Making information work
A radar screen is a good example of making a lot of information understandable. The screen has different indicators to tell a Master what he or she needs to know - what ships are nearby, how far away they are, and the vector to tell them where they’re heading.....
Aradar screen is a good example of making a lot of information understandable. The screen has different indicators to tell a Master what he or she needs to know - what ships are nearby, how far away they are, and the vector to tell them where they’re heading. The radar provides this information with context including the approaching shoreline and the distance range, which helps the Master to understand what they should do with this information - If he or she should change course or speed and so on.
Being involved in managing information and its processes is an important role, but the data needs to be sorted, analysed and understood properly for it to be used optimally.
How many times have you wondered why you are being asked to provide certain pieces of information, and what is done with it after you have provided it? If the person providing the information does not understand the ‘bigger picture’ such as the context and the end-use for the information, then they are likely to provide it in a manner that suits their use for it, and not consider the person receiving it. With a greater understanding of the reasons, value and how the receiver will use the information, the provider can assess the information and draw attention to significant items and anomalies.
If an information receiver does not understand the context from which the information was provided, then they are unlikely to understand its significance and how to use it. For example the information provided to ships about the recent sightings of pirates could be overlooked if the subject line in the email did not use words such as ‘Pirates’.
This is not just a shipboard phenomenon, the same happens ashore in the office. There is a major difference however, which is an office-based worker can simply lean over the cubicle or walk 10 meters to find out the context and other perspectives of the information.
To clarify an item sent from shore to vessel or vessel to shore has expense and time zone issues. This, I would suggest, constricts the ability and willingness of people to provide a full context. We need to be far more explicit, and provide a real- world impact in the information we send between both vessel and shore.
The process/information bridge between vessel and shore has been a non-issue since the mid 90s. We have Inmarsat and other providers enabling this. However, given the reasons above, I would caution unnecessary use of this process/ information bridge. VSAT implement- ations potentially, and unfortunately, can increase information clutter as any amount of data, that the pipe can support, can be sent at a fixed price. The ‘we have paid for it so let’s use it’ attitude soon comes into play to justify the expense.
What is sent from shore to vessel, or vessel to shore, has to add explicit value to those involved. A dot on the radar screen does not mean much without its surrounding data to fill in the blanks.