SIST EN ISO 11064-7:2006

SLOVENSKI STANDARD
SIST EN ISO 11064-7:2006
01-oktober-2006
(UJRQRPVNRQDþUWRYDQMHNUPLOQLKFHQWURY±GHO1DþHOD]DYUHGQRWHQMHNUPLOQLK
FHQWURY,62
Ergonomic design of control centres - Part 7: Principles for the evaluation of control
centres (ISO 11064-7:2006)
Ergonomische Gestaltung von Leitzentralen - Teil 7: Grundsätze für die Bewertung von
Leitzentralen (ISO 11064-7:2006)
Conception ergonomique des centres de commande - Partie 7: Principes pour
l'évaluation des centres de commande (ISO 11064-7:2006)
Ta slovenski standard je istoveten z: EN ISO 11064-7:2006
ICS:
13.180 Ergonomija Ergonomics
25.040.10 9HþRSHUDFLMVNLVWURML Machining centres
SIST EN ISO 11064-7:2006 en
2003-01.Slovenski inštitut za standardizacijo. Razmnoževanje celote ali delov tega standarda ni dovoljeno.

---------------------- Page: 1 ----------------------

SIST EN ISO 11064-7:2006

---------------------- Page: 2 ----------------------

SIST EN ISO 11064-7:2006
EUROPEAN STANDARD
EN ISO 11064-7
NORME EUROPÉENNE
EUROPÄISCHE NORM
April 2006
ICS 13.180

English Version
Ergonomic design of control centres - Part 7: Principles for the
evaluation of control centres (ISO 11064-7:2006)
Conception ergonomique des centres de commande - Ergonomische Gestaltung von Leitzentralen - Teil 7:
Partie 7: Principes pour l'évaluation des centres de Grundsätze für die Bewertung von Leitzentralen (ISO
commande (ISO 11064-7:2006) 11064-7:2006)
This European Standard was approved by CEN on 23 March 2006.
CEN members are bound to comply with the CEN/CENELEC Internal Regulations which stipulate the conditions for giving this European
Standard the status of a national standard without any alteration. Up-to-date lists and bibliographical references concerning such national
standards may be obtained on application to the Central Secretariat or to any CEN member.
This European Standard exists in three official versions (English, French, German). A version in any other language made by translation
under the responsibility of a CEN member into its own language and notified to the Central Secretariat has the same status as the official
versions.
CEN members are the national standards bodies of Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France,
Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania,
Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and United Kingdom.
EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR STANDARDIZATION
COMITÉ EUROPÉEN DE NORMALISATION
EUROPÄISCHES KOMITEE FÜR NORMUNG
Management Centre: rue de Stassart, 36  B-1050 Brussels
© 2006 CEN All rights of exploitation in any form and by any means reserved Ref. No. EN ISO 11064-7:2006: E
worldwide for CEN national Members.

---------------------- Page: 3 ----------------------

SIST EN ISO 11064-7:2006

EN ISO 11064-7:2006 (E)





Foreword


This document (EN ISO 11064-7:2006) has been prepared by Technical Committee ISO/TC 159
"Ergonomics" in collaboration with Technical Committee CEN/TC 122 "Ergonomics", the
secretariat of which is held by DIN.

This European Standard shall be given the status of a national standard, either by publication of
an identical text or by endorsement, at the latest by October 2006, and conflicting national
standards shall be withdrawn at the latest by October 2006.

According to the CEN/CENELEC Internal Regulations, the national standards organizations of
the following countries are bound to implement this European Standard: Austria, Belgium,
Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary,
Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland,
Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and United Kingdom.


Endorsement notice

The text of ISO 11064-7:2006 has been approved by CEN as EN ISO 11064-7:2006 without any
modifications.

