A Fundamental Study of the Sustainable Key Competencies for Remote Operators of Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships

Abstract

The introduction of MASSs, facilitated by the advancement of autonomous navigation technologies, is anticipated to lead to the emergence of new technologies, novel vessel types, and innovative job positions like remote operators at remote operation centers. The MASS Code is currently being discussed by the Maritime Safety Committee of the International Maritime Organization. This Code is expected to be adopted in the form of non-mandatory guidelines until 2025, with the goal of establishing mandatory requirements by 2028. Additionally, revisions to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers related to crew training and qualifications are planned for adoption by 2027. These revisions will include requirements for MASS operators. This paper aims to examine the sustainable key competencies required for safe MASS operation by remote operators using the Analytic Hierarchy Process method, considering the emergence of the new profession of remote operator. Building upon the 66 knowledge, understanding, and proficiencies outlined for marine officers in the STCW Convention, the paper aims to identify the additional competencies required for remote operators and contribute to the development of a training model for the future.

1. Introduction

1.1. Overview

The Fourth Industrial Revolution is accelerating paradigm shifts across all sectors including society, the economy, and industry. MASSs have emerged as a key technology in the maritime industry during this era. This technology is rapidly becoming a new gamechanger, bringing significant changes to the shipping, maritime operations, ports, logistics, shipbuilding, and equipment industries. Discussions on this topic have gained traction through the International Maritime Organization (IMO) Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) meeting held in June 2017. Since then, it has become a major agenda item in key IMO committees such as the 105th session of the Legal Committee (LEG) and the 99th session of the MSC [1,2]. In particular, at the 99th MSC session, temporary definitions for conducting Regulation Scoping Exercises (RSEs) based on four levels of automation were agreed upon to initiate MASS Code review work [1]. The criteria for these levels are shown in

Table 1. Definition of a MASS.

Definition of MASS
A Maritime Autonomous Surface Ship (MASS) is defined as a ship that, to a varying degree, can operate independent of human interaction

and

Table 2. Level of autonomy.

Level	Definition
Degree 1	Ship with automated process and decision support
Degree 2	Remotely controlled ship with seafarers on board
Degree 3	Remotely controlled ship without seafarers
Degree 4	Fully autonomous ship

[1].

The international conventions included in the IMO MASS RSE consisted of 14 conventions under the purview of the MSC, as shown in

Table 3. International conventions for which IMO MASS RSE has been conducted.

International Conventions for Which IMO MASS RSE Has Been Conducted
(1)	COLREG 1972—International Regulations for Preventing Collision at Sea
(2)	CSC 1972—International Convention for Safe Containers
(3)	LL 1966—International Convention on Load Line
(4)	LL PROT 1988—Protocol of 1988 relating to the LL
(5)	SAR 1979—International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue
(6)	SOLAS 1974—International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea
(7)	SOLAS AGR 1996—Agreement concerning specific stability requirements for ro-ro vessel
(8)	SOLAS PROT 1978—Protocol of 1978 relating to the SOLAS
(9)	SOLAS PROT 1988—Protocol of 1988 relating to the SOLAS
(10)	SPACE STP 1973—Protocol on Space Requirements for STP
(11)	STCW 1978—International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers
(12)	STCW-F 1995—STCW for Fishing Vessel Personnel
(13)	STP 1971—Special Trade Passenger Ships Agreement
(14)	TONNAGE 1969—International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships

[1].

In the two-stage IMO MASS RSE, four major key gaps were identified. Firstly, there was a need for clear definitions and clarification regarding the terms “master”, “crew”, and “responsible person”. Secondly, the concept of a remote operations center, which is currently not addressed in existing IMO conventions, raised significant issues related to functional and structural requirements. Thirdly, issues related to remote operators, such as their legal status, employment conditions, and qualification requirements, were identified as major concerns stemming from the concept of remote operations. Fourthly, there was a need for definitions of various terms involved in the process.

