MAPPING OF WORK AREAS IN A PLATFORM SUPPLY VESSEL: A CASE STUDY
1. METHODS FOR DOCUMENTING A SHIP
Two members of our team documented the bridge layout aboard the PSV Bourbon Mistral, for two and a half days (60 hours), January 18 –20, 2010, during which they spent as much time as feasible on the bridge. They spent about 12 hours each day documenting the bridge and surrounding areas and interviewing the crew. The crew manning the bridge consisted of four officers—two navigational officers, a first officer and the captain—who worked 12 hour shifts in pairs of two. Our team members’ time on the bridge not used for photographing
was spent observing, questioning and interviewing the officers/users about their routines, habits and tasks and learning how the different instruments worked. The information gleaned there proved valuable for our documentation. We then gathered that data into a document with predefined categories. The document served as both a guideline for inquiry and a space for inputting data itself. We structured the report in such a way that we can easily add new categories if the inquiry found new and/or surprising angles deemed important by the researchers. Also importantly, the report structure mirrored the structure of the image database (described later in this section) to maintain a logical link between the images and the report. We also used this structure at a later stage in the drawing of the bridge itself (Figure 3).
The report was richly illustrated with tagged images (tagged for ease of location in the image database at a later stage) that supported the text.
We used two compact cameras and an SLR for the photographic documentation: a Panasonic Lumix LX3 (compact), a Canon Powershot G9 (compact), and a
Nikon D70 (digital SLR). We used these cameras for the practical reasons that they gave us the opportunity to photograph at the same time we observed the areas and for their practicality in taking the compact cameras around the bridge and the ship in general. For the close
up shots of the instrument panels, we used a Velbon DF
60/F tripod support for the camera. This allowed us to maintain the camera at approximately the same viewing angle for the instrument panels while moving the entire tripod for each shot. The tripod also helped for close detail shots of the instrument panels.
In hindsight, we believe that using only the digital SLR instead of compact cameras probably would have improved the picture quality in general. We see two main reasons for this: one, the varying lighting conditions, as the bridge is mainly lit by (the changing) daylight; and two, the constant movements of the boat while at sea.
We had to re-shoot some of the zones after we got back to shore, to get better picture quality, while we had enough daylight and a still, non-moving environment.
Figure 2. A map showing an overhead view of the bridge. The blue spots represent the planned photograph route.
Figure 3. The main map over the bridge shows the main work zones as circles. The circles roughly indicate the area of each zone. Each zone is labeled and given a code. Also all instruments connected to each zone are listed. The names and the codes can be used to locate images in the database which uses the same name and code system.
Figure 4. The photo on the left shows an example of a zone-oriented image while the photo on the right shows details of an instrument panel.
Figure.5. Photos on the left show details of an instrument panel. Photos on the right show the same instruments at use
To document the instruments on the bridge properly, we had to divide the bridge area into a number of different zones based on its different functional areas. Interviews with the crew were highly important during this step for us to build an understanding of the area as we documented it. In total, we defined 17 unique zones.
Figure 3 shows a diagram highlighting the zones as circles. We used this diagram extensively in the project to help the participants in the design process understand the ship’s bridge and to navigate the written report and the image database.
After we defined the zones, we noted which instrument panels were located in which zones. This proved handy, as it eventually turned into a checklist of what we needed to document (photograph). With this checklist, we could
also easily see if we had omitted documenting an area in detail or if we had missed an instrument panel. After mapping and designating the different zones of the bridge and the instruments they contained, we established a photographic route (see Figure 2). We mounted the SLR on the tripod, and, starting at the port (left) side of the forward-facing consoles (S06), we followed-the layout of the consoles and control panels, moving across the bridge from one side to the other, step by step, adjusting the camera and tripod for each cluster of instrument panels. For each photograph, the camera was set up at an angle of 90° (±10°) facing a particular instrument panel. The photographic settings of the cameras were for the most part set to automatic/auto. The dotted paths on the image roughly describe the paths and placements of the camera while on the tripod. When we
came to more than one instrument on a designated control panel, we shot the entire control panel first and then each instrument individually.
