By Michael Grey MBE
As operators of things that other people have designed, how we like to criticise these wretched "boffins" for their failure to understand our needs! "The man who designed this thinks that engineers are three feet high and have four arms, each with eight fingers". Or, "the person who laid out this foredeck was under the influence of illegal substances when he drew up the plan". Women like to suggest that design failures are all the fault of men. The men blame either accountants or naval architects.
It is probably understandable, in an industry that doesn't much go in for prototypes like they do in aviation or automobile engineering. Just imagine the fun you could have testing new ships to destruction, to ensure the final design was perfect.
It isn't helped by the fact that so few designers serve any sea time when they are learning their trade, their professional institutions usually grudging the lecture time and possibly suspecting they would be led astray in foreign ports by seafarers.
The Royal Corps of Naval Constructors used to send their naval architects away in the fleet and just occasionally you will find some deep thinking design company that will encourage such a practice. But it is sadly quite rare.
Way back in the 1970s some revolutionary souls in British shipyards got together with some equally advanced UK ship-owners to try and devise some sort of synthesis between the designers, builders and users of ships.
The object was to produce better and more user-friendly ships and the Sea-Life Project brought together people from all three elements to improve design of engine rooms, navigation bridges, accommodation and mooring decks, to name but a few of their initiatives.
They brought in working ships' engineers, mates and boatswains, cooks and carpenters to work with those designing and building the ships and their arrangements and they came up with some real improvements.
Because these were people whose life and work was currently afloat, they were able to provide all sorts of ideas that would iron out bad design, often for absolutely no additional cost. They found things that were designed, "because we always do it this way", or because the foreman in the fitting out berth says, "it is easiest for him", and changed things for the better.
All good things come to an end
It may have been only a minority of yards and owners subscribed, and it all disappeared in the 1980s with the long recession that polished off British shipbuilding, but it was a project that was worth undertaking.
Input from users remains very important and it is arguable that there is insufficient feedback from those who buy and then use the products of shipbuilders and engineering firms. When you get a longer guarantee on an electric kettle than you do with a $100m ship, there is a sort of "fire and forget" attitude among marine manufacturers, rather than one that seeks constantly to improve and actively solicits feedback.
There is often a certain concern expressed about the way that manufacturers have insinuated their way into the councils of the International Maritime Organisation, notably in the development of regulations relating to technical specifications, with no corresponding input from the potential users.
The shipping industry then finds itself with mandated equipment that it neither wants nor thinks it needs, because of this unholy liaison between people who sell things, and the regulators. In the end, what we like to describe as "usability" suffers.
First hand feedback
So let us welcome an initiative between the Nautical Institute and the Comite International Radio-Maritime, the main association for marine electronics companies, which is designed to improve communication and navigation technology that is found aboard ship. It will hopefully bring an end to much of the bad language that is found when something electronic isn't where it ought to be, or fails to work in an intuitive fashion.
They have thought up the concept of the CIRM User Feedback Forum, which will encourage users to improve human-centred design in every respect, whether it is in the layout of equipment, or its ultimate specification.
According to the NI's David Patraiko, the scheme will encourage mariners from all around the world to register as "testers" for the CIRM members, getting involved with design before it ends up aboard their ships. The two organisations have devised a practical procedure that will bring together the manufacturers and their designers, with mariners who will be willing to use their experience and skill to facilitate better designs.
It is a great idea and is something that seems perfectly practical.
Some might also suggest that regulators and seafarers need to get closer together, so that what the former develop recognises the practical input of current seafarers and ship operators, rather than reflecting the views of people representing flag states whose sea experience may be ages ago and barely relevant.
The CIRM Feedback Forum can be accessed via the CIRM website and the widest possible participation is to be welcomed. Training centres, whose own facilities can be employed to advantage in testing equipment or providing feedback, are also to be encouraged.
It would be good to think that other professional institutions might become similarly engaged, as the consequences of misunderstanding and false assumptions range right across the maritime spectrum.
In future you might not need to be three feet high and have all those arms.