Exploring Communication Barriers in Bridge-Teams: An Innovative Fuzzy-Bayesian Approach

Abstract

The bridge teams on merchant vessels have a grave responsibility to guarantee the safe navigation and management of ships in the critical waterways of the world. In addition to maintaining effective communication between external stations (other ships-Vessel Traffic Service), it is crucial to ensure continuous internal collaboration among the bridge team in order to fulfil this important task to the highest standard. Nevertheless, the challenging working conditions and harsh environmental factors may impede the uninterrupted flow of information between bridge teams and disrupt the communication. Communication issues among team members are frequently mentioned as a root cause in maritime accident investigation reports. The aim of this research is to propose a novel model for identifying the factors that may cause to inadequate communication among bridge team members, employing a fuzzy Bayesian network (FBN) approach. As indicated by the findings, attitudinal and behavioural barriers exert a greater influence (43.3%) on communication than language barriers (41.5%), representing the most significant factors affecting communication. Environmental barriers and cultural barriers, on the other hand, have comparatively less impact, at 38.7% and 31.2%, respectively. The sensivity analysis also revealed that the root nodes exhibiting the highest degree of impacts were cultural barriers (31.2%), age differences (20.6%), and workplace issues (20.2%). The findings suggest that bridge communication refresher training programs are essential for the mitigation of the aforementioned barriers, and are expected to lead to the development of new strategies for the overcoming of these communication barriers.

Keywords

• Bayesian network
• Bridge team
• Collaboration
• Communication barriers
• Navigation

References

1. Aydın, M., & Kamal, B. (2022). A fuzzy-Bayesian approach on the bankruptcy of Hanjin Shipping. Journal of ETA Maritime Science, 10(1), 2-15. https://doi.org/10.4274/jems.2021.56689
2. Aydin, M., Kamal, B., & Çakır, E. (2024). Evaluation of human error in oil spill risk in tanker cargo handling operations. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 31(3), 3995-4011. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-31402-x
3. Aylward, K., Weber, R., Man, Y., Lundh, M., & MacKinnon, S. N. (2020). “Are you planning to follow your route?” The effect of route exchange on decision making, trust, and safety. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 8(4), 280. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse8040280
4. Akan, E., & Bayar, S. (2022). Interval type-2 fuzzy program evaluation and review technique for project management in shipbuilding. Ships and Offshore Structures, 17(8), 1872-1890. https://doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2021.1950350
5. Barić, M., Čulin, J., & Bielić, T. (2018). Problems that occur in a team: Learning from maritime accidents via simulation training. TransNav: International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation, 12(4), 709-713. https://doi.org/10.12716/1001.12.04.09
6. Bayes Fusion LLC. (2021). Bayesian Genie 3.0 program. https://www.bayesfusion.com/2020/08/26/genie-3-0-released/.
7. BSU. (2019). Grounding of the Bulk Carrier MV Glory Amsterdam on 29 Oct 2017. Federal Bureau of Maritime Casualty Investigation Report No: 408/17, 6 March 2019.
8. Butchibabu, A., Sparano-Huiban, C., Sonenberg, L., & Shah, J. (2016). Implicit coordination strategies for effective team communication. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 58(4), 595-610. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872081663971

