PTQ Q3 2025 Issue

Continuous work processes

Audit

MOC

Validation

Entry

New system Major changes

New display Display changes

System standards

Design

Implement Build displays

Operate In service

Continuous improvement

Philosophy

Console design

HMI system design User, task, functional requirements

Style guide

Build console

Maintain

Toolkits

Test

Decommission

Train

Continuous improvement

Commission

Display design

Verication

Figure 4 HMI lifecycle

system. Other good documents in this space include the EEMUA 191 guidelines and API RP-1167. Finally, fatigue risk management is addressed. There is little guidance beyond the recommendations of the ANSI/ API RP-755 standard. Although there is significant focus on hours-of-service rules, there are considerations for edu- cation, workload, and fatigue countermeasures. Additionally, there is a notable lack of formal guidance regarding the use of simulation in operator training. Another big hole exists in the determination of operator workload and work team design. Methodology for improvements Helpful information on implementing best practices is availa- ble, but what is the best approach? Importantly, there are two very different scenarios: greenfield and brownfield projects. Greenfield control room or control system projects are ideally suited for incorporating human factors best practices from the beginning. However, that is seldom the case. So why is this? There are several reasons, but one of the most common, perhaps not surprisingly, is related to cost. For large greenfield Integrated Control and Safety Systems (ICSS) projects the Management, Engineering, and Construction (MAC/EPC) bidding process often leads to min - imum initial bid proposals, whereby the scope is kept to the bare minimum to execute the project. This means using basic, out-of-the-box HMI, simple alarm management design, and a cookie-cutter control building design. Unfortunately, any changes in scope later on, for implementing best practices, become change orders, which are kept to a minimum. Another reason is the lack of expertise within the engi- neering teams to effectively convey the real value for the implementation of best practices in human factors (HF) to improve operational performance. This is not just in terms of improved quality and throughput, but also in manage- ment of off-normal, abnormal, and emergency conditions. Often, system vendors do not have in-house expertise in these areas. Furthermore, expert consultants typically do not have the opportunity to talk directly to the end client to help them understand the importance and return on invest- ment (ROI) of taking a holistic view of operator performance

and embedding HF design into the engineering process. However, some vendors recognise this and request further assistance with this capability. Yet another issue is having access to operations resources early in the project. There will be no operators, supervisors, or managers to interview or work on HMI, alarm manage- ment, and control room design. Sometimes, an operations readiness team has experience elsewhere or knowledge of the process, which can be of great help. The big question is when the HF team will be engaged. The authors encourage this to be done as early in the pro- cess as possible, during proposal development and certainly during preliminary front-end engineering design (pre-FEED). Obviously, as part of the proposal process, it is important to ensure funds are available for HF activities. It is also important to take advantage of engineering efficiencies that best practice design can provide. For example, deploying a hierarchical approach to graphics may lead to a reduction in the overall number of graphics. Another example is that performing dynamic and static rationalisation together can reduce the overall cost of rationalisation. During pre-FEED, it is important to lay the foundations for how the project will be executed with respect to HF con - tent. At this stage, standards will typically be agreed upon, so it is important to create and agree on HF philosophies, such as control room operating, HMI, alarm management, and communications. This will ensure that considerations for these will be carried out into engineering standards. It is also time to execute the clarification and analysis and definition phases of the ISO 11064 process. Moving on to FEED, further HF activities should be carried out. This is the time to develop the HMI style guide and per- form the control room conceptual design. However, perhaps the most important activity is ensuring the work team design is decided. Towards the end of the FEED, piping and instru- mentation diagrams (P&IDs) should be developed enough to allow performing a workload analysis and determine, perhaps most importantly, the number of console positions. Getting this wrong heading into control room design can be disastrous in terms of cost and schedule. Carrying out all

PTQ Q3 2025