Socio-Technical Considerations for the Maritime Autonomous Infrastructure

Conventional ships benefit from a long-established framework of prescriptive regulations, classification rules, and national legislation that support consistent evaluation and certification of design, construction, and operation. However, the introduction of autonomous functions presents fundamentally different challenges. In particular, the Maritime Autonomous Infrastructure (MAI) presents a complex socio-technical system and unprecedented regulatory and operational challenges due to its distributed, cross jurisdictional nature and reliance on emerging technologies. Addressing these challenges requires a shift away from rule-based compliance to a structured assurance/safety case approach that consider all elements of the MAI, accounts for the entire lifecycle and changing operational context.

This research argues that the risks associated with the MAI differ significantly from those encountered in conventional maritime operations, particularly in the context of remotely operating or autonomous control of crewless vessel functions. These differences are amplified by the emergence of novel interdependencies within a system of systems context. Consequently, hazard identification must extend beyond the initial design phase and be maintained as a continuous, iterative process throughout the entire system lifecycle, encompassing normal operations, reasonably foreseeable abnormal events, and emergency conditions.

A key contribution of this thesis is the development of the Lifecycle Process Model (LPM), supported by the Safety Process Model (SPM), Layers of Protection (LoP) and the Maritime Autonomous Infrastructure – Design Envelope (MAI-DE). Together, these models form a coherent assurance framework tailored to the unique challenges of maritime autonomy and remotely controlled functions. Their application enables the structured identification and management of risk, facilitates cross-stakeholder engagement, and supports the development of a defensible and compelling body of evidence for demonstrating that the MAI is ‘Acceptably Safe’.