Shanghai Nuclear Power Plant Control Room Modifications

P1
ASQ International Team Excellence Award Competition 2018
Sunflower, Better Energy，Better Life

Qinshan Nuclear Power Plant Main Control Room Modification
Human Factors Engineering Project
SNERDI @Shanghai, China
Good afternoon, distinguished audience and judgers.
We are “Sunflower, Better Energy, Better Life” team from a design institute
SNERDI.
Today we will present Qinshan Nuclear Power Plant Main Control Room
Modification Human Factors Engineering Project.
[CLICK 1] This is our team’s LOGO.
[NEXT]
1
P2
Section 01
Project Background and Purpose
Project Background and Purpose 1.00
Organizational Approach to Project Planning 1.01
Project Identification Process 1.02
Project Selection Process 1.03
Project Selection 1.04
Project Goals and Benefits 1.05
Success Measures/Criteria Identified 1.06
Let’s start with section one.
[NEXT]
2
Project Background and Purpose 3-1
1.00 Shanghai & Clean Energy – Nuclear Energy Industry - Company & Award
P3
SNERDI AWARD TEAM AWARD

In Worldwide
• Global performance excellent ▪ China Quality Trustworthy Team
award in 2012 ▪ National QC Team Award
In China
• National electric industry
quality award in 2009
• National advanced quality work
company in 2011
• China Performance Excellence
Award in 2012
• National quality award in 2014
• Shanghai quality management
gold award in 2016
We come from Shanghai, a modern, fashionable metropolis, and also the

Clean Energy R&D center in China.
Our team is named as Sunflower, because we have a dream of Better

Energy, to create a green world and to provide Better Life for human
beings.
Nuclear energy has been recognized as a clean and economic energy

worldwide. 436 units contribute 12% of the world’s electric energy.
So far, America ranks the top. In China, nuclear power has been developing
rapidly.
SNERDI, established in 1970’s in Shanghai, is the first and best commercial

nuclear power plant design institute in China. Our vision is to be a world-
leading innovative nuclear energy designer and developer.
3
The first nuclear power plant in mainland China was designed by SNERDI
30 years ago, in Qinshan. It has been operating with zero accident and
achieved great commercial success till now.
Striving towards Excellent Performance, we won lots of awards and
recognition at home and abroad.
This is us, Sunflower team from SNERDI.
[NEXT]
3
1.00 P4
Shanghai & Clean Energy – Nuclear Energy Industry - Company & Award (Video)
(Same as last page）
We come from Shanghai, a modern, fashionable metropolis, and also the

Clean Energy R&D center in China.
Our team is named as Sunflower, because we have a dream of Better

Energy, to create a green world and to provide Better Life for human
beings.
Nuclear energy has been recognized as a clean and economic energy

worldwide. 436 units contribute 12% of the world’s electric energy.
So far, America ranks the top. In China, nuclear power has been developing
rapidly.
SNERDI, established in 1970’s in Shanghai, is the first and best commercial

nuclear power plant design institute in China. Our vision is to be a world-
4
leading innovative nuclear energy designer and developer.
The first nuclear power plant in mainland China was designed by SNERDI
30 years ago, in Qinshan. It has been operating with zero accident and
achieved great commercial success till now.
Striving towards Excellent Performance, we won lots of awards and
recognition at home and abroad.
This is us, Sunflower team from SNERDI.
[NEXT]
4
1.00 Abbreviations & Terminology
P5
Human System
NPP Nuclear Power Plant MCR Main Control Room HSI Interface
Human Factors
HFE Engineering HED HFE Discrepancy VR Virtual Reality
For the better understanding of the project, we list important abbreviations

before we present our project story:
▪ NPP, Nuclear Power Plant
▪ MCR, Main Control Room
▪ HSI, Human System Interface
▪ HFE, Human Factors Engineering
▪ HED, HFE Discrepancy
▪ VR, Virtual Reality
[NEXT]
5
1.01 Organizational Approach to Project Planning 2-1 P6
Leadership Multi-year
Dr. Zheng Mingguang Project
President of SNERDI Culture of Excellent
IAQ Academician Performance & Nuclear Safety Planning
SWOT
Strategy and Planning

Ensure Safety & Generate Power
Regulatory Products
Professional Work Process
• HAF003 • Qinshan NPP
• Environment Management System • Health & Safety Management System
• HAD003 Series • Shanmen AP1000
• Administration Management System • Risk Management System
• ASME NQA-1
• Finance Management System • Guohe 1# CAP1400
• IAEA GS-R-3
• GB/T 19580
• ISO 9001
Input Digitalized Quality Management Platform Output
• OHSAS 18001
• ISO 14001
Quality Performance Ranking for the Design output Design Quality Services
Evaluation Quality Index Control Process Management System
• TSG R1001 • Design
• Modification
• O&M
Customer
• NPP owner
Supporting Work Process
Info KM HR AS TC FN CT
Organization Structure and Responsibility

Measurement, Assessment and Improvement
We use SNERDI Performance Excellence Management System as the

Organizational Approach for projects identification and planning.
We have the professional work process and the digitalized quality

management platform to collect the voice of customers, voice of process,
the requirements from regulatory to drive the multi-year project planning.
[NEXT]
6
1.01 Organizational Approach to Project Planning 2-2 P7
Project Selection Committee Responsibility:

Technical • The rigorous application of the project selection process
Members • In alignment with Strategic Planning (Ensure safety +
Committee
Generate Power)
▪ COO(Leader) ▪ General Tech. Director • Evaluate and score all applications
▪ CFO ▪ Senior Experts • Select the highest priority project based on overall score
▪ CMO (ME/EE/I&C/F&M/HFE/AC) form
▪ NPP Operation • Provision of needed resources for projects deployment
▪ HR Manager
▪ Quality Director Supervisors
Sources of Information/
Stage Tools Why
Data
•Strategy & Planning
•Digitalized Quality Management
•Voice of Process •On line Voice of Customer to understand
Platform
Problems & •Voice of Customer requirements/complains.
➢ Voice of Customer
Opportunities •Voice of National Regulatory •Understand the Voice of Process
➢ Satisfaction Surveys
Detection Agency •Analyze process quality and detect special
➢ Design Management System
•Operation Experience deviation
➢ Operation Experience Review (OER)
•KPIs Performance
Potential Projects •Project Pool •Collection of potential projects from design,
•Potential Projects List
Identification •Affinity Diagram modification, O&M
•Project Selection Criteria •Project Selection Matrix •Focus on important projects on selection criteria
Projects Selection
•Important Projects List •Score Principle •Select projects with higher score.
Members of Project Selection Committee include COO, quality director,

high-level technical experts from various fields and so on.
Source of information, data and tools are incorporated into the project
identification and selection process.
[NEXT]
7
1.02 Project Identification Process (General) P8
◼ Sources of Information / Data SNERDI Performance Excellence

Management System Detected
Strategic & Planning Strategic Goals Problems &
Opportunities
Voice of Process
Voice of Customer
Identified
Potential
Projects
KPIs from DMS
Documented Identification Process
SN-W-PM-008 Project identification Management
SN-W-PM-102 Proposal Management of Modification Projects

Customers’Satisfaction
Voice of National & Experience Feedback SN-W-PM-133 Proposal Management of Design Projects
Regulatory Agency SN-W-PM-222 Proposal Management of O&M Projects
SN-W-PM-108 Acceptance Evaluation Management of Project

Identification
SN-W-PM-077 Project Selection Committee Management
All the potential projects are identified by the SNERDI Performance

Excellence Management System and the Documented Identification
process. All the problems and opportunities are detected and then all
identified projects are collected in the project pool.
[NEXT]
8
1.03 Project Selection Process (General) P9
Who Documented Selection Process

PROJECT POOL
•Candidates and quality engineer provide data SN-W-PM-133 Project Selection Management
SN-W-PM-077 Project Selection Committee Management

•Project Selection Committee analyze and decide
Project Selection Matrix Project Selection

Project Selection Process flow chart
Group
Committee Review
Operators (End
Benefit to other
Impact on NPP
Review
Link with other
Total Score
(time, budget)
shutdown or
customers)
Resources
objectives
Impact on
Impact on
Impact on
operation
Financial
Urgency
strategic
Criteria
project
Impact
(1~10)
(need
safety
Cost
NPP
not)
Review
Department Important Project
Review
Project Weight 10 10 10 7 9 9 8 9 9 5 ∑(Weight* Fill Overall

Project Score)
Selection
Selection Score Evaluation Form and
Give Conclusion
Committee
Committee
of each Project
Review
Review Scoring Principles
Important
Criteria 5-6 7-8 project 9-10
Normal and minor modification with major Select
High risk on nuclear safety.
Impact to modification, no defects, little change on
National Regulatory Agency has
the Final Project
Safety change on critical- critical-safety function,
paid attention.
safety function. need to be evaluated.
Requires to be request to be modified
require to be modified
Urgency modified within 2
within 1 year
immediately if possible or in the Approval
Approved year nearest overhaul
Projects Cost <1 million RMB 1-5 million RMB 5-10 million RMB
The Flowchart on the left shows how we select projects based on

Documented Selection Process.
In the Project Selection Matrix, we define ten criteria with weight.
We also provide the Scoring Principles of each criterion. So we can get the
total score.
Candidates and quality engineers provide data for group review and
department review first.
[CLICK 1]
If the project has high score on impact to safety or urgency or cost, i.e, at
least one of these three criteria is scored on a scale of nine to ten, it is
defined as important project, then this project will enter the Project
Selection Committee review. The project selection committee will review
9
and evaluate to select the final projects.
[NEXT]
9
1.04 Project Selection Process (Specific) 3-1 P10
◼ Sources of Information / Data

Strategic & Planning
Voice
Voice of Customer
of Customer
Voice
Voice of Process
of Process
Voice of
Voice of Regulatory
Regulatory
Operation Experience
KPI Performance
performance
Voice of Process /Operation

Digitalized Experience Review
Quality Management (OER)
Platform Strategy and Planning
Ensure Safety & Generate Power
Voice of the Customer Voice of Regulatory

Satisfaction • HAF003 • HAF001
Surveys • HAD003 Series • HAF002
from NPP: • ASME NQA-1 • HAF501
Ranking of KPI Performance • Qinshan • IAEA GS-R-3 • ISO 9001
• Guohe 1# • GB/T 19580 • NUREG
• Sanmen • ISO 14001 • NRC
• Annual KPI • Haiyang • TSG R1001 • GB/NB
• Finished
Communicate
regularly with
customer
By SNERDI’s digitalized quality management platform, we identified 147

potential projects.
[CLICK 1] We collected the voice of customers, voice of process, the

requirements from regulatory and so on.
[NEXT]
10
Project Selection Matrix
DONE BY OTHER TEAMS
Group Review
Department DONE BY OUR TEAM
Review
Total 27
Project Selection
Committee Review
Qinshan Nuclear Power Plant Control Room Modification
Human Factors Engineering Project
Approved
Total 5
Approved Projects
All the projects were prioritized in this Selection Matrix by group and
department.
[CLICK 1] Next, 27 projects of them were eligible for important projects. So

they were moved into the Selection Round for Important Project
reviewed by the Project Selection Committee.
[CLICK 2] Ultimately, 5 projects passed the final review successfully and

would be managed by different project teams.
[CLICK 3] Our team is responsible for the main control room modification
human factors engineering (HFE) project. The project selection committee
determined to start this project immediately.
[NEXT]
11
What is HFE? Why HFE?
HFE Design for Console
Technology Environment
Human
Organization Task
Human Factors Engineering (HFE) has specific focus on the interaction

between human, technology, tasks, environment and organization. Its
essence is a Human Centered Design.
[CLICK 1]
Pictures show the difference between poor and good HFE application.
So the reason why we applied HFE to our project is to increase the

suitability and availability of human system interface (HSI) in main control
room (MCR); to ensure safety without human errors; and to systemically
improve human performance of operators.
[NEXT]
12
1.05 Project Goals and Benefits P13
Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3