We also took some photographs without the supporting tripod, including a combination of environmental pictures necessary to give a holistic view of the bridge and detailed shots of the instruments. The environmental images also gave us an overview of the relationship between the different control panels and instruments, their composition and system. We defined the environmental images as zone images and the close-ups as instrument images and stored them in separate folders.
Figure 4 shows examples of zone and instrument images.
Most of the instrument panels, and especially the ones with direct input (e.g., joysticks and handles), we deliberately shot pictures with and without users. We used the pictures without users mainly to document the control panels (Figure 5, left), and the pictures with users, we used to illustrate how the instruments were used (Figure 5, right). We can also distinguish between two types of user-photographs. In one type of shot we staged an instrument at use, either with the help of one of
the officers or by imitating what we had seen them do and photographing each other playing the role of users.
In the other type of user shots we photographed the crew as they actually worked. With this latter type of shot, we intended to capture a scenario with a high level of realism. But given our limited time aboard the vessel at sea, we did not capture the (realistic) use of every instrument panel. Therefore, we needed the “staged photos” as well.
For practical purposes, we did not capture all of the instrument panels on the bridge at night. The crew wanted the bridge to be as dimly lit as possible so as not to harm their outward vision, and we wanted to keep the documentation as realistic as possible. This meant that we could not use a flash for photographing. We saw it as necessary, however, to document the interfaces that changed to “night mode” and how they differed from daytime to nighttime. We also saw it as important to document the lighting conditions in the various zones of the bridge at night to build an understanding of the variation in lighting for the officers/users when they use the controls and interfaces of the bridge at night.
Figure.6. Examples from the subsection of the Environment category. The top column shows materials, ad hoc solutions and ship environment. The middle column shows user, bridge views and lighting. The bottom column shows certificates, outside bridge and various observations.
Figure.7. Photos sorted in folders and given unique names.
In addition to zones and instruments, we collected a third category of images we called Miljứ (environment). This category included the following sub sections: materials, ad hoc solutions, ship environment, users, bridge views, light, certificates, outside bridge and various observations. Figure 6 gives examples of such images.
We stored the files as .jpg files and individually named each image after a given set of categories: I for Innstallasjoner (installations), S for Soner (zones) and M for Miljứ (environment). Further, we gave each a sub number of two digits and a name that connected the images to a particular type of zone, installation or instrument. Finally, a sequenced number was added to the string to make each image unique. This resulted in names like M03_22.jpg. These images were further stored in a folder structure in three levels: zones, environment and installations. Under these levels were a number of named folders holding the images related to that particular zone, environment or instrument.
Further, some of these folders had sub categories if needed. For instance some of the instruments had different categories for the physical controllers and screenshots. Figure 7 shows how the image structure looked on the computer part of the image database. Also,
the mapping was printed and attached to the wall in a central part of the lab. This was useful since it allowed us to quickly locate images we needed to call up in Picasa on the large monitor in the middle of the room.
To use the images effectively together with the report, we had three main approaches. First, we related the images directly to the written report, and each report area followed the structure of the images. Also each area of the report had embedded images and references to additional images not used in the report. Second, we loaded the photographs into Picasa software for image sorting and viewing. Setting the program on alphabetical sorting made the photos easily available for fast browsing. Figure 8 shows a screenshot of Picasa showing the image database. Third, we fitted the overarching map of the bridge (Figure 2) with circles showing the position of each zone and the instruments belonging to each (Figure 3). We used this for fast visual references to the zones and instruments images. We also used it to help readers of the report position zones and instruments described in the report.
We used the extensive image library in three ways during the two design projects. First, we distributed the image catalogues to each team member’s computer for ease of
individual referencing. Participants also had access to the images on a shared computer connected to a 46-inch monitor. Finally, we printed all instrument images in real size and attached them to cardboard to make them available during prototyping sessions. We distributed the written report to all participants and asked them to read it prior to participating in the project. The diagram mapping the bridge was printed in the report and distributed as