New human-system interface technologies provide opportunities for improving operator and plant performance. However, if these technologies are not properly implemented, they may introduce new challenges to performance and safety. This paper reports the results from a survey of human factors considerations that arise in the implementation of advanced human-system interface technologies in process control and other complex systems. General trends were identified for several areas based on a review of technical literature and a combination of interviews and site visits with process control organizations. Human factors considerations are discussed for two of these areas, automation and controls.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BainbridgeL. (1987). Ironies of automation. In RasmussenJ.DuncanK.LeplatJ. (Eds.), New Technology and Human Error (pp. 271–283). New York: Wiley.
2.
DaveyE. C.FeherM. P.GuoK. Q. (1995). An improved annunciation strategy for CANDU plants. Proceedings of the Topical Meeting on Computer-Based Human Support Systems: Technology, Methods, and Future (pp. 321–328). La Grange Park, Ill.: American Nuclear Society.
3.
GallettiG. S. (1996). Human factors issues in digital system design and implementation. Proceedings of the 1996 American Nuclear Society International Topical Meeting on Nuclear Plant Instrumentation, Control, and Human-Machine Interface Technologies. La Grange Park, IL: American Nuclear Society.
4.
National Academy of Science (1995). Digital instrumentation and control systems in nuclear power plants: Safety and reliability issues. Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press.
5.
KletzT.A. (1993). Computer Control - Living with Human Error. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 39 (3), 257–261.
6.
NRC (1993). NRC Information Notice 93-57: Software Problems Involving Digital Control Console Systems at Non-Power Reactors. Washington, D.C.: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
7.
NormanD. (1990). The “problem” with automation: Inappropriate feedback and interaction, not ‘over-automation’. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 377, 585–593.
8.
NormanD. (1983). Design rules based on analyses of human error. Communications of the ACM, 26, 254–258.
9.
NormanD. (1981). Categorization of action slips, Psychological Review, 88, 1–15.
10.
O'HaraJ.BrownW.StublerW.WachtelJ.PersenskyJ. (1996). Human system interface design review guideline (NUREG-0700, Rev 1.). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ShawJ. (1993). Distributed control systems: Cause or cure of operator errors. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 39(3), 263–271.
13.
StublerW. F.RothE. MMumawR. J. (1991). Evaluation issues for computer-based control rooms. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 35th Annual Meeting (pp 383–387). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
14.
WoodsD.JohannesenL.CookR.SarterN. (1994). Behind human error: Cognitive systems, computers, and hindsight (CSERIAC SOAR 94-01). Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio: Crew Systems Ergonomics Information Analysis Center.
