Read A case study of ISO 11064 in control centre design in the Norwegian petroleum industry text version

Applied Ergonomics 42 (2010) 62e70

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Ergonomics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apergo

A case study of ISO 11064 in control centre design in the Norwegian petroleum industry

Andreas Lumbe Aas*, Torbjørn Skramstad

Department of Computer Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Sem Saelands vei 7-9, NO-7491 Trondheim, Norway

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history: Received 26 June 2009 Accepted 2 May 2010 Keywords: Human factors Control centre Control room design standard Ergonomics standard Prescriptive Offshore Oil and gas

a b s t r a c t

In 2006e2008 we performed a case study for the purpose of assessing the industrial application of the seven part Control Centre (CC) design standard ISO 11064 to identify positive and negative experiences among stakeholders in the Norwegian petroleum sector. We mainly focussed on ISO 11064 Part 1, because this was the most commonly used among the identified stakeholders. ISO 11064 is generally appreciated and applied in the industry, but we did observe a significant variance in use between the different parts of the standard. We also identified potential areas for improvements, like scope and application adaptation. Thus we suggest a more goal-based approach based on one normative part only. Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction It has become increasingly important to manage Human Factors (HFs) in petroleum projects because of HF's potential impact on safety and efficient operations. HF is important for large scale projects which include Control Centres (CCs) and projects with smaller control rooms, such as driller's cabins or crane cabins. 1.1. Human factors and human error The scientific discipline of HF deals with issues related to humans, their behaviour and the physical and psychological aspects of the environment in which they work. There are several definitions of HF, such as "human factors (also known as Ergonomics) is concerned with all those factors that can influence people and their behaviour" by the UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE, 2009). This definition is general in nature and basically includes all influencing factors, but is not specific about how to deal with them. A more specific definition is provided by Wilson: "ergonomics is the theoretical and fundamental understanding of human behaviour and performance in purposeful interacting socio-technical systems, and the application of that understanding to design of interactions in the context of real settings" (Wilson, 2000). Wilson's definition contains

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ47 9002 9602; fax: þ47 7359 4466. E-mail address: [email protected] (A.L. Aas). URL: http://folk.ntnu.no/andreaas 0003-6870/$ e see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2010.05.003

two main elements regarding human behaviour; understanding and application of that understanding. Another definition containing the same two elements (application is referred to as design) is provided in the international standard ISO 6385: "HF (ergonomics) is the scientific discipline concerned with the understanding of interactions among human and other elements of a system, and the profession that applies theory, principles, data and methods to design in order to optimize human well-being and overall system performance" (ISO 6385, 2004). HF has a broad remit covering all manner of analysis from human interaction with devices, to the design of tools and machines, to team working, and to various other general aspects of work and organizational design (Stanton et al., 2005). The objective is to optimize human well-being and overall system performance, which often can be competing objectives, requiring a trade-off. On the other hand, human well-being (e.g. for operators) can have significant effects on the overall system performance. See Dul and Neumann (2009) for an interesting discussion on the value of ergonomics in company strategies. All of the above definitions, even though at different level of detail, are concerned with the working conditions of human beings, but being a normative reference in ISO 11064, we use the definition provided in ISO 6385 in the remainder of this paper. We also use ergonomics and human factors as synonyms. There is a tendency to separate cognitive ergonomics, physical ergonomics and social ergonomics (Wilson, 2000). ISO 11064 is concerned with all three, though with most emphasis on the physical, followed by the cognitive, and with the least emphasis on social ergonomics. The physical aspects in ISO 11064 are e.g. illumination, design and layout of operator stations

A.L. Aas, T. Skramstad / Applied Ergonomics 42 (2010) 62e70

63

or location of facilities. However, completely separating between the physical, cognitive and social HF aspects appears unjust to the fundamental idea of interaction and influence between humans and their context. The physical aspects can influence the cognitive and the social aspects. E.g. daylight can make a control room more pleasant to work in Sandom and Harvey (2004). The work of ergonomists can be described by the scientistepractitioner model (Stanton, 2005) and most ergonomists will work between those two poles. We take the scientist's approach by examining the application of ISO 11064, the industrial application being the practitioner's approach. One important HF goal in safety-critical systems is to prevent or reduce the probability of human errors and to minimize the consequences when they occur, e.g. avoiding accidents. I a safety perspective, Norwegian legislation recommends the use of "ISO 11064 with regard to human error" (PSA, 2002). (See Section 1.3 for a description of the Norwegian regulatory regime). We define accident (or mishap) to be an undesired and unplanned event that results in a specified level of loss (Leveson, 1995). It is said that 80% of all accidents have a human cause (Redmill and Rajan, 1997), a number that appears to be the consensus in existing literature, even though there are variations between industrial domains and differences in whether human errors are considered causal or contributing factors, or both. Examples include: 60e80 percent in aviation (Luxhøj, 2003; Wiegmann and Shappell, 2003), 80e90 percent in military (Department of Defence, 2005) and 23e80 percent in maritime industries (Rothblum et al., 2002; Baker and McCafferty, 2005). The systematic consideration of human error in systems designs can lead to improved safety, an indeed improved productivity in many cases (Kirwan, 1994). The central control room has a critical function on offshore platforms from a safety point of view (Kjellén, 2006). Humans are affected by their environment and thus human performance will vary with the working environment in which the work is performed. Thus, HF is of vital concern for a system's overall safety performance. 1.2. ISO 11064 "Ergonomic design of Control Centres" ISO 11064 is an international standard with the title "Ergonomic design of control centres". ISO 11064 was developed mainly during the 1990's and early discussions on the standard can be found in (Parsons, 1995; Stewart, 1995). ISO 11064 defines an ergonomic design process for control centres, which specifies ergonomic design activities and analyses and verifications to be carried out in each phase of design (Kjellén, 2006). The standard is intended for industrial control rooms (air traffic control operation, electric power generation, etc) and the main design principles are humancentred design approach; error tolerant design; feedback design approach and task analysis at each design step (dos Santos et al., 2008). The standard consists of seven parts which provides general design process descriptions and requirements, requirements and recommendations for CC design projects and more detailed requirements and recommendations for specific CC elements. Part 1 (ISO 11064-1, 2000) contains the design process framework and 9 general design principles and will thus influence all the other parts of the standard. From our viewpoint, we consider part one to be the most relevant part of ISO 11064 and it was also the part most commonly used by the stakeholders in our study. Thus we will focus on part one in this paper. Even though part one focuses on the design process, the entire standard is not to be seen as a pure process standard. Others define ISO 11064 as a hardware interface standard (Bevan, 2001). One objective of the 9 design principles is to lay down the foundation for all the ergonomic activities to take place during a CC design project. Examples of the design principles include e.g. "Principle 1: Application of a