Safe Operation No Delay Benchmark Establishment
of MCR for an Additional 20 Years of the Modification Outage 118 As the 1st HFE Project in the 1st MCR
Modification Project in China
Benefit 1.1 Benefit 2 Benefit 3

Make Additional Profit Avoid Delay Cost Leverage the Industry Practice for
200 million/y 3 million/d Following 37 Units
Benefit 1.2
Reduced CO2 Emissions
7.8 million t/y
Nuclear energy is a “Safety First” industry. The primary goal was “Safe
Operation of MCR for an additional 20 years”, which would bring large profit
and decrease of the carbon dioxide emission measured by the whole plant.
The second goal was “No Delay of the Modification Outage”. The
commercial operation of Qinshan nuclear power plant on schedule could
avoid 3million RMB per day as the delay cost.
The third goal is about the LEVERAGE, which means to establish the
benchmark for the entire nuclear energy industry in mainland China, since it
is the 1st HFE Project in the 1st MCR Modification Project
[NEXT]
13
1.06 Success Measures/Criteria Identified P14
Criteria Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3

Type Safe Operation No Delay Benchmark Establishment
Gap
HFE Analysis Coverage Rate No Delay Positive Feedback
Increase from 5% to 100% of Outage due to HFE Project by the Regulator & Industry
HED Resolution Rate

N/A
Priority I & II HED, 100% N/A
Priority III HED , 85%
Human Performance Index N/A N/A

Increase by 5%
Additional N/A N/A

Safe Operation During Outage
Counter Labor Cost Growth Rate N/A

N/A
Metrics ≤ 10%
For better project control, we detailed 3 goals with more criteria.
For the 1st Goal as safe operation, there were 3 gap criteria items as below:
- HFE Analysis Coverage Rate, increasing from 5% to 100%
- HFE Discrepancy (HED ) Resolution Rate, reaching a high resolution rate
especially for high priority HEDs
- Human Performance Index, increasing by 5%
An additional criteria for the safe operation during outage was added as well.
For the second goal, the gap criteria “no delay” had a Counter Metrics which
aimed to control the increase of labor cost due to the high priority of outage
duration limit.
For the third goal, the positive feedback from the regulator and industry
would be more convinced as the criteria.
14
[NEXT]
14
P15
Section 02
Project Framework
Concise Project Statement 2.01
Type of Project 2.02
Scope Statement 2.03
Assumptions/Expectation 2.04
Project Schedule/High-level 2.05
Budget(Financial or Resource) 2.06
Risk Management 2.07
Now let’s start with the project framework.
[NEXT]
15
PROJECT STATEMENT
P16
• Current State: MCR without systematic HFE analysis
• Desired future state: A state-of-the-art HFE level design
• Gap: HFE discrepancies
PROJECT TYPE
Design Project
ASSUMPTIONS/EXPECTATIONS PROJECT SCOPE
BUDGET (Financial and/or Resource Constrains)
1540 Person ∙ Day

PROJECT SCHEDULE
2016 2017 2018
Stg.
10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
P
D/V
IV
RISK MANAGEMENT
This Project Framework Template provides an overview of all topics in this

section.
[NEXT]
16
2.01 Concise Project Statement P17
• Current State: MCR without systematic HFE analysis

• Desired future state: A state-of-the-art HFE level design
• Gap: HFE discrepancies
from current to desired future state
The project statement is as follows:

• The current MCR of Qinshan NPP was designed 30 years ago without
systematic HFE analysis.
• The desired future state of this project is to develop a state-of-the-art
HFE level design for improving human performance and for supporting
the safe operation of additional 20 years;
• HFE discrepancies will be well solved.
[NEXT]
17
2.02 Type of Project P18
Type of project
Design Project
st
1 in China Project Approach 4.01, 5.01
1st Full-scope MCR modification Plan Analysis Design/Verification Integrated Validation

1st HFE project for full-scope MCR modification
P A D/V IV
No Methodology Guide
No available standard design criteria,
scheme, or template for reference,
only high level requirement
It is a Design Project
What an exciting challenge! This was the first HFE project for the first full-
scope MCR modification project in China. We had nothing about the design
for reference, only the high level requirement was available.
A Plan, Analysis, Design/Verification, Integrated Validation 4 stages

approach was used to support our benchmarking project, which required an
iterative design process with experiences and innovations of team members
to achieve an outstanding outputs.
This innovative 4-stage Approach combined HFE design principles with

Six Sigma tool，and was firstly proposed by SNERDI to establish the
benchmark for the subsequent renovation of worldwide NPPs.
18
[NEXT]
18
2.03 Scope Statement P19
Category In-Scope Out-of-Scope Project Plan

▪ In Plant Standards List ▪ NOT in Plant Standards List ▪ Compared with new-build
Standards
▪ Before 31st, Dec. 2015 ▪ After 31st, Dec. 2015 Chapter 4 Project Scope project to ensure
▪ Maintenance engineers Completeness
Users ▪ Operators ▪ Managers ▪ All Documented
▪ Local operators in Project Plan
▪ Control Room Layout
▪ Consoles and Panels ▪ CCTV System
▪ Alarm Window System ▪ Fire Protection System
HSI Alarm Windows
▪ Plant Computer System ▪ Office Computer System
▪ Control Room Environment ▪ Equipment Storage
▪ General Method in Planning Plant Computer

▪ Affinity Analysis
▪ Trade-off Analysis
Method ▪ Scoping ▪ Function Analysis
(Tools) ▪ Rapid Prototype Iteration ▪ Human Reliability Analysis
▪ Task Cognitive Walkthrough
Consoles/Panels
▪ HED Resolution
▪ Simulator-based Validation Test
The scope statement was categorized as 4 dimensions.

Experiences from previous new-build projects were referenced to ensure
the completeness of scope definition in this project.
Standards, the basis of Engineering Design Projects, were scoped by clear

items and reversion.
Temporary users were not within the consideration of this project.
In the category HSI, for example, commercial complete equipment like fire
protection system was removed.
Methods like Function analysis and Human reliability analysis were
removed compared with new-build project.
All the in-scope and out-of-scope items were clearly addressed in the HFE
Project Plan for better track, in compliance with the Mandatory
Requirement in the Organization.
19
The statement was reviewed and approved by the champion. Except the
control room environment was removed due to the risk on the delay in the
trade-off analysis later, there was no change.
[NEXT]
19
2.04 Assumptions/Expectations P20
Assumptions Lists (Documented in Project Plan)

Providers Assumptions/Expectations Communication Result
Accepted in principle, but the date and
Arrange the review meeting and
frequency exist uncertain. One expert from
Regulator TIMELY feedback the review
regulator is appointed as our Technical
comments
Consultant.
General
Coordinate schedule and resources Assumptions/Expectations
Champion Accepted
cross projects for All HFE Projects
(3)
Participant in the discussion and
HSI Designers engaged in the design change
Get commitment from Manager
Interview, questionnaire and test Accepted by 30 operators of Qinshan NPP and

Operators subjects added into annual re-training program
Qinshan Old Simulator is available
Promise to provides the tools and build the new
New simulator is constructed and
Training Center permits to use； Simulator instructors
simulator in the planned stage
(AGREED AND LISTED IN CONTRACT) Assumptions/Expectations
Training Mentors
for this Project
Console/Panel Sample Parts before Oct. 2017 Promise to provide sample once available
(4)
Supplier Physical Mockups before Nov. 2017 Confirmed in the procurement contract
Plant Computer Promise to provide prototype platform by other

Prototype of plant computer system
System before Jan. 2018
project before Jan. 2018
Supplier Promise to provide configuration files
We used the feedback from other project validated by all stakeholders who
were not with our team, and deduced a comprehensive list with 3 general
Assumptions and 4 Project Specific Assumptions.
For example, the new simulator was planned to be delivered after 6 months
of MCR modification implementation according to normal practice. However,
considering its importance in HFE validation test, the availability of the new
simulator before implementation must be ensured. Eventually, training
center agreed to change the contract with their suppliers to ensure the
availability and requirements on time.
After negotiation, all the providers accepted to fulfill the assumptions and
expectations.
[NEXT]
20
2.05 Project Schedule/High-level Plan P21
2016 2017 2018

Stg. Milestones
10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
P
▪ Approval plan
▪ Establish HFE guideline
A ▪ 3 D/V milestones
▪ Success of Simulator-based
D/V
validation test
IV
▪ Project closure approval
Change Manage Mechanics Objects of Monthly Routine Meeting

◼ Check accomplishment of the actions decided in
▪ Monthly Review last routine meeting
◼ Track and review the project schedule
▪ Team Members
◼ Raise issues and new risks in project process
+ Champion(as necessary) and Discuss resolution of the issues
+ Other Stakeholders (as necessary) ◼ Decide to do actions
▪ Update HFE Plan if change occurred ◼ Change schedule and risk list as necessary
▪ Schedule Management Software Schedule Management

APP on Smart Phone
This is the High-level Project Schedule with milestones illustrated with four
project stages.
The schedule was monthly reviewed in the routine meeting of the project.
The HFE plan would be updated if the any factors of the project ( such as
scopes, schedule etc.) was changed. Changes to the plan needed to be
presented at the monthly meeting and approved by Champion. So that the
works could be pushed to complete with no delay.
We used P6 software for project schedule management. And an app on

smart phone was also available for our champion and team members to
track the schedule anytime and anywhere.
[NEXT]
21
2.06 Budget(Financial or Resources) P22
▪ No Procurement Cost (Available in HFE LAB)

1540 Person ∙ Day ▪ Use Labor Cost for Financial/Resources Control
Budget Timeline
Accumulated Labor Cost

20% 100%
Monthly Labor Cost
16% 80%
12% 60%
8% 40%
4% 20%
0% 0%
10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
2016 2017 2018 Labor Management System
Time All Projects * All Employee
Since all hardware and software were available in SNERDI HFE LAB, and
the depreciation was out of the project scope, Labor Cost was the only
factor affecting the budget/resources control in our project.
Our project had 1540 person*day budget according to the experience and
WBS analysis.
Budget timeline was developed, and there was a Labor Hour

Management System available for all projects and employees for labor
hour utilization tracking during the project progress.
[NEXT]
22
2.07 Risk Management P23
Monitoring@Stage
Dimension Risk Prediction Grade Symptoms Contingency Plan
P A D/V IV
Regulator Reject the solution and results H Any disagrees Invite the regulator to inspect 〇〇
Schedule Project delay H Milestone delay Add labor cost and Backup time 〇〇〇〇
Unavailability of extra HFE designers M Workload increase or Dynamic monitoring plan 〇〇〇〇
Resource Unavailability of simulator L reduce of free Application of digital tools 〇
Unavailability of operators L schedule champion’s coordination 〇
Hold routine meeting
Organization Unfamiliar with HFE principles M. Unknown what to do
Give appropriate training 〇〇〇〇
Can not solve HED due to cost or schedule limits H 〇〇
Communication and discussion,
Technology Conflict on HFE guideline and operators' habit L Failures, rejects, 〇〇〇
set backup time,
Unknow inconformity from new supplier L delays 〇〇
Optimization plan
Failure of validation test L 〇〇
According to the
New risk Unexpected risk arising during the project H/M/L
active conditions
Track and resolve in real time 〇〇〇〇
Project Tracking Mechanism

Risk
Chief in charge Project Manager
Anticipate conditions Different from “Symptom”
Track and review the project schedule

Tracking mechanism
Change schedule and risk list as necessary
Document Risks
in the Project Plan
We defined risk sources by five dimensions, including Regulator, Schedule,

