CMOROC: ROC Operator Competence Framework (EMSA)¶

Status: established
Last updated: 2026-05-31
Sources: Cmoroc_Final Report_V3 6_231026.Pdf, Cmoroc_Appendix A_Glossary_V2 2_231025.Pdf, Cmoroc_Appendix C_Dcos Models_V2 2_231025.Pdf, Cmoroc_Appendix D_Processes_V2 2_231020.Pdf, Cmoroc_Appendix E_Competence Tables_V2 2_231020.Pdf, Cmoroc_Appendix F_Module Catalogue_V2 3_231025.Pdf, Cmoroc_Appendix G_Reference Groups_V2 2_231025.Pdf, 23095 Flyer Emsa 14 Rz.Pdf, 23095_Emsa_Infografik 10 Rz.Pdf
Tags: [cmoroc, emsa, mass, roc, competence, competence-tables, curriculum, processes, operator-roles, stcw, remote-operations, dcos, staffing, degrees-of-autonomy]

Summary¶

CMOROC (Identification of Competences for MASS Operators in Remote Operation Centres) is a study commissioned by the European Maritime Safety Agency and conducted from May 2022 to September 2023 by Hochschule Bremen, Humatects, and the German Aerospace Centre (European Maritime Safety Agency, 2023h). It works in three parts: defining generic MASS-ROC operational models, identifying and describing the competences required of ROC operators, and developing a competence-based curriculum. Its outputs include a generic process map, five operator role definitions, five competence tables, and a module catalogue, all derived from task analyses of three reference ship types and validated against STCW.

Body¶

Context¶

This article synthesises the EMSA CMOROC study (European Maritime Safety Agency, 2023), conducted from May 2022 to September 2023 by Hochschule Bremen, Humatects, and the German Aerospace Centre. The Final Report (2023, V3.6) is the capstone: it states the study's three-part logic (fundamentals and method; ROC model, processes and competences; curriculum) and its conclusions. The appendices supply the detail behind it — Appendix G (2023g) the empirical method and reference groups; Appendix C (2023c) the DCoS task models; Appendix D (2023d) the process map; Appendix A (2023a) the glossary; Appendix E (2023e) the competence tables; Appendix F (2023f) the module catalogue; with the flyer (2023h) and infographic (2023i) summarising scope and outputs. Read together, they trace a chain from task analysis through operator roles to a training curriculum. In this knowledge base the study is the regulatory anchor: it gives the abstract Remote Operation Centre of Remote Operation Centres Mass a defined process map, operator roles, and staffing model; supplies the concrete answer to the skills demand in Seafarer Skills And Competence For Mass; and offers an STCW-benchmarked counterweight to the doubt the Humane Project raises about that same standard. The state-of-the-art review behind the study is treated separately in Mass Roc State Of The Art.

Key Points¶

The infographic and Appendix G (European Maritime Safety Agency, 2023i; 2023g) describe a method that moved from operations to competences in defined stages. CMOROC analysed voyages of three reference ship types — a short-sea feeder, a RoPax ferry, and a long-haul bulk carrier — performing 38 task analyses using Distributed Cooperative Human-Machine System (DCoS) models that examine all relevant agents, processes, tasks, functions, and required resources and information; from these it identified 14 main processes and produced 38 process descriptions carrying competence requirements (2023i). The empirical base was broad: more than 40 experts from international shipping companies, industry, and universities took part in workshops with the DGON e.V. Autonomous Maritime Systems Working Group and the IAMU (2023g, PDF pp. 6, 9, orig. pp. 4, 7), interviews at Scandlines, Jebsen Shipping Partners, the Schulte Group, Wärtsilä Voyage, and Harren Bulkers (2023g, PDF pp. 10–13, orig. pp. 8–11), and onboard observations (2023g, PDF pp. 14–16, orig. pp. 12–14), with consolidated findings and statements for ROC operations (2023g, PDF pp. 17–21, orig. pp. 15–19).

