-
A strategy for human factors/ergonomics: developing the
disciplineand profession
Jan Dula*, Ralph Bruderb, Peter Bucklec, Pascale Carayond,
Pierre Falzone,William S. Marrasf, John R. Wilsong and Bas van der
Doelenh
aRotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University, Rotterdam,
the Netherlands; bInstituteof Ergonomics, Technische Universitat
Darmstadt, Germany; cImperial College, Department ofSurgery and
Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, London, UK; dCenter for Quality and
ProductivityImprovement, Department of Industrial and Systems
Engineering, University of Wisconsin-
Madison, Madison, USA; eResearch Center on Work and Development,
Cnam, Paris, France;fThe Ohio State University, Biodynamics
Laboratory, USA; gHuman Factors Research Group,
Faculty of Engineering, University of Nottingham, UK;
hDepartment of Knowledge andCommunication, BMA Ergonomics, Zwolle,
the Netherlands
(Received 7 December 2011; nal version received 22 January
2012)
Human factors/ergonomics (HFE) has great potential to contribute
to the designof all kinds of systems with people (work systems,
product/service systems), butfaces challenges in the readiness of
its market and in the supply of high-qualityapplications. HFE has a
unique combination of three fundamental character-istics: (1) it
takes a systems approach (2) it is design driven and (3) it focuses
ontwo closely related outcomes: performance and well-being. In
order to contributeto future system design, HFE must demonstrate
its value more successfully tothe main stakeholders of system
design. HFE already has a strong valueproposition (mainly
well-being) and interactivity with the stakeholder group ofsystem
actors (employees and product/service users). However, the
valueproposition (mainly performance) and relationships with the
stakeholder groupsof system experts (experts from technical and
social sciences involved insystem design), and system decision
makers (managers and other decisionmakers involved in system
design, purchase, implementation and use), who havea strong power
to inuence system design, need to be developed. Therefore, therst
main strategic direction is to strengthen the demand for
high-quality HFEby increasing awareness among powerful stakeholders
of the value of high-qualityHFE by communicating with stakeholders,
by building partnerships and byeducating stakeholders. The second
main strategic direction is to strengthen theapplication of
high-quality HFE by promoting the education ofHFE specialists,
byensuring high-quality standards of HFE applications and HFE
specialists, andby promoting HFE research excellence at
universities and other organisations.This strategy requires
cooperation between the HFE community at large,consisting of the
International Ergonomics Association (IEA), local (national
andregional) HFE societies, and HFE specialists. We propose a joint
world-wideHFE development plan, in which the IEA takes a leadership
role.
Practitioner Summary: Human factors/ergonomics (HFE) has much to
oer byaddressing major business and societal challenges regarding
work and product/service systems. HFE potential, however, is
underexploited. This paper presents astrategy for the HFE community
to strengthen demand and application of
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Ergonomics
2012, 127, iFirst article
ISSN 0014-0139 print/ISSN 1366-5847 online
2012 Taylor &
Francishttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2012.661087
http://www.tandfonline.com
-
high-quality HFE, emphasising its key elements: systems
approach, design driven,and performance and well-being goals.
Keywords: human factors/ergonomics discipline, human
factors/ergonomicsprofession, future of ergonomics, work systems,
product/service systems,performance
1. Introduction
This paper provides a vision of the future of the human
factors/ergonomics (HFE)discipline and profession (the terms
ergonomics and human factors are usedinterchangeably1). The paper
presents the ndings of the Future of ErgonomicsCommittee2, which
was established in December 2010 by the InternationalErgonomics
Association (IEA) and which reported its results at the 18th
TriennialWorld Congress on Ergonomics, IEA2012 in Brazil. The goal
of the committee wasto formulate a position paper for the HFE
community on strategies for the futureof the HFE discipline and
profession. During the more than 50 years of HFEhistory, several
papers have been published discussing the future of
ergonomics.Recent examples include special issues in Theoretical
Issues in Ergonomics Science(Hollnagel 2001) and Ergonomics
(Stanton and Stammers 2008). Most papers predictthe future of
ergonomics for specic HFE areas in terms of expected
developmentsand eects on the content of the discipline, or in
specic regions. In contrast, thepresent paper focuses on a strategy
for the world-wide promotion of the disciplineand profession in
order to reach global excellence in HFE. The paper does notcontain
an operational plan to realise this strategy.
The committee developed a strategy for the future of HFE by
sharing anddiscussing the views of committee members and many other
HFE specialists.Besides electronic communication among committee
members, the committee heldphysical meetings in Amsterdam (March
2011, November 2011) and Paris (June2011), and had a brainstorming
session with IEA council members in Grahams-town, South Africa
(April 2011). Inputs from many other HFE specialistsworldwide were
obtained via face-to-face interviews and email exchange (a list
ofpeople who provided input can be found in the Acknowledgements).
Although thecommittee has collected many documents on the future of
HFE, the viewsexpressed in this paper are not based on this
literature or on a literature review.However, we added references
for illustration and further reading. This paperpresents the nal
view of the committee. The committee consists mainly of
westernacademics with extensive international experience, and with
substantialexperience of working closely with practitioners and
clients in all areas of industryand commerce. This document is not
a consensus paper representing all viewsin the HFE community, nor
does it necessarily reect the view of the IEA. Thecontent is
available to any organisation (including the IEA and local
HFEsocieties) and any individual to develop new strategies, tactics
and operationswithin their own context.
The starting point of this paper is that HFE has great potential
to ensure thatany designed artefact, ranging from a consumer
product to an organisationalenvironment, is shaped around the
capacities and aspirations of humans, such thatperformance and
well-being are optimised. When HFE does not play a role insystem
design, this can lead to sub-optimal systems with quality decits,
reducedeciency, illness, dissatisfaction, etc. HFE can provide
solutions to these problems.
2 J. Dul et al.
-
However, the potential of HFE remains under-exploited. At least
four reasons havebeen identied. First, many stakeholders involved
in the design, management anduse of artefacts (e.g. customers,
workers, managers, other professionals, society atlarge) are not
aware of the value of HFE and as a consequence, do not exhibit
astrong demand for HFE. Second, in certain situations where there
is a demand forHFE (e.g. ergonomic products in product marketing,
ergonomic systems insafety critical industries such as defence,
transport, oil, and healthcare), there is notenough high-quality
HFE in the design process because HFE is lacking or itsapplication
is too limited in scope, resulting in sub-optimal solutions. Third,
the eldis very small in comparison to established disciplines
involved in designingartefacts like engineering and psychology, and
is often incorporated within thesedisciplines without explicit
reference to the HFE discipline. Fourth, the very strengthof HFE,
its multi-disciplinary base, is also a potential weakness; a
diversity oftopics, views and practices exist within the HFE
community, resulting in unclearcommunication to the external
world.
In order to develop a strategy for the HFE discipline and
profession, we start bydescribing the fundamental characteristics
of HFE in Section 2. Then, we identifydevelopments in the external
world that are important for HFE in Section 3. Next,we formulate
the value of HFE for the main stakeholders of system design.
InSection 5, we propose the strategic positioning of the HFE
discipline, and nally wediscuss possible strategic actions for the
HFE community that can help to achievea prosperous future for
HFE.
2. The fundamental characteristics of the HFE discipline and
profession
HFE focuses on systems in which humans interact with their
environment. Theenvironment is complex and consists of the physical
environment (things), theorganisational environment (how activities
are organised and controlled), andthe social environment (other
people, culture) (Moray 2000, Wilson 2000, Carayon2006). The system
can be a work system (where the human is a worker and
theenvironment is the work environment) or a product/service system
(where the humanis a product user or person who receives a service
and the environment is theenvironment where the product is used or
where the service is received)3. The focusof HFE is to jointly
improve performance and well-being by designing theintegrative
whole better, and by integrating the human into the system better.
Thisis done by tting the environment to the human. HFE typically
takes a hierarchicalapproach where environmental design to t the
human is seen as the priority, andselecting people to t the
environment or training people to t the system is onlyconsidered
when the former is not possible. With a better tting
environment,humans are better able to contribute to performance4.
Over the past 50 years, theHFE community has developed and
documented a substantial body of knowledgeand skills regarding
interactions between humans and their environment, andmethodologies
for analysing and designing systems.
The denition of HFE and HFE specialists (adopted by the IEA in
2000) reectsthis body of knowledge as follows (IEA 2000):
Ergonomics (or human factors) is the scientic discipline
concerned with theunderstanding of the interactions among humans
and other elements of a system,and the profession that applies
theoretical principles, data and methods to designin order to
optimize well-being and overall performance.
