1

Human Factors and BBS: 1.0 Introduction: ''Human Factors and BBS'' is a multidisciplinary field incorporating contributions from Psychology, Engineering, Ergonomics, Industrial design, Statistics, Operations Research and Anthropometry, Occupational Health, Safety and Work Environment (HSE) and Factors influencing Human-Machine Interface performance. It is a term that covers:

i. The science of understanding the properties of Human capability and Error Probability (Human Error Factors Science) for excellence in Occupational Health, Safety, Work Environment (HSE) and Productivity, Error reduction and BBS,

ii. The application of this understanding to the design, development and deployment of systems and services (Human Factors Engineering) to enhance Productivity, Control Errors and Improve HSE and Control BBS.

iii. The art of ensuring successful application of Human Factors Engineering to a program (sometimes referred to as Human Factors Integration for high levels of Safety and Productivity.

1.1 Three Goals of Hyman factor Study: Human factors involve the study of all aspects of the way humans relate to the world around them, with the aim of improving:

i. Individual: Competence, Skills, Personality, Risk perception etc., ii. Job: Task, Work load, Work Environment, Display and Controls, Procedures etc., iii. Organization: Culture, Leadership, Resources, Work patterns, Communications

etc. These three goals of Human factor Study are depicted in the HSG-48 diagram shown below. 1.2 Standards on Human factors: 1.2.1 HSG-48 on “Reducing Error and educing Behaviour” deals with the following topics in the main and very useful one:

i. What are ‘Human factors’? ii. Understanding Human failure, iii. Designing for people, iv. Managing the influences on Human performance, v. Case studies: Solutions to Human factors problems,

According to HSE UK, “Human factors refer to environmental, organisational and job factors and Human and individual characteristics which influence behaviour at work in a way which can affect health and safety”. Human Factors as Inter Relations between Individual, Job and Organization is depicted under HSG-48 in the picture given below:

2

1.2.2 ANSI B11 covers several standards on Safety Requirements for a range of Machines and Risk Assessment as under.

1. ANSI B11.0-2010 - Safety of Machinery; General Requirements and Risk Assessment. 2. ANSI B11.01-2009 Safety Requirements for Mechanical Power Presses. 3. ANSI B11.02 1995 (R2010) Hydraulic Power Presses - Safety Requirements for Construction, Care,

and Use. 4. ANSI B11.03 2002 (R07) Safety Requirements for Power Press Brakes. 5. ANSI B11.04 2003 (R08) Safety Requirements for Shears. 6. ANSI B11.05 1988 (R08) Ironworkers - Safety Requirements for Construction, Care, and Use 7. ANSI B11.06 2001 (R07) Safety Requirements for Manual Turning Machines with or without

Automatic Control. 8. ANSI B11.07 1995 (R2010) Cold Headers Safety Requirements for Construction, Care, and

Use. 9. ANSI B11.08 2001 (R07) Safety Requirements for Manual Milling, Drilling, & Boring Machines with

or without Automatic Control. 10. ANSI B11.09-2010 Safety Requirements for Grinding Machines. 11. ANSI B11.10 2003 (R09) Safety Requirements for Metal Sawing Machines. 12. ANSI B11.11 2001 (R07) Safety Requirements for Gear and Spline Cutting Machines. 13. ANSI B11.12 2005 (R2010) Safety Requirements for Roll Forming & Roll Bending Machines. 14. ANSI B11.13 1992 (R07) Safety Requirements for Single and Multiple-Spindle Automatic Bar, and

Chucking Machines. 15. ANSI B11.15 2001 (R07) Safety Requirements for Pipe, Tube and Shape Bending Machines. 16. ANSI B11.16 2003 (R09) (MPIF #47) Safety Requirements for Powder/Metal Compacting Presses. 17. ANSI B11.17 2004 (R09) Safety Requirements for Horizontal Hydraulic Extrusion Presses. 18. ANSI B11.18-2006 Safety Requirements for Machines Processing or Slitting or Non-

Coiled Metal. 19. ANSI B11.19-2010 Performance Requirements for Safeguarding.

3

20. ANSI B11.20 2004 (R09) Safety Requirements for Integrated Manufacturing Systems. 21. ANSI B11.21-2006 Safety Requirements for Machine Tools Using Lasers for Processing Materials. 22. ANSI B11.22-2002 (R07) Safety Requirements for Turning Centers and Automatic Numerically

Controlled Turning Machines. 23. ANSI B11.23 2002 (R07) Safety Requirements for Machining Centers and Automatic Numerically

Controlled Milling, Drilling and Boring Machines. 24. ANSI B11.24 2002 (R07) Safety Requirements for Transfer Machines. 25. ANSI / ISO 12100 - 1: 2007 Safety of Machinery - Basic Concepts, General Principles for Design -

Basic Terminology, Methodology. 2.0 Origins of Human Factors started from World War-II: The terms ''Human Factors'' and ''Ergonomics'' have only been widely used in recent times; the field's origin started in the design and use of aircraft during World War II to improve aviation safety. It was in reference to the psychologists and physiologists working at that time and the work that they were doing that the terms "Applied Psychology" and “Ergonomics” were first coined. Work by Elias Porter and others within the RAND Corporation after WW-II extended these concepts. "As the thinking progressed, a new concept developed - that it was possible to view an organization such as an Air-Defence, Man-Machine system as a single organism and that it was possible to study the Behaviour of such an organism. 2.1 Specializations within this field include:

i. Cognitive ergonomics, ii. Usability, iii. Human Computer/Human-Machine system, Human Machine Interaction, iv. User Experience Engineering.

