Human-Centered Design for Mining Equipment and New Technology

Tim Horberry, Robin Burgess-Limerick, Lisa J. Steiner

• Publisher: CRC Press
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9781138095144
• eBook ISBN: 9781351602150
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Technology & Engineering
• Subtopic: Industrial Engineering
• Index: Technology & Engineering

Human-Centered Design for Mining Equipment and New Technology first introduces Human-Centered Design (HCD) and outlines the benefits of this approach for mining equipment and new technology: HCD is a process that aims to make equipment and systems more usable and acceptable by explicitly focusing on the end-user, their tasks and their work environment/use context. The book outlines three linked areas of mining HCD: key principles, examples of design processes, and what kinds of tools for data collection and evaluation are available.

The possible future uses of Human-Centered Design in more fully automated mining are presented, and the role of HCD within wider human system integration are outlined. The 'how to' nature of this book makes it attractive to mining equipment manufacturers, technology developers, mine site personnel, human factors researchers, safety scientists and regulators.

Features:

• 
  
  

• Includes an introduction useful to anyone wanting to learn about the field

• 
  
  

• Provides extensive case studies of HCD which also show failures when HCD was not considered

• 
  
  

• Covers cutting edge mining technology- such as proximity detection devices and new mining automation systems

• 
  
  

• Directly outlines the benefits of HCD for the minerals industry

Human-Centered Design for Mining Equipment and New Technology, through case studies, provides a much needed guide to undertaking HCD for mining equipment and new technology.

1 Why HCD for Mining Equipment?

1.1 OVERVIEW

This book focuses on human-centered design (HCD) and outlines the benefits of this approach for mining equipment and new technology. HCD is widely used in the design of medical equipment, road vehicles, and consumer products. It is a process that aims to make equipment and systems more usable and acceptable by explicitly focusing on the end users, their tasks, their work environment, and the use context. A key requirement of human-centered design is for users and other stakeholders to be involved throughout the design and development of the equipment or system. However, to date, HCD has not been widely applied to the design, development, and deployment of equipment or new technology in the mining industry.

Human-centered design links closely with the aims of the NIOSH Prevention through Design initiative for “designing out” hazards. In the USA, HCD is supported by the MINER Act (2006) for the development of new human-centered mining technologies and the US Board on Human Systems Integration (2013) for human-centered self-escape systems. The global mining industry is currently seeing a rapid growth in the design and deployment of smart devices, automation, tele-operation systems and new mining equipment: it is particularly important that such systems are designed to be safe, effective, and usable.

This book shows that HCD should become a key design and development process in mining: effective design for human use. It shows that human-centered design can result in fewer operator errors, decrease training costs, promote better system usability, and give improved operator acceptance of systems. In mining, HCD can help minimize design issues like operator overload from too many warnings in truck cabs, or self-rescue equipment not being deployed because of poor device usability. Human-centered design in mining is valuable, necessary, and timely.

1.2 WHAT IS HCD?

Human-centered design focuses design on end users, their tasks, and the environmental context in which tasks are performed. HCD requires the involvement of operators, maintainers, and other stakeholders throughout the design, development, and implementation of equipment or technology: by identifying human-related design requirements and actively involving end users throughout the entire design process. Of course, human-centered design does not operate in a vacuum: it balances the needs of users with the financial, technical, and organizational constraints that are always present (Sharples et al., 2016). As will be seen in examples throughout this book, employing HCD improves usability, productivity, and safety for those who operate, maintain, and work near mining equipment. However, despite the examples of success, human-centered design techniques and processes are not universally applied to the design or deployment of mining equipment or new technology.

The most relevant ISO standard in this area (ISO 9241 Part 210: Human-centered design for interactive systems, 2010) is now becoming well accepted in many domains. A successor to ISO 13407:1999, it can also easily be applied to mining equipment and new technologies. Therefore, the ISO 9241-210 HCD definition is used as the basis for human-centered design throughout this book:

Approach to systems design and development that aims to make interactive systems more usable by focusing on the use of the system and applying human factors/ergonomics and usability knowledge and techniques. (ISO 9241-210, 2010)

1.3 APPLICATION OF HCD TO EQUIPMENT AND NEW TECHNOLOGIES USED IN THE MINERALS INDUSTRY

The preceding ISO definition of human-centered design is applicable to mining/minerals industry equipment and new technologies. For example, with respect to a new technology such as a proximity detection system for a large mining vehicle, the ISO 9241-210 description could be operationally defined as:

An approach to proximity detection system design and development for mobile mining equipment that aims to make the system safer and more usable by focusing on the actual mine site use of the proximity detection system and applying human factors/ergonomics and usability knowledge and techniques.

