Article citation information:
Onyshchenko,
S., Bychkovsky, Y., Melnyk, O., Onishchenko, O., Jurkovič, M., Rubskyi,
V., Liashenko, K. A model for assessing shipping safety within
project-orientated risk management based on human element. Scientific Journal of Silesian
University of Technology. Series Transport. 2024, 123, 319-334. ISSN: 0209-3324. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20858/sjsutst.2024.123.16.
Svitlana ONYSHCHENKO[1],
Yuriy BYCHKOVSKY[2],
Oleksiy MELNYK[3],
Oleg ONISHCHENKO[4],
Martin JURKOVIČ[5], Viacheslav RUBSKYI[6],
Kostiantyn LIASHENKO[7]
A MODEL FOR ASSESSING SHIPPING SAFETY WITHIN PROJECT-ORIENTATED RISK
MANAGEMENT BASED ON HUMAN ELEMENT
Summary. Safety risk
management in shipping projects is an extremely important aspect aimed at
ensuring the success of the project and the safety of all participants in the
maritime transportation process. This paper presents an approach to assessing
safety risks that considers multiple factors including equipment condition,
external circumstances, and human factors. The risk assessment utilizes the
probability of accidents and their consequences, as well as the weighting
factors of each factor. The results of the assessment are interpreted using a
scale that defines the hazard level. The proposed methodology can effectively
identify, analyse and manage safety risks, which can contribute to the success
and safety of shipping projects. The study also discusses the importance of
dividing the crew into functional groups based on the operations performed,
which helps to better identify the safety risk for each group. Safety risk
assessment is conducted for each operation individually as well as for the entire
project or multiple operations to provide a comprehensive safety assessment.
The results of the study have shown the feasibility of the proposed method for
assessing the safety risks of shipping projects and its suitability to the
initial data “safety” taking into account its separate sides,
features, as well as the constituent aspects of the concept, systematization of
the ship's safety structure in order to develop solutions to improve integral
safety and optimize decision-making in emergency situations. Achievement of the
general purpose of shipping safety thus means realization of ways of reduction
of influence of the human factor on the number of accidents, and an estimation
of the degree of influence of a set of factors on a ship during operation.
Keywords: risk
management, shipping safety, marine navigation, ship condition, external
factors, human element, psychological analysis, crew training, education,
safety standards, crisis management, maritime accidents
1.
INTRODUCTION
Shipping inherently involves risks ranging from commercial uncertainty to
operational problems and technical failures. These risks are multifaceted and
require systematic management approaches to ensure safe and efficient
navigation. In the field of maritime operations, viewed through the lens of
projects, the focus shifts to optimizing the success of individual projects
rather than overall operational effectiveness. This project-centric paradigm
promotes resource optimization, decentralized management structures, and
alignment of business processes with specific project goals. This approach not
only improves enterprise efficiency, but also simplifies risk management
strategies because risks are associated directly with project components.
Importantly, risks are a constant companion to
maritime shipping, with a considerable number of publications dedicated to this
topic. These risks are diverse, and each type of risk is traditionally
considered within specific management aspects. For instance, commercial risks
are associated with the potential threat of reducing vessel efficiency, while
operational risks arise from various adverse technical factors and weather
conditions during voyages, leading to deviations in key performance indicators
(such as voyage duration). Technical risks are linked to vessel system failures
and potential accidents. Risks related to human factors are caused by the
influence of individual factors among crew members on the technical condition
of the vessel (operability of all systems), the performance of operations, and
decision-making in various situations. In addition, risks related to technology
dependency, market volatility affecting project priorities, and challenges in
maintaining a balance between flexibility and project management should be
considered. Furthermore, risks related to port operations, cargo handling, and
cybersecurity threats in maritime logistics should be considered. Risks here
may include inaccuracies in simulation models leading to incorrect design or
project optimization decisions and unforeseen environmental factors impacting
infrastructure operations. Risks in waterborne infrastructure projects may
include budget overruns due to unforeseen construction difficulties, including
inaccuracies in cost estimation leading to budget shortfalls. Risks associated
with vessel operation may include accidents resulting in damage to or loss of
the vessel and human error affecting operational safety.
When considering the operational activities of
enterprises and organizations as a sequence of projects, the focus is on the
success of each specific activity element – the project. This approach
optimizes resource allocation, decentralizes management, and aligns all
business processes with specific projects. Such an approach ensures the efficiency
of each structural element of the activity – the project – rather
than the overall activity efficiency, leading to increased enterprise
efficiency.
