INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION

E
IMO

SUB-COMMITTEE ON SAFETY OF NAV 54/13

NAVIGATION 28 March 2008
54th session Original: ENGLISH
Agenda item 13

DEVELOPMENT OF AN E-NAVIGATION STRATEGY

Report from the e-Navigation Correspondence Group

Submitted by the United Kingdom

SUMMARY
Executive summary: This document is the proposed high level strategy for e-Navigation
submitted by the Correspondence Group, and also advises on the
methodology adopted to identify user needs. It also proposes an
implementation strategy for e-Navigation
Strategic Direction: 5.2
High-level Action: 5.2.4
Planned Output: 5.2.4.4
Action to be taken: Paragraph 27
Related documents: MSC/Circ.1091, MSC/Circ.878, MSC/Circ.346; resolution MSC.252(83);
MSC/Circ.982; NAV 53/22, NAV 53/13, NAV 53/13/1; COMSAR 12/11
and NAV 54/INF.3

Introduction

1 NAV 53 agreed that in order to progress the work on the e-Navigation strategy for
NAV 54, the intersessional Correspondence Group should be re-established under the
co-ordination of the United Kingdom. The Group includes representatives from different Flag
States, Maritime Agencies and Non-Governmental Organizations. Flag States who participated
include Australia, the Bahamas, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, Finland, Germany,
Japan, the Marshall Islands, the Netherlands, Norway, Panama, Poland, Portugal, the Republic of
Korea, South Africa, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the
United States. Other Governmental and Non-Governmental Organizations that participated
include APA, BIMCO, British Chamber of Shipping, CIRM, IALA, ICS, IEC, IFSMA, IHMA,
IHO, IMPA, INTERCARGO, INTERTANKO, MENAS, the Nautical Institute, and OCIMF.

For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are
kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not to request additional copies.

I:\NAV\54\13.doc
NAV 54/13 -2-

2 NAV 53 also approved the terms of reference (see annex 1) for this Correspondence
Group. Specifically the Group was asked to:

.1 identify all potential users of e-Navigation;

.2 define the user needs for e-Navigation;

.3 review the need to consult other maritime agencies and interest groups –
navigational practitioners, support agencies, research organizations, equipment
manufacturers and port managers; and

.4 continue to develop other aspects of the strategic vision for e-Navigation.

3 This report provides:

.1 a description of potential users of e-Navigation;

.2 a description of a methodology for capturing user needs from stakeholders;

.3 generic high level user needs for ship and shore based users using the above
methodology;

.4 a strategic vision for developing e-Navigation based on user needs and in

consideration of the need to involve other maritime agencies and interest groups –
navigational practitioners, support agencies, research organizations, equipment
manufacturers and port managers; and

.5 proposals for implementing the e-Navigation strategy based on; identifying

existing systems, system requirements, gap analysis, role of cost benefit analysis,
and system architecture.

4 In its work the Correspondence Group took into account relevant documents from
NAV 53, progress made at NAV 53 relating to the development of an e-Navigation strategy, the
guidance in MSC/Circ.1091 on Issues to be considered when introducing new technology on
board ship and MSC/Circ.878-MEPC/Circ.346 on Human Element Analysing Process (HEAP).
The Correspondence Group also acknowledges and is grateful for the work performed by other
stakeholders – in particular, the work done by IALA in identifying users groups and their
respective needs.

Background

5 MSC 81 included the task “Development of an e-Navigation strategy” as a high priority

item in the work programmes of the NAV and COMSAR Sub-Committees with a target
completion date of 2008. The NAV Sub-Committee was designated as the co-ordinator with
NAV 52 giving preliminary consideration to this important matter.

6 NAV 52 established an intersessional Correspondence Group to develop the e-Navigation

strategy. This first Correspondence Group consisted of 60 Members from Member States and
non-governmental Organizations and was co-ordinated by the United Kingdom. As instructed,
this Correspondence Group submitted a document for consideration by COMSAR 11 and made a
comprehensive report to NAV 53 in July 2007. Based on the reports from Correspondence
Group and COMSAR 11 as well as discussions in plenary, NAV 53 established a Working
Group to progress and further refine the preliminary e-Navigation strategy.
I:\NAV\54\13.doc
 -3- NAV 54/13

Discussion

7 Based on the inputs from the intersessional Correspondence Group, COMSAR 11 and the
Working Group, NAV 53 provisionally finalized the following for e-Navigation:

“e-Navigation is the harmonized collection, integration, exchange, presentation and

analysis of marine information onboard and ashore by electronic means to enhance berth
to berth navigation and related services for safety and security at sea and protection of
the marine environment.”