Ergonomics 3
-
Practitioners of ergonomics, ergonomists, contribute to the
planning, design,implementation, evaluation, redesign and
continuous improvement of tasks,jobs, products, technologies,
processes, organisations, environments and systemsin order to make
them compatible with the needs, abilities and limitations
ofpeople.
Three fundamental characteristics of HFE can be derived from
thesedescriptions:
. HFE takes a systems approach.
. HFE is design driven.
. HFE focuses on two related outcomes: performance and
well-being.
2.1. HFE takes a systems approach
A system is a set of interacting and interdependent components
that form anintegrated whole. HFE focuses on goal-oriented and
purposefully designed systemsconsisting of humans and their
environment (Helander 1997, Schlick 2009). Theenvironment can be
any human-made artefact e.g. (work)place, tool, product,technical
processes, service, software, built environment, task,
organisational design,etc. as well as other humans (Wilson 2000).
HFE considers dierent aspects ofthe person (physical,
physiological, psychological (aective and cognitive), andsocial)
and dierent aspects of the environment (physical, social,
informational, etc.).It can address issues on various system levels
from micro-level (e.g. humans usingtools or performing single
tasks) to meso-level (e.g. humans as part of technicalprocesses or
organisations) to macro level (e.g. humans as part of networks
oforganisations, regions, countries, or the world) (Rasmussen
2000). When deningproblems and formulating solutions, system
boundaries are dened, and the focus ofHFE can be on specic aspects
of people (e.g. only physical), on specic aspectsof the environment
(e.g. only workplace), or on a specic level (e.g. micro), but
thebroader context of the human within the environment is always
taken intoconsideration (contextualisation). This broad perspective
of HFE can be referred toas a systems approach or a holistic
approach.
The systems or holistic approach of HFE and its wide (almost
unlimited) contextfor application dierentiates it from other more
narrow disciplines such ascognitive psychology and human movement
science (Brewer and Hsiang 2002).These other disciplines may share
a human view with HFE, but not a comprehensiveview.
2.2. HFE is design driven
HFE seeks to improve performance and well-being through systems
design. Analysesand assessments result in recommendations and
actions for this design. HFE canbe involved in all stages of
planning, design, implementation, evaluation,maintenance, redesign
and continuous improvement of systems (Japan ErgonomicsSociety
2006). These stages are not necessarily sequential; they are
recursive,interdependent, dynamic, but design is at the heart of
them. Decisions at one stagemay aect or be aected by decisions at
other stages.
HFE specialists can be active participants in design processes,
and a particularfeature of HFE is that those who will be part of
the system being designed are often
4 J. Dul et al.
-
brought into the development process as participants (Noro and
Imada 1991).HFE specialists can have dierent roles. For example,
they can act as specialists ofthe human component of the system.
The human component should be understoodas covering both individual
and collective or social aspects, from micro to macrolevel. HFE
specialists have competencies regarding methods for analysing and
actingon situations, methods for designing and assessing technical
and organisationalenvironments, methods for organising and managing
participatory approaches, andmethods for redesigning and
continuously improving systems (Woods and Dekker2000). HFE
specialists analyse and solve problems in partnership with
othercontributors to design (Noy 1995, Rasmussen 2000). They can
also play anintegrative role in design decisions, based on their
knowledge and skills of design asan activity (including mental
processes of contributors to the design, andcollective interaction
processes). Furthermore, they can stimulate and moderatedesign
processes by, for instance, translating engineering terminology or
concepts toend-user terminology and vice versa.
This design orientation of HFE dierentiates it from other
disciplines such associology, and anthropology. These other
disciplines may share a comprehensiveview with HFE, but not an
action view (Helander 1997).
2.3. HFE focuses on two related outcomes: performance and
well-being
By tting the environment to the human, two related system
outcomes can beachieved: performance (e.g. productivity, eciency,
eectiveness, quality,innovativeness, exibility, (systems) safety
and security, reliability, sustainability)and well-being (e.g.
health and safety, satisfaction, pleasure, learning,
personaldevelopment). These and other outcomes are balanced by HFE
specialists, managingpractical as well as ethical trade-os within
systems (e.g. Wilson et al. 2009).Performance and well-being
interact: performance can inuence well-being, andwell-being can
inuence performance, both in the short and the long-term (seeFigure
1).
Reduced performance and well-being can occur when there is a
lack of tbetween the environment and human capabilities and
aspirations. For example,humans may perform below their
capabilities and standards because other parts ofthe system are an
obstacle rather than a supporting environment (e.g. due to lackof
time, inappropriate equipment, insucient support) (Falzon 2005,
Falzon et al.2012). Well-being and performance are intertwined and
should be understood asstrongly connected (Pot and Koningsveld
2009).
Figure 1. The eect of HFE design on performance and
well-being.
Ergonomics 5
-
HFE recognises that any system always produces two outcomes:
performanceand well-being. By tting the environment to the human,
HFE can contribute tooptimising5 these joint outcomes (Neumann and
Dul 2010).
This focus of HFE on two joint outcomes is a dierential
characteristic. Otherdisciplines such as engineering, psychology,
and medicine share the focus on one ofthe outcomes with HFE, but
not on both outcomes.
3. Developments in the external world (general description)
Developments in the world are having major impacts on systems.
Thesedevelopments and their signicance for HFE need to be identied
(Hendrick 1991,Noy 2000, Japan Ergonomics Society 2006) in order to
set out a strategy for thefuture. Without attempting to be
complete, we describe some global trends regardingchanges that
impact HFE.
3.1. Global change of work systems
The change in the global economic landscape over the last decade
has resulted in asignicant shift in the types of work that occur in
dierent regions of the world.These changes have occurred in
economically advanced nations, as well as ineconomically developing
nations. Historically, economically advanced nations havebeen
heavily involved in mass goods manufacturing. However, over the
past twodecades, these nations have increasingly outsourced
manufacturing and servicefunctions to economically developing
countries, within a supply chain and globalmarket perspective. This
has shifted the work performed within the economicallyadvanced
nations to an emphasis on a service economy (including
healthcareservices), resulting in more focus on the design of work
systems for serviceproduction, and on the design of non-work
systems such as services for customersand human-computer
interactions (Drury 2008, Hedge and Spier 2008). Addition-ally,
stimulation of entrepreneurship has resulted in a growing number of
small-sizedand informal businesses in some economically advanced
nations.
At the same time, economically developing countries have
enlarged theirmanufacturing base, thus creating more jobs. As a
result, work, historically basedon local agriculture, has shifted
towards more emphasis on manufacturing (oftenwithout the HFE benets
found in economically advanced nations). Goods areoften produced by
workers earning low wages and working under unfavourableconditions.
Sharp increases in manufacturing are occurring because of the
lowcost of goods production. In addition, many of these
economically developingnations are simultaneously experiencing an
increase in low wage service sectorjobs (e.g. call centres,
banking). At the same time, in some countries, the informalsector
involves the largest number of workers (Caple 2008) and
agricultureremains the principal sector contributing to the
countrys economic performance,including sometimes children who
carry out tasks for very low or no wages(Gangopadhyay et al.
2004).
Furthermore, there is a continuing trend of mechanisation and
automation ofwork systems, not only in manufacturing but also in
the service industry (Schlick2009). The introduction of more
technology and increased capabilities of technology(many times
beyond human capabilities) may change the relationship
betweenpeople and technology.
6 J. Dul et al.
-
3.2. Cultural diversity
One major impact of the trends described above is the increased
interdependenciesbetween economies, industries and companies around
the world. Consequently,production and distribution systems are
internationally organised with a culturallydiverse workforce, and
products and services are consumed by an increasinglydiverse set of
customers in markets around the world. As a result, a diverse set
ofhumans with dierent cultural backgrounds, and dierent
characteristics andaspirations has become part of work and
product/consumer systems. Environmentsthat were properly designed
for one group of people may not be appropriate forother groups of
people.
HFE can address this trend of cultural diversity by contributing
to the cross-cultural design of production and distribution systems
that t the diverse workforce,and to the cross-cultural design of
products and services that t the diversity of users(Moray 2000,
Japan Ergonomics Society 2006). In cross-cultural design, it
isacknowledged that people from dierent cultures have dierent
capabilities andaspirations, which aect the design of systems of
which they are part. Examplesinclude the design of global supply
chains (Riedel and Mueller 2009) and the designof international
digital media (Proctor et al. 2011).
