this resource is made publicly available to anyone seeking to adopt … · area, to illustrate the...
TRANSCRIPT
1
This resource is made publicly available to anyone seeking to adopt or design safer
and more usable wearable AR solutions. It is provided by the members of the
AREA at no cost to the ecosystem of Augmented Reality technology providers,
customers of AR-enabled solutions and others participating the advancement of
AR adoption.
1
© 2014 - 2018 All Rights Reserved
www.theAREA.org
AREA AR Safety Framework Case
Study
The AREA © 2018. All rights reserved.
This is a proprietary report prepared under contract with the AREA.
As part of the AREA’s support of the development of sound information and
best practices for the introduction and adoption of AR, access to and use of
this proprietary report is provided to all members of the enterprise AR
ecosystem. If you wish to make your partners, suppliers and customers
aware of this AREA research report, you may share this resource provided
that this information and the content of the report are not edited.
The entire content of this proprietary report is protected by copyright. No
part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or
transmitted in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, photocopying and
recording means or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the
AREA.
2
© 2014 - 2018 All Rights Reserved
www.theAREA.org
AREA AR Safety Framework Case
Study
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Purpose ...................................................................................................................... 3
Statement of the Challenge ........................................................................................ 4
Case Study of an Aerospace Assembly Use Case ................................................. 4
AR Project Cycle ........................................................................................................ 5
Step 1: Capture of Requirements ............................................................................... 6
Step 2: Design and Build ............................................................................................ 9
Step 3: Test .............................................................................................................. 12
Step 4: Deliver .......................................................................................................... 13
Looking Ahead ......................................................................................................... 14
3
© 2014 - 2018 All Rights Reserved
www.theAREA.org
AREA AR Safety Framework Case
Study
PURPOSE
This document is prepared by The Manufacturing Technology Centre, on behalf of the
AREA, to illustrate the proposed steps of a solution provider when assessing their
solution for safety in a manufacturing assembly process.
This resource is made publicly available to anyone seeking to adopt or design safer
and more usable AR solutions. It is provided by the members of the AREA at no cost
to the ecosystem of Augmented Reality technology providers, customers of AR-
enabled solutions and others participating the advancement of AR adoption.
The steps in this case study make use of the AREA Safety and Human Factors
Assessment Framework Tool and the proposed risk assessment framework in the
AREA report. The AREA Safety and Human Factors Assessment Framework is a
working model made available exclusively to AREA members for assessing AR design
and hardware for safety and usability.
An accompanying AREA member exclusive report provides best practices for
wearable AR technology safety and human factors assessment in the enterprise.
This project and resultant model benefits project managers, solution providers,
developers and safety managers by:
- Encouraging collaboration between risk management and the project team, - Providing methods and tools for the assessment of safety and human factors,
that can be applied at the correct time, and aligned with the typical project lifecycle, and
- Offering specific approaches to mitigate risks that, in part due to lack of strong human factors backgrounds, may be introduced when AR is introduced in the workplace.
To learn more about joining the AREA, these reports and other member benefits,
please visit http://thearea.org and/or contact its Executive Director, Mark Sage.
4
© 2014 - 2018 All Rights Reserved
www.theAREA.org
AREA AR Safety Framework Case
Study
STATEMENT OF THE CHALLENGE
Manufacturing companies are increasingly seeking to automate complex manual
assembly tasks in order to improve quality, efficiency and reduce cost.
Due to the mix of machines and employees, manufacturing workplaces require
proactive enforcement of safety and risk management protocols. The introduction of
wearable AR solutions in a typical workshop environment requires another level of
careful assessment and identification of possible safety issues before adoption. Then
mitigation measures must be incorporated into the design stages of a safe solution.
Case Study of an Aerospace Assembly Use Case
Augmented Reality can be an effective tool to ensure that procedures are followed
consistently and accurately as part of quality management processes and in
compliance with industry regulations. In assembly use cases, AR delivers value by
presenting information digitally in the user’s context to guide them through complex
procedures. The costs and time associated with re-work and lack of compliance are
reduced when assembly is done correctly every time.
For this case study, an AR-assisted assembly project is commissioned by a company
that manufactures and assembles aerospace systems in compliance with strict
assembly regulations at each step. The work order instructions are accessed at a fixed
workstation, however, assembly can take place at another area of the factory floor or,
in the case of large assemblies, can require working at height. The company seeks to
improve operational efficiency by ‘augmenting the manual worker’ through the use of
portable AR-assisted devices.
