Keywords
Ship Simulator
AHP
TOPSIS
PROMETHEE
How to Cite
Abstract
Technology and the technological devices developed with it have become an indispensable part of our daily lives. Simulator technologies have been widely used in maritime education for many years, allowing maritime students to develop their maritime skills without the need for real ship experience. In this way, they can experience scenarios that cannot be experienced in real life because of safety, economic, and ethical constraints. This study seeks to determine the effectiveness and acceptability of ARPA Radar, ECDIS, GMDSS, Ship Control, Environmental Imaging, Liquid Cargo Handling, Electronic Navigation Devices simulators used in maritime training from the perspective of maritime instructors. In addition, it is aimed to reveal which simulator is the most accepted simulator according to the determined criteria. The study investigates the effects of the design and functionality of simulators on the training process while evaluating the effectiveness of simulators to improve the quality of maritime education and to provide cost-effective solutions that meet sectoral needs. The research data were collected using a questionnaire technique, and the importance levels of the criteria were calculated using the AHP method. This study compared the alternatives using the TOPSIS and PROMETHEE methods. In this study, it was determined that the most important criterion was ‘‘closeness to reality’’ and the least important criterion was ‘‘design esthetics’’, and in the ranking of simulators that met the criteria determined in both methods, the ECDIS simulator ranked first. In contrast, the ARPA Radar simulator ranked second. It can be seen that the rankings of the Ship Control, GMDSS, and Liquid Cargo Handling simulators are the same for both methods. This study contributes to the maritime literature as it reveals the importance levels of the criteria that determine the effectiveness of simulators used in the training of deck-class seafarers and identifies the most suitable simulators according to these criteria. The novelty of this study lies in its contribution to the limited research on the evaluation of simulator effectiveness by maritime instructors within the maritime sector. While inadequately designed simulators negatively affect the learning process and hinder the development of professional skills, effective and accepted simulators play a critical role in increasing the quality of maritime education and providing cost-effective solutions that meet the needs of the sector.
References
P. E. Kent, “The Global Maritime Distress and Safety System: Basic Concept and Functions,” J. Navig., vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 164–175, May 1990, doi: 10.1017/S0373463300009498.
Y. Genc and M. Ozkok, “Simulation-Based Optimization of the Sea Trial on Ships,” J. ETA Marit. Sci., vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 274–285, 2020, doi: 10.5505/jems.2020.93898.
F. Bolat, “Distribution of simulators used in maritime education around the world,” J. Intell. Transp. Syst. Appl., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1–15, Apr. 2021, doi: 10.51513/jitsa.871903.
G. Buyukozturk and M. Yorulmaz, “Career expectations and plans of the students of the Department of Maritime Business Administration of the faculty of Maritime Faculties,” in 4th International Conference on Innovative Academic Studies, 2024, pp. 1–8.
E. Arslan and E. D. Özkan, “Maritime Students’ Assessment of Distance Education During the COVID-19 Pandemic,” J. ETA Marit. Sci., vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 86–97, Jun. 2023, doi: 10.4274/jems.2023.92688.
S. C. Mallam, S. Nazir, and S. K. Renganayagalu, “Rethinking Maritime Education, Training, and Operations in the Digital Era: Applications for Emerging Immersive Technologies,” J. Mar. Sci. Eng., vol. 7, no. 12, p. 428, Nov. 2019, doi: 10.3390/jmse7120428.
M. Board, Simulated voyages: Using simulation technology to train and license mariners. National Academies Press, 1996.
E. Guzel and P. Bolat, “Analysis of Results of Turkish Maritime Training Institutes Audits as Per Directive for Seafarers Training and Examination,” Dokuz Eylül Univ. Marit. Fac. J., vol. 12, pp. 47–68, Jun. 2020, doi: 10.18613/deudfd.740156.
Ü. Özdemir, N. J. Ece, and N. Gedik, “A Quantitative Case Study Regarding the Future of Turkey’s Maritime Education,” J. ETA Marit. Sci., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 154–170, 2017, doi: 10.5505/jems.2017.83703.