2

---------------------- Page: 4 ----------------------

SIST EN ISO 11064-7:2006


INTERNATIONAL ISO
STANDARD 11064-7
First edition
2006-04-01


Ergonomic design of control centres —
Part 7:
Principles for the evaluation of control
centres
Conception ergonomique des centres de commande —
Partie 7: Principes pour l'évaluation des centres de commande




Reference number
ISO 11064-7:2006(E)
©
ISO 2006

---------------------- Page: 5 ----------------------

SIST EN ISO 11064-7:2006
ISO 11064-7:2006(E)
PDF disclaimer
This PDF file may contain embedded typefaces. In accordance with Adobe's licensing policy, this file may be printed or viewed but
shall not be edited unless the typefaces which are embedded are licensed to and installed on the computer performing the editing. In
downloading this file, parties accept therein the responsibility of not infringing Adobe's licensing policy. The ISO Central Secretariat
accepts no liability in this area.
Adobe is a trademark of Adobe Systems Incorporated.
Details of the software products used to create this PDF file can be found in the General Info relative to the file; the PDF-creation
parameters were optimized for printing. Every care has been taken to ensure that the file is suitable for use by ISO member bodies. In
the unlikely event that a problem relating to it is found, please inform the Central Secretariat at the address given below.


©  ISO 2006
All rights reserved. Unless otherwise specified, no part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means,
electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and microfilm, without permission in writing from either ISO at the address below or
ISO's member body in the country of the requester.
ISO copyright office
Case postale 56 • CH-1211 Geneva 20
Tel. + 41 22 749 01 11
Fax + 41 22 749 09 47
E-mail copyright@iso.org
Web www.iso.org
Published in Switzerland

ii © ISO 2006 – All rights reserved

---------------------- Page: 6 ----------------------

SIST EN ISO 11064-7:2006
ISO 11064-7:2006(E)
Contents Page
Foreword. iv
Introduction . v
1 Scope . 1
2 Normative references . 1
3 Terms and definitions. 1
4 Requirements and recommendations for evaluation process. 3
4.1 General verification and validation (V&V) issues. 3
4.2 Verification and validation plan. 5
4.3 Verification and validation scope. 5
4.4 Verification and validation criteria . 6
4.5 Verification and validation input documents.7
4.6 Verification and validation team. 7
4.7 Verification and validation resources. 7
4.8 Verification and validation methods. 8
4.9 Verification and validation measures . 8
4.10 Verification and validation results . 9
Annex A (informative) Checklist for V&V evaluation process . 10
Annex B (informative) Evaluation process . 12
Annex C (informative) Evaluation (V&V) methods . 16
Bibliography . 20

© ISO 2006 – All rights reserved iii

---------------------- Page: 7 ----------------------

SIST EN ISO 11064-7:2006
ISO 11064-7:2006(E)
Foreword
ISO (the International Organization for Standardization) is a worldwide federation of national standards bodies
(ISO member bodies). The work of preparing International Standards is normally carried out through ISO
technical committees. Each member body interested in a subject for which a technical committee has been
established has the right to be represented on that committee. International organizations, governmental and
non-governmental, in liaison with ISO, also take part in the work. ISO collaborates closely with the
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) on all matters of electrotechnical standardization.
International Standards are drafted in accordance with the rules given in the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2.
The main task of technical committees is to prepare International Standards. Draft International Standards
adopted by the technical committees are circulated to the member bodies for voting. Publication as an
International Standard requires approval by at least 75 % of the member bodies casting a vote.
Attention is drawn to the possibility that some of the elements of this document may be the subject of patent
rights. ISO shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such patent rights.
ISO 11064-7 was prepared by Technical Committee ISO/TC 159, Ergonomics, Subcommittee SC 4,
Ergonomics of human-system interaction.
ISO 11064 consists of the following parts, under the general title Ergonomic design of control centres:
⎯ Part 1: Principles for the design of control centres
⎯ Part 2: Principles for the arrangement of control suites
⎯ Part 3: Control room layout
⎯ Part 4: Layout and dimensions of workstations
⎯ Part 6: Environmental requirements for control centres
⎯ Part 7: Principles for the evaluation of control centres
iv © ISO 2006 – All rights reserved