3.3. Ageing
Several parts of the world are experiencing a demographic change
known aspopulation ageing, brought about by a combination of longer
life expectancy,declining fertility, and the progression through
life of a large baby boomgeneration. In the USA, the workforce is
ageing; in Europe the proportion of olderpeople in the working
populations in European countries is increasing more thanin other
continents. In India, the retirement age of oce or industrial
workers hasrecently been raised. As a consequence, a large group of
older humans have becomepart of work and product/service systems.
Environments that were designed forthe current group of humans may
not be as suitable for elderly people in the system.Another
consequence of ageing is the increased relevance of equipment,
furniture,IT devices, services, etc. targeting the older population
at work, and adapted to theircharacteristics.
HFE can contribute by ensuring that work systems and
products/services t theolder population, taking into account
age-related changes in physical, cognitive,visual and other
capabilities, and dierent aspirations (Japan Ergonomics
Society2006). Older people may have some reduced capabilities, but
also more developedcapabilities such as mental growth (strategic
thinking, language skills, motivation,commitment, work expertise)
and some aspects of social capabilities (ability to adjusttheir
behaviour). However, there are large variations among older age
groups, andthese can become more pronounced with age (Ilmarinen
2005).
HFE can help develop more versatile systems that are better
matched to a widerange of groups. This approach does not only apply
to people of dierent agegroups, but also to people with
disabilities, obesity (Buckle and Buckle 2011), orotherwise dierent
capabilities and aspirations (design for all). However, thisageing
trend is not global. In other parts of the world, e.g. Sub-Saharan
Africancountries, life expectancy is on the decline because a large
part of the population issuering from HIV and related illnesses. In
these countries, the main concern ishaving a sustainable workforce
that can meet the requirements of the job market.
Ergonomics 7
-
3.4. Information and communication technology (ICT)
There are several ICT-related changes that impact the manner in
which work andactivities of daily living are performed (Karwowski
2006). Rapid and continuousdevelopments in computer technology,
telecommunication technology and mediatechnology have given rise to
new interactive activities such as social media, gaming,and to an
explosion of information transfer. Peoples lives have become more
andmore dependent on ICT and virtual networks. For example, these
developmentshave an impact on the delivery of education. Similarly,
new dimensions in productquality have emerged beyond usability,
such as emotional design and pleasurableinteractions.
ICT developments have brought about many changes in work
organisation andorganisational design. These include more focus on
teamwork, the rise of virtualorganisations, remote work including
working from home, fading borders betweenoccupational and private
life, and increased complexity of networks of organisations(Carayon
and Smith 2000).
Networks of organisations have emerged as an organisational
model to supportcollaboration between organisations that have
common goals. Very often organisa-tional networks rely on
technology to communicate and share information, forinstance,
supply chains in manufacturing. Another example is the exchange of
healthinformation, which allows dierent healthcare organisations to
share informationabout patients.
Increasingly, companies are relying on virtual arrangements to
conduct theirbusiness. Virtual sociotechnical systems comprising
diverse people, who aregeographically dispersed, use information
and communication technologies toperform their work remotely
(Gibson and Gibbs 2006).
HFE specialists can contribute to the design of systems to allow
people to worktogether and share information across organisational
boundaries (Woods andDekker 2000). For example, HFE can inuence the
design of virtual sociotechnicalsystems by showing how trust and
collaboration can be enhanced when teammembers work remotely and
communicate via technology (Patel et al. 2012). HFEcan also
contribute to the design of natural user interfaces in
human-computerinteractions.
3.5. Enhanced competitiveness and the need for innovation
The enhanced competitiveness among companies, which is partly a
result ofglobalisation, has forced companies to develop new
business strategies, and hasincreased the need for companies to
innovate and invent new products and services,as well as new ways
of producing these. Employees may contribute to suggestions forthe
innovation of production processes and products/services.
Production processesneed to be more ecient and exible and must
guarantee short product deliverytimes, often resulting in
intensication of work. Products and services must havehigh quality
characteristics beyond functionality, e.g. ease of use and positive
userexperiences, to be successful in the market and to gain
commercial advantage.
HFE can contribute to the renewal of business strategies and
innovation inseveral ways (Dul and Neumann 2009). HFE can foster
employee creativity forinnovation (Dul and Ceylan 2011), can
contribute to product/service innovation bydeveloping new products
and services with unique usability and experiencecharacteristics,
and can help a company to innovate processes and operations by
8 J. Dul et al.
-
providing new ecient and eective ways of producing products and
services(Broberg 1997, Bruder 2000).
3.6. Sustainability and corporate social responsibility
Sustainability the development that meets the needs of the
present withoutcompromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs includesattention to natural and physical
resources (planet), but also attention to human andsocial resources
(people), in combination with economic sustainability (prot)(Delios
2010, Pfeer 2010). It implies that companies do not just focus on
nancialperformance. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) means
going beyond fulllingthe minimum legal expectations regarding
planet and people. Poor or minimumstandards in health and safety
may damage a companys image with respect to CSR,which would be a
direct threat to the value of the CSR eort and the continuity ofthe
business. HFE can contribute to developing actions and programmes
aimed atcombining the people and prot dimension of sustainability
and social responsibilityby optimising both performance and
well-being (Pfeer 2010, Zink 2005, 2006).
In many economically developing countries, the understanding of
the humanelement requires knowledge of complex social and cultural
environments. Forexample, in South Africa, the workforce is often
faced with issues such as HIV,cardiovascular diseases, infectious
diseases other than HIV, and intentional violence.These issues
inuence the work capacity of the population. HFE specialists in
thesecountries, therefore, have a signicant role to play in
improving both performance(e.g. productivity) and well-being.
In conclusion, the above and other examples of developments
illustrate thatsystems change because the human part or the
environment part of the system (orboth) change. By oering its
fundamental characteristics, HFE has the potential tocontribute to
the design of future systems.
4. The value of HFE for stakeholders
The contribution of HFE to system design (supply of HFE) depends
on thedemand for HFE by parties (stakeholders) involved in system
design. Demand forHFE depends on the perceived value of HFE by
stakeholders that are directly orindirectly involved in system
design. To be able to supply, HFE must show that itcan provide
value to these stakeholders in order to be a respected and
demandedpartner in the design process.
In this section, we rst identify the main stakeholder groups for
system design.Next, we describe how the stakeholder groups could
benet from the contribution ofHFE in systems design. Finally, we
evaluate the (mis)match between the potential,perceived and
provided value of HFE.
4.1. Stakeholders of system design
Four main stakeholders groups of system design can be
identied:
. System actors, i.e. employees, product/service users, who are
part of thesystem and who are directly or indirectly aected by its
design and who,directly or indirectly, aect its performance.
Ergonomics 9
-
. System experts, i.e. professionals such as engineers and
psychologists whocontribute to the design of the system based on
their specic professionalbackgrounds. The HFE specialist is one of
the system experts who focuses ondesign by tting the environment to
humans, by using a systems approach, andby focusing on two related
outcomes (performance and well-being).
. System decision makers, i.e. decision makers (e.g. managers)
about the(requirements for) the system design, the purchasing of
the system, itsimplementation and its use.
. System inuencers, i.e. media, governments, standardisation
organisations,regulators, citizens who have general public interest
in work system andproduct/service system design.
For each of the main stakeholder groups, we distinguish four
levels ofstakeholders: individual (the direct stakeholder),
company, country/region, andworld (the indirect stakeholders). A
stakeholder at a broader level (e.g. country)may represent a
stakeholder at a more narrow level (e.g. company). Table 1
describesin more detail examples of stakeholders from the main
stakeholder groups that aredirectly or indirectly involved in or
aected by systems design. As a reference, wehave included the HFE
specialist as one of the system experts.
It should be noted that people can belong to dierent stakeholder
groupsdepending on their role. For example, employees who are part
of a work system aresystem actors. However, they become system
experts (based on their experience)when they participate in the
(re)design of a system. Similarly, managers who decideabout system
designs are system decision makers, but when the systems
areimplemented and the managers have management tasks in the new
systems, theybecome system actors.
4.2. Value of HFE for stakeholders
In this section, we describe the value of HFE contributions to
systems design for themain stakeholder groups (individuals and
their representing organisations atcompany, national and
international level).
4.2.1. System actors
This stakeholder group can be divided into actors of work
systems (employees), andactors of product/service systems (product
users, service receivers).
Employees can benet from HFE design of work systems as it
ensures well-beingin terms of e.g.:
. Improved physical, psychological and social well-being (health
and safety) (e.g.through optimisation of work environments).
. Higher motivation, growth and job satisfaction (e.g. through
freedom to act androom to grow and learn).
. Improved performance (e.g. performance leading to intrinsic or
extrinsicreward).
Product users/service receivers can benet from HFE design of
product/servicesystems as it ensures well-being and performance in
terms of e.g.:
10 J. Dul et al.
-
Table1.
