Sea Traffic Management (STM) in the

Vessel Traffic Service (VTS)

From the Vessel Traffic Service Operators’

perspective

Bachelor’s thesis in Master Mariner Program

PHILIP JOHANSSON
TEODOR FLODIN
Department of Mechanics and Maritime Sciences
CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
Gothenburg, Sweden 2019
 BACHELOR THESIS 2019:01

Sea Traffic Management (STM) in the Vessel

Traffic Service (VTS)
From the Vessel Traffic Service Operators’ perspective

Bachelor thesis in Mechanics and Maritime Sciences

PHILIP JOHANSSON

TEODOR FLODIN

Department of Mechanics and Maritime Sciences

Division of Maritime Studies
CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
Gothenburg, Sweden 2019
Sea Traffic Management (STM) in the Vessel Traffic
From the Vessel Traffic Service Operators’ perspective
PHILIP JOHANSSON

TEODOR FLODIN

© PHILIP JOHANSSON & TEODOR FLODIN, 2019

Bachelor Thesis 2019:01

Department of Mechanics and Maritime Sciences
Chalmers University of Technology
SE-412 96 Gothenburg
Sweden
Telephone: + 46 (0)31-772 1000

Cover: An illustration of Sea Traffic Management tools and how they connect.
Created by William Flodin

Printing /Department of Mechanics and Maritime Sciences

Gothenburg, Sweden 2019
Sea Traffic Managements (STM) in the Vessel Traffic Services (VTS)

From the Vessel Traffic Service Operators’ perspective

PHILIP JOHANSSON
TEODOR FLODIN
Department of Department of Mechanics and Maritime Sciences
Chalmers University of Technology

Abstract
The digitalization in the shipping industry has during the last decade resulted in
different research projects aiming to make the shipping chain more effective and
efficient. International Maritime Organization (IMO) has developed a “Strategy
Implementation Plan” to help navigate the development in the right direction with
demands which the projects are trying to fulfil. One of the projects is Sea Traffic
Management (STM) which has developed tools to help assist with decision making
and a more efficient way of navigating and planning voyages. The tools are aimed
towards the mariners on board but also the operators ashore in the Vessel Traffic
Service (VTS).

The aim of this thesis is to get an understanding of what the Vessel Traffic Service
Operators (VTSO) think of the STM tools user interface/friendliness, their benefits,
and what potential problems they could produce. The results are supported by
answers from a questionnaire collected during full scale simulation testing of the
STM services. This helped to gain a brief understanding in their thought of the
STM tools and how user friendly the tools are. The results were strengthened by four
interviews of VTSOs who participated in the simulation runs and the questionnaire
to get a deeper understanding of the pros and cons on the STM tools. The result
indicated that the tools were over-all user friendly and was to a benefit for the
VTSOs with increased foresight and overview.

Keywords: VTS, VTSO, IMO, user friendliness, shipping, STM, Sea Traffic Man-
agement

v
Acknowledgements
We would like to dedicate a special thanks to our supervisors - probably the best
ones at Chalmers, Monica Lundh and Katie Aylward, without you two this would
not be possible. Your knowledge, clever ideas and motivation was the key to this
report. A big thank you to Anders Johannesson for helping set up interviews and for
sharing your knowledge about the VTS. Of course, thanks to everyone willing to be
interviewed. Also, a big thanks to the Librarians for your willingness to assist and
help to achieve this. Additionally, we want to thank our lovely friends and family
especially Carl Olafsson, Frans Wiktorsson and Olle Elander, your cheering has
meant the world. Lastly, thanks to William for the lovely support with astonishing
formatting skills.

Phlip Johansson & Teodor Flodin, Gothenburg, February 2019

vii
 Table of Contents
Nomenclature xi

1 Introduction 1
1.1 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2 Research questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3 Delimitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2 Background 3
2.1 Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2 Communication in shipping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3 Previous research projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.4 STM and their tools for VTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3 Methodology 9
3.1 Literature review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2 Collection of quantitative data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.1 Scenarios and Experimental Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3 Collection of qualitative data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

4 Results 13
4.1 Demographic of data collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2 Results from the questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2.1 User-friendliness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2.2 Usability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.3 Results from the interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.3.1 Increased workload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

5 Discussion 23
5.1 Choice of method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

6 Conclusion 27
6.1 Future research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

References 29

ix
Table of Contents

x
 Nomenclature

Abbreviations
AIS Automatic Identification System
ECDIS Electronic Chart Display and Information System
EMSN European Maritime Simulation Network
IMO International Maritime Organisation
SIP Strategy Implementation Plan
SOLAS Safety of Life at Sea
STM Sea Traffic Management
VHF Very High Frequency
VTS Vessel Traffic Services
VTSO Vessel Traffic Service Operator

xi
Nomenclature

xii
 1
Introduction

The world commerce has for centuries needed an efficient shipping industry and the
increasing trade has set pressure for shipping to have safer navigation and higher
efficiency (IALA, 2016). In 1948 vessels started to navigate into harbours through
restricted visibility assisted by personnel on shore. In the 1960’s and 1970’s sev-
eral ship accidents occurred, and the public mass got knowledge about how it could
harm the environment. According to IALA (2016), this set additional pressure for
a safer shipping and in 1985 International Maritime Organisation (IMO) adopted
resolution A.578 ‘Guidelines for Vessel Traffic Service’. This described a detailed
plan about how to set up and plan for a Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) within ports
and approaches to achieve safer and more efficient shipping with the main purpose
being to oversee the vessels and supply with navigational information. Further,
IALA (2016) also states that today’s shipping with larger and less manoeuvrable
vessels in congested waters carrying hazardous cargoes, is putting the environment
at risk and establishing a VTS contributes to increased safety and efficiency.

The shipping industry has during the last decades gone through major technical
developments. The operation of the vessel has been affected and there has been a
shift from analogous equipment to digital, parts of the task’s seafarers used to per-
form is now automated. With regards to the work on the bridge and the navigation,
electronic charts and conning displays is introduced (IMO, n.d.). This drift towards
digitalization and the changes in task performance and demands on the crew, has
led to IMO developing supporting documents (IMO, 2015). In 1990 IMO established
a regulation in Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) chapter V to allow navigation with
Electronic Chart Display and Information System (ECDIS) (IMO, n.d.). According
to IMO the overall goal is to improve the safety at sea, however in this fast-phased
industrialization they realized that the shipping could be hampered due to the lack
of standardization (IMO, 2015). Furthermore, in 2014 Maritime Safety Committee
approved an implementation plan “The Strategy Implementation Plan” (SIP) made
by IMO to implement e-Navigation solutions into the shipping (IMO, n.d.). The
SIP contained demands put on the implementation of e-navigation.