Based on these identified major gaps, the IMO recognized the need to develop a new Code related to MASSs at the 103rd MSC [3]. Simultaneously, it was recognized that amendments to existing conventions were also necessary. Therefore, discussions on the development and adoption of the MASS Code began not only in the MSC, but also in the LEG and the Facilitation Committee (FAL) to ensure safe and efficient MASS operations. Additionally, substantive development work on the Code is ongoing through discussions in working groups such as the Joint Working Group (JWG), the Communications Group (CG), and Splinter Groups. As of now, it is planned to adopt the non-mandatory MASS Code at the 109th MSC session in the second half of 2024, with the goal of enforcing the MASS Code on 1 January 2028 [3].

1.2. Development of MASS Code

The MASS Code currently under development is divided into three main parts, and the key contents are outlined in

Table 4. Main contents of MASS Code.

Part	Main Contents
Part 1	(1) Overview of the purpose and definition of the code, etc. (2) Basic matters such as scope and principles of application
Part 2	(1) Designing the principles of autonomous ships and key functions (2) Function and role of operational environment and human factors
Part 3	(1) Objectives and functional requirements of 16 major technologies (navigation, communication, emergency response, etc.)

[4].

Part 1 of the MASS Code specifies fundamental aspects such as the purpose, scope of application, definitions, certification, and assessment. It covers the safety, security, and eco-friendly operations of MASSs. The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) applies to cargo ships equipped with remote or autonomous navigation functions, including Remote Operation Centers (ROCs). It also includes requirements and procedures for the approval and certification of MASSs, including ROCs [4].

In Part 2, the focus is on the key principles of MASSs, primarily addressing factors directly involved in their operational environment and human elements. It outlines essential elements for safe operation, including operational principles, risk identification, system design, software and programs, connectivity, and personnel qualifications and roles, both on board and remotely.

Table 5. Part 2 in MASS Code.

Part 2—Main Principles for MASS and MASS Function
2.1	Operational context
2.2	Safe states of a MASS
2.3	Function required of a MASS
2.4	Risk assessment
2.5	System design
2.6	Software
2.7	Connectivity
2.8	Human elements

provides an overview of the complete structure and development status of Part 2 of the MASS Code [4].

In Part 3, it details the technical and functional requirements for the safe operation of autonomous ships. It specifies essential requirements for 16 key technologies crucial for safe navigation, remote operation, communication, emergency response, security, maintenance, and more. Countries have been assigned specific areas to participate in the development of the 16 key functional requirements in Part 3 [4].

In particular, the “2.8 Human Element” of the code pertains to matters related to the introduction of MASS onboard crew and ROs due to MASS adoption [5]. This includes the development of operational requirements not only within the MASS Code, but also in the comprehensive revision of the STCW Convention (scheduled for adoption in 2027) concerning operator requirements. Key of considerations include the following three questions:

• Should ROs be considered as crew members?
• Should ROs have maritime experience, competence, and qualifications?
• Is the STCW Convention applicable to MASS onboard crews and ROs?

The discussions are actively taking place in working group meetings regarding the matters mentioned, especially concerning the qualifications of the RO. Various countries are advocating that ROs should possess the qualifications and competencies required for a marine officer as specified in the STCW Convention.

As discussions on MASSs continue, the focus of safe operation on MASSs has shifted away from the previous four-stage classification for RSEs starting in 2022. Now, the criteria for equipment and the consideration of human factors in MASSs are being discussed in relation to the mode of operation. This signifies a shift from determining the operation of MASSs based on the presence or absence of humans to considering which parts of the system’s decision making can be permitted. The extent of human involvement is expected to be determined based on the decision-making capabilities and methods of the system. However, it is stated in the MASS Code that the ultimate safety of MASSs remains the responsibility of humans, thus highlighting the increasing importance of human factors. Therefore, this paper focuses on the competencies required for the newly emerging role of ROs in the context of remote operation, one of the various operational modes of MASSs. This study aims to identify the essential skills needed to ensure a level of safety equivalent to that of an onboard marine officer by developing a framework for an RO who must operate from a different location. This framework aims to ensure safety while operating without being physically present on the vessel.

