Trans RINA, Vol 157, Part C1, Intl J Marine Design, Jan - Dec 2015


HUMAN-SYSTEM INTEGRATION TO ACHIEVE THROUGH LIFE COST REDUCTION (DOI No. 103940/rina.ijmd.2015.c1.48)


C Greenbank, BMT Reliability Consultants Ltd, UK D Richards, Coventry University, UK S Harmer, BMT Defence Services Ltd., UK


SUMMARY


As modern Navies balance the trade-off between cost and advanced technology it is easy to focus on the traditional solutions. Although early adoption of Human Factors is often incorporated in the design phase, it is frequently overlooked as a specific means to derive significant cost savings during the wider build cycle and through-life operation of the vessel. This is perhaps unsurprising given that the Human Factors discipline within the maritime domain has traditionally tended to focus solely on the safety implications of vessel design and operation. The adoption of a human- centric approach to the design of vessels allows us to consider the whole system requirements of the crew in terms of supportability, operational effectiveness, habitability and survivability. At the same time this approach focuses attention on how the vessel supports the crew in their joint mission. Thus the modern warship must be seen as a partnership between the technology and human components within the system. This human-system integration approach allows us to not only focus on both human and system components within the design process, but also to take an inclusive stance across all parts of the marine design domains. Human-system integration is thus seen as an integral part of meeting the complex challenges posed by advanced technologies and the need to reduce cost.


1. INTRODUCTION


Successful Warship designs comprise a blend of people and technology components (the system) and together can they


deliver efficient military capability. The


discipline of Human Factors Engineering provides the knowledge and techniques required to address the successful integration of people with technologies, in order to optimise whole system performance whilst reducing through life costs. The human component of capability represents a significant cost in the acquisition process from design, build and operation through to disposal of the system. Insufficient


attention to the


integration of the human within the system leads to detrimental impacts in terms of performance and safety (both in the long and short term), as well as a financial cost associated with mitigating or rectifying shortfalls at a later date. Human Factors specialists are trained to identify the potential human-system issues that could impact performance, safety or cost and can provide pragmatic guidance to avoid the potential becoming reality.


The design and build of a new warship is an


understandably complex and costly process that needs to balance world-class military capability with the practical constraints of the associated budget. Consequently there are a number of necessary trade-offs between what could be done and what can be done. In that process it is all too easy to miss the value proposition of a well-run Human Factors programme in not only reducing cost and risk during the design process, but also in reducing through life cost and reducing the risk of programme failure [1]. Furthermore, there is a strong temptation to reduce the Human Factors activity in programmes “to save money”, removing essential elements within the Human Factors


Human Factors Engineering is perceived by many to be principally focussed on ensuring the safety of a system, providing


‘specialist’ support to the design and


assessment of platforms and equipment as part of a multidisciplinary approach to safety management. This means it is sometimes seen as a cost to bear as part of the safety process. Whilst this is indeed an important role for the human factors engineer, this limited perception overlooks the wider contribution that the discipline can make to optimising system performance and through life cost reduction.


A further challenge to the perception of Human Factors Engineering is that it not a discipline which is easy


to


bound and explain succinctly. There is therefore an inherent challenge for the human factors engineer to justify involvement in programmes in cost-benefit terms. Unless this case can be made clearly, and in the appropriate terms for the audience, it is difficult to capitalise on


inclusion of Human Factors can provide.


Human error is cited as a causal factor in the majority of accidents across industries [2], yet perceptions rather than reality often limit Human Factors involvement in programmes. The inherent breadth of the discipline also means that the most appropriate skills and activities for one application may differ from those that are applicable to warship design. Anything which relates to people has the potential to be misunderstood as lacking objectivity and certainty, and to some extent this is compounded by the sometime counterintuitive reality that a combination


Integration (HFI) process necessary for a comprehensive Human Factors approach.


2. PERCEPTIONS OF HUMAN FACTORS


the opportunities that the appropriate


© 2015: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects


C-195


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164  |  Page 165  |  Page 166  |  Page 167  |  Page 168  |  Page 169  |  Page 170  |  Page 171  |  Page 172  |  Page 173  |  Page 174  |  Page 175  |  Page 176  |  Page 177  |  Page 178  |  Page 179  |  Page 180  |  Page 181  |  Page 182  |  Page 183  |  Page 184  |  Page 185  |  Page 186  |  Page 187  |  Page 188  |  Page 189  |  Page 190  |  Page 191  |  Page 192  |  Page 193  |  Page 194  |  Page 195  |  Page 196  |  Page 197  |  Page 198  |  Page 199  |  Page 200  |  Page 201  |  Page 202  |  Page 203  |  Page 204  |  Page 205  |  Page 206  |  Page 207  |  Page 208  |  Page 209  |  Page 210