New terms are being generated all the time. For instance, “User Trial Engineer” may refer to a Human factors professional who specialises in user trials. Human factors practitioners come from a variety of backgrounds:

i. Predominantly Psychologists (Engineering, Cognitive, Perceptual, and Experimental) ii. Physiologists. iii. Designers (industrial, interaction, and graphic), iv. Anthropologists, v. Technical communication scholars vi. Computer scientists also contribute.

2.3 Human Factors and Ergonomics Society: Founded in 1957, the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society is the world's largest organization of professionals devoted to the science of Human factors and ergonomics. The Society's mission is to promote the discovery and exchange of knowledge concerning the characteristics of Human beings that are applicable to the design of systems and devices of all kinds. 2.4 The Cycle of Human Factors: The Cycle of Human Factors involves:

4

i. Study of Human Factors, ii. Taking in to account, the deficiencies in the Human Factors, development of tools that

facilitate the achievement of these goals. In the most general sense, the three goals of Human factors (Individual, Job and Organization improvements) are accomplished through several procedures in the Human factors cycle, which depicts:

i. Human operator (brain senses-sight, sound, smell; body-movements , Posture) ii. System with which he Operator is interacting.

First it is necessary to diagnose or identify the problems and deficiencies in the Human-system interaction with an existing system. Then determine Solutions to these problems and deficiencies. Then there are five different approaches that can be used in order to implement the solution. These are as follows: 2.4.1 5-Approaches for Implementing Solutions Human Factor Problems and deficiencies:

i. ''Equipment Design:'' changes the nature of the physical equipment with which humans work.

ii. ''Task Design:'' focuses more on changing what operators do than on changing the devices they use. This may involve assigning part or all of tasks to other workers or to automated components.

iii. ''Environmental Design:'' implements changes, such as improved lighting, temperature control and reduced noise in the physical environment where the task is carried out.

iv. ''Training Design:'' better preparing the worker for the conditions that he or she will encounter in the job environment by teaching and practicing the necessary physical or mental skills.

v. ''Selection Design:'' is a technique that recognizes the individual differences across humans in every physical and mental dimension that is relevant for good system performance. Such a performance can be optimized by selecting operators who possess the best profile of characteristics for the job.

5

2.5 Human Factors Science: Human factors are sets of Human-specific physical, cognitive, or social properties which either may interact in a critical or dangerous manner with technological systems, the Human natural environment, or Human organizations, or they can be taken under consideration in the design of ergonomic Human-user oriented equipment. The choice or identification of Human factors usually depends on their possible negative or positive impact on the functioning of Human-organizations and Human-machine systems. 2.6 The Human-Machine Model: The simple Human-machine model is a person interacting with a machine in some kind of environment. The person and machine are both modelled as information-processing devices, each having:

i. Inputs: are made by the operator using his senses through operation of hand, foot, voice control devices. Inputs may be data on control parameters (temperature, Flow rate, Pressure etc.),

ii. Central processing: Machine processes input data and produces results according to preset mathematical computations produce information or results or outputs

iii. Output display: are displayed on some display system for use by the operator for further operation/action through display screens, gauges, panels, Audiovisual systems etc.

The inputs of a person go through the senses (e.g., eyes, ears) and the effectors (e.g., hands, voice). The inputs of a machine are input acceptance devices (hand/foot/voice controls. e.g., keyboard, mouse, foot brake, hand lever etc.) and the outputs machine input data processed results. Results are displayed on display devices (e.g., screen, auditory alerts, alarm signals etc.). 2.7 Characterization of Environment: The environment can be characterized physically:

i. Physically: Vibration, noise, zero-gravity etc., ii. Cognitively: time pressure, uncertainty, risk, iii. Organizationally: Organizational structure, job design, Role and Responsibility

etc. This provides a convenient way for organizing some of the major concerns of Human Engineering:

i. Selection and Design of Machine Displays and Controls, ii. Layout and Design of workplaces, iii. Design for Maintainability, iv. Design of the work environment.

6

2.8 Example of Human Factors in Driving an Automobile: 2.8.1 Driving an automobile is a familiar example of a simple Man-Machine system. In driving, the operator receives two types information:

i. Inputs From outside the vehicle (sounds and visual cues from traffic, obstructions, and signals),

ii. Inputs From displays inside the vehicle (such as the speedometer, fuel indicator, and temperature gauge).

