See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/262426640

The application of the ISO 11064 for deep water platform control centre
design: Benefits and limitations

Article  in  International Journal of Computer Applications in Technology · April 2012

DOI: 10.1504/IJCAT.2012.046314

CITATIONS READS

4 1,499

4 authors:

Francisco Duarte Jose Marçal Jackson Filho

Federal University of Rio de Janeiro Fundacentro
70 PUBLICATIONS   200 CITATIONS    73 PUBLICATIONS   294 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Francisco de Paula Antunes Lima Nora De Castro Maia

Federal University of Minas Gerais Petróleo Brasileiro S.A.
72 PUBLICATIONS   332 CITATIONS    15 PUBLICATIONS   17 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Projets industriels de conception View project

Projeto de Ergonomia e Arquitetura com Follow-up da Construção do Centro Nacional de Controle de Dutos (Transpetro, Rio de Janeiro) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Francisco Duarte on 23 August 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Int. J. Computer Applications in Technology, Vol. x, No. x, xxxx 1

The application of the ISO 11064 for deep water

platform control centre design: benefits
and limitations

Francisco Duarte*
Programa de Engenharia de Produção – PEP/COPPE,
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro – UFRJ,
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
E-mail: duarte@pep.ufrj.br
*Corresponding author

José Marçal Jackson Filho

Fundação Jorge Duprat Figueiredo de Segurança e
Medicina do Trabalho Fundacentro/RJ,
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
E-mail: jose.jackson@fundacentro.gov.br

Francisco de Paula Antunes Lima

Departamento Engenharia de Produção,
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais – UFMG,
Brazil
E-mail: fpalima@ufmg.br

Nora de Castro Maia

Centro de Pesquisas e Desenvolvimento – CENPES,
PETROBRAS,
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
E-mail: nora@petrobras.com.br
Abstract: This paper describes an ergonomic intervention in the design of the control centre of
two floating production storage vessels. It also discusses the application of ISO 11064 standard
used throughout this intervention. The results show that the specifications suggested by the
ergonomics team proposed a new concept for the control centre for the company’s offshore
production units and that, in the face of the complexity of the project, the standard was essential
regarding several vital methodological principles including: the need to conduct situational
analyses and work simulations, the participation of users, among others. It can be concluded that,
although the standard focuses primarily on the design of non-mobile control centres, some of its
principles are applicable to mobile systems such as oil drilling platforms. The standard can also
function as an important instrument of social mediation in the relations between the companies
involved in the project.
Keywords: control centre design; design process; ergonomic intervention; ISO 11064; deep
water platform.
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Duarte, F., Filho, J.M.J., Lima, F.P.A. and
Maia, N.C. (xxxx) ‘The application of the ISO 11064 for deep water platform control centre
design: Benefits and limitations’, Int. J. Computer Applications in Technology, Vol. x, No. x,
pp.xx–xx.
Biographical notes: Francisco Duarte has been on the Production Engineering Department of
COPPE, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, since 1995. He obtained his doctoral degree in
Production Engineering at COPPE, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro. He teaches
undergraduate classes in the area of ergonomics and production engineering. His research
interests are in the development of ergonomic methods and practice in design process, in
particular concerning the process industry.
José Marçal Jackson Filho has been on FUNDACENTRO (Brazilian Institute of Occupational
Health end Safety) since 1988. He obtained his doctoral degree in Ergonomics at the
Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers in Paris. His research interests are in the development
of ergonomic methods and practice in design process and, also, he is interested in the study of the

Copyright © 200X Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

2 F. Duarte et al.

relationship between health and work in the public sector. He is a co-editor for the Revista
Brasileira de Saúde Ocupacional.
Francisco de Paula Antunes Lima has been on the Production Engineering Department,
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, since 1986. He obtained his doctoral degree in
Ergonomics at the Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers in Paris. He teaches graduate and
undergraduate classes in the area of ergonomics and production engineering. His research
interests are in the integration of ergonomics into organisation theory and practice.
Nora Maia works at PETROBRAS (Brazilian Oil Company) since 1980. She obtained her MSc
degree in Ergonomics at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ) in 2002. Her main
research interests are in the development of ergonomic methods and practice in design applied to
the offshore oil industry.

