This article was downloaded by: [200.116.26.221]On: 25 April
2012, At: 21:23Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd
Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T
3JH, UKErgonomicsPublication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription
information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/terg20A strategy for
human factors/ergonomics: developingthe discipline and
professionJan Dul a , Ralph Bruder b , Peter Buckle c , Pascale
Carayon d , Pierre Falzon e , William S.Marras f , John R. Wilson g
& Bas van der Doelen ha Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus
University, Rotterdam, the Netherlandsb Institute of Ergonomics,
Technische Universitt Darmstadt, Germanyc Imperial College,
Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, London, UKd
Center for Quality and Productivity Improvement, Department of
Industrial and SystemsEngineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison,
Madison, USAe Research Center on Work and Development, Cnam, Paris,
Francef The Ohio State University, Biodynamics Laboratory, USAg
Human Factors Research Group, Faculty of Engineering, University of
Nottingham, UKh Department of Knowledge and Communication, BMA
Ergonomics, Zwolle, the NetherlandsAvailable online: 15 Feb 2012To
cite this article: Jan Dul, Ralph Bruder, Peter Buckle, Pascale
Carayon, Pierre Falzon, William S. Marras, John R. Wilson &Bas
van der Doelen (2012): A strategy for human factors/ergonomics:
developing the discipline and profession, Ergonomics,55:4,
377-395To link to this
article:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2012.661087PLEASE SCROLL
DOWN FOR ARTICLEFull terms and conditions of use:
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionsThis article
may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling,
loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form
toanyone is expressly forbidden.The publisher does not give any
warranty express or implied or make any representation that the
contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of
any instructions, formulae, and drug doses shouldbe independently
verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable
for any loss, actions, claims,proceedings, demand, or costs or
damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly inconnection with or arising out of the use of this
material.Astrategyforhumanfactors/ergonomics:developingthedisciplineandprofessionJanDula*,RalphBruderb,PeterBucklec,PascaleCarayond,PierreFalzone,WilliamS.Marrasf,JohnR.WilsongandBasvanderDoelenhaRotterdamSchoolofManagement,ErasmusUniversity,Rotterdam,theNetherlands;bInstituteofErgonomics,TechnischeUniversitatDarmstadt,Germany;cImperialCollege,DepartmentofSurgeryandCancer,FacultyofMedicine,London,UK;dCenterforQualityandProductivityImprovement,DepartmentofIndustrialandSystemsEngineering,UniversityofWisconsin-Madison,Madison,USA;eResearchCenteronWorkandDevelopment,Cnam,Paris,France;fTheOhioStateUniversity,BiodynamicsLaboratory,USA;gHumanFactorsResearchGroup,FacultyofEngineering,UniversityofNottingham,UK;hDepartmentofKnowledgeandCommunication,BMAErgonomics,Zwolle,theNetherlands(Received7December2011;nalversionreceived22January2012)Human
factors/ergonomics (HFE) has great potential to contribute to the
design of all kinds of systems with people(work systems,
product/service systems), but faces challenges in the readiness of
its market and in the supply of high-qualityapplications.
HFEhasauniquecombinationof threefundamental characteristics: (1) it
takesasystemsapproach(2)itisdesigndrivenand(3)itfocusesontwocloselyrelatedoutcomes:performanceandwell-being.Inorder
tocontribute tofuture systemdesign, HFEmust demonstrate its value
more successfully tothe mainstakeholders of system design. HFE
already has a strong value proposition (mainly well-being) and
interactivity withthestakeholdergroupof systemactors
(employeesandproduct/serviceusers). However,
thevalueproposition(mainly performance) and relationships with the
stakeholder groups of system experts (experts from technical
andsocial sciences involvedinsystemdesign), andsystemdecisionmakers
(managers andother decisionmakersinvolved in system design,
purchase, implementation and use), who have a strong power to
inuence system design,need to be developed. Therefore, the rst main
strategic direction is to strengthen the demand for high-quality
HFEbyincreasingawarenessamongpowerful stakeholdersof thevalueof
high-qualityHFEbycommunicatingwithstakeholders, by
buildingpartnerships andby educatingstakeholders. The
secondmainstrategic directionis tostrengthentheapplicationof
high-qualityHFEbypromotingtheeducationof HFEspecialists,
byensuringhigh-quality standards of HFE applications and HFE
specialists, and by promoting HFE research excellence at
universitiesand other organisations. This strategy requires
cooperation between the HFE community at large, consisting of
theInternational Ergonomics Association(IEA), local (national and
regional) HFE societies, and
HFEspecialists.Weproposeajointworld-wideHFEdevelopmentplan,inwhichtheIEAtakesaleadershiprole.Practitioner
Summary: Humanfactors/ergonomics (HFE) has muchtooer
byaddressingmajor business andsocietal
challengesregardingworkandproduct/servicesystems. HFEpotential,
however, isunderexploited. Thispaperpresents
astrategyfortheHFEcommunitytostrengthendemandandapplicationof
high-qualityHFE,emphasisingitskeyelements:systemsapproach,designdriven,andperformanceandwell-beinggoals.Keywords:
human factors/ergonomics discipline, human factors/ergonomics
profession, future of ergonomics,
worksystems,product/servicesystems,performance1.
IntroductionThispaperprovidesavisionofthefutureofthehumanfactors/ergonomics(HFE)disciplineandprofession(thetermsergonomicsandhumanfactorsareusedinterchangeably1).ThepaperpresentsthendingsoftheFutureofErgonomicsCommittee2,
whichwasestablishedinDecember2010bytheInternational
ErgonomicsAssociation(IEA) and which reported its results at the
18th Triennial World Congress on Ergonomics, IEA2012 in Brazil.
Thegoal of thecommitteewas toformulateapositionpaper for
theHFEcommunityonstrategies for thefutureof the HFEdiscipline
andprofession. During the more than50 years of HFEhistory, several
papers
havebeenpublisheddiscussingthefutureofergonomics.RecentexamplesincludespecialissuesinTheoreticalIssuesinErgonomics
Science (Hollnagel 2001) and Ergonomics (Stanton and Stammers
2008). Most papers predict the futureof ergonomics for specic HFE
areas in terms of expected developments and eects on the content of
the discipline,orinspecicregions. Incontrast, thepresent
paperfocusesonastrategyfortheworld-widepromotionof
thedisciplineandprofessioninordertoreachglobal excellenceinHFE.
Thepaperdoesnotcontainanoperationalplantorealisethisstrategy.*Correspondingauthor.Email:[email protected],No.4,April2012,377395ISSN0014-0139print/ISSN1366-5847online2012Taylor&Francishttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2012.661087http://www.tandfonline.comDownloaded
by [200.116.26.221] at 21:23 25 April 2012
ThecommitteedevelopedastrategyforthefutureofHFEbysharinganddiscussingtheviewsofcommitteemembers
andmanyother HFEspecialists. Besides electronic
communicationamongcommittee members,
thecommitteeheldphysicalmeetingsinAmsterdam(March2011,November2011)andParis(June2011),andhadabrainstormingsessionwithIEAcouncilmembersinGrahamstown,SouthAfrica(April2011).Inputsfrommanyother
HFE specialists worldwide were obtained via face-to-face interviews
and email exchange (a list of people whoprovided input can be found
in the Acknowledgements). Although the committee has collected many
documents onthefutureof HFE, theviewsexpressedinthispaperarenot
basedonthisliteratureoronaliteraturereview.However, we
addedreferences for illustrationandfurther reading. This paper
presents the nal viewof
thecommittee.Thecommitteeconsistsmainlyofwesternacademicswithextensiveinternationalexperience,andwithsubstantial
experience of working closely with practitioners and clients in all
areas of industry and commerce. Thisdocument is not a consensus
paper representing all views in the HFE community, nor does it
necessarily reect theview of the IEA. The content is available to
any organisation (including the IEA and local HFE societies) and
anyindividualtodevelopnewstrategies,tacticsandoperationswithintheirowncontext.ThestartingpointofthispaperisthatHFEhasgreatpotential
toensurethatanydesignedartefact,rangingfromaconsumerproduct
toanorganisational environment,
isshapedaroundthecapacitiesandaspirationsofhumans, such that
performance and well-being are optimised. When HFE does not play a
role in system design, thiscanleadtosub-optimal systems
withqualitydecits, reducedeciency, illness, dissatisfaction, etc.
HFEcanprovide solutions to these problems. However, the potential
of HFE remains under-exploited. At least four reasonshave
beenidentied. First, manystakeholders involvedinthe design,
management anduse of artefacts (e.g.customers, workers, managers,
otherprofessionals,
societyatlarge)arenotawareofthevalueofHFEandasaconsequence,donotexhibitastrongdemandforHFE.Second,incertainsituationswherethereisademandforHFE(e.g.
ergonomicproducts inproduct marketing, ergonomicsystems
insafetycritical industries suchasdefence, transport, oil, and
healthcare), there is not enough high-quality HFE in the design
process because HFE islacking or its application is too limitedin
scope, resulting in sub-optimalsolutions. Third, the eld is
verysmall
incomparisontoestablisheddisciplinesinvolvedindesigningartefactslikeengineeringandpsychology,andisoftenincorporatedwithinthesedisciplineswithoutexplicitreferencetotheHFEdiscipline.Fourth,theverystrengthofHFE,
its multi-disciplinary base, is also a potential weakness; a
diversity of topics, views and practices exist
withintheHFEcommunity,resultinginunclearcommunicationtotheexternalworld.InordertodevelopastrategyfortheHFEdisciplineandprofession,
westartbydescribingthefundamentalcharacteristicsofHFEinSection2.Then,
weidentifydevelopmentsintheexternalworldthatareimportantforHFE in
Section 3. Next, we formulate the value of HFE for the main
stakeholders of system design. In Section 5, wepropose the
strategic positioning of the HFE discipline, and nally we discuss
possible strategic actions for the
HFEcommunitythatcanhelptoachieveaprosperousfutureforHFE.2.