The concept is based on the harmonization of marine navigation systems and supporting shore
services necessary to meet identified user needs.

8 NAV 53 agreed that the core objectives of the e-Navigation concept using electronic data
capture, communication, processing and presentation should be to:

.1 facilitate safe and secure navigation of vessels having regard to hydrographic,

meteorological and navigational information and risks;

.2 facilitate vessel traffic observation and management from shore/coastal facilities,

where appropriate;

.3 facilitate communications, including data exchange, among ship to ship, ship to

shore, shore to ship, shore to shore and other users;

.4 provide opportunities for improving the efficiency of transport and logistics;

.5 support the effective operation of contingency response, and search and rescue
services;

.6 demonstrate defined levels of accuracy, integrity and continuity appropriate to a

safety-critical system;

.7 integrate and present information onboard and ashore through a human interface
which maximizes navigational safety benefits and minimizes any risks of
confusion or misinterpretation on the part of the user;

.8 integrate and present information onboard and ashore to manage the workload of
the users, while also motivating and engaging the user and supporting
decision-making;

.9 incorporate training and familiarization requirements for the users throughout the
development and implementation process;

.10 facilitate global coverage, consistent standards and arrangements, and mutual
compatibility and interoperability of equipment, systems, symbology and
operational procedures, so as to avoid potential conflicts between users; and

.11 support scalability, to facilitate use by all potential maritime users.

I:\NAV\54\13.doc
NAV 54/13 -4-

9 NAV 53 agreed to the following expectations for the onboard, onshore and
communications elements of e-Navigation:

.1 Onboard:
Navigation systems that benefit from the integration of own ship sensors,
supporting information, a standard user interface, and a comprehensive system for
managing guard zones and alerts. Core elements of such a system will include,
actively engaging the mariner in the process of navigation while preventing
distraction and overburdening,

.2 Ashore:
The management of vessel traffic and related services from ashore enhanced
through better provision, co-ordination, and exchange of comprehensive data in
formats that will be more easily understood and utilized by shore-based operators
in support of vessel safety and efficiency, and

.3 Communications:
An infrastructure providing authorized seamless information transfer onboard
ship, between ships, between ship and shore and between shore authorities and
other parties with many related benefits, including a reduction of single person
error.

These have been used as the starting point for the development of user requirements:

Compelling Need for e-Navigation

10 There is a clear and compelling need to equip shipboard users and those ashore
responsible for the safety of shipping with modern, proven tools that are optimized for good
decision making in order to make maritime navigation and communications more reliable and
user friendly. The overall goal is to reduce errors. However, if current technological advances
continue without proper co-ordination there is a risk that the future development of marine
navigation systems will be hampered through a lack of standardization onboard and ashore,
incompatibility between vessels and an increased and unnecessary level of complexity.

11 e-Navigation supports the global concept of Vessel Traffic Management (VTM),

reflecting the interaction between shipborne and shore-based users.

12 Further justification for e-Navigation is contained in annex 2, which is drawn from

research by The Nautical Institute on collisions and groundings over the last 10 years.

Potential users of e-Navigation

13 A significant number of potential ship and shore-based users of e-Navigation have been
identified and are summarized in annex 3.

14 The needs of a typical SOLAS ship user and a generic shore authority have been used as
the basis for developing this strategy.

I:\NAV\54\13.doc
 -5- NAV 54/13

Capturing e-Navigation User Needs

15 IALA has developed a methodology for capturing evolving user needs (annex 4). It is
based on the elements contained within the accepted definition of e-Navigation and uses
templates to define specific user needs based on the harmonized: collection, integration,
exchange, presentation, analysis and human element aspects for all users. This methodology was
accepted by the Correspondence Group and distributed amongst members of IMO, IALA and
other maritime agencies and interest groups.

Analysis of e-Navigation User Needs

16 Following extensive feedback from Member States, other Maritime Organizations, and
interested parties; an analysis was conducted resulting in the identification of high-level generic
user needs for both ship and shore users. Annex 5 contains completed user need methodology
templates for the SOLAS mariner and shore authorities (including VTS, coastal surveillance,
SAR, counter pollution, port authorities, and other maritime services).

17 It is envisioned that more detailed user needs study may need to be performed in order to
identify users with specific needs that were not captured in the initial analysis.

