Alarms are about actions, not just signals. Design for safety means designing the full alarm lifecycle. The goal isn’t awareness—it’s response.
When systems become complex, safety becomes a challenge. Alarms are the guardrails that help prevent disaster from striking. Yet poorly designed software creates an alarming reality.
Disasters rarely happen because of a lack of alarms. They happen because there are too many.
In control rooms, alarms are everywhere. And maybe that’s the problem. Alarms fire so often that users stop noticing them. They mute the sound just to make it through the shift. And when they do notice an alarm, it’s often nonessential or even a false positive.
When everything seems urgent, nothing is. When alarms fire constantly, people stop responding.
We like to think having alarms equal safety. We overestimate. Mistrust. And bad alarm design leads to fatigue, overload and inactivity.
Designing alarms means designing for the human in the loop. Because when the alarm goes off, it’s not the sensor that solves the problem. It’s the responsible person inside the system.
If you want alarms people can trust, you need alarms people can understand. That starts with clear, consistent alarm classification.
An alarm is not just awareness. It’s a signal that something needs attention.
But systems are becoming more complex. Staff is reduced. Workload increased. This cognitive context demands crystal-clear communication. Alarms with the right priority, and the expected reliability.
You need a common classification system across your platform—one that spans code, UI, processes and people.
That means aligning on two key dimensions: priority and reliability.
Priority tells you what to focus on—what truly requires your attention.
It reflects a combination of urgency × severity.
Reliability tells you whether the alarm can be trusted. It depends on two factors: probability × accuracy.
Consistent classification creates clarity.
I have seen systems used by the same operator. One used low, medium, high priority with green, yellow and red color-coding. Another used lo-lo, lo, mid, hi, hi-hi. A third used normal, critical and urgent. This kind of inconsistency makes it difficult for operators to judge.
But labeling an alarm is just the start. The real challenge is what happens next. What is the next step in the alarm lifecycle?
Alarms are not just event messages. They’re part of a loop. You want users to respond. To resolve an issue or prevent a disaster.
That’s the job of the alarm lifecycle: a continuous system that helps teams manage risk.
I use a simple model to describe this: the alarm lifecycle triangle
Manage → Monitor → Event → Trigger → Notify → Respond → Manage
When you design a system, you’re facilitating this lifecycle with user interfaces. You can leverage existing UI components to design each step with a greater experience.
This is your start and end. Before an alarm ever fires, someone has to define it. What triggers it? Who owns it? How should it escalate?
You need alarms in an overview, a list or a dashboard. A place where teams configure, control and store alarms.
Common components:
Datagrid, listview, card, form.
This is the activity between Manage and Event. Monitoring means watching the data, the patterns, the signals. Until something happens, you’re anticipating what might happen.
Common components:
Chart, timeline, gauge, listview.
This is the moment of truth. A condition is met. A rule is broken. Or a system forecasts that something will occur.
You can see these events unfold through visuals. Noticing anomalies, spikes or drop-offs in the data.
Common components:
Chart, gauge, diagram.
This is where logic turns into action. The system makes a decision: raise the alarm.
Triggers need to be clearly defined. Not just what happened, but what matters enough to notify. Good trigger design avoids false positives and misplaced thresholds.
Common components:
Popup, badge, conditionally styled rows.
This is the handoff. The alarm moves from system to user.
But how? To whom? Through what channel? That’s where UX matters most. Alarms must reach the right person, with the right context, at the right time.
Common components:
Alert, badge, toast, modal, notification panel, chatbot.
This is the moment of action. The user sees the alarm. Now what? Acknowledge. Escalate. Or Fix? Maybe even dismiss or snooze it.
You’re not just designing for reaction. You’re designing for decision.
Common components:
Button, dropdown, chip.
A common misconception is that alarms and alerts are the same. But alerts are just one type of notification—used by alarms.
An alert tells you something happened. An alarm tells you to do something about it. That action is what actually matters.
Too many systems stop at notifying. They fire off popups and badges and call it a day. But if you want real safety, you need to go further.
You need to design for different types of response:
If you want people to act, you have to design for it—with proper classification and a well-managed lifecycle.
From out of control, to in control.
Teon Beijl is a business designer and founder of Gears & Ratio, with over a decade of experience in enterprise software for the oil and gas industry. Formerly Global Design Lead for reservoir modeling, remote operations and optimization software at Baker Hughes, he now helps organizations deliver high-quality user experiences for industrial products through knowledge sharing, design leadership and implementing scalable design systems. Connect with Teon on LinkedIn or Substack.