Journal of Marine Science and Technology

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00773-020-00750-5

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Systems analysis for deployment of internet of things (IoT)

in the maritime industry
Kazuo Hiekata1 · Shinnosuke Wanaka2   · Taiga Mitsuyuki3 · Ryuji Ueno4 · Ryota Wada1 · Bryan Moser1,5

Received: 11 November 2019 / Accepted: 6 July 2020

© The Author(s) 2020

Abstract
Various industries are undergoing transformation given recently available pervasive sensors, low-cost and low-latency digital
communication, and distributed control technologies. The objective of this paper is to support the introduction of Internet
of things (IoT) technologies in the maritime industry. The maritime industry is analyzed as a system of systems to define
performance criteria and functions to be modeled and analyzed through simulation. In this case, the simulation of a shipping
system includes models of operation, cargo loading, fuel loading, and docking for maintenance. In the simulation, various
kinds of IoT technologies are defined by several input parameters. By changing the parameters, the simulator evaluates the
impact of those technologies quantitatively. As a case study, 11 IoT technologies are evaluated and compared. The result
reveals several insights that weight of the ship is the most impactful for the profit, controlling damage of the ship’s hull by
operation is the most important for safety, and improvement in efficiency at ports is the key to reducing delay time in opera-
tion. Moreover, this paper shows that the sensitivity analysis by changing the input parameters can support the decision
making of how much investment will be effective in considering the technologies’ levels.

Keywords  Simulation · Decision support · Systems analysis · IoT · Maritime

1 Introduction Currently, the maritime industry seeks to take advantage

of Internet of things (IoT) [1–4] technology. However, the
With the advance of information and communication tech- adoption of IoT technologies in the maritime industry is still
nology, large amounts of marine equipment data can be at an early stage [5]. However, effective use case scenarios
transmitted to shipping companies during a voyage. By of utilizing IoT technologies have been explored and studied
analyzing these data, more advanced ship operation and [6–9], with each IoT technology of many diverse functions
maintenance become possible. and candidate application sites. Given this diversity, deci-
sion making for the introduction of IoT requires many types
of expertise. In addition, many sub-systems may be affected
* Shinnosuke Wanaka by introducing IoT. Therefore, the analysis of IoT insertion
wanaka‑[email protected] requires viewing complex ship operations as a whole system.
1
Graduate School of Frontier Science, The University The objective of this paper is to support the introduction
of Tokyo, 5‑1‑5, Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa, Chiba 277‑0882, of IoT technologies in the maritime industry. The maritime
Japan industry is modeled as a system of systems, with criteria and
2
Knowledge and Data System Department, National functions treated in a simulation. The ship operation simula-
Maritime Research Institute, 6‑38‑1, Shinkawa, Mitaka, tion includes models of ship operation, cargo and fuel load-
Tokyo 181‑0004, Japan ing, and docking for maintenance. In the simulation, vari-
3
Faculty of Engineering, Yokohama National University, 79‑5, ous kinds of IoT technologies are defined by several input
Tokiwadai, Hodogaya‑ku, Yokohama 240‑8501, Japan parameters, and by changing the parameters, the simulator
4
LNG Group, NYK Line, 3‑2 Marunouchi 2‑chome, evaluates the potential impacts of IoT technologies quanti-
Chiyoda‑ku, Tokyo 100‑0005, Japan tatively. As a case study, 11 IoT technologies are evaluated
5
System Design and Management, Massachusetts Institute and compared. The case study demonstrates the model and
of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, simulator in comparing those 11 technologies’ contributions
MA 02139, USA