---------------------- Page: 8 ----------------------

SIST EN ISO 11064-7:2006
ISO 11064-7:2006(E)
Introduction
This part of ISO 11064 establishes ergonomic requirements, recommendations and guidelines for the
evaluation of control centres.
User requirements are a central theme of this part of ISO 11064 and the processes described are designed to
take account of the needs of users at all stages. The overall strategy for dealing with user requirements is
presented in ISO 11064-1.
ISO 11064-2 provides guidance on the design and planning of the control centre in relation to its supporting
areas. ISO 11064-3 gives all the requirements and guidance on control room layout. Requirements for the
design of workstations, displays and controls and the physical working environment are presented in
ISO 11064-4 and ISO 11064-6.
The various parts of ISO 11064 cover the general principles of ergonomic design appropriate to a range of
industries and service providers.
The users of this part of ISO 11064 are likely to include, for example, project managers, acceptance engineers,
purchasers, suppliers and regulatory bodies.
The ultimate beneficiaries of this part of ISO 11064 will be the control centre operator and other users. It is the
needs of these users that provide the ergonomic requirements used by the developers of International
Standards. Although it is unlikely that the end user will read this part of ISO 11064, or even know of its
existence, its application should provide the user with interfaces that are more usable and a working
environment which is more consistent with operational demands. It should result in a solution that will
minimize error and enhance productivity.
The terms “human factors” and “ergonomics” are used interchangeably in ISO 11064 and are considered as
synonyms.

© ISO 2006 – All rights reserved v

---------------------- Page: 9 ----------------------

SIST EN ISO 11064-7:2006

---------------------- Page: 10 ----------------------

SIST EN ISO 11064-7:2006
INTERNATIONAL STANDARD ISO 11064-7:2006(E)

Ergonomic design of control centres —
Part 7:
Principles for the evaluation of control centres
1 Scope
This part of ISO 11064 establishes ergonomic principles for the evaluation of control centres. It gives
requirements, recommendations and guidelines on evaluation of the different elements of the control centre,
i.e. control suite, control room, workstations, displays and controls, and work environment.
It covers all types of control centres, including those for the process industry, transport systems and
dispatching rooms in the emergency services. Although this part of ISO 11064 is primarily intended for non-
mobile control centres, many of the principles could be relevant/applicable to mobile centres, such as those
found on ships and aircraft.
2 Normative references
The following referenced documents are indispensable for the application of this document. For dated
references, only the edition cited applies. For undated references, the latest edition of the referenced
document (including any amendments) applies.
ISO 11064-1:2000, Ergonomic design of control centres — Part 1: Principles for the design of control centres
ISO 13407, Human-centred design processes for interactive systems
3 Terms and definitions
For the purposes of this document, the following terms and definitions apply.
3.1
evaluation process
combined effort of all verification and validation (V&V) activities in a project using selected methods and the
recording of the results
NOTE “Evaluation process” is used synonymously with “verification and validation process”.
3.2
human engineering discrepancy
HED
departure from some benchmark of system design suitability for the roles and capabilities of the human
operator and/or user
NOTE This may, for example, include a deviation from meeting an operator/user preference.
© ISO 2006 – All rights reserved 1