1 Introduction Production Storage Offloading (FPSO) vessels. The design

of these work areas has not evolved and thus has not
The design of control centres is one of the main areas of
contributed to improving working conditions; this has
study in Ergonomics as they play an essential role ‘as safety
hindered the introduction of the technological and
critical barriers against major hazards’ in high-risk
organisational transformations mentioned earlier. Usual
production systems (NPD, 2003). The international
practice continues to recycle previous designs without the
standard, the ISO 11064 – ergonomic design of control
necessary evaluation of the usability of these spaces.
centres – has been in use since 2000. It aims to guarantee
This paper has two main objectives: to describe the
improved operations and safety conditions in process
intervention of an ergonomics team in the design of the
control through the introduction of ergonomic and human
control centre on two FPSO vessels and to discuss the
factors principles in control centre design.
application of the ISO 11064 standard used throughout this
In the case of the petroleum industry and in particular in
intervention.
deep water exploration, the following series of technological
We will first outline the ISO 11064 itself and present its
and organisational transformations have been noted that
characteristics, interest and limits. We will then describe the
have an impact on operational security and on control centre
control room design for the two vessels, the ergonomic
operators’ performance (Herber, 2003; Hoivic, 2003; NPD,
methodology used and the main results obtained. This will
2003; Throndsen, 2003):
be followed by a discussion of the importance of and
the allocation of new roles and tasks in the control limitations regarding the application of ISO 11064, in
centre, such as communication functions via radio, offshore projects.
supervision and nautical operations
the increase in the quantity of information and in
2 International Standard ISO 11064:
interface complexity
characteristics, interest and limitations
integration between emergency functions and process
The international standard, ISO 11064, deals specifically
control
with recommendations relating to the application of
increased focus on cost reduction, leading to the ergonomics and human factors to the design and to the
reduction in the number of operators in the control evaluation of control centres. Its objective is to eliminate or
centres (Green et al., 2000). at least minimise the potential for human error. This
standard is comprised of eight parts:
This text will analyse control centre design for offshore rigs.
Several projects for new production rigs are underway in Part 1: Control centre design principles.
Brazil and these are strategically important for the country,
Part 2: Principles for the arrangement of the control
as the inauguration of new platforms represents a significant
suite.
increase in oil production and allows for the possibility of
self-sufficiency (substituting all imports) for the year 2006. Part 3: Control room layout.
In order to achieve this, deep-sea oil exploration continues,
Part 4: Workstation dimensions and layout.
using the technology in which the Brazilian petroleum
exploration industry has developed significant know-how. Part 5: Displays and controls.
However, deep-sea exploration technology has not
Part 6: Environmental aspects for control centres.
developed in a homogeneous manner. While, on one hand,
production technology has advanced considerably enabling Part 7: Control centre evaluation principles.
drilling for petroleum at more than 2,000 m below sea level,
on the other hand, there are still some technological bottle- Part 8: Ergonomic requirements for specific
necks in design such as in the control centres on Floating applications.
 The application of the ISO
Part 1 of this standard proposes the principles and
recommendations for the accomplishment of control centre
projects from conception and design to final evaluation; a
‘generic framework for applying requirements and
recommendations relating to ergonomic and human factors
in designing and evaluating control centres’.
It is important to mention that the empirical situations
used for the elaboration of this standard appear to have been
non-mobile control centres like those in refineries, nuclear
plants and the petrochemical industry, among others. In
spite of this, the methodological principles proposed are
applicable to other empirical situations; ‘Even though they
are primarily intended for non-mobile control centres, many
of the principles could be relevant/applicable to mobile
centres, such as those found on ships and aircrafts’.
The general principles of ergonomic projects are as
follows:
Apply a human-centred approach.
Integrate ergonomics to engineering practice.
Improve design through iteration.
Conduct situational analysis.
Conduct task analysis.
Design error-tolerant systems.
Ensure user participation.
Form an interdisciplinary design team.
Document ergonomic design basis.
The first part of the standard includes generic
recommendations for the different components of a control
centre while the remaining parts offer detailed prescriptions
for each of these components. Part 2 treats the arrangement
of control suites, Part 3 explains the control room layout,
Part 4 comprises the workstation layout and dimensions,
Part 5 is constituted by displays and controls, Part 6
contains the environmental aspects, operational and
management systems. This is an overview that integrates
and articulates these different components of control centre
design.
These general principles and the articulation of these
different aspects of control centre design justify each other
as
“it is necessary to view the ergonomic aspects
of a control room design in relation to issues
which, at first sight or by tradition, may seem
to fall outside the scope of ergonomic design
projects. These judgments will need to be
taken on a case by case basis and are not
necessarily resolved by a prescriptive
approach”.
The first part of the ISO 11064 was fundamental in the
ergonomic team’s participation in the project under study. It