An AR solutions provider is hired to build a solution designed to reduce the time taken
for complex assembly by delivering AR-assisted instructions. The solution must
prioritize safety and usability in its design to ensure the successful adoption by the
client and to be deployed on both a wearable AR display and a companion app running
on a tablet.
5
© 2014 - 2018 All Rights Reserved
www.theAREA.org
AREA AR Safety Framework Case
Study
AR PROJECT CYCLE
A project cycle is used as a reference to describe recommended actions and
methods/tools to capture and mitigate for safety risks and usability. In this case study
and the AREA Safety and Human Factors Assessment Framework Tool, this cycle
has been referred to as the ‘AR project cycle’.
Shown in the figure below, the AR project cycle emphasizes recommended actions to
promote safety and usability within the proposed AR solution.
Figure 1. AR project cycle (source: AREA Safety and Human Factors Assessment Framework Tool).
The AR Project Cycle - Solutions Provider
Recommended Actions
Supporting Tools
Requirements Capture (Systems
Definition)Design Build Testing Training Delivery
• Identify SafetyRequirements by Defining:
• Context of use (process, task and environment)
• Currently used hardware,
software and equipment• Existing health and safety
hazards• Safety compliance and
regulatory factors• Key actors in the
project/implementation
• Define end-user demographics and characteristics
• Assess Solution Design for Safety and Usability
• Undertake risk assessment of solution design
• Identify mitigations for solution
• Assess and select device to safety requirements
• Define Safety and Usability Testing
• Define acceptable safety factors
• Conduct safety and Usability trials
• Analyse results andincorporate feedback into design
• Document Solution Specification for the End-User Including:
• Instructions on proper use of solution
• Known risks• Residual risks
• AR Device Assessment
• AR Design Assessment
• AR Generic Risks Table
(Ref)
• AR Design Assessment
• AR Generic Risks Table (Ref)
• Usability and Safety Tools (Ref)
6
© 2014 - 2018 All Rights Reserved
www.theAREA.org
AREA AR Safety Framework Case
Study
STEP 1: CAPTURE OF REQUIREMENTS
During this stage, the project team or manager describes the technology, the
processes to be modified and other factors directly or indirectly relevant including:
● The task, the process and the environment, ● Hardware, software and equipment currently in use, ● Health and safety hazards
o Through discussions with the client’s side safety/human factors manager and/or project manager,
o Through current risk management documents on the assembly process such as risk assessments or process failure mode effects analysis (PFMEAs)
● Safety compliance and regulatory factors including: o Known country/state regulations, o Organizational policies,
● Key actors in the project/implementation, ● End user demographics.
Table 1. Example of requirements capture process output.
Project Requirements Summary
Task/process Assembly of engine components. Manufacturer has defined the six work orders
in the process for assembling components on an aircraft engine. Each work
order is then broken down into smaller tasks known as “operations”
Environment Typical workshop environment.
AR location of use Working at height for some tasks requiring climbing of scaffolding.
Mainly working on various areas of shop floor.
Hardware, software and
equipment currently used
Work instructions are accessed through a fixed work station computer. Some
tools required specific assembly operation.
Existing health and safety
hazards
Risk assessments and PFMEA are available.
Safety/Compliance
• Personal Protective Equipment o OSHA 1910.132
• Ergonomics o OSHA CFR 1910 General Duty Clause, Section 5(a)(1)
• Fall Protection (ensuring protection from fall hazards) o OSHA 1910 Subpart D State and organizational policies
benchmarking
Key actors in
project/implementation
Solutions provider: project manager, development team Client –side: project manager, safety manager, human factors engineer.
User demographics (i.e. to
create end user personas,
and understand known
behaviors of end users)
Range between young apprentices to long-service employees, some workers
wear prescription lenses.
7
© 2014 - 2018 All Rights Reserved
www.theAREA.org
AREA AR Safety Framework Case
Study
AR Assessment Tools
The ‘AREA Safety and Human Factors Assessment Framework’ produces results of
two assessments: one focusing on the AR device and another on design of the
solution. These tools, consisting of a set of comprehensive questions and related
information, support the key roles involved in a project to systematically identify and
derive safety and human factors related issues and provide high level
recommendations to include in the design of the solution. The tools assist in analyzing
all the potential safety and usability requirements that may need consideration
surrounding the user, the environment, the context (the task) and its interactions within
the system.
AR Device Assessment Tool
This tool assists in defining device requirements for the solution. For this assembly
use case, the following are some constraints derived from the assessment:
Environment
● The workshop floor is brightly lit. ● The workshop floor can be noisy. ● Operators must be aware of hazards in their surroundings such as forklifts. ● Operators must be aware of guarding and zone exclusion zones whilst using
the device. ● Health and safety notes should be displayed to the device before operation as
current standard process.
