UNCLASSIFIED

1

UNCLASSIFIED

Designing  Naval  Opera/ons  (Ops)  Rooms  

Control  Room  Design  &  Opera/on  Conference      4  March  2015  

Stuart  Sutherland,  Suzanne  Hanna,    Kingsley  Fletcher  &  Susan  Cockshell  

UNCLASSIFIED

2

Outline  

!  Context  – Naval  opera>ons  (ops)  room  – Methodology  -­‐  user-­‐centered  design  approach  

!  User  needs  !  Concept  design  development  and  evalua>on  (physical,  cogni>ve,  organiza>onal)    – Experimenta>on    

– Modelling  – User  walkthroughs  

!  Post  implementa>on  user  feedback  

UNCLASSIFIED

3 UNCLASSIFIED

Naval  opera/ons  (ops)  room  •  Ship control centre at Action

Stations •  Primarily combat management

System consoles •  5-25 personnel, depending on

threat status

UNCLASSIFIED

4

ANZAC  ops  room  upgrade  

!  ANZAC  Class  ships         mid-­‐life  upgrade  

! Mo>va>on  for  changes  to  room  design  – Change  in  role  of  ANZAC  ships  since  original  design  – Percep>on  of  inadequate  situa>on  awareness  by  Commanding  Officers  

– Many  items  of  new  equipment  due  to  be  fiPed  (“Just  s>ck  it  where  it  fits”)  

– Dissa>sfac>on  with  placement  of  recently  fiPed  equipment  

– Note:  No  human  factors  input  to  original  design  

UNCLASSIFIED

5

Methodology  –  user-­‐centred  design  

UNCLASSIFIED

6

Process  to  improve  ops  room  design  

UNCLASSIFIED

7

ANZAC  ops  room  design  

Physical  Domain   Cogni/ve  Domain   Organisa/onal  Domain  

Tactical

Whole of Ship + Admin

Planning + Navigation

Administration

UNCLASSIFIED

8

User Needs Spreadsheet

Hierarchical Task Analysis ���(Goal Hierarchy)

Team Structures

Equipment Audit (Display, Control & Maint. Needs)

Ship Observation of Team Comms. / Interactions

Interviews with Users

Users Rate Needs (freq. of use & importance

Validated User Needs Spreadsheet

ANZAC Ops Room Workshop

User  needs  analysis  process  

UNCLASSIFIED

9

!  Types  of  need  –  Physical  –  Team  interac>ons  –  Informa>on  

–  Control  –  Maintenance  

!  Func>onal  groups  (from  task  analysis)  –  Tac>cal,  Whole  of  Ship,  Planning  &  Naviga>on,  Administra>on  

!  Challenges  –  Different  command  styles,  personal  preferences,  proximity  to  key  

personnel  &  equipment  

!  Valida>on  of  900  Needs  –  User  needs  valida>on  survey  completed  by  6  ships  

User  needs  analysis  

UNCLASSIFIED

10

Design  drivers  

!  User  needs  !  Engineering  constraints  !  Fixed  equipment  size,  shape,  loca>on  

!  Financial  constraints  !  Schedule  constraints  !  Operate  as  part  of  an  Integrated  Project  Team  with  Saab  &  Tenix,  using  Alliance  Framework  &  Business  Rules  

UNCLASSIFIED

11

! Method  – Engagement  of  users,  stakeholders  &  incorpora>on  of  feedback  

– Experimenta>on  •  Display  Luminance  and  Text  Size.  Experimental  determina>on  of  the  minimum  luminance  and  text  size  for  LCD  displays  in  a  darkened  Ops  Room  that  allowed  op>mal  readability.  

– Modelling  •  Communica>on  link  analysis  –  Microsod  Visio  

•  Ligh>ng  analysis,  user  engagement  –  3D  CAD  visualisa>ons    •  Large  screen  displays  placement  -­‐  spreadsheet    

– User  walkthroughs  •  Low  fidelity  •  High  fidelity  

Concept  design  development  and  evalua/on  

UNCLASSIFIED

12

Communica/on  link  analysis  

UNCLASSIFIED

13

Ligh/ng  analysis,  user  engagement  …  

UNCLASSIFIED

14

Large Screen Display Placement

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

15

!  Shared  large  screen  display  size,  Op>misa>on  of  display  &  stateboard  loca>ons,  Reflec>on  analysis  

!  Screen  luminance  for  darkened/bright  room  

!  Console  physical  ergonomics  assessment  

!  Reach  envelopes,  ingress/egress  envelopes  

!  Transit  space  

Physical  ergonomics  –  HF  engineering  advice  

UNCLASSIFIED

16

! Aim:  Evaluate  3  room  designs  using  non-­‐func>oning  mock-­‐ups  ! Approaches:  

– Observa>ons  of  Room  Usage  

– Opinions  of  Individuals  – Scenario  Walk-­‐Through    with  Ques>onnaires  

– Team  Discussions  

! Rated/Observed:  – Info  Access,  Reach,    Space,  Team  Comms…  

– Absolute  &  Comparison    with  Exis>ng  Room  

! Results  –  Two  designs  rated  by  80%  of  personnel  as  ‘Good’  or  ‘Very  Good’  –  One  highly  rated  feature  copied  from  Design  2  into  Design  1  

–  Checked  final  design  against  needs  

Concept  evalua/on  –  low  fidelity  user  walkthroughs  

UNCLASSIFIED

17

Concept  evalua/on  –  high  fidelity  user  walkthroughs  

!  Early  assessment  of  the  fitness  for  purpose  of  the  Ops  room  and  Combat  Management  System  using  a  current  RAN  Opera>ons  Team    

!  Interim  combat  management  system  sodware  drop  (mid-­‐build)  

!  Measures  –  Ques>onnaires  –  Team  debriefs    

–  Observa>ons  

UNCLASSIFIED

18

Post  implementa/on  user  feedback  

!  Method  –  Interviewed  upgraded  ship’s  crew  ader  1  year  of  use  

!  Feedback  /  Lessons  –  Overall  layout  was  effec>ve  and  efficient  

–  Placement  of  some  equipment  was  s>ll  poor    •  e.g.  some  equipment  was  just  put  where  the  installer  thought  best  

–  Some  requirements  weren’t  addressed,  not  clear  why    –  System  integra>on  is  difficult  and  oden  out  of  scope  

•  Laptops  were  meant  to  be  integrated  as  part  of  another  project  

–  Some  equipment  didn’t  meet  user  anthropometrics  (reach  and  adjustment)  

–  Access  for  some  maintenance  was  difficult  

–  Cost  constraints  changed  some  equipment  purchased  which  had  flow  on  implica>ons  that  weren’t  assessed  

Detailed design & build

RAN anthropometric survey Detailed design & build

UNCLASSIFIED

19

Ques>ons?  

UNCLASSIFIED

20

Physical  ergonomics  –  anthropometric  data  

!  RAN  survey  underway  !  Anthropometric  Standard:  Data  for  designers  and  evaluators  of  Naval  equipment  and  plarorms