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 Journal of Marine Science and Technology

quantitatively, including systemic impacts achieved by the network (SVN) [13] is applied. Next, expectations of
combination of the multiple technologies. Moreover, the selected stakeholders are defined with the idea of functional/
level of IoT technologies is incorporated and, through sen- performance requirement as shown in NASA’s system engi-
sitivity analysis, a decision support method is shown which neering handbook [14].
trades effectiveness and investment. Figure 1 shows an SVN of the maritime industry which
shows value relationships between stakeholders within the
maritime industry and its surroundings. In the figure, each
2 Systems model and analysis rectangle represents a stakeholder. Arrows show the flow
of the maritime industry of value including goods or services between stakeholders.
This figure is created by multiple interviews with people
For the sake of comparing effects from introducing IoT working in the maritime industry including shipping compa-
technology, it is necessary to determine the criteria and nies, shipbuilding companies, and the classification society.
to develop a calculation method for the evaluation. In this While the maritime industry has various kinds of stake-
section, the maritime industry is treated as a sociotechni- holders as shown in the SVN, the interface between the pub-
cal system, with stakeholder requirements and functions of lic and shipping industry section is the interaction of the
the maritime industry. For the analysis, this paper applies shipping companies and shippers. This paper focuses on this
several methods proposed by previous research [10–12] on boundary-crossing interaction, a shipping service.
sociotechnical systems and system of systems. This paper The primary function of the shipping service is to trans-
organizes those methods in two steps, analysis of stake- port cargo from origin to destination. This paper adopts
holder’s expectations and logical decomposition of the sys- quality, cost, and delivery (QCD) [15, 16] as key perfor-
tem. Stakeholder analysis provides a holistic viewpoint of mance requirements for the shipping company. Although
the overall system and enables one to evaluate and focus on other indexes such as QCDS (quality, cost, delivery, and
more systemically relevant value flows. The maritime indus- service) [17] and QCDDM (quality, cost, delivery, develop-
try’s system requirements emerging from the analysis are ment, and management) [18] could be considered, in this
transformed into evaluation criteria, and a system function paper, we narrow down the evaluation to QCD which is the
set from the logical decomposition becomes targeted func- most basic and essential.
tions that should be modeled in a simulation for evaluation.
2.2 Logical decomposition of a shipping service
2.1 Analysis of stakeholder’s expectations
Next, in order to build a model for the evaluation of shipping
This research’s problem space and system boundary are system performance with IoT technologies, logical decom-
clarified through stakeholder analysis; a stakeholder value position of the shipping service is performed using object

Fig. 1  SVN of maritime industry

13
Journal of Marine Science and Technology

Fig. 2  System architecture of maritime industry modeled by OPM

process methodology (OPM) [19]. OPM is a conceptual and cargo handling system. The navigation and commu-
modeling language and methodology for capturing knowl- nication system includes humans who operate the system
edge and designing systems. The OPM model was devel- recognition as an attribute. The machinery and propulsion
oped based on our literature review and the interviews with system and ship structure change and affect the ship’s status.
experts from shipping companies, shipbuilding companies, When sensing the status, the systems update the recogni-
and the classification society. tion of the navigation and communication system. As for
Figure 2 shows the results of the decomposition. In OPM, operation in ports, the delay and wait time when handling
each ellipse shows a process as part of a function in ship cargos is modeled. Instruments of loading and unloading are
operation. Each rectangle is an instrument that enables the cargo handling systems, port operators, and port facilities.
function or an operand which is affected by the function. Taken together, a system architecture model of the shipping
Top-level functions of shipping service include trans- service is shown in the diagram below. The introduction
porting cargo and changing the location, and in this model, of IoT technologies may change the local performance of
safety, efficiency, and punctuality are clarified as important any function, and through systemic propagation, the change
performance indexes of the top-level function. affects the global performance of the shipping service. This
Transporting cargo is decomposed into internal functions: paper develops a simulator that can estimate functions of this
transporting on the sea, operating in ports, and transporting system architecture and by adjusting parameters that define
on the ground. The ship is an instrument of transporting on each instrument’s performance, can represent the introduc-
the sea and has properties including voyage plan, direction, tion of IoT technologies.
situation, and location. The ship itself can be decomposed
into internal instruments: a navigation and communication
system, machinery and propulsion system, ship structure,