The Final Report (European Maritime Safety Agency, 2023) fixes the autonomy scope the rest of the study works within. It adopts the IMO (2018) four degrees of autonomy — degree one (crewed ships with automated processes and decision support), degree two (remotely controlled with seafarers on board), degree three (remotely controlled without seafarers on board), and degree four (fully autonomous) — and concentrates on degrees two and three, the remotely-controlled cases with and without crew (PDF pp. 11–12, orig. pp. 11–12). It judges the IMO degrees too coarse for deriving operator competences and adopts the AUTOSHIP combined degrees of control and automation instead, which let the autonomy and required response time vary by subsystem (PDF pp. 12–13, orig. pp. 12–13, citing Rødseth, Lien Wennersberg & Nordahl, 2022). A central finding is that STCW certification — watch-officer at operational level, management certificate at management level — is fully necessary, with very few exceptions, to monitor a MASS and intervene in its control (PDF p. 5, orig. p. 5).

The generic ROC models are built with a Distributed Cooperative Human-Machine System (DCoS) approach, documented as task models in Appendix C (European Maritime Safety Agency, 2023c) and explained in the Final Report's §5.1 (PDF p. 35, orig. p. 35). A DCoS treats the ROC as a socio-technical whole of tasks, human agents (ROC operators, seafarers), machine agents (the MASS and its assistance systems), and resources (e.g., communication infrastructure); tasks are allocated to agents who perform them using resources, interacting and re-allocating dynamically — for instance in emergencies (Final Report, PDF p. 35, orig. p. 35). The study uses a human-centred, functional (not physical) design focused on the cognitive level — what information and understanding an operator needs to perform a task safely while keeping workload adequate — and labels each task in the models with its mode of control, drawn from ISO/TC 23860:2022: M (monitoring), D (direct control), S (strategic control), and T (tactical control), and with the ship types it applies to: F (ferry), C (short-sea cargo), B (bulker) (Final Report, PDF pp. 35–36, orig. pp. 35–36). Appendix C presents the resulting DCoS diagrams for the six operational core processes — voyage planning and control, cargo operations, navigation, engineering operations, maintenance, malfunctions and emergencies — with the full task, agent and resource descriptions held in the main report (Appendix C, PDF pp. 4–27, orig. pp. 4–25).

The Final Report derives a staffing model from those task models (§6.2.5). For a MASS with no crew on board, an ROC must be staffed with at least one Remote Senior Navigator acting as Fleet Supervisor, one Remote Senior Engineer (management level), and one System Administrator (operational level), giving a minimum of four persons per shift, with additional Remote Navigators and Remote Engineers (operational level) added as workload requires (PDF pp. 55–56, orig. pp. 55–56). Operational-level roles start at a demand of zero because a management-level operator can absorb their tasks (PDF p. 56, orig. p. 56). The number of operators able to monitor several vessels at once depends on workload, environmental conditions, and the technical differences between vessels — the report warns that mental switching between differently-equipped ships can cause misjudgements (PDF p. 55, orig. p. 55). A worked ferry example (four vessels on short crossings) shows berthing and de-berthing managed as direct-control tasks by Remote Senior Navigators, requiring at least four persons for simultaneous manoeuvres (PDF pp. 57–58, orig. pp. 57–58).

Appendix D (European Maritime Safety Agency, 2023d) organises ROC work into a generic process map: four management processes (organisation, general management, risk management, quality management), six operational core processes (voyage planning and control, cargo operations, navigation, engineering operations, maintenance, malfunctions and emergencies), and four support processes (human resources, legal aspects, automation systems, economic aspects) (PDF pp. 4–5, orig. pp. 2–3). The infographic (2023i) condenses operator activity into four core tasks — monitoring, direct control, emergency response, and planning. Appendix A (2023a) anchors the terminology, defining terms such as automation, automatic, and autonomous against cited standards including IMO, ISO/TS 23860, and IEC 60050-351 (PDF p. 4, orig. p. 2).

Appendix E (European Maritime Safety Agency, 2023e) derives operator roles and competences from those processes, specifying five competence tables as minimum requirements for ROC operators of MASS of 30 m length or more, applicable to both degrees of autonomy (with or without crew aboard): MASS Navigator (operational, table 1-1), Senior Navigator/Supervisor (management, 1-2), Engineer (operational, 2-1), Senior Engineer (management, 2-2), and System Administrator (operational, 3-1) (PDF p. 4, orig. p. 4). The Remote Fleet Supervisor role combines supervision and direct-control capability at management level (PDF p. 4, orig. p. 4). The flyer (2023h) records that these demands were systematically derived from the process descriptions and compared with the existing STCW tables.