2.8.2 The driver continually keeps receiving this information continually and:

i. Evaluates this information, ii. Decides on courses of action, iii. Translates those decisions into actions upon the vehicle's controls—principally

the accelerator, steering wheel, and brake. iv. Influenced by such environmental factors as noise, fumes, and temperature.

2.8.3 Machine Design and Integration of Human Operators in the System: No matter how important it may be to match an individual operator to a machine, some of the most challenging and complex Human problems arise in the design of large man-machine systems and in the integration of Human operators into these systems. Examples of such large systems are a modern jet airliner, an automated post office, an industrial plant, a nuclear submarine, and a space vehicle launch and recovery system. In the design of such systems, Human-factors engineers study, in addition to all the considerations previously mentioned, three factors dominate as below: 2.8.4 Three Important factors Studied by Human Factor Engineers:

i. Personnel: Suitable Personnel Selection, Examination by Medical authorities, Psychologist and Anthropologists. Briefing and debriefing,

ii. Training: Class room lectures, through Simulators, Audiovisuals, Group discussions, Physical fitness training etc.

iii. Operating procedures: Safe Operating Procedures (SOP) and Safe Maintenance Procedures (SMP), Emergency Management Plan (EMP)

3.0 Human Factors Engineering (HFE): 3.1 Is the discipline of applying what is known about Human capabilities and limitations to?

i. The design of products, ii. Processes, iii. Systems, iv. Work environments.

7

3.2 It can be applied to the design of all systems having a Human interface, including: Hardware and Software. System design improves:

i. Ease of use, ii. System performance and reliability, iii. User satisfaction,

3.3 While reducing:

i. Operational errors, ii. Operator stresses, iii. Training requirements, iv. User fatigue, v. Product liability.

3.4 Human factors engineering focuses on how people interact with:

i. Tasks, ii. Machines (or computers), iii. Environment

with the consideration that humans have limitations and capabilities. 3.5 Human factors engineers evaluate

i. "Human to Human," ii. "Human to Group," iii. "Human to Organizational," iv. "Human to Machine (Computers)" interactions

To better understand these interactions and to develop a framework for evaluation. 3.6 Human Factors engineering activities include:

i. Usability assurance, ii. Desired user interface profiles, iii. User documentation, iv. Training programs.

3.6.1 Usability assurance: Usability assurance is an interdisciplinary concept, integrating system engineering with Human Factors engineering methodologies. Usability assurance is achieved through the system or service design, development, evaluation and deployment.

i. User interface design comprises physical (ergonomic) design, interaction design and layout design.

8

ii. Usability development comprises integration of Human factors in project planning and management, including system specification documents: requirements, design and testing.

iii. Usability evaluation is a continuous process, starting with the operational requirements specification, through prototypes of the user interfaces, through usability alpha and beta testing, and through manual and automated feedback after the system has been deployed.

3.6.2 Desired User Interface Profile: Human-computer interaction is a discipline concerned with the design, evaluation and implementation of interactive computing systems for Human use and with the study of major phenomena surrounding them. This is a well known subject of Human Factors within the Engineering field. There are many different ways to determine Human computer interaction at the user interface by usability testing. 3.6.3 User Documentation: Include Safe Operating/Maintenance Procedures. 3.6.4 Training Programs: Training Modules and Programs, Virtual Reality Simulator Systems etc. Group discussions etc. 3.7 Human Factors Evaluation Methods: Human Factors evaluation methods are part of Human Factors methodology, which is part of Human Factors Engineering. Besides evaluation, Human Factors Engineering also deals with methods for usability assurance, for assessing desired user profiles, for developing user documentation and training programs, etc. Until recently, methods used to evaluate Human factors ranged from simple questionnaires to more complex and expensive usability labs. Cite book |last Stanton |first. |co-authors Salmon, P., Walker G., Baber, C., Jenkins, D. |title Human Factors Methods; A Practical Guide For Engineering and Design. |location Aldershot, Hampshire |publisher Ashgate Publishing Limited |year2005 |ISBN 0754646610. Recently, new methods were proposed, based on analysis of logs of the activity of the system users. Actually, the work in usability labs and that of the new methods is part of Usability Engineering, which is part of Human Factors Engineering. 3.8 Human Factors Evaluation (HFE) Methods: 3.8.1 Ethnographic analysis: Ethnography is the scientific description of races or communities in terms of Cultural and Social beliefs and Practices of humankind. So Ethnography includes Cultural concepts and Social customs. Using methods derived from ethnography, this process focuses on observing the uses of technology in a practical environment. It is a qualitative and observational method that focuses on "real-world" experience and pressures, and the usage of technology or environments in the workplace. The process is best used early in the design process. Human-Computer Interaction: Psychology as a Science of Design.