The project approach entails integrally
considering the diversity of risks, and providing a comprehensive view of
potential negative situations during voyage execution, which is another factor
justifying the use of project-oriented management in maritime navigation. Thus,
risks are “attached” to specific projects, and they are distributed
into various types “within the project,” but their control is
carried out within a unified system. This integration enables the consideration
of the influence of any risk type and risk scenarios that emerge during project
execution on the project's outcome.
The various studies provide valuable insights
into various aspects of maritime safety and transportation efficiency.
In the domain of maritime operations, safety and
risk management are highly important. The literature review provides insights
from a number of research papers to provide a comprehensive understanding of
shipping safety and project-oriented risk management. Thus, human factors
emerge as pivotal in maritime safety [1], emphasizing the imperative of
comprehending human behaviors and errors for effective risk mitigation. A
dynamic calculation matrix model is proposed in [2] for evaluating safety
culture within shipping enterprises, aiming to foster a positive safety culture
and enhance overall safety performance. The emerging technologies offer
opportunities to enhance situational awareness in autonomous shipping
scenarios, with implications for maritime training and education studied in
[3]. Methodological insights shed light on operative control system
intellectualization for dynamic objects [4], potentially improving safety and
operational efficiency in maritime contexts. The algorithm development for
rapid assessment indirectly informs strategies to enhance safety measures in
shipping operations, as researched in [5]. The content optimization strategies
for multi-project development in shipping companies provide valuable
perspectives on project management practices impacting safety measures [6]. The
simulation modelling for maritime infrastructure projects offers insights into
potential impacts on safety measures within such projects, as developed in [7].
The factors influencing safety management system implementation in traditional
shipping operations highlight critical aspects affecting safety protocol
efficiency [8]. In [9], an improvement of models for determining the life cycle
cost of a ship is proposed, which is crucial for budgeting safety measures and
ensuring the longevity of the ship. The assessment of the reliability of
International Safety Management (ISM) code implementation in operational risk management
within the shipping industry [10], contributes to ongoing efforts to maintain
robust safety standards.
The paper [11] offers a risk-based approach to
assessing the future viability of commercial shipping in the Arctic, looking at
emerging challenges and opportunities. The study [12] suggests risk management
strategies for shipping in ice-covered waters, drawing on extensive experience
from polar projects. In [13] presented a project team management model designed
to effectively manage risk and promote project success under uncertainty. The
works [14, 15] investigated the environmental performance of ship operations in
relation to cargo transportation efficiency, recommending measures to minimize
environmental impacts and conducting a comprehensive review of ship information
security risks, emphasizing the importance of protecting maritime
transportation systems. The article [16] investigates the potential impact of
unmanned vessels on maritime safety, contributing to the development of
autonomous shipping. In [17] presented a formal safety assessment model based
on relative risks in ship navigation, improving the understanding and
management of navigation hazards. The [18] considered human factors in shipping
accidents, shedding light on the interaction between human factors and maritime
safety outcomes. The research [19] proposes a risk assessment model for the
navigational safety of offshore aquaculture platforms, assisting in the
development of safety protocols for offshore farming. In [20] analyzed the
cybersecurity dynamics of ECDIS, providing insight into how to mitigate cyber
threats in electronic mapping and information systems used in shipping.
The reviewed papers on the research topic range
from a study of energy-efficient growth of the port sector in Italy [21] to a
study of the psychosocial effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on seafarers [22].
There are studies of fatigue from working conditions on board [23], modelling
the relationship between performance and ship control simulators [24], and the
introduction of RFID systems on ships to locate passengers and crew [25]. Other
studied works address safety improvement in shipping environments [26],
risk-based operational safety assessment of complex projects [27], and
construction project management while ensuring environmental safety [28]. In
addition, there are studies evaluating the impact of safety management
practices on labour productivity [29], managing project contingencies based on
risk perception [30], and historical aspects of railroad ferry routes [31].
Some studies include a review of the role and
risk of human factors in coastal shipping in Greece [32], a literature review
on managing health and safety risks to workers in construction projects [33]
and the proposal of occupational health and safety risk management systems for
coastal construction projects [34]. The design and optimization of maritime
transport infrastructure projects [35], the concept of decision support systems
for combined propulsion systems [36] and the application of genetic approach in
design models [37] are also discussed.
In addition, studies have addressed health and
safety risk analysis in high-rise construction projects [38], costing of
logistics systems projects [39], challenges and developments in public management
of autonomous shipping [40], Baltic resilience to geopolitical strategies [41],
quality assessment of port concession projects [42] and risk management
mechanisms in higher education institutions [43].