13
 Journal of Marine Science and Technology

Fig. 3  Overview of the simulator

3 Simulation for evaluation container ship: number of incidents and failures, operating

profit, and delay time. Those indicators correspond to the
This section describes the simulator developed for a quan- shipping service’s quality, cost, and delivery.
titative evaluation of the QCD of the shipping service. The This paper assumes that the states of a ship in service are
expected use of this simulator is to evaluate the impact of "operation," "cargo handling," and "docking." The number
IoT by adjusting process attributes. For example, changing of incidents and failures, operating profit, flight delay, and
delay and wait parameters of loading/unloading function cargo handling delay are calculated based on these mod-
affects QCD. This procedure to adjust attributes across the els. In addition, this model considers the effects of weather
system as shown in the OPM diagram is repeated with one conditions as external influences. The simulator does not
expectation: The attributed status of machinery and propul- consider the influence of market fluctuations, and it assumes
sion system is treated as a failure rate. fuel price and transportation fees as constant. In summary,
Figure 3 summarizes the parametric evaluation of IoT the effect of introducing IoT is expressed by varying the
technology introduction. Following the requirements parameters of the simulator and the effects are evaluated
described in the previous section, the ship operation simu- quantitatively.
lator generates the systemic effect on three indicators for one

13
Journal of Marine Science and Technology

3.1 Ship operation model BF scale of encountered weather condition is generated

in accordance with the probability density function in the
A ship operation system includes models for calculation of range of 1–7 in the same format as Eq. 3.
fuel consumption, the number of incidents during operation, The incident of voyage is modeled in consideration of
and the delay time. ship hull failure, marine equipment failure, and marine inci-
The fuel consumption is modeled considering the fol- dent. Regarding the incident/fault of hull and marine equip-
lowing issues: ment, failure rate per voyage is modeled according to the
general framework of reliability engineering theory. This
1. Ship performance including the effect of hull form, pro- failure rate is expressed as R(t) in Eq. 7. R(t) is calculated
peller, and engine, from Weibull distribution by using two parameters ( 𝜎 , 𝛾 ) and
2. Influence from deterioration or contamination, damage accumulation value t depending on the operation
3. Effect of weather condition, time. The damage accumulation value t includes effects of
4. Maneuvering effect, fatigue, corrosion, and buckling.
5. Hull weight. [ ( )𝛾 ]
t
R(t) = 1 − exp − (7)
𝜎
The ship performance and the influence of deterioration
or contamination are modeled by utilizing basic ship theories In order to consider weather condition and maneuvering
and previous research [20]. Weather condition is considered effect, damage accumulation value t is generated according
by calculating fuel consumption increase rate under constant to the probability density function dependent on BF and the
ship speed conditions with reference to ship speed reduction steering damage influences parameter in the same format
ratio per each Beaufort (BF) scale. The maneuvering effect is as Eq. 3. A certain probability of occurrence [case/voyage]
expressed by incorporating fuel consumption fluctuation by for the maritime incident incidence rate is set in advance.
maneuvering ( 𝜀maneuvering ) into the theoretical fuel consump- The delay time associated with incidents and failures is set
tion ( FOCtheory ) as shown in Eq. 1. FOCtheory is a theoretical according to the beta distribution (α = 2, β = 2) with these
fuel consumption rate considering increase rate caused by the average delay times as parameters.
weather condition as Eq. 2. The ship speed reduction rate is
calculated by a method proposed by [21]. Based on the reduc- 3.2 Cargo handling model
tion rate, the ship performance model is modified, and ΔSFOC
is obtained.𝜀maneuvering is modeled as fluctuating value accord- Cargo handling is modeled taking into consideration the
ing to probability density function in the range of 0%–10% by cargo handling equipment fault effect and the cargo han-
Eq. 3. In this equation, α and β are the parameters of maneu- dling work delay effect. A certain occurrence probability
vering effects. [case/port] for handling equipment failure and cargo han-
dling delay is set.
(1)
( )
FOC = FOCtheory 1 + 𝜀maneuvering The influence of cargo handling equipment failure is set
according to the beta distribution (α = 2, β = 2) with the
BHP average delay time as parameter. The impact of cargo han-
FOCtheory = SFOC ∙ (1 + ΔSFOC) ∙ (2) dling work delay is generated according to the average delay
1000
time and the probability density function represented by the
(𝜀
maneuvering
)𝛼 ( 𝜀maneuvering
)𝛽−1 parameters α and β in the same format as Eq. 3. In this paper,
1− cargo handling delay affects downtime and the cost of cargo
( )
f 𝜀maneuvering =
0.1 0.1 (3)
Beta(𝛼, 𝛽) handling.