Examplesofstakeholdersin
themain
stakeholder
groupsthatare
directlyorindirectlyinvolved
inthedesignofsystem
s,andtheirroleand
stakein
thesystem
.
Stakeholder
group
Levelofstakeholders
Individual
Organisationsrepresentingin-
dividualsin
thecompany
Organisationsrepresenting
individualsin
thecountry/region
Organisationsrepresenting
individualsin
theworld
System
actors
Are
partsofthesystem
Are
directlyorindirectly
aectedbyitsdesign
Aectdirectlyorindirectly
perform
ance
Actorsofwork
system
s:Employees
Actorsofproduct
system
s:Product
users
Actorsofservicesystem
s:Servicereceivers
Workscouncils(work
system
s)OHSserviceproviders
(work
system
s)Usergroups
(products/services)
National/regionaltradeunions
(work
system
s),
National/regionalorganisationof
OHSservices
(work
system
s)National/regionalconsumer
organisations(products/service)
National/regionalgovernment/
OHSlegislation/consumer
safety
legislation
National/regionalusergroups
(e.g.patientassociations)
(product/service)
Internationaltradeunions
(work
system
s)Internationalgovernment/
OHSlegislation/
consumer
safety
legislation
ILO
WHO
ICOH
Internationalusergroups
(product/service)
System
experts
Are
designersofthesystem
basedontheirspecic
professionalbackgrounds
andthenature
ofthesystem
Professionalsfromthetechnical
andsocialsciences:,e.g.,
(industrial)engineering,
inform
ationtechnology/
computerscience,user
experience
specialists,
psychology,managem
ent
consultancy,design,facility
managem
ent,operations
managem
ent,human
resourcemanagem
ent,
interiordesign,architecture)
Professionalcolleagues
National/regionalprofessional
associations
National/regionalinstitutesfor
professionaleducation
National/regionalresearch
organisations(universities,
researchfundingorganisations)
Internationalprofessional
associations
Internationalinstitutesfor
professionaleducation
Internationalresearch
organisations
(universities,research
fundingorganisations)
(continued)
Ergonomics 11
-
Table1.
(Continued).
Stakeholder
group
Levelofstakeholders
Individual
Organisationsrepresentingin-
dividualsin
thecompany
Organisationsrepresenting
individualsin
thecountry/region
Organisationsrepresenting
individualsin
theworld
HFESPECIA
LIST
Are
designersofthesystem
basedontheirspecic
professionalbackgroundin
HFE:designbytting
environmentto
human,
system
sapproach,dualgoal
(perform
ance
and
well-being)
HFESPECIA
LIST
(oneofthesystem
designers)
HFESPECIA
LIST
Other
professionalswho
supportHFE
HFESPECIA
LIST
National/regionalHFE
organisations(e.g.IEA
federatedsocieties,IEA
networks,national/regional
certicationorganisations)
HFESPECIA
LIST
InternationalHFE
organisations(IEA)
System
decisionmakers
Are
decisionmakers,aboute.g.
therequirem
entsforthe
system
design,andthenal
design
Managers,other
decision
makers
Managem
entteam
Purchasers
ofproducts/
services
National/regionalem
ployer
organisations
National/regionalindustry/trade
organisations
Internationalem
ployer
organisations
Internationalindustry/trade
organisations
System
inuencers
Havegeneralpublicinterest
inwork
andproduct/service
system
s
Anyother
personinterested
insystem
sdesign
Localcommunity
Localmedia
Localgovernment
National/regionalgeneralpublic
National/regionalmedia
National/regionalgovernments
National/regionalstandardisation
bodies
Internationalgeneralpublic
Internationalmedia
Internationalgovernments
International
standardisationbodies
12 J. Dul et al.
-
. Better experience
. Shorter time of familiarisation
. Better tting of products/services to individual
characteristics/needs
. Fewer mistakes
. Greater eciency
In addition, as HFE commonly takes participatory design
approaches, anotherpotential value of HFE is that it ensures that
system actors can inuence systemdesign.
4.2.2. System experts
This stakeholder group consists of a variety of professionals
from the technical andsocial sciences that can be involved in the
design of systems, e.g. (industrial)engineering, information
technology/computer sciences, psychology, managementconsultancy,
design, facility management, operations management, human
resourcemanagement, interior design, architecture. These
professionals aim to design asystem that performs well according to
the standards of their respective professions,and to the
requirements of system decision makers. HFE can help to reach
thesegoals because HFE contributions help to ensure:
. Better users acceptance of designed systems
. Better performance
. Better t with (legal) standards (e.g. health and safety,
accessibility,professional ethics)
. Improved development process (e.g. more ecient user
consultation).
4.2.3. System decision makers
This stakeholder group consists of decision makers (e.g.
managers, purchasers) thatdecide about the design (e.g.
requirements, nal design) of work systems andproduct/service
systems.
Management (e.g. in companies) aims to achieve excellent
performance of worksystems with the least use of resources. Typical
key performance indicators of worksystems are productivity (the
number of produced products and services per time),the time needed
for fullling a certain task, and the quality of
products/services.
Decision makers about work systems can benet from HFE as it
ensuresperformance in terms of e.g.:
. Better productivity by reduced time for performing work
procedures (e.g.through optimisation of work equipment, work ow or
worker qualications).
. Better quality and reliability of production processes and
produced goodsand services (e.g. through optimisation of work
equipment, operatinginstructions or worker qualications).
. Lower operating costs due to lower levels of health problems,
motivationaldecits, accidents, absenteeism, and related
productivity loss (e.g. throughbetter working conditions).
. More innovation by increased employee creativity (e.g. through
creativitystimulating work environments).
Ergonomics 13
-
. Better reputation for hiring and retention of talented
employees (e.g. throughattractive work), and positive worker and
consumer associations with therm and its products/services
(employee well-being, sustainability, corporatesocial
responsibility, end user well-being).
. Better decision-making through improved information about the
eects ofsystem design on employees.
Decision makers about product/service systems can benet from HFE
design as itensures product/service performance in terms of:
. Better market performance (e.g. due to unique characteristics
such as ease ofuse).
. Greater protability.
. Less re-design due to interaction problems after market
introduction.
. Better decision-making by improved information about eects of
system designon product/service users.
4.2.4. System inuencers
System inuencers have a general public interest in work and
product/servicesystems, in particular regarding their outcomes. HFE
can contribute simultaneouslyto two general goals:
. Social wealth of individuals and society at large (through the
well-beingoutcome of HFE system design).
. Economic wealth of individuals and society at large (through
the performanceoutcome of HFE system design).
HFE helps to ensure that people do not get injured at work or
while usingproducts or receiving services, that work systems and
product/service systems areprotable for companies and for society
at large, and that work systems andproduct/service systems are
accessible for people with a variety of capacities
andaspirations.
4.3. (Mis)match between potential value, perceived value, and
provided value
The previous analysis shows that HFE has the potential to
provide value to all of themain stakeholders of system design. Each
of the stakeholder groups could benetfrom the contribution of HFE
in systems design. The analysis also shows thatstakeholders have
dierent needs, and therefore have dierent views about the realvalue
of HFE for them. For example, system actors (employees,
product/serviceusers) and some system inuencers (e.g. governmental
agencies focusing on healthand safety) will appreciate the
well-being outcome of HFE, whereas system experts(e.g. engineers)
and system decision makers (e.g. managers) will appreciate
theperformance outcome of HFE.
However, the perceived value of HFE by all stakeholders is
limited (Helander1999, Neumann and Dul 2010). Some people believe
that HFE focuses on well-beingonly; others say that it focuses on
manufacturing only (e.g. heavy physical work),or on specic goods
only (e.g. chair, computer mouse). Although there are many
14 J. Dul et al.
-
examples of highly successful companies with work systems, where
workers aretreated well from a physical, psychological, and
organisational standpoint, becomecreative and productive members of
the organisation, and are retained in theorganisation, these
winning strategies are not always associated with HFE.Similarly,
there are numerous examples of successful products that are based
uponusability, ease of use, and perceptions of eciency, such as
iPhones, and otherkinds of high tech gadgets. These devices are
widely successful because of HFEfeatures, yet the terms human
factors or ergonomics are seldom heard whendiscussing these
products, and hence HFE value is not perceived. These examplesshow
that there is an implicit need for the value of HFE (performance
andwell-being), but not an awareness and explicit demand for the
HFE discipline andprofession. Hence, there is limited recognition
and appreciation of how HFE cancontribute to healthy, safe,
comfortable and ecient work and product/servicesystems.