This resulted in several European Union research projects developing new system
and tools to help navigation and optimization both on ships and shore units. Some
projects that was started were ACCSEAS and EfficienSea 1 and 2, later came Mona
Lisa which put focus on testing new tools. As an outcome from Mona Lisa, Sea
Traffic Management (STM) was founded, this project aimed to facilitate the navi-
gation onboard and enhance the communication. STM offers a variety of tools to
help ships and shore units with e.g. optimizing routes, route sharing with other

1
1. Introduction

ships, port call synchronization, winter navigation. One part of this project was
also to assess how work at the VTS center will change with the implementation of
the STM tools. This report will investigate how the work in the VTS could benefit
from these tools and what the personnel think of the user friendliness and usability.

1.1 Purpose
The main purpose of this report is to investigate how the VTS operators view
the STM tools user-friendliness and what advantages and disadvantages they could
present, based on their experiences with the tools during simulated test runs, and
their general knowledge about STM.

1.2 Research questions

Two research questions have been formulated for the thesis, that are aimed to be
answered, and are stated as following:

1. From the VTS operators perspective, how user-friendly are the STM tools?
2. What advantages and disadvantages do the VTS operators think the STM
tools have?

1.3 Delimitations
The STM tools are newly developed services, meaning a very limited amount of
VTS operators have used and evaluated them. Therefore, this study has a relatively
small sample size that is limited to VTS operators who have experience and feedback
related to the tools. This research was collected by the STM research team, prior
to the development of this thesis. Therefore, the authors were not involved in the
data collection of the questionnaire data from the simulation runs. The authors of
this paper therefore conducted the follow up interviews to fully immerse themselves
in the research questions.

2
 2
Background

During 1990, the first versions of electronic chart was implemented as a first step to
a more digitized shipping industry according to IMO (n.d.). The organization thus
recognized the necessity to equip ships and shore units concerning safety of shipping
with modern tools, optimized to enhance maritime navigation, communications and
decision making (IMO, 2015). IMO predicted that without any coordination the
development of technology could with lack of standardization prevent the progress
of future navigation systems on board ships and shore units. The IMO then de-
veloped a strategy plan “The e-navigation Strategy Implementation Plan (SIP)” to
set demands on the advance of shipping technology and digitalization. The SIP
contains several main goals where three of them have an impact on the VTS.

These goals focus on;

• Efficiency of the marine information transfer between the concerned users e.g.
ship-to-ship, ship-to-shore, shore-to-shore. The demands of IMO intend to
facilitate the vessel traffic observations for shore-based facilities including VTS.
• Facilitate the communication between different parts such as ship-ship and
ship-shore, including, data exchange.
• Integrate and present information, on board and on shore to maximize and
benefit the navigational safety, but also to benefit the workload of the users
through a human-machine interface (IMO, 2015).

2.1 Vessel Traffic Service (VTS)

The world commerce has for centuries needed an efficient shipping industry and the
increasingly trade has set pressure to the shipping for safer navigation and higher
efficiency according to IALA (2016). The manual also says that this pressure has
made authorities around the world to provide aids to navigate around their coastal
waters started with shore side beacons and lights. After the World War II the
navigational aids of that age were no longer sufficient to take advantage of the full
capacity of the port facilities writes IALA (2016). They mean that specifically in
poor visibility conditions vessels were delayed which caused further delays and com-
plications throughout the entire transport chain both onshore and at sea. Traffic
monitoring using shore-based radar in combination with VHF-communication were
implemented to enhance the safety and efficiency. In 1948, Douglas, Isle of Man were
the first port to establish a radar-based Port station according to IALA (2016). It
is also written that in the 1950’s the approaches and port areas of Rotterdam and
Amsterdam had established their own shore-based Radar sites.

3
2. Background

Today the VTS seems a bit different but has maintained the purpose to inform in-
coming and outgoing vessels about current traffic inside the VTS area, and other
information that could help the vessels with their navigation in or out of the area.
The VTS area are often located in congested waters with a high traffic density. The
person in the VTS center, who is actively monitoring the VTS area is called Vessel
Traffic Service Operator (VTSO). This is the key person within the VTS centre
(IALA, 2016). The main task for the VTSO is to monitor either the whole area or
a sector of the VTS area depending on size and traffic density, to support the safety
and fluency of the traffic. IALA (2016) also states that the VTSO monitoring an
area needs to interact in different situations to improve the safety of the traffic flow.
Further, the VTSO can use different types of equipment to monitor and interact
with traffic, e.g. radar, AIS and VHF-radio. The VTSO provides a variation of
services and if an accident occurs or during emergency operations the VTSO can
have responsibility to act and coordinate traffic and communications while at the
same time maintaining a log of the situation (IALA, 2016).

The VTS are divided in different service levels all aiming to support the vessels
within the VTS area. The VTS have different types of services depending on what
need a specific area have. There are three different types of services within a VTS,
Information Service, Traffic Organization Service and Navigational Assistance Ser-
vice.

2.2 Communication in shipping

Communication between vessels and vessel to VTS is a key for the operators both
on board the vessels and onshore to get an understanding of the current traffic sit-
uation. An operator working in the VTS need to have a clear vision of the traffic
flow in the VTS area to be able in advance locate any danger or close situations
between the vessels in the area. To have situational awareness, different tools such
as VHF-radio, AIS, radar and weather forecasts help the VTSO to receive the inputs
needed (IALA, 2016). The main tool to be used is the VHF-radio, with this tool
the vessels and the VTS can converse to give each other input of the current situ-
ation so everyone understands where every vessel is located and what to be expected.

In a research made by Seafarers International Research Centre Acejo et al. (2018)

found that the third most identified cause of accidents was failure in communica-
tion. The cause of the failure is hard to identify, sometimes it is due to hierarchical
structure or language restrictions and sometimes it is simply because information is
not passed on (Acejo et al., 2018).

Brödje (2012) describes that communication between vessels and the VTS can vary
depending on different factors, there among trust, pattern recognition and proto-
col. The factor trust implies that the VTSO refrain from informing the navigator
in trust, that the navigator already has an understanding of what is going on in
the fairway without any confirmation that the navigator actually does. The VTSO
sometimes hold back information when they recognise patterns in regard of vessel

4
 2. Background

movements in fairway and/or when patterns are recognised concerning communi-

cation between vessel to vessel or vessel to VTS. Brödje (2012) also mentions that
protocol is information that always get communicated because it is bound to reg-
ulation and therefore cannot be excluded from communication in the VTS system.
This is being illustrated in Figure 2.1.