Consolidated High-level User Needs

18 The following high-level user needs are distilled from the user need analysis provided in
annex 5:

.1 Common Maritime Information/Data Structure:

Mariners require information pertaining to the planning and execution of voyages,
the assessment of navigation risk and compliance with regulation. This
information should be accessible from a single integrated system. Shore users
require information pertaining to their maritime domain, including static and
dynamic information on vessels and their voyages. This information should be
provided in an internationally agreed common data structure. Such a data
structure is essential for the sharing of information amongst shore authorities on a
regional and international basis.

.2 Automated and Standardized Reporting Functions:

e-Navigation should provide automated and standardized reporting functions for
optimal communication of ship and voyage information. This includes safety
related information that is transmitted ashore, sent from shore to shipborne users
and information pertaining to security and environmental protection to be
communicated amongst all users. Reporting requirements should be automated or
pre-prepared to the extent possible both in terms of content and communications
technology. Information exchange should be harmonized and simplified to reduce
reporting requirements. It is recognized that security, legal and commercial issues
will have to be considered in addressing communications needs.

.3 Effective and Robust communications:

A clear need was expressed for there to be an effective and robust means of
communications for ship and shore users. Shore-based users require an effective
means of communicating with vessels to facilitate safety, security and
environmental protection and to provide operational information. To be effective,
communication with and between vessels should make best use of audio/visual
I:\NAV\54\13.doc
NAV 54/13 -6-

aids and standard phrases to minimize linguistic challenges and distractions to

operators.

.4 Human Centred Presentation Needs:

Navigation displays should be designed to clearly indicate risk and to optimize
support for decision making. There is a need for an integrated ‘alert management
system’ as contained in the present IMO Integrated Navigation System (INS)
performance standards. Consideration should be given to the use of decision
support systems that offer suggested responses to certain alerts, and the
integration of navigation alerts onboard ships within a whole ship alert
management system. Users require uniform and consistent presentations and
operation functionality to enhance the effectiveness of internationally
standardized training, certification and familiarization. The concept of S-Mode1
has been widely supported as an application onboard ship during the work of the
Correspondence Group. Shore users require displays that are fully flexible
supporting both a Common Operating Picture (COP) and a User Defined
Operating Picture (UDOP) with layered and/or tabulated displays. All displays
should be designed to limit the possibility of confusion and misinterpretation
when sharing safety related information.

.5 Human Machine Interface:

e-Navigation systems must be designed to engage and motivate the user while
managing workload. As electronic systems take on a greater role, facilities need to
be developed for the capture and presentation of information from visual
observations, as well as user knowledge and experience. The presentation of
information for all users should be designed to reduce ‘single person errors’ and
enhance team operations. There is a clear need for the application of ergonomic
principles both in the physical layout of equipment and in the use of light, colours,
symbology and language.

.6 Data and System Integrity:

e-Navigation systems should be resilient and take into account issues of data
validity, plausibility and integrity for the systems to be robust, reliable and
dependable. Requirements for redundancy, particularly in relation to position
fixing systems, should be considered.

.7 Analysis:
e-Navigation systems should support good decision making, improve performance
and prevent single person error. To do so, shipboard systems should include
analysis functions that support the user in complying with regulations, identifying
risks, and avoiding collisions and groundings including the calculation of Under
Keel Clearance (UKC) and air draughts. Shore based systems should support
environmental impact analysis, forward planning of vessel movements,
hazard/risk assessment, reporting indicators and incident prevention.
Consideration should also be given to the use of analysis for incident response and
recovery, risk assessment and response planning, incident detection and
prevention, risk mitigation, preparedness, resource (e.g., asset) management and
communication.

1
S-Mode is the proposed functionality for shipborne navigation displays using a standard, default presentation,
menu system and interface.

I:\NAV\54\13.doc
 -7- NAV 54/13

.8 Implementation Issues:
Training, good practices and familiarization relating to aspects of e-Navigation for
all users must be effective and established in advance of technical
implementation. The use of simulation to establish training needs and assess its
effectiveness is endorsed. e-Navigation should as far as practical be compatible
forwards and backwards and support integration with equipment and systems
under existing IMO carriage requirements. The highest level of interoperability
between e-Navigation and external systems should be sought where practicable.