9

3.8.2 Focus Groups: Focus groups are another form of qualitative research in which one individual will facilitate discussion and elicit opinions about the technology or process under investigation. This can be on a one to one interview basis, or in a group session. Can be used to gain a large quantity of deep qualitative data,[http://www.nedarc.org/nedarc/media/pdf/surveyMethods_2006.pdf Nedarc.org]</ref> though due to the small sample size, can be subject to a higher degree of individual bias Wickens, C.D.; Lee J.D.; Liu Y.; Gorden Becker S.E. (1997). An Introduction to Human Factors Engineering, 2nd Edition. Prentice Hall. ISBN 0321012291. Can be used at any point in the design process, as it is largely dependent on the exact questions to be pursued, and the structure of the group. Can be extremely costly. 3.8.3 Iterative design: Also known as prototyping, the iterative design process seeks to involve users at several stages of design, in order to correct problems as they emerge. As prototypes emerge from the design process, these are subjected to other forms of analysis as outlined in this article, and the results are then taken and incorporated into the new design. Trends amongst users are analyzed, and products redesigned. This can become a costly process, and needs to be done as soon as possible in the design process before designs become too concrete. 3.8.4 Meta-analysis: A supplementary technique used to examine a wide body of already existing data or literature in order to derive trends or form hypotheses in order to aid design decisions. As part of a literature survey, a meta-analysis can be performed in order to discern a collective trend from individual variables. 3.8.5 Subjects-in-tandem: Two subjects are asked to work concurrently on a series of tasks while vocalizing their analytical observations. This is observed by the researcher, and can be used to discover usability difficulties. This process is usually recorded. 3.8.6 Surveys and Questionnaires: A commonly used technique outside of Human Factors as well, surveys and questionnaires have an advantage in that they can be administered to a large group of people for relatively low cost, enabling the researcher to gain a large amount of data. The validity of the data obtained is, however, always in question, as the questions must be written and interpreted correctly, and are, by definition, subjective. Those who actually respond are in effect self-selecting as well, widening the gap between the sample and the population further. 3.8.7 Task analysis: A process with roots in activity theory, task analysis is a way of systematically describing Human interaction with a system or process to understand how to match the demands of the system or process to Human capabilities. The complexity of this process is generally proportional to the complexity of the task being analyzed, and so can vary in cost and time involvement. It is a qualitative and observational process. Best used early in the design process. 3.8.8 Think aloud protocol: Also known as "concurrent verbal protocol", this is the process of asking a user to execute a series of tasks or use technology, while continuously verbalizing their thoughts so that a researcher can gain insights as to the users' analytical process. Can be useful for finding design flaws that do not affect task performance, but may have a negative cognitive affect on the user. Also useful for utilizing experts in order to better understand procedural knowledge of the task in question. Less expensive than focus groups, but tends to be more

10

specific and subjective. Kuusela, H., Paul, P. (2000). A comparison of concurrent and retrospective verbal protocol analysis. ''The American Journal of Psychology, 113'', 387-404. 3.8.9 User analysis: This process is based around designing for the attributes of the intended user or operator, establishing the characteristics that define them, creating a persona for the user. Best done at the outset of the design process, a user analysis will attempt to predict the most common users, and the characteristics that they would be assumed to have in common. This can be problematic if the design concept does not match the actual user, or if the identified are too vague to make clear design decisions from. This process is, however, usually quite inexpensive, and commonly used 3.8.10 "Wizard of Oz": This is a comparatively uncommon technique but has seen some use in mobile devices. Based upon the Wizard of Oz experiment, this technique involves an operator who remotely controls the operation of a device in order to imitate the response of an actual computer program. It has the advantage of producing a highly changeable set of reactions, but can be quite costly and difficult to undertake. 4.1 Graphic illustration of Human Factors: 4.1.1 Focus Areas in Safety management:

MIDDLE

OPERATION

FOCUS AREAS FOR SAFETY MANAGEMENT

TO P AR

T

EXTER

NA

LINT

ERN

ALSC

IEN

CE

NON-PRO

GRAM

MED

PROG

RAMM

ED

MA

CR

O V

IEWMIC

RO

VIEW

CO

NC

EPT

UA

LH

UM

AN

RE

LA

TIO

NT

EC

HN

ICA

L

JOB NATURE INFORMATION DECISION KNOWLEDGE SKILLS

MIDDLE

OPERATION

FOCUS AREAS FOR SAFETY MANAGEMENT

TO P AR

T

EXTER

NA

LINT

ERN

ALSC

IEN

CE

NON-PRO

GRAM

MED

PROG

RAMM

ED

MA

CR

O V

IEWMIC

RO

VIEW

CO

NC

EPT

UA

LH

UM

AN

RE

LA

TIO

NT

EC

HN

ICA

L

JOB NATURE INFORMATION DECISION KNOWLEDGE SKILLS

FOCUS AREAS FOR SAFETY MANAGEMENT

TO P AR

T

EXTER

NA

LINT

ERN

ALSC

IEN

CE

NON-PRO

GRAM

MED

PROG

RAMM

ED

MA

CR

O V

IEWMIC

RO

VIEW

CO

NC

EPT

UA

LH

UM

AN

RE

LA

TIO

NT

EC

HN

ICA

L

JOB NATURE INFORMATION DECISION KNOWLEDGE SKILLS

11

4.1.2 On-The-Job-Off-The-Job Relations:

4.1.3 Attitudes and Behaviour:

EMPLOYEEGENETIC FACTORS

HERIDITORY TRAITS

EMPLOYEE BACKGROUND

EMPLOYEE DEVELOPMENT

OFF-THE-JOB

ON-THE-JOB

SOCIETY

DEPARTMENT

CLOOEAGUES

EMPLOYER

WORK SHUTTLE

FAMILY

RELATIONSFRIENDS

WORK

IMMEDIATE BOSS

ATTITUDES AND RESULTSAFTER DR. GROEBERG

TASK ATTITUDESJAPAN

(HARMONY)