ThefundamentalcharacteristicsoftheHFEdisciplineandprofessionHFE
focuses on systems in which humans interact with their environment.
The environment is complex and consistsof the physical environment
(things), the organisational environment (how activities are
organised and controlled),and the social environment (other people,
culture) (Moray 2000, Wilson 2000, Carayon 2006). The system can be
aworksystem(wherethehumanisaworkerandtheenvironmentistheworkenvironment)oraproduct/servicesystem
(where the human is a product user or person who receives a service
and the environment is the environmentwhere the product is used or
where the service is received)3. The focus of HFE is to jointly
improve performance
andwell-beingbydesigningtheintegrativewholebetter,andbyintegratingthehumanintothesystembetter.Thisisdonebyttingtheenvironmenttothehuman.HFEtypicallytakesahierarchicalapproachwhereenvironmentaldesign
to t the human is seen as the priority, and selecting people to t
the environment or training people to t thesystem is only
considered when the former is not possible. With a better tting
environment, humans are better abletocontributetoperformance4.
Overthepast50years,
theHFEcommunityhasdevelopedanddocumentedasubstantial bodyof
knowledge andskills regardinginteractions betweenhumans andtheir
environment,
andmethodologiesforanalysinganddesigningsystems.ThedenitionofHFEandHFEspecialists(adoptedbytheIEAin2000)reectsthisbodyofknowledgeasfollows(IEA2000):Ergonomics(orhumanfactors)isthescienticdisciplineconcernedwiththeunderstandingoftheinteractionsamonghumans
andotherelementsof asystem, andtheprofessionthat applies
theoretical principles, dataandmethods
todesigninordertooptimizewell-beingandoverall performance.378
J.Duletal.Downloaded by [200.116.26.221] at 21:23 25 April 2012
Practitionersofergonomics, ergonomists, contributetotheplanning,
design, implementation, evaluation, redesignandcontinuous
improvement of tasks, jobs, products, technologies, processes,
organisations, environments and
systemsinordertomakethemcompatiblewiththeneeds,abilitiesandlimitationsofpeople.ThreefundamentalcharacteristicsofHFEcanbederivedfromthesedescriptions:.
HFEtakesasystemsapproach.. HFEisdesigndriven..
HFEfocusesontworelatedoutcomes:performanceandwell-being.2.1.
HFEtakesasystemsapproachAsystemisasetofinteractingandinterdependentcomponentsthatformanintegratedwhole.
HFEfocusesongoal-orientedandpurposefullydesignedsystems
consistingof humans andtheir environment (Helander 1997,Schlick
2009). The environment can be any human-made artefact e.g.
(work)place, tool, product, technicalprocesses, service, software,
builtenvironment, task, organisational design, etc. aswell
asotherhumans(Wilson2000). HFE considers dierent aspects of the
person (physical, physiological, psychological (aective and
cognitive),andsocial)anddierentaspectsoftheenvironment(physical,social,informational,etc.).Itcanaddressissuesonvarious
systemlevels frommicro-level (e.g. humans usingtools or
performingsingle tasks) tomeso-level (e.g.humans as part of
technical processes or organisations) tomacrolevel (e.g. humans as
part of networks oforganisations, regions, countries, or the world)
(Rasmussen2000). Whendening problems andformulatingsolutions,
systemboundariesaredened, andthefocusof HFEcanbeonspecicaspectsof
people(e.g. onlyphysical), onspecicaspectsoftheenvironment(e.g.
onlyworkplace), oronaspeciclevel (e.g. micro), butthebroader
context of the human within the environment is always taken into
consideration (contextualisation).
ThisbroadperspectiveofHFEcanbereferredtoasasystemsapproachoraholisticapproach.The
systems or holistic approach of HFE and its wide (almost unlimited)
context for application dierentiates itfrom other more narrow
disciplines such as cognitive psychology and human movement science
(Brewer and
Hsiang2002).TheseotherdisciplinesmayshareahumanviewwithHFE,butnotacomprehensiveview.2.2.
HFEisdesigndrivenHFEseekstoimproveperformanceandwell-beingthroughsystemsdesign.
Analysesandassessmentsresult inrecommendations and actions for this
design. HFE can be involved in all stages of planning,
design,implementation, evaluation, maintenance,
redesignandcontinuousimprovement of systems(JapanErgonomicsSociety
2006). These stages are not necessarily sequential; they are
recursive, interdependent, dynamic, but design
isattheheartofthem.Decisionsatonestagemayaectorbeaectedbydecisionsatotherstages.HFE
specialists can be active participants in design processes, and a
particular feature of HFE is that those whowill be part of the
system being designed are often brought into the development
process as participants (Noro andImada1991). HFEspecialists canhave
dierent roles. For example, theycanact as specialists of the
humancomponent of the system. The humancomponentshould be
understoodas covering both individual and
collectiveorsocialaspects,frommicrotomacrolevel.HFEspecialistshavecompetenciesregardingmethodsforanalysingand
acting on situations, methodsfor designingand assessing technical
and organisationalenvironments,
methodsfororganisingandmanagingparticipatoryapproaches,andmethodsforredesigningandcontinuouslyimprovingsystems
(Woods and Dekker 2000). HFEspecialists analyse and solve problems
in partnership with othercontributorstodesign(Noy1995,
Rasmussen2000).
Theycanalsoplayanintegrativeroleindesigndecisions,basedontheir
knowledgeandskills of designasanactivity(includingmental
processesof contributors tothedesign, and collective interaction
processes). Furthermore, they can stimulate and moderate design
processes by,
forinstance,translatingengineeringterminologyorconceptstoend-userterminologyandviceversa.Thisdesignorientationof
HFEdierentiatesit fromotherdisciplinessuchassociology,
andanthropology.TheseotherdisciplinesmayshareacomprehensiveviewwithHFE,butnotanactionview(Helander1997).2.3.
HFEfocusesontworelatedoutcomes:performanceandwell-beingBy tting the
environment to the human, two related systemoutcomes can be
achieved: performance (e.g.productivity, eciency, eectiveness,
quality, innovativeness, exibility, (systems) safetyandsecurity,
reliability,sustainability) and well-being (e.g. health and safety,
satisfaction, pleasure, learning, personal development).
TheseErgonomics 379Downloaded by [200.116.26.221] at 21:23 25 April
2012 and other outcomes are balanced by HFE specialists, managing
practical as well as ethical trade-os within systems(e.g. Wilson et
al. 2009). Performance and well-being interact: performance can
inuence well-being, and
well-beingcaninuenceperformance,bothintheshortandthelong-term(seeFigure1).Reduced
performance and well-being can occur when there is a lack of t
between the environment and humancapabilities andaspirations.
Forexample, humansmayperformbelowtheircapabilities
andstandardsbecauseother parts of the systemare an obstacle rather
than a supporting environment (e.g. due to lack of
time,inappropriateequipment,insucientsupport)(Falzon2005,Falzonetal.2012).Well-beingandperformanceareintertwinedandshouldbeunderstoodasstronglyconnected(PotandKoningsveld2009).HFErecognisesthat
anysystemalwaysproducestwooutcomes: performanceandwell-being.
Byttingtheenvironmenttothehuman,HFEcancontributetooptimising5thesejointoutcomes(NeumannandDul2010).ThisfocusofHFEontwojointoutcomesisadierentialcharacteristic.Otherdisciplinessuchasengineering,psychology,andmedicinesharethefocusononeoftheoutcomeswithHFE,butnotonbothoutcomes.3.
Developmentsintheexternalworld(generaldescription)Developmentsintheworldarehavingmajorimpactsonsystems.
ThesedevelopmentsandtheirsignicanceforHFE need to be identied
(Hendrick 1991, Noy 2000, Japan Ergonomics Society 2006) in order
to set out a
strategyforthefuture.Withoutattemptingtobecomplete,wedescribesomeglobaltrendsregardingchangesthatimpactHFE.3.1.
GlobalchangeofworksystemsThechangeintheglobaleconomiclandscapeoverthelastdecadehasresultedinasignicantshiftinthetypesofwork
that occur in dierent regions of the world. These changes have
occurred in economically advanced nations, aswell as in
economically developing nations. Historically, economically
advanced nations have been heavily
involvedinmassgoodsmanufacturing. However, overthepast twodecades,
thesenationshaveincreasinglyoutsourcedmanufacturing and service
functions to economically developing countries, within a supply
chain and global marketperspective.
Thishasshiftedtheworkperformedwithintheeconomicallyadvancednationstoanemphasisonaserviceeconomy(includinghealthcareservices),resultinginmorefocusonthedesignofworksystemsforserviceproduction,
and on the design of non-work systems such as services for
customers and human-computerinteractions(Drury2008,
HedgeandSpier2008). Additionally,
stimulationofentrepreneurshiphasresultedinagrowingnumberofsmall-sizedandinformalbusinessesinsomeeconomicallyadvancednations.At
the same time, economically developing countries have enlarged
their manufacturing base, thus creating morejobs. As a result,
work, historically based on local agriculture, has shifted towards
more emphasis on
manufacturing(oftenwithouttheHFEbenetsfoundineconomicallyadvancednations).Goodsareoftenproducedbyworkersearninglowwagesandworkingunderunfavourableconditions.
Sharpincreasesinmanufacturingareoccurringbecause of the lowcost of
goods production. In addition, many of these economically
developing nationsare simultaneously experiencing an increase in
low wage service sector jobs (e.g. call centres, banking). At the
sametime, insomecountries, theinformal
sectorinvolvesthelargestnumberofworkers(Caple2008)andagricultureremains
the principal sector contributing to the countrys economic
performance, including sometimes children
whocarryouttasksforverylowornowages(Gangopadhyayetal.2004).Furthermore,
there is acontinuingtrendof mechanisationandautomationof
worksystems, not only
inmanufacturingbutalsointheserviceindustry(Schlick2009).TheintroductionofmoretechnologyandincreasedFigure1.