Hull weight effect is considered by setting the ship length 3.3 Docking model
L [m], the flooded area S ­[m2], and the construction cost Cship
[$] according to the following equations: Docking model defines the rule, cost, and time of inspec-
√ tion taking account of the effect of classification inspection.
L = Ltheory W (4) Regarding the inspection rule, the following three rules are
defined. At the time of docking, the degree of contamination
S = Stheory W (5) and damage accumulation are updated to 0.

• Docking should be done every 2.5 years.

Cship = Cship,theory W (6) • Docking should be done if the hull or propeller contami-
nation rate exceeds x %.

13
 Journal of Marine Science and Technology

• Docking should be done if the hull fatigue rate exceeds the docking model. If target ship is judged to do docking,
x %. simulator sets up to docking cost and docking time and at the
same time resets the contamination rate and damage degree
3.4 Profit model to 0.

In the operation profit model, total operation cost is calcu-

lated based on operation revenue, fuel cost, cargo handling 4 Case studies
cost (cargo cost + port expenses), seafarer costs, construction
costs, repair, and inspection fee. 4.1 Target IoT technologies
The fuel cost depends on fuel consumption model. The
cargo handling cost depends on cargo handling model. The In this case study, 11 IoT technologies were investigated
repair and inspection fee depend on incident and failure which include not only already established ones but also still
model and docking model. Total operating revenue also studied ones. The details of those technologies’ explanations
changes depending on delay time. This paper does not take are as follows. In the explaining sections, ID is assigned to
market fluctuation into consideration. each technology to simplify the following explanation.

3.5 Simulation procedure 4.1.1 Marine equipment monitoring

After inputting setting parameters, the developed evalua- By monitoring engine and other equipment, more appropri-
tion simulator repeats a following procedure for each voyage ate and efficient maintenance will be expected [22]. Abnor-
until the end of operation period. Eventually, the simula- mal condition of each equipment can be detected by con-
tor provides the number of incidents, profit, and delayed stantly acquiring IoT data of each equipment and analyzing
time during the overall operation. Each model includes a these data at onshore side. Efficient equipment maintenance
stochastic model so that Monte Carlo simulation approach can be done by carrying out the maintenance only when
is applied. By comparing the average and standard deviation abnormal condition is detected. In this case study, main
of those indexes, it is possible to evaluate several options of engine monitoring (ID 1), voyage equipment monitoring
IoT introduction. (ID 2), and auxiliary power unit monitoring (ID 3) are the
1. Calculating cargo handing work effect: Simulator targets of the monitoring.
obtains the handling equipment failure and the presence or
absence of cargo handling delay based on the cargo handling
model. From this information, simulator calculates the delay 4.1.2 Marine equipment remote maintenance
time, downtime, and cost.
2. Acquiring weather condition: Simulator acquires the By sharing information of equipment with marine equip-
weather condition that targets container ship encounter from ment manufacturers in real time, downtime and cost for
the ship operation model. maintenance can be reduced. In addition, it is expected to
3. Calculating incident and failure effect: Simulator cal- avoid emergency stops on voyage and to shorten recovery
culates delay time, downtime, and cost from the result of time from emergency stop by realizing remote maintenance
hull failure, marine equipment failure, and marine incident from onshore [23]. In this case study, main engine (ID 4)
acquiring from the incident and failure model. and auxiliary power unit (ID 5) are the targets of the remote
4. Calculating fuel cost: Simulator calculates fuel con- maintenance.
sumption and cost during voyage based on the ship operation
model. 4.1.3 Hull load control system
5. Recording income and expenditure: Simulator calcu-
lates delay time, number of incidents and failures, total time, Technologies for controlling the load on the hull using IoT
and the profit from income and cost based on profit model. technology are not put to practical use at the present time.
6. Updating aging and fatigue effect: Simulator updates However, in other industry fields, there are cases such as
ship propulsion performance considering the impact of decreasing the fatigue load by using control system. For
aging and contamination based on fuel consumption model. instance, in the field of wind power generation, the pitch
In addition, simulator updates damage degree of hull and angle of the wing is controlled to reduce load fluctuation
marine equipment based on incident/failure model. of the wind [24]. In maritime industry as well, avoidance
7. Judging whether target ship does dock or not: Simula- of excessive load occurring during voyage and reduction in
tor decides whether target ship does dock or not based on age deterioration of ship hull can be done by realizing the
load control function which is done by controlling rudder,