human-centred design approach" and "Principle 3: Improve design through iteration". Both these principles are illustrated in Fig. 1. Fig. 1 shows an overview of the phases in the ergonomic approach to the system design process in ISO 11064. The design process is described on various levels of detail throughout ISO 11064 and is divided into five main phases (ISO 11064-1, 2000): Phase A e Clarification: aims to clarify the purpose, context, resources and constraints of the project when starting a design process, taking into account existing situations which could be used as a reference. Phase B e Analysis and definition: describes how to analyse the control centre's functional and performance requirements culminating in a preliminary functions' allocation and job design. Phase C e Concept design: describes how to develop initial room layout, furnishing designs, displays and controls, and communications interfaces necessary to satisfy the needs identified in phase B. Phase D e Detailed design: describes how to develop the detailed design specifications necessary for the construction and/or procurement of the control centre, its content, operational interfaces and environmental facilities. Phase E e Operational feedback: describes how to conduct a post commissioning review to identify successes and shortcomings in the design in order to positively influence subsequent designs. Time, available resources, technical information and a host of other factors restricts the ergonomist from doing the steps in a single sweep (Wood, 2004). Thus an iterative approach appears to be required. ISO 11064 it is a process-oriented standard and it incorporates the Human-Centred Design (HCD) approach. HCD is described in ISO 13407: "Human-centred design is an approach to interactive system development that focuses specifically on making systems usable" (ISO 13407, 1999). In a human-centred design approach, the combination of humans and machines, in its

Fig. 1. Ergonomic approach to system designs adapted from ISO 11064-1, showing the approach outlined in the standard.

64

A.L. Aas, T. Skramstad / Applied Ergonomics 42 (2010) 62e70

organizational and environmental context, is considered as an overall system to be optimized (ISO 11064-1, 2000). So far we have focussed on part one, which provides an overview of, and entry-points to, the remaining six parts of the standard. The remaining parts also contain overall process descriptions, but their main focus is on specific ergonomic requirements and recommendations. Part two (ISO 11064-2, 2000) contains a control suite arrangement design procedure including requirements for a starting point, V&V and some general design principles. There is also a set of requirements for the control suite including communication, traffic and routing, entrances and exits, environmental conditions, cleaning, maintenance etc. Part three (ISO 11064-3, 1999) contains a control room layout procedure, requirements and recommendations for control room layout and recommended control room dimensions. Part four (ISO 11064-4, 2004) contains a workstation design procedure and physical requirements and recommendations for workstation design and layout. Part five (ISO 11064-5, 2008) contains a checklist to verify implementation of design principles, a process description for display and control specification and high level alarm requirements and recommendations. Part six (ISO 11064-6, 2005) contains a control room environmental design process description and a comprehensive list of requirements and recommendations for environmental factors e.g. acoustics, lighting, air etc. Part seven (ISO 11064-7, 2006) contains a description of the role of V&V and how V&V can be integrated in the design process. 1.3. ISO 11064 in the Norwegian regulatory regime The Norwegian regulatory regime is based on national legislation, international standards and the NORSOK standards. The NORSOK standards were developed by the Norwegian petroleum industry (NORSOK S-002, 2004). The "Regulations relating to design and outfitting of facilities etc. in the petroleum activities (The facilities regulations)" has a set of guidelines, which include references to ISO 11064 and NORSOK S-002 for working environment. The facilities regulations were published by the Petroleum Safety Authority Norway (PSA), the Norwegian Pollution Control Authority (SFT) and the Norwegian Social and Health Directorate (NSHD). Section 20 in the facilities regulations guidelines states "The ISO 11064 standard should be used for design of the central control room" (PSA, 2002). The guidelines also refer to the standard by recommending the use of "ISO 11064 with regard to human error" (PSA, 2002). In addition, NORSOK S-002 states that "The ergonomic/ human factor principles and design process stipulated in ISO 11064 (all parts) shall be applied in the design of the CCR and the driller's control room/cabin. For mobile offshore units, ISO 11064 (all parts) should also be applied in design of the wheelhouse/bridge and the machine control room" (NORSOK S-002, 2004). The facilities regulations shall be followed in design and modifications of offshore installations, but there is no direct legal requirement to apply ISO 11064. However, following guidelines published by the Norwegian government agencies and standards published by petroleum industry themselves is commonly accepted in the industry and thus, ISO 11064 has been used in several major Oil & Gas (O&G) projects over the last years. 1.4. Integrated operations (IO) The introduction of new technology can change the way people work. Integrated Operations (IO) and the "e-field of the future" introduce new ways of working, allowing for remote control and virtual teams, but also raise new risk management issues. "Integrated operation means changes to organization, staffing, management systems and technology e and not least to the interaction