TheeectofHFEdesignonperformanceandwell-being.380
J.Duletal.Downloaded by [200.116.26.221] at 21:23 25 April 2012
capabilities of technology (many times beyond human capabilities)
may change the relationship between people andtechnology.3.2.
CulturaldiversityOne major impact of the trends described above is
the increased interdependencies between economies, industriesand
companies around the world. Consequently, production and
distribution systems are internationallyorganised with a culturally
diverse workforce, and products and services are consumed by an
increasingly diverseset of customers inmarkets aroundthe world. As
a result, adiverse set of humans withdierent culturalbackgrounds,
anddierent characteristics andaspirations has become part of
workandproduct/consumersystems.
Environmentsthatwereproperlydesignedforonegroupofpeoplemaynotbeappropriateforothergroupsofpeople.HFEcanaddressthistrendofcultural
diversitybycontributingtothe cross-cultural designof
productionanddistribution systems that t the diverse workforce, and
to the cross-cultural design of products and services that
tthediversityofusers(Moray2000, JapanErgonomicsSociety2006).
Incross-cultural design, itisacknowledgedthat people from dierent
cultures have dierentcapabilitiesand aspirations, which aect the
design of systems ofwhich they are part. Examples include the
design of global supply chains (Riedel and Mueller 2009) and the
designofinternationaldigitalmedia(Proctoretal.2011).3.3.
AgeingSeveral parts of the world are experiencing a demographic
change known as population ageing, brought about by acombination of
longer life expectancy, declining fertility, and the progression
through life of a large baby boomgeneration. Inthe USA, the
workforce is ageing; inEurope the proportionof older people inthe
workingpopulationsinEuropeancountriesisincreasingmorethaninothercontinents.
InIndia, theretirementageofoceor industrial workers has
recentlybeenraised. As aconsequence, alargegroupof older humans
havebecomepart of workandproduct/servicesystems. Environmentsthat
weredesignedforthecurrent
groupofhumansmaynotbeassuitableforelderlypeopleinthesystem.Anotherconsequenceofageingistheincreasedrelevance
of equipment, furniture, IT devices, services, etc. targeting the
older population at work, and adapted
totheircharacteristics.HFEcancontributebyensuringthatworksystemsandproducts/servicesttheolderpopulation,takingintoaccountage-relatedchangesinphysical,
cognitive, visual andothercapabilities,
anddierentaspirations(JapanErgonomicsSociety
2006).Olderpeoplemayhave
somereducedcapabilities,butalsomoredevelopedcapabilitiessuchas
mental growth(strategicthinking, languageskills, motivation,
commitment, workexpertise) andsomeaspects of social capabilities
(ability to adjust their behaviour). However, there are large
variations among older
agegroups,andthesecanbecomemorepronouncedwithage(Ilmarinen2005).HFE
can help develop more versatile systems that are better matched to
a wide range of groups. This approachdoes not only apply to people
of dierent age groups, but also to people with disabilities,
obesity (Buckle and Buckle2011), or otherwise dierent capabilities
and aspirations (design for all). However, this ageing trend is not
global.In other parts of the world, e.g. Sub-Saharan African
countries, life expectancy is on the decline because a large partof
thepopulationissueringfromHIVandrelatedillnesses. Inthesecountries,
themainconcernishavingasustainableworkforcethatcanmeettherequirementsofthejobmarket.3.4.
Informationandcommunicationtechnology(ICT)Thereareseveral
ICT-relatedchanges that impact themanner inwhichworkandactivities
of dailylivingareperformed(Karwowski 2006).
Rapidandcontinuousdevelopmentsincomputertechnology,
telecommunicationtechnology and media technology have given rise to
new interactiveactivitiessuch as social media, gaming, and
toanexplosionofinformationtransfer.
PeoplesliveshavebecomemoreandmoredependentonICTandvirtualnetworks.
For example, these developments have an impact on the delivery of
education. Similarly, new
dimensionsinproductqualityhaveemergedbeyondusability,suchasemotionaldesignandpleasurableinteractions.ICTdevelopmentshavebroughtaboutmanychangesinworkorganisationandorganisational
design. Theseincludemorefocusonteamwork, theriseof virtual
organisations, remoteworkincludingworkingfromhome,fading borders
betweenoccupational andprivate life, andincreasedcomplexity of
networks of organisations(CarayonandSmith2000).Ergonomics
381Downloaded by [200.116.26.221] at 21:23 25 April 2012 Networks
of organisations have emerged as an organisational model to support
collaboration betweenorganisations that have common goals. Very
often organisational networks rely on technology to communicate
andshare information, for instance, supply chains inmanufacturing.
Another example is the exchange of
healthinformation,whichallowsdierenthealthcareorganisationstoshareinformationaboutpatients.Increasingly,
companiesarerelyingonvirtual arrangementstoconduct theirbusiness.
Virtual sociotechnicalsystems comprising diverse people, who are
geographically dispersed, use information and
communicationtechnologiestoperformtheirworkremotely(GibsonandGibbs2006).HFE
specialists can contribute to the design of systems to allow people
to work together and share informationacross organisational
boundaries (Woods and Dekker 2000). For example, HFE can inuence
the design of virtualsociotechnical systems by showing howtrust
andcollaborationcanbe enhancedwhen teammembers workremotely and
communicate via technology (Patel et al. 2012). HFE can also
contribute to the design of natural
userinterfacesinhuman-computerinteractions.3.5.
EnhancedcompetitivenessandtheneedforinnovationThe enhanced
competitiveness among companies, which is partly a result of
globalisation, has forced companies todevelop new business
strategies, and has increased the need for companies to innovate
and invent new products andservices,
aswellasnewwaysofproducingthese.
Employeesmaycontributetosuggestionsfortheinnovationofproductionprocessesandproducts/services.Productionprocessesneedtobemoreecientandexibleandmustguaranteeshortproductdeliverytimes,oftenresultinginintensicationofwork.Productsandservicesmusthavehighqualitycharacteristicsbeyondfunctionality,e.g.easeofuseandpositiveuserexperiences,tobesuccessfulinthemarketandtogaincommercialadvantage.HFEcancontributetotherenewal
ofbusinessstrategiesandinnovationinseveral ways(Dul
andNeumann2009). HFE can foster employee creativity for innovation
(Dul and Ceylan 2011), can contribute to
product/serviceinnovationbydevelopingnewproductsandserviceswithuniqueusabilityandexperiencecharacteristics,andcanhelpacompanytoinnovateprocessesandoperationsbyprovidingnewecientandeectivewaysofproducingproductsandservices(Broberg1997,Bruder2000).3.6.
SustainabilityandcorporatesocialresponsibilitySustainabilitythedevelopmentthatmeetstheneedsofthepresentwithoutcompromisingtheabilityoffuturegenerations
tomeet their ownneedsincludes attentiontonatural andphysical
resources (planet), but alsoattention to human andsocial resources
(people), in combinationwith economic sustainability (prot)
(Delios2010, Pfeer 2010). It implies that companies donot just
focus onnancial performance. Corporate SocialResponsibility (CSR)
means going beyondfullling the minimumlegal expectations regarding
planet
andpeople.PoororminimumstandardsinhealthandsafetymaydamageacompanysimagewithrespecttoCSR,whichwouldbeadirect
threat tothe value of theCSReort andthecontinuityof thebusiness.
HFEcancontribute todeveloping actions andprogrammes aimedat
combining the people and prot
dimensionofsustainabilityandsocialresponsibilitybyoptimisingbothperformanceandwell-being(Pfeer2010,Zink2005,2006).Inmanyeconomicallydevelopingcountries,
theunderstandingof thehumanelement
requiresknowledgeofcomplexsocialandculturalenvironments.Forexample,inSouthAfrica,theworkforceisoftenfacedwithissuessuchasHIV,
cardiovasculardiseases, infectiousdiseasesotherthanHIV,
andintentional violence. Theseissuesinuence the work capacity of
the population. HFE specialists in these countries, therefore, have
a signicant role
toplayinimprovingbothperformance(e.g.productivity)andwell-being.In
conclusion, the above and other examples of developments illustrate
that systems change because the
humanpartortheenvironmentpartofthesystem(orboth)change.Byoeringitsfundamentalcharacteristics,HFEhasthepotentialtocontributetothedesignoffuturesystems.4.
ThevalueofHFEforstakeholdersThe contributionof
HFEtosystemdesign(supply of HFE) depends onthe demandfor HFE by
parties(stakeholders) involved in systemdesign. Demand for HFE
depends on the perceived value of HFE bystakeholders that are
directly or indirectly involved in system design. To be able to
supply, HFE must show that
itcanprovidevaluetothesestakeholdersinordertobearespectedanddemandedpartnerinthedesignprocess.382
J.Duletal.Downloaded by [200.116.26.221] at 21:23 25 April 2012
Inthis section, werst identifythemainstakeholder groups for
systemdesign. Next, wedescribehowthestakeholder groups could benet
fromthe contribution of HFEin systems design. Finally, we evaluate
the(mis)matchbetweenthepotential,perceivedandprovidedvalueofHFE.4.1.
StakeholdersofsystemdesignFourmainstakeholdersgroupsofsystemdesigncanbeidentied:.
Systemactors, i.e. employees, product/serviceusers, whoarepart of
thesystemandwhoaredirectlyorindirectlyaectedbyitsdesignandwho,directlyorindirectly,aectitsperformance..