ISO 9241-210 does not have an explicit safety focus: instead, it is mainly concerned with usability and effectiveness. However, because safety is a key driver in the minerals industry, the working definition of mining human-centered design presented here explicitly also considers safety as well as usability and performance issues.

1.4 KEY POINTS OF HCD

As Rouse (2007) notes, HCD has three key objectives, especially in the earlier stages of design. These are: to enhance human abilities (e.g., in hazard recognition), to help overcome human limitations (e.g., the inclination to make errors) and to foster human acceptance (e.g., of new mining technologies).

It should be noted that human-centered design is wider and more embracing than the term “user-centered design” because it considers the impact on other stakeholders who might not typically be considered as users, such as maintenance staff.

Similarly, HCD is not exactly the same as human factors. As the ISO 9241-210 definition states, HCD applies human factors knowledge and techniques as part of the design process to make systems and products usable and useful. The following ten key points characterize HCD:

1. It is often now used as an umbrella term, covering other terms such as “user-centered design,” “interaction design,” and “design for product experience.”
2. Similarly, it uses knowledge and techniques drawn from human factors, ergonomics, and usability engineering, but is not the same as these topics.
3. It is different from other design movements such as technology-driven design or sustainable design. Technical innovations or environmental impacts are not the key focus of human-centered design.
4. The focus is upon making systems and products more usable, useful, and acceptable and less likely to result in adverse safety or health effects.
5. The aim is to bring benefits such as improved productivity, user well-being, accessibility, fewer errors, and reduced harm.
6. It fits the product, system, or interface to the user, not vice versa. It tries to optimize the system/equipment around the ways users can, want, or need to use it, rather than forcing them to change their behavior to accommodate the product.
7. It requires an understanding of the users, their tasks, and the environment/use context.
8. Users and other stakeholders should be involved throughout design and development.
9. The design is iterative and driven by human-centered evaluation criteria (e.g., usability/safety).
10. The needs, wants, and limitations of all people who may interact with a product or equipment are given explicit attention at each stage of the design process.

1.5 THE BENEFITS OF HCD . . . AND THE FAILURES OF NOT TAKING A HUMAN-CENTERED APPROACH

There are considerable benefits to be obtained through using HCD in mining. The examples presented later in this book show that successful products can be developed in the minerals industry and in related domains by using human-centered design approaches. Work by Horberry et al. (2011) characterized the benefits of using a human-centered approach to mining equipment as being either safety- and health-related, or productivity- and efficiency-focused. Similarly, Kujala (2003) in a review of cost/benefit evidence identified the following benefits that could be obtained when there is extensive user involvement during design:

• Increased user productivity/fewer errors
• Increased sales
• Decreased training costs
• Decreased user support
• More accurate end-user requirements and better system usability
• Fewer costly system features that are unwanted or irrelevant to the task
• Improved operator acceptance and understanding of the system/product

Of course, not all the mining equipment or new technologies developed using HCD approaches are guaranteed to have all these benefits. Nonetheless, the available evidence about human-centered design from mining and elsewhere indicates that it has a positive effect overall (Kujala, 2003; Horberry et al., 2011).

1.5.1 PARTICIPATORY ERGONOMICS AND HUMAN-CENTERED DESIGN

One effective way of encouraging human-centered design (and particularly, redesign) of work is the implementation of participatory ergonomics programs. Participatory ergonomics means actively involving workers in developing and implementing workplace changes that will improve productivity and reduce risks to safety and health—or, as Wilson (1995) put it, the “involvement of people in planning and controlling a significant amount of their own work activities, with sufficient knowledge and power to influence both processes and outcomes to achieve desirable goals.” The underpinning assumption is that workers are the experts, and that given appropriate knowledge, skills, tools, facilitation, resources, and encouragement, they are best placed to identify and analyze problems and to develop and implement solutions, which will be both effective in reducing injury risks and improving productivity, and will be acceptable to those impacted (Brown, 2005).