---------------------- Page: 11 ----------------------

SIST EN ISO 11064-7:2006
ISO 11064-7:2006(E)
3.3
resolution
identification and implementation of solutions to the deviations identified during the verification and validation
activities
3.4
situation awareness
relationship between the operator's/user's understanding of the controlled system's and/or process's condition
and its actual condition at any given time
[4]
NOTE Originally defined by Endsley in an aircraft pilot context as “The perception of the elements in the
environment within a volume of time and space, the comprehension of their meaning and the projection of their status in
the near future”.
3.5
validity
degree to which an instrument or technique can be demonstrated to measure what it is intended to measure
NOTE 1 Face validity is concerned with how a measure or procedure appears. It answers the question: Does it seem
like a reasonable way to gain the information the evaluator(s) are attempting to obtain?
NOTE 2 Predictive validity will tell whether it is possible to predict from the studied performance measure to the real
environment.
3.6
validation
confirmation, through the provision of objective evidence, that the requirements for a specific intended use or
application has been fulfilled
NOTE 1 Adapted from ISO 9000:2005, 3.8.5.
NOTE 2 See Figure 1.
NOTE 3 This term is often used in conjunction with “verification” and both terms abbreviated to “V&V” (verification and
validation).
3.7
verification
confirmation, through the provision of objective evidence, that specified requirements have been fulfilled
NOTE 1 Adapted from ISO 9000:2005, 3.8.4.
NOTE 2 See Figure 1.
NOTE 3 This term is often used in conjunction with “validation” and both terms abbreviated to “V&V” (verification and
validation).
3.8
verification and validation plan
V&V plan
plan specifically developed to govern the evaluation process
3.9
workload
physical and cognitive demands placed on the system user(s) and/or staff
2 © ISO 2006 – All rights reserved

---------------------- Page: 12 ----------------------

SIST EN ISO 11064-7:2006
ISO 11064-7:2006(E)

Figure 1 — Role of verification and validation (V&V)
4 Requirements and recommendations for evaluation process
Subclauses 4.1 to 4.10 present general requirements and recommendations for the ergonomic evaluation
process. See Annex A for a checklist of these requirements and recommendations.
4.1 General verification and validation (V&V) issues
a) The verification and validation (V&V) activities shall be an integral part of the design process, in
accordance with ISO 13407 and ISO 11064-1:2000, Figure 2, and with the Figure 2 immediately below.
b) The V&V activities shall take place throughout the life of a project.
c) Tests shall be done as early in the design process as possible, to allow modifications to be made.
Previous V&V work can be reused under certain conditions. Final determination of what form of V&V is
acceptable for evolutionary changes shall be decided in each particular case. For further information, see
Annex B.
© ISO 2006 – All rights reserved 3

---------------------- Page: 13 ----------------------

SIST EN ISO 11064-7:2006
ISO 11064-7:2006(E)

Figure 2 — Integrated V&V in design process
4 © ISO 2006 – All rights reserved

---------------------- Page: 14 ----------------------

SIST EN ISO 11064-7:2006
ISO 11064-7:2006(E)
4.2 Verification and validation plan
a) A V&V plan shall be prepared early in the project and before the V&V work is carried out.
NOTE The plan would be expected to contain, as a minimum, details of the following:
⎯ The objectives for V&V, e.g. maximising human performance, safer operations, human error reduction,
enhanced operator support tools, increased job satisfaction and improved production.
⎯ The mandate and terms for V&V.
⎯ The relationship and interfaces of V&V to other elements both within and outside the project, e.g. the design
process and the quality assurance programme.
⎯ The V&V team, its primary responsibilities, and resources available to it.
⎯ The approach to be taken to the V&V programme.
⎯ How the process will be applied.
b) The plan should detail the time requirements, relations and dependencies between the tasks within the
evaluation process and extend throughout the entire project's duration.
c) The plan for evaluation should have an entry for each topic being reviewed.
d) The plan should document all the criteria, the techniques and tools to be utilised in the evaluation process.
e) The plan shall describe the activities to be performed, and for the verification case, describe each phase
to show whether the requirement specification is met.
f) For the validation case, the project should develop performance and safety objectives for the topic under
review.
g) Estimates of the resources required to undertake V&V tasks shall be prepared and shall include staff,
equipment, accommodation and subjects for trials.
4.3 Verification and validation scope
a) The evaluation scope should be appropriate for the stage of the project at which it is performed.
b) The validation process should challenge the design and ascertain that the system will perform acceptably
under a broad range of operating conditions. The validation should include consideration of appropriate
scenarios, or working sequences, that should cover normal operation — including a mix of multiple failure
events and disturbances, and emergency conditions.
c) There should be written description of appropriate operating situations, adapted to the chosen
verification/validation method and the stage of the project.
d) The general scope of the V&V should include all essential facilities defined in the project plan.
NOTE The V&V scope might cover, among other items, the following topics:
⎯ hardware having a human-system interface (HSI);
⎯ HSI software;
⎯ communications facilities;
⎯ procedures (written or electronic form);
© ISO 2006 – All rights reserved 5