between them" (PSA, 2009). The first generation of IO is based on collaboration rooms and integration of on- and offshore work processes. "Implementation of these practices will lead to relatively simple but profound changes to the traditional work processes" (OLF, 2005). The second generation of IO is based on integration not only within one organization, but between several organizations. "Implementation of these processes will lead to a closer integration of the work processes of operators and vendors and e most importantly e to the development of "digital services", i.e., operational concepts that are based on delivery of a large portion of the services required to operate a field "over the net"" (OLF, 2005). These work processes are likely to have a significant impact on where and how people do their jobs in the future. Even though issues regarding how new technology can change the way people work might not have been considered when drafting the standard, and thus be outside of its current scope, we include this issue in our work as it could be an opportunity for future development of ISO 11064. 1.5. Goal-based and prescriptive standards We argue that the introduction of new technology which changes the way people work, like IO, calls for a more goal-based view on standards in general, and design standards in particular, to cope with e.g. rapid changes in technology. According to Weaver and Kelly (2006), goal-based safety standards are now a reality and according to Penny et al. (2001) there is an increasing tendency to adopt a goal-based approach to safety regulation. A prescriptive approach with specific requirements is not always appropriate, and thus a goal-based approach might be desirable. Goal-based regulation sets the goals to be achieved, but allows for alternative ways to achieve compliance (Penny et al., 2001). Goal-based regulation provides more freedom in choosing the best solution and it ensures that liability is placed with the system owner. To achieve effective and efficient design of safety-critical systems, it is important to have flexible safety standards which contribute to good cost/ benefit ratios and safer systems. A goal-based approach will be discussed for this purpose. 1.6. Background and objectives of our study The main objective of our study was to document experiences from applying ISO 11064 to CC design in full scale industrial projects, e.g. construction of new offshore installations (oil platforms, FPSOs etc.) and onshore process installations as well as major CC modifications of the same. According to its scope, ISO 11064 is intended for non-mobile control centres (ISO 11064-1, 2000). On the other hand, it is stated in the same scope that its principles could be applicable to mobile control centres (e.g. those on ships and aircraft). Nevertheless, application of the standard to mobile units such as FPSOs or drilling rigs is outside the intended scope of ISO 11064 and any criticism or comments regarding its use on mobile units are thus aimed at the Norwegian application of the standard rather than on the standard itself. The purpose of our study was to identify stakeholders' opinion of ISO 11064 and strengths and weaknesses for its current application. Our literature search identified publications of surveys with assessments, classifications and comparisons of safety and/or ergonomic standards. Bevan (2001) classified a number of ISO standards related to HumaneComputer Interaction (HCI) and usability, including ISO 11064. Others (e.g. Herrmann, 1996; Aas and Skramstad, 2009) have presented methods and methodologies for assessing safety standards, while yet others (Thovtrup and Nielsen, 1991) have performed laboratory studies of how design standards were actually used. A large survey of a number of standards was performed by Wabenhorst and Atchison (1999) and included issues

A.L. Aas, T. Skramstad / Applied Ergonomics 42 (2010) 62e70

65

of usability, safety and technical processes. The usability issues included for each standard the level of prescription and guidance and how it could be tailored (adapted in use). See Pikaar (2007) for a discussion on ergonomics, standards, and a number of case examples. Our literature search did, however, not reveal any literature describing systematic collection of experiences from industrial use of ISO 11064. The remainder of this paper focuses on materials and methods (chapter 2), results from our studies (chapter 3), discussion of the presented results (chapter 4) and finally conclusions and summary (chapter 5). 2. Materials and methods We used interviews and an online survey as research methods in our research project. We used a two step process in our research design. First, we applied a case study strategy by interviewing a selection of professional users of ISO 11064 in the Norwegian O&G industry. Then we conducted an online survey where the participants were professional users of ISO 11064 in the Norwegian O&G industry. 2.1. Research questions and research design

Table 1 Overview of the sampled stakeholders in the interviews and in the survey. Stakeholders Interviews (n ¼ 22) Number HF-consultant companies Operator companies Engineering companies Authorities Central control room (CCR) operators. I.e. end users Supplier/producer of safety and automation systems (SAS) Research & development (R&D) companies Operations specialist/operator support companies 7 6 5 2 2 e e e Percentage 31.8% 27.3% 22.7% 9.1% 9.1% e e e Survey (n ¼ 29) Number 9 9 6 1 e 2 1 1 Percentage 31.0% 31.0% 20.7% 3.4% e 6.9% 3.4% 3.4%

two highly experienced HF experts before we conducted the interviews. A thorough description of the interviews and its results can be found in (Aas and Johnsen, 2007; Aas et al., 2009).

2.3. Online survey The research we conducted was based on one main Research Question (RQ). RQ1 : How is ISO 11064 applied in the Norwegian O&G industry? To be able to answer RQ1 with the required precision, we split it into a subset of four sub-RQs as listed below. RQ1a : Which positive and negative contributions arise from the application of ISO 11064 in the Norwegian O&G industry? RQ1b : What characterizes the current application of ISO 11064 in the Norwegian O&G industry? RQ1c : How well suited is ISO 11064 for its application to different types of control centres, both non-mobile and mobile in the Norwegian O&G industry? RQ1d : How appropriate is ISO 11064 for its current application in the Norwegian O&G industry? The exploratory part was based on interviews and we followed up with an online survey to elaborate the findings from the interviews in an explanatory manner. This design was made specifically to achieve method triangulation by combining a qualitative method with a quantitative method. 2.2. Interviews During 2006 we conducted open-ended, semi-structured interviews of twenty-two persons in the Norwegian petroleum industry (n ¼ 22). We applied convenience sampling and snowballing (Blaxter et al., 2006) in our selection of interviewees. Convenience sampling means selecting the participants that are most convenient. We selected the interviewees among attendants in the forum Human Factors in Control (www.hfc.sintef.no). This forum is an arena for persons working with human factors in the (Norwegian) O&G industry. We used snowballing by asking each interviewee if he or she could recommend other candidates for an interview. We interviewed a highly experienced group of professionals, with over three quarters (77.3%) of the interviewees having more than 10 years of relevant work experience. The interviewees were stakeholders primarily from HF-consultant companies, operator companies and engineering companies. See Table 1 for an overview of all stakeholders. We prepared an interview guide, which was checked by walkthrough by In 2008 we conducted an online survey to follow up the results of our exploratory study. We used convenience sampling among attendants in the forum Human Factors in Control (www.hfc.sintef. no) as a basis for inviting persons to participate in the survey to ensure their relationship to the petroleum industry. We also used snowballing by asking each participant to suggest other industry professionals we could include in our study. We screened the suggested participants against our participant list to ensure that nobody were invited to the survey twice. Participants were invited by e-mail, and at the end of our sampling process we had invited a total of 141 persons, of whom 51 persons (36.2%) responded, and 29 persons (20.6%) had actually used ISO 11064. Only respondents who had actually used ISO 11064 were included in our study (n ¼ 29). One out of five (20.7%) respondents used ISO 11064 less than once per year. The majority used the standard quite often. More than half of the respondents (55.2%) used ISO 11064 in 1e3 projects per year, while almost a quarter (24.1%) used ISO 11064 in more than 3 projects per year. Before publication of the survey, we conducted one test survey with two highly experienced HF experts, one review with five HF experts, and finally one test survey with one highly experienced HF expert to ensure the quality of the survey. The final survey was online for 80 days and the respondents included stakeholders (n ¼ 29) primarily from HF-consultant companies, operator companies and engineering companies. See Table 1 for details on the sampling of survey respondents. We used a balanced seven level Likert scale in our survey and we included the option not relevant/don't know to avoid biasing the results. An overview of the response alternatives is listed in Table 2.