13
Journal of Marine Science and Technology

thrusters, and other additional devices based on IoT data (ID 4.1.7 IoT utilization for ship design
6). It can be also assumed that hull weight reduction will be
realized with the improvement in hull structure monitoring In the process of ship design, a great deal of labor is spent on
and load control technology (ID 7). making drawing and design plan by carrying out towing tank
test and CFD. By introducing IoT technology, information
4.1.4 Advanced weather routing exchange for designing ship will be more efficient (ID 11).

Weather routing has already been in practical use. However, 4.2 Simulation scenario
if the accuracy of measuring fuel consumption and weather
condition is improved by using IoT technology, optimal fuel This case study assumes a container ship with 6600 TEU
efficiency and safe voyage will be realized. By introducing loaded which is operated as a shuttle between Los Angeles
IoT technology, weather routing is optimized for individual and Tokyo. The route distance is 8843[km] and the speed
ship and becomes more advanced (ID 8). of the container ship is 19 knot that is 50% output of main
engine. The lifecycle period of this ship is set as 20 years.
4.1.5 Cargo handling equipment monitoring Comparative evaluation for introducing each IoT technology
and automation is performed by the average and standard deviation of 1000
times Monte Carlo simulations result. We verified output
By constantly monitoring cargo handling equipment such as distributions of the Monte Carlo simulation’s result of base-
cargo handling cranes with IoT technology, maintenance and line case.
repair can be carried out in advance before failure of cargo Table 1 shows a list of changing parameters to represent
handling equipment. Moreover, with the introduction of IoT each IoT technology. Level indicates performance level of
technology, efficiency of operation of handling equipment each technology, and level 2 in Table 1 is used in case 1 as
and remote operation can be expected (ID 9). basic assumption of the case. Technology level in this paper
is defined as a trade-off between the nominal performance of
4.1.6 Streamlining port operation subsystems and cost. Usually, when people pay more costs,
the system can demonstrate better performance. However,
Logistics planning of all cargos and accuracy of port opera- the change in the overall system’s emerging performance is
tion management have large impact of the efficiency of port not linear and the balance between them is important for the
operation. By constantly monitoring cargo movement and decision making. That is the reason why technology level is
operation with IoT technology, it is expected that adequate introduced in this case.
port operation will be possible (ID 10). Those parameters are carefully defined to be independ-
ent. When actually making a decision to introduce IoT

Table 1  Parameter setting of ID Parameter to be changed Base Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

each IoT technology
1 Main engine failure rate [case/h] 0.86 × 10–3 0.60 × 10–3 0.40 × 10–3 0.20 × 10–3
2 Navigation equipment failure rate [case/h] 1.14 × 10–3 0.90 × 10–3 0.50 × 10–3 0.30 × 10–3
3 Auxiliary machinery failure rate [case/h] 3.21 × 10–3 2.50 × 10–3 1.50 × 10–3 1.00 × 10–3
4 Main engine recovery time [h/case] 2.37 1.80 1.20 0.80
# of crews [man] 20 18 16 15
5 Auxiliary machinery recovery time [h/case] 2.15 1.60 1.00 0.70
# of crews [man] 20 18 16 15
6 Damage distribution Beta (BF,4) Beta (BF,6) Beta (BF,8) Beta (BF,10)
7 Weight ratio of ship 1.00 0.95 0.90 0.85
8 Weather condition Beta (2,2) Beta (2,3) Beta (2,5) Beta (2,7)
9 Cargo handling Cost [$/port] 50,000 48,000 45,000 40,000
Delay rate [case/port] 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.04
Delay time [h] Beta (2,2) Beta (2,3) Beta (2,5) Beta (2,7)
10 Port work cost [$/port] 50,000 45,000 40,000 37,000
Delay rate [case/port] 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.04
Delay time [h] Beta (2,2) Beta (2,3) Beta (2,5) Beta (2,7)
11 Construction cost [$] 200 × 106 199 × 106 195 × 106 190 × 106