justified the need to design the control centres after
becoming acquainted with the working operational
3
situations (in accordance with Principle 4: conduct
situational analysis) as well as installing participative
processes (in accordance with Principle 7: ensure user
participation).
3 Control centre design for FPSO vessels
Many of the current projects being developed in Brazil
are for FPSO vessels and not conventional fixed or
semi-submersible platforms. In general, the former deal
with the transformation of old oil tankers into platforms
with the aim of operating in deep water (water depths
around 1500 m or more) and that are subject to vigorous
movement due to environmental and marine conditions.
This movement influences work methods and as we shall
see is a determinant for the conception of installations.
The nominal capacity of the two FPSOs currently in
operation is 180,000 barrels per day, with a crew of 180
operators aboard each one. It is important to emphasise that,
initially, the number of crew aboard these production units
was substantially higher. Of the total budget for the project,
the ergonomics study represented a fraction of the cost
when compared with the total investment.1
3.1 Platform design and organisation
The ergonomic intervention described in this paper is aimed
to contribute to the design of the control centre on two
FPSOs. The Brazilian petroleum industry was responsible
for the development of the initial studies; they then
requested an ergonomic study for the control centre with the
aim of adapting both layout and physical space to
operational activities.
After all bids for the project had been submitted, an
international engineering company was chosen for the
design detailing and execution stages of the two FPSOs. The
design detailing was first done in Europe and then in Brazil,
when the ergonomics team was contracted to the project.
The project was executed at shipyards in separate countries:
one was built in the Asia and the other in Brazil; this made
some significant differences between the solutions
employed for each.
Engineers and technicians from the Brazilian petroleum
industry followed the project through its entire development
and execution. The engineer responsible for instrumentation
and for the control centre had previously worked on
offshore platforms and had already been named as the future
manager of one of the platforms. To ensure the efficiency of
the project and of future operations, the crew-to-be actively
participated in the project and in the execution of the
platforms. Apart from their direct participation, the
involvement of personnel with experience of day-to-day
operation of the platforms was guaranteed for the future
platform’s operation team. As we will see, this involvement
encourages the participation of future personnel as well as
encouraging work-related safety measures.
4 F. Duarte et al.
3.2 Ergonomic methodology applied to the control
centre design
The ergonomic team was contracted by the international
engineering company, henceforth designated IEC, as a
condition made by the Brazilian petroleum industry,
henceforth designated BPI. Long negotiations were held
between the two, as the IEC thought that the control centre
design should be undertaken on land and that the analysis on
similar rigs in operation was unnecessary. The BPI did not
accept this point of view and insisted that an ergonomic
analysis be made of FPSO vessels already in operation.
The methodology adopted can be divided into the
following two stages: studies for design detailing of the
control centre and evaluation of solutions post construction.
3.2.1 Studies for design detailing of the control
centre
The ergonomics team participated in the project over a
period of 6 months, between January and June 2001. The
team included an architect, an ergonomist and a production
engineer; note that a multidisciplinary line-up is one of the
ISO 11064 requirements.
The methodology adopted for the project can be outlined
as follows:
1 Analyses of ergonomic standards, in particular of the
ISO 11064 to verify its applicability to FPSO control
centre design.
2 Meetings and interviews with operators and engineers
to understand the context and initial proposal made by
the Brazilian petroleum industry.
3 Visits to two FPSO vessels, to follow work activities in
the control centres. Operations in different sectors
(production, nautical and utilities) were observed. Each
visit lasted 5 days.
4 Simulation of future activities (Garrigou et al., 1995)
using a maquette of the control centre. The aim was to
evaluate, together with the operators, the different
layout options (a relative position between the different
operating crews). This evaluation was based on certain
typical action situations such as off-loading, new
drilling production and the release of equipment for
maintenance, among others.
5 Specifications for different aspects of the control
centre: space, layout and positioning of furnishings and
equipment, circulation, lighting, acoustics, temperature
and air ventilation, wall and floor coverings, among
others.
3.2.2 Evaluation of solutions post construction
In November 2003, the unit built in Asia returned to a
shipyard in Rio de Janeiro for final assembly of the
production plant. Its control centre was ready and was at the
stage of digital control systems testing. At the same time,
the other FPSO was at the same stage in another shipyard in
Rio de Janeiro state.
To evaluate the proposed solutions, visits were made to
the control centres on both the P-43 and P-48 platforms. The
characteristics and the differences of the solutions adopted
were observed on each platform. At the same time
interviews were made with BPI and IEC technicians.
3.3 Results
3.3.1 A new concept for control centres
The specifications suggested by the ergonomics team
proposed a new concept for the control centre for the
company’s offshore production units. It was a control centre
that differed from those which had uncomfortable work
conditions with badly planned layout, high noise levels,
precarious lighting in several areas, lack of windows and
insufficient air conditioning, among other aspects
(Figure 1).
The initial proposals that had been made during the
