionaldescriptions,incorporatingmorevariations
thathavebeenexperienced,andextendingthescope
of the assessment. The framework to do this is
presentedinthis paperandnew informationcan be
usedtoupdatethemodel.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The financial support of the Lloydʹs Register
Foundation is acknowledged with gratitude.
Lloydʹs
RegisterFoundationhelpstoprotectlifeandproperty
by supporting engineeringrelated education, public
engagementandtheapplicationofresearch.
REFERENCES
Arctic Council, 2009. Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment
2009Report.
Aven, T., Andersen, H.B., Cox, T., Droguett, E.L.,
Greenberg,M.,Guikema,S.,Kröger,W.,Renn,O.,Zio,
E.,2015.RiskAnalysisFoundations.Soc.RiskAnal.
Ayyub,B.M.,2015.PracticalResilienceMetricsforPlanning,
Design, and Decision Making. ASCEASME J. Risk
Uncertain.
Eng. Syst. Part Civ. Eng. 1.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/AJRUA6.0000826
Ayyub, B.M., 2014. Systems resilience for multihazard
environments: definition, metrics, and valuation for
decision making. Risk Anal. Off. Publ. Soc. Risk Anal.
34,340–355.doi:10.1111/risa.12093
Borys,D.,Else,D.,Leggett,S.,2009.Thefifthageofsafety:
theadaptiveage.J.HealthSaf.
Res.Pract.1.
Hollnagel, E., 2012. FRAM: The Functional Resonance
AnalysisMethod.AshgatePublishingLtd.
Hollnagel, E., Woods, D.D., Leveson, N., 2006. Resilience
Engineering:ConceptsandPrecepts.AshgatePublishing
Ltd.,Hampshire,UK.
Leveson,N.,2004.ANewAccidentModelforEngineering
SaferSystems.Saf.Sci.42,237–270.
NTSB, 1990. Marine Accident
Report‐Grounding of the
U.S. Tankship EXXON VALDEZ on Bligh Reef, Prince
William Sound, near Valdez, Alaska, March 24, 1989
(No.NTSB/MAR90/04).NationalTransportationSafety
Board,Washington,D.C.
Smith,D.,Veitch,B.,Khan,F.,Taylor,R.,2015.AnAccident
ModelforArcticShipping,in:ProceedingsoftheASME
2015
34th International Conference on Ocean,Offshore
andArcticEngineering.PresentedattheOMAE2015,St.
John’s,NL,Canada.
Vicente, K., 2004. The Human Factor: Revolutionizing the
Way People Live with Technology. Routledge, New
York.