IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/risrel/v231y2017i4p446-464.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A risk model for autonomous marine systems and operation focusing on human–autonomy collaboration

Author

Listed:
  • Christoph Alexander Thieme
  • Ingrid Bouwer Utne

Abstract

Autonomous marine systems, such as autonomous ships and autonomous underwater vehicles, gain increased interest in industry and academia. Expected benefits of autonomous marine system in comparison to conventional marine systems are reduced cost, reduced risk to operators, and increased efficiency of such systems. Autonomous underwater vehicles are applied in scientific, commercial, and military applications for surveys and inspections of the sea floor, the water column, marine structures, and objects of interest. Autonomous underwater vehicles are costly vehicles and may carry expensive payloads. Hence, risk models are needed to assess the mission success before a mission and adapt the mission plan if necessary. The operators prepare and interact with autonomous underwater vehicles to carry out a mission successfully. Risk models need to reflect these interactions. This article presents a Bayesian belief network to assess the human–autonomy collaboration performance, as part of a risk model for autonomous underwater vehicle operation. Human–autonomy collaboration represents the joint performance of the human operators in conjunction with an autonomous system to achieve a mission aim. A case study shows that the human–autonomy collaboration can be improved in two ways: (1) through better training and inclusion of experienced operators and (2) through improved reliability of autonomous functions and situation awareness of vehicles. It is believed that the human–autonomy collaboration Bayesian belief network can improve autonomous underwater vehicle design and autonomous underwater vehicle operations by clarifying relationships between technical, human, and organizational factors and their influence on mission risk. The article focuses on autonomous underwater vehicle, but the results should be applicable to other types of autonomous marine systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Christoph Alexander Thieme & Ingrid Bouwer Utne, 2017. "A risk model for autonomous marine systems and operation focusing on human–autonomy collaboration," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 231(4), pages 446-464, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:risrel:v:231:y:2017:i:4:p:446-464
    DOI: 10.1177/1748006X17709377
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1748006X17709377
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1748006X17709377?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rajagopal, 2014. "The Human Factors," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Architecting Enterprise, chapter 9, pages 225-249, Palgrave Macmillan.
    2. Trucco, P. & Cagno, E. & Ruggeri, F. & Grande, O., 2008. "A Bayesian Belief Network modelling of organisational factors in risk analysis: A case study in maritime transportation," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 93(6), pages 845-856.
    3. Brito, Mario & Griffiths, Gwyn, 2016. "A Bayesian approach for predicting risk of autonomous underwater vehicle loss during their missions," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 55-67.
    4. Thieme, Christoph A. & Utne, Ingrid B., 2017. "Safety performance monitoring of autonomous marine systems," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 264-275.
    5. Mario Paulo Brito & Gwyn Griffiths & Peter Challenor, 2010. "Risk Analysis for Autonomous Underwater Vehicle Operations in Extreme Environments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(12), pages 1771-1788, December.
    6. Groth, Katrina M. & Swiler, Laura P., 2013. "Bridging the gap between HRA research and HRA practice: A Bayesian network version of SPAR-H," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 33-42.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gino J. Lim & Jaeyoung Cho & Selim Bora & Taofeek Biobaku & Hamid Parsaei, 2018. "Models and computational algorithms for maritime risk analysis: a review," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 271(2), pages 765-786, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mkrtchyan, L. & Podofillini, L. & Dang, V.N., 2015. "Bayesian belief networks for human reliability analysis: A review of applications and gaps," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 1-16.
    2. Chen, Xi & Bose, Neil & Brito, Mario & Khan, Faisal & Thanyamanta, Bo & Zou, Ting, 2021. "A Review of Risk Analysis Research for the Operations of Autonomous Underwater Vehicles," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 216(C).