In this paper, the aim is to explore previous studies on the qualifications required for ROs and to critically examine the requirements for marine officers outlined in the STCW Convention, aligning with the current direction of discussions. Through this analysis, it is intended to utilize the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to determine the prioritized competencies for ROs and present our findings accordingly. This paper is structured into five sections. Section 2 describes the preliminary studies related to the operation of MASSs. Section 3 provides an overview of the AHP, the research method employed in this study, and explains the Delphi technique used to derive the pairwise decision-making elements utilized in the AHP. Section 4 presents the results regarding the priority elements among the competencies that ROs of MASSs should possess, as compared to the skills required for marine officers under the STCW Convention. Section 5 discusses the implications of this study and suggests areas for future research.

2. Literature Review

Various issues related to autonomous ships are being discussed in different sectors, including the IMO, industry, and academia. Here is an introduction to literature papers and survey on human factors in this context.

Sencila, V. et al. acknowledge that, while MASSs operate remotely, human factors still play a crucial role. They argue that, in order to ensure the safe operation of MASSs, thorough consideration of human factors is necessary at all automation stages. It is evident that acquiring new knowledge, such as digital technologies and Human–Machine Interfaces (HMI)s, and understanding the role of decision support systems will be required for MASS operation [6].

Deling, W. et al. argue that there is a need to closely track the development of MASSs in order to produce personnel suitable for new navigation technologies, along with outlining eight key technologies related to MASS operation. They emphasize the importance of improving education and training methods to provide new knowledge through such tracking. Additionally, they suggest the necessity of incorporating content related to new knowledge and technologies resulting from the emergence of MASSs into existing Maritime Education and Training (MET) programs [7].

Mallam, S.C. et al. argue that obstacles to MASS operation are not just technical, but also involve new regulatory, responsibility, and security-related human factors alongside emerging paradigms of ship operation. This emphasizes the need to consider aspects of system reliability, understanding of decision making, and predictability, as well as the technologies required for developing, operating, and maintaining such systems. Therefore, it is evident that research and development related to reliability, control, practical application considerations, organizational aspects of education, training, and operations, as well as perception and understanding are crucial elements concerning MASSs and human factors [8].

Vojkovic, G. et al. anticipate that the emergence of AI-driven MASSs will bring significant changes to the traditional legal authorities and status of captains, leading to legal challenges. It categorizes the captain’s authority into three major areas: public duties, responsibilities for ship safety, and acting as the owner’s agent. This takes into account that, if the captain is not on board the vessel, there will be significant changes in legal responsibilities regarding authority. When the captain is on shore rather than on the ship, there will be numerous issues that need to be addressed, partially by the industry or at the national level. Therefore, it is evident that there is a need for collaboration among experts from various fields to contribute to the development of new “legal transportation rules” [9].

Fan, C. et al. argue that, for the safe operation of MASSs, there is a need to establish an active and systematic framework that facilitates the safety assessment and quantification of new solutions. It also highlights that, even in MASSs’ third phase, significant risks due to human factors still exist. With remote operators monitoring multiple vessels simultaneously, new types of human-related risks can emerge. Human factors will have a substantial impact on safe operations in the context of MASSs, advocating for a thorough consideration of a system for safe MASS operations based on the 23 human-related factors identified [10].

Ramos, M.A. et al. highlight ship collision incidents as critical accident factors in MASS operations. They propose constructing Event Sequence Diagrams (ESDs) and conducting Concurrent Task Analysis (CoTA) to develop MASS collision scenarios. Additionally, they present the Human–System Interaction in Autonomy (H-SIA) method for understanding human–system interaction in MASS collision scenarios [11].

Zhang, M. et al. emphasize that, until the complete autonomy phase 4 of MASSs, hu-man factors are involved, and human errors remain a navigational risk factor. This suggests that research is needed to reduce the likelihood of human errors. To achieve this, it is necessary to evaluate human errors probabilistically using the Technique for Human Error Rate Prediction (THERP) and Bayesian Network (BN) models in the collaboration between humans and autonomous systems [12].

Montewka, J. et al. determined that, while direct intervention by navigators in ship navigation is likely to decrease, the involvement of remote operators operating MASSs from Shore Control Centers (SCCs) is inevitable, necessitating the consideration of psychological factors (mental state). Furthermore, they propose that MASS design should consider human factors, tasks performed by operators, and tools required for safe operations. They also suggest that risk assessment of autonomous vessel operation and collision avoidance models should consider human–system interaction and human failure [13].