Developing an e-Navigation Strategy

19 The development of the e-Navigation strategy has followed a top-down, holistic approach
through the Correspondence Group and in close cooperation with the IALA e-Navigation
Committee (e-NAV). As identified in the report of NAV 53, it is essential that the strategy be
based on a structured methodology and logical phases. The strategy has taken into account the
previous work done by the Correspondence Group, the recommendations of COMSAR 11 and
NAV 53 on the identification of essential functions for shipboard systems under the e-Navigation
strategy (NAV 53/13/1) and work done by IALA in developing a methodology for capturing and
defining user needs.

e-Navigation Strategy

20 In order to implement e-Navigation several steps are required. This includes a strategy
comprising a number of elements (listed below), and additionally a gap analysis, cost benefit
analysis and the creation of a detailed implementation plan. The implementation plan will need
to identify responsible jurisdictions which would in turn be responsible for determining
appropriate methods of delivery. Implementation of the strategy will also need to take into
account public relations and promotion of the e-Navigation concept to key stakeholder and user
groups.

21 In order to capture evolving user needs, it is important that the implementation strategy
elements remain under review. A structured approach will be required to capture evolving user
needs, making use of the existing agreed methodology, to incorporate any ensuing changes into
the strategy and implementation plan.

22 Key strategy elements for e-Navigation include: Architecture, Human Element,

Convention and Standards, Position Fixing, Communication and Information Systems, ENCs,
Equipment and Standardization and Scalability.

.1 Architecture:
The overall conceptual, functional and technical architecture will need to be
developed and maintained, particularly in terms of process description, data
structures, information systems, communications technology and regulations.

.2 Human Element:
Training, competency, language skills, workload and motivation are identified as
essential. Alert management, information overload and ergonomics are prominent
concerns. These aspects of e-Navigation will have to be taken into account in
accordance with IMO Human Element work.

I:\NAV\54\13.doc
NAV 54/13 -8-

.3 Conventions and Standards:

The provision and development of e-Navigation should consider relevant
international conventions, regulations and guidelines, national legislation and
standards. The development and implementation of e-Navigation should
build upon the existing work of IMO. This includes SOLAS requirements for
navigation and communication equipment; other provisions of SOLAS
chapters IV and V; standards for GMDSS, ECDIS and INS; Human Element
Issues of HMI, Ergonomics, and the implementation of new
technology (MSC/Circ.1091); Performance Standards for the Presentation of
Navigation-Related Information on Shipborne Navigational Displays (resolution
MSC.191(79)), and the STCW Convention.

.4 Position Fixing:
Position fixing systems will need to be provided that meet user needs in terms of
accuracy, integrity, reliability and system redundancy in accordance with the level
of risk and volume of traffic.

.5 Communications and Information Systems:

Communications and information systems will have to be identified to meet user
needs. This work may involve the enhancement of existing systems or the
development of new systems. Any impacts affecting existing systems will need to
be identified and addressed, based on technical standards and protocols for data
structure, technology, and bandwidth and frequency allocations.

.6 ENCs:
At NAV 53 IHO reported, “There would be adequate coverage of consistent
ENCs by the time any further mandatory carriage requirements were likely to be
adopted by IMO”. The Sub-Committee was also of the opinion that the
availability of ENCs worldwide was most important and requested IHO and
Member Governments to continue their efforts in increasing the coverage.
E-Navigation will likely benefit from increased functionality of the future IHO
S-100 standard.

.7 Equipment Standardization:
This part of the work will follow the development of performance standards and
will involve users and manufacturers.

.8 Scalability:
IMO Member States have a responsibility for the safety of all classes of vessels.
This may include the scalability of e-Navigation for all potential users. Extension
of the concept to non-SOLAS vessels should be seen as an important task, to be
addressed, in the first instance through consultation on user requirements.

Strategy Implementation

23 An implementation plan should include priorities for deliverables, resource management

and a schedule for implementation and the continual assessment of user needs.

24 The identification of commonalities across users making best use of existing capabilities
and systems should be considered.

I:\NAV\54\13.doc
 -9- NAV 54/13

25 In the future, the deployment of new technologies should be based on a systematic

assessment of how the technology can best meet defined and evolving user needs within the
e-Navigation concept. Similarly, proposed changes to tasks and process, such as those resulting
from the analysis of maritime accidents, should also incorporate the assessment of user needs.

26 Cooperation with relevant maritime projects should be maintained throughout the

implementation process (e.g., MarNIS, MEH) in order to benefit from synergies.

Action requested of the Sub-Committee

27 The Sub-Committee is:

1. requested to note the high-level user needs and support the proposed e-Navigation
Strategy with its strategic elements; and

2. invited to consider an appropriate course of action for the adoption of the Strategy
at MSC 85.

