EXPERIENCES FACTORS
IN INCORPORATING HUMAN INTO THE CONTROL CENTRE DESIGN
PROCESS
Marie Green, Framfab AS,’Halden, Norway.
Steve Collier, The Institute for Energy Technology, Halden, Norway.
ABSTRACT
Historically, it has been difficult for human factors
specialists to contribute to projects at a time when it
would be most cost effective - the design stage. In
June 2000 the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate
(NPD) issued a draft method they would be using
for evaluating human factors efforts in the design of
offshore control centres (see http:/lwww.npd.no ).
The method is based on the Final Draft
International Standard ISO/FDIS 11064-1:
Ergonomic Design of Control Centres - Part 1:
Principles for the Design of Control Centres.
Although the method is primarily a tool for the
NPD to review human factors in the design process,
it has been written to give designers clear guidance
on what they will be expected to provide, in terms
of evidence and documentation of methods, to
demonstrate that human factors has been properly
considered in the design process.
This paper outlines the method, and gives some
examples of the author’s experiences in carrying
out human factors work to meet the requirements of
the method. Although this method was developed
specifically for the offshore oil environment, it’s
principles and methods are equally applicable in
any control room design project.
INTRODUCTION
In the Norwegian petroleum industry, development
of new control room solutions has changed the role
of central control room (CCR) operators and the
performance demands placed upon them. Examples
of these changes are:
New functions: functions and tasks have been
introduced to the control rooms, such as radio
communications, transport, surveillance and
marine operations.
Changes in technology: new display and
control technologies have lead to the
integration of the traditionally separate process
control and emergency functions.
Complexity: in order to extend the life of the
platforms, control rooms have been modified
People in Control: An International Conference on Human interfaces in Control Rooms, Cockpits and Command Centres
19-21 June 2001, Conference Publication No. 481 0 IEE 2001
and their complexity has evolved beyond the
original design goals and requirements.
Changes in operational scope include control of
peripheral (sub-sea) units, remote operation of
installations, etc.
Production: process output is increasing
towards the limit of design specifications. This
leads to increased demand on response time,
accuracy of systems and control room
operators in order to avoid temporary shutdown
periods.
Costs: increased focus on cost saving is
leading to a pressure to run the platform with
as few personnel as possible, including control
room operators.
In implementing these changes, the effects on the
human operator are often neglected. NPD has
experienced that this can affect safety and the.
working environment in offshore control rooms:
lack of an integrated human factors perspective is
often the main reason why designs fail to provide
sufficient overview and support to operators, and
often why control room errors occur.
The Norwegian Petroleum Industry interprets
government regulations with a rather a narrow view
of human factors; and sees it mainly related to
physical work environment and traditional
ergonomics, i.e., desks, chairs, HVAC systems, etc.
The NPD wanted to be sure that the Petroleum
Industry used a broader definition, including
aspects such as the presentation of information
from safety systems, and the workload and
cognitive demands placed on operators, especially
in emergencies.
In order to meet these challenges, the NPD took an
initiative in 2000 to develop a method to review
human factors ’ in control room design[ I]. The
method integrates applicable government
regulations, applicable national and international
standards and human factors best practice, into a
human-centred design process. A group of
representatives from the operating companies were
involved in the development and used as a
19
reference group in order to integrate the method
into industry design practices.
SCOPE
The purpose of the method is to help NPD’s
inspectors review the design process and ensure
that the design meets government regulations. It is
applicable to new projects, modifications and
upgrades, and is intended to ensure that human
factors principles and methods were used
appropriately and according to the regulatory
requirements.
The method can, therefore, be used for:
Internal evaluation or reviews by the project
. leader, design team, equipment vendors, etc.;
and
0 External auditsheviews by operating
companies, contractor companies, equipment
vendors or NPD.
The method is not a design methodology as such.
However, a secondary objective was that by making
the review criteria known in advance, the operating
companies are forewarned about questions the
regulator will ask. Therefore, the companies will
know that these methods and processes should be
included in the design process and that they will be
asked to supply evidence that they were included in
the design.
The method is aimed specifically at the human
factors programme in control centre design, and
does not cover general design issues.
FRAMEWORKFOR THE REVIEW
GUIDANCE
Figure 1 shows the main steps in the method, which
is based on the proposed content of I S 0 11064,
Ergonomic Design of Control Centres, Part 1:
Principles for the Design of Control Rooms [2].
This standard, currently in a Final Draft form, gives
guidance on how to include human factors in the
design process and when finished it will form the
basis for design principles across many industries.
The standard contains 11 steps divided into 5
phases. However, we felt that there were some
areas not covered by the standard that should be
included in the method. These steps are:
0 Step 0: human factors programme management
0 Step 9.7: procedures, and
20
Step 9.8: training.
Otherwise, the structure of the review method holds
closely to that given in IS0 11064.
Although I S 0 11064 provided the framework for
the guidance, much of the substance of individual
chapters was derived from our experience and
knowledge of control room design in the nuclear,
transport and mining industries and documents
relating to those industries. Important examples are
the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the
International Electrotechnical Commission.
Several standard ergonomic texts were also used.
EXPERIENCES
As a part of the development of this method, the
team accompanied the NF’D on some of its
inspections and reviews. Also, since the method
has been taken into use the authors have been
involved in applying the new method during the
design phase so we will now describe briefly the
different steps of the method and discuss some of
bur experiences in relation to them
Phase A. Programme Management, Goals and
Requirements
This phase covers the organisational and
management aspects of the project.
Step 0: Human Factors (HF) Management.
Guidance for human factors programme
management is lacking in ISOFDIS 11064-1 but as
NPD regulations require that there are appropriate
management systems, it was included in the
method. We have tried to follow the numbering
system from ISO/FDIS 11064-1 but as HF
programme management is not covered this has
been named Step 0. The review guidance examines
the composition of the HF team and the
management of HF issues relating to the design
process. Our experiences show that few companies
in the Norwegian sector have a systematic way of
including HF issues in the design process. The
design team does usually include a physiotherapist
and safety personnel, who take into account issues
such as the physical work environment. It was,
therefore, important to ensure that the design team
had a broad enough range of HF expertise to
consider cognitive as well as physical aspects of
operators work. In addition, the team must include
experienced CCR operators that can be consulted in
the various HF analyses that will be carried out
during the design process.
 1