Resource, Organization and Technology.
Then we identified the risks by grade, symptoms, corresponding

contingency plan, and at which stage these risks may occur. The
information was documented in the Project Plan as well.
The risk list was monthly reviewed in the routine meeting of the project
based on the occurrence of any symptom, and deviations of plan were
reviewed to identify potential new risks during the progress. Decisions and
supporting resources which addressed risks, should be clearly implemented
during the meeting avoiding any delay.
[NEXT]
23
P24
Section 03
Stakeholders and the Project Team
Stakeholders and How Identified 3.01
Project Champion 3.02
Project Team Selection 3.03
Team Preparation 3.04
Team Routines 3.05
In this section, we will cover basic information about our project

stakeholders and team.
[NEXT]
24
3.01 Stakeholders and How Identified 2-1 P25
Stakeholders
Identification S I P O C
Supplier Input Process Output Customers
Stakeholders
Analysis
▪ Directors ▪ Standards
▪ Operators ▪ Regulator Requirements ▪ Project Approval
Champion ▪ HFE Designers ▪ Director Requirements ▪ Plan
▪ Plan ▪ Operators
Selection Internal ▪ Risk ▪ Regulators
▪ HSI Designers ▪ Operator Feedback ▪ Analysis
▪ Deliveries ▪ HSI Designers
▪ Quality Expert ▪ Detail HSI Design ▪ Design
▪ Modified MCR ▪ Directors
▪ Training Center ▪ Construction ▪ Verification
Team Member ▪ Modified Procedure ▪ Suppliers
▪ Plant Physical Features ▪ Validation
Selection ▪ Modified Training ▪ HFE Designers
▪ Modification Differences ▪ Acceptance
▪ Monitoring Plan ▪ Quality Expert
▪ Regulators ▪ Procedures ▪ Monitoring
External ▪ Equipment Design
Team ▪ Suppliers
Preparation
Team
Routines
In order to identify all potential stakeholders, the tool SIPOC was used to
make it clear.
On the final list, internal stakeholders included directors, HFE designers,

operators, HSI designers, quality experts and training center, and external
stakeholders included regulators and suppliers.
[NEXT]
25
3.01 Stakeholders and How Identified 2-2 P26
Stakeholders Stake- Interest Influence Major Project

Identification holders Degree Degree Needs & Expectations
No delay
Satisfaction Management Directors 5 5 Pass regulator review
Director
Stakeholders Regulator Enhance HFE
Analysis Operators 5 3
A more error tolerant and
user-friendly MCR
Influence
Provide a high HFE level

HFE MCR and satisfy the
Champion Operators
Designers
4 3 expectations of key
Selection Quality stakeholders
HSI HFE HSI Successfully completed the
Designers Designer
Designers
3 2 design work of the MCR
Team Member Suppliers Training
Quality Meet quality assurance
Center 2 3
Selection Experts requirements.
Supervision Notification
Successfully complete
Training
Interest Center
2 1 operation training for
Team modified MCR
Preparation Stakeholder Weight Analysis Receive confident HFE

Regulators 3 5 evidences for the safe
operation
Standard delivers meet the
Team Suppliers 2 1 project requirements
Routines
Internal External
In order to fully understand our stakeholders, stakeholder weight analysis

was conducted by using the tool Interest-Influence analysis. The matrix,
which had 4 quadrants and 2 dimensions, revealed prioritized relative
position of each stakeholder on interest and influence. You can find
clearer resulting data with descending order listed on the right table.
The major project needs and expectations of each stakeholder were pointed
out as well to support further communication and resistance analysis.
[NEXT]
26
3.02 Project Champion 2-1 P27
Stakeholders
Identification
Interest Influence
Stakeholders
Degree Degree
Stakeholders Directors 5 5
Analysis
Operators 5 3
Vice President
HFE Designers 4 3
Champion Yin Weiping
Selection HSI Designers 3 2
Quality Experts 2 3
Training Center 2 1
Team Member
Selection Regulators 3 5
Suppliers 2 1 Chief Engineer
Kong Deping
Team Internal External
Preparation Champion Selection Rule Project Champion(Sponsors)
The internal stakeholder with Highest Influence Degree
Team
Routines
As a result, directors among all internal stakeholders scored the highest

on influence degree and were identified as the project’s champions
and sponsors. So, VP Mr. Yin and Chief Engineer Ms. Kong were
identified our project champions.
They had power and technical capacity to remove barriers, obtain resources
and drive results within the organization.
[NEXT]
27
3.02 Project Champion 2-2 P28
Stakeholders Project Champion

Champions’ 2-2
Major Concerns
Identification Concerns Workshop Kick-off Meeting
Pass Regulator Review √ √
Stakeholders No Delay √ √
Analysis
Enhance HFE Applicability √ √
Champion Communicated to the Team

Selection Communication Plan with Champions
in the Kick-off Meeting
Method P A D/V IV
Team Member E-mail A A A A
Selection
Face to face A A A A
Meeting W R M M
Team
Wechat A A A A
Preparation
Phone A A A A
Team E-mail Communication

A: As needed W: Weekly M: Monthly R: Review meeting
Routines
Our project champions concerned about the project’s passing of safety

review, accomplishing with no delay, and enhancing the applicability of
Human Factors Engineering.
Communication plan was created so that project champions and the team
could communicate with each other in a highly- efficient way. They kept
communicating with the team on their total concerns, in the manner of
kick-off meeting, workshop, and E-mails.
Team members knew the project’s importance to project champions

and the appropriate communication means.
[NEXT]
28
3.03 Project Team Selection P29
Team From who Knowledge

Stakeholders Knowledge Required Training
Role (Stakeholders) Gap
Identification
▪ Project Management ▪ Yes (need advanced training)
▪ Human Factors Engineering ▪ No
Project ▪ Quality Training
▪ HSI Knowledge HFE Designers ▪ Yes (need advanced training)
Stakeholders Manager ▪ Operation Training
▪ Operation Knowledge ▪ Yes
Analysis ▪ Quality Knowledge ▪ Yes
▪ Human Factors Engineering ▪ Yes (need advanced training) ▪ Quality Training

HFE ▪ HSI Knowledge ▪ Yes ▪ HFE Training
HFE Designers
Champion Designer ▪ Operation Knowledge ▪ Yes ▪ HSI Training
▪ Quality Knowledge ▪ Yes ▪ Operation Training
Selection
▪ Human Factors Engineering ▪ Yes
▪ Quality Training
Operation ▪ HSI Knowledge ▪ Yes
Operators ▪ HFE Training
Expert ▪ Operation Knowledge ▪ No
▪ HSI Training
Team Member ▪ Quality Knowledge ▪ Yes
Selection ▪ Human Factors Engineering ▪ Yes
▪ Quality Training
▪ HSI Knowledge ▪ No
HSI Expert HSI Designers ▪ HFE Training
▪ Operation Knowledge ▪ Yes
▪ Operation Training
Team ▪ Quality Knowledge ▪ Yes
▪ Human Factors Engineering ▪ Yes

Preparation ▪ HFE Training
Quality ▪ HSI Knowledge ▪ Yes
Quality Experts ▪ HSI Training
Expert ▪ Operation Knowledge ▪ Yes
▪ Operation Training
▪ Quality Knowledge ▪ No
Team
Routines Representatives from operators and HSI designers were invited as team members,
while others still played role as stakeholders just outside the project team.
At the start of the project, we made plans for team selection, defining
team roles and knowledge required.
Accordingly, we found out team members from stakeholders. It should be

noted that some of the operators and HSI designers were selected as team
members, while others still played role as stakeholders just outside the
project team.
We confirmed the team members’ skill gaps between their current level
of knowledge and the knowledge required. After finishing our plans for
team selection, we collected all the skill gaps which were showed on the
table, and arranged corresponding trainings for them.
[NEXT]
29
3.04 Team Preparation P30
Stakeholders Forming Storming Norming Performing

Identification
▪ Kick-off meeting ▪ Visit the Qinshan NPP ▪ WeChat Group
▪ Team barbecue ▪ Training
Stakeholders ▪ Brainstorming
Analysis
Team Years of
Team Building Activities
Members Cooperation
Champion
Song Fei 9
Selection Brainstorming Plant Visit
Wang Qiuyu 10
Gu Danying 9
Team Member
Selection Ma Jun 10 Team Building
Chen Mingjin 10
Team
Luo Jingping None
Preparation
Yuan Zhong 4
Ma Yuezhu 4
Team
Routines Shen Jialin 3
We organized several team building activities for team preparation in the

early stage of the project. We held a project kick-off meeting and arranged
team barbecue after the meeting. We also set up a chatting group in Wechat,
which is a Chinese social app like Whatsapp. So members could liaise with
each other any time.
Though many of our team members had a history of working together for
nearly one decade, a specific visit to Qinshan Power Plant gave all the
team members, especially newcomers, a chance to know more about the
plant operation and our project as well. Adequate trainings and
brainstorming meetings brought all team members in-depth understanding
on our project and increased personal bonds.
[NEXT]
30
3.05 Team Routines P31
Stakeholders
Communication Plan
Identification
Stake-
Content Tools P A D/V IV
holders
Stakeholders Champion Project ▪ Meeting W R M M
Analysis progress and
▪ E-mail
reports
File, Fax ▪ Wechat
A A A A
▪ Face to face
More
Champion Formal Meeting Minutes ▪ Phone
Selection Team Internal ▪ Meeting W W W W
Shared folders Members technical
▪ Shared
communication
Emails Folders
Team Member ▪ E-mail
A A A A
Selection We-Chat ▪ Wechat
▪ Face to face
Face-to-face, Phone ▪ Phone
Team Other ▪ Meeting — — B B
Stake-
Preparation holders
▪ Fax
▪ E-mail
— — A A
▪ Wechat,
▪ Phone
Team
Routines A: As needed W: Weekly B: Biweekly M: Monthly R: Review meeting
From the very beginning, team routines and expectations had been
established, which included phone call, face-to-face talk, WeChat group
discussion, E-Mails, and collaborative work in shared folders. Meeting
minutes, files and faxes served as official formal way of communication.
Project Communication Plan was set up at the beginning of our project, so

that project champion and the team could understand team routines and
communicate with each other highly efficiently, by using tools mentioned
before. At each stage, stakeholders had varying communication needs in
terms of frequency, including ‘as needed', biweekly, weekly, monthly and
review meeting as listed in our communication plan.
[NEXT]
31
P32
Section 04
Project Overview
Project Approach 4.01
Tools Used Throughout Project 4.02
Tools Output at Different Stages of Projects 4.03
How Team Was Prepared to Use the Tools 4.04
Dealing with Project Risk 4.05
Encountering and Handling Resistance as a Risk 4.06
Stakeholder Involvement in Project 4.07
I’m the PM of this project. Let’s start the project overview.