The reviewed literature represents a valuable contribution
to various aspects of maritime operations, transportation, and logistics
management. However, despite the
advances discussed in these studies, a number of challenges remain in the
maritime industry. These include ensuring the safety and reliability of
maritime operations, addressing environmental issues, improving ship efficiency
and optimizing logistics processes, and methodologies to assess the safety of
shipping within the framework of project-oriented risk management based on
human element.
2.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
One
of the key characteristics of projects is “success”. According to
the accepted approach, the success of a project is determined by its timely
completion, adherence to the planned budget, and achievement of the specified
outcomes. In this case, the results are economic indicators – for a ship,
this is the time charter equivalent and safety, considering the two main
aspects of ship operations (Fig. 1). Economic efficiency is the goal, and
safety in all its aspects is a mandatory goal.
To
note that a safety breach on any scale leads to the failure of a shipping
project to succeed. Naturally, in the course of project implementation (vessel
operations), risk situations arise, in which; in particular, a safety hazard
arises. However, a project will be considered successful if there are no
consequences of a safety breach.
In
this case, the performance indicator is the Time Charter Equivalent (TCE), if a voyage is considered as a
project. Assessment of project safety is a separate study, and at this stage,
we will take a certain indicator S,
the value of which can be interpreted as the probability of ensuring project
safety, which imposes natural conditions on the set of values of this
indicator. This approach is consistent with the method of risk assessment in the
context of safety adopted in shipping.
Fig. 1. Dynamics of project success rates in
project-oriented shipping
Thus,
a project success indicator is a set in which TCE is a random variable and S
reflects the probability of the project's safety state. The TCE indicator characterizes the
effectiveness at the end of the project, and the S indicator refers to the entire project, and the estimation of
these indicators is based on the estimates of their components in the project
as a whole. For example, it is based on an estimate of the most likely flight
time and costs. S, in turn, must also
take into account all aspects of safety and is an integrated assessment of
safety throughout the flight. It should be noted that both TCE and S are dynamic
characteristics and their values change based on the availability of up-to-date
information about the voyage and the vessel, and the longer the voyage is, the
greater the deviations may be compared to the initial values (Fig. 2).
For
each component of success, critical levels are set, the justification of which
is a separate area of research. The current state is an indicator of
approaching the critical state, which is the basis for further decision-making
on safety. “Accepted level of safety” is an indicator determined by
the accepted level of safety risk (see below), this value is accepted as
acceptable for a particular project. Considering the direction of this study,
further attention will be focused on the safety indicator. In accordance with
the project management methodology and existing standards, risk assessment can
be done with due regard to the composition of operations (works) under the
project. A similar approach is considered in shipping. All of the above can be
concluded that the FSA is seen as a
means to provide a preliminary assessment of the new rules and regulations
being developed in shipping and an estimate of the possible costs of applying
these rules and regulations, both in the entire sector of the economy and for
individual companies affected by these changes.
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Let us define the acceptable (permissible) risk
of an emergency RAS as the
maximum risk value that is reasonable in terms of technical, economic and
technological capabilities for a given maritime infrastructure facility.
Acceptable risk can be said to be a certain trade-off between the level of
safety and the ability to achieve it.
Acceptable risk criteria determine the
acceptable level of risk and are set depending on the methods of risk analysis,
availability of necessary information, capabilities, and objectives of the
analysis. In this case, the criteria for acceptable risk may:
- be set by regulatory
and legal documentation;
- be determined when
planning the risk analysis;
- determined in the
process of obtaining the results of the risk analysis;
- be determined by
experts.
The main requirements when choosing an acceptable
risk criterion in the risk analysis are its validity and certainty. Fig. 2
shows a conceptual model of risk management in the context of safety in
project-oriented shipping management.
The
key distinction of the proposed model from the existing ones is that the center
of gravity of the risk management process is transferred to the shipping
company. It is the company that manages the projects and determines their main
characteristics – types of cargo, transportation routes and
ports of call. Moreover, the company forms a project team, which practically
determines the main source of safety risk – the human element. In the
absence of sufficient statistical information on the impact of certain factors
on the probability of accidents, as well as the complexity of assessing the
consequences of safety incidents, it is possible to use the method of expert
assessments based on fuzzy sets. In general, there are two levels of expert
assessments: qualitative and quantitative. The accuracy of quantitative
(scoring) assessments depends on the competence of experts, their ability to
evaluate certain states, phenomena, and ways of developing the situation.