Chang, Y.-C. et al. emphasize that unmanned maritime vehicles (UMVs) come in various types and have different legal statuses depending on their operations. Self-propelled, program-controlled, and remote-controlled UMVs have independent legal statuses, while weapon-type UMVs are classified more as weapons. UNCLOS and COLREGS can apply to UMVs, with their classification as ships depending on the national laws of the flag state. This interpretation benefits operators navigating UMVs outside coastal state territorial seas. Coastal states should utilize international conventions to protect their interests and regulate foreign UMV activities in their waters [14].

Kim, T.E. and Sharma, A. conducted an investigation into the suitability of traditional ship operation skills according to the STCW Table A-II/1 (competencies required for marine officers) in MASS operations. A survey was conducted to analyze the importance of these competencies, and key factors through factor analysis were proposed [15].

Previous studies have utilized various analytical techniques to identify and present the essential competencies for MASSs. However, this study aims to utilize the AHP technique to identify which of the 66 knowledge, understanding, and proficiencies (KUPs), the essential competencies required for marine officers under the STCW Convention are more critical for ROs in operation with MASSs.

3. Methodology

3.1. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Method

Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a multi-criteria decision-making method developed by Thomas L. Saaty in the United States. The AHP is primarily used in decision-making processes that require complex and important judgments across various fields. It has proven to be useful in decision making related to corporate strategies or government policies. The AHP decomposes decision problems into a hierarchical structure to derive priorities among relevant alternatives. The application method is straightforward, enabling easy expression of decision-making processes. Moreover, the AHP can synthesize representative results from diverse judgments, thereby offering significant advantages by surveying experts related to the decision topic [16].

Setting up hierarchies for decision-making typically relies on literature reviews or expert opinions. The hierarchical structure typically includes goals, criteria, sub-criteria, and alternatives. The goal represents the objective of the decision-making process. Since the goal guides respondents’ judgments regarding the criteria and alternatives, it needs to be carefully and specifically defined by the surveyor. Criteria represent factors or attributes contributing to the goal. The structure of criteria forms the hierarchy, and pairwise comparisons among criteria largely determine the significance of applying the AHP in the decision-making process. Alternatives refer to the options or solutions targeted for decision making using the AHP [17].

The criteria forming the hierarchy undergo pairwise comparisons through surveys of experts, typically utilizing a 1–9 scale. Please refer to

Table 6. Saaty’s 1–9-point scale.

Scale	Definition	Description
1	Equally important	If two elements are judged to be equally important.
3	A bit important	If one element is slightly more important than the other.
5	Quite important	If one element is significantly different from the other.
7	Great important	If one element is definitely more important than the other.
9	Absolutely important	If one element is deemed absolutely more important than the other.

[16]. In pairwise comparisons, numbers 1 to 9 reflect relative importance or preference between two factors (A and B), where 1 indicates equal importance, 3 slight preference, 5 moderate preference, 7 strong preference, and 9 extreme preferences. A value closer to 9 signifies a greater importance of the factor [17].

The interpretation of the above scale involves pairwise comparison, which entails comparing two entities at a time to determine the relatively preferred or important ones. The AHP enhances the accuracy of human judgments by repeatedly conducting such pairwise comparisons. The results of multiple pairwise comparisons can be summarized in a pairwise comparison matrix. The pairwise comparison matrix is a square matrix with the same number of rows and columns, as depicted in Equation (1) [17].

$$A=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}1& \begin{array}{cc}{a}_{12}& \cdots \end{array}& a_{1n}\\ \begin{array}{c}{a}_{11}\\ ⋮\end{array}& \begin{array}{cc}1& \cdots \\ ⋮& \cdots \end{array}& \begin{array}{c}{a}_{2n}\\ ⋮\end{array}\\ a_{n1}& \begin{array}{cc}{a}_{n2}& \cdots \end{array}& 1\end{array}\right]$$

$$a_{ij}=1/a_{ji}{a}_{ii}=1$$

(1)