Table 2 Overview of the response alternatives used in the survey. Key 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Level of agreement Strongly agree Agree Somewhat agree Neutral Somewhat disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Not relevant/Don't know

66

A.L. Aas, T. Skramstad / Applied Ergonomics 42 (2010) 62e70

Fig. 2. Identified positive contributions from applying ISO 11064 based on interviewee responses (n ¼ 22).

We used visual analysis, cluster analysis and simple statistical methods to analyze the survey results. 3. Results In this chapter we first give an extract of the main results from the interviews and we then present the main findings from our online survey. 3.1. Interview results Our analysis of the interview results showed that close to two thirds (65.2%) of the interviewees made statements which emphasized the need to adapt the processes described in the standard to each project. We also found that more than half (52.2%) of the interviewees stated that HF issues had to be included early in the project to ensure that HF aspects were integrated throughout the project. As a response to RQ1a, we provide an overview of the positive contributions from applying ISO 11064 is listed in Fig. 2. The interviewed CCR operators pointed out that their views on the design were taken into account, which made them feel satisfied with the design process. The interviewees also identified several challenges related to ISO 11064 and the application of the standard in industrial projects. As a response to RQ1a, we provide an overview over these challenges is shown in Fig. 3. The ISO 11064 definition of a CC is a "combination of control rooms, control suites and local control stations which are functionally related and all on the same site" (ISO 11064-3, 1999). We, the authors, have noticed that the scope of ISO 11064 does not fit IO, due to the requirement that the CC elements must be located on the same physical site. This comes in direct conflict with the principles of IO and the way work will be organized within the CC. 3.2. Online survey results Our analysis showed that almost half (48.3%) of the respondents found ISO 11064 to be good and almost one third (31.0%) found it to be sufficient, which means that the vast majority had a generally

positive opinion of this standard. One out of five (20.7%) did however find ISO 11064 to be insufficient for CC design in the Norwegian petroleum industry, while none of the respondents found the standard to be excellent, poor or very poor. We observed large differences in the reported use of the different parts of ISO 11064. Part 1 was the most used part (93.1%) and it was the part found useful by the highest percentage (80.8%) of the respondents. Part 3 was used by more than four out of five (86.2%), but only half of the respondents (50%) found this part useful. As a response to RQ1b, Fig. 4 shows an overview of the use and usefulness of the different parts of ISO 11064. We observed a gap between the number of respondents who used a part and the number of respondents who found the same part useful. The largest gap was for part two, followed by part three and part four. We performed cluster analyses to identify characteristics of these gaps. For part one, our analysis revealed that several types of stakeholders were represented in the gap, but two thirds of these respondents had replied that ISO 11064 was an insufficient standard. For the other parts we did not find any such patterns. Responding to RQ1a, we observed from Table 3 that ISO 11064 contributes to important design aspects such as increased safety, improved working conditions and a better development process. (Note that one respondent missed the first question, meaning that n ¼ 28 for that question). We observed that the vast majority of respondents agreed at various levels to these statements, and that very few actually disagreed at any level. A comment from one respondent was: "Using ISO 11064 gives increased HF focus in projects". Responding to RQ1c, we observed from Table 4 that more than four out of five of the respondents agreed at various levels (strongly agree: 27.6%, agree: 48.3%, somewhat agree: 10.3%) that ISO 11064 is suitable for design of CCs. Other cabin types and IO had a lower percentage agreeing, but the number of respondents who actually disagreed stayed low, while between one quarter and half of the respondents stayed neutral. Note that only CC in Table 4 is actually within the scope of ISO 11064. All the remaining control room types are outside the scope of ISO 11064, but since the standard is used for these control rooms as well, we have included them in our

Fig. 3. Identified challenges from applying ISO 11064 based on interviewee responses (n ¼ 22).