UAB, “Implementation Instruction for The Calculation of Seafarers’ Sea Service, Renewal of Seafarer Qualifications and Stcw Certificates,” 2018. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.1396%0Ahttps://www.uam.es/gruposinv/meva/publicaciones jesus/capitulos_espanyol_jesus/2005_motivacion para el aprendizaje Perspectiva alumnos.pdf%0Ahttps://www.researchgate.net/profile/Juan_Aparicio7/publication/253571379
T. Porathe, “Human-centred design in the maritime domain,” in DS 85-1: Proceedings of NordDesign 2016, Volume 1, Trondheim, Norway, 10th-12th August 2016, 2016, pp. 175–184.
I. Cicek and M. Uchida, “Improvement of marine engineering curriculum using the engine room simulator,” Int. Assoc. Marit. Univ. Third Gen. Assem., pp. 26–29, 2002.
M. Villabø, “A Liquid Cargo Handling Training Simulator,” Model. Identif. Control A Nor. Res. Bull., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 41–51, 1982, doi: 10.4173/mic.1982.1.4.
G. A. Rolfe, “Radar image overlay on an ECDIS system-an overview,” in Proceedings of Position, Location and Navigation Symposium - PLANS ’96, IEEE, 1996, pp. 130–136. doi: 10.1109/PLANS.1996.509067.
S. Valčić, A. Škrobonja, L. Maglić, and B. Sviličić, “GMDSS Equipment Usage: Seafarers’ Experience,” J. Mar. Sci. Eng., vol. 9, no. 5, p. 476, Apr. 2021, doi: 10.3390/jmse9050476.
B. Koldemir, “New Telecommunication and Communication Technologies in Marine Transportation,” J. Acad. Soc. Sci., vol. 84, no. 84, pp. 213–226, Jan. 2018, doi: 10.16992/ASOS.14470.
Liu Xiuwen, Yin Yong, Jin Yicheng, and Zhang Xinyu, “Design radar signal interface for navigation Radar/ARPA simulator using radar display,” in 2010 Second Pacific-Asia Conference on Circuits, Communications and System, IEEE, Aug. 2010, pp. 442–445. doi: 10.1109/PACCS.2010.5626959.
R. P. de Oliveira, G. Carim Junior, B. Pereira, D. Hunter, J. Drummond, and M. Andre, “Systematic Literature Review on the Fidelity of Maritime Simulator Training,” Educ. Sci., vol. 12, no. 11, p. 817, Nov. 2022, doi: 10.3390/educsci12110817.
S. V. Tarasov, D. V. Kiptily, and D. V. Lebedev, “An Object-Oriented Approach to the Development of Liquid Cargo Handling Simulators in TRANSAS,” IFAC Proc. Vol., vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 369–373, 2012, doi: 10.3182/20120215-3-AT-3016.00065.
C.-H. Lee, G. Yun, and J.-H. Hong, “A Study on the New Education and Training Scheme for Developing Seafarers in Seafarer 4.0,” J. Korean Soc. Mar. Environ. Saf., vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 726–734, Oct. 2019, doi: 10.7837/kosomes.2019.25.6.726.
T. T. Turkistanli, “Advanced learning methods in maritime education and training: A bibliometric analysis on the digitalization of education and modern trends,” Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ., vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 1–21, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.1002/cae.22690.
S. Barıs and I. Kandilli, “Türkiye’de Denizcilik Eğitimi Veren Meslek Yüksekokulu ve Fakültelerde Kullanılan Köprüüstü Simülasyon Sistemlerinin Verimliliğinin İncelenmesi,” in International Marmara Sciences Congress (Spring 2021), 2021, pp. 381–387.
O. Arslan and H. Kocamanoglu, “Evaluation of the use of Ship Simulation in Maritime Education from the Perspective of Students,” Int. J. Discip. Econ. Adm. Sci. Stud., vol. 47, no. 47, pp. 833–839, 2022, doi: 10.29228/ideas.66415.