***

I:\NAV\54\13.doc
 NAV 54/13

ANNEX 1

Correspondence Group Terms of reference

1 NAV 53 agreed to progress the development of an e-Navigation strategy for NAV 54.
The intersessional Correspondence Group was re-established under the coordination of the
United Kingdom.

2 NAV 53 also approved the terms of reference for this Correspondence Group which
should:

.1 identify all potential users of e-Navigation;

.2 define the user needs for e-Navigation;

.3 review the need to consult other maritime agencies and interest groups –
navigational practitioners, support agencies, research organizations, equipment
manufacturers and port managers; and

.4 continue to develop other aspects of the strategic vision for e-Navigation.

3 In its work the Correspondence Group took into account:

.1 NAV 53/WP.4 and NAV 53/13/1 (Japan),

.2 progress made at NAV 53 relating to the development of an e-Navigation strategy,

.3 guidance in MSC/Circ.1091 on Issues to be considered when introducing new

technology on board ship, and

.4 MSC/Circ.878-MEPC/Circ.346 on Human Element Analysing Process (HEAP).

***

I:\NAV\54\13.doc
 NAV 54/13

ANNEX 2

The Case for e-Navigation

The original submission to MSC on the development of a work programme for e-Navigation
(MSC 81/23/10) highlights the compelling need to equip the master of a vessel and others
responsible for the safety of shipping with modern (but proven) tools to improve the reliability of
marine navigation and communications thereby reducing the potential for loss of life, injury,
environmental damage (both through normal operations, e.g., emissions, and in accidents, e.g.,
spillages) and unnecessary commercial cost. A recent report by the International Union of
Marine Insurance indicates that raising trends of marine accidents both in terms of numbers and
costs are those associated with collisions and groundings. There are numerous examples of
accidents and incidents, especially collisions and groundings, which subsequent investigation and
analysis suggests they might have been avoided had there been suitable input from the
appropriate technologies in the navigation decision-making process. The following table
summarizes the causes of collisions and groundings during the last ten years. The causal data
and examples cited in the table are derived from Nautical Institute (NI) research into collisions
and groundings2. This research indicates that, of the collisions and grounding investigated,
around 60% are caused by direct human error. Most accidents and incidents occurred outside of
VTS and Pilotage areas “indicating that VTS and Pilotage works effectively considering that
most close quarter situations take place in these areas3”. The Nautical Institute research results
are summarized in the following table:

Collisions Groundings
ƒ 24% were attributed to insufficient ƒ 17% were attributed to poor or no
assessment of the situation passage plan
ƒ 23% were attributed to poor or no ƒ 18% were due to poor bridge
lookout, in addition, in 13% of management
collisions one vessel was completely ƒ 12% were due to no lookout/one man
unaware of the other vessel on the bridge
ƒ Other causes were: ƒ 14% were due to poor navigation
o confusion in VHF ƒ 22% were due to fatigue, including
communications (9%) 8% that were due to the OOW falling
o infractions of COLREGs (8%) asleep
o fatigue including officer of the ƒ 14% were due to poor
watch (OOW) falling asleep communication with the pilot
(11%) ƒ 3% were caused by a lack of
o poor bridge management (4%) procedures
o pilot/master communications
breakdown (1%)

The NI report quoted that “in 43% of all the collision cases involving merchant vessels that were
investigated by the United Kingdom’s Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB) over
a 10-year period, the watchkeeper was either completely unaware of the other vessel until time of
collision or only became aware of the other vessel when it was too late to take effective avoiding

2
The analysis uses data derived from the Nautical Institute and from the UK Marine Accident Investigation
Branch (MAIB), Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), Swedish Accident Investigation Board, Transport
Accident Investigation Commission (NZ), Transport Safety Board of Canada, ,Marine Accident Inquiry Agency
(Japan), Isle of Man Ship Registry, Irish Marine Casualty Investigation Board (IMCIB), and Accident
Investigation Board of Finland.
3
Seaways, The International Journal of the Nautical Institute, July 2007, pages 4 and 5.

I:\NAV\54\13.doc
NAV 54/13
ANNEX 2
Page 2

action”. This is almost entirely due to very poor watchkeeping, where lookouts are either not
present or ineffective, and the Officer of the Watch (OOW) is asleep, fatigued, absent, distracted
or totally disengaged with the task of keeping a safe navigation watch. Despite advances in
bridge resource management training, it seems that the majority of watchkeeping officers make
critical decisions for navigation and collision avoidance in isolation, due to a general reduction in
manning.

