Critical process industries such as petrochemical refining have actively sought to make their operations safer and more efficient. In doing this, the industry has found success in automating systems. However, increasing levels of automation is known to have some negative effects on the human operator (Kaber & Endsley, 1997). Consequently, operators have had less opportunity to be exposed to and engage in managing emergency events due to reliable automation. The current investigation explores the role that console operator experience has in the management of emergency events and in the maintenance of situation awareness within the petrochemical industry. Incumbent Console Operators completed several trials of a simulated emergency event where prior exposure to the live event, performance, workload, and situation awareness metrics were collected. The results suggest that experience with managing the live event had little effect on the collected metrics. The potential implications of these results are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ChiM. T.GlaserR.FarrM. J. (2014). The nature of expertise. Psychology Press.
2.
D’ArcyJ.Della RoccoP. (2001). Air Traflic Control Specialist decision making and strategic planning—A field survey (DOT/FAA/CT-TN01/05). Atlantic City International Airport,(NJ: DOT/FAA William J. Hughes Technical Center.
DursoF. T.DattelA. (2004). SPAM: The real-time assessment of SA. In BanburyS.TrembleyS. (Eds.), A cognitive approach to situation awareness: Theory, measures and application (pp. 137-154). New York, NY: Aldershot.
5.
DursoF.GronlundS. D. (1999). Situation awareness. In DursoF. T.NickersonR.SchvaneveldtR.DumaisS.ChiM.LindsayS. (Eds.), Handbook of applied cognition (pp. 283-314). New York: Wiley.
6.
EndsleyM. R. (1995a). Measurement of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 37(1), 65-84.
7.
EndsleyM. R. (1995b). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 37(1), 32-64.
8.
EndsleyM. R.JonesD. B. (2012). Designing for situation awareness: An approach to user-centered design. New York, NY: CRC Press.
9.
EricssonK. A.KrampeR. T.Tesch-RömerC. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological review, 100(3), 363.
10.
GrigoleitT.SilvaH.BurressM. A.ChiappeD. (2017). Toward a descriptive measure of situation awareness in petrochemical refining. In Advances in Human Factors in Energy: Oil, Gas, Nuclear and Electric Power Industries (pp. 3-14). Springer International Publishing.
11.
HartS. G. (2006, October). NASA-task load index (NASA-TLX); 20 years later. In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting (Vol. 50, No. 9, pp. 904-908). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
12.
HartS. G.StavelandL.E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In HancockP. A.MeshkatiN. (Eds.), Human mental workload (pp. 139-183). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
13.
HoffmanR. R.WardP.FeltovichP. J.DiBelloL.FioreS. M.AndrewsD. H. (2013). Accelerated expertise: Training for high proficiency in a complex world. Psychology Press. HoffmanR. R.HanesL.F. (2003/July-August). IEEE Intelligent Systems, 68-71.
14.
HoggD. N.FollesoK.Strand-VoldenF.TorralbaB. (1995). Development of a situation awareness measure to evaluate advanced alarm systems in nuclear power plant control rooms. Ergonomics, 38(11), 2394-2413.
15.
KaberD. B.EndsleyM. R. (1997). Out of the loop performance problems and the use of intermediate levels of automation for improved control system functioning and safety. Process Safety Progress, 16(3), 126-131.
16.
KaberD. B.EndsleyM. R. (2004). The effects of level of automation and adaptive automation on human performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 5(2), 113-153.
17.
Langan-FoxJ.SankeyM.CantyJ. (2009). Human factors measurement for future air traffic control systems. Human Factors, 51(5), 595-637.
18.
MorganC.ChiappeD.KrautJ.StrybelT. Z.VuK. P. L. (2012). An investigation into the potential sources of interference in SA probe techniques. In LandryS. (Ed.), Advances in human aspects of aviation (pp.623-631). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
19.
SchneiderW. (1985). Training high-performance skills: Fallacies and guidelines. Human Factors, 27(3), 285-300.
20.
StrybelT.Z.VuK.L.ChiappeD.BattisteV.JohnsonW.DaoQ.V. (2011) Metrics for situation awareness, workload, and performance: Manual for online probe administration. (Report No. NASA/TM-2011-215991). Mountain View, CA: NASA Ames.
21.
TaylorR. (1990). Situation awareness rating technique (SART): The development of a tool for aircrew systems design. In Situation awareness in aerospace operations (AGARD-CP-478). NATO-AGARD, Neuilly Sur Seine, France, pp. 3/1-3/17.