A.L. Aas, T. Skramstad / Applied Ergonomics 42 (2010) 62e70

67

standard ensures that HF is appropriately addressed. We observed that an amended ISO 11064 should be more goal-based and less prescriptive than the current version. 4. Discussion In this section we discuss the survey results both in general and in relation to the interview results. 4.1. Interpretation of the results The most important findings in our survey were that ISO 11064 appears to contribute to increased safety, improved working conditions and a better development process (RQ1a). These issues are mainly related to parts one and three of the standard and correspond to that the majority finds these parts most useful. It also corresponds to that the industry wants to keep the ISO standard, but preferably in a more goal-based version (RQ1d). The adaptation to a more goal-based standard is partly supported by the fact that one of five (21.7%) of the interviewees stated that parts of the standard were outdated due to technological changes, e.g. IO. However, more than half of the survey respondents agreed at various levels (strongly agree: 13.8%, agree: 13.8%, somewhat agree: 31.0%) that the standard was suitable for design of IO environments, even though this is outside the standard's intended scope. One reason for this can be that there are different views on what IO is and how the implementation of IO will affect the different industrial segments (e.g. drilling, production etc). Our survey did not pinpoint this exactly and we will not discuss this further. Part seven (V&V) was used by one third of the respondents (RQ1b). One reason for this could be that the Norwegian petroleum industry often uses the CRIOP methodology (Johnsen et al., 2008) for V&V. Another reason could be that several other parts of ISO 11064 also contain some V&V guidance so part seven might be considered somewhat superfluous. ISO 11064 is intended used for CC design and not for smaller cabins like crane cabins (RQ1c). This can explain why many respondents found the standard less suitable for other cabin types and IO than for CC. Another reason for this could be many respondents had less experience with such cabin types and thus found it less suitable. We observed that two thirds (65.2%) of the interviewees stated that the processes in ISO 11064 must be adapted, corresponding to more than nine out of ten of the survey respondents agreeing at various levels (strongly agree: 17.2%, agree: 51.7%, somewhat agree: 24.1%) to this. It thus appears that more guidance on how to adapt the use of the standard to each project is required. However, almost two thirds (strongly agree: 3.4%, agree: 13.8%, somewhat agree: 44.8%) of the survey respondents found this adaptation to be easy. Editors of standards are however continuously reminded that standards are about presenting requirements and recommendations, while more general advice on adapting standards should be presented in text books or guidelines. Such guidance might

Fig. 4. The percentage of survey respondents who used the different parts of ISO 11064 and the percentage who found each part useful (n ¼ 29, but more than one answer could be given and some did not respond at all).

survey. This could be one reason that ISO 11064 was found less suitable for the smaller control rooms. Another reason could be that many respondents were primarily familiar with CC design, and less familiar with other cabin types. A comment from one respondent was: "ISO 11064 can be adjusted to fit different types of installations (drillers cabins, IO, cranes etc)". Thus, the standard appears to be useful also outside its intended scope. Responding to RQ1b, we observed from Table 5 that more than nine out of ten of the survey respondents agreed at various levels (strongly agree: 17.2%, agree: 51.7%, somewhat agree: 24.1%) that the processes in ISO 11064 must be adapted and almost two thirds of the respondents found this adaptation to be easy at various levels (strongly agree: 3.4%, agree: 13.8%, somewhat agree: 44.8%). Just above one third of the survey respondents agreed at some level (agree: 24.1%, somewhat agree: 13.8%) that timing of HF personnel in the projects was appropriate, while another third at some level disagreed to that (somewhat disagree: 17.2%, disagree: 13.8%, strongly disagree: 3.4%). One reason for this could be variations between projects of how the standard is implemented, while another reason could be difference in opinion of when HF should actually be included in the project. Three quarters of the respondents agreed at various levels (strongly agree: 6.9%, agree: 37.9%, somewhat agree: 31.0%) that the interdisciplinary design team is suitable to handle HF. Responding to RQ1d, we observed from Table 6 that almost two thirds of the survey respondents agreed at some level (strongly agree: 6.9%, agree: 37.9%, somewhat agree: 20.7%) that ISO 11064 covers the needs of the industry, while almost half disagreed at some level (somewhat disagree: 17.2%, disagree: 27.6%, strongly disagree: 3.4%) that the standard is kept as it is, and thus calling for a change. More than half of the respondents disagreed at some level (somewhat disagree: 6.9%, disagree: 24.1%, strongly disagree: 27.6%) to replacing ISO 11064 with a specific Norwegian standard, with more than a quarter strongly disagreeing. This corresponds with four out of five agreeing at various levels (strongly agree: 17.2%, agree: 34.5%, somewhat agree: 27.6%) that having an ISO

Table 3 Respondents' opinion of ISO 11064 design contributions measured in percentage (n ¼ 29) with mean, standard deviation (SD) and median (Med.) based on ordinal scale (1 ¼ strongly agree, 2 ¼ agree, 3 ¼ somewhat agree, 4 ¼ neutral, 5 ¼ somewhat disagree, 6 ¼ disagree, 7 ¼ strongly disagree, 8 ¼ not relevant/don't know). Statements 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mean SD 2.82 2.41 2.79 2.48 2.72 1.42 1.47 1.35 1.33 1.31 Med. 2.5 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0

Using ISO 11064 contributes to System (e.g. plant) that is safer to operate from the Control Centre. (n ¼ 28) 7.1% 42.9% 32.1% 10.7% 0.0% 3.6% 0.0% 3.6% Improved physical working conditions. (E.g. windows for daylight, workstation layout etc). 20.7% 48.3% 20.7% 3.4% 0.0% 3.4% 0.0% 3.4% Improved psychological working conditions. (E.g. workload, stress etc) 10.3% 37.9% 34.5% 6.9% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 0.0% An improved design process. 17.2% 44.8% 27.6% 3.4% 0.0% 3.4% 3.4% 0.0% Establishing good design requirements. 13.8% 31.0% 41.4% 6.9% 0.0% 3.4% 3.4% 0.0%

68

A.L. Aas, T. Skramstad / Applied Ergonomics 42 (2010) 62e70

Table 4 Respondents' opinions of suitability for different aspects and cabins measured in percentage (n ¼ 29) with mean, standard deviation (SD) and median (Med.) and median based on ordinal scale (1 ¼ strongly agree, 2 ¼ agree, 3 ¼ somewhat agree, 4 ¼ neutral, 5 ¼ somewhat disagree, 6 ¼ disagree, 7 ¼ strongly disagree, 8 ¼ not relevant/don't know). Statements ISO 11064 is suitable for the design of Control Centres Driller's cabins. Crane cabins. Integrated Operations (IO) environments. 1 27.6% 6.9% 6.9% 13.8% 2 48.3% 27.6% 13.8% 13.8% 3 10.3% 24.1% 17.2% 31.0% 4 0.0% 17.2% 31.0% 20.7% 5 0.0% 0.0% 6.9% 0.0% 6 6.9% 6.9% 6.9% 6.9% 7 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.9% 8 6.9% 17.2% 17.2% 6.9% Mean 2.52 3.83 4.24 3.62 SD 1.92 2.23 2.10 1.99 Med. 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.0

