Recently I’ve been invited to speak at two events, organised by two different companies, in two different countries, in two different languages. Both had one topic in common: the application of human-centric design to air traffic management (ATM) systems. Human-centric design is defined as “a problem-solving approach that places people’s needs, behaviors, and experiences at the center of the design process, ensuring solutions are desirable for users, technically feasible, and economically viable. It is defined by empathy, iteration, and collaboration, aiming to create products, services, or systems that genuinely improve human experiences.”
Why is it not the standard?
One participant raised an interesting question: why are we even discussing applying human-centric design to ATM systems? Why is it not the standard? There was a little silence in the audience before some answers were given.
- Most Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSPs) have slightly different ways of working, local specificities, and the human centric adaptation work must be done at each of them, which is costly and inefficient.
- Working in iterative cycles is not easy in a highly regulated environment. Tracking requirement changes, adjusting the test procedures and all the necessary documentation is not easy. A waterfall approach is easier from this perspective.
- Air traffic controllers (ATCOs) are a scarce resource and they are made available on a limited basis as they are really needed in control rooms.
- ATCOs need a lot of experience and sometimes even training to properly present their interests and wishes in the design process. ATCOs are highly trained to solve immediate problems, not to project themselves months or even years in the future.
According to experts working in both domains, the application of human-centric design to ATM systems is still in its infancy when compared to cockpit design. However, the level of standardisation in cockpit design is higher. The way an aircraft’s flight parameters like attitude, speed, altitude, and rate of climb are represented are the same, whatever the airline and crew.
When looking at ATM systems, the presentation of data blocks associated with each flight varies widely across ANSPs. It is sometimes different across operational units within an ANSP too. Information like the type of flight can be represented by using different colours or different symbols, and there is no standard for this.
Why does this matter?
Human-centric design is proven to help reduce fatigue and errors. Many ATM systems are based on design principles going back decades and traffic has increased a lot since their conception. What was OK then is sometimes not good enough anymore, leading to increased pressure on the users.
The new generation of ATCO candidates is used to modern user interfaces, smartphones, optimised websites, not to mention all the apps that are addictive by design. As Benoit Fonck from SESAR JU put it in the second conference I attended, ATC is not a game. However, I complemented Benoit’s sentence by saying that ATC can be gamified – at least when it comes to training. I think that this is a must and not an option. The competition for talent is getting harder, people change careers more often than before, and it is not easy to explain to candidates and existing ATCOs that they have to spend their working time using systems that are decades old in terms of design.
The return on investment of such design techniques cannot be measured directly, making it hard to justify. Sometimes the good old “we’ve always done so” argument, coupled with its evil cousin “it is good enough as it is” also must be overcome. This is an ongoing effort and various organisations are at various stages of advancement.
My prediction is that ANSPs and industry partners adopting more widespread use of human-centric design will definitely be at an advantage on multiple fronts.