[NEXT]
32
4.01 Project Approach 2-1
P33
TYPE OF PROJECT: Design

DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT APPROACH:
The project adopts a P-A-D/V-IV approach：Plan, Analysis, Design/Verification, Integrated Validation
(Combine the analysis and verification to facilitate a iteration design process)
Plan Analysis Design & Verification Integrated Validation
SIPOC Affinity Analysis Rapid Prototype Iteration Simulator-based
Identify all stakeholders Summarize & categorize HSI Check the suitability of the Validation Test
modification demands human system interaction Provide confident evidences
Influence & Interest features with regard to design that the integrated HSI
Analysis Trade-off Analysis guidelines in a timely manner system (HSI, Tasks,
Recognize champion, key Convert HSI modification Operators) design solution
stakeholders & team members demands into design Task Cognitive adequately supports plant
specifications Walkthrough personnel in safely operating
Voice of Stakeholders Check the availability of HSI the plant
Generate project goals & criteria Scoping items needed to support task
Specify the project HFE sequence with regard to design
In-Scope/Out-of-Scope guidelines guidelines
Fully understand the project
scope HED Resolution
Evaluate and identify correction
Brainstorming action, re-verify the design
Capture assumptions, change
expectations and risks
This was a Design Project with a 4-Stage Approach, including Plan,

Analysis, Design & Verification, Integrated Validation (P-A-D/V-IV).
[NEXT]
33
4.01 Project Approach 2-2
P34
TYPE OF PROJECT: Design

DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT APPROACH:
The project adopts a P-A-D/V-IV approach：Plan, Analysis, Design/Verification, Integrated Validation
(Combine the analysis and verification to facilitate an iteration design process)
Define the stakeholders and Generate project HFE Form the high HFE level Provide confident
organization, goals criteria, guidelines based on the MCR modification solution evidences that the
scope, assumptions and modification demands with regard to design integrated HSI system
expectations, risks, and collected from stakeholders guidelines through iterative (HSI, Tasks, Operators)
schedule to guide the and state-of-the-art design-verification cycles design solution
effectively accomplishment of standards adequately supports plant
the project personnel in safely
operating the plant
Adapted from Industrial General Approach for New-built NPP Project

Effective and Efficient for Complex Integrated System Design Project
In Plan stage, we defined all the critical factors, such as stakeholders, goals,
scope, risks , schedule and etc.
Analysis Stage generated project HFE guidelines, which were based on the
modification demands from stakeholders and state-of-the-art standards.
Design & Verification were combined to facilitate an iteration design process.

This Stage formed the high HFE level MCR modification solution with
regard to design guidelines through iterative design-verification cycles.
At last, Integrated Validation Stage provided confident evidences

that the integrated HSI system (HSI, Tasks, Operators) design
solution adequately supported plant personnel in safely operating plant.
Adapted from industrial general approach for new-built NPP, this

approach in particular was effective and efficient for complex integrated
34
system design project.
[NEXT]
34
4.02 Tools Used Throughout Project P35
5.01
DESIGN & INTEGRATED

PLAN ANALYSIS
VERIFICATION VALIDATION
SIPOC Affinity Analysis Rapid Prototype Simulator-based
Identify all stakeholders Summarize & categorize Iteration Validation Test
HSI modification demands Check the suitability of Provide confident
Influence & Interest
the human system evidences that the
Analysis Trade-off Analysis interaction features with integrated HSI system
Recognize champion, key Convert HSI modification regard to design guidelines (HSI, Tasks, Operators)
stakeholders & team demands into design in a timely manner design solution adequately
members specifications supports plant personnel in
Task Cognitive safely operating the plant
Voice of Stakeholders Scoping
Generate project goals &
Walkthrough
Specify the project HFE Check the availability of
criteria guidelines HSI items needed to
In-Scope/Out-of-Scope support task sequence
Fully understand the project with regard to design
scope guidelines
Brainstorming HED Resolution

Capture assumptions, Evaluate and identify
expectations and risks correction action, re-verify
the design change
In the Plan Stage, we used 5 tools to define the key features of the project.
[CLICK 1]
Affinity Analysis Tool facilitated to summarize and categorize HSI
modification demands. Then the Trade-off Analysis Tool converted the
demands to design specifications. Finally, HFE guidelines were specified by
the tool Scoping.
[CLICK 2]
The first two tools applied parallelly in the third stage. Rapid Prototype
Iteration focused on the SUITABILITY check, while Task Cognitive
Walkthrough emphasized the AVAILABILITY check. And HED resolution
helped us to evaluate and identify correction action, and re-verify the design
change.
[CLICK 3]
35
In the final stage, all interactive features were integrated into an overview by
the tool Simulator-based Validation Test.
[NEXT]
35
4.03 Tool Output at Different Stages of Project P36
5.01
DESIGN & INTEGRATED

PLAN ANALYSIS
SIPOC Affinity Analysis Rapid Prototype Simulator-based Validation
▪ All stakeholders ▪ Modification Demands Iteration Test 1.06 Criteria
Influence & Interest ▪ Human Factors ▪ Human Performance Index

Analysis Engineering ▪ Validated Design Solution
Trade-off Analysis
▪ Key Stakeholders ▪ Design Specifications Discrepancies
▪ Champion/Sponser (HEDs)
▪ Team Members Task Cognitive
Scoping
Voice of Stakeholders ▪ HFE Guidelines
Walkthrough
▪ Goals & Criteria ▪ Human Factors
Engineering
In-Scope/Out-of-Scope Discrepancies
▪ Scope
(HEDs)
Brainstorming
HED Resolution
▪ Assumptions &
▪ Improved Design
Expectations
Solution
▪ Risks
As you can see, each tool had clear outputs which would be used as part of
the project data flow in section 5.01.
For example, in the Analysis Stage the outputs were Modification Demands,
Design Specifications and HFE Guidelines separately.
And in the Stage D/V, same output “HEDs” were generated by first two tools.
After HED Resolution, Improved Design Solution would be outputted.
The outputs of Simulator-based Validation Test were Human Performance

Index and Validated Design Solution
[NEXT]
36
4.04 How Team Was Prepared to Use the Tools 2-1
P37
Team Knowledge Gap of Tools Cover All Tools

Member Cover All Members
General Tools (HFE) Professional Tools
Training Program
Project Manager None
Introduction to Basic Quality Tools
Advanced Quality & PM Tools in
▪ Scoping
Planning Stage
▪ SIPOC ▪ Rapid Prototype Iteration
HFE Designer Tools to Generate Better
▪ Influence & Interest ▪ Task Cognitive Walkthrough Specifications from Voice of
Analysis ▪ HFE Resolution Customers
▪ Voice of Stakeholders ▪ Simulator-based Validation Test How to Select Appropriate HFE
▪ In-Scope/Out-of- ▪ Trade-off Analysis Guidelines?
Scope ▪ Task Cognitive Walkthrough Rapid Prototyping Technology &
Operation Expert ▪ Brainstorming Improvements Identification
▪ HFE Resolution
▪ Affinity Analysis Cognitive Walkthrough Technology
▪ Trade-off Analysis Prioritization Criteria and
▪ Scoping Accumulative Effect Analysis for
HSI Expert
▪ Rapid Prototype Iteration HED Resolution
▪ HFE Resolution Standard Simulator-based Validation
Test
Measures, Data Collection and
Quality Expert None ▪ HFE Resolution
Processing for Simulator-based
▪ Simulator-based Validation Test Validation Test
Based on the analyzed knowledge gap of tools for all team members, a
comprehensive training program for all tools was developed.
[NEXT]
37
4.04 How Team Was Prepared to Use the Tools 2-2
P38
Training Course Method Validity HFE Designer

E-Learning Exam Universal
Introduction to Basic Quality Tools
Tools Simulator-
based Trade-off
Advanced Quality & PM Tools Class-Room Exam, Validation Analysis
Training Case Test Test
in Planning Stage
Tools to Generate Better Classroom Case Test
Training HFE
Specifications from Voice of E-learning Resolution
Scoping
Customers Task
Rapid
Classroom Case Test Cognitive
How to Select Appropriate Walk-
Prototype
Training Iteration
HFE Guidelines? through
Rapid Prototyping Technology Lab Training Field Test

On-Job
& Improvements Identification Mentoring Operation Expert
Cognitive Walkthrough Classroom Case Test
Universal
Training
Technology Classroom Training Tools
Prioritization Criteria and Classroom Case Test

Training Simulator-
Accumulative Effect Analysis based Trade-off
for HED Resolution Validation
Test
Analysis
Standard Simulator-based Lab Training Field Test

Validation Test Task
Measures, Data Collection Lab Training Field Test HFE Cognitive
Resolution Walk-
and Processing for Simulator- through
Lab Training
based Validation Test
Current Level Expectation Level
The most appropriate method was selected from E-learning, Classroom

Training, and Lab Training.
[CLICK 1]
Training effects were validated by exam, case test or field test to ensure the
thorough understanding of tools and their usages. Furthermore, the
organization also had the on-job mentoring policy.
[NEXT]
38
4.05 Dealing with Project Risk P39
2.07 Proactive Effort

Documented Risk Info.
in Project Plan (Updating) Monitoring
Dimension Risk Prediction Grade Symptoms Actual Contingency Solution
P A D/V IV
Reject the solution and Invite the regulator to inspect the mockups and
H 〇〇
results simulator on site
Regulator [NEW] Do not agree the Any disagrees Submittal HFE plan to regulator
modification of HFE H Arrange HFE review meeting with regulator 〇〇
process Gained confirmation by regulator
Schedule Project delay H Milestone delay Not happen 〇〇〇〇
Unavailability of extra
M Not happen 〇〇〇〇
HFE designers
Workload Transfer HFE requirements directly
Documented Unavailability of simulator L increase or Track the progress and test the simulator 〇
Resource reduce of free Champion’s responsibility of coordination
Lessons Learned
schedule Reservation of operators: amount, qualification,
Unavailability of operators L and duration 〇
Incorporate in operator re-training Annual Plan
Unfamiliar with HFE Unknown what Hold routine meeting
Organization principles
M
to do Give appropriate training 〇〇〇〇
Communicate with representative of
Can not solve HED due
H stakeholders. 〇〇
to cost or schedule limits
Backup time in next outage (R19)
Knowledge Management System [NEW] Impacted from Communicate with other modification projects
other modification project H (monthly) 〇〇
Technology of the plant Failures, rejects, Review and estimate the potential influence
Conflict between HFE delays Basic principle defined with case by case
guideline and operators' L discussion 〇〇〇
habit Accumulative analysis for HED
Unknow inconformity The suppliers had cooperation experience
L 〇〇
from new supplier previously. Stepwise verification plan
Failure of validation test L Not happen 〇〇
Experience Feedback System
Risks were captured from five different dimensions in the project plan.
We kept checking the symptoms to recognize the occurrence of risk.

All actual happened risks including two new risks were well assessed and
addressed in accordance with our risk plan.
Lessons learned were recorded in the knowledge management system and

experience feedback system in the organization.
[NEXT]
39
4.06 Encountering and Handling Resistance as a Risk P40
Stake- Major Needs and

Resistance Proactive Efforts Effects & Results
holders Expectations
No delay Set the HED prioritization rule in
Too many modifications may Agree to support most
Champion Pass regulator review
lead the modification delay
advance;
design changes
Enhance HFE Active periodic communication
Explain the benefits of user-
centered design in advance;
More workload (too many Combine validation test with daily
A more error tolerant and
Operators user-friendly MCR
interviews, surveys and re-training activities to avoid more Agree to be more active
tests required) workload;
Invite one senior operator as
project member
Invite a senior HSI designer to join in
Design changes caused by Design optimization as
HSI Successfully complete the the project as HSI expert;
HFE project require more much as possible under
Designers design work of the MCR Conduct prototype verification
efforts existing conditions
together
Successfully complete
Training Additional work to track Share the modification difference list Agree to catchup changes
operation training for
Center modified MCR
design changes with training center in a timely manner
Receive confident HFE Some review conclusions can Consult implementation plan in Agree to discuss before
Regulators evidences for the safe not meet the regulator advance; formal conclusion
operation requirements Invite regulator to witness test published
Standard delivers meet the Changes on standard Communicate in advance reduce the
Suppliers project requirements platform features rework
Agree to make changes
Identified resistances were uncovered by proactive efforts. And stakeholders’

support were received.
For example, operators had some resistances due to more workload.