however become superfluous with the implementation of a more goal-based version of the standard, as discussed above. Three quarters of the survey respondents agreed at some level (strongly agree: 6.9%, agree: 37.9%, somewhat agree: 31.0%) that the interdisciplinary design team was well suited to handle HF, which corresponds to the 73.9% of interviewees stating the same (RQ1d). Even though there were variations between the results, both research methods revealed that ISO 11064 is generally appreciated by the stakeholders in the Norwegian petroleum sector. The interview results had a relatively stronger focus on challenges than positive contributions from the standard, due to the formulation and focus of the questions. The survey questions were more balanced and neutral and thus resulted in a slightly more positive impression of the use of ISO 11064 in the Norwegian petroleum sector.

requirement set and leave it to the system owner to decide the details. The standard must still define all relevant terms to provide a common platform. We suggest that requirements in a goal-based CC design standard should be based on the nine principles already stated in part one (ISO 11064-1, 2000) with particular focus on: Ensuring that operators can perform their jobs safely without unacceptable risk to their health. Inclusion of HF issues on the earliest project stage. Identification and implementation of all relevant safety standards, design standards etc. Requiring a user-/human-centred (or similar concept) design approach (Fig. 1). Requiring that HF is integrated in the engineering design process. Requiring an iterative design process, use of experience from similar systems (if such systems exist) and best practice. Defining roles and stakeholders in the project (e.g. HF experts), holding appropriate competence for their tasks. This includes establishing an interdisciplinary design team. All HF decisions are documented and traceable. We also point out implementation via configured systems (Bishop et al., 2004), e.g. Commercial Off The Shelf/Software Of Unknown Pedigree (COTS/SOUP) (Skramstad, 2005) in the control centre as an area that needs specific consideration in CC design. Typically systems like Safety and Automation System (SAS) or Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition (SCADA) are not developed from scratch, but rather configured or adapted for specific use. ISO 11064 does not sufficiently take this aspect into account, but rather assumes that all systems are developed `from scratch'. We also suggest that the standard could be extended from design to cover the full system life cycle, including commissioning, operations, modifications, shutdown, and decommissioning. E.g. the standard specifies that operational feedback shall be collected, but is poor on describing how to utilize such feedback. We do however acknowledge that further work is required before a new standard can materialize.

4.2. Suggested improvements The reader should bear in mind that we make these suggestions primarily based on experience from the O&G industry and that all suggestions may not be applicable to all other industries. We suggest to make ISO 11064 part 1 more goal-based and provide an improved design process description with more guidance on how the process can be adapted to each project. We also suggest making the remaining parts informative, i.e. not normative, but rather as voluntary guidelines. This is a response the findings that respondents want to change the standard and that it should become more goal-based and less prescriptive. This would make part 1 with goal and process focus the main part of the standard, but still with references to the remaining parts for guidance. Adapting a more goal-based approach could make the standard less extensive. The goal-based approach would thus make the standard more robust to technological changes with potentially large impacts on HF issues, e.g. IO. On the other hand (Penny et al., 2001) states that even though goal-based safety standards have been in use for several years in the UK, "experience indicates that some contractors find it difficult to formulate reasonable arguments or provide convincing evidence". It thus appears that a more goal-based approach can make the standard harder to apply. Our suggestions do however aim at adapting the standard to the current needs in the industry and support the way the standard is used today. We do not want to oversimplify by making its goals too abstract, we rather suggest making general recommendations based on a minimum

4.3. Limitations of our study One threat to the construct validity was that we had 29 respondents who completed our survey. This is a relatively low

Table 5 Respondents' opinions of process adaptation and timing of HF (n ¼ 29) with mean, standard deviation (SD) and median (Med.) and median based on ordinal scale (1 ¼ strongly agree, 2 ¼ agree, 3 ¼ somewhat agree, 4 ¼ neutral, 5 ¼ somewhat disagree, 6 ¼ disagree, 7 ¼ strongly disagree, 8 ¼ not relevant/don't know). Statements The processes in ISO 11064 must always be adapted to each specific project. The processes in ISO 11064 are easy to adapt to a specific project when necessary. Human Factors personnel are included at the appropriate time (when design changes can still be made). The interdisciplinary design team is well suited to handle Human Factors. 1 17.2% 3.4% 0.0% 6.9% 2 51.7% 13.8% 24.1% 37.9% 3 24.1% 44.8% 13.8% 31.0% 4 0.0% 10.3% 24.1% 0.0% 5 0.0% 13.8% 17.2% 6.9% 6 3.4% 6.9% 13.8% 10.3% 7 0.0% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 8 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% Mean 2.41 3.69 4.07 3.24 SD 1.43 1.58 1.64 1.79 Med. 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.0

A.L. Aas, T. Skramstad / Applied Ergonomics 42 (2010) 62e70

69

Table 6 Respondents' opinion of appropriateness for the current application of ISO 11064 (n ¼ 29) with mean, standard deviation (SD) and median (Med.) and median based on ordinal scale (1 ¼ strongly agree, 2 ¼ agree, 3 ¼ somewhat agree, 4 ¼ neutral, 5 ¼ somewhat disagree, 6 ¼ disagree, 7 ¼ strongly disagree, 8 ¼ not relevant/don't know). Statements ISO 11064 covers the needs the Norwegian petroleum industry has for Human Factors in Control Centre design today. ISO 11064 should be kept as it is. A specific Norwegian standard would be better than ISO 11064. Having an ISO standard ensures that Human Factors are appropriately addressed. A more goal-based standard should replace ISO 11064. A more prescriptive standard should replace ISO 11064. 1 6.9% 6.9% 6.9% 17.2% 6.9% 3.4% 2 37.9% 6.9% 6.9% 34.5% 6.9% 0.0% 3 20.7% 0.0% 10.3% 27.6% 27.6% 6.9% 4 10.3% 34.5% 13.8% 6.9% 27.6% 31.0% 5 6.9% 17.2% 6.9% 3.4% 6.9% 20.7% 6 10.3% 27.6% 24.1% 6.9% 3.4% 13.8% 7 3.4% 3.4% 27.6% 3.4% 6.9% 17.2% 8 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 0.0% 13.8% 6.9% Mean 3.34 4.62 5.07 2.79 4.28 5.10 SD 1.81 1.63 1.98 1.54 2.03 1.60 Med. 3.0 5.0 6.0 2.0 4.0 5.0