Although the role of HFE in enhancing well-being can be a strong
valueproposition for some stakeholder groups, i.e. system actors
and system inuencers,this may not be sucient for other stakeholder
groups, in particular, systems expertsand system decision makers
who primarily focus on the performance value ofHFE. In many
sectors, the provided value by the HFE community (in research
andpractice) focuses on well-being, and HFE specialists then have
strongerrelationships with the stakeholder group of system actors
(that appreciate thisgoal) than with the stakeholder groups of
systems experts and system decisionmakers (that are strongly
interested in the performance outcome). In addition,
therelationships of the HFE community with certain system inuencers
(e.g.governments) often focus on well-being rather than on
performance. For example,the IEA has stronger formal relationships
with international organisations thatfocus primarily (though not
solely) on well-being, e.g. International LabourOrganisation (ILO),
International Occupational Hygiene Association (IOHA), andthe
International Commission on Occupational Health (ICOH) than with
organisa-tions that focus primarily (though not solely) on
performance (e.g. organisationsrepresenting industrial engineers,
product designers, or managers). There may wellbe a similar
imbalance for many local HFE societies and many individual
HFEspecialists.
As a result, the HFE community has a less developed value
proposition andweaker relationships with dominant stakeholders
(Mitchell et al. 1997) who haveconsiderable power to inuence system
design, in particular organisationsrepresenting system experts
(such as design organisations), and organisationsrepresenting
system decision makers (such as management organisations). The
HFEcommunity has a more developed value proposition and stronger
relationshipswith dependent stakeholders such as the group of
system actors who are less able toinuence system design, but have
strong interest in its outcome. In conclusion, thestakeholder group
of system actors primarily needs and benets from the
well-beingvalue of HFE, and this has created an explicit demand for
HFE from this group.The stakeholder groups of system experts and
system decision makers primarilyneed the performance value of HFE.
However, they do not always get this valueand are generally not
aware that HFE can provide this value, even though theyhave an
implicit need for it. As a result, there is limited explicit demand
for HFEfrom this group. Because this group of system experts and
system decision makersis more powerful in the design process than
the rst group (system actors), the
Ergonomics 15
-
HFE community should strengthen its value proposition (with a
focus onperformance outcomes), and its communication and
relationships with thesestakeholder groups, as well as with the
system inuencers. This will help to increasedemand for high-quality
HFE (well-being and performance outcomes) and thereforeincrease HFE
contributions to system design, resulting in more high-quality
HFEapplications6.
5. Strategy for the future
In Section 1, we stated that the potential of HFE is
under-exploited. In Section 2, weshowed that HFE has three
fundamental characteristics (systems approach, designdriven, joint
performance and well-being outcomes) and that this combination
isunique in comparison to other disciplines. The developments
described in Section 3indicate that systems are changing and will
continue to change in the future, and thatHFE can help to design
systems that t people so that well-being and performanceoutcomes
are achieved in future systems. In Section 4, we found that HFE
currentlyserves the main stakeholder group of system actors
relatively well (with well-beingoutcomes), but that it needs to
better serve the main other stakeholder groups(system experts,
system decision makers) with high-quality HFE. These
stakeholdergroups are more inuential in system design than system
actors and have a stronginterest in performance. At the same, they
may have only a limited view about whatHFE could oer. Therefore,
HFE should expand its reach to system experts andsystem decision
makers, with greater emphasis on the performance goal, and on
thediversity of application areas.
Therefore, we propose the following main strategy for the future
of HFE:
To strengthen the demand for and the application of high-quality
HFE (with the keyelements of systems approach, design driven, and
performance and well-beingoutcomes) for all stakeholders, in
particular:
(1) Strengthening the demand for high-quality HFE by enhancing
the awarenessof stakeholders need for high-quality HFE (in
particular, for system expertsand system decision makers,
emphasising performance) by:(a) Communicating with specic
stakeholders about the value of high-quality
HFE in the language of the stakeholder.(b) Building partnerships
with these stakeholders and their representing
organisations.(c) Educating stakeholders to raise awareness of
high-quality HFE and its
contributions to system design.(2) Strengthening the application
of high-quality HFE by:
(a) Promoting the education of HFE specialists to apply
high-quality HFE.(b) Ensuring high quality standards of HFE
applications and HFE specialists.(c) Promoting HFE research
excellence at universities and other
organisations.
These two strategic elements are interrelated.Higher demand for
high-quality HFEcan lead to more high-quality HFE provided (pull),
and more availability of highquality HFE can stimulate demand for
high-quality HFE (push). Figure 2 depicts theHFE demand development
cycle representing the main strategy. The cycle applies
16 J. Dul et al.
-
to a given stakeholder group (system actors, system specialists,
system decisionmakers,or system inuencers) and combines three
strategic elements:
(1) A stakeholders demand for high-quality HFE, which can
stimulate(2) the application of high-quality HFE (with the three
key characteristics),
which can(3) raise the stakeholders awareness of the need for
high-quality HFE, which
may(4) increase the stakeholders demand for high-quality
HFE.
The HFE community can take an active role in boosting this cycle
by focusing onboth the pull and push approaches. It can enhance the
stakeholders awareness oftheir need for high quality HFE. This can
be done by communicating withstakeholders, by building partnerships
with stakeholders, and by educatingstakeholders (Karwowski 2007).
This requires that HFE specialists can translateand integrate HFE
objectives into stakeholders strategies, policies and actions
(Duland Neumann 2009). As a result, there should be an increased
demand forhigh-quality HFE. The HFE community can also enhance
high-quality HFEapplications. This can be done by educating
high-quality HFE specialists, by ensuringhigh quality HFE
applications and specialists, and by encouraging HFE
researchexcellence at universities and other organisations (Buckle
2011). By reecting onsuccess stories (successful applications of
high-quality HFE) and the related
Figure 2. HFE demand development cycle.
Ergonomics 17
-
challenges, HFE knowledge and professional practice can be
further enhanced.Hence, the HFE community is the main actor in this
proposed strategic change. Itcan operate at three levels: global
HFE society (IEA), local societies (national andregional HFE
societies, e.g. IEA Federated Societies and IEA networks)
andindividual (HFE researchers, HFE teachers/trainers, HFE
consultants, HFEpolicymakers).
6. Strategy implementation
The proposed main strategic direction is to strengthen the
demand for and theapplication of high-quality HFE. Adopting this
main strategy has importantconsequences for the policies and
practices of HFE societies and individuals, takeninto account local
dierences and priorities.
The implementation of the strategy is an essential but complex
endeavour thatneeds further development. We only touch upon two
aspects: (1) developing anaction plan by translating the strategy
into actionable tasks, and (2) managing thedevelopment and
implementation of the action plan.
In Section 6.1 (and the Appendix), we provide examples of
possible strategicactions. We acknowledge that these strategic
actions and their approach are notcomprehensive, and need to be
extended and addressed in detail. In Section 6.2, wepropose a
leadership role for the IEA to manage the development
andimplementation of the action plan.
6.1. Examples of strategic actions
Below, we give examples of actions that can be taken to realise
the two maindirections of the proposed strategy. Additional
examples are provided in theAppendix. Ultimately, these strategic
actions need to be translated into specic andeective actions by
appropriate groups in the HFE community. In order to besuccessful,
these actions must be smart: specic (e.g. specifying who, what,
when,where, which, why), measurable (e.g. answering questions such
as how much, howlong), attainable (it must be possible to do them),
realistic (people must be willingand able to work on them), and
timely (e.g. setting time horizons for strategic actionssuch as 1,
2, 5 and even 10 years).
Strengthening the demand for high-quality HFE by enhancing
stakeholdersawareness of the need for high-quality HFE:
. Communicating with dominant stakeholders (system experts,
system decisionmakers), by emphasising the performance goal and the
other key character-istics of HFE in their language (e.g.
quantication of outcomes, cost-benetanalysis). Increasing these
stakeholders awareness and understanding of whathigh-quality HFE is
by providing examples and success stories of high-qualityHFE, but
also examples of the negative eects resulting from the absence
ofhigh-quality HFE, and through recognition, awards and prizes for
high qualityHFE.
. Building strategic partnerships, in particular with system
experts (e.g.professionals from the technical and social sciences),
system decision makers(e.g. managers and other decision makers),
and system inuencers (e.g. local,
18 J. Dul et al.
-
national, and international governments and industry bodies, the
generalpublic (e.g. the media)). Long-term partnerships should
ensure sustainedimprovements in both performance and
well-being.