Use case
● Assembly operators are required to work at height for some operations (e.g., climbing scaffolding and ladders).
● Hanging cables from the device may get caught/detached in the assembly process.
● Some assembly operations require the use of small power tools (e.g., automated nut runners and hand-drills).
User
● Some operators wear prescription glasses. ● Experienced users will need to use the device for complex assembly operations
(such as when assembling harnesses). Less experienced operators may require longer use of the device even for simpler operations as they’re training.
● Device needs to be comfortable to wear for duration required- each operation lasts approx. 20mins.
● Voice interaction with the device would be ideal leaving hands-free.
System
● Device needs to receive safety prompts and alarms.
8
© 2014 - 2018 All Rights Reserved
www.theAREA.org
AREA AR Safety Framework Case
Study
A sample of the recommendations generated by the framework is in Table 2.
Table 2. Sample of device assessment results (source: AREA Safety and Human Factors Assessment Framework Tool).
Notes Device Safety Considerations
Main AR
Risk/Hazard
Will the user be
working at
height?
Working at height can be a
high-risk situation and may
require full attention, and
situational awareness. A
device obscuring user's FOV
should be avoided.
Consider how the device's form factor
and fit for user may increase
discomfort/distraction/obstruction to
user view. Can the device be used to
alert the user when they are in a
dangerous orientation/location?
Low Peripheral
Vision
Does the device
need to
especially
robust/ruggedize
d?
There are risks of damaging
the device whilst not worn by
the wearer. Device can be
dropped or handled rough
that could cause damage to
the external materials or
possibly internal circuitry.
Consider how the device will be used
by the user and what its resting place
will be normally. Will the device be
carried or moved around?
These may indicate that a ruggedized
device would be required to prevent
damage over time.
Asset damage
AR Design Assessment
Similarly, the design assessment component of the framework supports a developer
in designing a safe AR-assisted solution. For this assembly use case, the assessment
advises the Solutions Provider to consider the following when designing the AR
solution:
Environment
● The workshop is noisy - the design needs to consider multimodal interaction (i.e. not relying only on voice). The solution may also need to filter out noise so that safety critical alerts such as alarms can be heard.
● There is risk of asset and equipment damage in the surrounding environment. There are other components surrounding the operator such as equipment and materials stacked on shelves.
● The operator will be required to use the solution daily for intervals at least 20 minutes in duration. Design must consider reducing risk of eye strain.
User
● The users have some visual impairments (e.g., an operator is color blind). Designer will need to ensure that the content will be visible, despite visual impairments.
● Operators need to collaborate/communicate with other personnel, equipment or machines. Some operations in assembly require working in pairs. Shared experiences may be required.
● The solution must be intuitive and easy to set-up/calibrate. ● The solution must not obstruct the user’s field of view or peripheral view. ● The solution must not distract the user from hazards/risks posed to them in the
environment.
9
© 2014 - 2018 All Rights Reserved
www.theAREA.org
AREA AR Safety Framework Case
Study
Use case
● Some operations will require AR-assisted work instructions whilst operating power tools. A solution must have a hands-free way of interacting with the AR device.
System
● The solution must allow safety critical information (e.g., alarms, alerts or prompts) to be received by the user.
● The solution must provide the user continual device status (e.g. battery status, offline/online status or malfunction).
A sample of the recommendations are found in Table 3 below:
Table 3. Sample of design assessment results (source: AREA Safety and Human Factors Assessment Framework Tool).
Notes Device Safety Considerations
Main AR
Risk/Hazard
2.3 Do the end users
have any experience
with using AR?
Introduction to the emerging
technology and training must be
considered before or as part of the
implementation phase. This should
include correct fitting/mounting of
device and use of functionality.
Reluctance to adapting new
technology may be an issue.
Consider appropriate calibration set
up.
Guided experience may be
required for new users or users
with little experience with new
technology interfaces. Design flow
may need to be intuitive and user
experience comfortable. Consider
a change management plan.
Inadequate training
3.2 Is the device
required to receive
safety critical
messages?
Alarms, messages require to be sent
and viewed by the headset by third
party IoT devices, then this
information/data needs to be
presented in the most effective way
to the user.
Consider how this
information/data will be displayed
effectively and safely. Urgent
safety information visual/tactile
may need to capture user's
attention without obstructing their
FOV while being in the midst of a
task.
Safety critical
communication
3.3 Does the user
have/require visibility
of the system? E.g. if
system is offline
If device loses signal or
malfunctioning, the user being
unaware of this could be a risk
Consider how the user will have
visibility of the current device
status - battery, malfunctioning,
offline status etc.