In
general, the risk assessment may also establish criteria for acceptable risk if
they have not been previously defined (e.g., strictly set out in regulatory
documents). The main tasks of the hazard identification stage are to identify
and clearly describe all sources of hazards on the ship and possible
emergencies during its operation. This is a crucial stage of the analysis,
since hazards not identified at this stage are not subject to further
consideration and disappear. During the identification, it should be determined
which elements, technical devices; technological units or processes in the technological
system require analysis that is more serious and which are of lesser interest
from the safety perspective. The result of the hazard identification is a list
of undesirable events; a description of hazard sources, risk factors,
conditions for the occurrence and development of undesirable events (e.g.,
scenarios of possible accidents); preliminary hazard and risk assessments. The
hazard identification also ends with the choice of further activities. Options
for further action may include a decision to stop further analysis due to the
insignificance of the hazards or the sufficiency of the preliminary
assessments; a decision to conduct an in-depth hazard analysis and risk
assessment; the formulation of initial recommendations for hazard mitigation.
Fig. 2. Conceptual model of risk
management
Hazards
caused by human error, equipment failures, and external influences from the
workplace and the environment contribute to the causal chain of preconditions
for an accident. In other words, hazards are the conditions, circumstances, and
causes under which an accident may occur.
Let
us denote the probability of danger (risk) for the operation.
To
assess the impact of each emergency hazard factor, we will introduce the
following indicators: for the technical condition factor – indicator F1; for the external factor –
indicator F3; for the
human element factor – subjective indicator F2. The external factor considers natural and climatic
conditions and the influence of other entities.
The
technical condition of ship elements, potentially influencing the occurrence of
emergencies, is assessed based on several criteria, including compliance with
standard requirements, the overall level of technical condition, and adherence
to global standards. Additionally, external risk factors are considered,
encompassing various conditions such as weather complexity, visibility, ice
conditions, seismic activity, and piracy, among others. These factors
collectively contribute to the overall risk assessment and management in maritime
operations, ensuring the safety and security of vessels and their crewmembers.
Climate
indicators can be determined based on the weather forecast for the duration of
the project or use statistical results of climatic conditions in the region of
the planned flights at the relevant time of year.
The
human element factors are considered, taking into account the following:
- compliance of the
quantitative and professional level of the work performers with the
technological requirements and the equipment used;
- clarity, timeliness,
and unambiguity of the management level;
- individual human
factor in management (education, upbringing, professionalism, physical
condition, commitment to safe work, etc.);
- the level of
interaction and social and psychological connectivity between members of
functional groups performing the relevant processes.
It
is proposed to divide the ship's crew into functional groups depending on the
operations performed by this group. This approach makes it possible to
determine the human element of risk not for the entire crew, but only for the
relevant functional group.
Of
course, not all factors are equivalent, so it is necessary to include the
weight of these factors for each group, as well as the weight of each group
factor, where is the number of factors in each group.
Weighting
factors are usually calculated using the simple ranking method, the
proportional method or the method of pairwise comparisons. As is customary,
these values should correspond to the conditions in the general case (for any
number of groups – m):
The
integral hazard indicator characterizes the degree of influence of all hazard
factors on the occurrence of an emergency, which can be depicted as a weighted
mean of the indicators of the analyzed factors in a given situation:
where
Three groups of
hazards have already been identified, so the formula takes the form:
The risk assessment
results are interpreted as follows:
- considered extremely
small if 0 < F ≤ 0.2;
- classified as small
if 0.2 < F ≤ 0.4;
- categorized as medium
if 0.4 < F ≤ 0.6;
- designated as large
if 0.6 < F ≤ 0.8;
- deemed dangerous if F
≥ 0.8.
Note that this safety
risk assessment is performed for each operation. However, it is logical to
assess safety for the entire project, or a set of operations within the current
time period. For example, for a project-oriented approach to managing ship
operations, a set of operations is performed during mooring or when a ship
enters a port, and project safety in this case is the safety of the set of
these operations.
The identical
approach can be applied to evaluate the safety of other project types as well
within the framework of project-oriented consideration of activities associated
with accident risks, etc. (e.g., construction). In this case, the safety risk
assessment of a project FPR(or
its time period) is performed:
where Fk
- assessment of the safety risk of operation k belonging to the set K (a set of all operations of the
operational phase of the project life cycle associated with the risk of
accidents), respectively,
In this context, the
property of operations on random events is utilized, which expresses the
probability of at least one event occurring in the considered set. It is
important that the events are independent, and in this case, this requirement
is met because all operations related to cargo movement by the vessel can be
considered independent. Formula (5) takes into account the possibility of an
emergency situation occurring during the execution of each operation.