13
 Journal of Marine Science and Technology

4.3 Case: evaluation of each technology

and the combination

Figure 4 shows the simulation results of the number of inci-

dents, operating profit, and total delay time by introducing
each IoT technology. Horizontal axis means technology ID,
and it is defined in Table 1. Each error bar indicates the
standard deviations. ID 0 indicates the baseline performance
in not introducing IoT technology. From Fig. 4, it is found
that the effect of load control support (ID 6) is the best when
its main purpose is to reduce the number of incidents. This
is because this technology can reduce failures at multiple
locations by reducing both hull fatigue and marine equip-
ment level. From the viewpoint of improving operating
profit, it can be said that reduction in material cost by load
control system (ID 7) and reduction in construction cost by
IoT in ship design are effective. When the main purpose is to
reduce the delay time, the effect of remote cargo control or
automatic cargo handling system (ID 9) and improving port
efficiency (ID 10) is high. This is because that remote cargo
control and automatic cargo handling system can reduce the
delay time of cargo handling directly. Also, by making the
port operation more efficient, the total delay time can be
reduced and improve efficiency of total ship operation. As
described above, by representing the impact of various IoT
technologies as changing parameters, the developed simula-
tion can discuss the effectiveness of introducing IoT technol-
ogy by comparing each technology from the viewpoint of
shippers’ QCD.
Moreover, the simulation can evaluate the combination
of those technologies. Figure 5 shows the result of evalu-
ation of profit by two technologies combination. Its hori-
zontal and depth direction indicates IoT technologies ID,
and they constitute a matrix. The vertical direction means
non-dimensional value of profit from the operation which
Fig. 4  Evaluation result of individual introduction of each IoT tech-
shows the ratio of the profit divided by the baseline perfor-
nology
mance. Figure 5 shows that there are interactions between
some of the IoT technologies. For example, ID 7 reduces
hull weight by controlling loads, and ID 11 reduces con-
struction costs by making production more efficient. There
technology, it is necessary to set the data that exist in the are synergies in these, and the effects on profit are more
company that the decision maker belongs to and the tech- than simple summation. As a result, the combination of
nology level that the decision maker assumes as a parameter these will have the highest impact on profit although ID
value. In this case study, the authors set the parameter values 11 alone is not among the highest.
that are expected to be achievable within a few years, assum-
ing improvements due to the introduction of IoT and AI into 4.4 Sensitivity analysis
ship operations.
In this section, sensitivity of parameters representing IoT
technology and the effect of improvement in each IoT tech-
nology are analyzed. Each stage of IoT technologies maturi-
ties is defined in Table 1. By observing the impacts of tech-
nology levels 1–3, sensitivity analysis is conducted. Figure 6
shows the evaluation results in consideration of each IoT

13
Journal of Marine Science and Technology

Fig. 5  Evaluation result of profit

by combinational introduction
of two IoT technologies Profit
(Non-dimentional
value)