1) HFE designers explained the benefits of user-centered design in
advance;
2) We combined validation test with daily re-training to avoid more workload;
3) We invited one senior operator as project member.
As a result, operators became more active in this project.
[NEXT]
40
4.07 Stakeholder Involvement in Project P41
Not just team members Involvement Feedback & Impacts on Project

Stake- STAGES
holders
Champion Review plan Provide and verify demands Review report Review report
Ensure resources Join the meeting and coordinate conflicts Join the meeting and coordinate resources
Approval plan & Approval results Promote HED resolution Ensure the preconditions of test
available resources Approval the readiness of construction
Operators N/A Provide and verify demands Provide feedback Join the validation test as subjects
*Not team operation N/A Specification change Promote HED resolution Provide feedback
expert Generate human performance index
HSI N/A Verify demands Provide correction method Discuss the validation results
Designers N/A Accept or reject the results Refine and improve design Refine and improve design
*Not team HSI
expert
Training N/A N/A N/A Provide integrated validation place

center N/A N/A N/A Support the test
Suppliers N/A N/A Provide correction method Discuss the validation results
N/A N/A Refine and improve Equipment Refine and improve equipment
Regulators Review the plan N/A N/A Witness the test and review the report
Project scope & N/A N/A Feedback the opinions

methodology Accept or reject modifications
In the table, the cells in gray showed all stakeholders were involved in
appropriate stage, while green showed their feedback and impacts.
For example, champion’s feedback and impacts had very positive effects on
the project.
[NEXT]
41
P42
Section 05
Project Walkthrough
Data-Driven Project Flow 5.01
Solution Validation 5.02
Solution Justification 5.03
Results 5.04
Maintaining the Gain 5.05
Project Communication 5.06
Let’s review our project in detail.
[NEXT]
42
Data-Driven Project Flow
5.01 Overview
P43
DESIGN & INTEGRATED

PLAN ANALYSIS
SIPOC Affinity Analysis Rapid Prototype Simulator-based
Iteration Validation Test
Influence &
Interest Analysis
Trade-off Task Cognitive
Voice of Analysis Walkthrough
Stakeholders
In-Scope/Out-of-
Scope Scoping HED Resolution
Brainstorming
▪ Old Design ▪ New Design

General ▪ Standards ▪ Human Performance Index
Knowledge ▪ Knowledge & Skill ▪ (HFE Analysis Coverage Rate)
▪ Experiences ▪ (HED Resolution Rate)
▪ New Technology 1.06
Nuclear technology is complicated and Human Factors Engineering (HFE) is

a cross-disciplinary subject. However, our approach was very accessible.
Based on the features of old design, and general knowledge like standards,
knowledge & skill, experiences, and new technology, we developed the new
design and other 3 kinds of supporting data.
To achieve this change, 4 stages and 12 tools were used.
The progress of the whole project was driven by Data Flows from these
tools.
[NEXT]
43
5.01 Plan
P44
PLAN
INPUTS TOOL(Purpose) OUTPUTS
SIPOC
Identify all stakeholders ▪ All Stakeholders
Influence & Interest

Analysis
▪ All Stakeholders Recognize champion, key ▪ Key Stakeholders
stakeholders & team ▪ Champion/Sponser
members ▪ Team Members
Voice of Stakeholders
▪ Key Stakeholders Generate project goals & ▪ Goals & Criteria
criteria
In-Scope/Out-of-Scope
▪ Goals & Criteria Fully understand the project ▪ Scope
scope
Brainstorming
▪ Stakeholders Capture assumptions, ▪ Assumptions &
▪ Goals & Criteria expectations and risks Expectations
▪ Scope ▪ Risks
On the first page of each stage, we illustrated the purpose of stage and a
table containing inputs, tools(purpose), and outputs.
In the plan stage, all 5 tools were connected by the data flow closely.
[NEXT]
44
5.01 Plan *Tool1 SIPOC
P45
3.01
S I P O C
Supplier Input Process Output Customers
▪ Directors ▪ Standards
Internal
▪ Operators ▪ Regulator Requirements ▪ Project Approval
▪ Plan ▪ Operators
▪ HFE Designers ▪ Director Requirements ▪ Plan
▪ Risk ▪ Regulators
▪ HSI Designers ▪ Operator Feedback ▪ Analysis
▪ Deliveries ▪ HSI Designers
▪ Quality Expert ▪ Detail HSI Design ▪ Design
▪ Modified MCR ▪ Directors
▪ Training Center ▪ Construction ▪ Verification
▪ Modified Procedure ▪ Suppliers
▪ Plant Physical Features ▪ Validation
▪ Modified Training ▪ HFE Designers
▪ Modification Differences ▪ Acceptance
▪ Monitoring Plan ▪ Quality Expert
External ▪ Regulators ▪ Procedures ▪ Monitoring
▪ Suppliers ▪ Equipment Design
General ▪ Standards SIPOC

Knowledge ▪ Knowledge & Skill Identify all stakeholders ▪ All Stakeholders
▪ Experiences
▪ New Technology
SIPOC was used to identify all stakeholders.
General knowledge, which was very helpful for all stages, would not be
addressed later to overshadow the data flow.
[NEXT]
45
5.01 Plan *Tool2 Influence & Interest Analysis
P46
3.02 3.03
Satisfaction Management
Director
Selection Criteria
Regulator
▪ Key Stakeholders
Interest ＞2 & Influence＞2
Influence
▪ Champion/Sponsor
Operators Internal & MAX(Influence)
Quality ▪ Team Members
HSI
Designers
HFE Interest ≥ 2 & Influence ≥ 2
Designer
Training
Suppliers
Center
Supervision Notification
Interest
Stakeholder Weight Analysis
Influence & Interest Analysis

Recognize champion, key ▪ Key Stakeholders
▪ All Stakeholders stakeholders & team members ▪ Champion/Sponser
▪ Team Members
Based on all identified stakeholders, Influence and Interest Analysis was

conducted.
[CLICK 1] It was very easy to recognize our key stakeholders, champion

and team members by simple figures on the right.
[NEXT]
46
5.01 Plan *Tool3 Voice of Stakeholders
P47
Key Stakeholders Major Needs and Expectations Project Goals/ Criteria

4.06 1.05 1.06
Receive confident HFE evidences for

Regulators ◼ Safe Operation of MCR for an Additional 20 Years
the safe operation
◼ No Delay of Outage
No Delay
◼ Safe Operation of MCR for an Additional 20 Years
Champion Pass Regulator Review
◼ Benchmark Establishment As the 1st HFE Project in the 1st
Enhance HFE
MCR Modification Project in China
◼ Safe Operation of MCR for an Additional 20 Years

Human Factors Enhance HFE
◼ Benchmark Establishment As the 1st HFE Project in the 1st
Engineering (HFE) Pass Regulator Review
MCR Modification Project in China
Designers No Delay
◼ No Delay of Outage due to HFE Project
A more error tolerant and user-friendly

Operators ◼ Safe Operation of MCR for an Additional 20 Years
Main Control Room (MCR)
Voice of Stakeholders
Generate project
▪ Key Stakeholders goals & criteria ▪ Goals & Criteria
Key stakeholders’ needs and expectations were the key source of project
goals.
And HFE designers helped to decompose goals into detailed technical

criteria further.
[NEXT]
47
5.01 Plan *Tool4 In-Scope/Out-of-Scope
P48
Project Goals/ Criteria 1.05 1.06 Scope 2.03

Criteria Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Category In-Scope Out-of-Scope
Type Safe Operation No Delay Benchmark Establishment ▪ In Plant Standards List ▪ NOT in Plant Standards List
Standards
Gap HFE Analysis Coverage Rate No Delay Positive Feedback ▪ Before 31st, Dec. 2015 ▪ After 31st, Dec. 2015
Increase from 5% to 100% of Outage due to HFE Project by the Regulator & Industry ▪ Maintenance engineers
Users ▪ Operators ▪ Managers
HED Resolution Rate N/A N/A
Priority I & II HED, 100% ▪ Local operators
Priority III HED , 85% ▪ Control Room Layout
Human
HumanPerformance
PerformanceIndex
Index N/A N/A ▪ Consoles and Panels ▪ CCTV System
Increase by 5%
Increase by 5% ▪ Alarm Window System ▪ Fire Protection System
HSI
Additional Safe Operation During Outage N/A N/A ▪ Plant Computer System ▪ Office Computer System
▪ Control Room Environment ▪ Equipment Storage
Counter N/A Labor Cost Growth Rate N/A
Metrics ≤ 10%
▪ General Method in Planning
▪ Affinity Analysis
e.g.
Human Performance Index Method ▪ Scoping ▪ Function Analysis
Removed maintenance engineers, (Tools) ▪ Rapid Prototype Iteration ▪ Human Reliability Analysis
managers and local operators from ▪ Task Cognitive Walkthrough
user population ▪ HED Resolution
In-Scope/Out-of-Scope
Fully understand the
▪ Goals & Criteria project scope ▪ Scope
With the constrains of goals and criteria generated by previous tool, the
project scope was fully understood.
[CLICK 1] For example, the criteria of human performance index helped us

remove the maintenance engineers, managers and local operators from
user population.
[NEXT]
48
5.01 Plan *Tool5 Brainstorming
P49
Brainstorming
2.04 Assumptions/Expectations 2.07 Risks
Providers Assumptions/Expectations Communication Result Dimension Risk Prediction Grade
Accepted in principle, but the date and
Regulator Reject the solution and results H
3.01 Regulator
Arrange the review meeting and TIMELY frequency exist uncertain. One expert from Schedule Project delay H
feedback the review comments regulator is appointed as our Technical Unavailability of extra HFE
M
consultant. designers
Stakeholders Resource Unavailability of simulator L
Coordinate schedule and resources Unavailability of operators L
Champion cross projects
Accepted
Organization
1.05 1.06 Unfamiliar with HFE principles
Can not solve HED due to
M.
H
Participant in the discussion and cost or schedule limits
Goals & Criteria HSI Designers engaged in the design change
Get commitment from Manager
Conflict on HFE guideline and
L
Technology operators' habit
Interview, questionnaire and test Accepted by 30 operators of Qinshan NPP Unknow inconformity from
Operators L
2.03 subjects and added into annual re-training program new supplier
Failure of validation test L
Qinshan Old Simulator is available
Promise to provides the tools and build the Unexpected risk arising during
Scope Training Center
New simulator is constructed and
permits to use； Simulator instructors
new simulator in the planned stage New risk the project
H/M/L
(AGREED AND LISTED IN CONTRACT)
Training Mentors
Console/Panel Sample Parts before Oct. 2017 Promise to provide sample once available
Supplier Physical Mockups before Nov. 2017 Confirmed in the procurement contract
Promise to provide prototype platform by

Plant Computer Prototype of plant computer system
other project before Jan. 2018
System Supplier before Jan. 2018
Promise to provide configuration files
Brainstorming
▪ Stakeholders Capture assumptions, ▪ Assumptions &
▪ Goals & Criteria expectations and risks Expectations
▪ Scope ▪ Risks
Considering our stakeholders, goals/criteria and scope, brainstorming was

organized to capture project assumptions/expectations and risks.
[NEXT]
49
5.01 Analysis
P50
ANALYSIS
P ▪ Key Stakeholders Affinity Analysis ▪ 60
Summarize & categorize Modification
A ▪ N/A HSI modification Demands
demands
▪ Goals & Criteria

▪ Scope
P ▪ Stakeholders
Trade-off Analysis
Convert HSI modification ▪ 47 Design
▪ Assumptions & Expt.
demands into design Specifications
▪ Risks
specifications
A ▪ 60 Modification Demands
▪ Goals & Criteria

▪ Scope
P ▪ Stakeholders Scoping
▪ Assumptions & Expt. ▪ 1191 HFE
Specify the project HFE Guidelines
▪ Risks guidelines
▪ 47 Design
A
Specifications
The purpose of Analysis Stage was to generate project HFE guidelines with
3 tools (Affinity Analysis, Trade-off Analysis, Scoping).
From Analysis Stage, we added labels in the column Inputs to differentiate

from other stages.
For example, key stakeholder information from Stage Plan was treated as
input of Affinity Analysis.
[NEXT]
50
5.01 ANALYSIS *Tool1 Affinity Analysis 2-1
P51
Analysis Preparation Key Stakeholders Demands Sources Collet Method No.