.
Phase A Step 0: HF Programme Management
-A
it-- I

Set pegormance parameters

t- ~ _ . _ _
I
1

6 -- -
~

' Step 1: Clarify Goals and Requirements

....

Phase B I I

i New designs:all
I

I j Modtficationshpgrades changed functions, I

I i
it--- ~

i
i
functions I
I I collect data on existing functions/constraints ~ 1 i I

.* Step 3 : Function Allocation

f
1
i

Step 4: Analyse Tasks

Phase C

.
!
' -
Does 7
I Step 8: Approve h n c e p t u a l Design
the design meet/
~

-l
no 1i
requirements? I- I

I
... ..~ . ........
~ ~ . .~ . ~~~~~ . ~
......
.. . ~~ ~ 1. .Yes
....
~

I
Step 9: Detailed Design and Build I
d

Phase D
the design meet
requirements?

...

Phase E

gure 1: Human Factors Steps in Control Centre Design (adapted from IS0 11064-Part 1)

21

Step 1: Goals and Requirements. This reviews
the process of setting human factors goals and
requirements for the project. The design
documentation should show that an operational
experience review, OER, has been conducted to
identify human factors problems from previous or
other similar designs. In addition, relevant
regulatory requirements and standards related to
human factors should have been identified before
the goals and requirements of the project can be
specified. Our experience relating to this step is
that few goals are set for HF aspects of the design
and where they are not concrete enough to be
measurable and not collated into a single document.
However, manning goals are often set at this stage
before actually knowing what the functions and
tasks will be. Our aim with this step is to ensure
that HF goals are set early in the project and that
these goals are measurable so that later in the
design process the design can be tested to see if it
meets the goals and works as it was intended.
Phase B. Analysis and Definition
Our experience of control room design shows that
there is insufficient analysis of the human and
organisational aspects of control room work. A
typical problem is the presentation of alarms. It is
possible to alarm many process variables and
frequently the “we can so we will” design
philosophy is applied. This has resulted in
operators being overwhelmed by an avalanche of
alarms in abnormal situations and unable to identify
the key problem from the myriad alarms presented.
By careful analysis of the information needs of
operators, the alarm systems can be designed to
convey the key information that enables the
operators to rapidly identify the initiating problem
and respond appropriately. When applying the
method in new designs the central control room
(CCR) operators have been extremely positive to
these analyses.
Step 2: Functional Description. For a new control
centre design, this phase will initially involve a
detailed analysis of the functions of the control
centre. For an upgrade, an analysis of the changes
in functions of the control centre’may be enough,
assuming that a previous analysis has identified the
overall control centre functions. This step reviews
how the list of functions appropriate for the scope
of the project was arrived at. Often the list of
functions for the control room is not documented in
a systematic way. This results in functions being
missed out in the planning stages. Our experience
is that it is not unusual to have extra workstations
added into the design at the final stages because a
function has been forgotten, resulting a less than
optimal layout. Also sometimes functions are
22
allocated to the control room that could be done
elsewhere, e.g., changing the videos and acting as a
telephone exchange. A proper functional analysis
can identify inappropriate functions and enable
them to be removed from the control room.
Step 3: Function Allocation. After a list. of
functions is drawn up, they must be allocated to
either CCR operators or the automated systems.
This allocation is often based on what is possible
for machines to do rather than what is best for the
CCR operator. This step reviews the basis on
which this allocation is made to ensure the
operators’ needs and abilities are taken into account
in this process. When carrying out function
allocations, we have found that there were many
times when systems developers would automate
processes that operators would prefer to retain
control over in order to maintain a good overview
of the process. Conversely, tasks like generating
reports that could be automated are often
overlooked when the systems are being designed.
Step 4: Define Task Requirements. A list of CCR
tasks that have been assigned to the CCR operators
will be the result of Step 3. These must be analysed
to determine what the operators needs, in terms of
information, equipment, knowledge skills, etc., to
carry them out. Often considering what is needed
in the control room is non-systematic, for example,
brainstorming exercises, with things added as the
design progresses. This step reviews whether the
CCR operators needs have been properly analysed
and documented. By examining key tasks from
different operating conditions and considering all
equipment and information needed to carry out
those tasks designers can ensure that the finished
CCR meets those needs. The application of task
analysis at this stage has, in.our experience, shown
to be of enormous advantage. We have repeatedly
found key items or key information that has been
missed is highlighted in this process. It also allows
the optimum layout for equipment and displays and
controls to be found by lmking them sequentially
within tasks and processes.
Step 5: Job and Work Organisation. Individual
tasks must be combined to make jobs. This step
reviews the process of job design to ensure that
individual operators have an optimal workload
across all operational modes. This step can only be
done at a very high level in the early stages of the
project nevertheless a time line analysis at this stage
often demonstrates that the workloads of the
operators is unrealistic and poorly balanced across
the shift and across operators. This allows a
realistic staffing level to be considered early in the
design process. Our experience is that once the
design is finished it becomes apparent that at
certain times, e.g., process start up, more operators
are needed in the CCR. This means that space
requirements and layout have to be reconsidered in
order to accommodate these people.
Step 6: Verification and Validation (V&V) of
Phase B. An intermediate V&V is performed to
check and approve as a whole the allocations and
assignments made in the preceding steps of Phase