number which can affect the confidence in the results we have presented. However, our findings appear to correspond with previous findings from the interviews, and the method triangulation achieved by combining interviews and a survey supports the validity of our findings. A second threat was that our study might have missed important issues. The survey respondents could write free text comments at the end of the survey, which did not reveal any missed items. A third threat was that the survey was not detailed enough to reveal all relevant aspects, but making the survey too detailed would also make it too extensive. A fourth threat was that our results were influenced by the difference in use amongst the different parts of ISO 11064, but this was also an important part of our findings. One threat to the internal validity was that we selected both interviewees and survey respondents based on attendance in the HFC forum. These persons were, however, among the top experts in the industry, representing a variety of stakeholders. The use of snowballing (i.e. asking participants in a study to suggest other potential participants) might have reduced this threat, as we were able to include relevant persons not participating in the HFC forum. One threat to the external validity was our study was made for application of ISO 11064 in the Norwegian petroleum industry, which is not necessarily relevant for other industrial domains or other geographical areas within the same domain. Even though this is an international standard intended to be independent of industrial domain we do not claim to generalize our results outside of Norwegian petroleum industry. Another threat was that we did not include all large multinational operator companies, who might have proprietary methods that cover ISO 11064 but is more streamlined to a specific organization. This was, however, outside the scope of our study. 5. Conclusion We conclude that ISO 11064 contributes to safe operations and improved working conditions in the CC and that it contributes positively to the design process. The standard is generally appreciated by the Norwegian petroleum industry, and in particular parts one and three where the most widely used and also the most appreciated parts. We did, however, observe large variations in use between the different parts and that three parts of the standard had been used by less than half of the respondents and that almost half of the respondents wants changes in the standard. This is one reason that we suggest to amend ISO 11064 to be more goal-based with only one normative part. This would make it less extensive, easier to maintain and more robust to future technological changes. Acknowledgements The authors thank the forum Human Factors in Control (HFC) for their contribution and support to our work. More information can be found at http://www.hfc.sintef.no. We also thank the

interviewees and survey respondents for their time and valuable contribution to our work. References

Aas, A., Johnsen, S.O., 2007. Improvement of human factors in control centre design e experiences using ISO 11064. In: The Norwegian Petroleum Industry and Suggestions for Improvements. International Petroleum Technology Conference (IPTC). Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), Dubai, UAE. Aas, A.L., Johnsen, S.O., et al., 2009. Human factors in control centre design e experiences using ISO 11064 and CRIOP. In: Bris, R., Soares, C.G., Martorell, S. (Eds.), The Norwegian Petroleum Industry And Suggestions For Improvements. ESREL 2009. CRC Press, Prague, Czeck Republic. Aas, A.L., Skramstad, T., 2009. A method to assess and classify HSE standards. In: Proceedings 2009 SPE Americas E&P Environmental and Safety Conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers, San Antonio, TX, USA. Baker, C.C., McCafferty, D.B., 2005. Accident Database Review of Human Element Concerns: What Do the Results Mean for Classification? Human Factors in Ship Design, Safety and Operation. Royal Institution of Naval Architects, London. Bevan, N., 2001. International standards for HCI and usability. International Journal of HumaneComputer Studies 55 (4), 533. Bishop, P.G., Bloomfield, R., et al., 2004. The future of goal-based assurance cases. Workshop on Assurance Cases. Supplemental Volume of the 2004 International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks, Florence, Italy. Blaxter, L., Hughes, C., et al., 2006. How to Research, third ed. Open University Press, Buckingham, GBR. Department of Defence, 2005. Department of Defense Human Factors Analysis and Classification System. Retrieved 11.03.09, from: http://safetycenter.navy.mil/ HFACS/downloads/hfacs.pdf. dos Santos, I.J.A.L., Teixeira, D.V., et al., 2008. The use of a simulator to include human factors issues in the interface design of a nuclear power plant control room. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 21 (3), 227e238. Dul, J., Neumann, W.P., 2009. Ergonomics contributions to company strategies. Applied Ergonomics 40 (4), 745e752. Herrmann, D.S., 1996. A methodology evaluating, comparing, and selecting software safety reliability standards. Aerospace and Electronic Systems Magazine, IEEE 11 (1), 3e12. HSE, 2009. Human Factors/Ergonomics e Health and Safety in the Workplace. Available from: http://www.hse.gov.uk/humanfactors. ISO 6385, 2004. Ergonomic Principles in the Design Work Systems. International Organization for Standardization, pp. 1e11. ISO 11064-1, 2000. Ergonomic Design of Control Centres e Part 1: Principles for the Design of Control Centres. International Organization for Standardization, pp. 1e25. ISO 11064-2, 2000. Ergonomic Design of Control Centres e Part 2: Principles for the Arrangements of Control Suites. International Organization for Standardization, pp. 1e10. ISO 11064-3, 1999. Ergonomic Design of Control Centres e Part 3: Control Room Layout. International Organization for Standardization, pp. 1e21. ISO 11064-4, 2004. Ergonomic Design of Control Centres e Part 4: Layout and Dimensions of Work Stations. International Organization for Standardization, pp. 1e18. ISO 11064-5, 2008. Ergonomic Design of Control Centres e Part 5: Displays and Controls. International Organization for Standardization, pp. 1e48. ISO 11064-6, 2005. Ergonomic Design of Control Centres e Part 6: Environmental Requirements for Control Centres. International Organization for Standardization, pp. 1e16. ISO 11064-7, 2006. Ergonomic Design of Control Centres e Part 7: Principles for the Evaluation of Control Centres. International Organization for Standardization, pp. 1e9. ISO 13407, 1999. Human-centred Design Processes for Interactive Systems, Genève, Switzerland. International Organization for Standardization, pp. 1e26. Johnsen, S.O., Bjørkli, C., et al., 2008. CRIOPÒ: A Scenario Method for Crisis Intervention and Operability Analysis. Retrieved 02.02.08, from: http://www.criop. sintef.no/The%20CRIOP%20report/CRIOPReport.pdf. Kirwan, B., 1994. A Guide to Practical Human Reliability Assessment. Taylor & Francis, London.