Ve
sse
l siz Protocol
e Deviation

Vessel speed

VHF
Sensors Vessel location Construct Trust
VHF
Traffic intensity
VHF
Pattern Role
es
ali
nom
A

Discretion t
t1

Figure 2.1: The figure illustrates filters of the VTSOs information sharing process,
what information the VTSOs decides to share and not. Information received from
the sensor gets filtered by the VTSOs thus sometimes refrain sharing. Adapted with
permission from Brödje (2013).

Communication between vessels and VTS can also vary depending on how many
vessels that are in the area, current traffic situations and weather conditions (De
Vries, 2017). During foggy weather, ships tend to slow down, increase the spac-
ing between each other and the communication between vessels and VTS increases
which will put on more workload for the VTSO. The variability is something the
VTS need to adapt to, every situation is unique, sometimes the situations are easy
and sometimes they are more difficult. Further De Vries (2017) implies that the
variability needs to be manageable, if the communications increase drastically and
the workload becomes overwhelming, the communications can be less effective and
less efficient.

5
2. Background

2.3 Previous research projects

To develop the e-Navigation and the tools for better communication, several research
projects have been carried through, there amongst ACCSEAS, EfficienSea 1 and 2,
Monalisa 1 and 2 which later resulted in the development of STM.

ACCSEAS
One of the first project to carry out was ACCSEAS, which purpose was to implement
a test bed for e-navigation in the North Sea (ACCSEAS, n.d.). Important results
came to be an establishment of a regional platform, provided technology, policies,
regulations and standards for an improved access in the North Sea. In ACCSEAS
simulation test runs, the importance of getting information in time was discovered.
That would help the mariners and shore-based units to get an understanding of the
near future surrounding in a clear way (Billesø, 2015).

EfficieanSea and EfficieanSea2

EfficieanSea was a project between different European countries which started after
the implementation of SIP (EfficienSea, 2011). The goal with the project was to
connect all maritime functions to a central information cloud online. This to be
used by the ships to enhance the maritime safety and environment in the Baltic
Sea through smart solutions with e.g. new communication channels between ship to
ship and ship to coast stations.

EfficieanSea led to the sequel EfficieanSea2, which purpose was to implement what
EfficieanSea started. One of the sought was to implement the VHF Data Exchange
System, a system where data quick and cheap could communicate between ship to
ship and ship to coast station over VHF radio channels (EfficienSea2, n.d.).

Mona Lisa and Mona Lisa 2.0

The first Monalisa project started 2010 where route planning and route sharing was
introduced as a precursor to STM. The work of Monalisa continued of a development
of a global maritime data sharing function called “Maritime Cloud” and production
of electronic certificate for maritime officers on board (MonaLisa, 2008).

A follow up was made on Monalisa called Monalisa 2.0 which defined the goal of
STM concept to imply smart solution for the more complex transport chain. STM
has developed a quantity of different tools for making shipping more efficient such as
route optimization, route exchange between ships, winter navigation and enhanced
surveillance in ports (STM, n.d.). The outcome from this project from a shore
perspective was positive but one concern was raised after a simulation test run, that
workload could increase when tools were applied to several vessels in an area with
high traffic density or in emergency situations (Porathe et al., 2014).

6
 2. Background

2.4 STM and their tools for VTS

The development of STM were made in two previous projects, Mona Lisa and Mona
Lisa 2.0. The STM project has developed e-navigation solutions for both ships and
shore to improve information exchange, communication, and promote safety and
efficiency. The STM project has developed a number of tools which are used by
the VTSO including; Ship-to-shore Route Exchange, Chat Function, Route Cross
Check, Route Suggestions, Route Based Prediction Tool, Enhanced Monitoring,
Shore Based Navigational Assistance and a Navigational Warning Automated Ser-
vice. These tools of communication has been tested in full scale simulation using
European Maritime Simulation Network (EMSN). This simulation network include
13 simulation centres in seven different European countries that can run simulations
with up to 37 bridges connected at the same time (Burmeister et al., 2016).

The tools mentioned above are defined below and will hereby be referred to as the
"STM tools" or "STM services".

Ship-to-Shore Route Exchange

This service allows vessels to broadcast the next seven waypoints of their intended
route (Aylward et al., 2018). Route segments are broadcasted through Automatic
Identification System (AIS) and give additional information to the presently avail-
able data obtained by radar/ARPA and AIS. Ship-to-shore route exchange allows
the VTSO to receive the monitored route of STM enabled vessels in the vicinity
and have an overview of their intentions according to Aylward et al. (2018). In real
time, the VTSO will be able to see if the vessel is sailing on the planned route or
heading towards possible danger.

Chat Function
The chat function is a standalone software (e.g. Skype) which is integrated into
the ECDIS on board and at the VTS station on shore writes Aylward et al. (2018).
The chat function offers text communication between the VTSO with STM enabled
ships. It allows the VTSO and the ship to communicate through other means than
VHF. It allows both parties to review previous agreements with a goal to reduce the
misunderstandings commonly experienced over VHF (Aylward et al., 2018).

Route Cross Check

According to Aylward et al. (2018) a VTS centre can receive any planned route and
cross check such route against any navigational dangers and if necessary, send a
route suggestion back to the ship.

7
2. Background

Sending Route Suggestions

This service allows the shore-centre to send a suggested route to the ship, to be
reviewed by the bridge team and then either accepted or rejected (Aylward et al.,
2018). Further Aylward et al. (2018) writes that this service can be used in various
situations, for example if several vessels are warned to avoid a certain area, the
shore centre can plan a route based on all available information and directly send
this route to the vessel.

Enhanced Monitoring
This tool is only for the VTSO, it does not require any action from the personnel
on board other than broadcasting their route to the VTS according Aylward et al.
(2018). After having received a ship’s monitored route and schedule, shore centres
will be able to detect if planned schedule is not kept or if ship deviates from mon-
itored route. This service alarms the VTS when a vessel is diverting from their
route which will make the VTSO aware of the situation and can contact the ship in
question.

Route Based Prediction Tool

This tool shows where two ships will meet if they are following their intended route.
This allows the VTSO to have an enhanced overview of upcoming situations and the
opportunity to intervene at an earlier stage in a potential close-quarters situation
(Aylward et al., 2018).

