In a recent wide-ranging interview with SeaNews, Adam Dennett, CEO of SpecTec, claimed that digital tools should be designed to augment human decision-making, not replace it.
I hope the reporter made a mistake when quoting Mr Dennett as saying, “Automating routine, manual tasks like data entry and reporting reduces cognitive load, contributes to fatigue and distracts crew from their core responsibilities.” I think we know what he was trying to say.
He went on to claim that the gains are tangible, whilst admitting that a lack of standardised data restricts AI and advanced analytics. He also stated there needs to be a commitment from regulators to support and acknowledge the standards that are developed as an industry benchmark, which sounds a bit like telling the regulators to shut up and do as they are told by the software developers.
According to Mr Dennett, “the strongest evidence in support of digitalisation is the proven operational benefits tied to improved uptime, lower maintenance costs, increased fuel efficiency, as well as improved sustainability and safety standards.”
This might be true for very large fleets being run as cheaply as possible, but I wonder if it applies to the average tug company that has been practicing fuel efficiency, predictive maintenance, and safety all along. I spent much of my career striving to improve safety standards, and I think I would have questioned whether a computer could have done any better.
On a less controversial note, he stated, “Digital tools should be designed to augment human decision-making, not replace it.” Nobody would argue with that, but it ignores the ratbag element in shipping – cheapskates who will think the technology can be used to replace competent people with more affordable alternatives both afloat and ashore.
Designers of technology and automation are probably not aware of all the information an experienced tug master gathers.
My other worry is that with automation covering so many tasks that were formerly carried out by humans, it will be more difficult to train future officers in the basics of their profession.
In October 2021, I wrote about a claim that autonomous tugs will use technology to take over the boring operations like steaming to and from a job, whilst the people on board will emerge from their beds to do the job itself. This was hailed by some as a brilliant idea because it would save people the trouble of doing the mundane stuff, and ensure they were rested and refreshed when the towing operation commenced.
But how do you train people under such a system? I suppose proponents of the scheme would say trainees can go to a simulator and learn all they need to know.
Sadly, designers of technology and automation are probably not aware of all the information an experienced tug master gathers as he or she glides down the harbour to meet an incoming vessel.
Almost unconsciously, the master is absorbing details of wind, tide and currents and is noting the traffic conditions – a smaller tug towing a barge that will need to cross the fairway in about 30 minutes, or a bunch of yachts starting a race that will possibly bring them close to the deep water route – and dozens of other pieces of information.
A good master would also be explaining this to any trainees he is responsible for, and they would be absorbing local knowledge to go with their simulator training. Presumably, trainees without such in-depth early training will be less capable in command or when they move ashore to control autonomous vessels from a desk in Ulan Bator.
If youngsters can work with the technology and still retain the traditional skills, we will be in with a chance.
A recent Splash article by Wolfgang Lehmacher reinforced my suspicions and introduced me to the work of economist Enrique Ide, who argues that AI can shrink the talent pool. Mr Ide claimed that by aggressively automating early career work, we risk trading short-term efficiency for a long-term decay in human capability.
He discussed, “the hard-to-codify skills people gain through real-world challenges early in their careers,” and although his research seemed to focus on logistics and supply chains, I believe it is equally relevant to towing (which of course forms part of the supply chain).
When he claimed, “supply chains are uniquely exposed because they are continuously stress tested by pandemics, canal blockages, labour disputes, wars, port congestion or natural disasters,” he is describing our business.
Crucially, Mr Ide pointed out that when digital tools fail because data are missing or the world no longer resembles the past, the system must fall back on human judgement: “If that judgement has never been built, resilience fractures.”
Shipping is certainly an industry where things are changing so fast that the world no longer resembles the past, and I cannot remember a time in my life when I was less sure of what will happen next.
Perhaps the best way to prepare for whatever is coming is to ensure we train our youngsters to give them the resilience they will need. If they can work with the technology and still retain the traditional skills, we will be in with a chance.