primary studies without the ergonomics team underwent
numerous modifications after the analysis that were made of
the vessels already in operation and the team’s own
research. The main characteristics of the new control centre
project are the following (Figure 2):
A circular arrangement that favours the integration of
different operating crews, with a central area for
meetings which are held at shift handovers and for
special operations.
Furnishings that are adapted to the various typical work
situations and that enable more than one operator to use
the computer terminals (which happens in emergencies
and in special operations such as off-loading).
Chairs with adjustable arm positions and height and
with locking wheels (that impede movement when the
FPSOs rolling motion is more pronounced).
The separation of the operating room from the
instrumentation room, which is normally noisier.
Computer terminals with LCD monitors fixed to the
work surfaces (which increase available space as well
as avoiding falls when the FPSO rocking motion is
more pronounced) and with arms (which fix to the work
surfaces) that allow required flexibility of positioning.
An appliance designed to integrate the different types
of communication radio.
Emergency buttons grouped together in the same area.
Acoustic insulation for the ceiling, walls and raised
floor.
Indirect lighting in order to avoid reflections on the
screens.
Windows to take advantage of available natural light
(with blinds).
 The application of the ISO
Figure 1 Old control centre: uncomfortable work conditions
Figure 2 The control room of P-43
3.3.2 Contributions made to the design after the
analysis of operations
The analysis of the operations provided the main elements
that were used to respond to the initial proposals made by
the planners. Three main points should be highlighted:
Centre layout. Communication (frequency and content)
between the different crews, the supervisors and operators
of each crew and the number of people present in the
control centres in different operating situations, as well as
the utilisation of control systems, different types of
communication radio and other instruments present in the
control centres, were observed during the study of the
operating FPSOs and they provided arguments in favour of
the elaboration of a new layout. For example, the level of
communication between operators from the production crew
and nautical operators in off-loading situations reinforced
the importance for these crews and their control systems to
be close to one another. This differed from the initially
proposed layout in which these crews were separated from
each other.
Furnishings and equipment positioning. The furnishings
and the IT equipment specifications (control system
terminals) were subject to a thorough study. In the analysis
of the operating units, it was seen that documents from the
shelf units and cupboards, as well as the control system
terminals, had devices to secure and protect them from falls.
5
The production platforms and, in particular, the FPSOs
in deep water are the production units that rock and move
about depending on the state of the sea. Even with a low
degree of oscillation, the cupboard doors and drawers in the
workstations open and close and the chairs with wheels roll
about. The impression gained from those platforms visited
was that products designed for dry land had been used
instead of work equipment designed for the high seas.
Theoretically, according to the engineering calculations,
the platforms should oscillate at a maximum of 10 around
the vertical axis in the worst hypotheses. However,
according to the crew brief oscillations of upto 20 have
been registered in some FPSO’s vessels. This can occur
with rare combinations of tides, wind intensity and
direction, ocean currents and depends on the weight and
distribution of cargo in the ship’s tanks. Although rare, such
situations engender problems that are difficult to deal with,
precisely due to the ergonomic inadequacies in the control
centre. At these moments of pronounced rocking, the
operating conditions require the crew’s extreme vigilance
and this is hampered by the layout, means of
communication and the instability of the equipment and
furnishings in the control centre.
The P-43 and P-48 units have smaller roll motions than
conventional FPSOs. They are operating for more than
1 year in Campos Basin and the maximum roll motion
amplitude registered is about only 3 . This characteristic is
related to the influence of the inertia of the process plant
and the damping associated with the mooring lines and
risers.
Throughout the simulations for the future project,
situations were seen in which three or four operators were
grouped around a monitor in order to decide what course of
action to follow. At times when the vessel was rocking
severely, the operators, as well as controlling the process,
had to worry about securing the monitors that were sliding
around on the workstations. It was for this reason that they
had ended up screwing the computers to the surfaces and
precariously closing the drawers and cupboard doors. Under
these conditions, it was understandable that they preferred
chairs without wheels, even though these did not enable
easy mobility. Depending on the movement of the vessel,
the wheels created further difficulties due to their tendency
to roll around.
‘Control centre and production area’ interaction. This
topic is not related with the working conditions inside the
control centre. We will address first the working conditions
of the production area operators and only after that we will
analyse their interaction with the control centre workers.
We identified a problem related with the need of a
shelter for the production area workers close to the process
plant. Commonly, those shelters are only planned in the
final stages of the design, many times even being
improvised. They could be adapted to the operators’
working activities and present better working conditions if
they had their location and related working conditions
analysed since the early design stages. Inside the shelters the
operation teams (nautic, production and facilities) do:
6 F. Duarte et al.