. Educating (future) stakeholders by showing the value of HFE at
alleducational levels and settings, from education at primary
schools to educationat institutes for professional education and
universities, (e.g. engineering,design, business) as well as
education beyond school systems. Because it isimpossible that HFE
specialists be present in all system designs, educating(future)
system experts about the principles of HFE is necessary so that
theycan apply basic HFE principles in their design without the
involvement of anHFE specialist, and can identify when there is a
need to call in a HFE specialistfor high-quality applications.
Strengthening the application of high-quality HFE:
. Promoting the education of high-quality HFE by formulating
standards forhigh-quality HFE and for qualied HFE specialists
(always paying attentionto the three key characteristics: systems
approach, design driven, performanceand well-being) and by ensuring
that education and training organisationsadhere to these standards.
Attracting students and experts from a wide rangeof disciplines to
become HFE specialists in all three key characteristics.Applying
high-quality HFE cannot be achieved by mechanically using atoolkit.
Life-long education of HFE specialists (including insight from
otherelds such as industrial engineering, interaction design,
cognitive psychology,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-relateddisciplines
who may primarily focus on well-being outcomes of system designmay
need more education on performance outcomes and on
buildingrelationships with inuential stakeholders such as system
decision makers.
. Ensuring high quality standards of HFE applications and HFE
specialists bypromoting high-quality HFE in all activities of HFE
societies and HFEindividuals, and by ensuring the implementation of
high-quality HFEstandards by accreditation and certication
bodies.
. Promoting HFE research excellence at universities and other
organisations bypromoting research and publications on high-quality
HFE.
6.2. Leadership role of the IEA
We propose a leadership role for the IEA to manage the
development andimplementation of this strategy.
The IEA could act as a strategic leader in this process in
several ways:
. By developing a global action plan to implement the strategy,
with globalconsensus.
. By encouraging IEA federated societies and networks to set up
their ownaction plans, each taking into account their specic
context. The IEA shouldmonitor and evaluate the development and
implementation of these actionplans and share lessons learned.
Ergonomics 19
-
. By developing a plan of action at international level,
targeting appropriateinternational institutions and
organisations.
Dierent HFE groups and main stakeholder groups should be
involved in thisprocess so that the implementation plan ts specic
needs and possibilities. IEAfederated societies and networks should
be the main contributors to this strategicaction. Only they know
the specicities of their national or regional context,
thechallenges they face, the opportunities they may exploit, and
the people andorganisations that may help them. IEA networks could
play an important role asintermediate actors. The rst objective of
IEA federated societies and networksshould then be to dene a
locally relevant plan of action to be developed with theirmembers
and shared at IEA level.
Such a global eort can work only if individual members of the
federatedsocieties understand it. In this perspective, it might be
useful to have this texttranslated in the national language of the
societies where English is not commonlyused.
Furthermore, other HFE organisations should also be involved.
Certicationbodies should be encouraged to examine their criteria
for certication and to checkwhether these criteria are in agreement
with the fundamental characteristics ofhigh-quality HFE described
in this paper. Professional organisations of HFEspecialists that
are not part of the IEA should also be approached to ensure
sharedviews on the nature of HFE and its high quality delivery.
Finally, the major stakeholders must be involved because the
strategy focuseson showing and delivering value to them. It is then
crucial to understand the views ofstakeholders on HFE and its
benets, and how HFE specialists can be theirpartners in system
design.
Over the next decade, the design and implementation of this plan
will be the mainobjective and a major activity of the IEA Executive
Committee and the IEA Council,as well as of the local HFE
societies. Successful implementation of the strategy inthe long
term, spearheaded by the IEA, is only possible if the IEA sets
appropriateconditions such as continuity of governance, eective
mobilisation of federatedsocieties, and sucient resources. This
might require serious reconsideration of thecurrent IEA
organisation.
7. Concluding remarks
This paper oers the HFE community a strategic direction for the
future of the HFEdiscipline and profession that could lead to the
development of new strategies,tactics and operations within specic
local contexts. Developing and implementing astrategic action plan
for the HFE discipline and profession at large requires a
longlasting and joint eort of the entire HFE community. The result
will be rewarding.The external community will recognise the HFE
discipline and profession as a crucialpartner for successful
systems design.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank many human factors/ergonomics specialists
who have provided theirpersonal input to the work of the committee
and/or who commented on earlier versions of thispaper: F. Javier
Llaneza Alvarez, ArcelorMittal, Spain; Alexey Anokhin, National
ResearchNuclear University MEPhI, Russia; Tomas Berns, Ergolab AB,
Sweden; Verna Blewett,
20 J. Dul et al.
-
University of South Australia, Australia; Guy Andre Boy, Florida
Institute of Technology,USA; Bob Bridger, INM, UK; Ole Broberg,
Technical University of Denmark, Denmark;Alexander Burov, Institute
of Gifted Child, Ukraine; David C. Caple, David Caple
&Associates, Australia; Alan Chan, City University of Hong
Kong, Hong Kong; Wen-RueyChang, Liberty Mutual Research Institute
for Safety, USA; Pierre-Henri Dejean, Universityof Technology of
Compie`gne, France; Mica Endsley, SA Technologies, USA;
PatriciaFerrara, Technoserve Inc., Mozambique; Margo Fraser,
Association of Canadian Ergono-mists, Canada; Yushi Fujita,
Research Department, Japan; Somnath Gangopadhyay,University of
Calcutta, India; Sylva Gilbertova, SAZ, Czech Republic; Matthias
Gobel,Rhodes University, South Africa; Jose Orlando Gomes, Federal
University of Rio de Janeiro,Brazil; Richard Goossens, Delft
University of Technology, the Netherlands; Alan Hedge,Cornell
University, USA; Martin Helander, Nanyang Technological University,
Singapore;Magne Helland, Buskerud University College, Norway;
Veerle Hermans, IDEWE and VrijeUniversiteit Brussel, Belgium;
Francois Hubault, Universite Paris 1, France; Sheue-LingHwang,
National Tsing-Hua University, Taiwan; Andrew S. Imada, A. S. Imada
&Associates, USA; Christina Jonsson, Swedish Work Environment
Authority, Sweden;Halimahtun Khalid, Damai Sciences Sdn Bhd,
Malaysia; Jung-Yong Kim, HanyangUniversity, South Korea; Karsten
Kluth, University of Siegen, Germany; Kazutaka Kogi,Institute for
Science of Labour, Japan; Ernst Koningsveld, TNO, The Netherlands;
RabiyaLallani, Human Factors North Inc., Canada; Johan Molenbroek,
Delft University ofTechnology, the Netherlands; Karen Lange
Morales, National University of Colombia,Colombia; John Lee,
University of Wisconsin, USA; Jean-Luc Malo, Vincent
Ergonomie,Canada; Nicolas Marmaras, National Technical University
of Athens, Greece; Svend ErikMathiassen, University of Gavle,
Sweden; Dave Moore, SCION Research, New Zealand;Dimitris Nathanael,
National Technical University of Athens, Greece; Patrick
Neumann,Ryerson University, Canada; Ian Noy, Liberty Mutual
Research Institute for Safety, USA;Clas-Hakan Nygard, Tampere
University, Finland; Enrico Occhipinti, University of Milan,Italy;
Ahmet F. }Ozok, Istanbul Kultur University, Turkey; Gunther Paul,
University of SouthAustralia, Australia; Ruud Pikaar, Ergos
Engineering & Ergonomics, the Netherlands; AnnaPtackova, Skoda,
Czech Republic; David Rempel, University of California, USA;
LuzMercedes Saenz, University Ponticia Bolivariana, Colombia;
Martha Helena Saravia,Pontical University Javeriana, Colombia;
Christopher Schlick, Aachen University, Germany;Schu Schutte,
Council for Scientic and Industrial Research, South Africa;
Patricia Scott,Rhodes University, South Africa; Paul Settels, ING,
the Netherlands; Barbara Silverstein,SHARP - Washington State
Department of Labor & Industries, USA; Marcelo Soares,Federal
University of Pernambuco, Brazil; Claudia Stamato, PUC-Rio -
Pontical CatholicUniversity of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; Carol
Stuart-Buttle, Stuart-Buttle Ergonomics, USA;Andrew Thatcher,
University of Witwaterstrand, South Africa; Andrew Todd,
RhodesUniversity, South Africa; Takashi Toriizuka, Nihon
University, Japan; John Walter,Technoserve Inc., Mozambique; Eric
Min-Yang Wang, National Tsing Hua University,Taiwan; Christine
Waring, Latrobe Regional Hospital, Australia; Klaus J. Zink,
University ofKaiserslautern, Germany; Moustafa Zouinar, Orange labs
France telecom, France; GertZulch, Karlsruhe Institute of
Technology, Germany.Furthermore, input was received from a group of
17 PhD candidates and professors of
the Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers (CNAM), Paris,
France. Roger Haslam(editor of Ergonomics) and three anonymous
reviewers are thanked for their comments.Financial support for this
project was provided by the International Ergonomics
Association(IEA).
