Use of ANSI/HFES Human Readiness Level to ensure safety in automation

Abstract

This paper explores and describes the Human Readiness Levels for implementing control centres managing automated system remotely. We have explored a case from the oil and gas industry managing production facilities and a case from an automated ferry in the maritime industry. The concept of Human Readiness Level (HRL) is inspired by the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) originally promoted by NASA in the ´70s. We have not found case description of HRL in the oil and gas industry or in the maritime industry. TRL was used to establish a common understanding of the state of technology development from concept to operations and has been adopted by government and industry. TRL has been adopted by API (API17N) to be used in the oil and gas industry to ensure good decisions about the inclusion, development, and integration of new technology in complex systems. The purpose of the HRL taxonomy is to assess the readiness of a technology to be used by the intended users in a defined operational context. As concepts of automation, AI and remote operations is continuously implemented we have observed the challenge of missing focus on human systems design, Human Factors (HF), and organizational readiness, leading to poor safety, productivity, and usability. Combining technology optimism with the knowledge of human factors as described by the HRL guidelines (ANSI/HFSE 400-2021) should help establish a common understanding of the state of human readiness from concept to operations. This is needed, as we have observed that poor focus on HF design has been a significant root cause (i.e., 60% to 80%) in accidents and failures. We have seen “human errors” as a cause i.e., a result of poor design and poor consideration of human possibilities and limitations. We see the need to prioritize the early phases of development (such as concept and design) since the cost of changes is increasing nearly exponentially as the development moves forward from concept through design. The lifecycle cost may be 100-1,000 higher in later phases than in concept or early design phase. We have used the standard ISO 11064/ISO 9241-200 as a framework for development, and the CRIOP method as a supporting tool to perform verification and validation of the development. The purpose of this paper is to describe key challenges related to automation and meaningful human control from the oil and gas industry and the maritime industry. How the HRL taxonomy can improve and support safety, productivity and usability by key tasks and key products/documentation in relation to a system engineering model as described by ISO 11064/ISO 9241-200. How industry and government can utilize the HRL guidelines to mitigate the key challenges and reduce risks in an optimal manner to reduce cost of change and appropriate Management of Change (MoC).