Navigational Warnings
This service allows the shore centre to send a notification which overlays a Naviga-
tional Warning Message directly on the ECDIS. If the Navigational Warning involves
a geographical area to avoid or be aware of, this will be automatically plotted onto
the ECDIS, so it is visible to the bridge team (Aylward et al., 2018).

8
 3
Methodology

A good way to retrieve accurate results is to use both quantitative and qualitative
methods. First through the quantitative data to pick up interesting observations and
to later use in the collection of the qualitative data to get a deeper understanding
(Eliasson, 2010). The thesis used a questionnaire as a method to collect quantitative
data and provided the basis for the interviews which included a qualitative data
collection.

3.1 Literature review

For a better understanding of the background connected to the research questions a
thorough information gathering had been done. The information gathering started
with understanding the STM project and their tools, this was carried through by
reading on their website and the precursors research leading to the founding of STM.
When a greater understanding of the STM was established, a more detailed infor-
mation connected to our research questions was gathered by searching on Chalmers
internet-based library, searching for keywords like “VTS”, “VTS Operators”, “VTS
Operations”, “E-navigation”. More information covering different aspects of VTS
and their work was collected from previous theses.

3.2 Collection of quantitative data

To get a better overall understanding on what the VTSOs thought about the tools,
quantitative data was acquired from a data-set collected by the help of a ques-
tionnaire that followed after a STM tool evaluation run in the EMSN, where two
scenarios were performed. The scenarios tested in the EMSN are described in 3.2.1
as well as the experimental design.

3.2.1 Scenarios and Experimental Design

Scenarios
In order to test the STM services, subject matter experts developed two simulator
scenarios, one in the South Western Baltic and another in the English Channel/-
Southampton. The scenarios were strategically designed to test the different func-
tionalities of the STM Services. The Baltic Scenario tested the use of the STM
services in dense, close quarters traffic situations whereas the English Channel sce-
nario was generally less busy. Each geographical area also had a respective “shore
center”, one located in Southampton, UK and the other in Gothenburg, Sweden.

9
3. Methodology

The “shore center” functioned as a typical VTS center with additional access to the
STM services and was the point of interest for this study.

Experimental Design
Data were collected in the EMSN over eight days during two non-consecutive weeks
in 2018. The EMSN included nine simulation centres, 30 ship bridges, and the two
VTS centres in Gothenburg and Southampton. Both VTS centres held a briefing
session at the beginning of the day for the VTSOs which consisted of information
about the STM/EMSN, the purpose of the STM services, schedule for the day, and
an opportunity to ask questions.

The briefing was followed by a 1.5-hour familiarization session in which the VTS
Operators had the opportunity to communicate with vessels and practice using the
services. Once the familiarization session was complete, the first exercise began and
lasted for 1.5 hours. The first exercise was always the English Channel Scenario as
it was designed to be less busy and provided the VTSOs time to explore the usage
of the STM services.

Once the test day was concluded, the VTSOs completed a “post-scenario question-
naire” which asked questions about their experiences with the STM services (i.e.
usability, workload, user-friendliness, appropriate information, workload, etc.). The
results from the post-scenario questionnaire are analysed in chapter 4 and discussed
in chapter 5.

3.3 Collection of qualitative data

To get more detailed information, qualitative data was gathered through four, 30-40
minutes interview sessions with the VTSOs involved in the EMSN simulation test
runs. The purpose of using interviews as a method was to get an understanding in
what the VTSO thought about the STM tools which is essential in order to answer
the research questions. The interviews were semi structured following an interview
guide with allowance of follow-up questions. The questions in the interview guide
were chosen out of the answers given from the questionnaire and additional ques-
tions to help answer the research questions. The interviews were recorded and later
transcribed to be sure no details were missed. Before the interviews started the
participant filled in a consent form which indicated that the interviews were being
recorded and used in the research. The structure of the interview was divided into
eight sections, where seven of the sections were focusing respectively on different
STM tools with the same questions and the last one was an overall section which
covered all tools.

For each tool these questions were asked:

• What is your general thought of this tool?
• What aspects do you think is good?
• What aspects do you thinks is bad?

10
 3. Methodology

• Do you think this tool would lead to a safer traffic flow within the VTS area?
if so, why?
• Do you think the tool affect the workload? How? Why?
• How will this tool ease for you as an operator?

For the overall section, the main thought was to get the operators to highlight a
tool they thought was better and one that was the worse. For this section these
questions were asked:
• What is your general though of the EMSN simulator runs?
• Which of these tools would you say helped you the most? Why?
• Which tool would you use the most? Why?
• Do you think any of the tools seem like too much or unnecessarily?
• If you would be offered to use their tools, would you use all? if not, which
would you use?

The questions were sometimes followed by a follow up question depending on what

they answered, typical follow up questions was, “why?” and “how?”.

Thematic analysis
To analyse the interviews Thematic Analysis was used. This method of analysis is
based on identifying themes within the qualitative data (Braun & Clarke, 2006).
Basically, this method involves six steps, where the first step is to familiarize with
the data. This involves transcribing and reading and re-reading the entire data
and make notes of initial ideas. Step number two imply to code the data-set and
collate relevant data to each code. In step three, the codes are collated into themes.
Later in step four, a review of the themes is made to see if they are applicable to
the whole data-set. Step five is being described by Braun & Clarke (2006) as an
ongoing analysis to specify every theme and also name them. Lastly, step six which
the concluding chance for analysis is where a selection of themes is made, it is in
this step the analysis is written in the report in trying to connect to the research
questions and the purpose of the thesis (Braun & Clarke, 2006).

11
3. Methodology

12
 4
Results

The main result of this project found that the tools of STM is positively perceived
by the VTSOs both in terms of usability and operationally. With help of the STM
tools the operator gets a foresight in the traffic and also receives the ability to plan
and oversee the situations in a new way. The questionnaire showed slightly lower
evaluations for the “Enhanced Monitoring” tool, which is supported by the inter-
views which provided insight into why this was the case.

In the results chapter, section 4.2 and section 4.3 intend to answer each research
question respectively based on the results from the data collection.

4.1 Demographic of data collection

Based on the questionnaires and interviews, a demographic analysis was performed
which resulted in the following demographics.

Demographic of questionnaire results

A total of 16 different VTSOs, 13 (81%) men and 3 (19%) women participated in
the EMSN STM simulations. Eight VTS Operators were from Sweden, six from the
UK and two from Norway. The participants were between 20 and 69 years of age.
Years of experience as a VTSOs ranged from <1 year, to 11-20 years, with most
VTSOs having between 3-5 years of experience. The current role of the VTSOs var-
ied, nine participants currently work as VTS Managers, Operators, or Supervisors,
three work as pilots, two as instructors, one as a project leader, and one as a captain.

