The project proposal was defined on the basis of discussions and suggestions presented at a meeting held at the Norwegian Maritime Directorate on September 13, 2001, and on the documents which had been distributed in advance of the meeting. The proposal was also based on experience from the IMO's March 2001 meeting (DE 44) and the discussions of equipment requirements and test procedures for personal life-saving equipment that have been taking place between the Maritime Directorate, USCG and SINTEF since May 2000. The project is regarded as a pilot project in preparation for carrying out the main project "Improved Personal Life-Saving Equipment 2002".

　

SINTEF Unimed has utilised the Concept Engineering concept development method (1, 2) as a basis for carrying out the project. This is a user-focused, systematic method for idea creation and product development. The method is highly suitable for elucidating the total requirements of all premise suppliers (under realistic conditions and throughout the whole course of an emergency situation from evacuation to rescue), the transformation of these needs into functional requirements, and their categorisation (e.g. phases of the sequence of events, users, type of vessel, surroundings). The method also results in a prioritised list of functional requirements.

　

The aim of the pilot project was to obtain an overview of all the premise suppliers' needs for protection in a realistic emergency situation, and it was intended to result in a prioritised list of functional requirements for personal life-saving equipment.

　

The project will result in three deliveries:

　

　

In conjunction with existing knowledge and regulations, the overview of users' needs and a complete list of functional requirements will add up to a useful knowledge base for the authorities, manufacturers and R & D institutions.

　

The project has been guided by a working group appointed by the meeting at the Norwegian Maritime Directorate on September 13. Ivar Grneng is the coordinator of both the pilot project and the main project. The project manager has reported to the Coordinator and the working group.

　

Working Group:

Ivar Grneng, Norwegian Maritime Directorate (chairman)

Arne K. Jrgensen, Norwegian Shipowners' Federation

Trond Srem, Norwegian Association of Safety Centres

Grethe Sunde, Regatta AS

Kent Jensen, Safety Center Aukra

Einar O. Johansen, Norwegian Maritime Directorate.

　

Project Group:

Project manager: Professor Randi Eidsmo Reinertsen, Research Director, SINTEF Unimed

Project staff: Ingunn Marie Holmen Geving, Research Scientist, SINTEF Unimed

Kristin Ulven Jergensen, M.Sc. SINTEF Unimed.

Per Werenskiold, Senior Engineer, MARINTEK AS.

　

Advisory Group:

Erik Jersin, Senior Scientist, SINTEF Industrial Management

Roy Erling Furre, Organisation Secretary, The Federation of Oil Workers' Trade Union.

　

The project was carried out in October and November, 2001.

　

SINTEF Unimed based the implementation of the project on the concept development method known as Concept Engineering (1). This method was originally developed in Japan, further developed in the USA, and has been modified by SINTEF on the basis of our own experience of using the method. It is a user-focused method for systematically gathering and processing of data for the development of functional requirements, products and services. The method was originally designed in order to deal with large quantities of qualitative data (e.g. subjective problems, user's needs or requirements) to develop product concepts that will meet, or exceed, user expectations.

　

SINTEF Unimed has utilised this method for the development of functional requirements for personal protective equipment and working clothes (2, 3). We have found the method to be suitable for identifying the total needs of all users, transforming these needs into sets of functional requirements and then categorising such requirements. The method also results in a prioritisation of the requirements.

　

The project was carried out in four stages:

　

　

The Norwegian Maritime Directorate drew up a list of the premise suppliers who ought to be included in ascertaining their requirements, and a sample of them were interviewed. (See Appendix 1: List of interviewees). An interview guide was developed. It was intended to carry out the interviews in open-ended form, using the interview guide solely as a set of guidelines. It was decided that, in the pilot project, we would not attempt to include all the functional requirements that are found in currently applicable standards.

　

Timetable: 1 week

Participants: Project manager, project staff, advisors and working group

Methodology: Work in project group, distribution via e-mail and feedback to advisors and working group: meeting with coordinator

Deliveries: Interview guide and list of interviewees.

　

Seventeen interviews were carried out and written input was obtained from four persons. The aim was to generate knowledge and understanding of relevant accident situations, and to reveal real problems and functional requirements of personal life-saving equipment. The idea of using the interview method was to access points of view that we would not otherwise have obtained. This gave us better insight into problems than we would have gained via a questionnaire. The interviews were carried out by two persons, one of whom asked the questions while the other wrote down the answers and other statements. The interviews lasted for 60 to 90 minutes. After each interview we spent a further 15 - 30 minutes on "debriefing" in order to be sure that we had the same understanding of what had been said, before each interview was written up. Previous experience of this method has shown that 10 - 15 interviews will produce 90% of all relevant user statements (1).

　

A list of 901 user statements was drawn up on the basis of the interviews.

　

Timetable: 2 weeks

Participants: Project group and 21 interviewees who had been selected in the course of Stage 1

Deliveries: List of needs in the form of statements

　

The knowledge produced by the statements made in Stage 2 was transformed into a shorter, more easily grasped and understandable set of key user requirements. This phase of the work consisted of two main parts. In the first, we used the Multi-Stage Picking-out Method (MPM) to analyse and identify the most important statements made by the interviewees. These statements were thereafter transformed into more precise user requirements that reflected their needs or problems. In the second part, further insight into these requirements was developed, in that each requirement was systematically picked out and analysed by everyone in the group, in order to clarify and reach agreement on the interpretation of the requirement. The requirements were then prioritised and grouped in terms of the question: "What are the most important user requirements regarding personal life-saving equipment?" The requirements were formulated in such a way as to make them as concrete and measurable as possible. By the end of this phase the most important requirements regarding personal life-saving equipment had been structured and grouped with respect to: 1) information and training; 2) the on-board situation; 3) in the sea and 4) localisation. A total of 642 statements made up the basis for the formulation of requirements in these four categories. The remaining 259 statements were categorised in terms of test conditions, emergency procedures, trade area, authorities, rescue services, life-raft/lifeboat, product inspection and maintenance.

　

At a meeting with the working group it was decided who would take part in the questionnaire study.

　

Timetable: 1 week

Participants: Project group

Methodology: Individual and group work; meeting with working group.

　

The primary aim of the questionnaire study was to acquire an understanding of which requirements should be emphasised in the next stages of the task of improving personal life-saving equipment. In the course of Stage 4, the specific requirements were tested and evaluated in terms of users' needs. A questionnaire was drawn up on the basis of the requirements that had emerged in the course of the previous stages (Appendix 2: Questionnaire). The questionnaire was distributed to the defined target group, with a deadline for responses of one-and-a-half weeks. Respondents were asked to prioritise the four most important functional requirements within categories 1 and 4, and the ten most important functional requirements in categories 2 and 3. There was a very good response rate among the participants who were sent the questionnaire, and sufficient responses were received (a total of 357), to provide a good basis for processing them into prioritised lists of functional requirements. Since the questionnaire was copied and passed around within the various groups of premise suppliers, we have no way of calculating the response rate relative to the number of forms that were distributed. The responses were processed so as to give us the percentage of those who responded who had prioritised each individual functional requirements, as shown graphically in Section 3: Results and in a separate list in Appendix 3: Prioritisation of requirements in the questionnaire, for categories 1) information; 2) the on-board situation; 3) in the sea and 4) localisation. This list includes the results of all responses received (357).

　

Timetable: 3 weeks

Participants: Project group and 357 persons who responded to the questionnaire

Methodology: Individual work and meeting with working group

Deliveries: Questionnaire and prioritised list of requirements.