TASK ATTITUDESJAPAN

(HARMONY)

TASK ATTITUDESUSA

(CREATIVE)

TASK ATTITUDESUSA

(CREATIVE)

TASK ATTITUDESINDIA

(CHAOS)

TASK ATTITUDESINDIA

(CHAOS)

12

4.1.4 Role appreciation and Social and Environmental Values:

4.1.5 The Behavioural Setting:

4.1.6 HSE-Culture:

PRIMARY THE BEHAVIOURAL BEHAVIOURAL FACTORS SETTING FACTORS FACTORS

GENETIC ATTITUDESINNER SELF

SOCIAL OPENIONS

UNUSUALHAPPENINGS EMOTIONS

EXTERNAL SITUATIONS OPPURTUNITY STIMULI

BEHAVIOUR

PRIMARY THE BEHAVIOURAL BEHAVIOURAL FACTORS SETTING FACTORS FACTORS

GENETIC ATTITUDESINNER SELF

SOCIAL OPENIONS

UNUSUALHAPPENINGS EMOTIONS

EXTERNAL SITUATIONS OPPURTUNITY STIMULI

BEHAVIOUR

CULTURE

BELIEFS

ATTITUDES

VALUES

13

4.1.7 Some definitions of behavioural terms:

i. Attitude : A response potential nature ii. Behaviour : Expressed attitude iii. Opinion : Perceived world system iv. Beliefs : Education, religion, social influence v. Values : Concerns for social good vi. Culture : The confluence of social attitudes, beliefs and value

systems 4.1.8 Behavioural Science as applied to Industrial Safety:

4.1.9 Seven Pillars of Mental Faculty (after Spearman):

S - Spatial visualization P - Perceptual speed I - Individual reasoning N - Numerical ability M - Memory V - Verbal comprehension W - Word fluency

HUMAN TRAITS DETERMINING SAFETY :

PHYSICAL MENTAL PHYSIOLOGICAL

INTELLECTUAL PSYCHOLOGICAL PERCEPTUALMOTORACTIVITY

RESPONSETIME

COGNITIVE

DANGER RECOGNITION

AVOIDANCE MODERECOGNITION

DECISION TO AVIOD

ABILITY TO AVOID

MOTOR ACTION

TO AVOID

PERCEIVEDANGER

DEVIATIONBUILD UP

RELEASE OFENERGY

ACCIDENT

EXPOSURE

DAMAGE

14

4.5.10 Mental Ability Tests:

4.1.11 Sociograms:

PHYSICAL PHYCHOMOTOR

ABILITY TO PERFORMSPECIAL JOBS

VISUAL SKILLS1. VISUAL AMITY

- ABILITY TO DISTINGUISHBLACK-WHITE (SHADE)

2. STEREOPSIS - ABILITY FORDEPTH PERCEPTION

3. COLOUR DISCRIMINATION4. PHORIAS - ATTENTION TO

MORE THAN ONE OBJECT IN DEPTH, LATERAL & VERTICAL

MOTOR SKILLS1. REACTION TIME2. CHOICE REACTION - ABILITY

TO SELECT AND RESPOND TOMORE THAN ONE STIMULI.

3. SPEED OF LIMB MOVEMENT4. WRIST-FINGER SPEED & DIS-

CRETE MOVEMENTS.

5. FINGER DEXTIRITY - COORDINATED FINGER MOVEMENTS6. MANUAL DEXTIRITY - SKILFUL COORDINATION OF HAND MOVEMENTS7. RATE CONTROL - ABILITY TO ADJUST CONTROLS AS NEEDED8. CONTROL PRECISION - CONTROL MUSCULAR MOVEMENT.

SOCIOGRAM IS THE INDIVIDUAL RELATIONSHIP INAN INFORMAL GROUP (HAWTHRONE EFFECT)

EACH INDIVIDUAL IS SUPPOSED TO INFORMALLYCHOOSE A “LEADER” WHO MAY BE DIFFERENT FROM THE FORMAL ORGANIZATIONAL LEADER.