Demographic of interview results

The interviews were performed on four different VTSOs all (100%) of them were
men from Sweden who participated in the EMSN STM simulation. Two (50%) were
between 40 and 49 years of age and the other two (50%) were between 60-69 years of
age. The range of VTSO working experience ranged from 1-2 years, to 11-20 years
divided in 1-2, 3-5, 6-10 and 11-20 years of experience, with 100% of the participants
at the moment having VTS operator as their current occupancy.

13
4. Results

4.2 Results from the questionnaire

The first research question, stated as: "From the VTSOs perspective, how user-
friendly are the STM tools?", will be answered by using results from two different
sections of the used questionnaire. These are analyzed from two perspectives; us-
ability and user-friendliness.

4.2.1 User-friendliness
In this section the VTSOs were asked to rate the STM tools regarding their user
friendliness, on a scale 1-7 where 1 = Worst imaginable, 4 = Fair and 7 = Best
imaginable. The values presented in Figure 4.1 are the mean values of each answer
on all the questions. The standard deviations have been added in order to see the
spread among the answers.

User-friendliness
7
6,5
6
5,5
5
4,5
4
3,5
3
2,5
2
1,5
1
0,5
0
Using Shore Based
Sending Route Route Based
Chat Function Navigational Route Cross Check Enhanced Monitoring
Suggestions Prediction Tool
Assistance
Mean 5,17 4,94 4,8 4,56 4,5 4,36

Figure 4.1: The mean value of all the answers from the “User-friendliness” Section.

4.2.2 Usability
In this section of the questionnaire the VTSOs were asked to in which extent they
agree on the usability perceptions stated in Figure 4.2-4.8. The scale is from 1 to 5,
where 1 is strongly disagree, 3 is neutral and 5 is strongly agree. The value presented
is the mean value of all the answers and the standard deviation to see the spread
among the answers. For example, in Figure 4.3, “Easy to use” got a mean value of
4.32, which would translate into agree/strongly agree.

14
 4. Results

Ship-to-shore Route Exchange

5

4,5

3,5

2,5

1,5

0,5

0
Need the support of a
Learn to use very quickly Easy to use Functions well integrated
technical person
Mean 4 3,65 3,41 2

Figure 4.2: This shows the result of the tool “Ship to Shore Route Exchange”.
The dotted bars illustrate a statement that is positive for user friendliness and the
diagonal lined bars for statement that is negative for user friendliness.

Chat Function
5

4,5

3,5

2,5

1,5

0,5

0
Need the support of a
Easy to use Learn to use very quickly Functions well integrated
technical person
Mean 4,32 4,05 3,53 1,58

Figure 4.3: Shows result of the “Chat Function”. The dotted bars illustrate a state-
ment that is positive for user friendliness and the diagonal lined bars for statement
that is negative for user friendliness.

15
4. Results

Route Cross Check

5

4,5

3,5

2,5

1,5

0,5

0
Need the support of a
Easy to use Learn to use very quickly Functions well integrated
technical person
Mean 4 3,79 3,36 1,79

Figure 4.4: Shows result of the “Route Cross Check”. The dotted bars illustrate
a statement that is positive for user friendliness and the diagonal lined bars for
statement that is negative for user friendliness.

Sending Route Suggestion

5

4,5

3,5

2,5

1,5

0,5

0
Need the support of a
Easy to use Learn to use very quickly Functions well integrated
technical person
Mean 3,94 3,83 3,28 1,89

Figure 4.5: Shows result of the “Sending Route Suggestion”. The dotted bars
illustrate a statement that is positive for user friendliness and the diagonal lined
bars for statement that is negative for user friendliness.

16
 4. Results

Route Based Prediction Tool

5

4,5

3,5

2,5

1,5

0,5

0
Need the support of a
Learn to use very quickly Easy to use Functions well integrated
technical person
Mean 4,15 4 3,54 1,54

Figure 4.6: Shows result of the “Route Based Prediction Tool”. The dotted bars
illustrate a statement that is positive for user friendliness and the diagonal lined
bars for statement that is negative for user friendliness.

Enhanced Monitoring Tool

5

4,5

3,5

2,5

1,5

0,5

0
Need the support of a
Learn to use very quickly Easy to use Functions well integrated
technical person
Mean 3,56 3,22 3 2,11

Figure 4.7: Shows result of the “Enhanced Monitoring Tool”. The dotted bars
illustrate a statement that is positive for user friendliness and the diagonal lined
bars for statement that is negative for user friendliness.

17
4. Results

Shore Based Navigation Tool

5

4,5

3,5

2,5

1,5

0,5

0
Need the support of a
Easy to use Learn to use very quickly Functions well integrated
technical person
Mean 3,77 3,7 3,23 1,85

Figure 4.8: Shows result of the “Shore Based Navigation Tool”. The dotted bars
illustrate a statement that is positive for user friendliness and the diagonal lined
bars for statement that is negative for user friendliness.

4.3 Results from the interviews

The second research question aims at answering the questions "What advantages
and disadvantages do the VTSOs think the STM tools have?". During the analysis,
two main themes and four sub themes were discovered which are shown in Table 4.1
below and will be expanded upon within the sub-sections below.

Table 4.1: An overview of the two main themes and the four sub themes that were
distinguished in the analysis.

Main Themes Sub-themes

4.2.1 Foresight 4.2.1.1 Overview
4.2.1.2 Less verbal communication
4.2.2 Increased workload 4.2.2.1 Increased level of alarms
4.2.2.2 Too much information

The difference between foresight and overview might be vague, but in this re-
port, foresight focuses more on the ability to plan for the VTSO itself in advance.
Overview is more the ability to see how the vessels planned and what is happening
in real time.

18
 4. Results

Foresight
The key word that was mentioned the most was the importance of foresight, and
the ability to in advance see how the in, and outgoing vessels have planned, and
also sort of plan it for the operator him/herself. One question about the operators’
general thoughts about STM, one person answered that with help from the tools
the operator are able to check, change and plan for a later stage.

“It’s a lot of ups and downs in the traffic density, so now in the morning
I would not be able to change or check any routes, but now when the
traffic got less, you can sit down and check routes and maybe suggest
some changes to it, so when the next rush comes you have prepared it.”