Participatory ergonomics programs have been implemented across a large range of industries and organizations, including mining (Burgess-Limerick et al., 2007; Torma-Krajewski et al., 2007) and many others. Perhaps as a consequence of the diverse settings in which programs have been implemented, and the need for programs to “fit” each organization or situation, there are many variations in the program characteristics, such as the degree and nature of participation, the extent of expert facilitation and assistance provided, the nature and extent of training provided to teams (in ergonomics methods and team work), and the tools employed to assist teams in identifying issues and developing solutions.

Participatory ergonomics is reported to have a range of benefits in addition to the reduction in injury risks, such as an improved flow of useful information within an organization, an improvement in the meaningfulness of work, more rapid technological and organizational change, and enhanced performance (Brown, 1993; Haims and Carayon, 1998; Haines and Wilson, 1998). As well as developing more effective solutions, the use of participative ergonomics techniques to derive solutions is believed to result in greater “ownership” by those affected, leading to a greater commitment to the changes being implemented.

Although some research has demonstrated the significant effects of implementing a participatory ergonomics program on physical risk factors (e.g., Straker et al., 2004) or productivity (e.g., Vink et al., 1995), most evaluations have focused on direct health effects. The outcomes of individual evaluations are mixed. Silverstein and Clark (2004) noted this variability, concluding that participatory ergonomics programs were “often, but not always successful.” Cole et al. (2005) reviewed 10 evaluations of the health effects of participatory ergonomics programs, concluding that the studies provided limited evidence that participatory ergonomics programs can have a positive impact on musculoskeletal injury symptoms and compensation costs. More encouragingly, Rivilis et al. (2008) concluded that the “12 studies that were rated as ‘medium’ or higher provided partial to moderate evidence that PE interventions have a positive impact on: musculoskeletal symptoms, reducing injuries and workers’ compensation claims, and a reduction in lost days from work or sickness absence.”

More recent evaluations not included in these reviews have also demonstrated mixed results; however, Cantley et al. (2014) reported positive outcomes from a six-year evaluation of a large-scale participatory ergonomics process at a multisite aluminum manufacturer. Control measure implementation targets were set by senior management, and the evaluation noted 204 control measures implemented across 123 jobs at 17 study sites, affecting the work of 14,540 workers. Jobs in which control measures were introduced were associated with significantly lower musculoskeletal injury risk, and the authors concluded that the study “provides evidence that a systematic approach to ergonomic hazard identification, quantification, and control implementation, in conjunction with requirements to establish an ergonomic process at each manufacturing plant, may be effective in reducing the risk of MSD and acute injury outcomes among workers in targeted jobs” Cantley et al. (2014).

The mixed nature of evaluations is perhaps unsurprising given the diversity of program designs and the variety of organizational characteristics and contexts in which program implementation has been attempted. It is reasonable to conclude that, although participatory ergonomics programs have the potential for positive health benefits, there are many potential barriers, and success has not always been achieved.

Organizations that are less hierarchical, have good labor relations, have a tradition of consultation in other areas, maintain good communication channels, and have job designs emphasizing personal control are likely to most easily adopt and benefit from a participatory ergonomics program. The commitment of management, at all levels, to the program is the most important factor contributing to the probability of success (Liker et al., 1989; Brown, 2005; Dixon et al., 2009). Senior management commitment is essential for ensuring that adequate resources are available, including the provision of time for team members to participate in training and intervention activities, and the approval of the expenditures required to implement workplace changes (Haines and Wilson, 1998). Constraint on the availability of such resources (both time and money) have been noted as providing significant barriers to success in some studies (e.g., Torma-Krajewski et al., 2007).

It is also important to ensure that middle managers within the organization maintain commitment in the face of inevitable production pressures. The challenge of achieving this is well described by Dixon et al. (2009), who investigated the implementation of three participatory ergonomics programs:

While senior management in all sites was supportive at the outset of the process, it was middle management and supervisors who, for the most part, had to deal with the pragmatic issues around maintaining production once the intervention program was in progress. Given the pressures they faced, it is not surprising that securing their support was an ongoin...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of Tables
• List of Figures
• Foreword
• Acknowledgements
• Authors
• Glossary of Terms and Acronyms
• Chapter 1 Why HCD for Mining Equipment?
• Chapter 2 Principles, Processes, and Tools for HCD
• Chapter 3 Current Status of Mining HCD
• Chapter 4 HCD Educational Material
• Chapter 5 HCD Case Studies
• Chapter 6 What Now for Mining HCD?
• References
• Index