Notes
1. In the present paper, we consider ergonomics and human
factors to be synonymous,and we adopt the IEA denition of the
discipline (IEA 2000): Ergonomics (or humanfactors) is the scientic
discipline concerned with the understanding of the
interactionsamong humans and other elements of a system, and the
profession that applies theoreticalprinciples, data and methods to
design in order to optimise human well-being andoverall system
performance. To identify the discipline throughout this paper, we
haveselected the name human factors/ergonomics (HFE). By accepting
this denition, we alsoaccept the view that HFE is a scientic
discipline and not only a (multidisciplinary)
Ergonomics 21
-
approach to problem solving. We also accept that this denition
reects a more positivistrather than a more constructivist view on
the discipline.
2. The committee consists of Jan Dul (Chair, Netherlands), Ralph
Bruder (Germany), PeterBuckle (UK), Pascale Carayon (USA), Pierre
Falzon (France), William S. Marras(USA), John R. Wilson (UK), and
Bas van der Doelen (Secretary, Netherlands).
3. HFE focuses primarily on two types of systems: work systems
(with workers in private orpublic organisations) and products
(consumer or business goods or services). Tradition-ally work is a
central issue in HFE, as indicated by the etymology of the
wordergonomics (ergowork). However, HFE is concerned with all kinds
of activities that gobeyond (paid) work and includes activities
carried out by a range of users, e.g. customers,citizens, patients,
etc. with dierent characteristics (e.g. age), in a range of
domestic,leisure, sport, transport and other environments. When we
use the words work system itincludes other living systems.
4. Other contributors are the eort taken by the human
independently of the environment,as well as contributions from
other components of the system.
5. In this paper, we do not use the term optimisation in its
mathematical meaning of ndinga best available value for a given
objective function. Instead, optimisation refers tonding design
solutions to maximise both well-being and performance, which may
requiremaking trade-os between both objectives.
6. By high-quality HFE we mean that the three core elements of
HFE: systems approach,design driven and performance and well-being
outcomes, are taken into considerationwhen dening problems and
formulating solutions. Without these key elements, the HFEapproach
is limited. High-quality HFE includes approaches with a focus on
specicaspects of people (e.g. physical), on specic aspects of the
environment (e.g. technical), onspecic outcomes (e.g. well-being),
or with limited links to design, as long as limitationsof the
specic approach and how to tackle these are addressed
(contextualisation).This can be done, for example, by collaborating
with other specialists, planning broaderapproaches at later stages,
or acknowledging the limitations of problem denitions andsolutions.
Specic approaches may occur e.g. when the HFE specialist can have
only alimited role in the design process, or when there are
practical or other restrictions for abroader scope (e.g. only
simple solutions are feasible), for instance, in
economicallydeveloping countries (Kogi 2007). As a strategic
direction, high-quality HFE approachesare preferred over limited
approaches as the combination of core elements of HFE is aunique
value proposition for all stakeholders.
References
Brewer, J.D. and Hsiang, S.M., 2002. The ergonomics paradigm:
foundations, challenges andfuture directions. Theoretical Issues in
Ergonomics Science, 3 (3), 285305.
Broberg, O., 1997. Integrating ergonomics into the product
development process. InternationalJournal of Industrial Ergonomics,
19 (4), 317327.
Bruder, R., 2000. Ergonomics as mediator within the product
design process. Human Factorsand Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting,
44 (8), 2023.
Buckle, P., 2011. The perfect is the enemy of the good.
Ergonomics, 54 (1), 111.Buckle, P. and Buckle, J., 2011. Obesity,
ergonomics and public health. Perspectives in Public
Health, 131 (4), 170176.Caple, D., 2008. Emerging challenges to
the ergonomics domain. Ergonomics, 51 (1), 4954.Carayon, P., 2006.
Human factors of complex sociotechnical systems. Applied
Ergonomics, 37
(4), 525535.Carayon, P. and Smith, M.J., 2000. Work organization
and ergonomics. Applied Ergonomics,
31 (6), 649662.Delios, A., 2010. How can organizations be
competitive but dare to care? Academy of
Management Perspectives, 24 (3), 2536.Drury, C.G., 2008. The
future of ergonomics/the future of work: 45 years after Bartlett
(1962).
Ergonomics, 51 (1), 1420.Dul, J. and Ceylan, C., 2011. Work
environments for employee creativity. Ergonomics, 54 (1),
1220.
22 J. Dul et al.
-
Dul, J. and Neumann, W.P., 2009. Ergonomics contributions to
company strategies. AppliedErgonomics, 40 (4), 745752.
Falzon, P., 2005. Ergonomics, knowledge development and the
design of enablingenvironments. In: HWWE2005, humanizing work and
work environment conference,December 2005, Guwahati, India: Allied
Publishers.
Falzon, P., Nascimento, A., Gaudart, C., Piney, C., Dujarier,
M.-A. and Germe, J.-F., 2012.Performance-based management and
quality of work: an empirical assessment.WORK: AJournal of
Prevention, Assessment & Rehabilitation, (forthcoming).
Gangopadhyay, S., Das, B.B., Das, T., and Ghoshal, G., 2004.
Prevalence of MusculoskeletalDisorders among pre-adolescent
agricultural workers of West Bengal, India. ErgonomicsSA. Journal
of the Ergonomics Society of South Africa, 16 (1), 214.
Gibson, C.B. and Gibbs, J.L., 2006. Unpacking the concept of
virtuality: The eects ofgeographic dispersion, electronic
dependence, dynamic structure, and national diversity onteam
innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51 (3), 451495.
Hedge, A. and Spier, A.L., 2008. On the future of ergonomics:
HFES members speak out.HFES Bulletin, 51 (2), 12.
Helander, M., 1999. Seven common reason to not implement
ergonomics. InternationalJournal of Industrial Ergonomics, 25 (1),
97101.
Helander, M.G., 1997. Forty years of IEA: Some reections on the
evolution of ergonomics.Ergonomics, 40 (10), 952961.
Hendrick, H.W., 1991. Ergonomics in organizational design and
management. Ergonomics, 34(6), 743756.
Hollnagel, E., 2001. The future of ergonomics (guest editorial).
Theoretical Issues inErgonomics Science, 41 (2), 219221.
IEA, 2000. The Discipline of Ergonomics. International
Ergonomics Association. Availablefrom: www.iea.cc [Accessed 11
January 2012].
Ilmarinen, J., 2006. Towards a longer worklife: ageing and the
quality of worklife in theEuropean Union. Helsinki: FIOH
Bookstore.
Japan Ergonomics Society, 2006. The JES Ergonomics Roadmap.
Japan Ergonomics Society.Karwowski, W., 2006. From past to future:
building a collective vision for HFES 2020.
HFES Bulletin, 49 (11), 13.Karwowski, W., 2007. Toward an
HF/E-literate society. HFES Bulletin, 50 (2), 12.Kogi, K., 2007.
Action oriented use of ergonomic checkpoints for healthy work
design in
dierent settings. Journal of Human Ergology, 36, 3743.Mitchell,
R.K., Agle, B.R., and Wood, D.J., 1997. Toward a theory of
stakeholder
identication and salience: Dening the principle of who and what
really counts. Academyof Management Review, 22 (4), 853886.
Moray, N., 2000. Culture, politics and ergonomics. Ergonomics,
43 (7), 858868.Neumann, W.P. and Dul, J., 2010. Human factors:
Spanning the gap between OM and
HRM. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, 30 (9), 923950.
Noro, K. and Imada, A.S., 1991. Participatory Ergonomics,
London: Taylor and Francis.Noy, I., 1995. Twelfth triennial
congress of the international ergonomics association/douzieme
congres triennial de lassociation internationale dergonomie
bridging the gap/Sunirpour lavenir guest editorial. Ergonomics, 38
(8), 15391541.
Noy, I., 2000. Ergonomics; the silent engine in the evolution of
human society. Presidentialaddress, 14th IEA Triennial Congress, 31
July 2000. San Diego, USA.
Patel, H., Pettitt, M., and Wilson, J.R., 2012. Factors of
collaborative working: a frameworkfor a collaboration model.
Applied Ergonomics, 43 (1), 126.
Pfeer, J., 2010. Building sustainable organizations: the human
factor. Academy ofManagement Perspectives, 24 (1), 3445.