    3. Bevilacqua, Maurizio & Ciarapica, Filippo Emanuele, 2018. "Human factor risk management in the process industry: A case study," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 149-159.
    4. Wu, Bing & Yip, Tsz Leung & Yan, Xinping & Guedes Soares, C., 2022. "Review of techniques and challenges of human and organizational factors analysis in maritime transportation," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 219(C).
    5. Carine Dominguez-Péry & Lakshmi Narasimha Raju Vuddaraju & Isabelle Corbett-Etchevers & Rana Tassabehji, 2021. "Reducing maritime accidents in ships by tackling human error: a bibliometric review and research agenda," Journal of Shipping and Trade, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-32, December.
    6. Kim, Yochan & Park, Jinkyun & Jung, Wondea, 2017. "A quantitative measure of fitness for duty and work processes for human reliability analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 595-601.
    7. Sotiralis, P. & Ventikos, N.P. & Hamann, R. & Golyshev, P. & Teixeira, A.P., 2016. "Incorporation of human factors into ship collision risk models focusing on human centred design aspects," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 210-227.
    8. Wang, Shuaian & Yan, Ran & Qu, Xiaobo, 2019. "Development of a non-parametric classifier: Effective identification, algorithm, and applications in port state control for maritime transportation," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 129-157.
    9. Abrishami, Shokoufeh & Khakzad, Nima & Hosseini, Seyed Mahmoud, 2020. "A data-based comparison of BN-HRA models in assessing human error probability: An offshore evacuation case study," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    10. Mario P. Brito & Ian G. J. Dawson, 2020. "Predicting the Validity of Expert Judgments in Assessing the Impact of Risk Mitigation Through Failure Prevention and Correction," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(10), pages 1928-1943, October.
    11. Tan, Samson & Moinuddin, Khalid, 2019. "Systematic review of human and organizational risks for probabilistic risk analysis in high-rise buildings," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 233-250.
    12. Özkan Uğurlu & Serdar Yıldız & Sean Loughney & Jin Wang & Shota Kuntchulia & Irakli Sharabidze, 2020. "Analyzing Collision, Grounding, and Sinking Accidents Occurring in the Black Sea Utilizing HFACS and Bayesian Networks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(12), pages 2610-2638, December.
    13. Pandya, Dhruv & Podofillini, Luca & Emert, Frank & Lomax, Antony J. & Dang, Vinh N. & Sansavini, Giovanni, 2020. "Quantification of a human reliability analysis method for radiotherapy applications based on expert judgment aggregation," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    14. Thieme, Christoph A. & Utne, Ingrid B., 2017. "Safety performance monitoring of autonomous marine systems," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 264-275.
    15. Tzu Yang Loh & Mario P. Brito & Neil Bose & Jingjing Xu & Kiril Tenekedjiev, 2020. "Human Error in Autonomous Underwater Vehicle Deployment: A System Dynamics Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(6), pages 1258-1278, June.
    16. Wróbel, Krzysztof & Montewka, Jakub & Kujala, Pentti, 2018. "Towards the development of a system-theoretic model for safety assessment of autonomous merchant vessels," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 209-224.
    17. Siqi Wang & Jingbo Yin & Rafi Ullah Khan, 2020. "The Multi-State Maritime Transportation System Risk Assessment and Safety Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-18, July.
    18. Justin Pence & Zahra Mohaghegh, 2020. "A Discourse on the Incorporation of Organizational Factors into Probabilistic Risk Assessment: Key Questions and Categorical Review," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(6), pages 1183-1211, June.
    19. Shiqi Fan & Zaili Yang & Eduardo Blanco-Davis & Jinfen Zhang & Xinping Yan, 2020. "Analysis of maritime transport accidents using Bayesian networks," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 234(3), pages 439-454, June.
    20. Maryam Tabibzadeh & Najmedin Meshkati, 2014. "Learning from the BP Deepwater Horizon accident: risk analysis of human and organizational factors in negative pressure test," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 194-207, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:risrel:v:231:y:2017:i:4:p:446-464. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.