Safety critical
communication
STEP 2: DESIGN AND BUILD
There are no specific design standards for creating AR solutions, however, companies
adopt their own systems design methodology. Typically, the design cycle is iterative
and consists of a concept stage and detailed design stage.
In the concept stage of the project, the development team needs to ensure the design
meets the safety/usability requirements defined and prioritized in the first stage. To
10
© 2014 - 2018 All Rights Reserved
www.theAREA.org
AREA AR Safety Framework Case
Study
ensure the design is safe and robust for the application, standard practice dictates that
risk assessments are undertaken before the final build/implementation of the design.
A list of commonly used and standardized risk assessment methods are provided in
the AREA Safety and Human Factors Assessment Framework Tool. A sample of the
tools captured are shown below in Table 4.
Table 4. Sample of risk assessment tools (source: AREA Safety and Human Factors Assessment Framework Tool)
Assessment
Domain Tool Metrics When to use them in Design Cycle?
Failure Modes
and Effects
Analysis
Breakdown of
failures, scored by
severity and
likelihood
Design - Concept Usually conducted once during the technology
cycle stages
HAZOP
System is divided into
subparts/subsystems
and analyzed one at
a time. Severity and
Likelihood scored.
Risk is then ranked.
Implementation -
Early
Systematic search for hazards which are defined
as deviations within these parameters that have
dangerous consequences.
Risk
Assessment
Severity and
Likelihood of risk is
scored
Implementation-
Early
Document systematically, outlining the known
hazards, risks and controls for AR
The following (Table 5) is an example output of an FMEA for the current assembly use
case.
11
© 2014 - 2018 All Rights Reserved
www.theAREA.org
AREA AR Safety Framework Case
Study
Table 5 FMEA example (source: MTC, 2018)
Process
Step
Potential
Failure
Mode
Potential
Failure
Effect
SEV Potential
Causes
Current
Process
Controls
OCC DET RPN1 Action
Recommended
What is
this step?
In what
ways can
the step
go wrong?
What is
the impact
on the
user?
How
severe
is the
effect?
What
causes the
step to go
wrong?
What are
the
existing
control
that
prevent/de
tect the
failure
mode from
occurring?
How
frequent
ly is the
cause
likely to
occur?
How
prob
able
is
dete
ction
of
failur
e
mod
e?
SEV x
OCC x
DET
What are the
actions for
reducing the
occurrence of
the cause or
improving the
detection?
Operator
wears
headset
Headset
is not
calibrate
d
Experien
ce is
incorrect
7 User is not
aware of
calibration
process
n/a 6 5 210 Train user in
setting up
headset or
prompt user in
application to
calibrate
headset on
first use.
Operator
climbs
scaffoldin
g to
install
compone
nt
AR
content
obstruct
user view
Operator
visibility
is
reduced,
risk of
tripping
8 User does
not switch
off AR
whilst
climbing
scaffolding.
User keeps
headset on
while
climbing
scaffolding
n/a 6 7 336 AR content to
automatically
switch off in
task mode.
User prompted
to take off
headset before
climbing.
Operator
goes to
store to
get a tool
FOV is
obstructe
d, SA is
reduced
Distractio
n from
hazards
in
environm
ent –
moving
vehicles,
trip
hazards
7 User keeps
headset
and AR
experience
active
n/a 7 7 343 AR content to
automatically
disappear
when away
from work
zone. AR
headset
tracked and
alarm/prompts
when outside
work zone.
When doing risk assessment and defining acceptable levels of risk during the solution
design stage, a multi-disciplinary team is recommended. Team members may include:
● A person highly familiar with the assembly steps (such as the production manager or end user).
● A person (or same person as above) well-versed in the health and safety risks
1 Risk priority number: The overall risk score of an event. It is calculated by multiplying the scores for severity,
occurrence and detection. An event with a high RPN demands immediate attention while events with lower RPNs
are less risky. Traffic lights color coding used to highlight severity of risk.
12
© 2014 - 2018 All Rights Reserved
www.theAREA.org
AREA AR Safety Framework Case
Study
of the process (from client’s side such as the safety manager and/or human factors engineer).
● The AR solution’s development team. ● A professional familiar with FMEA expertise but no specific knowledge of the
project or processes. This process is iterative, and it will be repeated until the design adequately mitigates
for risks.
STEP 3: TEST
Testing is an essential step in the AR project cycle as this evaluates whether the AR
solution has met all its requirements, including those pertaining to the solution’s safety
and usability.