1 the issuing of working permits for the maintenance In this case, the ergonomic team’s inexperience of naval
teams projects meant that they had no inkling of the difficulties
involved in the installation of the proposed solutions (like
2 meetings among the maintenance and the safety teams
the acoustic insulation of the floor), which resulted in
with respect to future interventions or even the ones
several adaptations made by the execution team.
that are being carried, in the process unity
Due to the manner in which naval construction is
3 work shift meetings between the teams involved to conducted (every shipyard has a particular network of
exchange duty information. suppliers) and to the adaptations necessary for the specific
conditions of a FPSO vessel, follow-through by the
Planning the shelters in the process area involves some
ergonomics team at the execution stage would have assured
controversy, as there are two distinct lines of reasoning
improved adhesion to the ergonomic principles that guided
about their usefulness. On one hand, shelters are important
the specifications that had been developed. To avoid
to carry the activities described above, but on the other
modifications that compromised the principles of the
hand, the safety engineers and the classification societies do
proposed solutions, it would be necessary to be familiar
not recommend their construction in a high-risk classified
with the materials available, as well as the shipyard
area. We propose a broad discussion of this subject to find a
suppliers in Asia and Rio de Janeiro, so as to work with the
solution that accommodates everyone’s needs.
most suitable material available for maritime environments.
Another aspect related to the shelter in the production
In the case of furnishings, the team’s specifications
area is related to the definition of the equipment and
suggested custom-fitted units for the control system
necessary working place definitions for the operation teams
terminals. The fact they did not use standardised materials
(nautic, production and facilities). Another problem
available on the naval construction market caused conflicts
identified on the platforms visited was related to the
regarding price and completion deadlines. The continuing
integration between the control centre crew and the field
problems created by the gap between the expectations of the
operators: it was noted that on one of the vessels the
builder (and in a certain way of traditional practice) and the
interaction between members of production crew was
new ergonomic specifications (which represent a departure
facilitated by the installation of a digital terminal in the
from the usual designs) provide important lessons for
operator’s shelter located close to the production unit. Using
project development.
this system, the area operators can have visual access to the
For the BPI the solutions proposed by the ergonomics
main variables of the production process, without the need
team were viewed as the specifications to be followed by
to actually go to the control centre or ask for information
the execution team. Any change, whatever on the part of the
from the operators located on the control centre. The
IEC, meant the need for justifications that were not always
visualisation of the process variables facilitates
accepted and thus resulted in conflicts. For the IEC, the
communication and collective decision-making about
solutions proposed by the ergonomic team should have been
operating strategies and correctional actions to be taken
presented as guidelines and not as design specifications, so
under certain circumstances. Exchange of information and
as to guarantee greater flexibility throughout the execution
discussion, with a common reference, facilitates the sharing
stage. Contrastingly, for the BPI, the detailed specifications
of experiences and speeds up inter-personal understanding.
boiled down to minimum guarantees that existed to ensure
This can be vital in emergencies, when linguistic
the quality of the environment to be constructed.
communication tends to become more condensed,
The ergonomics team did not participate in the
abbreviated and economic and can work only due to the
execution stage on either of the platforms and so was unable
experience shared and the tacit knowledge of the crews.
to give any support to the modifications and decisions made
The interaction between the control centre teams and the
throughout this stage. In some cases, such as in the acoustic
production area teams, though fundamental for the
insulation of the floor and walls and also in the indirect
reliability of the operations, are not considered in the ISO
lighting, the solutions proposed could have been simplified
11064 rules. In the same way, the needs and the working
or have been more easily installed. The results would have
conditions of the production area are not the object of those
been similar without losing out on quality.
rules.