1.03

1.02

11
10
1.01 9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Technology ID

technology level. Level 1 is low, level 2 is medium, and level 5 Discussion

3 is high in the technology level.
From the viewpoint of the number of incidents, the tech- This paper assumes parameters including current ships’
nology level of marine equipment monitoring (ID 1–3), load performance and future technology improvement. However,
control (ID 6), and weather routing (ID 8) has high sensitiv- actual performance parameters highly depend on operation
ity. In addition, these technologies have similar characteris- context, such as route, ship type, and operating company,
tics with respect to the total delay time. This is because the and include other uncertainties as well. For actual decision
number of incidents is decreased by the introduction of IoT making by a company, the company leveraging a similar
monitoring system and that as a result, downtime by inci- method would refine the inputs for accuracy and appropri-
dents is reduced. From the viewpoint of operating profit, the ate assumptions suitable for their situation. Over time, the
sensitivity of load control support technology (ID 7) is the company can model various future improvement scenarios
highest. It is rational that the most cost of ship production and obtain evaluation result from the field quantitatively.
derives from the materials, and by reducing material cost This research does not consider difficulties and devel-
by load control system, it can reduce ship’s capital cost. opment cost of introducing the technologies. However, the
From the viewpoint of delay time, the technologies related model and simulator can provide information on how much
to decreasing the number of incidents have high sensitivity. the technologies contribute to their company quantitatively.
In addition, it shows that auxiliary power unit maintenance With the contribution regarded as a break-even point, and
improvement (ID 5) and cargo handling-related technology if costs are higher than the contribution, the technology
(ID 9, ID 10) have high sensitivity as well. should not be introduced. Cost and difficulty expectation
Through considering technology level as this case, it is are outside of this paper’s scope, yet once obtained, the deci-
possible to discuss which level of IoT technologies is needed sion maker can calculate the cost-effectiveness based on the
and how much cost can be invested to the technology for simulation’s result. These model-based results may serve as
realization of the level. When the contribution of the tech- a basis for stakeholder dialogue on which technology is the
nology becomes high with small investment, the technol- best to introduce.
ogy is a good candidate of the investment. It is important to A limitation of this research is the consideration of only
carefully examine what level of the technology level should one ship’s operation and evaluated the impacts of IoT. How-
be a target to pay off the investment in order to make a rea- ever, several IoT technologies might show their increased
sonable decision. value when it is introduced into a fleet. By interacting among
ships in the fleet, the impacts might increase nonlinearly.
This paper does not take the nonlinearly increased impact
into account. To consider the kind of impact, this research
could be extended as a model of fleet operation, interaction
between the system effects by the IoT technologies.

13
 Journal of Marine Science and Technology

the impacts of IoT. A stakeholder value network informed

requirements, and an object process (OPM) systems model
represented the maritime industry, evaluation criteria, and
target functions. Based on these models, a simulation han-
dles ship operation, cargo and fuel loading, and docking
for maintenance, and various kinds of IoT technologies
defined parametrically. With a specific ship defined, the
simulation calculates lifecycle performance.
As a case study, 11 IoT technologies were evaluated and
compared for a specific container ship with the simulation.
The case study demonstrated the simulator could evaluate
and compare those technologies’ contribution quantita-
tively. The result reveals several insights that weight of
the ship is the most impactful for the profit, controlling
damage of ship’s hull by operation is the most important
for safety, and improvement in efficiency at ports is the
key to reducing delay time in operation. Also, the 3D bar
graph shows the systemic impacts which were achieved
by the combination of the multiple technologies. Moreo-
ver, it showed that the sensitivity analysis by changing the
input parameters could support the decision making of
how much investment will be effective in considering the
technologies’ levels.
The authors suggest further research that considers the
impact of market uncertainty such as fuel price fluctuation
and increasing transportation demand. Those are drivers to
make the shipping system more complicated, and IoT tech-
nology might have the potential to manage those uncer-
tainties. To reveal those effects is important. And also,
an impact on environmental performance can be an inter-
esting topic because a reduction in GHG emissions has
received a lot of attention in these days. Additional model
development is necessary for those future researches.

Open Access  This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri-

bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta-
Fig. 6  Results of sensitivity analysis by changing input parameters of tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
each IoT technology as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source,
provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes
were made. The images or other third party material in this article are
included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated
Accuracy of the parameters evaluated in the case is
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in
another limitation. In the case study, the authors set the the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
parameters of IoT technologies. However, when actually permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will
making a decision to introduce IoT technology, it is impor- need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a
copy of this licence, visit http://creat​iveco​mmons​.org/licen​ses/by/4.0/.
tant to set the data that exist in the company that the decision
maker belongs to and the technology level that the decision
maker assumes as a parameter value.
References
1. Atzori L, Iera A, Morabito G (2010) The internet of things: a
6 Conclusion survey. Comput Netw 54(15):2787–2805
2. Gubbi, J.,Buyya, R., Marusic, S. andPalaniswami, M.(2013) Inter-
The objective of this paper is to support decision making net of things (IoT): A vision, architectural elements, and future
directions. Future Generation Comput Syst 29(7):1645–60
for IoT introduction in the maritime industry. A ship oper-
ation model and simulation were developed to evaluate