SIMPLE SOCIOGRAM TYPES :1

23 8

765

4

11

2233 88

776655

44

STRONG GROUP LEADER WEAK GROUP LEADER

1

2

5

43

11

22

55

4433 3

12

33

1122

TRIANGULAR CLIQUE

15

5.1 Problems with Human Factors Methods: Problems in how usability measures are employed include:

i. Measures of learning and retention of how to use an interface are rarely employed during methods and

ii. Some studies treat measures of how users interact with interfaces as synonymous with quality-in-use, despite an unclear relation. Cite book | title Current Practice in Measuring Usability: Challenges to Usability Studies and Research, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies | year2006 | author Hornbeak, K.

5.2 Weakness of Usability Lab Testing: Although usability lab testing is believed to be the most influential evaluation method, it does have some limitations. These limitations include:

i. Additional resources and time than other methods ii. Usually only examines a fraction of the entire market segment iii. Test scope is limited to the sample tasks chosen iv. Long term ease-of-use problems are difficult to identify v. May reveal only a fraction of total problems vi. Laboratory setting excludes factors that the operational environment places on the

products usability 5.3 Weakness of Inspection Methods: Inspection methods (expert reviews and walkthroughs) can be accomplished quickly, without resources from outside the development team, and does not require the research expertise that usability tests need. However, inspection methods do have limitations, which include:

i. Do not usually directly involve users, ii. Often do not involve developers, iii. Set up to determine problems and not solutions, iv. Do not foster innovation or creative solutions, v. Not good at persuading developers to make product improvements.

5.4 Weakness of Surveys, Interviews, and Focus Groups: These traditional Human factors methods have been adapted, in many cases, to assess product usability. Even though there are several surveys that are tailored for usability and that have established validity in the field, these methods do have some limitations, which include:

i. Reliability of all surveys is low with small sample sizes (10 or less) ii. Interview lengths restricts use to a small sample size iii. Use of focus groups for usability assessment has highly debated value iv. All of these methods are highly dependent on the respondents

5.6 Weakness of Field Methods:

16

Although field methods can be extremely useful because they are conducted in the users natural environment, they have some major limitations to consider. The limitations include:

i. Usually take more time and resources than other methods, ii. Very high effort in planning, recruiting, and executing than other methods, iii. Much longer study periods and therefore requires much goodwill among the

participants, iv. Studies are longitudinal in nature, therefore, attrition can become a problem. Cite

book | last Dumas | First J. S. | co-authors Salzman, M.C. | title Reviews of Human Factors and Ergonomics | publisher Human Factors and Ergonomics Society | year2006 | volume2.

6.0 Application of Human Factors Engineering (HFE):

6.1 Like much of the world, the process industries have undergone remarkable changes as a consequence of

i. The microprocessor revolution, ii. The distributed control systems, or DCS.

Introduced in the mid-1970s allowed for the control of large process installations (e.g. Refineries, Power plants, and Heavy manufacturing) by small, centrally located operations teams.

DCS integrated multiple controllers into schemes of increasing complexity, governed by advanced computation, logic, and sequential commands and replaced individual regulatory controllers.

6.2 DCS created:

i. A new way to controlling plant operations. ii. A new type of work. iii. Plant operators not directly responsible for the control of process variables at the

Plant Floor level. iv. New types of Operators responsible for setting up Automated Systems of controls

and supervising their performance.

Process operations became changed from active to a passive job in which an operator's most prevalent challenge was often maintaining a sufficient level of alertness to deal with the occasional alarm.

6.3 Individual plants evolved their own:

i. Training programs, ii. Information display standards, iii. Organizational cultures to accommodate the new work demands.

6.4 This surface calm masked deeper problems,

However Operators engaged in this new "Supervisory control" work no longer practiced direct manual control of the process; they were removed from the smells and sounds of the plant, and they lost touch with the extensive and often hidden coupling between components.

17

6.5 The distributed control system created an automation buffer between Human and machine.

However, process systems are subject to disturbances, both environmental and mechanical. Engineers designed the technology to handle the disturbances that were determined to be most likely to occur, or most threatening to the process.

6.6 When situations exceeded this design basis, the automation surrendered control to the Human operator.

The Human—who previous to automation, directly operated the plant had:

i. Rusty control skills, ii. Fully prepared to emergent situations. iii. But now with working remotely in the Central Control Room had to assume control in

highly unappealing circumstances. iv. The results were often expensive, and occasionally fatal. And they were usually

attributed to "Human error!"

The problem with the "Human error" attribution, however, is that blaming humans for technology failures leaves engineers with little insight into how to design alternative Human-Technology systems that are more resistant to failure. It is, therefore, no surprise that Human Factors specialists in a leading control system vendor pushed for engineering solutions to the problem of Human Error in the process industries.

6.7 Honeywell and the leading players in the oil and gas industry formed the Abnormal Situation Management consortium almost a decade and a half ago.

The Consortium has developed products and established best practices to identify and address Human factors issues in the process industries. Human Factors has become part of the Abnormal Situation Management (ASM) brand under which research, training and consulting services are offered today.

But others apparently believe that there is still plenty of work left to be done. A second group, formed around Wright State University and Beville Engineering, was formed to research some of the questions that remain unanswered in the process industries. Known as the Center for Operator Performance, it prominently lists among its founding members some of Honeywell's competitors, including Emerson Process Management and ABB.