70

A.L. Aas, T. Skramstad / Applied Ergonomics 42 (2010) 62e70 Stanton, N., 2005. Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics Methods. CRC Press, Boca Raton. Stanton, N.A., Salmon, P.M., et al., 2005. Human Factors Methods: a Practical Guide for Engineering and Design. Ashgate, Aldershot. Stewart, T., 1995. Ergonomics standards concerning humanesystem interaction: visual displays, controls and environmental requirements. Applied Ergonomics 26 (4), 271e274. Thovtrup, H., Nielsen, J., 1991. Assessing the usability of a user interface standard. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: Reaching Through Technology. ACM, New Orleans, Louisiana, United States. Wabenhorst, A., Atchison, B., 1999. A Survey of International Safety Standards. The University of Queensland, Australia. Weaver, R., Kelly, T., 2006. Gaining Confidence in Goal-based Safety Cases. Developments in Risk-based Approaches to Safety. Springer, London. 277e290. Wiegmann, D.A., Shappell, S.A., 2003. A Human Error Approach to Aviation Accident Analysis: the Human Factors Analysis and Classification System. Ashgate, Aldershot, Hants, England. Wilson, J.R., 2000. Fundamentals of ergonomics in theory and practice. Applied Ergonomics 31 (6), 557e567. Wood, J., 2004. Control room design. In: Sandom, C., Harvey, R.S. (Eds.), Human Factors for Engineers. Institution of Electrical Engineers, London, pp. 203e233.

Kjellén, U., 2006. Safety in the design of offshore platforms: integrated safety versus safety as an add-on characteristic. Safety Science 45 (1e2), 107e127. Leveson, N.G., 1995. Safeware: System Safety and Computers. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass. Luxhøj, J.T., 2003. Probabilistic Causal Analysis for System Safety Risk Assessments in Commercial Air Transport. Workshop on Investigating and Reporting of Incidents and Accidents (IRIA). National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Williamsburg, Virginia, USA. NORSOK S-002, 2004. Working Environment. The Norwegian Oil Industry Association (OLF) and Federation of Norwegian Manufacturing Industries (TBL), Standards Norway, Lysaker, Norway, pp. 1e56. OLF, 2005. Integrated Work Processes: Future Work Processes on the Norwegian Continental Shelf. OLF. Parsons, K.C., 1995. Ergonomics and international standards: introduction, brief review of standards for anthropometry and control room design and useful information. Applied Ergonomics 26 (4), 239e247. Penny, J., Eaton, A., et al., 2001. The practicalities of goal-based safety regulation. In: Aspects of Safety Management: Proceedings of the Ninth Safety-Critical Systems Symposium. Springer, Bristol, UK. Pikaar, R.N., 2007. New Challenges: Ergonomics in Engineering Projects. Meeting Diversity in Ergonomics. Elsevier Science Ltd, Oxford, pp. 29e64. PSA, 2002. Guidelines to Regulations Relating to Design and Outfitting of Facilities etc. in the Petroleum Activities (The Facilities Regulations). Petroleum Safety Authority Norway (PSA), Norwegian Pollution Control Authority (SFT), Norwegian Social and Health Directorate (NSHD). PSA, 2009. Integrated Operations e Petroleumstilsynet. Retrieved 11.03.09, from: http://www.ptil.no/integrated-operation/category143.html. Redmill, F., Rajan, J., 1997. Human Factors in Safety-Critical Systems. ButterworthHeinemann, Oxford. Rothblum, A.M., Wheal, D., et al., 2002. Human factors in incident investigation and analysis. In: 2nd International Workshop on Human Factors in Offshore Operations (HFW2002). US Coast Guard, Houston, Texas, USA. Sandom, C., Harvey, R.S., 2004. Human Factors for Engineers. Institution of Electrical Engineers, London. Skramstad, T., 2005. Assessment of safety critical systems with COTS software and software of uncertain pedigree (SOUP). In: ERCIM Workshop on Dependable Software Intensive Embedded systems. ERCIM.

Andreas Lumbe Aas received his M.Sc. degree in information science from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU). He is currently a PhD candidate at NTNU. His current research interests are goal-based standards, reporting and case based assurance for Human Factors and software in safety-critical systems.

Torbjørn Skramstad received his M.Sc. degree in theoretical physics and his PhD degree in computer science from the Norwegian Institute of Technology (now NTNU). He is currently professor in computer science at NTNU and a chief research scientist at Det Norske Veritas, Norway. He is a professional member of IEEE and IEEE Computer Society as well as ACM. His current research interests are dependable software architecture and software components, control systems, and distributed and autonomous systems.

Information

A case study of ISO 11064 in control centre design in the Norwegian petroleum industry

9 pages

Report File (DMCA)

Our content is added by our users. We aim to remove reported files within 1 working day. Please use this link to notify us:

Report this file as copyright or inappropriate

133256


You might also be interested in

BETA
4-page insert - ergonomic
Microsoft Word - HCI-Usability standards.doc
Microsoft Word - International standards for HCI.doc
A case study of ISO 11064 in control centre design in the Norwegian petroleum industry
Microsoft Word - Designing Control Rooms for Humans.doc