5 Discussion: the applicabiblity of the ISO 11064

4 The ergonomics contribution: guidelines or
for offshore projects
design specifications
The FPSO and oil production platform projects are
In the visits made, soon after the construction of the control
complex, as much due to their production system
centres, it was noted that various solutions that had been
characteristics as to the social organisation of the design
proposed for the project had undergone transformations in
process. After the construction is complete, the possibilities
the execution; this was to be expected, as the construction
for future modifications are minimal, in view of the cost and
stage is marked by reconceptual activities and by decision-
risks involved. The design process involves a network of
making that changes the design detailing (Duarte and
companies, which although interconnected, are located all
Cordeiro, 2000).
 The application of the ISO
over the world and which have complex contractual
relations.
Although the ISO 11064 presents problems of
contextualisation, recognised in current versions of the
standard (which purports to be applicable above all to non-
mobile systems), it safeguards the importance of
ergonomics and of ergonomic methods for control centre
design as essential elements for anticipating safety risks to
high-risk production systems. Before debating the
advantages found in its use in the project described here, we
will first discuss its greatest limitation: its restricted
application to the detailed prescriptions for maritime
environments.
5.1 Contextualisation of the standard
Problems of contextualisation for this offshore deepwater
oil production standard were noted in the visits made to
conduct situational analysis in reference sites, as it does not
treat important aspects for this production mode.
The movement of these vessels in unfavourable sea
conditions have important repercussions on the working
conditions and on the design of equipment and furnishings
for the control centres and the ISO 11064 does not deal with
this. In our opinion, this standard has not successfully
contextualised the production conditions relating to the
south Atlantic.
In addition to this, Parts 2 and 3 of the standard, on hand
throughout the project, were of little use for the definition of
the layout of the furnishings and equipment.
5.2 Methodological principles as instruments of
social mediation
In the face of the complexity of the project, the standard was
essential regarding several vital methodological principles
including: the need to analyse reference situations, the
participation of users (including those from other
platforms), work simulations and the documentation of the
ergonomic data from the project.
The recycling of solutions from prior projects, without
considering the operation team’s needs, is a common
tendency in the project practice of some industrial sectors,
contributing to the design of inefficient and uncomfortable
systems and work situations, which were potentially
dangerous both to health and to operational safety.
The analysis of control centres on other platforms
demonstrated the operational problems and allowed us to
arrive at a new concept for control centres, one which will
not necessarily be applicable to other future projects.
From an ethical view point, the standard has been of
great value, as the state-of-the-art systematised knowledge
used to orient the deep water platform control centre design,
which was insufficient and designing on land could put both
the personnel and the environment at risk.
The standard can also function as an important
instrument of social mediation in the relations between the
7
companies involved in the project. In the case under study,
the BPI representative defended the need to improve the
ergonomics in the control centres and requested analyses of
operating platforms; the existence of the ISO 11064
provided an important argument to ratify these to the IEC.
In a way, these ideas reinforce classic aspects of project
development – the tendency of the contracted company to
follow logical paths of cost and deadline, while the