Thus, the above
assessment S of project safety:
A fragment of the experimental calculations of the
proposed formula is shown in Table 1 (situation A). The project safety risk at
this stage is 0.0615, which is extremely low. Project safety
S=1-0.06015=0.93985. Further research was conducted with an increase in the
probability of risk of danger for the human element (situation B), as well as
with an increase in the weight of the human element factor group from 0.3 to
0.4, and 0.5 (situation C).
Tab. 1
Calculations of hazard
(risk) of operations and project (situation A)
|
1
TECHNICAL FACTOR |
Weight,
label |
Weight, value |
|
|
|
|
Operation 1 |
Operation
2 |
Operation
3 |
|||
|
Probabilities |
|||||
|
Weight |
w1 |
0,5 |
|
|
|
|
1.1 Element 1 |
w11 |
0,25 |
0,03 |
0,01 |
0,02 |
|
1.2 Element 2 |
w12 |
0,25 |
0,01 |
0,01 |
0,01 |
|
1.3 Element 3 |
w13 |
0,25 |
0,01 |
0,02 |
0,01 |
|
1.4 Element 4 |
w14 |
0,25 |
0,01 |
0,03 |
0,02 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
F1 |
|
|
0,015 |
0,0175 |
0,015 |
|
2
HUMAN ELEMENT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weight |
w2 |
0,3 |
|
|
|
|
2.1. Level of professionalism |
w21 |
0,1 |
0,01 |
0,02 |
0,02 |
|
2.2 Production experience |
w22 |
0,1 |
0,03 |
0,02 |
0,02 |
|
2.3. Physical condition |
w23 |
0,1 |
0,04 |
0,03 |
0,05 |
|
2.4. Psychological compatibility |
w24 |
0,1 |
0,05 |
0,02 |
0,02 |
|
2.5. Stress |
w25 |
0,1 |
0,05 |
0,05 |
0,05 |
|
2.6 Fatigue |
w26 |
0,1 |
0,05 |
0,05 |
0,05 |
|
2.7. Effectiveness of communication |
w27 |
0,1 |
0,02 |
0,02 |
0,02 |
|
2.8. Situational awareness |
w28 |
0,1 |
0,02 |
0,02 |
0,02 |
|
2.9. Cultural diversity |
w29 |
0,1 |
0,06 |
0,06 |
0,06 |
|
2.10. Leadership |
w210 |
0,1 |
0,05 |
0,05 |
0,05 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
F2 |
|
|
0,038 |
0,034 |
0,036 |
|
3 EXTERNAL FACTORS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weight
|
w3 |
0,2 |
|
|
|
|
3.1 Temperature |
w31 |
0,25 |
0,01 |
0,01 |
0,01 |
|
3.2. Wind speed |
w32 |
0,25 |
0,03 |
0,01 |
0,01 |
|
3.3. Probability of unlawful interference |
w33 |
0,25 |
0,001 |
0,001 |
0,001 |
|
3.4 Visibility |
w34 |
0,25 |
0,02 |
0,001 |
0,001 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
F3 |
|
|
0,01525 |
0,0055 |
0,0055 |
|
F operations |
|
|
0,02195 |
0,02005 |
0,0194 |
|
PROJECT SAFETY RISK AT THE STAGE OF |
FPR = 0,06015 |
||||
Thus,
the experimental calculations demonstrated the application of the proposed
method for assessing the safety risk of a project and substantiated the
compliance of the results with the initial data. After establishing the hazard
risk assessment, if it is unsatisfactory, i.e. below the accepted risk, it
should be decided that the work should be stopped. The share of the
“human element” in safety risks for different conditions is shown
in Figure 3.
The proposed methodology and its experimental
calculations in situation A show that the level of project risk is already
extremely low. Therefore, conducting additional studies with an increase in the
probability of hazard risk to the human element (situation B) or with a change
in the weight of the group of factors associated with the human element from
0.3 to 0.4 and 0.5 (situation C) is unnecessary, since the purpose of such
studies is to identify possible risks and develop mitigation measures. However,
in the case of extremely low levels of project risk, as in situation A,
additional measures may be unnecessary and unjustified in terms of resources
and time.
In general, there are several ways to manage risks,
for example:
1) risk acceptance – continuing to implement the project according to
the plan;
2) risk rejection – a decision to postpone or refuse to perform the
operation with appropriate changes to the project plan;
3) risk reduction by changing the composition of the functional group
performing the operation or changing the technical elements.