Systemexperts, i.e.
professionalssuchasengineersandpsychologistswhocontributetothedesignofthesystem
based on their specic professional backgrounds. The HFE specialist
is one of the system experts whofocuses on design by tting the
environment to humans, by using a systems approach, and by focusing
on tworelatedoutcomes(performanceandwell-being).. System decision
makers, i.e. decision makers (e.g. managers) about the
(requirements for) the system
design,thepurchasingofthesystem,itsimplementationanditsuse..
Systeminuencers, i.e. media, governments,
standardisationorganisations, regulators, citizens
whohavegeneralpublicinterestinworksystemandproduct/servicesystemdesign.For
each of the main stakeholder groups, we distinguish four levels of
stakeholders: individual (thedirect stakeholder), company,
country/region, and world (the indirect stakeholders). Astakeholder
at abroader level (e.g. country) may represent a stakeholder at a
more narrowlevel (e.g. company). Table 1describes in more detail
examples of stakeholders fromthe main stakeholder groups that are
directly
orindirectlyinvolvedinoraectedbysystemsdesign.Asareference,wehaveincludedtheHFEspecialistasoneof
thesystemexperts.It should be noted that people can belong to
dierent stakeholder groups depending on their role. For
example,employees whoare part of a work system are system actors.
However,theybecome system experts (basedon theirexperience)
whentheyparticipateinthe (re)designof asystem. Similarly, managers
whodecide about systemdesignsaresystemdecisionmakers,
butwhenthesystemsareimplementedandthemanagershavemanagementtasksinthenewsystems,theybecomesystemactors.4.2.
ValueofHFEforstakeholdersInthissection, wedescribethevalueof
HFEcontributionstosystemsdesignforthemainstakeholdergroups(individualsandtheirrepresentingorganisationsatcompany,nationalandinternationallevel).4.2.1.
SystemactorsThis stakeholder groupcanbedividedintoactors of
worksystems (employees), andactors of
product/servicesystems(productusers,servicereceivers).EmployeescanbenetfromHFEdesignofworksystemsasitensureswell-beingintermsofe.g.:.
Improvedphysical,psychological
andsocialwell-being(healthandsafety)(e.g.throughoptimisationofworkenvironments)..
Highermotivation,growthandjobsatisfaction(e.g.throughfreedomtoactandroomtogrowandlearn)..
Improvedperformance(e.g.performanceleadingtointrinsicorextrinsicreward).Productusers/servicereceiverscanbenetfromHFEdesignofproduct/servicesystemsasitensureswell-beingandperformanceintermsofe.g.:.
Betterexperience. Shortertimeoffamiliarisation.
Betterttingofproducts/servicestoindividualcharacteristics/needs.
Fewermistakes. GreatereciencyErgonomics 383Downloaded by
[200.116.26.221] at 21:23 25 April 2012
Table1.Examplesofstakeholdersinthemainstakeholdergroupsthataredirectlyorindirectlyinvolvedinthedesignofsystems,andtheirroleandstakeinthesystem.StakeholdergroupLevelofstakeholdersIndividualOrganisationsrepresentingindividualsinthecompanyOrganisationsrepresentingindividualsinthecountry/regionOrganisationsrepresentingindividualsintheworldSystemactorsArepartsofthesystemAredirectlyorindirectlyaectedbyitsdesignAectdirectlyorindirectlyperformanceActorsofworksystems:EmployeesActorsofproductsystems:ProductusersActorsofservicesystems:ServicereceiversWorkscouncils(worksystems)OHSserviceproviders(worksystems)Usergroups(products/services)National/regionaltradeunions(worksystems),National/regionalorganisationofOHSservices(worksystems)National/regionalconsumerorganisations(products/service)National/regionalgovernment/OHSlegislation/consumersafetylegislationNational/regionalusergroups(e.g.patientassociations)(product/service)Internationaltradeunions(worksystems)Internationalgovernment/OHSlegislation/consumersafetylegislationILOWHOICOHInternationalusergroups(product/service)SystemexpertsAredesignersofthesystembasedontheirspecicprofessionalbackgroundsandthenatureofthesystemProfessionalsfromthetechnicalandsocialsciences:,e.g.,(industrial)engineering,informationtechnology/computerscience,userexperiencespecialists,psychology,managementconsultancy,design,facilitymanagement,operationsmanagement,humanresourcemanagement,interiordesign,architecture)ProfessionalcolleaguesNational/regionalprofessionalassociationsNational/regionalinstitutesforprofessionaleducationNational/regionalresearchorganisations(universities,researchfundingorganisations)InternationalprofessionalassociationsInternationalinstitutesforprofessionaleducationInternationalresearchorganisations(universities,researchfundingorganisations)HFESPECIALISTAredesignersofthesystembasedontheirspecicprofessionalbackgroundinHFE:designbyttingenvironmenttohuman,systemsapproach,dualgoal(performanceandwell-being)HFESPECIALIST(oneofthesystemdesigners)HFESPECIALISTOtherprofessionalswhosupportHFEHFESPECIALISTNational/regionalHFEorganisations(e.g.IEAfederatedsocieties,IEAnetworks,national/regionalcerticationorganisations)HFESPECIALISTInternationalHFEorganisations(IEA)(continued)384
J.Duletal.Downloaded by [200.116.26.221] at 21:23 25 April 2012
Table1.(Continued).StakeholdergroupLevelofstakeholdersIndividualOrganisationsrepresentingindividualsinthecompanyOrganisationsrepresentingindividualsinthecountry/regionOrganisationsrepresentingindividualsintheworldSystemdecisionmakersAredecisionmakers,aboute.g.therequirementsforthesystemdesign,andthenaldesignManagers,otherdecisionmakersManagementteamPurchasersofproducts/servicesNational/regionalemployerorganisationsNational/regionalindustry/tradeorganisationsInternationalemployerorganisationsInternationalindustry/tradeorganisationsSysteminuencersHavegeneralpublicinterestinworkandproduct/servicesystemsAnyotherpersoninterestedinsystemsdesignLocalcommunityLocalmediaLocalgovernmentNational/regionalgeneralpublicNational/regionalmediaNational/regionalgovernmentsNational/regionalstandardisationbodiesInternationalgeneralpublicInternationalmediaInternationalgovernmentsInternationalstandardisationbodiesErgonomics
385Downloaded by [200.116.26.221] at 21:23 25 April 2012 In
addition, as HFE commonly takes participatory design approaches,
another potential value of HFE is that
itensuresthatsystemactorscaninuencesystemdesign.4.2.2.
SystemexpertsThisstakeholdergroupconsistsof avarietyof
professionalsfromthetechnical andsocial sciencesthat canbeinvolved
in the design of systems, e.g. (industrial) engineering,
information technology/computer sciences,psychology, management
consultancy, design, facility management, operations management,
human resourcemanagement, interior design, architecture. These
professionals aim to design a system that performs well accordingto
the standards of their respective professions, and to the
requirements of system decision makers. HFE can help
toreachthesegoalsbecauseHFEcontributionshelptoensure:.
Betterusersacceptanceofdesignedsystems. Betterperformance.
Bettertwith(legal)standards(e.g.healthandsafety,accessibility,professionalethics).
Improveddevelopmentprocess(e.g.moreecientuserconsultation).4.2.3.
SystemdecisionmakersThisstakeholdergroupconsistsofdecisionmakers(e.g.managers,purchasers)thatdecideaboutthedesign(e.g.requirements,naldesign)ofworksystemsandproduct/servicesystems.Management
(e.g. in companies) aims to achieve excellent performance of work
systems with the leastuse of resources. Typical key performance
indicators of work systems are productivity (the number ofproduced
products and services per time), the time needed for fullling a
certain task, and the quality of
products/services.DecisionmakersaboutworksystemscanbenetfromHFEasitensuresperformanceintermsofe.g.:.
Better productivitybyreducedtime for performingworkprocedures (e.g.
throughoptimisationof workequipment,workoworworkerqualications)..
Better quality and reliability of production processes and produced
goods and services (e.g.
throughoptimisationofworkequipment,operatinginstructionsorworkerqualications)..
Lower operating costs due to lower levels of health problems,
motivational decits, accidents, absenteeism,
andrelatedproductivityloss(e.g.throughbetterworkingconditions)..
Moreinnovationbyincreasedemployeecreativity(e.g.throughcreativitystimulatingworkenvironments)..
Betterreputationforhiringandretentionoftalentedemployees(e.g.throughattractivework),andpositiveworker
and consumer associations with the rm and its products/services
(employee well-being,
sustainability,corporatesocialresponsibility,enduserwell-being)..
Betterdecision-makingthroughimprovedinformationabouttheeectsofsystemdesignonemployees.Decisionmakers
about product/service systems canbenet fromHFEdesignas it ensures
product/serviceperformanceintermsof:.
Bettermarketperformance(e.g.duetouniquecharacteristicssuchaseaseofuse)..
Greaterprotability..
Lessre-designduetointeractionproblemsaftermarketintroduction..
Betterdecision-makingbyimprovedinformationabouteectsofsystemdesignonproduct/serviceusers.4.2.4.
SysteminuencersSystem inuencers have a general public interest in
work and product/service systems, in particular regarding
theiroutcomes.HFEcancontributesimultaneouslytotwogeneralgoals:.
Socialwealthofindividualsandsocietyatlarge(throughthewell-beingoutcomeofHFEsystemdesign)..
Economic wealthof individuals andsocietyat large (throughthe
performance outcome of HFEsystemdesign).386 J.Duletal.Downloaded by
[200.116.26.221] at 21:23 25 April 2012 HFEhelpstoensurethat
peopledonot get injuredat
workorwhileusingproductsorreceivingservices,that
worksystemsandproduct/servicesystemsareprotableforcompaniesandforsocietyat
large, andthatwork systems and product/service systems are
accessible for people with a variety of capacities
andaspirations.4.3.