Regulators Regulator Identified Collect Existed Data
Identify Sources 2
Weaknesses(mandatory) (From Reports of Previous Audit
Regulator Comments Tours) 28
Collect2 Existed
Data 2+28+8 Champion Event Reports Collect Existed Data from Official DB 8
HFE Designers None (No HFE before) N/A N/A
Operator 218
Questionnaire Operators Operator Feedback Operator Questionnaire
▪ Random selected 12 operators from all
Raw Demands crews with 7 senior operators; 218
Combination 256 ▪ Send/Receive by E-mail individually;
▪ Ensure representative & independency
2-Round Hierarchical Sum: 256

Affinity Analysis
P ▪ Key Stakeholders Affinity Analysis

Summarize & categorize HSI
modification demands ▪ 60 Modification Demands
A N/A
The purpose of affinity analysis was to summarize & categorize HSI

modification demands.
Considering the concerns and interests of key stakeholders, we surveyed

four different sources of modification demands.
Firstly, we gathered 2 Regulator Identified Weaknesses, 28 Regulator

Comments and 8 Event Reports from existed database.
218 demands were collected by the operator questionnaire conducted by

this project.
The last step was to combine all data above into a 256 Modification Raw
Demands list.
[NEXT]
51
5.01 ANALYSIS *Tool1 Affinity Analysis 2-2
P52
Analysis Preparation Top Level Groups Lower Level Groups (Example)

[256]
[60] [13]
[81] [2]
[8] Labels & Mimics
256 Raw Demands All General Lack of consistency exist in the The mimic diagrams and
font, color, intersection labels are easy to drop,
2-Round Hierarchical requirement of mimic diagrams, so that a firm material is
Affinity Analysis [23]
[107] and the size, background color, required for long time
font of labels. operation.
1st Round Divide into 4 top level group; Console/Panel
Analyze of sub-groups one
Analysis by one to generate the draft
The font and color of mimic lines are
not the same. The arrangement is
feedback asap messy and lines have intersections
[16]
[47]
Operator Ensure the correct Plant Computer The labels and mimic
The mimic diagram is useless.
understanding of operator The arrangement is messy
always drop.
Confirmation demands; System and lines have intersections.
Explain the outlier feedback. Mimic are aging

and inconsistent. The mimics is useful for
operation. But they are used for
2ndRound Update the results based
on operator confirmation [8]
[21] a long time. Incomplete and
mistake. Redesign is required.
Analysis and cross-group check Alarm System
Rearrangement the mimics
would be welcome.
Some part of the mimic The background color and the font
60 Modification Demands was dropped, and it is of labels are different.
suggested to change Furthermore, the control room has
the material. different sizes of the label paper
Reduced by 77%
Other Groups under Console/Panel
Before After
Considering the amount of items and the technical uncertainty, a 2-Round

Hierarchical Affinity Analysis was applied.
[CLICK 1] In the 1st round analysis, firstly, we divided all these raw demands
into four top level groups based on the composition of control room.
[CLICK 2] Then we conducted affinity analysis of each group one by one to

generate the draft results as soon as possible.
The operator confirmation between 2 rounds ensured the correct

understanding of operator demands and explained the outlier feedback.
So the 2nd round analysis updated the results based on operator

confirmation and cross-group check.
[CLICK 3] Finally, all the Raw HSI Demands were reduced by 77%, and
52
outputted only 60 Modification Demands.
[NEXT]
52
5.01 ANALYSIS *Tool2 Trade-off Analysis 2-1
P53
Evaluation Matrix (Example) Trade-off Criteria

Positive Criteria Negative Criteria
Safety-related Human Operators Increase Increase
Chance only No Technical
Authority Performance Requalification Outage Procurement/
in this Project Feasibility
Concerns Improvement Risk Window Labor Cost
PASS REJECT
Who ◼ Optional Design Specifications

◼ SMEs from all related parties ◼ Balance and optimization
◼ If agreement can not be achieved, • Demands
involve the champion to make final • Criteria Iteration
decision • Optional Design Specifications

◼ Optimized Solution
P ▪ Goals & Criteria

▪ Scope Trade-off Analysis ▪ 47 Design Specifications
▪ Stakeholders Convert HSI modification demands into
▪ Assumptions & Expt. design specifications
▪ Risks
A ▪ 60 Modification Demands
To convert 60 HSI Modification Demands into 47 Design Specifications,

Trade-off Analysis which required the participation of all related parties was
applied.
After the optional design specifications were generated with technical

insights, a set of trade-off criteria were used as assistants of decision-
making activities. Balance among demands, criteria and candidate design
specifications shall be conducted iteratively to finalize an optimized
solution.
[NEXT]
53
5.01 ANALYSIS *Tool2 Trade-off Analysis 2-2
P54
▪ Poor readability/No spare parts

▪ Lack of correctness/Lack of completeness
▪ Inconsistency
▪ Want to have large displays
Old Design (Before Modification)

SELECTED
Option 1: Half-Digital Option 2: Full-Digital
Higher Investment
Paperless VDU Pointer Enhanced Functional
Recorder Indicators CPC/Alarm Large Displays Unacceptable
Full-digital Control Room Technical Risks
Here is an example about how optional design specifications were balanced

across related demands.
Both half-digital and full-digital solution could solve the current problem of
old design.
[CLICK 1] However the advanced full-digital solution was abandoned due to

Higher Investment and Unacceptable Technical Risks.
The final specifications only partly covered digital features:

1) Component-level digitalization was applied to recorders, non-safety
pointer indicators with enough space.
2) For plant computer systems and alarm system, data scope was
increased and functions were enhanced.
[CLICK 2]
54
3) Large displays were not added due to the space limitation.
[NEXT]
54
5.01 ANALYSIS *Tool3 Scoping
P55
Structure and Amount of Guidelines Example of Guidelines

No. Section Numbers Sub-Section Numbers
1 Information Display 336 ◼ QSY.121 Level of Detail
General Display 52
2 User-Interface Interaction & Management 446
Guidelines
3 Control 112
4 Alarm System 114
Display Formats 94
5 Safety Function and Parameter Montoring Display Elements 133
20
System Data Quality and 7
6 Group-view Display System X Update Rate
7 Soft Control System X Display Pages 16 ◼ QSY.1153 Minimal Distance
8 Computer-based Procedure System X
9 Computerized Operator System X
Display Devices 35 between Controllers
10 Communication System X
11 Workstation Design 133
12 Workplace Design 29
13 Maitainability of Digital Systems X
Sum 1191
P ▪ Goals & Criteria Scoping

▪ Scope Specify the project HFE guidelines
▪ Stakeholders
▪ Assumptions & Expt. ▪ 1191 HFE Guidelines
▪ Risks
A ▪ 47 Design Specifications
It was not appropriate and necessary to comply with all general state-of-the-
art guidelines from industry standards. Scoping was used to specify project
HFE guidelines based on the constrains of project types of equipment and
functions. Finally, 1191 guidelines were remained after scoping.
Example of guidelines were showed on the right part of slide.
[NEXT]
55
5.01 Design & Verification Overview
P56
DESIGN & VERIFICATION

P N/A Rapid Prototype Iteration
Check the suitability of the ▪ 113 HFE
A ▪ 1154 HFE Guidelines
human system interaction Discrepancies
(Part One of 1191)
features with regard to design (HEDs)
D/V N/A guidelines in a timely manner
P N/A Task Cognitive
Walkthrough
Check the availability of HSI ▪ 67 HEDs
A ▪ 37 HFE Guidelines
(Part Two of 1191) items needed to support task
sequence with regard to design
D/V N/A guidelines
P ▪ Goals & Criteria HED Resolution
▪ Scope Evaluate and identify correction ▪ Improved
▪ Stakeholders action, re-verify the design Design
▪ Assumptions & Expt. change Solution
▪ Risks
A N/A
D/V ▪ (113+67) HEDs
Based on the output of Analysis Stage, HFE Discrepancies (HEDs) were

generated by Rapid Prototype Iteration and Task Cognitive Walkthrough
in Stage D/V.
Then, all the HEDs were processed through HED Resolution to output the
Improved Design Solution.
[NEXT]
56
5.01 D/V *Tool1 Rapid Prototype Iteration 4-1
P57
1154 HFE
Guidelines
(Part One of 1191)
Human
Organization Task
P N/A Rapid Prototype Iteration

▪ 1154 HFE Guidelines Check the suitability of the human system interaction
A features with regard to design guidelines in a timely manner
(Part One of 1191)
▪ 113 HEDs
D/V N/A
Rapid Prototype Iteration had specific focus on the interaction between

Human and Technology. Its goal was to verify and increase the suitability
of HSI in MCR.
[NEXT]
57
P58
1154 Who How Part of Verification Checklist

HFE Guidelines ▪ HFE Designers
Match HSIs ▪ Independently
1252
Verification
Items
HSI Guidelines PASS/FAIL Prototype

Verification
Rapid Item No.
Prototype 9 D/V Cycles
Iteration
Verification
Fail
113 HEDs
113
This was the flow chart of Rapid Prototype Iteration, which was done by
the HFE Designers independently
Firstly, we matched guidelines to HSI elements to form the verification items.
Then HSI design guidelines were compared with prototypes. If all

requirements in a guideline were satisfied, the verification item was recorded
as PASS; if ANY requirement was deviated, it was FAIL and recorded as a
HED.
[CLICK 1] After 9 verification cycles, 113 HEDs were identified.
[NEXT]
58
P59
Hardware Prototypes
Digital Manikin Virtual Panel Wooden Prototype

Contour Size of Panel/Console Panel/Console Preliminary Layout Panel/Console Detailed Layout
Software Prototypes
Plant Computer System Prototype

Static Features (without dynamic process data)
There were several hardware and software prototypes served along with the
progress of project.
[CLICK 1] Digital Manikin covered the contour size feature of panels and
consoles.
[CLICK 2] Virtual Panel supported the verification of detailed layout with a
flexible way in early iteration. And Wooden Prototype provided a better
overview to very the layout as well.
[CLICK 3] To effectively verify Plant Computer System, we asked our

supplier to provide a prototype platform in early stage in office and lab
environment.
[NEXT]
59
P60
Documentation of HEDs
1154
HFE Guidelines
Match HSI
1252
Verification
Items
Examples of HEDs
Rapid
Prototype
Iteration
Verification
Fail
#1015 #1052 # 2078
Scale Readability Switch Torque Confused Lines
113 HEDs (Multiple types, unclear meaning)
The final HEDs included 113 totally.
Examples are like the scale readability, switch torque, confused lines.
[NEXT]
60
5.01 D/V *Tool2 Task Cognitive Walkthrough 4-1
P61
37 HFE
Guidelines
(Part Two of 1191) Human
Organization Task
P N/A Task Cognitive Walkthrough

Check the availability of HSI items needed to support
A ▪ 37 HFE Guidelines task sequence with regard to design guidelines ▪ 67 HEDs
(Part Two of 1191)
D/V N/A
The second tool of D/V stage was Task Cognitive Walkthrough, which had
specific focus on the interaction between human, technology and TASK.
Its goal was to check the AVAILABILITY of HSI items needed to support
task sequence.
[NEXT]
61
P62
Modification Differences List with Related Tasks and Scenarios Scenario List
Difference Potential Influences Impacted Related No. Scenario
37 HFE Guidelines No. Category
Description
P/C
Assessment Tasks Scenarios
1
2
正常运行期间降功率至60%
凝汽器抽气系统投入运行
旁排系统切除
Relocate CB-518 盘专设相关红色光
CB-514A CB-514A本就用于显示保护系统信号，
专设相关的报警监 SGTR
3
汽机冲转至额定转速
2 字牌报警移至CB-514A。
CB-518 专设报警整体迁移至CB-514A是较为
视任务。 SG液位高
4
Equipment 合适的，影响较小。 5 秦塘2P59对220kV I母充电
54 Modification Change 因泵和风机等设备的控制开