9. Çakır, E., & Kamal, B. (2021). İstanbul Boğazı’ndaki ticari gemi kazalarının karar ağacı yöntemiyle analizi [Analysis of merchant vessel accidents in Istanbul Strait through decision tree method]. Journal of Aquatic Research, 4(1), 10-20. https://doi.org/10.3153/ar21002
10. Cavaleiro, S. C., Gomes C., & Lopes, M. G. (2020). Bridge resource management: Training for the minimisation of human error in the military naval context. The Journal of Navigation, 73(5), 1146–1158. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0373463320000235
11. Chang, C. H., Kontovas, C., Yu, Q., & Yang, Z. (2021). Risk assessment of the operations of maritime autonomous surface ships. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 207, 107324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2020.107324
12. Chauvin, C., Lardjane, S., Morel, G., Clostermann, J. P., & Langard, B. (2013). Human and organisational factors in maritime accidents: Analysis of collisions at sea using the HFACS. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 59, 26-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2013.05.006
13. Chen, P., Zhang, Z., Huang, Y., Dai, L., & Hu, H. (2022). Risk assessment of marine accidents with Fuzzy Bayesian Networks and causal analysis. Ocean & Coastal Management, 228, 106323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2022.106323
14. Clemen, R. T., & Winkler R. L. (1999). Combining probability distributions from experts in risk analysis. Risk Analysis, 19(2), 187–203. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006917509560
15. Coraddu, A., Oneto, L., de Maya, B. N., & Kurt, R. (2020). Determining the most influential human factors in maritime accidents: A data-driven approach. Journal of Ocean Engineering, 211, 107588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2020.107588
16. Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26(3), 435-462. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(00)00044-1
17. Danielsen, B. E, Lützhöft M., Haavik, T. M., Johnsen, S. O., & Porathe, T. (2022). Seafarers should be navigating by the stars’: Barriers to usability in ship bridge design. Cognition, Technology and Work, 24(4), 675–691. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-022-00700-8
18. EMSA. (2023). Annual overview of marine casualties and incidents 2023. European Maritime Safety Agency.
19. Erven, B. L. (2002). Overcoming barriers to communication. Ohio State University.
20. Gervits, F., Eberhard, K., & Scheutz, M. (2016). Team communication as a collaborative process. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 3, 62. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2016.00062
21. Gürüz, D., & Temel Eğinli, A. (2013). İletişim Becerileri Anlamak-Anlatmak-Anlaşmak (3. Baskı). Nobel Yayınevi.
22. Güzel, A. T., Wamugi, J. W., Camliyurt, G., Dae-won, K., & Young-soo, P. (2023). Communication failures during chemical tanker cargo operations. Journal of Navigation and Port Research, 47(5), 296-304. https://doi.org/10.5394/KINPR.2023.47.5.296
23. Halis, M. (2000). Örgütsel iletişim ve iletişim tatminine ilişkin bir araştırma. Atatürk Üniversitesi Iktisadi ve Idari Bilimler Dergisi, 14(1), 217-230.
24. Hsu, H. M., & Chen, C. T. (1996). Aggregation of fuzzy opinions under group decision making. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 79(3), 279-285. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(95)00185-9
25. ICS. (2022). Bridge Procedures Guide. 6th ed. Marisec Publications.
26. Rony, Z. I., Mofijur, M., Hasan, M. M., Rasul, M. G., Jahirul, M. I., Ahmed, S. F., Kalan, M. A., Badruddin, I. A., Khan, T. M. Y., & Show, P. L. (2023). Alternative fuels to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from marine transport and promote UN sustainable development goals. Fuel, 338, 127220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2022.127220
27. John, P., Brooks, B., Wand, C., & Schriever, U. (2013). Information density in bridge team communication and miscommunication—A quantitative approach to evaluate maritime communication. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 12, 229-244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-013-0043-8
28. John, P., Noble, A., & Björkroth, P. (2016). Low-fi simulation of bridge team communication: A study of the authenticity of language patterns observed in ‘chat’ messaging to facilitate Maritime English training. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 15, 337-351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-015-0097-x
29. JTSB. (2020). Container vessel OOCL NAGOYA. Japan Transport Safety Board. Accident report no: MA2020-7.
30. Kamal, B., Kara, G., & Okşaş, O. (2020). An application of fuzzy analytic hierarchy process to overcapacity absorbing methods in container shipping. The International Journal of Maritime Engineering, 162(A4), A-331-A-344. https://doi.org/10.5750/ijme.v162iA4.1142
31. Kapur, R. (2018). Barriers to effective communication. Delhi University.
32. Kee, D., Jun, G. T., Waterson, P., & Haslam, R. (2017). A systemic analysis of South Korea Sewol ferry accident–Striking a balance between learning and accountability. Applied Ergonomics, 59, 504-516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2016.07.014
33. Mahadevan, S., Zhang, R., & Smith, N. (2001). Bayesian networks for system reliability reassessment. Structural Safety, 23(3), 231–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4730(01)00017-0
34. MAIB. (2015). Report on the investigation of the collision between the container ship Ever Smart and the oil tanker Alexandra 1. Marine Accident Investigation Branch. Report No: 28/2015, Dec 2015.
35. MAIB. (2020). Report on the investigation of the grounding of the general cargo vessel. Marine Accident Investigation Branch. Accident report no: 7/2021.
36. Makridakis, S., & Winkler, R. L. (1983). Averages of forecasts: Some empirical results. Management Science, 29(9), 987-996. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.29.9.987
37. Mallam, S. C., Nazir, S., & Sharma, A. (2020). The human element in future maritime operations–perceived impact of autonomous shipping. Ergonomics, 63(3), 334-345. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2019.1659995
38. Mallouppas, G., & Yfantis, E. A. (2021). Decarbonization in shipping industry: A review of research, technology development, and innovation proposals. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 9(4), 415. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse9040415