(Mis)matchbetweenpotentialvalue,perceivedvalue,andprovidedvalueThe
previous analysis shows that HFEhas the potential toprovide value
toall of the mainstakeholders
ofsystemdesign.EachofthestakeholdergroupscouldbenetfromthecontributionofHFEinsystemsdesign.Theanalysis
also shows that stakeholders have dierent needs, and therefore have
dierent views about the real value ofHFEforthem. Forexample,
systemactors(employees,
product/serviceusers)andsomesysteminuencers(e.g.governmental
agencies focusingonhealthandsafety) will
appreciatethewell-beingoutcomeof HFE, whereassystem experts (e.g.
engineers) and system decision makers (e.g. managers) will
appreciate the performance
outcomeofHFE.However,theperceivedvalueofHFEbyallstakeholdersislimited(Helander1999,NeumannandDul2010).SomepeoplebelievethatHFEfocusesonwell-beingonly;
otherssaythatitfocusesonmanufacturingonly(e.g.heavy physical work),
or on specic goods only (e.g. chair, computer mouse). Although
there are many examples ofhighly successful companies with work
systems, where workers are treated well from a physical,
psychological, andorganisational standpoint,
becomecreativeandproductivemembersoftheorganisation,
andareretainedintheorganisation, these winning strategies are not
always associated with HFE. Similarly, there are numerous
examplesof successful products that are based upon usability, ease
of use, and perceptions of eciency, such as iPhones, andother kinds
of high tech gadgets. These devices are widely successful because
of HFE features, yet the terms
humanfactorsorergonomicsareseldomheardwhendiscussingtheseproducts,
andhenceHFEvalueisnotperceived.These examples show thatthereisan
implicitneedforthevalueof HFE(performanceand well-being), butnot
anawareness andexplicit demandfor theHFEdisciplineandprofession.
Hence, thereis limitedrecognitionandappreciationof
howHFEcancontribute tohealthy, safe, comfortable andecient
workandproduct/servicesystems.AlthoughtheroleofHFEinenhancingwell-beingcanbeastrongvaluepropositionforsomestakeholdergroups,
i.e. systemactors andsysteminuencers, this maynot besucient for
other stakeholder groups, inparticular, systems experts and
systemdecision makers who primarily focus on the performance value
ofHFE. Inmanysectors,
theprovidedvaluebytheHFEcommunity(inresearchandpractice)
focusesonwell-being,
andHFEspecialiststhenhavestrongerrelationshipswiththestakeholdergroupof
systemactors(thatappreciatethisgoal)thanwiththestakeholdergroupsofsystemsexpertsandsystemdecisionmakers(thatarestronglyinterestedinthe
performance outcome). Inaddition, therelationships of
theHFEcommunitywithcertain systeminuencers (e.g. governments) often
focus on well-being rather than on performance. Forexample, the
IEAhas stronger formal relationships with international
organisations that focus primarily(thoughnot solely) onwell-being,
e.g. International Labour Organisation(ILO), International
OccupationalHygiene Association(IOHA), andtheInternational
CommissiononOccupational Health(ICOH)
thanwithorganisationsthatfocusprimarily(thoughnotsolely)onperformance(e.g.organisationsrepresentingindustrialengineers,productdesigners,ormanagers).TheremaywellbeasimilarimbalanceformanylocalHFEsocietiesandmanyindividual
HFEspecialists.As a result, the HFEcommunity has a less developed
value proposition and weaker relationships
withdominantstakeholders(Mitchelletal.1997)whohaveconsiderablepowertoinuencesystemdesign,inparticularorganisations
representingsystemexperts (suchas designorganisations),
andorganisations representingsystemdecision makers (such as
management organisations). The HFE community has a more developed
valueproposition and stronger relationships with dependent
stakeholders such as the group of system actors who are
lessabletoinuencesystemdesign, buthavestronginterestinitsoutcome.
Inconclusion, thestakeholdergroupofsystemactors primarilyneeds
andbenets fromthewell-beingvalueof HFE, andthis has
createdanexplicitdemand for HFE from this group. The stakeholder
groups of system experts and system decision makers
primarilyneedtheperformancevalueofHFE.However,theydonotalwaysgetthisvalueandaregenerallynotawarethatHFEcanprovidethisvalue,
eventhoughtheyhaveanimplicit needforit. Asaresult,
thereislimitedexplicitdemandfor HFEfromthis group. Because this
groupof systemexperts andsystemdecisionmakers is morepowerful
inthedesignprocess thantherst group(systemactors),
theHFEcommunityshouldstrengthenitsvalueproposition(withafocusonperformanceoutcomes),
anditscommunicationandrelationshipswiththesestakeholder groups, as
well as with the system inuencers. This will help to increase
demandfor high-quality HFEErgonomics 387Downloaded by
[200.116.26.221] at 21:23 25 April 2012
(well-beingandperformanceoutcomes)
andthereforeincreaseHFEcontributionstosystemdesign,
resultinginmorehigh-qualityHFEapplications6.5.
StrategyforthefutureInSection1,westatedthatthepotentialofHFEisunder-exploited.InSection2,weshowedthatHFEhasthreefundamental
characteristics (systems approach, design driven, joint performance
and well-being outcomes) and thatthis combination is unique in
comparison to other disciplines. The developments described in
Section 3 indicate
thatsystemsarechangingandwillcontinuetochangeinthefuture,andthatHFEcanhelptodesignsystemsthattpeoplesothatwell-beingandperformanceoutcomesareachievedinfuturesystems.
InSection4,
wefoundthatHFEcurrentlyservesthemainstakeholdergroupofsystemactorsrelativelywell(withwell-beingoutcomes),butthat
it needs to better serve the main other stakeholder groups (system
experts, system decision makers) with high-quality HFE. These
stakeholder groups are more inuential in system design than system
actors and have a
stronginterestinperformance.Atthesame,theymayhaveonlyalimitedviewaboutwhatHFEcouldoer.Therefore,HFEshould
expand its reach to systemexperts and systemdecision makers, with
greater emphasis on
theperformancegoal,andonthediversityofapplicationareas.Therefore,weproposethefollowingmainstrategyforthefutureofHFE:Tostrengthenthedemandforandtheapplicationofhigh-qualityHFE(withthekeyelementsofsystemsapproach,designdriven,andperformanceandwell-beingoutcomes)forallstakeholders,inparticular:(1)
Strengtheningthedemandforhigh-qualityHFEbyenhancingtheawarenessofstakeholdersneedforhigh-qualityHFE(inparticular,forsystemexpertsandsystemdecisionmakers,emphasisingperformance)by:(a)
Communicatingwithspecicstakeholdersaboutthevalueofhigh-qualityHFEinthelanguageofthestakeholder.(b)
Buildingpartnershipswiththesestakeholdersandtheirrepresentingorganisations.(c)
Educatingstakeholderstoraiseawarenessofhigh-qualityHFEanditscontributionstosystemdesign.(2)
Strengtheningtheapplicationofhigh-qualityHFEby:(a)
PromotingtheeducationofHFEspecialiststoapplyhigh-qualityHFE.(b)
EnsuringhighqualitystandardsofHFEapplicationsandHFEspecialists.(c)
PromotingHFEresearchexcellenceatuniversitiesandotherorganisations.These
two strategic elements are interrelated. Higher demand for
high-quality HFE can lead to more high-qualityHFEprovided (pull),
and more availability of high quality HFEcan stimulate demand for
high-quality
HFE(push).Figure2depictstheHFEdemanddevelopmentcyclerepresentingthemainstrategy.Thecycleappliestoagivenstakeholder
group(systemactors, systemspecialists, systemdecisionmakers, or
systeminuencers) and combines threestrategic elements:(1)
Astakeholdersdemandforhigh-qualityHFE,whichcanstimulate(2)
theapplicationofhigh-qualityHFE(withthethreekeycharacteristics),whichcan(3)
raisethestakeholdersawarenessoftheneedforhigh-qualityHFE,whichmay(4)
increasethestakeholdersdemandforhigh-qualityHFE.The HFEcommunity
can take an active role in boosting this cycle by focusing on both
the pull and push approaches.It can enhance the stakeholders
awareness of their need for high quality HFE. This can be done by
communicating withstakeholders, bybuildingpartnerships
withstakeholders, andbyeducatingstakeholders (Karwowski 2007).
ThisrequiresthatHFEspecialistscantranslateandintegrateHFEobjectivesintostakeholders
strategies, policiesandactions (Dul and Neumann 2009). As a result,
there should be an increased demand for high-quality HFE. The
HFEcommunitycanalsoenhance high-qualityHFEapplications. This canbe
done byeducatinghigh-qualityHFEspecialists, by ensuring high
quality HFE applications and specialists, and by encouraging HFE
research excellence
atuniversitiesandotherorganisations(Buckle2011).
Byreectingonsuccessstories(successful applicationsofhigh-quality
HFE) and the related challenges, HFE knowledge and professional
practice can be further enhanced.
Hence,theHFEcommunityisthemainactorinthisproposedstrategicchange.Itcanoperateatthreelevels:globalHFEsociety(IEA),localsocieties(nationalandregionalHFEsocieties,e.g.IEAFederatedSocietiesandIEAnetworks)and
individual (HFE researchers, HFE teachers/trainers, HFE
consultants, HFE policymakers).388 J.Duletal.Downloaded by
[200.116.26.221] at 21:23 25 April 2012 6.