T. Kim et al., “The continuum of simulator-based maritime training and education,” WMU J. Marit. Aff., vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 135–150, Jun. 2021, doi: 10.1007/s13437-021-00242-2.
H. M. Tusher, Z. H. Munim, and S. Nazir, “An evaluation of maritime simulators from technical, instructional, and organizational perspectives: a hybrid multi-criteria decision-making approach,” WMU J. Marit. Aff., vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 165–194, Jun. 2024, doi: 10.1007/s13437-023-00318-1.
C. H. Kagnicioglu and H. Colak, “Identification of prominent criterias in the selection of new generation smartphones: an application in Anadolu University,” Pressacademia, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 442–448, Sep. 2018, doi: 10.17261/Pressacademia.2018.931.
M. Behzadian, R. B. Kazemzadeh, A. Albadvi, and M. Aghdasi, “PROMETHEE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 200, no. 1, pp. 198–215, Jan. 2010, doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2009.01.021.
M. M. Wiecek, Matthias Ehrgott, G. Fadel, and J. Rui Figueira, “Multiple criteria decision making for engineering,” Omega, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 337–339, 2008, doi: 10.1016/j.omega.2006.10.001.
V. Efecan and I. Temiz, “Marina Selection of Yachtsmen Using AHP-TOPSIS and AHP-PROMETHee,” J. Eng. Fac. Eng., vol. 48, no. 5, pp. 869–887, 2020.
I. Asoglu and T. Eren, “Cargo Company Selection for a Business with AHP, TOPSIS, PROMETHEE Methods,” Yalova J. Soc. Sci., vol. 8, no. 16, pp. 102–122, 2018.
T. Danisan, E. Ozcan, and T. Eren, “Personnel Selection with Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods in the Ready-to-Wear Sector,” Teh. Vjesn., vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 1339–1347, 2022, doi: 10.17559/TV-20210816220137.
T. L. Saaty, “Axiomatic foundation of the analytic hierarchy process,” Manage. Sci., vol. 32, no. 7, pp. 841–855, 1986.
M. Pekkaya and N. Colak, “Determining the Priorities of Ratings via AHP for the Factors That Effects in Choosing Professions for the University Students,” J. Acad. Soc. Sci. Stud., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 797–818, 2013.
M. Pekkaya, “Laptop Selection: A Comparative Analysis with DEA, TOPSIS and VIKOR,” Int. J. Econ. Soc. Res., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 107–126, 2014.
T. L. Saaty, “What is the Analytic Hierarchy Process?,” in Mathematical Models for Decision Support, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1988, pp. 109–121. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-83555-1_5.
C.-L. Hwang and K. Yoon, Multiple Attribute Decision Making, vol. 186. in Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, vol. 186. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1981. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9.
V. Pandey, Komal, and H. Dincer, “A review on TOPSIS method and its extensions for different applications with recent development,” Soft Comput., vol. 27, no. 23, pp. 18011–18039, Dec. 2023, doi: 10.1007/s00500-023-09011-0.
J. P. Brans, “Lingenierie de la decision. Elaboration dinstruments daide a la decision. Methode PROMETHEE,” Laide a La Decis. Nature, Instrum. Set Perspect. Davenir, pp. 183 – 214, 1982.
J. P. Brans and P. Vincke, “Note—A Preference Ranking Organisation Method,” Manage. Sci., vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 647–656, Jun. 1985, doi: 10.1287/mnsc.31.6.647.
J. P. Brans, P. Vincke, and B. Mareschal, “How to select and how to rank projects: The Promethee method,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 228–238, Feb. 1986, doi: 10.1016/0377-2217(86)90044-5.
M. Dagdeviren and E. Eraslan, “Supplier Selection Using PROMETHEE Sequencing Method,” J. Fac. Eng. Archit. Gazi Univ., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 69–75, 2008.
M. Pekkaya, “Evaluation of the Hospitals via MCDM , Based on Service Quality Standards,” in 17th International Symposium on Econometrics, Operations Research and Statistics, Sivas/Turkey, 2016, pp. 974–982.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2025 Murat Yorulmaz , Gurbet Buyukozturk