去除了无用的开关档位，但功能未改
开关档位有变化的正常运行期间降功率
6
7
1#发电机启动前的操作
1#高加水位高
11 关统一换型，部分控制开关分散在各个盘泵和风机的控制任循环水泵故障跳闸 8 SG液位高
Difference Equipment 档位简化，但功能并未改变。
变，影响较小。
务。 SGTR 9 发电机转子冷却水电导率高
CB-503 盘取消了硼酸供应一回路硼化和稀释 10 RCS RTD（窄量程）通道故障
Identification Remove 总管流量计数器、硼酸小流
相关信息已在化容补水微机中提供，
任务。（在化容补 11 秦塘2P59线路事故跳闸
15 量供应管线流量计数器、除
CB-503 操纵员平时不看这些计数器，影响较
水微机中监视这些
正常运行期间降功率 12 失去设冷水导致乏池失去冷却
Equipment 盐水供应管线流量计数器。
小。
参数的任务）
13 一回路220V直流硅整流器故障
14 应急压空储气罐压力低
将原副控室蒸发器排污系统蒸发器排污系统相关功能由副控室迁
18 Senario 27
New 相关阀门、泵的控制开关、
参数指示和报警增加至CB-
CB-524
移至主控室，主控室操纵员的角色由
协调人变为直接操作人，操作任务增
蒸汽发生器排污系
统运行任务。
排污冷却器出口排污
水温度高
15
16
主控室撤离（主控室部分）
循环水泵故障跳闸
Selection Function 524盘。加，沟通任务减少，有一定影响。

SGTR 17 排污冷却器出口排污水温度
18 SGTR
Task
Cognitive
Walkthrough
67 HEDs Virtual Reality Platform Plant New Simulator

(in HFE Lab) (Still under construction)
This was the flow chart of Task Cognitive Walkthrough.
There were 37 design guidelines focusing on the personal task requirements.
HFE designers summarized 54 modification differences according to

potential HFE influences, listed impacted tasks and related scenarios. Then
we used 18 scenarios to cover all above differences.
[CLICK 1] The virtual reality platform in HFE Lab and the plant new
simulator assisted the availability check of HSI items needed by the scenario
completion.
[NEXT]
62
P63
37 HFE Guidelines Sample of Walkthrough Table
54 Modification
Difference
Identification STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4
▪ List the Task ▪ Find supportive HSI elements ▪ Evaluate ▪ Compare before and
Sequence based on ▪ List their characteristics HSI problems after design in detail as a
Scenario Description with the supplement
18 Senario assistant Score Explanation
Selection checklist 1 The task can not be
derived from successfully completed
HFE guidelines after the modification
2 The task can be
successfully completed
after the modification but
with degraded user
Task experience
Cognitive 3 The general user

experience before and
Walkthrough after modification are

similar (could be some
improved and some
degraded)
4 The user experience is
improved after the
modification
67 HEDs
This was how we conducted walkthrough in detail:

[CLICK 1] Listed the Task Sequence based on Scenario Description.
[CLICK 2] Found supportive HSI elements and list their characteristics.
[CLICK 3] Evaluated HSI problems with the assistant checklist derived
from the HFE Guidelines.
[CLICK 4] Compared before and after design in detail as a supplement.
[NEXT]
63
P64
Documentation of HEDs
37 HFE Guidelines
54 Modification
Difference
Identification
18 Senario
Selection Examples of HEDs
Task
Cognitive
Walkthrough
#2002 #2188 #1002

Lack of Effective Labels Lack of Indicators in Plant Far away Control Switches and Indicators
67 HEDs Computer System for one operator to operate
Finally, we documented 67 HEDs totally.
Examples were like:

1) Lack of effective labels;
2) Lack of indicators in computer system;
3) Far away control switches and indicators parameters for one operator to
operate
[NEXT]
64
5.01 D/V *Tool3 HED Resolution 3-1
P65
113 HEDs
from
Rapid Prototype Iteration
67 HEDs
from
Task Cognitive Walkthrough
Improved Design Solution
P ▪ Goals & Criteria HED Resolution

▪ Scope Evaluate and identify correction action,
▪ Stakeholders re-verify the design change ▪ Improved
▪ Assumptions & Expt.
Design
▪ Risks
Solution
A N/A
D/V ▪ (113+67) HEDs
The goal of HED Resolution was to evaluate and identify correction action
for HED, and re-verify the design change.
All the HEDs from Rapid Prototype Iteration and Task Cognitive Walkthrough
were regarded as inputs.
[NEXT]
65
Data-Driven
Data-Driven ProjectProject
Flow Flow
5.01 D/V *Tool3 HED Resolution
Design & Verification——Tool2 Cognitive 3-2
Walkthrough (6-6)
P66
Exception Analysis
113+67 HEDs ◼ More technical basis exists to support current design
from Rapid Prototype Iteration
& Task Cognitive Walkthrough
HED Prioritization
Exception Analysis
HED Prioritization
Correction Action Development
◼ Developed by HED responsible group (non-
Correction Action HFE Evaluation
HFE group)
Development of Correction Action fail
HFE Evaluation of Resolution
pass
◼ If agreement can not be achieved between HFE
Design Change and HED responsible group, raise the HED to
Champion for final decision
◼ Multi-group Discussion Meeting were very
fail pass
Re-Verification useful
Closure
Firstly, HEDs would go through Exception Analysis and HED Prioritization.
[CLICK 1] The HED Correction Action was developed by HED responsible

group. If agreement could not be achieved between HFE and HED
responsible group in the following evaluation stage, the HED would be
raised to our Champion for final decision.
[CLICK 2] Implemented design change should pass the re-verification for

final closure.
[NEXT]
66
Data-Driven
Data-Driven ProjectProject
Flow Flow
5.01 D/V *Tool3 HED Resolution
Design & Verification——Tool2 Cognitive 3-3
Walkthrough (6-6)
P67
1st
Round Sources All P1 P2 P3 Excp. HED Resolution Rate
HED Resolution Prototype-Hardware
Prototype-Software
49
64
0
0
12 29
17 43
8
4
Priority I & II HED, 100% ALL
Task Cognitive
Walkthrough
67 0 10 52 5
1.06
Criteria
Priority III HED , 85%
97.5%
∑ 180 0 39 124 17
Examples of HED Resolution
2nd Round Sources All P1 P2 P3 Excp.
HED Resolution Prototype-Hardware 15 0 0 8 7
Prototype-Software 7 0 0 6 1
Task Cognitive
40 0 0 15 5
Walkthrough
∑ 62 0 0 29 13
# Multiple controllers should be placed above a single monitor
3rd Round Sources All P1 P2 P3 Excp.
HED Resolution Prototype-Hardware 7 0 0 2 5
Prototype-Software 4 0 0 1 3
Task Cognitive
5 0 0 0 5
Walkthrough
∑ 16 0 0 3 13
◼ Unsolved: Due to the high cost to improve the standard # Add parameter to support the task completion
feature of plant computer system and scale of one indicator
We did three rounds of HED resolution to change the MCR modification

design and finally got the Improved Design Solution.
And the HED Resolution Rate EXCEEDED the criteria set in section 1.06.
[NEXT]
67
5.01 Integrated Validation Overview
P68
INTEGRATED VALIDATION
P ▪ Goals & Criteria Simulator-based

Validation Test
A N/A Provide confident evidences
that the integrated HSI ▪ Human
system (HSI, Tasks, Performance Index
D/V ▪ Improved Operators) design solution ▪ Validated Design
Design adequately supports plant Solution
Solution personnel in safely
operating the plant
IV N/A
It was the final stage - “Integrated Validation”.
The goal of this stage is to provide confident evidences that the integrated
HSI system (HSI, Tasks, Operators) design solution adequately supports
plant personnel in safely operating the plant.
[NEXT]
68
5.01
Data-Driven Project Flow P69
IV *Tool Simulator-based Validation Test 5-1
Human
Improved Design Solution Organization Task

from Stage D/V
P ▪ Goals & Criteria Simulator-based Validation Test

A N/A Provide confident evidences that the
integrated HSI system (HSI, Tasks, Operators) ▪ Human Performance Index
D/V ▪ Improved Design Solution design solution adequately supports plant ▪ Validated Design Solution
IV N/A personnel in safely operating the plant
This stage focused on the interaction between human, technology, tasks,

ENVIRONMENT and ORGANIZATION.
All the design of real control room shall be validated by simulator before full
implementation.
The key input was the improved design solution from previous stage. And
besides human performance index , the validated design solution was
outputted.
[NEXT]
69
Data-Driven
Data-Driven Project
Project Flow
Flow
5.01 Integrated Validation *Simulator-based
IV *Tool Simulator-based Validation
Validation Test 5-2
P70
Standard Test Process

Test Preparation
Scenario Test
Development Design Old Design Test
New Design Test
(Baseline Test)
Pilot Test
Jan. 5, 2018
When May 17, 2017 Jan. 18, 2018
Test May 22-23, 2017 Jan. 31, 2018
Training Before Implementation
Test Introduction Where Qinshan Training Center Qinshan Training Center
Old Simulator New Simulator
Formal Test 4 x 3 Operators 4 x 3 Operators
Data
Collection Who [4 operators/crew, 3 crews] [4 operators/crew, 3 crews]
Questionnaires
4 Observation Experts 4 Observation Experts
Discussion 3 Test Support Staff 3 Test Support Staff
Scenarios Representative Scenarios

Data Analysis
Conclusion
Unlike the new-built NPP, we conducted two-round tests to compare the old
design and modified design before implementation, so that we could acquire
clearer results.
Each round had similar test process showed on the flow chart .
Operators performed follow the progress of scenarios on the old or new

simulator under the observation of experts.
[NEXT]
70
Data-Driven
Data-Driven Project
Project Flow
Flow
5.01 Integrated Validation *Simulator-based
IV *Tool Simulator-based Validation
Validation Test 5-3
P71

Data Collection
Test Preparation
Scenario Test
Development Design
Pilot Test
Test
Training
Test Introduction
Test Video/Audio
Formal Test
Data
Collection
Questionnaires
Discussion ▪ Operators & Observers
▪ Subjective & Objective Data
▪ Qualitative & Quantitative Data
Data Analysis
Operator Performance Questionnaire
Plant Performance Data Observation Records
Conclusion Briefing Records
Raw data were collected during of the whole test, for example, video/audio
data, plant performance data from simulator, and qualitative and quantitative
data from operators and observers.
[NEXT]
71
5.01 IV *Tool Simulator-based Validation Test 5-4
P72

Test Preparation
Scenario Test
Development Design
Pilot Test
Test
Training Workload of the same operator in
Different operator workload in
Test Introduction the same scenario different scenario
Formal Test
Data
Collection
Questionnaires
Discussion
The shift supervisor's The operator's situational

situational awareness awareness
Data Analysis
Conclusion
After the test, we analyzed all these raw data in our HFE Lab by
professional software named “H-lab”.
[NEXT]
72
5.01 IV *Tool Simulator-based Validation Test 5-5
P73

Test Preparation Human Performance Index Human Performance
New Design New Design VS Old Design
Scenario Test
Development Design Human Error in Limitation PASS
P1 Condition of Operation (0) Human
Degrades
Pilot Test Important Human Action PASS
P2 Completion Time All within PASS Index Workload
time window
Test D1 Human Degrades 4