StrategyimplementationTheproposedmainstrategicdirectionistostrengthenthedemandforandtheapplicationof
high-qualityHFE.Adoptingthis mainstrategy has important
consequences for the policies andpractices of HFEsocieties
andindividuals,takenintoaccountlocaldierencesandpriorities.Theimplementationofthestrategyisanessentialbutcomplexendeavourthatneedsfurtherdevelopment.Weonly
touch upon two aspects: (1) developing an action plan by
translating the strategy into actionable tasks, and
(2)managingthedevelopmentandimplementationoftheactionplan.In
Section 6.1 (and the Appendix), we provide examples of possible
strategic actions. We acknowledge that
thesestrategicactionsandtheirapproacharenotcomprehensive,
andneedtobeextendedandaddressedindetail. InSection 6.2, we propose
a leadership role for the IEA to manage the development and
implementation of the actionplan.6.1.
ExamplesofstrategicactionsBelow,wegiveexamplesofactionsthatcanbetakentorealisethetwomaindirectionsoftheproposedstrategy.Additional
examplesareprovidedintheAppendix. Ultimately,
thesestrategicactionsneedtobetranslatedintospecic and eective
actions by appropriate groups in the HFE community. In order to be
successful, these actionsmust be smart: specic (e.g. specifying
who, what, when, where, which, why), measurable (e.g. answering
questionssuch as how much, how long), attainable (it must be
possible to do them), realistic (people must be willing and
abletoworkonthem),andtimely(e.g.settingtimehorizonsforstrategicactionssuchas1,2,5andeven10years).Strengtheningthedemandforhigh-qualityHFEbyenhancingstakeholdersawarenessoftheneedforhigh-qualityHFE:.
Communicatingwithdominant stakeholders(systemexperts,
systemdecisionmakers), byemphasisingtheperformance goal and the
other key characteristics of HFE in their language (e.g.
quantication of outcomes,cost-benet analysis). Increasing these
stakeholders awareness and understanding of what high-quality
HFEisbyprovidingexamplesandsuccessstoriesofhigh-qualityHFE,
butalsoexamplesofthenegativeeectsFigure2.
HFEdemanddevelopmentcycle.Ergonomics 389Downloaded by
[200.116.26.221] at 21:23 25 April 2012 resulting from the absence
of high-quality HFE, and through recognition, awards and prizes for
high qualityHFE.. Buildingstrategicpartnerships,
inparticularwithsystemexperts(e.g. professionalsfromthetechnical
andsocial sciences), systemdecisionmakers(e.g.
managersandotherdecisionmakers), andsysteminuencers(e.g. local,
national,andinternational
governmentsandindustrybodies,thegeneralpublic(e.g.
themedia)).Long-termpartnershipsshouldensuresustainedimprovementsinbothperformanceandwell-being..
Educating(future)stakeholdersbyshowingthevalueofHFEatall
educational levelsandsettings, fromeducationat primaryschools
toeducationat institutes for professional educationanduniversities,
(e.g.engineering, design, business) as well as
educationbeyondschool systems. Becauseit is
impossiblethatHFEspecialistsbepresentinall systemdesigns,
educating(future)systemexpertsabouttheprinciplesofHFEisnecessarysothattheycanapplybasicHFEprinciplesintheirdesignwithouttheinvolvementofanHFEspecialist,
andcanidentifywhenthere is aneedtocall inaHFEspecialist for
high-qualityapplications.Strengtheningtheapplicationofhigh-qualityHFE:.
Promoting the educationof high-quality HFEby formulating standards
for high-quality
HFEandforqualiedHFEspecialists(alwayspayingattentiontothethreekeycharacteristics:systemsapproach,designdriven,
performanceandwell-being) andbyensuringthat
educationandtrainingorganisationsadheretothesestandards.AttractingstudentsandexpertsfromawiderangeofdisciplinestobecomeHFEspecialistsinall
three keycharacteristics. Applyinghigh-qualityHFEcannot be
achievedbymechanicallyusingatoolkit. Life-long education of
HFEspecialists (including insight fromother elds such as
industrialengineering, interactiondesign, cognitivepsychology,
human-movement studies, organisational behaviour,operations
management, etc.) is essential to guarantee their competence to
deliver high-quality HFEapplications. For example, HFE specialists
from human or health-related disciplines who may primarily focuson
well-being outcomes of system design may need more education on
performance outcomes and on
buildingrelationshipswithinuentialstakeholderssuchassystemdecisionmakers..
Ensuring high quality standards of HFE applications and HFE
specialists by promoting high-quality HFE inall activities of HFE
societies and HFE individuals, and by ensuring the implementation
of high-quality HFEstandardsbyaccreditationandcerticationbodies..
Promoting HFEresearch excellence at universities and other
organisations by promoting
researchandpublicationsonhigh-qualityHFE.6.2.
LeadershiproleoftheIEAWeproposealeadershiprolefortheIEAtomanagethedevelopmentandimplementationofthisstrategy.TheIEAcouldactasastrategicleaderinthisprocessinseveralways:.
Bydevelopingaglobalactionplantoimplementthestrategy,withglobalconsensus..
ByencouragingIEAfederatedsocieties andnetworks toset uptheir
ownactionplans, eachtakingintoaccount their specic context. The IEA
should monitor and evaluate the development and implementation
oftheseactionplansandsharelessonslearned.. Bydevelopingaplanof
actionat international level, targetingappropriateinternational
institutions andorganisations.Dierent HFE groups and main
stakeholder groups should be involved in this process so that
theimplementationplants specic needs andpossibilities.
IEAfederatedsocieties andnetworks shouldbe
themaincontributorstothisstrategicaction.
Onlytheyknowthespecicitiesoftheirnational orregional context,the
challenges they face, the opportunities they may exploit, and the
people and organisations that may help them.IEA networks could play
an important role as intermediate actors. The rst objective of IEA
federated societies andnetworks should then be to dene a locally
relevant plan of action to be developed with their members and
shared atIEAlevel.Suchaglobal eort canworkonlyif individual members
of the federatedsocieties understandit. Inthisperspective, it
mightbe useful to have this text translated in the national
languageof the societieswhere English isnotcommonlyused.390
J.Duletal.Downloaded by [200.116.26.221] at 21:23 25 April 2012
Furthermore,otherHFEorganisationsshouldalsobeinvolved.Certicationbodiesshouldbeencouragedtoexaminetheircriteriaforcerticationandtocheckwhetherthesecriteriaareinagreementwiththefundamentalcharacteristicsofhigh-qualityHFEdescribedinthispaper.ProfessionalorganisationsofHFEspecialiststhatarenotpartoftheIEAshouldalsobeapproachedtoensuresharedviewsonthenatureofHFEanditshighqualitydelivery.Finally,
the major stakeholders must be involved because the strategy
focuses on showing and delivering value
tothem.ItisthencrucialtounderstandtheviewsofstakeholdersonHFEanditsbenets,andhowHFEspecialistscanbetheirpartnersinsystemdesign.Over
the next decade, the design and implementation of this plan will be
the main objective and a major activityof the IEAExecutive
Committee and the IEACouncil, as well as of the local HFEsocieties.
Successfulimplementation of the strategy in the long term,
spearheaded by the IEA, is only possible if the IEA sets
appropriateconditionssuchascontinuityofgovernance,eectivemobilisationoffederatedsocieties,andsucientresources.ThismightrequireseriousreconsiderationofthecurrentIEAorganisation.7.
ConcludingremarksThis paper oers the HFE community a strategic
direction for the future of the HFE discipline and profession
thatcouldleadtothedevelopmentofnewstrategies,tacticsandoperationswithinspeciclocalcontexts.Developingand
implementing a strategic action plan for the HFE discipline and
profession at large requires a long lasting andjoint eort of the
entireHFE community. The result will be rewarding. The external
community will recognise
theHFEdisciplineandprofessionasacrucialpartnerforsuccessfulsystemsdesign.AcknowledgementsWewouldliketothankmanyhumanfactors/ergonomicsspecialistswhohaveprovidedtheirpersonalinputtothe
workofthecommitteeand/orwhocommentedonearlierversionsofthispaper:
F. JavierLlanezaAlvarez, ArcelorMittal, Spain; AlexeyAnokhin,
National Research Nuclear University MEPhI, Russia; Tomas Berns,
Ergolab AB, Sweden; Verna
Blewett,UniversityofSouthAustralia,Australia;GuyAndre
Boy,FloridaInstituteofTechnology,USA;BobBridger,INM,UK;OleBroberg,
Technical UniversityofDenmark, Denmark; AlexanderBurov,
InstituteofGiftedChild, Ukraine; DavidC.
Caple,DavidCaple&Associates, Australia; AlanChan,
CityUniversityof HongKong, HongKong; Wen-RueyChang, LibertyMutual
ResearchInstitute for Safety, USA; Pierre-Henri Dejean, University
of Technology of Compie` gne, France; MicaEndsley, SATechnologies,
USA; PatriciaFerrara, TechnoserveInc., Mozambique; MargoFraser,
Associationof CanadianErgonomists, Canada; Yushi Fujita,
ResearchDepartment, Japan; SomnathGangopadhyay, Universityof
Calcutta, India;SylvaGilbertova, SAZ, CzechRepublic; Matthias Go
bel, Rhodes University, SouthAfrica; Jose OrlandoGomes,
FederalUniversity of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; Richard Goossens,
Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands; Alan Hedge,
CornellUniversity, USA; Martin Helander, Nanyang Technological
University, Singapore; Magne Helland, Buskerud UniversityCollege,
Norway; VeerleHermans, IDEWEandVrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium;
Franc ois Hubault, Universite Paris 1,France; Sheue-LingHwang,
National Tsing-HuaUniversity, Taiwan; AndrewS. Imada, A. S.