B. The step reviews this checking process to ensure
a safe, functional control centre will result, and to
ensure any conflicts between these preliminary
design steps are resolved before carrying out the
conceptual design. Out experience is that V & V is
not usually carried out until the end of the project,
when the control room is complete. By this time,
any changes that are recommended are very costly
to implement and it is difficult to mitigate design
flaws. Like the design process the V&V process
should be iterative and check the design before
proceeding to the conceptual design.
Phase C. Conceptual Design
Step 7: Conceptual Design Framework for the
Control Centre. In the conceptual design, issues
such as equipment selection, layout, traffic patterns,
information flow, and space allocation are typically
addressed. In both upgrades and new designs,
models should be built to provide a tool for
verification and validation, e.g., mock-ups, 3-D
CAD, or Virtual Reality (VR) models. This step
integrates the results of previous steps and produces
one or several design concepts and preliminary
specifications. The review examines this process to
ensure that human factors issues are fully
considered, Our experience is that a conceptual
layout is already developed long before the analyses
of Phase 2 have been performed. Therefore, there
has to be many compromises made and it is usually
the case that the operators must fit the design rather
than the design being human centred.
Step 8: Conceptual Design Approval. A formal
review of the conceptual design is an opportunity
for checking the proposed design before starting
detailed design. It also allows the project team to
agree a common way forward for the design.
Thirdly, it lets management see the proposals and
decide whether to support them before committing
major resources. Fourthly, it reduces the risk that
the project team must make expensive changes later
in the project.
The design team then, in co-operation with future
control centre users, -validates the design using
techniques such as walk-throughs, talk-throughs,
and link analysis. Problems identified at the
conceptual design stage are generally easy and
relatively inexpensive to remedy. Any changes
23
should be verified before proceeding to the detailed
design phase. Our experience is that
Phase D. Detailed Design
The detailed design phase is an iterative process
that begins with identifying clear and detailed
design requirements for systems, and ends with a
working control room.
Step 9: Detailed Design Requirements. This step
reviews the process of developing the detailed
design specifications to ensure that the correct
human factors input has been identified for the
following detailed design areas:
1. Control Suite Arrangement;
2. Control Room Layout;
3. Workstations Layout and Dimensions;
4. Design of Displays and Controls;
5. Environmental Design;
6. Operational and Managerial Requirements;
7. Training; and
8. Procedures.
It is our experience that most of these areas are well
covered by standards and guidelines, with the
notable exceptions of the last three, and that this
part of the design process is generally well done.
IS0 11064-1 does not include steps for Training
and Procedures but we felt that these issues should
be included in the method. This was partly because
they are covered by NPD regulations but also
because of our experience of what type of errors
occur in control room work. An example is that in
some companies, alarm systems are now being
improved by the use of suppression techniques.
However, the CCR operators are not given training
in the suppression logic so they fail to understand
what the alarms signify. It is, therefore important
to identify new skills that the operators need to
operate the process safely.
Step 10: Verification of the Detailed Design.
This step is intended to verify that the design
conforms to human factors principles. Throughout
the detailed design phase, verifications are
recommended to ensure that the human factors
requirements are met. These evaluations should
consist primarily of guidelines and standards-based
reviews. Deviations are easier to correct early in
the design process than later on. However, once the
final design is chosen, scenario-based reviews must
be conducted to ensure that the control centre’s
crew performance meets the acceptance criteria. At
this stage, correcting deviations or problems in the
design becomes more costly, and trade-offs will
probably need to be made. The usual method for a
final in the Norwegian sector is the use of a CRIOP
analysis[ 11. However, the limitations of the CRIOP
method are widely know and the method is
currently being updated. It was not within the
scope of this method to duplicate that work.
Phase E. Operational Feedback
Step 11: Operational Feedback. Even though the
design is implemented, the consideration of how
human factors issues affect control room
performance and working environment should not
end here. Government regulations require that
operational experience is systematically collected,
analysed and used in improving safety and work
environment. This step reviews the topics that
should be covered to provide the basis for human
factors improvements, as well as suggestions on
methods that may be applied. Operational
experience provides useful feedback to designers
regarding the successes and problem areas of the
design, and will offer necessary input to future
design projects. Currently there are few systematic
methods for collecting this type of information
during the control room's lifetime. Data, when
collected, comes from retrospective 'methods such
as alarm lists and incident reports. However, few
companies have systematic methods for identifying
the causes of human error in incidents and
companies and projects that are inspected by the
NPD .
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to acknowledge and thank the
members of IFE human factors staff Angie Sebok,
Dolores Morisseau, Lars Age Seim and Jan Skriver,
who were joint authors of the project report to the
NPD.
REFERENCES
Green, M., Collier, S.G. (2000) A Method
for Reviewing Human Factors in Control
Centre Design. Halden, report no.
IFE/HFUF-OO/xxxx (confidential).
[Publicly available from the NPD at
http://npd.nolWebdesWnetblastJpages/standa
rd.html?query=Webside.idWebside=13209]
Intemational Standards Organisation ( 1999)
Ergonomic Design of Control Centres -
Part I : Principles for the Design of Control
'