The IMO human element vision principles and goals (Resolution A.947(23)) contains the
principle: ‘In the process of developing regulations, it should be recognized that adequate
safeguards must be in place to ensure that a “single person error” will not cause an accident
through the application of these regulations.’

IMO MSC/Circ.878 states: ‘A single person error must not lead to an accident. The situation
must be such that errors can be corrected or their effect minimized. Corrections can be carried
out by equipment, individuals or others. This involves ensuring that the proposed solution does
not rely solely on the performance of a single individual’. In human reliability analysis terms,
the presence of someone checking the decision-making process improves reliability by a factor
of 10. If e-navigation could assist in improving this aspect, both by well-designed onboard
systems and closer cooperation with vessel traffic management (VTM) systems, risk of collisions
and grounding and their inherent liabilities could be dramatically reduced.

Although e-Navigation would have ameliorated the situations described above, technology alone
would not have provided a complete solution but there is a need to also recognize the role of the
practice of good seamanship, the provision of suitable training and the use of procedures.

***

I:\NAV\54\13.doc
 NAV 54/13

ANNEX 3

Preliminary list of Potential e-Navigation Users

The tables below provide preliminary lists of e-Navigation users classified into:
shipborne users, and
shore-based users.

Shipborne users
Generic SOLAS vessels
Commercial tourism craft
High speed craft
Mobile VTS assets
Pilot vessels
Coastguard vessels
SAR vessels
Law enforcement vessels (police, customs, border control, immigration, fisheries
inspection)
Nautical assistance vessels (tugs, salvage vessels, tenders, fire fighting, etc.)
Counter pollution vessels
Military vessels
Fishing vessels
Leisure craft
Ferries
Dredgers
AtoN service vessels
Ice patrol/breakers
Offshore energy vessels (rigs, supply vessels, lay barges, survey vessels, construction
vessels, cable layers, guard ships, production storage vessels)
Hydrographic survey vessels
Oceanographic research vessels

Shore-based users
Ship owners & operators, safety managers
VTM organizations
VTS centres
Pilot organizations
Coastguard organizations
Law enforcement organizations
National administrations
Coastal administrations
Port authorities
Security organizations
Port state control authorities
Incident managers
Counter pollution organizations
Military organizations
Fairway maintenance organizations

I:\NAV\54\13.doc
NAV 54/13
ANNEX 3
Page 2

AtoN organizations
Meteorological organizations
Hydrographic Offices/Agencies
Ship owners & operators, logistics managers
News organizations
Coastal management authorities
Marine accident investigators
Health and safety organizations
Insurance and financial organizations
National, regional and local governments and administration
Port authorities (strategic)
Ministries
Marine environment managers
Fisheries management
Tourism agencies (logistics)
Energy providers
Ocean research institutes
Training organizations
Equipment and system manufacturers and maintainers

***

I:\NAV\54\13.doc
 NAV 54/13

ANNEX 4

IALA e-Navigation User Needs Capture Methodology Template

User:

[Define user here i.e. Merchant mariner, Flag administration, VTS operator etc.. ]
Primary need:
[State primary need as a clear mission statement here e.g., “e-Navigation should
support mariners in the maintenance of safe passing, safe clearing distances and
collision avoidance”]

User Need Comments / Specifics

Collection
“e-Navigation should allow the collection [List the Harmonized
of all appropriate information needed to Collection of information
support the task of the Primary Need by that is needed for you as a
all available means.” user for this primary need
e.g., data from GPS,
nautical publications,
safety notices, etc… This
section should detail the
various pieces and
sources of data needed to
carry out the ‘primary
task’ that you would
benefit from if they were
available from a single
source or in a common
format i.e. ‘Collection’. If
any preferred details of
the source or format are
known they should be
mentioned...]

I:\NAV\54\13.doc
NAV 54/13
ANNEX 4
Page 2

Integrate “e-Navigation should integrate all [Once data has been

appropriate data and information needed ‘collected’, it will need to
to support the primary need.” be integrated in a
harmonized way into a
system in order for it to be
used in conjunction with
other data for the benefit
of the end user. If there
are any specific system
requirements or
limitations for such
integration (e.g., software,
hardware, protocols or
system integrity needs)
they should be mentioned
here in either detailed or
general terms. ]
Exchange “e-Navigation should allow for the [Harmonized information
exchange of any data or information and/or data exchange
needed to support the primary need.” issues should be
considered between any
parties such as ship/ship,
ship/shore, shore to shore
or broadcast needs. If
specific exchange issues
such as radio frequency,
bandwidth or protocols
are known, they should be
stated.]