Imada&Associates, USA;ChristinaJonsson,
SwedishWorkEnvironmentAuthority, Sweden; HalimahtunKhalid, Damai
SciencesSdnBhd,
Malaysia;Jung-YongKim,HanyangUniversity,SouthKorea;KarstenKluth,UniversityofSiegen,Germany;KazutakaKogi,Institutefor
Science of Labour, Japan; Ernst Koningsveld, TNO, The Netherlands;
Rabiya Lallani, Human Factors North Inc., Canada;Johan Molenbroek,
Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands; Karen Lange
Morales, National University of Colombia,Colombia; John Lee,
University of Wisconsin, USA; Jean-Luc Malo, Vincent Ergonomie,
Canada; Nicolas Marmaras, NationalTechnical University of Athens,
Greece; Svend Erik Mathiassen, University of Ga vle, Sweden; Dave
Moore, SCION Research,NewZealand; DimitrisNathanael, National
Technical UniversityofAthens, Greece; PatrickNeumann,
RyersonUniversity,Canada; IanNoy, LibertyMutual
ResearchInstitutefor Safety, USA; Clas-HakanNygard,
TampereUniversity, Finland;Enrico Occhipinti, University of Milan,
Italy; Ahmet F.}Ozok, Istanbul Ku ltu r University, Turkey; Gunther
Paul, University ofSouthAustralia, Australia; RuudPikaar,
ErgosEngineering&Ergonomics, theNetherlands; AnnaPtackova,
Skoda, CzechRepublic; DavidRempel, Universityof California, USA;
LuzMercedesSaenz, UniversityPonticiaBolivariana,
Colombia;MarthaHelenaSaravia, Pontical UniversityJaveriana,
Colombia; ChristopherSchlick, AachenUniversity, Germany;
SchuSchutte, Council forScienticandIndustrial Research,
SouthAfrica; PatriciaScott, RhodesUniversity, SouthAfrica;
PaulSettels, ING, the Netherlands; BarbaraSilverstein, SHARP-
WashingtonState Department of Labor &Industries,
USA;MarceloSoares,FederalUniversityofPernambuco,Brazil;Cla
udiaStamato,PUC-Rio-PonticalCatholicUniversityofRiode Janeiro,
Brazil; Carol Stuart-Buttle, Stuart-Buttle Ergonomics, USA; Andrew
Thatcher, University of Witwaterstrand, SouthAfrica; Andrew Todd,
Rhodes University, South Africa; Takashi Toriizuka, Nihon
University, Japan; John Walter, TechnoserveInc., Mozambique; Eric
Min-Yang Wang, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan; Christine
Waring, Latrobe
RegionalHospital,Australia;KlausJ.Zink,UniversityofKaiserslautern,Germany;MoustafaZouinar,OrangelabsFrancetelecom,France;GertZu
lch,KarlsruheInstituteofTechnology,Germany.Furthermore, input was
received from a group of 17 PhD candidates and professors of the
Conservatoire National des Arts etMe tiers(CNAM), Paris, France.
RogerHaslam(editorofErgonomics)andthreeanonymousreviewersarethankedfortheircomments.FinancialsupportforthisprojectwasprovidedbytheInternationalErgonomicsAssociation(IEA).Ergonomics
391Downloaded by [200.116.26.221] at 21:23 25 April 2012 Notes1.
Inthe presentpaper, weconsiderergonomicsandhumanfactorsto be
synonymous,andweadoptthe IEAdenitionofthe discipline (IEA 2000):
Ergonomics (or human factors) is the scientic discipline concerned
with the understanding of theinteractionsamong humans and other
elements of a system,and the profession that applies
theoreticalprinciples,data andmethods todesigninorder tooptimise
humanwell-beingandoverall systemperformance. Toidentifythe
disciplinethroughoutthispaper,wehaveselectedthenamehumanfactors/ergonomics(HFE).Byacceptingthisdenition,wealsoaccepttheviewthatHFEisascienticdisciplineandnotonlya(multidisciplinary)approachtoproblemsolving.Wealsoacceptthatthisdenitionreectsamorepositivistratherthanamoreconstructivistviewonthediscipline.2.
ThecommitteeconsistsofJanDul (Chair, Netherlands),
RalphBruder(Germany), PeterBuckle(UK), PascaleCarayon(USA),
PierreFalzon(France), WilliamS. Marras (USA), JohnR. Wilson(UK),
andBas vander Doelen(Secretary,Netherlands).3. HFE focuses
primarily on two types of systems: work systems (with workers in
private or public organisations) and products(consumer or business
goods or services). Traditionally work is a central issue in HFE,
as indicated by the etymology of thewordergonomics(ergo work).
However, HFEisconcernedwithall
kindsofactivitiesthatgobeyond(paid)workandincludesactivitiescarriedoutbyarangeofusers,
e.g. customers, citizens, patients, etc.
withdierentcharacteristics(e.g.age), inarangeof domestic, leisure,
sport, transport andotherenvironments. Whenweusethewordsworksystem
itincludesotherlivingsystems.4. Other contributors are the eort
taken by the human independently of the environment, as well as
contributions from othercomponentsofthesystem.5. In this paper, we
do not use the term optimisation in its mathematical meaning of
nding a best available value for a givenobjectivefunction. Instead,
optimisationreferstondingdesignsolutionstomaximisebothwell-beingandperformance,whichmayrequiremakingtrade-osbetweenbothobjectives.6.
By high-quality HFEwe mean that the three core elements of HFE:
systems approach, design driven and performance
andwell-beingoutcomes,
aretakenintoconsiderationwhendeningproblemsandformulatingsolutions.
Withoutthesekeyelements, the HFE approach is limited. High-quality
HFE includes approaches with a focus on specic aspects of people
(e.g.physical), on specic aspects of the environment (e.g.
technical), on specic outcomes (e.g. well-being), or with limited
linksto design, as long as limitations of the specic approach and
how to tackle these are addressed (contextualisation). This canbe
done, for example, by collaborating with other specialists,
planning broader approaches at later stages, or
acknowledgingthelimitationsofproblemdenitionsandsolutions.Specicapproachesmayoccure.g.whentheHFEspecialistcanhaveonly
a limited role in the design process, or when there are practical
or other restrictions for a broader scope (e.g. only
simplesolutions are feasible), for instance, in economically
developing countries (Kogi 2007). As a strategic direction,
high-qualityHFEapproaches arepreferredover limitedapproachesas
thecombinationof coreelements of HFEis
auniquevaluepropositionforallstakeholders.ReferencesBrewer, J.D.
andHsiang, S.M., 2002. Theergonomicsparadigm: foundations,
challengesandfuturedirections.
TheoreticalIssuesinErgonomicsScience,3(3),285305.Broberg, O., 1997.
Integrating ergonomics into the product development process.
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics,19(4),317327.Bruder,
R., 2000. Ergonomicsasmediatorwithintheproductdesignprocess.
HumanFactorsandErgonomicsSocietyAnnualMeeting,44(8),2023.Buckle,P.,2011.Theperfectistheenemyofthegood.Ergonomics,54(1),111.Buckle,P.andBuckle,J.,2011.Obesity,ergonomicsandpublichealth.PerspectivesinPublicHealth,131(4),170176.Caple,D.,2008.Emergingchallengestotheergonomicsdomain.Ergonomics,51(1),4954.Carayon,P.,2006.Humanfactorsofcomplexsociotechnicalsystems.AppliedErgonomics,37(4),525535.Carayon,P.andSmith,M.J.,2000.Workorganizationandergonomics.AppliedErgonomics,31(6),649662.Delios,A.,2010.Howcanorganizationsbecompetitivebutdaretocare?AcademyofManagementPerspectives,24(3),2536.Drury,C.G.,2008.Thefutureofergonomics/thefutureofwork:45yearsafterBartlett(1962).Ergonomics,51(1),1420.Dul,J.andCeylan,C.,2011.Workenvironmentsforemployeecreativity.Ergonomics,54(1),1220.Dul,J.andNeumann,W.P.,2009.Ergonomicscontributionstocompanystrategies.AppliedErgonomics,40(4),745752.Falzon,P.,2005.Ergonomics,knowledgedevelopmentandthedesignofenablingenvironments.In:HWWE2005,humanizingworkandworkenvironmentconference,December2005,Guwahati,India:AlliedPublishers.Falzon,P.,Nascimento,A.,Gaudart,C.,Piney,C.,Dujarier,M.-A.andGerme,J.-F.,2012.Performance-basedmanagementand
quality of work: an empirical assessment. WORK: A Journal of
Prevention, Assessment & Rehabilitation,
(forthcoming).Gangopadhyay,S.,
Das,B.B.,Das,T.,andGhoshal,G.,2004.PrevalenceofMusculoskeletalDisordersamongpre-adolescentagricultural
workers of West Bengal, India. Ergonomics SA. Journal of the
Ergonomics Society of South Africa, 16 (1), 214.Gibson, C.B.
andGibbs, J.L., 2006. Unpackingthe concept of virtuality: The eects
of geographic dispersion, electronicdependence, dynamic structure,
and national diversity on team innovation. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 51 (3),
451495.Hedge,A.andSpier,A.L.,2008.Onthefutureofergonomics:HFESmembersspeakout.HFESBulletin,51(2),12.Helander,
M., 1999. Seven common reason to not implement ergonomics.