13
Journal of Marine Science and Technology

3. Zanella A, Bui N, Castellani A, Vangelista L, Zorzi M (2014) 15. Amasaka K (2007) New Japan production model, an advanced
Internet of things for smart cities. IEEE Internet of Things J production management principle-key to strategic implementation
1(1):22–32 of new JIT. Int Business Econ Res J 6(7):107–114
4. Fleisch E (2010) What is the internet of things? An economic 16. Yamada S, Yamashita T, Fukuta A (2010) Product quality pre-
perspective. Econ Manag Financial Markets 5(2):125–157 diction based on software process data with development-period
5. Agrifoglio R, Cannavale C, Laurenza E, Metallo C (2017) How estimation. Int J Syst Assurance Eng Manag 1(1):72–76
emerging digital technologies affect operations management 17. Handfield R, Walton SV, Sroufe R, Melnyk SA (2002) Apply-
through co-creation. Empirical evidence from the maritime indus- ing environmental criteria to supplier assessment: a study in the
try. Prod Plann Control 28(16):1298–1306 application of the analytical hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res
6. Choi HR, Moon YS, Kim JJ, Lee JK, Lee KB, Shin JJ (2018) 141(1):70–87
Development of an IoT-based container tracking system for 18. Burnes B, New S (1996) Understanding supply chain improve-
China’s Belt and Road (B&R) initiative. Maritime Policy Manag ment. Euro J Purchasing Supply Manag 2(1):21–30
45(3):388–402 19. Dori, D. (2002) Object-Process methodology: A holistic systems
7. Liu G, Perez R, Muñoz JA, Regueira F (2016) Internet of ships: paradigm, Springer.
the future ahead. World J Eng Technol 4(03):220 20. Hiekata K, Mitsuyuki T, Moser B, Yamato H, Saito T, Wanaka S
8. Chiappetta A (2017) Hybrid ports: the role of IoT and CyberSecu- (2016) A study on ship life cycle value maximization with flexible
rity in the next decade. J Sustain Dev Trans Logistics 2(2):47–56 design considering real option. J Jpn Soc Naval Architects Ocean
9. Park N, Bang HC (2016) Mobile middleware platform for secure Eng (in Japanese) 23:231–237
vessel traffic system in IoT service environment. Security Com- 21. Tsujimoto M, Kuroda M, Shibata K, Sogihara N, Takagi K (2009)
mun Netw 9(6):500–512 On a calculation of decrease of ship speed in actual seas. J Jp Soc
10. Crawley, E., Cameron, B., and Selva, D. (2016) System archi- Naval Architects Ocean Eng 9:79–85
tecture—strategy and product development for complex system, 22. DNV GL (2014) Beyond condition monitoring in the maritime
PEARSON. industry, DNV GL Strategic Research & Innovation Position
11. Frank M (2000) Engineering systems thinking and systems think- Paper 6–2014.
ing. Syst Eng 3(3):163–168 23. DNV GL (2015) Ship connectivity, DNV GL Strategic Research
12. L. de Weck,O., Roos,D.,and L. Magee,C. (2011) Engineering sys- & Innovation Position Paper 04–2015.
tems, THE MIT PRESS. 24. Yu, H., Choi, J., Han, S., Tai, S., and Ha, M. (2008) Full scale
13. Cameron B, Crawley E, Loureiro G, Rebentisch E (2008) Value measurement of a large container carrier on the far east Europe
flow mapping: using networks to inform stakeholder analysis. route, Singapore Maritime Technology Conference.
Acta Astronaut 62:324–333
14. Hirshorn, S. R., Voss, L. D., and Bromley, L. K. (2017). Nasa Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
systems engineering handbook. jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

13