Trans RINA, Vol 157, Part C1, Intl J Marine Design, Jan –Dec 2015
sequence of instances that together form a human error path (see [2]). Thus a single instance in isolation may be viewed as possessing little causality on its own, it may very well be the same event
that compounds another
isolated (and equally benign) event that leads to a critical result such as an incident or an accident. A structured HFI approach identifies these weaknesses in the system and develops mitigation strategies as appropriate at the design level. It is clearly not possible to mitigate all of the weaknesses, but by systematically identifying those which can be foreseen during design will allow more significant strides in reducing the risk and associated consequence of error. This approach has the advantage of not
only making structured rationale
design but
change possible within also provides a record a of
influence that supports both the audit trail and, perhaps more importantly, client confidence and engagement in the process.
As Wiener [11] notes, the requirement for the crew to compensate for poor design has a cost each time it is necessary in terms of the need for training, or in terms of inefficient working practices. However, it also introduces uncertainty into the system as well; training or procedures to mitigate poor design are
two of the
weakest mitigations for human error. Despite the training or the extensive effort in the development of procedures, it is still uncertain whether, in the dark at 3 a.m., the crewmember will do as trained or as set out in the procedure to mitigate the bad design, or simply what makes logical sense at the time. There is thus a cost in the introduction of uncertainty.
6. THE TRANSVERSAL APPROACH
The design team required for new Warship projects will be, of necessity, structured differently depending on the organisation and nature of the production. With such complex systems, the most logical representation of Human Factors is to run transversally across the system domains; as issues can arise from almost any element of the design (ranging from the Piping and Installation Diagram (P&ID) to the structure and the paint scheme) [4].
As previously discussed, any design process is unlikely to happen in isolation and thus the composition of the team (and associated team dynamics) are critical elements that will impact the delivery of the solution. For the Human Factors members within the Warship team, it is important
technical delivery of that aspect but they also have to manage common misconceptions
that they not only are responsible for the that
other team
members may have regarding Human Factors. This is an implicit part of the role when joining an engineering team as it is likely that the Engineers and other stakeholders will have varying levels of Human Factors knowledge.
The transversal HFI approach not only ‘forces’ a shared responsibility for design of the system but also creates an implicit opportunity to share work between the team where there
is a common goal. For example the
principles of Operational Task Analysis are a core part of Human Factors activity, but the same principles underpin Training Needs Analysis and some elements of systems engineering. Taking a proactive transversal approach therefore leads to opportunities to not only increase collaboration
in the team and better HFI design
influence, but if managed well it also helps optimise and reduce internal design cost.
It is the role of the Human Factors team to ensure that the ship design should be viewed as human-centric, as the ship is being built for people. With no people, the design would likely be radically different. That means paying attention to
the often overlooked areas, such as
considering the habitability and ease of maintenance requirements for the sewage system, how seafarers will deal with marine life blockages in the strainers, or the accessibility of valves in the machinery spaces. Similar to other domains, ships have only a finite amount of available space for equipment and functions, and the layout and proximity of these functions can have a significant bearing on efficiency and also the perception of the crew of the ship and their working environment and crew retention. Early adoption of HFI ensures that these requirements are considered in the stages of concept design across the multidisciplinary team [4].
7. THE VALUE PROPOSITION
Although the consideration of the Human Factors issues presents a challenge that must be met in terms of ensuring a safe and effective system, there is a critical bottom line that needs to be addressed if a HFI approach is to be
implemented: cost. Presenting the savings an individual would value
proposition offered by the HFI approach is fundamentally problematic in much the same way as it would be difficult and unwarranted to quantify the precise cost
bring if
recruited for a new job. The problem is not in the value of the proposition; the problem is with the concept of the valuation. Instead what is needed is a view based on the balance of probability of whether the endeavour will save more money or deliver more value than it costs. This probabilistic approach is more realistic and has greater validity as it is more closely related to the decision the fund holder will actually be making over whether to implement or cut an HFI programme. On that basis the evidence for HFI is particularly compelling investment.
for
People are a significant element of the life cycle cost of the system, with figures of around 50% being commonly reported. The HFI approach provides the framework to reduce risk and cost associated with the integration of
C-198
© 2015: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects
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