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 25
(1),97101.Helander,M.G.,1997.FortyyearsofIEA:Somereectionsontheevolutionofergonomics.Ergonomics,40(10),952961.Hendrick,H.W.,1991.Ergonomicsinorganizationaldesignandmanagement.Ergonomics,34(6),743756.Hollnagel,E.,2001.Thefutureofergonomics(guesteditorial).TheoreticalIssuesinErgonomicsScience,41(2),219221.392
J.Duletal.Downloaded by [200.116.26.221] at 21:23 25 April 2012
IEA, 2000. TheDisciplineof Ergonomics. International Ergonomics
Association. Availablefrom:
www.iea.cc[Accessed11January2012].Ilmarinen, J., 2006. Towards
alonger worklife: ageingandthe qualityof worklife inthe
EuropeanUnion. Helsinki:
FIOHBookstore.JapanErgonomicsSociety,2006.TheJESErgonomicsRoadmap.JapanErgonomicsSociety.Karwowski,W.,2006.Frompasttofuture:buildingacollectivevisionforHFES2020.HFESBulletin,49(11),13.Karwowski,W.,2007.TowardanHF/E-literatesociety.HFESBulletin,50(2),12.Kogi,K.,2007.Actionorienteduseofergonomiccheckpointsforhealthyworkdesignindierentsettings.JournalofHumanErgology,36,3743.Mitchell,
R.K., Agle, B.R., andWood, D.J., 1997. Towardatheoryof
stakeholderidenticationandsalience:
Deningtheprincipleofwhoandwhatreallycounts.AcademyofManagementReview,22(4),853886.Moray,N.,2000.Culture,politicsandergonomics.Ergonomics,43(7),858868.Neumann,
W.P. andDul, J., 2010. Humanfactors: Spanning the
gapbetweenOMandHRM. International Journal ofOperations
&Production Management, 30 (9),
923950.Noro,K.andImada,A.S.,1991.ParticipatoryErgonomics,London:TaylorandFrancis.Noy,
I., 1995. Twelfth triennial congress of the international
ergonomics association/douzieme congres triennial de
lassociationinternationaledergonomiebridgingthegap/Sunirpourlavenirguesteditorial.Ergonomics,38(8),15391541.Noy,
I., 2000. Ergonomics; the silent engine in the evolution of human
society. Presidential address, 14th IEA Triennial
Congress,31July2000.SanDiego,USA.Patel, H., Pettitt, M., and
Wilson, J.R., 2012. Factors of collaborative working: a framework
for a collaboration model.
AppliedErgonomics,43(1),126.Pfeer,J.,2010.Buildingsustainableorganizations:thehumanfactor.AcademyofManagementPerspectives,24(1),3445.Pot,
F.D. andKoningsveld, E.A., 2009.
Qualityofworkinglifeandorganizational
performancetwosidesofthesamecoin?ScandinavianJournalofWork,Environment&Health,35(6),421428.Proctor,
R.W., Nof, S.Y., Yih, Y., Balasubramanian, P., Busemeyer, J.R. and
Carayon, P., 2011. Understanding and improvingcross-cultural
decisionmakingindesignanduse of digital media: aresearchagenda.
International Journal of
Human-ComputerInteraction,27(2),151190.Rasmussen,J.,2000.Humanfactorsinadynamicinformationsociety:whereareweheading?Ergonomics,43(7),869879.Riedel,
R. andMueller, E., 2009. Productionmanagement
andsupplychainmanagement inaglobal context.
InternationalJournalofManufacturingTechnologyandManagement,16(3),300317.Schlick,
C.M., 2009. Industrial engineeringand ergonomicsin
engineeringdesign, manufacturing and service.In: C.M.
Schlick,ed.Industrialengineeringandergonomicsvision,concepts,methodsantools.Berlin:Springer.Stanton,N.A.andStammers,R.B.,2008.Bartlettandthefutureofergonomics.Ergonomics,51(1),113.Wilson,J.R.,2000.Fundamentalsofergonomicsintheoryandpractice.AppliedErgonomics,31(6),557567.Wilson,
J.R., Ryan, B., Schock, A., Ferreira, P., Smith, S. and
Pitsopoulos, J., 2009. Understanding safety and production
risksinrailengineeringplanningandprotection.Ergonomics,52(7),774790.Woods,
D. andDekker, S., 2000. Anticipatingtheeectsoftechnological change:
aneweraofdynamicsforhumanfactors.TheoreticalIssuesinErgonomicsScience,1(3),272282.Zink,K.J.,2005.Fromindustrialsafetytocorporatehealthmanagement.Ergonomics,48(5),534546.Zink,K.J.,2006.Humanfactors,managementandsociety.TheoreticalIssuesinErgonomicsScience,7(4),437445.Ergonomics
393Downloaded by [200.116.26.221] at 21:23 25 April 2012
Appendix.ExamplesofstrategicactionsbytheHFEcommunitytorealisethemainstrategy.Strengtheningthedemandforhigh-qualityHFEStrengtheningtheapplicationofhigh-qualityHFECommunicatingwithspecicstakeholdersaboutthevalueofhigh-qualityHFEinthelanguageofthestakeholderBuildingstrongpartnershipswithspecicstakeholdersandtheirrepresentingorganisationsEducatingstakeholderstocreateawarenessofhigh-qualityHFEanditscontributionstosystemdesignPromotingtheeducationofHFEspecialiststoapplyhigh-qualityHFEEnsuringhighqualitystandardsofHFEapplicationsandHFEspecialistsPromotingHFEresearchexcellenceatuniversitiesandotherorganisationsIEA:AtInternationallevelHFESocieties:Atnational/regionallevelIdentifyspecicstakeholdersfromthedominantstakeholdergroupsthatneedtobetargeted.Identifythespecicneedsofthesestakeholders.FormulatethevalueofHFEforthesestakeholdersintheirlanguage.Developshowcasesfromhigh-qualityHFEapplicationsthatgiveinsighttothesestakeholders.Acknowledge(e.g.awards)HFE-enlightenedstakeholdersthathavegoodexamplesofHFE.IdentifyopinionleadersfromthestakeholdergroupwhosupporthighqualityHFE.DelivertheHFEmessagerepeatedlyandthroughavarietyofcommunicationchannels.IdentifyorganisationsthatrepresentspecicstakeholdersfromthedominantstakeholdergroupsthatareinterestedinthevalueofHFEandinpartnershipswithHFE.Developpartnershipswithinterestedorganisations(e.g.regardingjointdevelopmentofshowcases,jointawards,sharingnetworks,jointcommunicationactivities,mutualaccesstoconferences,etc.).Identifyeducationandtrainingorganisationsofthedominantstakeholdergroups.IdentifylinksbetweenHFEandthe(learning)goalsofthesestakeholders.IncludeHFEintheeducation/trainingprogrammesofthesestakeholders.Formulategeneralstandardsforhigh-qualityHFE.FormulategeneralstandardsforqualiedHFEspecialists.Ensurethateducationandtrainingorganisationsadheretothesestandards.Promotehigh-qualityHFEinallactivitiesofIEAandHFEsocieties.Ensuretheimplementationofthegeneralstandardsforhigh-qualityHFEandqualiedHFEspecialistsbyaccreditationandcerticationbodies.Promoteresearchonhigh-qualityHFE(e.g.stimulateHFE-relatedjournalstohavereviewcriteriabasedonthethreekeycharacteristicsofhigh-qualityHFE).Promotepubliclyfundedresearchprogrammesonhigh-qualityHFE.Promoteresearchco-operationandcommunicationamongHFEresearchers(andresearchersfromotherdisciplines).PromotediscussionswithuniversitiesaboutdedicatedacademicdepartmentsforHFE.(continued)394
J.Duletal.Downloaded by [200.116.26.221] at 21:23 25 April 2012
Appendix.(Continued).Strengtheningthedemandforhigh-qualityHFEStrengtheningtheapplicationofhigh-qualityHFECommunicatingwithspecicstakeholdersaboutthevalueofhigh-qualityHFEinthelanguageofthestakeholderBuildingstrongpartnershipswithspecicstakeholdersandtheirrepresentingorganisationsEducatingstakeholderstocreateawarenessofhigh-qualityHFEanditscontributionstosystemdesignPromotingtheeducationofHFEspecialiststoapplyhigh-qualityHFEEnsuringhighqualitystandardsofHFEapplicationsandHFEspecialistsPromotingHFEresearchexcellenceatuniversitiesandotherorganisationsHFEIndividualsIdentifyspecicstakeholders(individuals)fromthedominantstakeholdergroupsthatneedtobetargeted.Identifythespecicneedsofthesestakeholders(individuals).FormulatethevalueofHFEforthesestakeholdersintheirlanguage(individuals).Developshowcasesfromhigh-qualityHFEapplicationsthatgiveinsighttothesestakeholders(individuals).AcknowledgeHFE-enlightenedstakeholders(individuals)thathavegoodexamplesofHFE.IdentifyopinionleadersfromthestakeholdergroupwhoaresupportersofhighqualityHFE.DelivertheHFEmessagerepeatedlyandthroughavarietyofcommunicationchannels.IdentifyindividualsfromdominantstakeholdergroupsthatareinterestedinthevalueofHFEandinpartnershipswithHFE.Developpartnershipswithinterestedindividuals(e.g.jointactivities,accesstoeachothersnetworksandconferences,jointcommunication,etc.).Identifyindividualteachers/trainersofdominantstakeholders.IdentifylinksbetweenHFEandtheprinciplesand(learning)goalsoftheeducationofthesestakeholders.IncludeHFEintheeducation/trainingprogrammesofthesestakeholders.Obtainandmaintainthequalicationsforhigh-qualityHFEspecialiststhroughcontinuouseducationandtraining.Ensurethathigh-qualityHFEispartofallindividualHFEactivities(payingattentiontothethreekeycharacteristicsofhigh-qualityHFE)in:HFEresearchandpublications(HFEresearchers)HFEteachingandtraining(HFEteachers/trainers)HFEpractice(HFEconsultants)HFEpolicy(HFEpolicymakers)Performandpublishresearchonhigh-qualityHFE.Stimulatepublicly-fundedresearchprogrammesonthehigh-qualityHFE.Collaboratewithresearchersfromotherdisciplinesregardingsystemdesignandperformanceoutcomes.Developbettertoolstoevaluatehigh-qualityHFEinterventionsPresenthigh-qualityHFEresearchpapersatconferencesofrelateddisciplines.Ergonomics
395Downloaded by [200.116.26.221] at 21:23 25 April 2012