Companies in the process industries have experienced rapid changes in their operations over the past several decades. Much of that change comes from the use of new information systems, which can monitor and often automate decision processes that used to require closer Human involvement. The process industry has also encountered some unexpected consequences of the new systems.

The same thing can be said of other companies that have adopted new information technology for supervision and control. And that group probably includes representatives from just about every sector of heavy industry.

However, what may be different in the petroleum, power, and chemical industries is that a confusing information system is not just a threat to productivity. When the right steps are not

18

taken during an emergency at a refinery, say, or a chemical plant, there is a potential threat to safety and to public health as well.

Consider the 2005 explosion at BP's Texas City Refinery, which killed 15 workers and injured scores more. The report, on this accident from the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board reveals that a confluence of equipment, management, and operational factors contributed to the incident. But as is often the case in such accidents, the actions (and inactions) of operators contributed to the disaster. It is this sort of event, and the costs incurred as a result, that have driven these businesses to seek solutions in more Human-centered control technologies.

The Abnormal Situation Management consortium was formally established in 1994 by process industry heavyweights—Amoco, BP, Chevron, Exxon, Mobil, Shell, and Texaco—under an umbrella provided by Honeywell.

6.8 The initial aim was to develop collaborative decision support technologies to overcome some of the well-established limitations in distributed control systems, such as the classic problem of alarm flooding, where operators become overwhelmed by scores of point alarms that accompany a process upset.

According to the group, "Abnormal situations are managed by:

i. Prevention, ii. Early detection, iii. and Mitigation,

in order to reduce unplanned outages and process variability that reduce profits and increase the risk to plant employees and local communities."

7.0 Behavioural Based Safety (BBS): Enables evaluation and Improvement in the BBS of the employees at all levels in the Industry floor level or Office. This Help Worksheet on BBS gives details of the BBS-Software. Initial Information: The BBS-Software starts with the following information in the First Worksheet on PPE use. Once this information is added, it appears on all the Worksheets. Following is an Overviewof BBS-Software: The BBS Software evaluates 46-BBS-Factors: 1. PPE: Use of Right PPE in the Right manner-8 Categories, 2. Ergonomics: 11 Categories 3. Tools & Equipment: 4-Categories 4. Work Hazards: 6-Categorioes 5. Environment: 6-Categories 6. Radiological: 4-Categories

7. Interpersonal Relations: 7-Categories

19

There are in all 46-BBS-Factors as given above. These BBS factors are evaluated in a Scale of 1-5 signifying 1=Poor, 2=Fair, 3=Good, 4=Better, 5=Best and 0=Not Applicable (NA). 0=the BBS-Factor does not apply, 1=e.g. Not using required PPE, 2=e.g. Using very inappropriate or time barred PPE, 3=e.g. Need to use better PPE and more properly, 4=e.g. PPE OK but use needs improvement, 5=e.g. Right PPE used Rightly. Similarly apply these for all other factors.

Scoring technique: The ratings under each Factor is added up to give the Total Score. To compute the Average % Score for all employees studied under a given set of BBS-Factors, the total of all factor scores of all employees is added up and multiplied by 100 and divided by the number of Factors applicable excluding NA-Factors multiplied by 100 and divided by 5xTotal BBS-Factors in the Study excluding NA-Factors..

Following is full details HAMS-GPS BBS Evaluation Software Initial Data Entry includes: Reference: Date and time: Department: Section: Shift: Activity: Company or Contract: Category: Division of BBS-Factors: The Factors that influence the BBS, have been categorized in to 7-Types as under: 1. PPE: Use of Right PPE in the Right manner is the essence of evaluating BBS in use of PPE. PPEs enable Protection of various body parts that are likely to be affected by the work environmental conditions. These Body Parts are divided in to 8-Types as under:

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8

Eye/ Face Hand Body Foot Fall Hearing Respiratory Head

2. Ergonomics: Is the engineering science that deals with the people's posture in relation to their working, as it affects comfort, Productivity and safety. Ergonomics is extensively used in designing Plant and Equipment for comfort, productivity and safety. Ergonomic study of work is important in BBS. For Evaluating BBS in Ergonomics, it is divided in to 18-Categories as under: 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.11

System/ Component

Design

Body Position

Eyes on Path/

Walking

Eyes On Surroundings Lifting Technique Over

exertion Posture Work Surface

Tool Selection

Pinch Points

3. Tools & Equipment: Attempts to evaluate the design and other features of Tools & Equipment used with respect to Safety and has the following 4-Categories:

20

3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4

Equipment Design

Uses Tool Unsafely

Uses Unsafe

Tool

Driving Vehicles/

Equip. 4. Work Hazards: Evaluates the design and other safety features of working and has the following 6-Categories:

4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6

Inherent safety Equipment Tolerances

Operating Parameters Alarms Trips and

Inter locks Bypasses Safety

Device

5. Environment: Looks in to the surrounding work environment for safety and has 6-Categories as under:

5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 Environmental

Hazards House

keeping Storage Waste

Disposal Lighting Barricades

/Warning Signs

6. Radiological: Evaluates the conformance to BARC Standards in handling Radioactive sources and is covered under 4-Categories as under:

6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4

Type of Nuclear Source used

User wears Radiation monitoring device?