Considering the specifics of shipping and modern
approaches to safety, only achieving the maximum reduction of the risk of the
operation through careful attention to the state of individual human factors is
an option for risk management
4. CONCLUSION
The
project-oriented management approach in shipping enables the synthesis of
diverse methods and safety assessment approaches traditionally endorsed by
international maritime bureaus and those implemented through project
management's risk management methods. This integration amalgamates best
practices for risk minimization in shipping within the framework of safety and
risk mitigation inherent in project methodologies. Consequently, it forms a
novel and effective approach to ensuring shipping safety.
Proposed
a method for assessing the risk of shipping safety, considering the impact of
individual factors of the human element. The method centers on the existing FSA
methodology, which is supplemented by a system of individual human element
factors, applicable to projects of any nature and involving consideration of a
set of operations within a separate period or a logical structural component of
the project life cycle. The result of applying this method is forecast and
current project safety assessments. Experimental calculations were carried out,
which demonstrated that the results corresponded to the initial data. The
proposed method is universal and can be extended to various industries, taking
into account industry specifics in the system of factors. These findings lay
the groundwork for further exploration into safety issues within the scope of a
project-oriented management approach in shipping.
Situation A
Situation B
Situation C
Fig. 3.
Human element in the project hazard risk structure
References
1.
Deah A., J. Koto, A. Kader. 2014. „Contribution of Human Factors to Shipping Safety”. Jurnal Teknologi 66. DOI: 10.11113/jt.v66.2496.
2.
Qian J., D. Gao, Z. Ren, K.
Omar. 2022. „System Model of
Shipping Enterprise Safety Culture Based on Dynamic Calculation Matrix
Model”. Applied
Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences 8. DOI: 10.2478/amns.2022.2.0123.
3.
Rostek D., M. Baldauf.
2024. „Technologies for situational awareness in autonomous shipping and
their impact on maritime training and education”. In: 18th
International Technology, Education and Development Conference: 5105-5114.
DOI: 10.21125/inted.2024.1322.
4.
Melnykov S., P.
Malezhyk, A. Gasanov, P. Bidyuk. 2022. „Methodological aspects of
operative control system intellectualization for dynamic objects”. System Research and Information Technologies
4: 44-57. DOI: 10.20535/SRIT.2308-8893.2022.4.04.
5.
Lesnichaya M., O. Kolchina,
E. Pahomov. 2021. „Developing an
algorithm for rapid assessment of living standards and quality of life of the
population in the region”. System
Research and Information Technologies 2: 50-63. DOI: 10.20535/SRIT.2308-8893.2021.2.04.
6.
Lapkina I., Y. Prykhno, O. Lapkin. 2020. „Content optimization of the development
of multi-project of a shipping company”. Eastern-European Journal of
Enterprise Technologies 2(3): 104. DOI: 10.15587/1729-4061.2020.199477.
7.
Lapkina, I., M. Malaksiano, Y. Savchenko. 2020. „Design and optimization of maritime
transport infrastructure projects based on simulation modelling methods”.
In:
CEUR Workshop Proceedings 2565: 36-45.
8.
Wahid A., M. Jinca, T.
Rachman, J. Malisan. 2024. „Influencing factors of safety management
system implementation on traditional shipping”. Sustainability 16: 1152. DOI: 10.3390/su16031152.
9.
Shumylo O., O.
Rossomakha, A. Shakhov. 2021. „Improving the model for determining the
cost of the ship's life cycle”. Transport development 1(8):
113-124.
10.
Rinaldy D. 2022.
„Reliability of International Safety Management (ISM) Code Implementation
in Operational Risk Management of Shipping Industry”. In: Proceedings of International Conference on
Economics Business and Government Challenges 1: 56-64. DOI: 10.33005/ic-ebgc.v1i1.10.
11. Christensen M., M. Georgati, A. Jokar, Jamal. 2019. „A risk-based approach for determining the
future potential of commercial shipping in the Arctic”. Journal of Marine Science and Technology
21. DOI: 10.1080/20464177.2019.1672419.
12.
Lu L., P. Kujala, S. Kuikka. 2022. „On risk management of shipping system in ice-covered waters:
Review, analysis and toolbox based on an eight-year polar project”. Ocean Engineering 266: 113078.
DOI: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2022.113078.
13. Rohovyi, M., M. Grinchenko. 2023. „Project team
management model under risk conditions”. Bulletin of NTU KhPI Series Strategic Management Portfolio Program and
Project Management: 3-11. DOI: 10.20998/2413-3000.2023.7.1.