Another thing that was mentioned was that the traffic gets more controlled and the
number of unexpected events decrease. A contributing tool in this case was meant
to be “Route Cross Check” a tool letting the VTSO validate a planned route in an
early stage. One operator said that you get knowledge in before of how someone
has planned, and you can expect more predictability.

“You get a sort of predictability of how they are supposed to drive, it’s
not as individual as now, every vessel does not have to make their own
route plan in the same way. . . . if you get your route validated and the
route is fairly similar every time, the chance for surprises decrease”

This participant also meant that this will contribute to the area becoming more
controlled, similar to the Traffic Separation System and mentioned the parable with
it. Overall the participants found the tools having positive affect to their foresight.

Overview
The tool that had the most positive feedback in both the questionnaire and the in-
terviews was the tool “Route Based Prediction”, a tool that shows where two ships
will meet if they followed their intended route. This was appreciated by the opera-
tors because it would give them a heads up in advance that these ships may head
in to close-quarters situation and it would be easier for the operators to understand
and act on the situation. A participant in the interviews explained that if you in
advance could see where two vessels potentially were going meet it would be easier
to do small adjustments early to avoid meeting in critical points.

“I could imagine that it would be useful to sometimes see. . . Out of a

VTS-perspective but also for the ships to see where you will meet, espe-
cially if it is close to congested waters so that you could adjust the speed
to avoid meeting in critical points.”

One operator during the interview started off initially when talking about the tool
“Enhanced Monitoring” that it would increase the workload of the operator because
the increasing amount of alarms but with the right modification it could improve
the overview. He suggested that if you could define an area to where these alarms

19
4. Results

could be helpful, it would limit the alarms and meanwhile increase the situational
awareness and overview.

“It could in some cases increase your attention to a situation that you
sometimes miss. You could take a problem area where incidents have
happened before and aim the tool that it would alarm if they deviate from
the route in such a specific area. So, when an alarm sounds it is rele-
vant.”

Less verbal communication

Another recurring theme was the aspect of verbal communication, all of the partic-
ipants had in common the perception about decreased verbal communication. The
main tool contributing to this fact was meant to be the “Ship-to-shore Route Ex-
change”. A common thought about the tool was the idea of less misunderstandings
occurs if the VTSO are able to see the intentions of a vessel, this brings the knowl-
edge about which vessels will be involved in different situations.

“You were able to see immediately which vessels who were going to be
involved, and then you only had to contact the ones involved, then you
avoid talking to someone who’s not going into the affected area for ex-
ample”

One major thing that was mentioned were the facilitated ability to communicate in-
formation about a certain position in latitude and longitude, which was often meant
to be misunderstood in verbal communication.

“The chat function, yes I think this also increase the safety when it comes
to misunderstanding and such, it’s easier to misunderstand each other
verbally, of course it happens in text communication as well, but some
information is a lot easier to communicate in text, such as positions or
similar”

To be able to see who is going to be affected by a certain situation and the decreasing
misunderstandings would reduce the amount of verbal communication. One operator
meant that this implies the verbal communication would then be more important,
the VHF will only be used in more important situations or for more important in-
formation. Another comment to the “Ship-to-shore Route Exchange” were that it
would reduce the radio communication, and it therefore became more of importance.

“If you know where a vessel is about to turn it implies less VHF-communication,
and less risk of misunderstanding, it would for sure reduce the verbal
communication, which then entails the information on the VHF becom-
ing more important"

The “Chat Function” showed very positive results both in the quantitative data
and the quantitative, one explanation from the interviews were that it reduced the

20
 4. Results

verbal communication and it did confluent good with the other tools. According
to the participants they mostly used the chat together with other tools such as
the “Sending Route Suggestions”, first they suggested a route and then sent a short
message to the vessel with an explanation. Reduced verbal communication improved
the work of the operators according to all the participants.

4.3.1 Increased workload

In the interviews the topic workload was presented to which different aspects and
concerns came up. The main problem the VTSO brought up was the fear of in-
creasing amount of alarms. Another concern that was brought up when mentioning
workload was the possibility for giving too much information, i.e. when many routes
are presented at the same time, it could be more stressful and increase the amount
of time to understand a scenario.

Increased numbers of alarms

The tool with least positive results in the questionnaire was “Enhanced Monitor-
ing” which had an alarm function when a ship deviates from its route. Apparently
because the increasing number of alarms was not appreciated by the operators, ac-
cording to the interviewees. Participants meant it would increase the workload and
draw attention from what might be more important.

“I think it (enhanced monitoring) would affect the workload negatively,

but you don’t get any winnings from it, of course sometime it could get
winning out from it, but i think in general it will be an alarm that’s gets
muted and won’t get any attention in the end, you want to have an alarm
when it’s for real something that can go wrong.”

This function was perceived to create unnecessary alarms, several participants said
that vessels might deviate from their route without being in risk of danger. One
meant that in narrow waters there is a lot of obstacles to avoid i.e. fishing vessels,
buoys and pleasure boats etc. Therefore, it is not always dangerous if a vessel devi-
ates from their planned route. As said in previous citation, the VTSOs appreciates
alarms, but preferably only when it is a serious situation, the other alarms are un-
necessary alarms. One perception about too many alarms is that it contributes to
neglecting the alarms in the end.

“I see a direct risk of increasing amount of alarms and increasing amount

of alarm tend to lead to not listen to the alarm at all and only constantly
muting them.”

The VTSOs who got interviewed had a similar function in their VTS center in
which on their monitoring screen had highlighted areas in different critical naviga-
tion points which they call no-go areas. If a ship would pass that point the system
would raise an alarm. The problem they explained about this system was during
summertime when sailing vessels and pleasure boats entered the highlighted areas,

21
4. Results

alarms was constantly triggered, which they thought increased their workload.

“That is the problem with our no-go areas, in the summertime we have
sailing vessels entering the areas and triggers the alarms. . . It triggers
all the time and at last no one cares and only mute the alarms.”

The common thought about increasing amount of alarm is that it would harm the
work of the VTSOs.

Too much information

Another concern about the tools were that the screen might be too information
heavy. The interviews showed that the participants were worried that the screen
would present too much information. Several operators said that “Ship-to-shore
Route Exchange” could create confusion if too many routes were displayed at once
or if it was heavy traffic or an emergency situation.

“You want to see how they (the vessels) have planned, but I don’t want
to see it all the time because it will create disturbance, if it’s lot of traffic.”

This occasion perceived to occur in more narrow waters heavily trafficked, examples
as the Sound and the sound of Gibraltar was brought up. It was meant these ar-
eas might easily be too crowded to use the “Ship-to-shore Route Exchange” due to
overwhelming information.