Once the comparisons of the criteria are completed on the questionnaire, the AHP calculates the priority or weights of each element through mathematical processes. The applied equation for deriving the relative weights of decision factors is given as Equation (2), where ${\omega }_i$ represents the relative importance of the i-th evaluation factor. When evaluation factor i is pairwise compared with another evaluation factor j, the importance is denoted by ${\omega }_{ij}$. The relative importance is determined from the pairwise comparison matrix using the eigenvalue method, as depicted in Equation (3) [17].

$$A=[a_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{j}}]=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}{\omega }_1/{\omega }_1& \begin{array}{cc}{\omega }_1/{\omega }_2& \cdots \end{array}& {\omega }_1/{\omega }_{\mathrm{n}}\\ \begin{array}{c}{\omega }_2/{\omega }_1\\ ⋮\end{array}& \begin{array}{cc}{\omega }_2/{\omega }_2& \cdots \\ ⋮& \cdots \end{array}& \begin{array}{c}{\omega }_2/{\omega }_{\mathrm{n}}\\ ⋮\end{array}\\ {\omega }_{\mathrm{n}}/{\omega }_1& \begin{array}{cc}{\omega }_{\mathrm{n}}/{\omega }_2& \cdots \end{array}& {\omega }_{\mathrm{n}}/{\omega }_{\mathrm{n}}\end{array}\right]$$

(2)

$$A·\omega ={\lambda }_{max}·\omega$$

(3)

The pairwise comparison method evaluates the consistency of comparison matrices to determine the reliability of the results. To do this, it calculates the eigenvector and eigenvalue of the comparison matrix. It then computes the consistency index (CI) and Consistency Ratio (CR). The CR is calculated by dividing the CI by the consistency of a random matrix and is used to achieve more reliable comparison results. Particularly in real survey responses, there may be inconsistencies, so measuring the degree of consistency is necessary. The CI and CR can be defined using Equations (4) and (5) [17]. RI stands for the Random Index, which represents the consistency index when a pairwise comparison matrix is randomly generated using a random scale. The consistency index is calculated based on the size of the matrix.

$$CI=\frac{{\lambda }_{max}-n}{n-1}$$

(4)

$$CR=\frac{CI}{RI}$$

(5)

If the CR is 0, this indicates that the respondent conducted pairwise comparisons consistently. Generally, when the CR is within a maximum of 0.1 or 0.2, the pairwise comparison matrix is considered consistent. A CR within 0.2 is considered an acceptable level of consistency, while a CR above 0.2 indicates inadequate consistency and implies the necessity for reassessment [17].

3.2. Evaluation Criteria

The main objective of this study is to determine the relative importance of the competencies required for an RO who will operate a MASS, as specified in accordance with the minimum competency standards for marine officers in charge of a navigational watch of ships of 500 gross tonnage or more, as stipulated in STCW Code A-II/1. However, since there are a total of 66 competencies listed, it would be too cumbersome to measure the relative importance of each individual competency, potentially leading to inaccuracies in the assessment of competencies. Therefore, we need to first proceed with grouping the competencies. The Delphi technique was used to categorize the competencies based on expert opinions gathered from a panel of experts. The Delphi method is a commonly utilized approach for predicting future outcomes or addressing complex issues by leveraging the collective knowledge of experts. It utilizes iterative surveys with a specific focus to reach a consensus among a group of experts on a particular subject while minimizing response discrepancies. Anonymity is a crucial aspect of this method, enabling experts to provide unbiased opinions, which leads to a more objective and reliable consensus. The results obtained are considered highly credible due to the consensus reached through multiple rounds of iteration and expert evaluation [18,19,20,21,22]. The detailed composition and demographic characteristics of expert panels are provided in

Table 7. Composition of the group of expert panels.

Job	Number of Panel	Experience	Number of Panel	Age	Number of Panel
Researcher	7	5~10 years	4	Under 40	5
Professor	4	10~15 years	6	41~50	5
Government	2	15~20 years	3	Above 50	3

.

