Historically correct graphics
Why do graphic migration projects faithfully reproduce the same graphics they are replacing? There usually are so many widely acknowledged "better" ways of presenting information to the operator.
The reason that the operator will take a long time to come to terms with the new style of graphics seems to belittle the operators. Most operators have PCs at home, and have by now, transitioned between operating systems a number of times.
A great deal of time and effort goes into these projects, it seems logical to use this effort to try to a better result.
Chris, I think you're right
Chris, I think you're right in that the difficulty in operator transition shouldn't be an excuse to not fix the graphics. The important thing is to really plan out the graphics types and functions (and base those around plant operating modes, not P&IDs) and to create a graphic navigation scheme or hierarchy that makes it easy to get to the proper display. If you take the time to do it right, you'll actually lessen the burden for operators.
The problem is that many project managers do not see the value in the time and effort it takes to redesign the graphics. Many plant engineers are wary of making changes, too. What they know is that things are "basically" working right now, and they feel that the least risky thing to do is to not change anything.
I have been on both types of projects, and I can say that when the plant people and automation contractors get together and fully think through the operator interface, the plant will run better and the burden on operators will be significantly reduced.