---------------------- Page: 15 ----------------------

SIST EN ISO 11064-7:2006
ISO 11064-7:2006(E)
⎯ workstation and console configurations;
⎯ design of the overall work environment;
⎯ training and selection of personnel;
⎯ team working;
⎯ auxiliary shutdown rooms and panels;
⎯ local control rooms;
⎯ local control panels or stations;
⎯ the needs of maintenance personnel;
⎯ other needs of the operators (storage, relaxation areas, rest rooms, etc.).
4.4 Verification and validation criteria
a) The criteria developed shall cover the complete set of ergonomics issues that are relevant to a project.
b) Criteria should be defined for the evaluations of each ergonomic issue and for the objectives that the
evaluation is intended to reach.
NOTE 1 The criteria can be derived from the source documents in use for the project:
⎯ performance aspects;
⎯ safety principles;
⎯ availability and reliability requirements;
⎯ operator interface and display principles;
⎯ requirements from applicable standards and guidelines;
⎯ recommendations and requirements from ergonomics literature.
NOTE 2 Performance criteria can be classified into several types, for example:
⎯ requirement-referenced criteria — the comparison of the performance of the system to an accepted performance
requirement;
⎯ benchmark-referenced criteria — the comparison of the performance of the system to a benchmark system that is
defined as acceptable;
⎯ normative referenced criteria — the comparison of the performance of the system to norms established for the
performance based on many system evaluations;
⎯ expert-judgement referenced criteria — the comparison of the performance of the system to criteria established
through the judgement of subject-matter experts.
6 © ISO 2006 – All rights reserved

---------------------- Page: 16 ----------------------

SIST EN ISO 11064-7:2006
ISO 11064-7:2006(E)
4.5 Verification and validation input documents
a) The design project's evaluation team should collect all important documentation related to the topic under
consideration and used in the design process.
NOTE The documentation will be the basis for the human factors evaluation process.
b) A design project's evaluation team should have access to appropriate documentation.
c) The evaluation team should have access to the members of the team responsible for design and
documentation.
d) The evaluation team should have access to a human factors operating experience review.
4.6 Verification and validation team
a) The human factors evaluation team should be independent of, but have access to, the design team.
Individuals should not be members of both the design and evaluation teams.
b) The communication between the independent human factors evaluation team and the designers should
be supported and stimulated.
c) The human factors evaluation team should be suitably placed in the project organization, i.e., have
responsibility, authority and positioning within an organization, such that the commitment to human
factors V&V is achieved.
d) The specific expertise represented in a human factors evaluation team should be based on the scope of
the evaluation.
NOTE A team might include the following areas of expertise:
⎯ systems engineering;
⎯ architectural design and civil engineering;
⎯ systems analysis;
⎯ instrumentation and control systems;
⎯ information and computer systems;
⎯ human factors engineering/ergonomics;
⎯ facility operation and training (user representatives).
4.7 Verification and validation resources
a) The design project shall supply suitable resources for the evaluation team.
b) Suitable working materials for the conduct of V&V should be prepared.
NOTE Working materials might include the following:
⎯ documentation control;
⎯ control centre components and features;
⎯ measurements (noise, lighting, heating);
⎯ questionnaire and interview records;
© ISO 2006 – All rights reserved 7