The expert group consisted of 13 panels affiliated with academia, research institutes, and government. They have been engaged in ship operation and training fields for at least 5 years. They are directly or indirectly involved in the MASS technology development R&D project of South Korea, possessing sufficient knowledge about MASSs. The Delphi survey was conducted in three stages. The first stage of the survey was an open-ended questionnaire based on the 66 KUPs that marine officers must have, focusing on essential elements that ROs must possess. The questionnaire for the first stage is attached as Appendix A. Through the first stage of the questionnaire, experts were asked to specify the top 10 competencies out of the total 66 competencies deemed most essential for remote operators (ROs). Subsequently, these collected competencies were subjected to iterative surveys in the second and third stages to assess their relative importance. Through this process, experts repeatedly emphasized the importance of these competencies, which led to the grouping of those considered significant. Based on this, 11 factors were identified, and the suitability was assessed through closed surveys in the second and third rounds to derive the results.

4. Result

4.1. Analysis of Result

The 11 evaluation factors selected through the Delphi method are as follows. “Position Fixing and Watchkeeping” refers to determining the vessel’s position and performing navigation duties, typically carried out by a marine officer on the bridge. “Control Cargo and Ballast” involves duties related to cargo handling and managing ballast water load and discharge to adjust the condition after cargo loading or unloading, ensuring the safe transportation of cargo. “Emergency Response” involves responding to various hazardous incidents as specified in the SOLAS regulations, which necessitates continuous training shipboard to enhance these capabilities. “Safety Awareness” pertains to knowledge of personal survival techniques and emergency procedures. “Use of Navigational Instruments” encompasses various navigation equipment, including ECDIS, ARPA, and RADAR, as specified in the STCW Code. Expert opinions suggest the integration of these areas. “Teamwork and Leadership” refers to soft skills associated with resource allocation and personnel management in maritime operations. “Pollution Prevention” includes procedures and preventive measures for preventing marine pollution. “Damage Control” involves the ability to respond to specific incidents such as collisions, grounding, and flooding. “Application of Meteorological Information” refers to the interpretation and utilization of weather data acquired from meteorological systems and observation instruments. “Communication” specifically refers to the understanding of VTS reporting methods and systems, as well as the proficiency in using international signal codes. “Maintaining Seaworthiness” encompasses detailed knowledge of ship handling, including maneuvering characteristics such as turning radius, stopping distance, and stability calculations.

In accordance with the purpose of this study, which is to identify priority factors for ROs based on the 11 factors identified for analysis, a survey was conducted targeting participants who completed MASS remote operation training at the Korea Institute of Maritime and Fisheries Technology. The pairwise comparisons were conducted using the framework in Figure 1. The targeted training was conducted from January 2022 to December 2023, totaling eight training sessions. The status of the participants is detailed in

Table 8. Specification of participants who joined MASS course.

Job	Number of Participants	Experience	Number of Participants	C.O.C 1	Number of Participants
Academic Researcher Professor Government	3 4 15 1	Under 1 year 1 ~ 5 years 6 ~ 10 years 11 ~ 15 years 16 ~ 20 years	5 2 4 10 2	Yes No	6 17

¹ C.O.C: Certificate of Competency. It is a certification required for personnel in maritime industries. It is used to demonstrate the skills, knowledge, and experience necessary for the respective role on a ship according to the STCW requirements.

.

Reflecting the characteristics of the AHP methodology, a separate guidance page was created, and a survey was conducted after completing remote operation training sessions using simulators. Responses were collected from a total of 42 participants, with 23 surveys meeting the CI and CR criteria, ensuring consistency.

Based on the pairwise comparison results for each criterion, the pairwise comparison matrix was calculated to derive the relative weights using the eigenvector method. Further-more, to harmonize the priorities among respondents, the geometric mean was used to derive the relative priorities. The geometric mean involves multiplying the pairwise comparison results of multiple evaluators and then taking the square root of that product. It is used when determining priorities in group decision making, as per Equation (6). The priorities derived from participants who were experienced in remote navigation using this method are shown in

Table 9. Result of AHP geometric mean.