“I could imagine places like Gibraltar or the Sound, if everyone shows

their route it only creates a conglomeration”

Although this tool was overall appreciated when used in the simulations, the ex-
perience of too much information were mostly speculations more than observations
therefore the high evaluations on the questionnaire.

22
 5
Discussion

Digitalization and e-navigation are creating challenges for the industry amongst lack
of standardization and a need of a more efficient communication. This development
has generated a need for research in the area to establish a more efficient way to
monitor the traffic and enhance the communication. Other ways to communicate in-
formation like route exchange, has been researched in other projects like ACCSEAS
(Billesø, 2015) and Mona Lisa 1 and 2 (MonaLisa, 2012). Following the Mona Lisa
project, the STM was initiated with the purpose to make the shipping industry
safer, more efficient and provide the different parties with efficient ways of commu-
nication. The result from the questionnaire included in the STM project indicate
that the VTSOs are over-all positive to the STM tools, especially the usability of
the “Chat Function”, “Sending Route Suggestions” and the “Route-based Predic-
tion Tool”.

Further the interviews gave a deeper understanding as to why the VTSOs think their
work could benefit from these tools. Elements such as “Foresight and overview” were
factors that was considered to be enhanced by the tools. With regards to the results
this was said to help the VTSOs ability to plan ahead and in time be able to predict
upcoming future situations and thus be given time to act before situations becomes
critical. This could also positively affect the workload which results from the Mona
Lisa project has raised as a concern saying that the workload could be expected to
increase when too much information was presented at the same time (Porathe et al.,
2014). The interviews in this study also addressed this as possible problem as the
tool “Ship-to-shore Route Exchange” was considered as a potential disturbance for
the VTSO if many routes were presented at the same time. Even though this concern
was raised during the interviews the tool was popular and seen as an asset in the
future work of a VTSO. However, the operators’ thoughts about increased workload
might be a question about how skilled they were with the tools, if they had more ex-
perience with these instruments it might be perceived to positively affect their work.

According to Acejo et al. (2018) communication failure is the third most common
reason for accidents, failure can occur because of information is simply not passed
on between different parties. Brödje (2012) argues that communication between
ship and shore to some extent is filtered. We think this information that is “simply
not passed on” can be due to these filters, Brödje explained. He describes that
for instance trust, can block the communication, and the sender, in trust believes
the receiver already knows the information that is about to be communicated, thus
do not pass it on. According to the results of the interviews several participants
perceived the tools to enhance the communication due to the reduced verbal infor-

23
5. Discussion

mation exchange thus reducing the risk of misunderstandings. The tool that was
found to contribute the most to decrease the misunderstandings was the “Route
Based Prediction Tool”, this perception might be due to these filters were not in-
terfering. The tools of STM could in some respects replace parts of this verbal
information that normally gets filtered out like confirming intended route of a ship,
the information is presented on a screen instead of communicated over VHF and
thus contribute to increase the safety by making the communication more effective.
In alignment with these results the “Ship-to-Shore Route Exchange”, “Route based
Prediction Tool” and “Chat Function” was also argued to decrease the verbal com-
munication and thus reduce the variation of the amount of communication which De
Vries (2017) found as a potential problem. The results of that study gave evidence
that shows that the varying amount of communication could increase the workload
for the VTSO.

The results of user-friendliness from the questionnaire shows the tool that was least
desired was “Enhanced Monitoring”. This was also confirmed and explained in the
interviews and the reason was the fear of the increasing amount of alarm that could
add to the workload. The participants in the interviews explained that this tool was
similar to one of their tools they already use which also had a tendency to give a lot
of faulty alarms. The interviews showed that the STM tool “Enhanced Monitoring”
could actually decrease the workload. A thought about “Enhanced Monitoring”
were that it could, if used in certain way, be contributing to an easier monitoring.
One VTSO during the interviews said that if it would be possible to allow alarms
from this tool in one or some specific areas within the VTS area it could be beneficial
for both the workload and the ability to monitor the traffic.

The results in this thesis shows that the STM tools overall aligns with IMOs SIP.
In the user-friendliness section, all the tools showed positive results, but during
the interviews the tool “Enhanced Monitoring” produced weaker results due to the
potential increase in amount of alarms, which could to some extent increase the
workload for the VTSOs. This is the only tool according to our result that contra-
dicts the demands set in IMO’s SIP (IMO, 2015). The results from the interviews
and in connection with similar research like Brödje (2012) and De Vries (2017),
shows that the tools excluding “Enhanced Monitoring”, benefit the workload for
the VTSOs which aligns with IMOs goal to ease the monitoring of the vessels and
facilitate the vessels traffic observation for the VTS centres (IMO, 2015).

24
 5. Discussion

5.1 Choice of method

Because the target groups were limited a questionnaire was not enough to strengthen
the study and another method had to complement the results. Combining methods
is a good way to get a more complete picture of the results (Eliasson, 2010). The
choice of the mix-method approach in this paper were used to give a comprehen-
sive view of the STM tools directed towards the VTSOs. The questionnaire gave a
statistical analysis of how the tools were apprehended and the interviews an expla-
nation of their opinion. Eliasson (2010) writes that to get a measured number on a
research e.g. how good something is perceived; quantitative data is to be preferred.
Eliasson (2010) also brings up that quantitative data is better to illustrate what a
target group in general think in a certain question. This was appropriate for the
first question of this study because it could easily be illustrated with numbers and
diagrams. Since the authors of this report were not involved in the questionnaire
data collection, it was difficult to fully understand the intent of all the questions,
and therefore properly interpret the results. It would have been optimal to have
been involved from the beginning of the STM project. Some of the questions in
the form were a bit vague and the underlying thought of why some questions were
phrased in certain ways could be of interest to give more understanding to the re-
sults. The result from the quantitative data could vary if the target group had a
larger population which might had given a more nuanced result. Another way of
collecting the qualitative data could be for example focus groups, but this method
is harder to set up logistic wise where everybody has to able to attend at the same
time. Using observations to gather qualitative data were unmanageable though the
test runs were performed months earlier. Interviews was thought to suit the partic-
ipators best because of their working hours.