14. Melnyk O., O. Onishchenko, S. Onyshchenko, V. Golikov,
V. Sapiha, O. Shcherbina, V. Andrievska. 2022. „Study of
Environmental Efficiency of Ship Operation in Terms of Freight Transportation
Effectiveness Provision”. TransNav 16 (4): 723-729. DOI:
10.12716/1001.16.04.14.
15. Melnyk O., S. Onyshchenko, O. Onishchenko, O. Shumylo,
A. Voloshyn, Y. Koskina, Y. Volianska. 2022. „Review of Ship
Information Security Risks and Safety of Maritime Transportation Issues”.
TransNav 16 (4): 717-722. DOI: 10.12716/1001.16.04.13.
16.
Wróbel K., J. Montewka, P. Kujala. 2017. “Towards the assessment of potential
impact of unmanned vessels on maritime transportation safety”. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 165: 155-169.
DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2017.03.029.
17. Hu S., Q. Fang, H. Xia, Y. Xi. 2007. „Formal safety assessment based on relative
risks model in ship navigation”. Reliability
Engineering and System Safety 92(3): 369-377. DOI:
10.1016/j.ress.2006.04.011.
18. Vinagre-Rios J., S. Iglesias-Baniela. 2013. „The Human Element in Shipping Casualties
as a Process of Risk Homeostasis of the Shipping Business”. Journal of Navigation 66. DOI: 10.1017/S0373463313000064.
19.
Du Z. 2024. „A
Risk Assessment Model for Navigation Safety of Maritime Aquaculture Platform
Based on AIS Ship Trajectory”. Journal of
Electrical Systems 20: 116-123. DOI: 10.52783/jes.2364.
20.
Kayişoğlu G., B. Güneş, P. Bolat. 2024. „ECDIS Cyber Security Dynamics Analysis
based on the Fuzzy FUCOM Method”. Transactions on Maritime Science 13(1). DOI:
10.7225/toms.v13.n01.w09.
21. Nigro M., M. De Domenico, T. Murgia, A. Stimilli. 2024. „The Port Sector in Italy: Its Keystones
for Energy-Efficient Growth”. Energies
17(7). Art. no. 1788. DOI: 10.3390/en17071788.
22.
Carol-Dekker L. 2022.
„Prisoners at sea: The psychosocial effect that the Covid-19 pandemic had
on seafarers”. Journal of Maritime Research 19(2): 65-71.
23. Costa Á., R. Bouzón, J. Orosa, R. de la
Campa R. 2020. „Fatigue due to on board
work conditions in merchant vessels”. Journal of Maritime Research
17(3): 37-46.
24. Alcaide J.I. 2020. „Modelling the relationship
between performance and ship-handling simulator”. Journal of Maritime
Research 17(3): 68-73.
25. Ortega-Piris A., E. Díaz-Ruiz, C.
Pérez-Labajos, A. Navarro-Morales. 2020. „Implementation of a rfid system on ships for passenger and
crew location”. Journal of Maritime Research 17(3): 28-36.
26. Turan O., R. Kurt, V. Arslan, S. Silvagni, M. Ducci,
P. Liston, J.M. Schraagen, I. Fang, G. Papadakis. 2016. „Can We Learn
from Aviation: Safety Enhancements in Transport by Achieving Human Orientated
Resilient Shipping Environment”. Transportation
Research Procedia 14: 1669-1678. DOI: 10.1016/j.trpro.2016.05.132.
27.
Huang, Y., X. Wu, M. Skibniewski. 2017. „Risk-based estimate for operational
safety in complex projects under uncertainty”. Applied Soft
Computing 54. DOI: 10.1016/j.asoc.2017.01.020.
28.
Luchkina, V. 2023.
„Project management in construction while ensuring environmental
safety”. E3S Web of
Conferences 403. DOI: 10.1051/e3sconf/202340301023.
29.
Gurmu, A. 2021.
„Hybrid Model for Assessing the Influence of Safety Management Practices
on Labour Productivity in Multistory Building Projects”. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management 147. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0002169.
30. Ottaviani, F. M., A. De Marco, C. Rafele, G.
Castelblanco. 2024. „Risk
Perception-Based Project Contingency Management”. Framework. Systems 12: 93. DOI: 10.3390/systems12030093.
31. Fomin O., A. Lovska, A. Horban. 2021. „Historical aspects of construction and operation
of train ferry routes”. History of Science and Technology 11(2):
351-382. DOI: 10.32703/2415-7422-2021-11-2-351-382.
32. Gemelos, I., N. Ventikos. 2008. „Safety in Greek
coastal shipping: The role and risk of human factor revisited”. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs 7:
31-49. DOI: 10.1007/BF03195124.