Competencies	Weights	Rank
Position Fixing and Watchkeeping	0.1029	5
Control Cargo and Ballast	0.0576	9
Emergency Response (Fire, Flood, etc.)	0.0592	7
Safety Awareness	0.0578	8
Use of Navigational Instruments	0.1486	2
Teamwork and Leadership	0.0519	10
Pollution Prevention	0.0500	11
Damage Control	0.0922	6
Application Meteorological Information	0.1184	3
Communication	0.1071	4
Maintaining Seaworthiness 1	0.1542	1

¹ Seaworthiness: This refers to the condition in which a ship is safe and fit for operation under navigation conditions. It encompasses the physical, technical, and operational conditions that allow a ship to navigate safely at sea. This term indicates that a ship is capable of functioning and operating safely under permissible conditions, considering various aspects related to the design, maintenance, and operation.

.

$$GM=\sqrt[n]{X_1·X_2·X_3·X_4\cdots X_n}$$

(6)

Before the training, participants identified “Use of Navigational Instruments” as the most important competency for ROs of MASSs. When asked for the reason, they mentioned that, “having a thorough understanding of navigational instruments and their proper usage would aid in safe navigation”. After completing the remote operation simulator training, “Maintaining Seaworthiness” was identified as the most critical competency. When questioned about the reasons for these differences, participants added that, “accurately diagnosing the ship’s condition from a different area, not within the ship, is crucial for navigating remotely”.

Furthermore, the geometric mean of the survey was divided into two groups based on whether the respondents held a C.O.C. This division was conducted to compare the priorities of individuals with actual ship operation experience against those without it. It is worth noting that, while participants in this survey may not have direct ship navigation experience, many are employed in shipbuilding companies, maritime research institutes, or related industries, so they are not completely unfamiliar with ships. The results for participants holding a C.O.C are presented in

Table 10. The result of GM (the group holding a C.O.C).

Competencies	Weights	Rank
Position Fixing and Watchkeeping	0.0904	4
Control Cargo and Ballast	0.0895	5
Emergency Response (Fire, Flood, etc.)	0.0744	8
Safety Awareness	0.0700	9
Use of Navigational Instruments	0.1165	3
Teamwork and Leadership	0.0400	11
Pollution Prevention	0.0606	10
Damage Control	0.1389	2
Application Meteorological Information	0.0798	7
Communication	0.0814	6
Maintaining Seaworthiness	0.1585	1

, while those not holding a C.O.C are presented in

Table 11. The result of GM (the group without a C.O.C).

Competencies	Weights	Rank
Position Fixing and Watchkeeping	0.1059	5
Control Cargo and Ballast	0.0480	10
Emergency Response (Fire, Flood, etc.)	0.0534	8
Safety Awareness	0.0527	9
Use of Navigational Instruments	0.1601	1
Teamwork and Leadership	0.0562	7
Pollution Prevention	0.0456	11
Damage Control	0.0777	6
Application Meteorological Information	0.1345	3
Communication	0.1164	4
Maintaining Seaworthiness	0.1495	2

.

According to

Table 12. Differences in perception between C.O.C holders’ group and group without a C.O.C.

Competencies	C.O.C Holders		C.O.C Non-Holders
	Weights	Rank	Weights	Rank
Position Fixing and Watchkeeping	0.0904	4	0.1059	5
Control Cargo and Ballast	0.0895	5	0.0480	10
Emergency Response (Fire, Flood, etc.)	0.0744	8	0.0534	8
Safety Awareness	0.0700	9	0.0527	9
Use of Navigational Instruments	0.1165	3	0.1601	1
Teamwork and Leadership	0.0400	11	0.0562	7
Pollution Prevention	0.0606	10	0.0456	11
Damage Control	0.1389	2	0.0777	6
Application Meteorological Information	0.0798	7	0.1345	3
Communication	0.0814	6	0.1164	4
Maintaining Seaworthiness	0.1585	1	0.1495	2

, the group of C.O.C holders ranked “Maintaining Seaworthiness” as the top competency, followed by “Damage Control” as the second and “Use of Navigational Instruments” as the third, consistent with the integrated results previously discussed. This indicates that the C.O.C holders considered the ability to maintain sea-worthiness as more crucial compared to other factors.

