Human Factors & Performance

Human Factors & Performance

Human factors and performance work addresses the point where safe operation depends on more than equipment condition, written procedures or individual certificates. It looks at how crews, supervisors, shore teams and technical systems interact during real operations, and how that interaction affects decisions, communication, workload and control.

This service supports owners, operators, managers, charterers, insurers and project teams where performance varies between vessels, crews or shifts; where incidents repeat despite corrective action; or where compliance appears satisfactory but execution remains inconsistent. The work focuses on operational reality: what people actually do, what systems allow them to do, and where pressure, complexity or poor design increase risk.

Peloric does not provide statutory certification, class approval or psychological assessment. The work provides an operational view of human performance risk, supported by onboard evidence, records, observation and practical recommendations that clients can use to improve control, supervision and assurance.

Where performance issues relate to communication, challenge culture, inclusion or crew continuity, Peloric can support targeted training through its Human Element, Communication & Crew Sustainability service.

At a glance

A clear view of where this work applies and what it delivers.

• Scope: Review of crew, supervisor, ship-shore and system interaction during routine, critical or degraded maritime operations.
• Focus: Communication, workload, decision-making, supervision, escalation, procedure usability, fatigue risk and repeatability of execution.
• Approach: Evidence-led review using observation, interviews, records, system data and comparison between procedure and work-as-done.
• Key areas: Bridge, engine room, DP operations, emergency response, permit-to-work activity, ship-shore communication and operational control.
• What Peloric examines: ECDIS, radar, VDR, DP logs, alarm systems, SMS procedures, drill records, hours of rest, incident reports, near-miss reports, audit findings and communication records where relevant.
• Typical outputs: Human performance review, operational findings, evidence summary, gap analysis, corrective action recommendations and follow-up verification plan.
• Outcome: Clearer understanding of why performance varies, where controls fail in practice and what changes will improve reliability.
• Application: Fleet performance improvement, incident follow-up, audit close-out, client assurance, mobilisation readiness, vetting preparation and operational change review.

Performance variation between crews, vessels and shifts

Human factors work becomes relevant where similar vessels, systems or procedures produce different outcomes. One crew may complete a critical operation cleanly while another struggles with the same task. One vessel may escalate defects early while another normalises workarounds. One watch may handle alarms effectively while another loses prioritisation under pressure.

The review looks beyond individual error. It considers how instructions, workload, supervision, equipment layout, communication patterns and shore pressure shape the decisions people make. This helps clients distinguish between isolated mistakes, weak local practices and deeper organisational conditions that make poor performance more likely.

Work-as-done versus work-as-written

Many maritime procedures describe how work should happen, but crews often adapt them to match time pressure, manning, equipment condition or operational constraints. Some adaptations improve practicality. Others bypass controls, weaken supervision or make risk harder to see.

Peloric compares SMS requirements, permits to work, bridge procedures, standing orders, engine room routines, DP guidance and emergency response arrangements with observed practice and recorded evidence. The work identifies where procedures support real execution, where they create friction, and where informal routines have replaced formal control.

Communication, escalation and ship-shore control

Operational failure often develops before the visible incident. Weak escalation, unclear authority, poor handover or delayed shore response can turn a manageable issue into off-hire, delay, client concern or claims exposure.

This service reviews how information moves between bridge, engine room, deck, DP station, contractors and shore management. It considers watch handovers, toolbox talks, permits, management calls, client instructions, incident reports and escalation records. The aim is to test whether the right people receive the right information early enough to act.

Workload, fatigue and manning pressure

Fatigue and workload affect performance long before they produce a clear breach of hours of rest. Crews may remain compliant on paper while operational tempo, port rotation, maintenance burden, drills, audits, security tasks, paperwork and client requirements stretch attention and supervision.

The review considers hours of rest, manning arrangements, task allocation, critical operation timing, night work, port calls, maintenance pressure and emergency response demands. Where relevant, it links fatigue and workload findings to STCW, MLC 2006, ISM Code expectations and the operator’s own SMS without turning the work into a statutory audit.

Bridge, engine and DP team performance

Human performance risk appears differently across vessel functions. On the bridge, it may involve passage monitoring, ECDIS use, radar integration, pilotage communication or decision-making during restricted visibility. In the engine room, it may involve alarm handling, plant start-up, defect response, automation behaviour or competing maintenance priorities. In DP operations, it may involve consequence awareness, ASOG or WSOG application, SIMOPS coordination, permit control and response to degraded status.

Peloric reviews the operational context, available evidence and team interaction around the activity in question. This may include VDR information, bridge communications, DP event logs, engine alarm histories, PMS records, defect logs, permits, risk assessments, drill records and interviews with personnel involved.

