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:jdul@rsm.nlErgonomicsVol.55,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