33. Afanda, D., L. Lendra, W. Kristiana. 2023. „Study of Literature on Risk Management
for Employee Health and Safety in Construction Projects”. Jurnal Sains dan Teknologi Industri 21:
106-111. DOI: 10.24014/sitekin.v21i1.23074.
34. Yilmaz, D., D. Artan. 2024. „An Occupational
Safety Risk Management System for Coastal Construction Projects”. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management
1-14. DOI:10.1109/TEM.2024.3369550.
35. Lapkina I., M.
Malaksiano, Y. Savchenko. 2020.
„Design and optimization of maritime transport infrastructure projects
based on simulation modelling methods”. CEUR Workshop Proceedings
2565: 36-45.
36. Budashko V., V. Nikolskyi, O. Onishchenko, S.
Khniunin. 2017. „Decision support system's concept for design of combined
propulsion complexes”. Eastern-European Journal of Enterprise Technologies
3(8-81): 10-21. DOI: 10.15587/1729-4061.2016.72543.
37. Rudenko S., T. Kovtun, T. Smokova, I Finohenova. 2022.
„The genetic approach application and creation of the project genetic
model”. International Scientific and Technical Conference on Computer
Sciences and Information Technologies: 434-437. DOI:
10.1109/CSIT56902.2022.10000822.
38. Arumsari, P., P. Satriya, E. Wibawa, P. Dewanti,
Annisa. 2024. „Occupational safety & health risk analysis in formwork
in high-rise building projects”. In: IOP
Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1324: 012029. DOI: 10.1088/1755-1315/1324/1/012029.
39.
Rudenko S., T. Kovtun,
V. Smrkovska, T. Smokova, D. Kovtun, I. Finohenova. 2023. „Peculiarities
of determining the logistic systems projects value". In: International
Scientific and Technical Conference on Computer Sciences and Information
Technologies. DOI: 10.1109/CSIT61576.2023.10324214.
40. Luchenko D.,
I. Georgiievskyi, M. Bielikova. 2023.
„Challenges and Developments in the Public Administration of Autonomous
Shipping”. Lex Portus 9(1): 20-36. DOI:
10.26886/2524-101X.9.1.2023.2.
41.
Berzina-Cerenkova U.A.
2021. „The baltic resilience to china’s “divide and
rule”. Lex Portus 7(2): 11-38. DOI:
10.26886/2524-101X.7.2.2021.2.
42.
Piterska V., V. Samoilovska, V. Adakhovskyi. 2023. Assessment of port concession projects quality
based on the information and analytical risk management system”. CEUR Workshop Proceedings 3453: 71-81.
43. Piterska V., O. Lohinov, L. Lohinova. 2022.
„Risk Management Mechanisms in Higher Education Institutions Based on the
Information Support of Innovative Projects”. In: International Scientific and Technical Conference on Computer Sciences
and Information Technologies: 410-413. DOI:
10.1109/CSIT56902.2022.10000551.
Received 12.01.2024; accepted in
revised form 30.04.2024
Scientific Journal of Silesian University of Technology. Series
Transport is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License
[1] Department of Fleet Operation and Shipping Technologies,
Odesa National Maritime University, 34, Mechnikov Str., Odesa, 65029, Ukraine. Email:
onyshenko@gmail.com. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7528-4939
[2] Department of Navigation and Ship Handling, Odesa
National Maritime University, 34, Mechnikov Str., Odesa, 65029, Ukraine. Email: seastranger55@gmail.com. ORCID:
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1459-9029
[3] Department of Navigation and Maritime Safety, Odesa
National Maritime University, 34, Mechnikov Str., Odesa, 65029, Ukraine.
Email:m.onmu@ukr.net. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9228-8459
[4] Department of Technical Fleet Operation, National
University “Odessa Maritime Academy”, 8, Didrikhson Str., Odesa,
65052, Ukraine. Email: oleganaton@gmail.com. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3766-3188
[5] Department of
Water Transport, University of Žilina, 8215, 010 26 Žilina, Slovakia.
Email: martin.jurkovic@uniza.sk. ORCID: https://orcid.org/
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7673-1350
[6] Department of Practical Psychology, Odesa National
Maritime University, 34, Mechnikov Str., Odesa, 65029, Ukraine. Email: pavv@te.net.ua.
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8769-3844
[7] Department of Machine Dynamics, Strength and Mechanical Engineering, Odesа Polytechnic National University, Shevchenko av., 1, Odesa, 65044 Ukraine. Email: liashenko@ukr.net. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0005-7124-3768