There are several methods to evaluate an AR solution including subjective and
objective measurements through human perception, observation and expert analysis.
A comprehensive evaluation includes a combination of methods and measures.
In this assembly use case, distraction, cognitive strain and potential restriction in field
of view are three overlapping usability concerns. Common usability tools that could be
adapted to evaluate AR solutions in the required domain include:
• Questionnaires such as the NASA-TLX to assess the perceived mental workload on the user.
• Observational methods such as Verbal Protocol that involves asking the end user to verbally explain what they see and what they do to understand the reasons behind their decisions whilst navigating through the AR. application/experience. This method also allows the observer to record the number of errors made by the user. For example, if the user closes a critical health and safety pop up in the AR application without reading it.
• Objective methods such as gaze tracking and physiological response measures could give an indication of whether the user’s focus is on the expected object/area/task.
Table 6 summarizes usability assessment methods that could be used in combination
to provide feedback on the potential of user distraction and mental workload.
13
© 2014 - 2018 All Rights Reserved
www.theAREA.org
AREA AR Safety Framework Case
Study
Table 6. Usability Tools extracted from 'Usability & Safety Tools (Ref)' from Safety Framework Tool
Assessment
Domain Tool Metrics
When to
use them
in Design
Cycle?
Notes
Situational
Awareness
Eye-tracker
(Eye point of
gaze)
Heat map, areas of
interest, TTFF,
Fixation Sequences
Design -
Testing
To determine where the operator is
looking
Situational
Awareness
Think Aloud
(Verbal
protocol)
Error rate, user
behaviour,
observation
Design -
Testing
A method used to gain insight how the
user behaves whilst navigating through an
UX/UI/system
Mental
Workload
Assessment
NASA -TLX Subjective, 7 point
scale
Design -
Testing
Questionnaire used to assess mental
workload on user
A full list of safety and usability assessment tools can be found in the AREA Safety
and Human Factors Assessment Framework Tool’.
STEP 4: DELIVER
To support safe use of the final solution, documentation and training must be created
for use during the deployment phase. The documentation would include the solution
specification ‘as built’ along with the following details:
● Instructions on using the AR system. ● Instructions on calibrating the system and recommended frequency of
calibration/updates. ● Any health and safety guidelines and warnings. ● Risk Assessment before use (this may be done by safety manager rather than
solution provider). ● Maintenance and cleaning instructions.
Prior to rolling out an AR solution, training for end users is also important. Training
delivered by the solution provider or the client (depending on contractual agreement),
should include:
• Introduction to the AR device and its functional use (including advantages and limitations).
• Duration of optimum time of use.
• Key safety risks such as distraction and eye strain.
• Findings on potential increased mental strain and distraction (or any other safety and human factor based on assessments/testing).
• Emphasis on technical and hardware limitations that may pose safety risks such as FOV, obstruction to peripheral view, etc.
14
© 2014 - 2018 All Rights Reserved
www.theAREA.org
AREA AR Safety Framework Case
Study
For easing adoption of wearable AR displays, an approach incorporating a transition
period in which both current and AR-assisted methods are used allows operators to
become comfortable and confident in using the new technology on the workshop floor.
LOOKING AHEAD
Augmented Reality can be an effective tool to ensure that procedures are followed
consistently and accurately as part of quality management processes and in
compliance with industry regulations. In assembly use cases, AR delivers value by
presenting information digitally in context to the user to guide them through complex
assemblies. This case study has shown how the AR project cycle can be used for an
aerospace assembly use case. It demonstrates how a solution could be developed
with the usability and safety at the center of the design. The approach emphasizes the
topic of safety and usability, however, it should be noted that there are many other
functional and non-functional needs (e.g., UI/UX design, security, hardware software
agnosticism, etc.) requiring attention to create higher quality AR experiences across
enterprises.
The AREA is driving the development of best practices and policies that organizations
could use to govern AR safety and human factors assessments within the workplace.
Current AREA activities include management of a safety committee in which members
collaborate to highlight safety unknowns, identify and prioritize safety risks and
generate resources to educate and guide the members and the wider AR ecosystem
on the topic. Similarly, a human factors interest group within the AREA Research
Committee supports those members seeking to explore and discuss new approaches
to address the usability issues in design of AR systems.
This project has identified and engaged with companies, research institutes, private
and public safety organizations inside and outside the AREA member network. As the
AREA expands activities focusing on the safety agenda in AR, it will seek deeper
discussions and collaborate with all the enterprise AR ecosystem stakeholders to
reduce risk and increase usability of AR-assisted solutions.