Appendix F (European Maritime Safety Agency, 2023f) turns competences into training, defining a competence-based curriculum split into a Basic Program for all operators (with strands for navigators and for engineers/system administrators, plus in-service training) and an Advanced Program for senior operators, organised into modules carrying summarised learning outcomes and competence levels (PDF pp. 6–7, orig. pp. 6–7; ToC of the full module structure at PDF p. 3, orig. p. 3). The infographic (2023i) lists module examples including MASS Operations, MASS Safety and Security, MASS Navigation, MASS Navigation Monitoring, and MASS Automation and Control.

Conclusion¶

The Final Report and its appendices do not compete; they are sequential stages of one study, and the points of agreement are structural by design. The Final Report (European Maritime Safety Agency, 2023) sets the autonomy scope (IMO degrees two and three) and synthesises the whole; the flyer and infographic (2023h; 2023i) report the method and headline outputs; the DCoS task models of Appendix C (2023c) turn the analysed processes into agent–task–resource structures; Appendix D (2023d) and Appendix A (2023a) fix the process map and terminology; Appendix E (2023e) converts processes into five operator roles; and Appendix F (2023f) converts roles into teachable modules. The result is a traceable chain from DCoS task analysis through role definition, competence tables, and a four-person minimum staffing model to a 15-week curriculum, giving regulatory shape to the ROC concept in Remote Operation Centres Mass and to the skills questions in Seafarer Skills And Competence For Mass, and resting on the cross-domain evidence reviewed in Mass Roc State Of The Art. What the study leaves open is how its conclusion that STCW certification is fully necessary squares with HUMANE's doubt about STCW's adequacy.

References¶

European Maritime Safety Agency (2023) CMOROC Final Report. Identification of Competences for MASS Operators in Remote Operation Centres, V3.6. Lisbon: EMSA. cmoroc2023final

European Maritime Safety Agency (2023a) CMOROC Appendix A - Glossary. Identification of Competences for MASS Operators in Remote Operation Centres, V2.2. Lisbon: EMSA. cmoroc2023appendixA

European Maritime Safety Agency (2023c) CMOROC Appendix C - DCoS Models. Identification of Competences for MASS Operators in Remote Operation Centres, V2.2. Lisbon: EMSA. cmoroc2023appendixC

European Maritime Safety Agency (2023d) CMOROC Appendix D - Processes. Identification of Competences for MASS Operators in Remote Operation Centres, V2.2. Lisbon: EMSA. cmoroc2023appendixD

European Maritime Safety Agency (2023e) CMOROC Appendix E - Competence Tables. Identification of Competences for MASS Operators in Remote Operation Centres, V2.2. Lisbon: EMSA. cmoroc2023appendixE

European Maritime Safety Agency (2023f) CMOROC Appendix F - Module Catalogue. Identification of Competences for MASS Operators in Remote Operation Centres, V2.3. Lisbon: EMSA. cmoroc2023appendixF

European Maritime Safety Agency (2023g) CMOROC Appendix G - Reference Groups. Identification of Competences for MASS Operators in Remote Operation Centres, V2.2. Lisbon: EMSA. cmoroc2023appendixG

European Maritime Safety Agency (2023h) CMOROC Project Summary Flyer. Lisbon: EMSA. cmoroc2023flyer

European Maritime Safety Agency (2023i) CMOROC Infographic. Lisbon: EMSA. cmoroc2023infographic

International Maritime Organization (2018) Regulatory scoping exercise for the use of Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS). MSC 99/WP.9. London: IMO. To be validated.

Rødseth, Ø.J., Lien Wennersberg, L.A. & Nordahl, H. (2022) 'Towards approval of autonomous ship systems by their operational envelope', Journal of Marine Science and Technology, 27, pp. 67–76. doi: 10.1007/s00773-021-00815-z. To be validated.

Open Questions¶

How do CMOROC's four-person minimum ROC staffing model and five role definitions compare with the MUNIN-era ROC staffing assumptions in Remote Operation Centres Mass?
How does the study's finding that STCW certification is fully necessary square with the doubt about STCW's adequacy raised in Humane Project?