Article Gold Open Access 2024

An evaluation of maritime simulators from technical, instructional, and organizational perspectives: a hybrid multi-criteria decision-making approach

WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs
Journal · Vol. 23 · Issue 2 · pp. 165-194
Abstract

Recent advancements in simulation technology facilitated maritime training in various modalities such as full-mission, desktop-based, cloud-based, and virtual reality (VR) simulators. Each of the simulator modality has unique pros and cons considering their technical capabilities, pedagogical opportunities, and different organizational aspects. On the other hand, enhanced training opportunity and diversity of training depends on the proper utilization of simulators. In this context, the absence of an unbiased, transparent, and robust simulator selection process poses a complex decision-making challenge for the maritime instructors and decision-makers at the institutions. In this study, a hybrid multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) approach is proposed to evaluate four major types of simulator modalities. For the evaluation, a MCDM framework is developed based on 13 key factors (sub-criteria) for simulator selection grouped under three higher-level criteria—technical, instructional, and organizational criteria. Data was collected using a structured best-worst method (BWM) survey from subject matter experts. The Bayesian BWM is used for ranking of the 13 sub-criteria, and the Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluation (PROMETHEE) is used to evaluate the four simulator modalities utilizing sub-criteria ranking scores from Bayesian BWM. The results reveal that the regulatory compliance of simulators is the most important criterion, while the cost of simulators is considered the least important criterion during the simulator selection process. Overall, full-mission simulators are the most preferred followed by VR simulators, cloud-based and desktop simulators. However, a sensitivity analysis demonstrated context-specific preferences for certain simulator types over others. © The Author(s) 2023.

Keywords

Author Keywords

maritime education simulator training best-worst method STCW Technology evaluation

Index Keywords

Author Affiliations
Natural Sciences and Maritime Sciences, University of South-Eastern Norway, Kongsberg, Buskerud, Norway
Funding & Acknowledgements
No funding information
References 10 References
1 Ahvenjärvi, Sauli, Istlab – new way of utilizing a simulator system in testing & demonstration of intelligent shipping technology and training of future maritime professionals, TransNav, 15, 3, pp. 569-574, (2021)
2 Albadvi, A., Decision making in stock trading: An application of PROMETHEE, European Journal of Operational Research, 177, 2, pp. 673-683, (2006)
3 (2021)
4 Gurumurthy, Anand, Selection of lean manufacturing systems using the PROMETHEE, Journal of Modelling in Management, 3, 1, pp. 40-70, (2008)
5 Anderson, Terry Dirndorfer, Three generations of distance education pedagogy, International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12, 3, pp. 80-97, (2011)
6 Balcita, Rommel E., Augmented reality model framework for maritime education to alleviate the factors affecting learning experience, International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 10, 8, pp. 603-607, (2020)
7 Baldauf, Michael, Multidimensional simulation in team training for safety and security in maritime transportation, Journal of Transportation Safety and Security, 8, 3, pp. 197-213, (2016)
8 Benedict, Knud, Computer-based support for the evaluation of ship handling exercise results, WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 5, 1, pp. 17-35, (2006)
9 Benedict, Knud, Innovative fast time simulation tools for briefing / debriefing in advanced ship handling simulator training and ship operation, Transactions on Maritime Science, 6, 1, pp. 24-38, (2017)
10 Billard, Randy, Assessing Lifeboat Coxswain Training Alternatives Using a Simulator, Journal of Navigation, 73, 2, pp. 455-470, (2020)
Quick Actions
Full Text via DOI
Citation Metrics
19
Times Cited (Scopus)

References 10
Document Identifiers