On the other hand, the group without a C.O.C ranked “Use of Navigational Instruments” as the most important competency, followed by “Maintaining Seaworthiness” as the second and “Application of Meteorological Information” as the third in terms of priority. This suggests that priorities shifted based on actual ship navigation experience, with C.O.C holders prioritizing safety over operational abilities, while the group without a C.O.C focused more on environmental and equipment operational concerns. This reflects the inherent differences in competencies between individuals with traditional maritime experience and those without a C.O.C.

According to current discussions on RO competency, ROs are expected to meet the navigational competency requirements outlined by the STCW Convention and Code. The notable difference in the results based on C.O.C status confirms that ROs, being responsible for ship navigation, among other marine officer duties, naturally require navigational competencies.

4.2. Implications

The development stages of MASSs are currently at a significant level. In line with this technological advancement, the IMO is continuously discussing the establishment of the MASS Code, moving beyond simple working group meetings to convening joint working groups and intersessional working groups. In particular, “2.8 Human Element” of the Code establishes the elements related to the human factors necessary for operating MASSs safely. Based on the experience of remote operation training for MASSs, which is the subject of this study, issues related to the competencies required for ROs were compiled into agenda documents for the 106th MSC meeting in 2022. This document provides an introduction to the virtual training on the concept of remote operation using MASS remote control simulations conducted by KIMFT since 2021, along with some brief implications [23]. Moreover, there is a consensus among member states that ROs should have practical navigation skills. This paper explores the navigation skills that are considered more important for ROs.

No attempts have been made yet to establish a training model for ROs. Through this pre-emptively established training, significant differences in perception based on actual ship operation experience were also identified. It is expected that, when developing a training model for ROs of MASSs in the future, the curriculum can be structured based on the priorities established in this study. Moreover, since this study did not include surveys specifically targeting training related to the education of ROs, it is deemed necessary to proactively develop an educational curriculum focused on the training of ROs in the future.

5. Conclusions

The MASS Code currently under discussion by the IMO aims for mandatory implementation by 2028 and is actively being discussed, with the final stages of technical discussions approaching [3]. Alongside these technical discussions, there is also active discourse on the human elements of ROs for MASSs.

In this study, the Delphi method was utilized to identify the competencies required for ROs of MASSs among students participating in remote operation training conducted by KIMFT. The AHP was then employed to confirm priorities and analyze importance. Subsequently, the geometric mean of values obtained through surveys was used to analyze importance and priority.

The prioritization of competencies that ROs should possess, based on the geometric mean of the AHP results of all the participants who joined in the training, is as follows: “Maintaining Seaworthiness” ranked highest at 0.1542, followed by “Use of Navigational Instruments” at 0.1486 and “Application of Meteorological Information” at 0.1184.

However, when the participants were grouped based on the presence or absence of a C.O.C, the differences in priority perception between the two groups were as follows. For the C.O.C holder group, “Maintaining Seaworthiness” was prioritized the highest at 0.1585, followed by “Damage Control” at 0.1389 and “Use of Navigational Instruments” at 0.1165. For the group without a C.O.C, “Use of Navigational Instruments” was ranked first at 0.1601, followed by “Maintaining Seaworthiness” at 0.1495 and “Application of Meteorological Information” at 0.1345.

Through these perceptual differences, significant results indicate that the presence or absence of navigational experience can alter the important competencies for ROs. Considering that the primary duty of an RO is safe navigation, it is more important to assess the overall seaworthiness, rather than the operational abilities for a single navigational instrument or environmental awareness. Therefore, it can be inferred that training on sufficient navigational competencies should be a fundamental component when considering future training models for ROs. Consequently, the results of this study can serve as foundational data for allocating and structuring the training duration for RO training models.

However, considering the ongoing development of systems and components for MASSs and the fact that the training environment at KIMFT, where the study was con-ducted, was established in 2020, the study cannot fully represent the current remote operational environment that is under consideration. Therefore, there are limitations to the clarity of the above results regarding the detailed competencies of ROs. Moving forward, continuous research will be necessary through actual simulation-based training and experiments to explore in-depth the specific competencies that ROs should possess.