Storage conforms to BARC Rules?

Expired item returned to BARC?

7. Interpersonal Relations: Evaluates the Team work spirit and interpersonal relations between colleagues, subordinates and superiors and is covered under the following 7-Categories:

7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7

IR with Colleagues IR with Subordinates IR with Superiors Good

Listener Positive Attitude

Commitment to work

Diverts Attention

Example: In the PPE Study, there are 8-BBS-Factors. If the Total Score of an Employee is say-23, we get % Score for the Employee as under:

23x100 %Score of Employee = ---------------x57.5

5x8 Computing Results: Following types of Results are displayed by the BBS-Software: 1. Specific Results:

Refer to specific to each of the 7-BBS-Factor groups: Here the BBS-Levels are displayed under the following 5-Levels for each of the

21

7-BBS Factor Groups for each Person studies up to a max. of 100 Employees along with Acceptability criteria. This Specific Results report is the Primary BBS-Evaluation control Result and should be used to control Individual BBS in respect of each Factor of BBS among all the 7-Groups comprising of 54-Factors in all:

i. High BBS Level ii. Medium High BBS-Level. iii. Medium BBS. Level iv. Low BBS Level v. Poor BBS Level 2. Overall Results:

Refer to Scores under each of the 7-BBS-Categories namely-1. PPE, 2. Ergonomics, 3. Tools & Equip, 4. Work Hazards, 5. Environment, 6. Radiological and 7. Interpersonal giving tabular and Graphic results. In addition, the results are

displayed Employees wise under the following % Score wise overall Results both in Tabular and Graphic forms: i. Best Score with 5- meaning 100% Score ii. Better Score with 4- Meaning 80% Score iii. Good Score with 3-Meaning 60% Score iv. Fair Score with 2-Meaning 40% Score v. Poor Score with 1-Meaning 20% Score Recommendations:

Provide overall assessment of BBS-Evaluation showing each Employee's BBS-Performance and recommended action

in conjunction with Specific and Overall Results

22

Typical BBS-Evaluation Results:

23

24

Overall BBS-Scores:

Employee Name

ID. No. Best

(Score-5) 100%

Better (Score-4)

80%

Good (Score-3)

60%

Fair (Score-2)

40%

Poor (Score-1)

20%

Not. Applicable

(0)

Total Behaviour

Items

% Best

of Total

% Better

of Total

% Good

of Total

% Fair of

Total

% Poor

of Total

% Good and

above

Employee Name

Overall BBS Ranking

Ramesh 23 9 15 11 6 3 1 45 20.00 33.33 24.44 13.33 6.67 77.78 Ramesh Medium BBS

Ashok 43 10 14 16 5 0 0 45 22.22 31.11 35.56 11.11 0.00 88.89 Ashok Medium High BBS

Sunil 25 10 17 10 6 1 1 45 22.22 37.78 22.22 13.33 2.22 82.22 Sunil Medium High BBS

Vedant 11 4 13 23 4 1 0 45 8.89 28.89 51.11 8.89 2.22 88.89 Vedant Medium High BBS

25

Recommendations: HAMS-GPS BBS Evaluation Software

Reference: Test BBS Evaluation Date and time: Department: Section: Shift: Activity: Company or Contract: Category:

Employee Name ID. No. % Best Score BBS Rank

Overall Recommendations. See also under Specific Results for BBS-Factor wise scores and

Recommendations. Ramesh 23 77.78 Medium BBS Significant BBS Improvements required Ashok 43 88.89 Medium High BBS Good BBS, Try further improvements Sunil 25 82.22 Medium High BBS Good BBS, Try further improvements Vedant 11 88.89 Medium High BBS Good BBS, Try further improvements

26

BBS-Factor wise Scores and Recommendations:

Acceptability Criteria: Minimum acceptable is Medium High BBS. Anything below needs improvement

Group wise Factor Rankings

Sr. No. Max. 100 Employee Name ID. No. 1. PPE 2. Ergonomics 3. Tools &

Equip 4. Work Hazards 5. Environment 6.

Radiological 7. Interpersonal

1 Ramesh 23 Poor BBS Very Poor BBS Very Poor

BBS Medium

High BBS Medium High

BBS Medium High

BBS High BBS

2 Ashok 43 Low BBS Very Poor BBS Very Poor

BBS Medium

High BBS Medium BBS Medium BBS High BBS

3 Sunil 25 Poor BBS Poor BBS Very Poor

BBS Medium

High BBS Medium High

BBS Medium BBS High BBS

4 Vedant 11 Low BBS Very Poor BBS Very Poor

BBS Medium BBS Medium BBS Medium High

BBS Medium High

BBS