Presentation e-Navigation should facilitate the clear [List any special

presentation of all information pertaining requirements from your
to the primary need in a manner that specific user need for the
supports the decision making process, presentation of
engages the user and minimizes any risk information that will
of distraction or over burden. improve your decision
It should also provide easy to use facilities making ability. This may
for a user to interact with the system and include the ergonomic
input data. grouping of information,
(presentation options such
as video and/or audio,) or
a preferred layout of
equipment and controls..]

I:\NAV\54\13.doc
 NAV 54/13
ANNEX 4
Page 3

Analysis “e-Navigation should support the user [Analysis needs may refer
through the appropriate analysis of data to any additional
and information to support the primary functionality for decision
need.” support tools, or the rapid
and systematic processing
of routine tasks..]
Human “e-Navigation should support the user [This section should be
Element through the application of Human used to identify all user
Issues Element principles to support the needs related to the
primary need.” human element on board
and ashore, (such as
effective training,
competencies,
familiarization, human
centred work
environment, distraction
from primary tasks,
human engagement,
workload, fatigue and job
satisfaction).]
Any other Comment:
[This section should be used to identify any restrictions or limitations assumed when
defining the primary need, (for e.g., when defining ‘safe navigation’ you might state
that the task of ‘grounding avoidance’ has been dealt with separately for
simplification. Or to make any other suggested ‘user needs’ that you feel have not been
addressed elsewhere in the exercise.]

***

I:\NAV\54\13.doc
 NAV 54/13

ANNEX 5

e-Navigation High Level User Needs for SOLAS Mariners and for Shore Authorities

User: Generic SOLAS Ship Mariner

Primary need: Safe and efficient berth to berth navigation

User Need Comments / Specifics

e-Navigation should allow the All information needed to plan a voyage

collection by electronic means of should be up to date, [approved] and
all appropriate information available in a standard format. Such
needed to support information should at least include; own
safe and efficient berth to berth ship information, hydrographic,
navigation. environmental, regulatory, sailing
directions; ships’ routing systems;
navigational warnings; company
instructions, charter details, pilotage
information/ plan, and master’s and
navigators’ knowledge and experience.
All information needed to execute a
voyage should be easily accessible and in
a standard format. This information shall
include all planning information as well
as sensor information such as Radar,
Electronic Position Fixing, AIS, Gyro,
Speed, under keel and air draft clearance,
and visual observation data.
Collection

It should also include communicated

information from other ships (e.g., AIS),
VTS and other shore authorities.

I:\NAV\54\13.doc
NAV 54/13
ANNEX 5
Page 2

e-Navigation should integrate all Information shall be automatically

appropriate data and information checked for validity and plausibility.
needed to support a safe and Data failing these checks should not be
efficient berth to berth used by the system, and a warning shall
navigation. be given.
The integrity of information should be
monitored and verified automatically
before being used.
e-Navigation systems must have
sufficient integrity and/or redundancy
commensurate with the safety, security
and environmental protection
requirements.
Integrate

All passage related information should be

made available to the mariner in an
effective manner via an integrated
system.
e-Navigation should allow for Relevant data and information should be
the exchange of any data or able to be exchanged throughout the ship,
information needed to support between ships, and between ships and
safe and efficient berth to berth shore.
navigation. The mode and level of automated/manual
Exchange

exchange should take into account the

workload placed on the mariner while
observing all international and national
requirements.
e-Navigation should facilitate the Passage planning and execution
clear presentation of all information from the e-Navigation
information pertaining to the safe system must be displayed in a manner
and efficient berth to berth that optimizes the decision making
navigation in a manner that process while reducing the effects of
supports the decision making information overload.
process, engages the user and Consideration must be given to a simply
minimizes any risk of distraction activated standardized presentation
or over burden. display and operating system, such as the
It should also provide easy to use concept of S-Mode.
facilities for a user to interact Displays should have the functionality to
with the system and input data. support tactical and planning operations,
collision avoidance, and the management
of integrated alerts.
Presentation

The presentation of information should

be designed to reduce ‘single person
errors’ and enhance bridge team
operation including the pilot and lookout.