---------------------- Page: 17 ----------------------

SIST EN ISO 11064-7:2006
ISO 11064-7:2006(E)
⎯ records of operator responses to specific tests (e.g. simulator based tests or assessments);
⎯ human engineering discrepancies (HEDs), used to identify their location and nature so that follow-up action can
be taken;
⎯ resolution of HEDs.
4.8 Verification and validation methods
The following should be considered when determining verification and validation methods.
a) The evaluation method(s) and/or technique(s) used should be systematic and well documented.
NOTE Many human factors evaluation techniques are applicable in a control centre context. A few of the most
[10]
commonly used techniques are briefly described in Annex C (for more information, see IEEE Std 845 ). The
evaluation techniques may be divided into different categories that are related to the way each technique is used.
b) The evaluation methods should be practical, and effective.
c) Fast and inexpensive evaluation methods should be used wherever possible and the more sophisticated
and expensive methods restricted to those evaluations that require them.
4.9 Verification and validation measures
a) The evaluation process should, as far as possible, include quantitative measures of the required features
and performance.
NOTE 1 With reference to verification and validation: in a few cases it might not be possible to derive objective
evidence of meeting requirements. For these cases, appropriate subjective assessments could be an alternative.
b) Overall goals such as safety and availability are often difficult to measure and other aspects should be
addressed during evaluation of control centres and human-system interfaces. The following are examples
of some human performance measures that should be considered:
1) “Compatibility” — the way in which things are presented to operators, and the responses to be
expected from the operators, are compatible with human input-output abilities and limitations.
NOTE 2 Compatibility means that operators should be able to read displays, reach controls, etc., regardless of
overall system objectives.
2) “Understandability” — the information displayed is easily understood and the manual control actions
achieve the desired system response.
NOTE 3 Understandability means that the structure, format and content of the human-system dialogue results
in meaningful communication.
3) “Situation awareness” — the situation is understood and, based on current status and past history,
offers the possibility of future predictions.
4) “Controllability” — upon which the operator can base future decisions.
NOTE 4 Controllability means to have a certain control of the present situation and knowledge of the history
that has led up to the existing status.
5) “Mental workload” measures are based on the hypothesis that the operator has limited cognitive
processing capacity.
NOTE 5 Published literature describes mental workload as that portion of the operator's limited capacity
actually required to perform a particular task.
8 © ISO 2006 – All rights reserved

---------------------- Page: 18 ----------------------

SIST EN ISO 11064-7:2006
ISO 11064-7:2006(E)
6) Measures of “teamwork”.
NOTE 6 The major factors usually listed when describing effective team processes concern its “potency”. This
includes social support for team members by helping each other. Other factors include positive social
interactions, sharing of workload, communication and cooperation within the team. All these factors are
positively related to team effectiveness, productivity and satisfaction.
7) Measures of “Learnability”.
NOTE 7 Learnability means that inexperienced users can easily learn how to use the system with little or no
need to consult manuals.
8) Measures of “improved performance” such as “effectiveness”, “efficiency” and “satisfaction”.
NOTE 8 Improved performance means to make a difficult task easier or enable an operator to accomplish a
task that might otherwise be impossible. “Effectiveness”, “efficiency” and “satisfaction” together form the three
[2]
measures of usability. ISO 9241-11 gives details on how to measure usability.
NOTE 9 Effectiveness: a human-system environment is effective if it supports the operator (or crew) to
improve their performance, e.g. reduction of human error such as procedure violations.
NOTE 10 Efficiency means that the resources expended in relation to the accuracy and completeness with
which users achieve goals, e.g. task times.
NOTE 11 Satisfaction signifies the promotion of maximum comfort and positive attitudes through which users
achieve goals.
9) Systems performance measures relevant to facility safety (e.g. by keeping specific process
parameters within a certain range).
10) Workstation layout, including dynamic anthropometry evaluations as well as physical positioning and
interactions.
4.10 Verification and validation res
...