Training Goal Situation
Achievement Awareness
Test Introduction D2 Workload 3.99
Team
Coorination
D3 Situation Awareness 82.41%
Formal Test
Data Before Modification After Modification
Collection D4 Team Coordination 4.24

Questionnaires 1.06 Human Performance
Discussion D5 Goal Achievement 3.98 Criteria
Index Increase by 5%
Modified Design Adequacy for

5.12%
Data Analysis
Supporting Personnel Performance
Conclusion
Human Performance Index validated the adequacy of modified design.
[CLICK 1] And compared with the human performance index before

modification and after modification, we were happy to see that the human
performance index was increased by 5.12% in this project, higher than our
expected criteria 5%.
[NEXT]
73
5.02 Solution Validation 2-1 P74
1.06 5.01
Goal 1 Gap 1 Goal 1 Gap 2 Goal 1 Gap 3
HFE Analysis HED Human Performance

Coverage Rate Resolution Rate Index
100% Coverage Rate Priority I & II HED, 100%=100% Increase by 5.12%

Priority III HED, 97.2%>85%
Hardware Verification
Purpose Date HED Identified
D/V Cycles Item
1 Digital Manikin Contour Size of 2017-02 39 15
Panel/Console
2 Virtual Panel Layout Specification of 2017-03 32 12
Panel/Console
3 Wooden P1 2017-04 47 9
Layout of
4 Wooden P2 Panel/Console 2017-05 38 8
5 Wooden P3 2017-07 33 5
¤
∑
189 49
¤ Removed 12 items and add 2 items during the process
Software Verification HED

Purpose Date
D/V Cycles Item Identified
1 Prototye 1 Static CPC Platform 2017-05 240 31
2 Prototye 2 Features with more and 2017-06 189 18
3 Prototye 3 more details and enlarge 2017-08 153 13
4 Prototye 4 scope 2017-11 63 2
¤
∑ 645 64
¤ Removed 190 items during the process
Before Before Operation Before

Implementation /Construction (During Implementation) Implementation /Construction
It was a challenge to validate the final HFE level of main control room, which
was determined by thousands integrated features and elements as a whole.
The results of HFE Analysis Coverage Rate, HED Resolution Rate and
Human Performance Index, which related to three gaps of the Goal “safe
operation”, validated the solution from different aspects.
[NEXT]
74
5.02 Solution Validation 2-2 P75
Operation Operator
Observation Satisfaction Survey
When Where Who When Where Who

Jul. 27, 2018 Real MCR 2 HFE Experts Jul., 2018 Real MCR 12 Operators
1 Operation Exp.
1 HSI Expert
4.36
Not
Satisfied Satisfied
0 5
Before Operation Before Operation

(During (During
Implementation /Construction) Implementation /Construction)
Furthermore, before operation (during implementation/construction ), an

operation observation in real Main Control Room and a survey on 12
operators were conducted as supplements of previous professional activities.
Observed fluent operator interaction and high satisfaction score revealed the
validation of our solution as well.
[NEXT]
75
5.03 Solution Justifications P76
Half-digital Solution was selected BEFORE IMPLEMENTATION

5.01 Analysis Stage
Demands→Specifications COST-BENEFIT TECHNICAL RISKS
1.04
SAME
Indirect Cost (Related outage projects)

Direct Cost (this project)
HALF DIGITAL
1540 Person ∙ Day Under Control
2.06
Benefit
VS.
SAME 2310 Person ∙ Day Extra 127 million

(50% more) 2.03 ➢ At Least Half Year Longer ➢ Operator Re-
FULL DIGITAL ➢ Enlarged scope, e.g. Function Outage Duration Cost
qualification Risk
analysis & Human reliability ➢ Digital Equipment and
analysis would be required Verification/Validation Cost ➢ Unpredictable
➢ Complexity of full-digital system ➢ Related Delay/Training Cost Licensing Risk
with more efforts (Operator Re-qualification)
When transfer the modification demands into design specification in the

Analysis Stage, the main choice was to compare two principle solutions,
Half-digital and Full-digital.
[CLICK 1] The half-digital was not only very attractive in Cost-Benefit

dimension, but also with controlled Technical Risks.
[CLICK 2] That means, coordinating with the whole organization, we

selected the half-digital modification solution before implementation.
[NEXT]
76
5.04 Results 2-1 P77
Criteria Goal 1 Goal 2

Status Status
Type Safe Operation No Delay
Gap No Delay No Delay

HFE Analysis Coverage Rate 5.02
Achieved of Outage due to 7.5 Days in Achieved
Increase from 5% to 100% 100% advance
HFE Project
Human Performance Index 5.02
Exceeded N/A
Increase by 5% 5.12%
HFE Discrepancy Resolution 5.02
Rate Exceeded N/A
Priority I & II HED, 100% 100%
Priority III HED , 85% 97.2%
Additional
Safe Operation During Outage Safe Achieved N/A 5.03
Counter Labor Cost

Metrics N/A Growth Rate 3.3% Achieved
≤ 10%
All the project goals were achieved with the successful fulfillment of all gaps,
additional and counter criteria.
The links for detail information of achievement were listed as well.
[NEXT]
77
5.04 Results 2-2 P78
Goal 3
Criteria
Benchmark Status
Type
Establishment
Gap
“Sufficient HFE guarantees have been
provided to the life extension
Positive Feedback application of Qinshan NPP. “
Achieved
by the Regulator & Industry
Regulator Could be applied
for similar projects in other 37 units in China
N/A
N/A
Additional N/A
Counter N/A
Metrics
In Goal 3, the statement of regulator official reviews was “Sufficient HFE

guarantees have been provided to the life extension application of Qinshan
NPP”.
It is the endorsement for further application for similar projects in other 37

units in China.
[NEXT]
78
5.05 Maintaining the Gains P79
New KPI
Changes/Results One-Month Life Cycle Latest
Goals Where How
Against All Criteria Who Who Result
Human Performance Human Error
Index Reports
Training Center
HFE Designers Operation Tech. No Report
HFE Analysis Coverage New Modification
Support Department
Rate Proposal
Plant
HED Resolution Rate HED Tracking List
Safe Operation Power Generating Reliable
for an Additional Champion
*Additional Profit Champion Records 100% power
20 Years Project PM
operation
Results
No Delay Positive feedback
Feedback &
of the by the Regulator & Inside & Champion
HFE Designers Standardization Positive
Modification Industry Outside HFE Designers
in the Industry
Outage 118
◼ Safe Operation During
Benchmark Outage
Establishment ◼ No Delay of Modification
N/A, No Change upon Time N/A
Outage due to HFE
Project
◼ Labor Cost Growth Rate
HFE Designers
HFE Designers
Operation Tech. Change review
Changes Updated Guidelines Company Operation Tech. No Change
Support required
Support Department
Department
One-month and Life Cycle Plan with clear criteria and responsibility were
established to monitor project results and potential changes.
[CLICK 1]
Happily, there is no report and no change until now.
And the plant has been in reliable power operation status until we share this
presentation.
[CLICK 2]
After one month, the main responsibility of monitoring was transferred from
project members to plant operation staff.
Previously, the assessment of operator simulator training effectiveness

mainly depended on the subjective judge of training center. Human
Performance Index successfully provided scientific and quantitative
assessment in the IV Stage, so it has been adopted by the training center as
79
a new KPI to track the performance of operators as a supplement.
[NEXT]
79
5.06 Project Communication P80
Team Communication Results

Domestic
ALL Project Internal Review Meeting Nuclear Society
Team members 6th, Sep. 2018 Harbin, China
29th. Aug. 2018
Results Sharing, Lessons Learned
ALL
Communication Results
Stakeholders
International
Champion Project Extended Review Meeting
Summary Report IAEA
Operators Madrid, Spain
20th , Sep. 2018 14th, Sep. 2018
HSI Designers
Training Center
Suppliers Technical Reports

Fresh News! in Industrial Conference
Regulators Formal Report Submission Website of Organization Recognition of Project Methodology and Efforts
Telephone Communication
Internal Post-Project Communication External
Project´s results were communicated with ALL team members and

stakeholders after the implementation. The project internal review meeting
was held before the project extended review meeting. Formal approval of
goal achievements, project closure and congratulations were received.
Special means were used to communicate with the regulator.
Fresh news on the internet was published for a more massive

communication. Furthermore, technical reports were presented by the HFE
expert both in domestic and international conference with recognition of
project methodology and efforts.
[NEXT]
80
P81
THANK YOU
Sunflower, Better Energy, Better Life
SNERDI@Shanghai, China
We are very happy to share with you our team´s efforts, and our dedication
to provide Better Energy, Better Life.
Thank you very much.
[NEXT]
81
P82
Quick Links
1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06
Section 01 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.06 2.07
Section 02 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
3.01 3.02 3.03 3.04 3.05
Section 03 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
4.01 4.02 4.03 4.04 4.05 4.06 4.07
Section 04 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41
5.01 P A
Section 05 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
D/V IV
56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69
5.02 5.03 5.04 5.05 5.06
70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
82

Shanghai Nuclear Power Plant Control Room Modifications

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Shanghai Nuclear Power Plant Control Room Modifications

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

P1

ASQ International Team Excellence Award Competition 2018

Sunflower, Better Energy，Better Life

SNERDI @Shanghai, China

Good afternoon, distinguished audience and judgers.

[CLICK 1] This is our team’s LOGO.

Let’s start with section one.

SNERDI AWARD TEAM AWARD

We come from Shanghai, a modern, fashionable metropolis, and also the

Our team is named as Sunflower, because we have a dream of Better

Nuclear energy has been recognized as a clean and economic energy

SNERDI, established in 1970’s in Shanghai, is the first and best commercial

This is us, Sunflower team from SNERDI.

(Same as last page）

We come from Shanghai, a modern, fashionable metropolis, and also the

Our team is named as Sunflower, because we have a dream of Better

Nuclear energy has been recognized as a clean and economic energy

SNERDI, established in 1970’s in Shanghai, is the first and best commercial

This is us, Sunflower team from SNERDI.

For the better understanding of the project, we list important abbreviations

Strategy and Planning

Organization Structure and Responsibility

We use SNERDI Performance Excellence Management System as the

We have the professional work process and the digitalized quality

Project Selection Committee Responsibility:

Members of Project Selection Committee include COO, quality director,

◼ Sources of Information / Data SNERDI Performance Excellence

Documented Identification Process

SN-W-PM-008 Project identification Management

SN-W-PM-102 Proposal Management of Modification Projects

SN-W-PM-108 Acceptance Evaluation Management of Project

SN-W-PM-077 Project Selection Committee Management

All the potential projects are identified by the SNERDI Performance

Who Documented Selection Process

SN-W-PM-077 Project Selection Committee Management

Project Selection Matrix Project Selection

Project Weight 10 10 10 7 9 9 8 9 9 5 ∑(Weight* Fill Overall

The Flowchart on the left shows how we select projects based on

In the Project Selection Matrix, we define ten criteria with weight.

◼ Sources of Information / Data

Voice of Process /Operation

Voice of the Customer Voice of Regulatory

By SNERDI’s digitalized quality management platform, we identified 147

[CLICK 1] We collected the voice of customers, voice of process, the

Project Selection Matrix

DONE BY OTHER TEAMS

Department DONE BY OUR TEAM

[CLICK 1] Next, 27 projects of them were eligible for important projects. So

[CLICK 2] Ultimately, 5 projects passed the final review successfully and

What is HFE? Why HFE?

HFE Design for Console

Human Factors Engineering (HFE) has specific focus on the interaction

So the reason why we applied HFE to our project is to increase the

Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3

Benefit 1.1 Benefit 2 Benefit 3

Criteria Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3

HED Resolution Rate

Human Performance Index N/A N/A

Additional N/A N/A

Counter Labor Cost Growth Rate N/A

For better project control, we detailed 3 goals with more criteria.

Now let’s start with the project framework.