accidents, so this data is relatively poor. In future Centres. Geneva: IS0 (Final Draft
when this data is collected, it will form part of the Intemational Standard ISOIFDIS 11064-1).
OER carried out in Step 1.

CONCLUSIONS Ingstad, 0. and Bodsberg, L. (1990) CRIOP:

A Scenario-method for Evaluation of the
The first edition of the method was released in May
Offshore Centrol Centre.Trondheim:
2000 and was almost immediately put into practice
by NPD. Operating companies are taking up the SINTEF (ISBN 82-595-5762-2).
method as new projects start. We, the authors, and
our human factors' colleagues in Norway have
begun to contribute to the human factors work in
several new design projects. The reactions, so far,
from the petroleum companies have been generally
positive and agree that it is good to know, in
advance, what the regulator will be looking for.
Many companies realise the importance of the work
and the long-term benefits they will gain and
welcome the method as a way of achieving good
human factors standards in design. However, many
companies feel that there should now be a guideline
on how to do the design work. This, of course, is a
side effect of the fact that the method was written
for regulators rather than designers.

The NPD plans to gather industry feedback and

incorporate . new and revised government
regulations into a revised method later in 2001.
The Norwegian Oil Federation may also,. at some
point, want to commission a more practical guide
for using the method, directed more towards

24