39. MCIB. (2022). Report of an investigation into an incident Involving two passenger ferries engaged in a close quarter incident at Rosslare Harbour Co. Wexford. Marine Casualty Investigation Board. Accident report no: MCIB/317.
40. NTSB. (2020). Contact of Cruise Ship Norwegian Epic with San Juan Cruise Port Pier 3. National Transportation Safety Board. Accident report no: NTSB/MAB-20/04.
41. Paolo, F., Gianfranco, F., Luca, F., Marco, M., Andrea, M., Francesco, M., & Patrizia, S. (2021). Investigating the role of the human element in maritime accidents using semi-supervised hierarchical methods. Transportation Research Procedia, 52, 252-259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2021.01.029
42. Ping, P., Wang, K., Kong, D., & Chen, G. (2018). Estimating probability of success of escape, evacuation, and rescue (EER) on the offshore platform by integrating Bayesian network and fuzzy AHP. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 54, 57-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2018.02.007
43. Rajakarunakaran, S., Kumar A. M., & Prabhu, V. A. (2015). Applications of fuzzy faulty tree analysis and expert elicitation for evaluation of risks in LPG refuelling station. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 33, 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2014.11.016
44. Rani, K. U. (2016). Communication barriers. Journal of English Language and Literature, 3(2), 74-76.
45. Rostamabadi, A., Jahangiri, M., Zarei, E., Kamalinia, M., Banaee, S., & Samaei, M. R. (2019). A novel fuzzy Bayesian network-HFACS (FBN-HFACS) model for analyzing human and organization factors (HOFs) in process accidents. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 132, 59-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2019.08.012
46. Salvation, M. D. (2019). Communication and conflict resolution in the workplace: Overcoming barriers in matrix coating. Dev Sanskriti Interdisciplinary International Journal, 13, 25-46.
47. Shi, X., Zhuang, H., & Xu, D. (2021). Structured survey of human factor-related maritime accident research. Ocean Engineering, 237, 109561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2021.109561
48. 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 & System Safety, 156, 210-227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2016.08.007
49. Sutter, M., & Strassmair, C. (2009). Communication, cooperation and collusion in team tournaments—an experimental study. Games and Economic Behavior, 66(1), 506-525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2008.02.014
50. Tunçel, A. L., & Arslan, O. (2022) Determination of critical risk factors that prevent in-ship communication during ship operational processes. Proceedings of the International Association of Maritime Universities Conference, Georgia, pp.4_7: 1-5.
51. UEIM. (2019). VITASPIRIT Marine Safety Investigation Report, Due to the Striking Mansion on the Eastern Bank of the İstanbul Strait, Republic of Turkey Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure Transport Safety Investigation Center, 7 April 2018,
52. UK Chamber of Shipping. (2020). Bridge Resource Management Guidance. Witherbys.
53. USCG. (2022). Report of the Investigation into the EVER FORWARD (O.N. 9850551) Grounding in the vicinity of Craighill Channel on March 13, 2022, United States Coast Guard, Misle Activity: 7412263.
54. Wang, W. J. (1997). New similarity measures on fuzzy sets and on elements. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 85(3), 305-309. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(95)00365-7
55. Wang, Y. F., Roohi, S. F., Hu, X. M., & Xie, M. (2010). A new methodology to integrate human factors analysis and classification system with Bayesian network. Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, China, pp. 1776-1780.
56. Wang, Y. F., Roohi, S. F., Hu, X. M., & Xie, M. (2011). Investigations of human and organizational factors in hazardous vapor accidents. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 191(1-3), 69-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2011.04.040
57. White, B. A. A., Eklund, A., McNeal, T., Hochhalter, A., & Arroliga, A. C. (2018). Facilitators and barriers to ad hoc team performance. Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, 31(3), 380-384. https://doi.org/10.1080/08998280.2018.1457879
58. Wu, B., Yip, T. L., Yan, X., & Soares, C. G. (2022). Review of techniques and challenges of human and organizational factors analysis in maritime transportation. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 219, 108249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2021.108249
59. Yang, Z., Bonsall, S., & Wang, J. (2008). Fuzzy rule-based Bayesian reasoning approach for prioritization of failures in FMEA. IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 57(3), 517–528. https://doi.org/10.1109/TR.2008.928208
60. Yazdi, M., & Kabir, S. (2017). A fuzzy Bayesian network approach for risk analysis in process industries. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 111, 507-519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2017.08.015
61. Yıldırım, U., Başar, E., & Uğurlu, Ö. (2019). Assessment of collisions and grounding accidents with human factors analysis and classification system (HFACS) and statistical methods. Safety Science, 119, 412-425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.09.022
62. Yusof, A. N. A. M., & Rahmat, N. H. (2020). Communication barriers at the workplace: A case study. European Journal of Education Studies, 7(11), 228-240.
63. Zarei, E., Yazdi, M., Abbassi, R., & Khan, F. (2019). A hybrid model for human factor analysis in process accidents: FBN-HFACS. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 57, 142-155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2018.11.015
64. Zhang, D., Yan, X. P., Yang, Z. L., Wall, A., & Wang, J. (2013). Incorporation of formal safety assessment and Bayesian network in navigational risk estimation of the Yangtze River. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 118, 93-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2013.04.006
65. Zhang, L., Wu, X., Skibniewski, M. J., Zhong, J., & Lu, Y. (2014). Bayesian-network-based safety risk analysis in construction projects. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 131, 29-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2014.06.006
66. Zhang, M., Zhang, D., Goerlandt, F., Yan, X., & Kujala, P. (2019). Use of HFACS and fault tree model for collision risk factors analysis of icebreaker assistance in ice-covered waters. Safety Science, 111, 128-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2018.07.002