Dear Friends
in DeltaV Rev 11 & 12, a new PCSD library has been added as HCD. it seems that it's very good and some new facilities have been added too. whereas, i have not used in any project, i'm not sure about this new library in refreshing, any bug, or loading the pages. would you please let me have your experience in HCD, if you have used it before.
Regards
Pouya
In reply to Andre Dicaire:
I'd like to add a remark about training of maintenance staff. The current PCSD library was mainly developed by the Emerson engineering office in India. They have a lot of really smart engineers working there. I've worked with some of them. But they also want to execute projects worldwide and that's why they're reluctant to share everything that's 'under the hood' of the PCSD library.
My point is that even some local Emerson engineers in Europe barely have enough training to trouble-shoot PCSD. And they are the people who have to train the customer maintenance staff. So not an ideal situation.
All above information I got from my contacts at Emerson.
In reply to Robert Rijnders:
I thought long and hard if I should respond to Andre's comment about my remark about operators. To be clear, I don't want to start an endless discussion about the level or intelligence of operators in any way.
Yes, maybe my remark was blunt as I stated before. But I also tell this to operators directly and even they agree. Every colleague I talk to agrees and they all have their own stories about near-misses and operator screw ups. So I strongly disagree with the point made, so not 'bad form' and definitively suitable for a public forum. I'll explain why in a moment.
Yes of course and fortunately there are smart operators, but usually they either leave the company after some years or get promoted to teamleader or supervisor etc.
This discussion IS about HCD which should be called Operator Centered Design imo, but the abbr. OCD was already taken. In the end it is the operator who needs to use the system, control the process through the user-interface and he or she needs to understand what's happening. That means it's absolutely vital to take the level of this end-user into account when designing and building an application. If the interface is too complex, some people will never understand how to use it properly, no matter how many training sessions they take. This is valid for every field of software development (i.e. process automation, mobile apps, desktop applications, etc.)
That's why I always try to tailor the user interface to the needs/level of the operators instead of the project design team. Operators come to me and thank me whenever I simplify their work. For instance by reducing the number of 'clicks' to get to the information they want.
Now when it comes to DeltaV, Emerson and HCD I think there is some room for improvement by now. Especially with all the new developments in basically all tech fields. Sticking to iFix for much longer is starting to feel like being stuck in the dark-ages. While I haven't seen the new PCSD library, the last faceplates and detail pictures aren't very OCD friendly. Unfortunately I don't have the time and opportunity to develop a new HMI or even add-ons for iFix, but I have plenty of ideas to make DeltaV better and more current :)
Now when it comes to DeltaV, Emersonand HCD I think there is some room for improvement by now. Especially with all the new developments in basically all tech fields. Sticking to iFix for much longer is starting to feel like being stuck in the dark-ages. While I haven't seen the new PCSD library, the last faceplates and detail pictures aren't very OCD friendly. Unfortunately I don't have the time and opportunity to develop a new HMI or even add-ons for iFix, but I have plenty of ideas to make DeltaV better and more current :)
In reply to gamella:
Hi Robert,
I understand your view that the PCSD HCD does not fully utilise the HCD concepts. Main reason is PCSD being an universal library, it does not have a specific standard to refer to. When focusing for specific projects, specific localised standards are to be considered (Like Norway where NORSOK has their own HCD concepts), where PCSD does not always provide sufficient usefulness.
But the fact that PCSD provides much more flexibility is the main advantage point of it. Even on sites where custom libraries are developed, I have seen operators asking for functionalities "like" PCSD with "minor tweaks" only.
What is not understood during this type of engineering is that there are inter-relations within configuration that are sometimes lost with such random updates & more issues are generated within the library. Because sometimes operators focus more on HMI part than the 'overall functionality' requirements. This has nothing to do with, if the operators are intellegent or not. (Example: For reducing the number of 'clicks' in one project I worked on, operations forced the engineering team to make the dynamos so complex, that they themselves did not like it, when all the design requirements were put together; & project had to spend quite some money & time re-engineering the configuration to nearly the same as PCSD). Many plants do run with such "known things" in their custom libraries & specific guidelines to bypass them during operations in that plant.
This happens as not all projects have luxury to afford the extensive testing of library, which is readily provided by PCSD. Through years, I have heard people complaining about how heavy PCSD is, & how difficult it is to understand, but I have not heard many complaining about any functionality issues within. As Andre indicated, PCSD gets full marks as a "project productivity tool" for this reason.
This post is just to share my view & not meant to taunt anybody. But to answer the original query by Pouya, If you are already using the PCSD library of module configuration, then going to HCD HMI part with new PCSD version would be good. No major known issues into it as per my understanding.
Regards,
Amod.
In reply to amodbobade:
Thanks for the information, Amod.
Don't get me wrong. I like the concept of PCSD, but the execution seems a bit messy sometimes looking from the outside. It works fine as it is, as long as you don't try to modify anything yourself.
HCD and the 'old' PCSD. For instance, I've had (many) operators complaining about the number of tabs on the PCSD detail pictures and the function of each one. With some extra training they now know which are important for operations and which are not. Same for some dynamos.
I haven't seen the PCSD HCD hands-on yet, so I'm very interested to see how they improved the HMI.
Andre Dicaire
Gents
To put it simple the PCSD HCD library is not the problem.
The real issue is, as Robert already stated, Ifix.
The program is not capable handling the amount off information the new library is asking for.
Second problem with ifix is how it works with active X elements.
Both problems lead to an unacceptable loading time off display's.
On the support part off the local Emerson office I have the same experience as Robert.
But as we are looking to the German office there are 2 display engineers.
Gerrit de Goeij
Operational DCS Support Engineer
Momentive Specialty Chemicals