For a research to be reliable, the results of the research should be consistent (Kvale,
1997). In this study it would increase the reliability if more simulation runs with
the same or a similar questionnaire would reflect the results collected in this re-
search. This was not possible to achieve but to counter this, interviews was done
to support the answers from the questionnaire. The time between the test runs and
the interviews could have reduced the reliability, but the quantitative data from the
questionnaire is reflected in the qualitative result from the interviews which could
be considered to make the results reliable. All of those who were interviewed had
been involved in the STM EMSN test runs. The familiarization before these runs
was only about 1,5 hours meaning that the knowledge about the tools and their
operation was limited, which could reduce the reliability. In the most desirable case,
the VTSOs had better knowledge about the tools and the interviews had been per-
formed in connection to the questionnaire. When analysing the data collected from
the interviews both authors analysed the data privately for themselves and then
later compared the founding, in this case the conclusions were very similar which
also is a factor that would increase the reliability. During test runs evaluating tools
of MonaLisa project, concerns about increased workload due to too much presented
information was raised (Porathe et al., 2014). STM tools similar to the ones of
Monalisa raised the same concerns, which would increase the reliability.

25
5. Discussion

The validity in this study would mean that the investigation that was done, actu-
ally researched what was supposed to be researched (Eliasson, 2010). This implies
that the methods actually relate to the purpose and research questions set for this
study. This was accomplished through the questionnaire because the questions were
aimed at usability of the tools which fulfills one part of the purpose of this thesis
related to user friendliness. The interview guide was constructed together with the
questionnaire in order to grasp what questions to ask and what to be extra attentive
to. The interviews aim was to cover the purpose of what benefits or problems the
tools could have, and in such way the method could be considered valid.

The validity in an interview that would be considered is the reliability of the answers
given from the person being interview and the quality of the interview being done
(Kvale, 1997). The answers from the VTSOs in the interviews was similar to each
other which would indicate that the reliability of the answers was good. More
interviews would of course increase the reliability. The quality of the interviews
could be discussed, no one of the authors had done interviews before which could if
the authors been more experienced give a more qualitative result. To help counter
the inexperience an interview guide was made, and the questions was reviewed by
a more experienced researcher. The guide was good to keep the interview within
subject and to limit the answers to be connected to the purpose of this thesis.

26
 6
Conclusion

The results of the STM tool testing have proven to meet the goals of IMOs SIP
with regards to facilitating both the communication and the ability to monitor the
vessel traffic, according to the personnel at the VTS center. The interviewed par-
ticipants had a positive view of the tools and thought it would benefit their future
workplace with increased foresight and a better ability to overview the VTS area.
The questionnaire found the STM tools to be user-friendly with a slight difference
between each, but all of them had a mean value of greater than 4 in a scale of 1 to 7,
which concludes the tools to be more than “fairly” user-friendly. The only concerns
were about two tools perceived to increase the workload due to increased level of
alarms and concerns about information overload. These results indicating increased
workload could be affected of the habit using the tools, which could be different if
the participants were more experienced with the systems. The research found some
tools decreased the workload as well and according to the VTSOs, overall STM will
benefit their workload.

6.1 Future research

During the interviews the attendants came up with some suggestions to improve the
tools of STM one is stated in the discussion section, about “Enhanced Monitoring”
the ability to allow these alarms in certain sectors were one suggestion. A future
research could be about how the tools can be improved to fit the VTSOs better, in-
volving their opinions and their suggestions. Same goes with the personnel onboard,
how would they like the tools to be for maximum usability? During the interviews
the participants briefly explained how they used the tools; one interesting study
would be to research how the VTSOs use the tools with observations as a method
to see how much the STM implementation would change the work of the operators.
Even though this study is small it points out the importance of evaluating the hu-
man centered design to make new technology beneficial for example the work load.
The need of human factors involvement is necessary to the successful development
of the e-Navigation.

27
6. Conclusion

28
 References

ACCSEAS. (n.d.). About ACCSEAS. Retrieved 2018-11-15, from http://www

.accseas.eu/about-accseas/

Acejo, I., Sampson, H., Turgo, N., Ellis, N., & Tang, L. (2018). The causes of
maritime accidents in the period 2002-2016. Cardiff University.

Aylward, K., Weber, R., Lundh, M., & Mackinnon, S. (2018). The Implementation of
e-Navigation Services : Are We Ready ? The Royal Institute of Naval Architects.

Billesø, M. (2015). ACCSEAS Final Report Review of ACCSEAS Solutions through

tests and demonstrations. Retrieved from http://www.accseas.eu/content/
download/8190/74102/ACCSEAS%2520Final%2520Report%2520v1.pdf

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology []. Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 3 (2), 77–101. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline
.com/doi/abs/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Brödje, A. (2012). Hello, is there anybody out there - just nod if you can hear me.
Chalmers University Of Technology.

Burmeister, H.-c., Weber, R., & Siwe, U. (2016). EUROPEAN MARITIME SIM-
ULATOR NETWORK (Vol. 211).

De Vries, L. (2017). Work as done? Understanding the practice of so-

ciotechnical work in the maritime domain. Retrieved from http://
proxy.lib.chalmers.se/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=
true&db=ir01368a&AN=cpl.249425&lang=sv&site=eds-live&scope=sitehttps://
research.chalmers.se/publication/249425

EfficienSea. (2011). WP-4 e-Navigation. Retrieved 2018-11-16, from http://www

.efficiensea.org/default.asp?Action=Details&Item=402

EfficienSea2. (n.d.). Communication Channels. Retrieved 2018-11-16, from https://

efficiensea2.org/solution/communication-channels-2/

Eliasson, A. (2010). Kvantitativ Metod Från Början (2:1 ed.).

IALA. (2016). Vessel Traffic Services Manual, Edition 6.

29
References

IMO. (n.d.). Electronic Nautical Charts (ENC) and Electronic Chart Display and
Information Systems (ECDIS). Retrieved 2018-11-15, from http://www.imo.org/
en/OurWork/Safety/Navigation/Pages/ElectronicCharts.aspx

IMO. (2015). Strategy for the development and implementation of e-navigation,

MSC 85/26/Add.1, ANNEX 20 (Vol. 11).

Kvale, S. (1997). Den kvalitativa forskningsintervjun.

MonaLisa. (2008). Project Brochure. Retrieved from http://www.sjofartsverket.se/

pages/29163/MONALISA_BROSCHYR.pdf

MonaLisa. (2012). CONCEPT FOR ACTIVITY 1: DYNAMIC & PROACTIVE

ROUTES OR “GREEN-ROUTES”.

Porathe, T., Vries, L. D., & Prison, J. (2014). Ship voyage plan coordination in the
MONALISA project : user tests of a prototype ship traffic management system..

STM. (n.d.). STM Services. Retrieved 2018-11-20, from http://stmvalidation.eu/

stm-services/

30