Incident, near-miss and corrective action learning

Repeated incidents or near misses often indicate that previous corrective actions addressed symptoms rather than operating conditions. Additional training, revised procedures or reminders may not change performance if workload, supervision, communication or equipment design still drive the same behaviour.

This service tests whether incident learning has translated into operational change. It reviews investigation outputs, corrective action logs, training records, audit findings, near-miss reports and evidence from subsequent operations. The work identifies whether controls have changed, whether crews understand them, and whether the change holds under normal pressure.

Assurance, vetting and client confidence

Human performance now forms a visible part of maritime assurance. SIRE 2.0, OVID, client audits, offshore mobilisation reviews and internal assurance processes all place greater emphasis on how crews execute procedures, manage risk, communicate and respond to abnormal conditions.

Peloric supports clients who need to understand and improve this performance before an inspection, mobilisation, vetting review, charterer assessment or client audit. The work can also help explain persistent findings, weak close-out evidence or client concern following an operational failure.

Commercial impact of human performance risk

Human performance issues carry direct commercial consequences. Poor escalation can extend downtime. Weak supervision can lead to damage, cargo delay, failed mobilisation or unsafe work. Inconsistent execution can trigger vetting findings, client restrictions, repeat non-conformities, claims exposure and loss of confidence.

The review links operational findings to commercial exposure without reducing the work to cost language. It helps clients see where behavioural, procedural and organisational factors affect vessel availability, assurance outcomes, claim defensibility and the credibility of corrective action.

The Peloric Process

Peloric uses a structured review process that connects onboard reality with management systems, operational evidence and commercial risk. The process adapts to the vessel, operation, incident history and assurance need, while keeping the focus on practical performance improvement.

1. Define the operational concern

The work starts by defining the performance problem, operational setting and client objective. This may involve repeat incidents, inconsistent vessel performance, a failed audit, client concern, mobilisation risk, vetting exposure, or uncertainty about whether corrective actions have changed behaviour.

Peloric clarifies the vessel type, activity, systems involved, crew and shore interfaces, assurance context and commercial consequence. This keeps the review focused on the decisions and controls that matter.

2. Establish the evidence base

Peloric gathers the relevant records, system data and management information. Evidence may include SMS procedures, risk assessments, permits to work, standing orders, passage plans, VDR material, DP logs, engine alarm histories, PMS records, defect logs, drill records, hours of rest, crew records, training records, incident reports, near-miss reports, audit findings and ship-shore communication records.

The review considers both formal records and the operational circumstances behind them. This helps separate paperwork compliance from actual control.

3. Observe work-as-done

Where onboard attendance or vessel riding adds value, Peloric observes the relevant operation under real conditions. This may involve bridge team activity, engine room response, DP operations, cargo or deck work, drills, emergency exercises, permit-controlled work or ship-shore coordination.

Observation focuses on communication, role clarity, supervision, workload, alarm response, escalation, procedure use and decision-making. The aim is to understand how the work happens, not to create a blame exercise.

4. Engage with crew and shore teams

Structured discussion with crew, supervisors and shore personnel helps explain why people act as they do. Peloric uses these discussions to understand practical constraints, informal routines, training gaps, equipment limitations, fatigue pressure, reporting culture and the quality of support from shore.

This stage can reveal issues that records alone rarely show, including unclear accountability, normalised workarounds, weak escalation thresholds or procedures that crews do not find usable.

5. Analyse controls, systems and commercial exposure

Peloric compares the evidence against the operational requirement, SMS expectations, relevant assurance frameworks and the client’s commercial exposure. The analysis considers whether procedures, manning, equipment, training, supervision and shore support provide enough control for the work being carried out.

Where relevant, the review considers STCW competence expectations, ISM Code requirements for resources, personnel and emergency preparedness, MLC 2006 fatigue considerations, SIRE 2.0 human element focus, OVID expectations and offshore client assurance requirements.

6. Report findings and improvement actions

The output sets out clear findings, supporting evidence and practical recommendations. Recommendations may address procedure usability, supervision, communication, escalation, alarm response, drill design, training focus, fatigue management, ship-shore support, corrective action quality or follow-up assurance.

Peloric keeps recommendations proportionate to the risk, vessel type and operating environment. The report avoids generic training solutions where the evidence points to system, workload or management issues.

7. Verify change and close-out

Human performance improvement only matters if it changes execution. Peloric can support follow-up review through repeat observation, document checks, evidence sampling, crew feedback, audit close-out review or verification of corrective action effectiveness.

This stage helps clients confirm whether the change has taken hold, whether new controls work in practice, and whether the same conditions could still produce the same failure.

Related services

• Navigation Assurance & Bridge Audits
• Incident Investigation & Operational Review
• Training & Competence Assurance
• Regulatory Compliance

Related sectors

• Commercial Shipping
• Offshore Energy
• Passenger Operations
• Ports & Terminals