contracting company tends to support the logic of the
quality of the solution, reinforced by the participation of
technicians who will be the future operating crew members
of the FPSOs. In this context, the ISO 11064 was an
essential tool that was used to regulate the conflicts between
the social elements involved and to guarantee the quality of
the ergonomic project.
The formulation of ergonomic solutions in the form of
specifications reduced the action margin of the execution
team. But as the ergonomists were not present during this
phase and the BPI representative considered the
specifications to be a guarantee of quality, conflicts
occurred between the two parties. Some of the solutions
adopted ‘at risk’ were not, however, the most appropriate
and these enabled the IEC to question the efficiency of the
ergonomic study. The intense involvement of the BPI
representative, one of the future managers of the platform,
reduced the margins for adaptation of the proposed solutions
to manufacturing circumstances; however, this could have
been avoided if the modifications had been guided by the
ergonomic principles that were subjacent to the
specifications of the ergonomic project.
6 Conclusion
It can be concluded from this study that, although the ISO
11064 standard focuses primarily on the design of non-
mobile control centres, some of its principles are applicable
to mobile systems such as oil drilling platforms. The
problems encountered in applying this standard in its
entirety appear to be related, on one hand, to the limitations
of current knowledge regarding specific operation situations
on oil production platforms and FPSOs and, on the other
hand, to the limits of systematised state-of-the-art
knowledge to guide the conception of operational deepwater
platforms.
The ISO standard was important for the evolution of the
design of control centres on BPI oil platforms, but not
sufficient. It is important to emphasise the role of the
company personnel, who demanded the integration of
ergonomic methodology, especially for this project.
The result of the project can be considered innovative
within the company, in such as it questioned the tendency to
recycle solutions and was a pilot project for future platform
design. Now other sectors – kitchen, hospital and production
areas – in ongoing platform design projects are also to be
the objects of ergonomic intervention.
8 F. Duarte et al.
References
Daniellou, F. and Näel, B. (1995) ‘Ergonomie’, Techniques de
l’ingénieur, traité Génie industriel, Vol. T3, p.100.
Duarte, F.J.C.M. and Cordeiro, C.V.C. (2000) ‘A etapa de
execução da obra: um momento de decisões’, Produção,
Vol. 10, pp.5–27.
Garrigou, A., Daniellou, F., Carballeda, G. and Ruad, S. (1995)
‘Activity analysis in participatory design and analysis of
participatory design activity’, Int. J. Industrial Ergonomics,
Vol. 15, pp.311–327.
Green, M., Collier, S., Sebok, A., Morisseau, D., Seim, L.A. and
Shriver, J.A. (2000) Method for reviewing human factors in
control centre design. Norway.
Herber, H. (2003) ‘Introduction to human factors offshore: a high
level overview and key challenges of offshore industry in
Norway’, Paper presented at the XVth Triennial Congress of
the International Ergonomics Association (Electronic
version). In proceedings.
View publication stats
Hoivic (2003) ‘Introduction to human factors offshore: systematic
human factors analysis in design’, Paper presented at the XVth
Triennial Congress of the International Ergonomics
Association (Electronic version). In proceedings.
NPD (2003) ‘HF – assessment method – for control
room’, Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, Available at:
http://www.npd.no/NR/rdonlyres/6FE21E7B-2599-4750-
90E8-B465EDB8039B/0/EnglishHFAM.pdf, accesssed on the
5 October.
Throndsen, T. (2003) ‘Ergonomic design of the control centre of
the Kristin Offshore field’, Paper presented at the XVth
Triennial Congress of the International Ergonomics
Association (Electronic version). In proceedings.
Note
1
According to Daniellou and Näael (1995), the cost of introducing
ergonomics at the conception of a production system is around
2% of the total investment.