I:\NAV\54\13.doc
 NAV 54/13
ANNEX 5
Page 3

e-Navigation should provide the e-Navigation should support decision

user with the appropriate making, improve performance and
analysis of data and information prevent single person error. The system
to enhance the safety and should include analysis functions that
efficiency of berth to berth support the user in complying with
navigation. regulations; identifying risks, avoiding
collisions and groundings, managing
Analysis

alerts, and complement mariners’

capabilities while compensating for any
limitations.
e-Navigation should support the Systems need to be designed to manage
user through the application of the workload of the mariner while also
Human Element principles in motivating and engaging the mariner and
order to achieve safe and supporting the decision making process.
efficient berth to berth Training, certification, good practices,
Human Element Issues

navigation. familiarization need to be addressed for

all functional aspects of e-Navigation.
Standardized information presentation,
symbols, abbreviations, and coding
should be used.
Consideration should be given to
ergonomics, ease of use, standardization,
and the working environment to optimize
human performance.
Any other Comment:
This template describes the basic user needs for e-navigation from the perspective of a
mariner on a generic SOLAS ship. Further or alternate functional requirements for
mariners on other vessels will be contained in additional templates.

I:\NAV\54\13.doc
NAV 54/13
ANNEX 5
Page 4

User: Generic Shore-based Authority

(Including VTS, Coastal Surveillance, SAR, Counter Pollution, Port Authorities, and other
maritime services.)

Primary need: Effective management of the maritime domain, including support for safe
and efficient navigation, security, and the protection of the marine environment.

User Need Comments / Specifics

e-Navigation should allow the Collect all information needed to accurately

collection of all appropriate represent the static and dynamic maritime
information needed to effectively domain, including hydrographic, environmental,
manage the maritime domain. vessel data, AtoN information and known
hazards.
Collect all guidance and regulatory information
pertaining to the domain.
Collection of all other existing information that
Collection

can add value to the awareness of the maritime

domain, including voyage and vessel specific
data, emergency logistics, communication
networks and general infrastructure.
e-Navigation should integrate all Information shall be automatically checked for
appropriate data and information validity, and plausibility. Data failing these
needed to effectively manage the checks should not be used by the system, and a
maritime domain. warning shall be given.
The integrity of information should be
monitored and verified automatically before
being used.
e-Navigation systems must have sufficient
integrity and/or redundancy commensurate with
Integrate

safety and security requirements.

All pertinent information should be made
available to authorized users in an effective
manner via an integrated system.
e-Navigation should allow for the Relevant data and information should be able to
exchange of any data or information be exchanged throughout the domain, including
needed to effectively manage the between ships, between ships and shore, and
maritime domain. between shore users.
The mode and level of automated/manual
exchange should take into account workload,
safety, security and other regulatory issues.
Exchange

Communications within the domain should focus

on tasks, (point to point or broadcast) with a
high level of system transparency (e.g., choice of
frequency or technology).

I:\NAV\54\13.doc
 NAV 54/13
ANNEX 5
Page 5

e-Navigation should facilitate the The presentation of e-Navigation information

clear presentation of all information should be flexible and focused on the needs of
pertaining to the need to effectively authorized users.
manage the maritime domain in a Presentations should be task-based and offer the
manner that supports the decision optimum information, tools and scope to
making process, engages the user and facilitate the user’s decision making
Presentation

minimizes any risk of distraction or requirements.

over burden. Consideration should be given to using a
It should also provide easy to use Geographical Information System (GIS), and a
facilities for a user to interact with layered, or tabulated format.
the system.
e-Navigation should support the user e-Navigation should support decision making,
through the appropriate analysis of improve performance and prevent single person
data and information for the effective error. It should also contribute to the process of
management of the maritime domain. assessing impacts on the environment, including:
operational planning, hazard/risk assessment,
reporting indicators and incident prevention.
Consideration should also be given to the use of
functional analysis including: incident response,
situation recovery, risk assessment, planning and
Analysis

mitigation, potential incident detection and

prevention, preparedness, resource management
and communication.
e-Navigation should support the user Systems need to be designed to manage the work
through the application of Human load of the user, while also preventing single
Element principles in order to person errors, motivating and engaging the user
Human Element Issues

effectively manage the maritime and supporting the decision making process.
domain. Training, certification, good practices, and
familiarization need to be addressed as
appropriate for all functional aspects of e-
Navigation.
Consideration should be given to ergonomics,
ease of use, standardization, and the working
environment to optimize human performance.
Any other Comment:
This template describes the basic user needs for e-Navigation from the perspective of a generic
shore authority user, including VTS, Coastal Surveillance, SAR, Counter Pollution,
Port Authorities, and other maritime services. Further or alternate functional requirements for
shore based users will be contained in other templates.

___________

I:\NAV\54\13.doc