Pot, F.D. and Koningsveld, E.A., 2009. Quality of working life
and organizationalperformancetwo sides of the same coin?
Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment &Health, 35 (6),
421428.
Proctor, R.W., Nof, S.Y., Yih, Y., Balasubramanian, P.,
Busemeyer, J.R. and Carayon, P.,2011. Understanding and improving
cross-cultural decision making in design and use ofdigital media: a
research agenda. International Journal of Human-Computer
Interaction, 27(2), 151190.
Ergonomics 23
-
Rasmussen, J., 2000. Human factors in a dynamic information
society: where are we heading?Ergonomics, 43 (7), 869879.
Riedel, R. and Mueller, E., 2009. Production management and
supply chain management in aglobal context. International Journal
of Manufacturing Technology and Management, 16(3), 300317.
Schlick, C.M., 2009. Industrial engineering and ergonomics in
engineering design,manufacturing and service. In: C.M. Schlick, ed.
Industrial engineering and ergonomics vision, concepts, methods an
tools. Berlin: Springer.
Stanton, N.A. and Stammers, R.B., 2008. Bartlett and the future
of ergonomics. Ergonomics,51 (1), 113.
Wilson, J.R., 2000. Fundamentals of ergonomics in theory and
practice. Applied Ergonomics,31 (6), 557567.
Wilson, J.R., Ryan, B., Schock, A., Ferreira, P., Smith, S. and
Pitsopoulos, J., 2009.Understanding safety and production risks in
rail engineering planning and protection.Ergonomics, 52 (7),
774790.
Woods, D. and Dekker, S., 2000. Anticipating the eects of
technological change: a new era ofdynamics for human factors.
Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 1 (3), 272282.
Zink, K.J., 2005. From industrial safety to corporate health
management. Ergonomics, 48 (5),534546.
Zink, K.J., 2006. Human factors, management and society.
Theoretical Issues in ErgonomicsScience, 7 (4), 437445.
24 J. Dul et al.
-
Appendix.ExamplesofstrategicactionsbytheHFEcommunityto
realise
themain
strategy.
Strengtheningthedem
andforhigh-quality
HFE
Strengtheningtheapplicationofhigh-quality
HFE
Communicatingwith
specicstakeholders
aboutthevalueof
high-quality
HFEin
the
languageofthe
stakeholder
Buildingstrong
partnershipswith
specicstakeholders
andtheirrepresenting
organisations
Educating
stakeholdersto
create
awarenessof
high-quality
HFEandits
contributionsto
system
design
Promotingthe
educationofHFE
specialiststo
apply
high-quality
HFE
Ensuringhighquality
standardsofHFE
applicationsandHFE
specialists
PromotingHFE
researchexcellence
at
universities
andother
organisations
IEA:At
International
level
HFESocieties:
Atnational/
regional
level
Identify
specic
stakeholdersfrom
the
dominantstakeholder
groupsthatneedto
be
targeted.
Identify
thespecic
needsofthese
stakeholders.
Form
ulate
thevalue
ofHFEforthese
stakeholdersin
theirlanguage.
Developshowcases
from
high-quality
HFEapplications
thatgiveinsightto
thesestakeholders.
Acknowledge(e.g.
awards)HFE-
enlightened
stakeholdersthat
havegood
examplesofHFE.
Identify
opinion
leadersfrom
the
stakeholder
group
Identify
organisations
thatrepresentspecic
stakeholdersfrom
the
dominantstakeholder
groupsthatare
interested
inthevalue
ofHFEandin
partnershipswith
HFE.
Developpartnerships
withinterested
organisations(e.g.
regardingjoint
developmentof
showcases,joint
awards,sharing
networks,joint
communication
activities,mutual
accessto
conferences,etc.).
Identify
educationand
trainingorganisations
ofthedominant
stakeholder
groups.
Identify
linksbetween
HFEandthe
(learning)goalsof
thesestakeholders.
IncludeHFEin
the
education/training
programmes
of
thesestakeholders.
Form
ulate
general
standardsforhigh-
quality
HFE.
Form
ulate
general
standardsfor
qualied
HFE
specialists.
Ensure
that
educationand
training
organisations
adhereto
these
standards.
Promote
high-quality
HFEin
allactivitiesof
IEA
andHFE
societies.
Ensure
the
implementationof
thegeneral
standardsforhigh-
quality
HFEand
qualied
HFE
specialistsby
accreditationand
certicationbodies.
Promote
researchon
high-quality
HFE(e.g.
stimulate
HFE-related
journalsto
havereview
criteria
basedonthe
threekey
characteristics
ofhigh-
quality
HFE).
Promote
publicly
funded
research
programmes
on
high-quality
HFE.
Promote
researchco-
operationand
communication
amongHFE
researchers(and
researchersfrom
other
disciplines).
Promote
discussions
withuniversities
aboutdedicated
academ
icdepartmentsfor
HFE.
(continued)
Ergonomics 25
-
Appendix.
(Continued).
Strengtheningthedem
andforhigh-quality
HFE
Strengtheningtheapplicationofhigh-quality
HFE
Communicatingwith
specicstakeholders
aboutthevalueof
high-quality
HFEin
the
languageofthe
stakeholder
Buildingstrong
partnershipswith
specicstakeholders
andtheirrepresenting
organisations
Educating
stakeholdersto
create
awarenessof
high-quality
HFEandits
contributionsto
system
design
Promotingthe
educationofHFE
specialiststo
apply
high-quality
HFE
Ensuringhighquality
standardsofHFE
applicationsandHFE
specialists
PromotingHFE
researchexcellence
at
universities
andother
organisations
whosupporthigh
quality
HFE.
Deliver
theHFE
messagerepeatedly
andthrougha
varietyof
communication
channels.
HFEIndividuals
Identify
specic
stakeholders
(individuals)
from
the
dominant
stakeholder
groupsthatneed
tobetargeted.
Identify
thespecic
needsofthese
stakeholders
(individuals).
Form
ulate
thevalue
ofHFEforthese
stakeholdersin
theirlanguage
(individuals).
Developshowcases
from
high-quality
Identify
individualsfrom
dominantstakeholder
groupsthatare
interested
inthevalue
ofHFEandin
partnershipswith
HFE.
Developpartnerships
withinterested
individuals(e.g.
jointactivities,
accessto
each
othersnetworks
andconferences,
joint
communication,
etc.).
Identify
individual
teachers/trainersof
dominant
stakeholders.
Identify
linksbetween
HFEandthe
principlesand
(learning)goalsof
theeducationof
thesestakeholders.
IncludeHFEin
the
education/training
programmes
of
thesestakeholders.
Obtain
andmaintain
the
qualicationsforhigh-
qualityHFEspecialists
throughcontinuous
educationand
training.
Ensure
thathigh-quality
HFEispartofall
individualHFE
activities(paying
attentionto
thethree
key
characteristics
of
high-quality
HFE)in:
HFEresearchand
publications
(HFEresearchers)
HFEteachingand
training(H
FE
teachers/trainers)
HFEpractice(H
FE
consultants)
HFEpolicy
(HFE
policymakers)
Perform
andpublish
researchonhigh-
quality
HFE.
Stimulate
publicly-
funded
research
programmes
onthe
high-quality
HFE.
Collaborate
with
researchersfrom
other
disciplines
regardingsystem
designand
perform
ance
outcomes.
Developbetter
toolsto
evaluate
high-
quality
HFE
interventions (continued)
26 J. Dul et al.
-
Appendix.
(Continued).
Strengtheningthedem
andforhigh-quality
HFE
Strengtheningtheapplicationofhigh-quality
HFE
Communicatingwith
specicstakeholders
aboutthevalueof
high-quality
HFEin
the
languageofthe
stakeholder
Buildingstrong
partnershipswith
specicstakeholders
andtheirrepresenting
organisations
Educating
stakeholdersto
create
awarenessof
high-quality
HFEandits
contributionsto
system
design
Promotingthe
educationofHFE
specialiststo
apply
high-quality
HFE
Ensuringhighquality
standardsofHFE
applicationsandHFE
specialists
PromotingHFE
researchexcellence
at
universities
andother
organisations
HFEapplications
thatgiveinsightto
thesestakeholders
(individuals).
AcknowledgeHFE-
enlightened
stakeholders
(individuals)that
havegood
examplesofHFE.
Identify
opinion
leadersfrom
the
stakeholder
group
whoare
supporters
ofhighquality
HFE.
Deliver
theHFE
messagerepeatedly
andthrougha
varietyof
communication
channels.
Presenthigh-quality
HFEresearch
papersat
conferencesof
relateddisciplines.
Ergonomics 27